Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[jodlebirger]

We have too many new teens and younger characters. The only "older characters" we have are Alf, Irene, Marilyn, Leah, John and Harvey

Harvey is leaving soon

. When older characters leave, Home and Away replace them with younger/teen characters. The current producers are turning Home and Away into a teen show. All of the new characters they have introduced are "good looking".

But the show has never had so many "older" characters as it has had from 2010-and until Gina's death. But the characters overall have had little development and place in the show. There were far more younger actors in the show before 2010.

The actors/actresses can be good even if they are good looking. And it is very subjective of course who is good looking and who's not… For example I think that Lincoln Younes is very the boy next door looking… Just look like a lot of others. Yes, Kit was very ordinary. But I think that Bianca is that too. Or Sasha. But the characters are more styled than they used to be only a few years ago. Belle was more normal in her black clothes, or even when she had her more colorful period. Young Kirsty, Danni, Seb, Chris Hyde, Mattie and even Cassie were more casual dressed. I remember when Nicole came in she was special because you could see that she was the spoilt fashion girl and looked different than the others. Now everyone looks very styled. I miss the days when they dressed more normal, before about 2010.

[Red Ranger 1]

Most of the actors are staying for three years, some of them almost four… and not shorter time than Belle, Haley or others did.

Hayley was on the show for 7 years(albeit with a recast for the last few months), during the early 2000s she was definitely one of the mainstays.

I've heard people say both that casting older actors would make them stay longer and casting younger actors.I'm not sure if either of them is really accurate:Not every older actor is going to be a Ray Meagher or Lynne McGranger, same as not every child or teen actor is going to be Kate Ritchie, any more than every 20-something is going to stay as long as Ada Nicodemou.They could just as easily be a Vanessa Downing, Paula Forrest, Christie Hayes or Jordan Rodrigues.

If they do want to create the new classic characters, then they need to focus on working out who the characters are, what they bring to the show and how they're going to relate to who's already there and let their character arc progress naturally out of that, rather than bombarding them with high drama storylines and forcing them into whatever role they need to play.Some actors are always going to move on after a short while because they want to try something different but they're more likely to stay if they're given a good character to play.And many of the well-remembered characters were only around for 3 years or less but we remember them because they were good characters.Being good looking doesn't make you a bad actor but people need to be cast who can do the job.

[b2sb09]

I don't have time to write completely on this topic but I want to comment on one thing that has been bugging me that has been said.

Balanced storyline telling and use of characters would go a long way, along with consistant storytelling (eg. violence is violence and just because a character is hot, therefore popular, doesn't make his actions any less criminal), but they don’t seem interested in doing that to any great extent - it’s all about catering to the current fad and when a lot of those viewers who love the Braxton show but find Home and Away boring fade away when the Braxtons start to leave, then they might find a bit of a problem on their hands, or do they just intend to hire another trio of hot guys, have them do a lot of bad things and masquerade it as exciting drama while manipulating us into believing they’re the good guys like they have done with the Braxtons, because while they might attract new viewers who find Braxton Mark II the hottest thing ever, they’ll probably also end up alienating other viewers as they’ve done for the past few years.

I quote the whole paragraph for context but the bit in bold is my main concern. Since 2011 I have seen this kind of thing posted quite a few times and each time I have been very annoyed by it. The generalisation that the only reason the Braxton's are popular is because they are hot may be true when it comes to some of the fans but what about the others, for example me and our friendly Moderator John (I hope you don't mind me using you here). Yes I understand that all of the actors chosen to play the brothers are pleasing to the eye... but to tar every fan with the same brush is quite insulting.

Someone on this thread asked another member to explain why they like the Braxton's. If you don't mind I would like to answer this but I will have to do it later.

I know there are some who like the Braxtons for reasons besides their looks, yet this show does everything possible to ramp up and exploit their sex appeal, even before they appeared on the screen. How many times in their early months were they barechested? As often as possible and then you had Charlie strutting around in her underwear post coital a lot of the time just to highlight how sexy she was with Brax (probably so we wouldn't notice what a horribly toxic and ridiculous pairing that was) - it's all about appealing to certain sections of the fanbase, a section of which there are a large number who can never see these characters (I'll include Romeo, Aden, Angelo etc) as anything but great guys and are willing to hold everyone else to blame instead of these characters. Charlie was to blame for all of the relationship drama with Brax and it was her fault Angelo stalked her, Belle's fault Angelo got violent, Indi and Ruby were to blame for all of Romeo's cheating, Liam and Hayley were to blame for Heath's drug dealing and the list goes on. It certainly feels to me that the producers are very much aware of how some viewers see these characters and know that they can have these characters do just about anything without censure and they capitilise on it.

Does anyone believe we'd have had so much violent and criminal behaviour excused by the show if the Pirovic brothers had been the ones promoted to regulars and the Braxtons had only been the guest characters?

