Jump to content

Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?


JamesC10

Recommended Posts

Posted

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.

True, and that kept me watching the show when I'd decided if she got away with it as well then I really was going to wash my hands of it, but that was only because she was leaving.

  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted

Well we've already answered the question the thread poses with an emphatic yes, so...

It has been made abundantly clear, as you say, that in the minds of a number of members the question has been answered in the positive.

Equally in the minds of other viewers the question was answered just as emphatically in the negative.  

The thread has served a useful purpose as a place for the question to be debated.  However one of the main "producers"  has now departed, most of the main characters seen by some as the "ruination"  of the show have also departed so the question now seems mostly moot.

Would it be better to replace it with thread which provides a place for an ongoing discussion of the direction and focus of the show in the new "era"?

 

Posted

 

The thread has served a useful purpose as a place for the question to be debated.  However one of the main "producers"  has now departed, most of the main characters seen by some as the "ruination"  of the show have also departed so the question now seems mostly moot.

Would it be better to replace it with thread which provides a place for an ongoing discussion of the direction and focus of the show in the new "era"?

As Addario is still on board I would say this thread is still relevant.

 

Posted

I think this thread is largely still relevant as a discussion of H&A's current direction and documents where it has been going for the past couple of years and speculates on where it may be headed. As long as it doesn't stray too far away from the basic issue of whether or not H&A is getting better or worse, irrespective of who is in charge, I think this discussion should exist.

If the day comes when most of the contributors to this discussion agree that H&A is in a good place, then this thread can be locked, and I for one will be more than happy with that :)

But for now, we're entering an era of change and uncertainty for H&A, which is interesting and possibly exciting. It will be good to look back on this in a year or two as the series approaches the 30th anniversary, and see if or when the turning point came when everyone decided that the producers were no longer ruining the show.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.