emmasi Posted July 19, 2015 Report Posted July 19, 2015 They seriously need to overhaul the actor contracts so that character interactions can be consistent and make SENSE. It's painfully obvious that the actors have a quota of episodes per week they are contracted to appear in, no more, no less, and it completely cripples any chance for realistic continuity. One day we have a chaotic overcrowded house and the next day its a ghost town because "everyone must still be in bed"... Seriously?? I don't know when this started but it's been irritating me since 2005. Surely it's time to overhaul the system so that I don't constantly forget who is supposed to be related/best friends/living in the same house because the actors' contracted episodes don't happen to line up for weeks at a time.
dee123 Posted July 19, 2015 Report Posted July 19, 2015 Marilyn and John is one of the reasons I don't watch. To me it feels as though they killed of Gina just to hook up this pairing. Sonia Todd wanted to leave. Didn't say she didn't want to leave. I just expressed what the pairing of John and Marilyn felt like to me. Ah. Understood.
joany208121 Posted July 19, 2015 Report Posted July 19, 2015 They seriously need to overhaul the actor contracts so that character interactions can be consistent and make SENSE. It's painfully obvious that the actors have a quota of episodes per week they are contracted to appear in, no more, no less, and it completely cripples any chance for realistic continuity. One day we have a chaotic overcrowded house and the next day its a ghost town because "everyone must still be in bed"... Seriously?? I don't know when this started but it's been irritating me since 2005. Surely it's time to overhaul the system so that I don't constantly forget who is supposed to be related/best friends/living in the same house because the actors' contracted episodes don't happen to line up for weeks at a time.So true!!! We also so desperately need a sense of connectedness, where everyone knew everyone and not everyone was a ring-in. Look at any previous year and almost everyone knew everyone within the first week of a new character, the whole bay knew them. Now nobody knows anyone and its really awkward when you have events with characters interacting for the first time, when they have never seen each other before (take the hospital bomb finale, and ricky/irene)
cadyctslover Posted July 20, 2015 Report Posted July 20, 2015 I actually thought it was quite realistic when Denny had been living in the bay for just a few weeks and Casey had never run into her. Someone mentioned her name and he said, 'Denny? Who's Denny?' or something along those lines. Then their relationship went into overdrive, and after what seemed to be a few more weeks they were engaged . That wasn't realistic.However, Summer Bay should be written as a place which is so small that you can't help but run into new residents shortly after their arrival.
Red Ranger 1 Posted July 20, 2015 Report Posted July 20, 2015 As I recall, Denny had actually been living in the Bay several months, so I found the fact that she and Casey had never met very unlikely.(And then she says she never met Tamara, even though we saw them in the same room...)Even more unlikely was Brax not knowing Matt, even though when Matt first appeared he was already familiar with Heath and Casey from Mangrove River.There are times when the characters not knowing each other thing works but there are other times when it stretches credibility to breaking point.
Homeandawayfan. Posted July 22, 2015 Report Posted July 22, 2015 Neighbours is not innocent of moving away from its original basis though, the show is more about Lassiters and Penthouse Du Paul than Ramsay Street and the show relies on guest characters who are criminals. It retains the warm feel that H&A used to have though. I do remain positive about H&A and while it has a long way to go I feel I could be a regular viewer again by 2016. I stick by H&A's side. Just bring in a few more LGBT characters and a Asian character.
emmasi Posted July 23, 2015 Report Posted July 23, 2015 Paul is the only person not living on Ramsay Street so when we go to those outside places we're still following the lives of Ramsay Street residents. There are criminals in Erinsborough but they are BAD. And when good characters get caught up in criminal activity there are CONSEQUENCES. Something that started out as a reckless joyride by a distraught teenager several months ago is still creating serious aftershocks for the characters now. That's called CONTINUITY.Home and Away presents crime as something exciting to do for five minutes, you'll maybe get a slap on the wrist, and then it's back to life as normal when everyone forgets it ever happened. You'll have no trouble with friends, family, lovers, education, employment, business management /owneship, or international travel. Unless you're actually innocent of the crime, in which case you'll be sentenced to jail for 20 years or so. Makes sense! Speaking of gay Asian criminals, I wonder if it's time for Chris' ex on Neighbours to get out of jail? I know he'd have no reason to come back, just wishful thinking... Also Aiden. I miss him
Red Ranger 1 Posted July 23, 2015 Report Posted July 23, 2015 Neighbours has had Paul Robinson getting away with murder for over 10 years and treats his criminal dealings with a ridiculously lackadaisical approach that makes the police look repeatedly incompetent.(For instance, the way they forgot about all the evidence that he had a man beaten up just because one person withdrew his statement.)Home and Away is probably copying them in the "Criminals who have no consequences for their actions" stakes rather than the other way round, especially with the way that numerous characters have committed serious crimes and got Mickey Mouse punishments(eg Josh getting a slap on the wrist for putting Chris in a coma).Given that Bailey skipped town without the slightest repercussion for his actions, I'm not expecting that to have any meaningful, rather than melodramatic, consequences.The rule on Neighbours seems to be that if a criminal is a guest character they'll go to jail, no matter how sympathetically they've written, whereas if they're a regular they can pretty much get away with anything.
Matt Posted July 23, 2015 Report Posted July 23, 2015 Neighbours has had Paul Robinson getting away with murder for over 10 years and treats his criminal dealings with a ridiculously lackadaisical approach that makes the police look repeatedly incompetent.(For instance, the way they forgot about all the evidence that he had a man beaten up just because one person withdrew his statement.)Home and Away is probably copying them in the "Criminals who have no consequences for their actions" stakes rather than the other way round, especially with the way that numerous characters have committed serious crimes and got Mickey Mouse punishments(eg Josh getting a slap on the wrist for putting Chris in a coma).Given that Bailey skipped town without the slightest repercussion for his actions, I'm not expecting that to have any meaningful, rather than melodramatic, consequences.The rule on Neighbours seems to be that if a criminal is a guest character they'll go to jail, no matter how sympathetically they've written, whereas if they're a regular they can pretty much get away with anything.But Steph went to prison for accidentally killing Ringo - albeit for three years, but she did go to gaol.
Homeandawayfan. Posted July 23, 2015 Report Posted July 23, 2015 Neighbours has had Paul Robinson getting away with murder for over 10 years and treats his criminal dealings with a ridiculously lackadaisical approach that makes the police look repeatedly incompetent.(For instance, the way they forgot about all the evidence that he had a man beaten up just because one person withdrew his statement.)Home and Away is probably copying them in the "Criminals who have no consequences for their actions" stakes rather than the other way round, especially with the way that numerous characters have committed serious crimes and got Mickey Mouse punishments(eg Josh getting a slap on the wrist for putting Chris in a coma).Given that Bailey skipped town without the slightest repercussion for his actions, I'm not expecting that to have any meaningful, rather than melodramatic, consequences.The rule on Neighbours seems to be that if a criminal is a guest character they'll go to jail, no matter how sympathetically they've written, whereas if they're a regular they can pretty much get away with anything.Yes, Josh got a slap on the wrist for almost putting Chris in a coma. I dont agree that there are consequences for regular Neighbours characters, only if they are leaving the show. Paul has got away with virtually everything he has done in the past. Guest characters get banged up for 5 years for stealing jewellery yet regulars can burn houses down and get away with it. Home And Away has gone down a crime route in recent years but it still follows the lives of Summer Bay residents, and the non criminals still feature as does SBH and the diner and beach. Emmerdale and EastEnders are full of crims as well, something both shows were never all about 20 odd years ago.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.