There's a reason why I prefer to post here and avoid twitter or facebook and that's because here it's not all about how hot and wonderful they are, but I daresay it is these two social media sites where the producers and writers like to get their feedback from. They must absolutely love to read how people want to marry Brax, have his babies or be just like him and the other River Boys, rather than come here or go to other forums where there are people who don't like him or see him for the thug and criminal he is. So much easier to ignore fans like me when they're basking in the praise of others and are content to please these fans at the expense of others.

[John]

I don't have time to write completely on this topic but I want to comment on one thing that has been bugging me that has been said.

Balanced storyline telling and use of characters would go a long way, along with consistant storytelling (eg. violence is violence and just because a character is hot, therefore popular, doesn't make his actions any less criminal), but they don’t seem interested in doing that to any great extent - it’s all about catering to the current fad and when a lot of those viewers who love the Braxton show but find Home and Away boring fade away when the Braxtons start to leave, then they might find a bit of a problem on their hands, or do they just intend to hire another trio of hot guys, have them do a lot of bad things and masquerade it as exciting drama while manipulating us into believing they’re the good guys like they have done with the Braxtons, because while they might attract new viewers who find Braxton Mark II the hottest thing ever, they’ll probably also end up alienating other viewers as they’ve done for the past few years.

I quote the whole paragraph for context but the bit in bold is my main concern. Since 2011 I have seen this kind of thing posted quite a few times and each time I have been very annoyed by it. The generalisation that the only reason the Braxton's are popular is because they are hot may be true when it comes to some of the fans but what about the others, for example me and our friendly Moderator John (I hope you don't mind me using you here). Yes I understand that all of the actors chosen to play the brothers are pleasing to the eye... but to tar every fan with the same brush is quite insulting.

Someone on this thread asked another member to explain why they like the Braxton's. If you don't mind I would like to answer this but I will have to do it later.

I know there are some who like the Braxtons for reasons besides their looks, yet this show does everything possible to ramp up and exploit their sex appeal, even before they appeared on the screen. How many times in their early months were they barechested? As often as possible and then you had Charlie strutting around in her underwear post coital a lot of the time just to highlight how sexy she was with Brax (probably so we wouldn't notice what a horribly toxic and ridiculous pairing that was) - it's all about appealing to certain sections of the fanbase, a section of which there are a large number who can never see these characters (I'll include Romeo, Aden, Angelo etc) as anything but great guys and are willing to hold everyone else to blame instead of these characters. Charlie was to blame for all of the relationship drama with Brax and it was her fault Angelo stalked her, Belle's fault Angelo got violent, Indi and Ruby were to blame for all of Romeo's cheating, Liam and Hayley were to blame for Heath's drug dealing and the list goes on. It certainly feels to me that the producers are very much aware of how some viewers see these characters and know that they can have these characters do just about anything without censure and they capitilise on it.

Does anyone believe we'd have had so much violent and criminal behaviour excused by the show if the Pirovic brothers had been the ones promoted to regulars and the Braxtons had only been the guest characters?

There's a reason why I prefer to post here and avoid twitter or facebook and that's because here it's not all about how hot and wonderful they are, but I daresay it is these two social media sites where the producers and writers like to get their feedback from. They must absolutely love to read how people want to marry Brax, have his babies or be just like him and the other River Boys, rather than come here or go to other forums where there are people who don't like him or see him for the thug and criminal he is. So much easier to ignore fans like me when they're basking in the praise of others and are content to please these fans at the expense of others.

Perhaps I had better re-enter this thread again. My apologies but my name was used.. Pierced Musie I'm quite happy to be seen as a somewhat geriatric audience member who sees value in the Braxton Brothers as characters in Home and Away.

I don't "love" everything they do just as I don't like or condone criminal behaviour in society in general. But it exists and it is strongly linked with social disadvantage in society. I'm pleased that the show does have characters who are not squeaky clean, that reflects life as it is. I'm also pleased that it acknowledges that there is "another side to the tracks" in Australian society and tries to show how difficult it is for people to cross that divide.

In real life not all crime is swiftly detected, dealt with in the courts and promptly punished. The law and the administration of justice isn't perfect. I think an author described it as "the least worst system". Statistically socially disadvantaged people are over represented in the courts and in our prisons. The lure of "quick bucks" through crime must be powerful for those who lack the education or the opportunity to prosper in society in legal ways. The show has shown this.

As for actors and their masters exploiting actors looks, people's attitudes to this puzzles me. If you're a great singer it is perfectly acceptable for a person to sing for a living. If an athlete can jump very high or run very fast it is considered perfectly acceptable for them to seek fame and fortune through that. If a person has great business acumen it's fine for them to go out and amass a fortune in business. ( and then exert financial power over those less fortunate ).

