Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[Reo]

I thought Angie was a good character, she was written as a baddie that did bad things and we were meant to hate her for it. The reactions from the other characters were also right, everyone hated her.

Whereas the Braxtons are baddie heroes, which doesn't work. I find it hard to believe that character's like Alf, Roo and Irene would wish Casey luck on his second (?) court case, this time for armed robbery, which he willingly went ahead with, which put him in the impossible situation of killing either a innocent hostage or his own father. I also find it hard to believe that John would be happy for Jett to be around Casey, not just Casey himself, but Casey's lifestyle. Even if John was okay with Casey, he is well aware that the Braxton history comes back to bite them, there is no way that he would risk his young son being close to that.

Then there was the worry about Brax after being shot, fair enough, they know Brax so they would hope that he was okay, but there would have been a lot of comments about all the trouble the Braxtons have brought to the Bay since they arrived. They know the Braxtons lifestyle and would be unhappy with it.

Characters like Sarah, Zoe/Eve, Felix and other baddies were never meant to be seen as heroes. They were characters that we were meant to love to hate, love watching the drama they are causing, but hate them for doing it until they reach the end when the good characters come out on top.

The Braxtons are just as bad, sometimes worse, than their rivals. Why exactly are we meant to be siding with the Braxtons? There are two sides, both as bad as each other, but the guests are meant to be hated while the Braxtons being main characters are the 'good' guys but doing wrong and it is all excused because they are doing it for the family.

It feels like characters are being manipulated into supporting the Braxtons, who they should be hating, especially after what the town went through in the past with bad characters.

[ebrett84]

I thought Angie's character and arc started off very well, but faded towards the end.

I liked the way people reacted to her at the start. Everyone knew that she was a somewhat manipulative and insincere cow, but hey there's no law against that. And most of her actions were somewhat rude and intended to cause trouble, but weren't actually illegal. And that's how she was generally treated, with skepticism and distrust, but not outright hostility. These days she'd either be treated as the worst person on earth (if she was a guest cast), or a pillar of the community (if they made her a regular). Towards the end I thought her story started to go off the rails a bit. When it got to the point where literally everything she did had an ulterior motive, and she was responsible for everything bad that happened in Summer Bay, it got a bit much. Then they gave her some vague and undiagnosed mental / personality disorder (undiagnosed because there is no condition on earth that could turn someone into Angie). I think Laurie Foell made that character a lot better than it was on paper. They tried to redo the Angie / Nick storyline with Penn and Nicole about 10 years later and it sucked because the guy who played Penn just wasn't believable as a manipulative seducer.

[TelephotoMarigold]

The original question was 'Are* the current producers ruining Home and Away?' and so far most people answering it have responded with essays on certain characters and their influences on the show. Surely though shouldn't we first identify who are the producers of the subject? Does the original poster mean the Script Producer or the Show Producer or both? If he does then shouldn't we add on how much involvement the Network has and it's desire for ratings and a return of their investment in the series.

The Script Producer is Louise Bowes who having previously worked on All Saints amongst other popular Australian TV shows has demonstrated that she has the background to be an influential part of the show's future. If she is perceived as failing in producing a quality product that all fans enjoy (ie ruining the show) then could it be because of the following:

• not understanding the full history of the show
• not appreciating the characterisation of existing characters
• not being able to realise the vision she wants to create within the show because of other reasons
• working with the characters she's inherited

Louise first worked on Home and Away as a writer as far back as 2004 (according to IMDB) surely then she should have some appreciation for both the history of the show and the characterisation portrayed within it, particularly the older members of the cast. She then rejoined in 2011 meaning that she has credits as writer, script editor and supervising script producer.

Further, it is unable to be clear on the direction she has in mind for the show because not only do we not have sight of the planning in the script department, but also a number of lead actors currently being written for have contracts that are due for renewal with speculation on their fates being mentioned on various networking and fan sites and also in the spoiler section here. However, where it can be said that some of the storylines under her control are full of clichéd writing, predictability and the reliance on certain mainstream characters to provide the majority of drama there are moments that are full of the character driven writing that have been the reason behind the longevity of the show.

Louise took over as Script Producer in 2011 and according to IMDB, that is also when Lucy Addario joined the Home and Away. Lucy previously worked on All Saints working her way through the production side of the show. It means that when they both joined the show in their respective roles, the Braxtons (aka River Boys) were already established characters and therefore both Lucy and Louise would have had to work with them and expand upon their roles and plots. This has involved taking the show to newer (sometimes darker) areas of drama often involving crime.

Where they have capitalised on the appeal of some of their actors/characters, it is also apparent that they have also demonstrated a lack of balance in providing the FULL audience with what it needed from the show and in that respect it could be perceived that they have ruined the show. By balance I do of course mean the balance between light and dark storylines and also the balance between older and newer characters (including the interaction of the newer characters with more established characters). (My views on the writing of the show have been well documented and as such I won't expand further on this.)