Why then is the use of a performers looks to advance their career seen as somehow unacceptable? To me it's just another gift or talent.

I don't think the current PTB have ruined the show. They may have taken it in a direction not appreciated by some, that I'll concede. You can't please all of the people all of the time. I don't think any of us can demand that the producers take the show in a direction that pleases us. Or demand that they be sacked so that a new group can be installed to do that. I suppose we can demand it but we can't realistically expect that our demands will immediately be acceded to.

The producers have their masters as well. They are slaves to the demands of audience and I think we would be very naïve to think that the only place they look for feedback is Facebook or Twitter. Their polling and audience surveying would be much wider that that.

They are listening to the audience as a whole not one particular group or another. If the general audience demands it the direction may change. Perhaps at the moment that's not happening.

[sindikatas]

I can understand what you mean John but that is part of the problem that the show by changing it's direction is changing its' identity. Whether Braxtons are valuable or not "home and away" is not a show about crime families. And also I disagree that producers listen to all the audience. There has been a large number of complaints about the overuse of Braxtons,

yet Brax is going to be featured heavily in the season finale 3rd year in a row

[John]

That is my point. Some of us don't believe that by changing the direction of the show the producers have compromised its identify.

Maybe there have been a seemingly large number of complaints about the Braxtons. Maybe the support for them has been even larger.

The fact that the producers haven't changed course doesn't prove they haven't listened. Perhaps they have weighed up the complaints against the support and decided to continue along their current path.

[Reo]

Perhaps they have weighed up the complaints against the support and decided to continue along their current path.

I know that is only your guess, but it is a good and reasonable guess. They do seek feedback, so they must know their are a lot of unhappy people, but yet they have done nothing to solve these complaints and to me that is a huge problem. Why would anyone risk losing viewers by not working on the very easy to solve problems?

You can't please everyone, for example, those that want the Braxtons gone vs. those that want them to stay, only one side will be happy. But they could please most people by giving a little less screen time to the Braxtons (which will still please the Braxton fans and it wont change the Braxton stories) and more screen time to characters that are being ignored or not used to their full potential, level everything out.

If as much effort went into other character's, their development and storyline as the Braxtons, then the majority of viewers would be happy. It may not solve everything, because there is still a issue of how the characters are being written and are they likeable as well as how good the storylines are, but they can't keep ignoring their other characters (and therefore the fans of those characters) while focusing on just a few (that may not be liked by all the viewers and therefore possibly pushing a lot of viewers away).

I don't understand why they wont deal with the complaints from the unhappy viewers and risk losing them, is it really that hard to give Irene a storyline that is about Irene? They have done it in the past, why not now?

[Jamie!]

I don't have time to write completely on this topic but I want to comment on one thing that has been bugging me that has been said.

Balanced storyline telling and use of characters would go a long way, along with consistant storytelling (eg. violence is violence and just because a character is hot, therefore popular, doesn't make his actions any less criminal), but they don’t seem interested in doing that to any great extent - it’s all about catering to the current fad and when a lot of those viewers who love the Braxton show but find Home and Away boring fade away when the Braxtons start to leave, then they might find a bit of a problem on their hands, or do they just intend to hire another trio of hot guys, have them do a lot of bad things and masquerade it as exciting drama while manipulating us into believing they’re the good guys like they have done with the Braxtons, because while they might attract new viewers who find Braxton Mark II the hottest thing ever, they’ll probably also end up alienating other viewers as they’ve done for the past few years.

I quote the whole paragraph for context but the bit in bold is my main concern. Since 2011 I have seen this kind of thing posted quite a few times and each time I have been very annoyed by it. The generalisation that the only reason the Braxton's are popular is because they are hot may be true when it comes to some of the fans but what about the others, for example me and our friendly Moderator John (I hope you don't mind me using you here). Yes I understand that all of the actors chosen to play the brothers are pleasing to the eye... but to tar every fan with the same brush is quite insulting.

Someone on this thread asked another member to explain why they like the Braxton's. If you don't mind I would like to answer this but I will have to do it later.

I know there are some who like the Braxtons for reasons besides their looks, yet this show does everything possible to ramp up and exploit their sex appeal, even before they appeared on the screen. How many times in their early months were they barechested? As often as possible and then you had Charlie strutting around in her underwear post coital a lot of the time just to highlight how sexy she was with Brax (probably so we wouldn't notice what a horribly toxic and ridiculous pairing that was) - it's all about appealing to certain sections of the fanbase, a section of which there are a large number who can never see these characters (I'll include Romeo, Aden, Angelo etc) as anything but great guys and are willing to hold everyone else to blame instead of these characters. Charlie was to blame for all of the relationship drama with Brax and it was her fault Angelo stalked her, Belle's fault Angelo got violent, Indi and Ruby were to blame for all of Romeo's cheating, Liam and Hayley were to blame for Heath's drug dealing and the list goes on. It certainly feels to me that the producers are very much aware of how some viewers see these characters and know that they can have these characters do just about anything without censure and they capitilise on it.

Does anyone believe we'd have had so much violent and criminal behaviour excused by the show if the Pirovic brothers had been the ones promoted to regulars and the Braxtons had only been the guest characters?

There's a reason why I prefer to post here and avoid twitter or facebook and that's because here it's not all about how hot and wonderful they are, but I daresay it is these two social media sites where the producers and writers like to get their feedback from. They must absolutely love to read how people want to marry Brax, have his babies or be just like him and the other River Boys, rather than come here or go to other forums where there are people who don't like him or see him for the thug and criminal he is. So much easier to ignore fans like me when they're basking in the praise of others and are content to please these fans at the expense of others.

I said it earlier in this thread, but it sometimes feels like the producers don't care what people who aren't fans of the Braxtons have to say.

If they want the show to be dominated by a particular character, and for it to be received well by almost all viewers, then they should remember someone like Angie Russell. She was only in the show for about six months, but the show was all about her when she was on. But the show didn't suffer when she was there because it still FELT like Home and Away, the character was extremely well written and she had got involved with the lives of all the residents of Summer Bay. Whereas with the Braxton era we're in, it feels like two different shows. Them and anyone associated with them like Ricky and Tamara, and everyone else that doesn't really have anything to do with them, like Alf, Irene and Marilyn. To me, Angie is the perfect example of how to have a show revolve around one character and for it not to get tedious or annoying.

[jodlebirger]

I have always thought that Angie destroyed H&A a bit, it was the first step in the wrong direction. I think in some ways her storyline had some similarities with the Braxtons. She was over the top mean, and the others looked like idiots when they couldn't stop her.

It was just by the end we saw some signs of something deeper with her, a woman who was completely destroyed and vulnerable, but it was never explored. There were also some holes in her storyline, there were hints that Dylan wasn't her son but we never got more than that…

Braxtons have also have holes in the storylines. And in the beginning the other characters look stupid for not managing to expose them. But the Braxtons storylines have bigger wholes in their storyline: where did the drug farm, why was Angelo written out when he had a lot of clues.. and so on.

She was on for only six months, and the Braxtons have been on for almost 3 years. Now the other characters are just accepting their crimes and we are meant to feel sorry for them instead. Characters who dominate a show like this work better if they are on screen for a shorter time.

The difference is also that there are 3 Braxtons (plus kyle) and there were only one Angie. The brothers are also too identical to each other. So you can't compare them with the Sutherlands either, they were 4 different characters. I think that they did a huge mistake when they introduced a new brother (Kyle) in the way they did, far too over the top and to mean, and just a copy of the others, He should have been introduced as someone different from the other three. Then it would have been easier to integrate them more in the community.

When they have characters like this they need to change them more over time than what they have done to Casey and Brax. Heath is the only one who has had some development, and he is more in the community than the others are. There have been some attempts to make them more in the community, but then they suddenly revert to their old self and get isolated together with their ladies.

[Jacklost]

I have always thought that Angie destroyed H&A a bit, it was the first step in the wrong direction. I think in some ways her storyline had some similarities with the Braxtons. She was over the top mean, and the others looked like idiots when they couldn't stop her.

It was just by the end we saw some signs of something deeper with her, a woman who was completely destroyed and vulnerable, but it was never explored. There were also some holes in her storyline, there were hints that Dylan wasn't her son but we never got more than that…

Braxtons have also have holes in the storylines. And in the beginning the other characters look stupid for not managing to expose them. But the Braxtons storylines have bigger wholes in their storyline: where did the drug farm, why was Angelo written out when he had a lot of clues.. and so on.

She was on for only six months, and the Braxtons have been on for almost 3 years. Now the other characters are just accepting their crimes and we are meant to feel sorry for them instead. Characters who dominate a show like this work better if they are on screen for a shorter time.

The difference is also that there are 3 Braxtons (plus kyle) and there were only one Angie. The brothers are also too identical to each other. So you can't compare them with the Sutherlands either, they were 4 different characters. I think that they did a huge mistake when they introduced a new brother (Kyle) in the way they did, far too over the top and to mean, and just a copy of the others, He should have been introduced as someone different from the other three. Then it would have been easier to integrate them more in the community.

When they have characters like this they need to change them more over time than what they have done to Casey and Brax. Heath is the only one who has had some development, and he is more in the community than the others are. There have been some attempts to make them more in the community, but then they suddenly revert to their old self and get isolated together with their ladies.

Ive heard that Angie was the best villain ever on home and away, if she did anything it was to make the show better