In addition to Louise and Lucy taking over there was also some talk about relying on feedback derived from social networking sites which are popularised by a younger generation, not that I'm stating they have an exclusivity in using Facebook and Twitter. A large proportion of the people that comment on both twitter and Home and Away's (Official) Facebook page seem to readily demonstrate a lack of understanding of the history of the show, such as comments regarding the return of one of the most iconic characters in the shows history are anything to go by, accordingly if there is a reliance on their commentary and feedback to provide some semblance of direction to Home and Away then it can only be to obvious that they (producers/network) won't get it, nor can they rely on the longer term fans because each set of fans will have a specific agenda such as more focus on a particular character for example.

Turning to the Network, they are going to be concerned with the overall budget of the show versus the money that it pulls in in sales and advertising. If your script and series producer comes up and states that they have dramatic story arcs that take the show in certain directions surely the only thing the network will really care about will be what they can gain from it in terms of revenue.

To answer the question, as a person who no longer watches the show I would state that it has been ruined. If someone who has stuck with it during some of the disastrous eras previously, when writing, filming, and characterisation have been questionable can no longer sit through even an episode doesn't that say something? As it stands now, when hearing about new characters I no longer care about their introduction into the show or their backstories.

After a growing anger at the writing, plot holes and general lack of balance in the show, I have now grown a measure of apathy, which began specifically under the reign of both Louise and Lucy.But whilst they cannot shoulder all the blame for people choosing to turn off, they haven't taken the time to address any of the issues that have been apparent with the show or those have been highlighted to them (via social networking amongst other media) and further to this they continue to over-inflate the stories for a small proportion the present cast seemingly without considering that those who are fans of them will drift away when they are no longer on the show.

[Perry]

I don't think there are too many teens, I think they chose the wrong teens. Maybe should have introduced younger teens or brought back characters such as Ryan Baker or Lily Smith having teens with good history within the show. There is also Irene's grandchildren at that age group too. I think someone hit the nail on the head when they said the problem they have is they are casting older actors to play the teens. I think Will McDonald is a brilliant example of being able to find an actor that is both age appropriate and talented. VJ needs to be upgraded to a regular and given storylines. If Felix Dean isn't able to, recast him. I think we also have the problem of characters that aren't that great sticking around longer then what they should be, because of the actors 3 year contracts. Justine Clarke only stuck around for about 18 months but she was memorable as Roo because she was given the right storylines for that time and stuck around for as long as she needed to, Georgie Parker is a Gold Logie winning actress but she hasn't even been nominated for Home and Away, she's been on the show 3 years now. With a character like Roo she should be winning awards, she isn't because they aren't utilizing her the best they can.

[Blaxland 89]

I thought Angie was a good character, she was written as a baddie that did bad things and we were meant to hate her for it. The reactions from the other characters were also right, everyone hated her.

Whereas the Braxtons are baddie heroes, which doesn't work. I find it hard to believe that character's like Alf, Roo and Irene would wish Casey luck on his second (?) court case, this time for armed robbery, which he willingly went ahead with, which put him in the impossible situation of killing either a innocent hostage or his own father. I also find it hard to believe that John would be happy for Jett to be around Casey, not just Casey himself, but Casey's lifestyle. Even if John was okay with Casey, he is well aware that the Braxton history comes back to bite them, there is no way that he would risk his young son being close to that.

Then there was the worry about Brax after being shot, fair enough, they know Brax so they would hope that he was okay, but there would have been a lot of comments about all the trouble the Braxtons have brought to the Bay since they arrived. They know the Braxtons lifestyle and would be unhappy with it.

Characters like Sarah, Zoe/Eve, Felix and other baddies were never meant to be seen as heroes. They were characters that we were meant to love to hate, love watching the drama they are causing, but hate them for doing it until they reach the end when the good characters come out on top.

The Braxtons are just as bad, sometimes worse, than their rivals. Why exactly are we meant to be siding with the Braxtons? There are two sides, both as bad as each other, but the guests are meant to be hated while the Braxtons being main characters are the 'good' guys but doing wrong and it is all excused because they are doing it for the family.

It feels like characters are being manipulated into supporting the Braxtons, who they should be hating, especially after what the town went through in the past with bad characters.

And then having the head teacher of the local school marrying one of the villains and nobody having a problem with it is just crazy

[Jacklost]

I thought Angie was a good character, she was written as a baddie that did bad things and we were meant to hate her for it. The reactions from the other characters were also right, everyone hated her.

Whereas the Braxtons are baddie heroes, which doesn't work. I find it hard to believe that character's like Alf, Roo and Irene would wish Casey luck on his second (?) court case, this time for armed robbery, which he willingly went ahead with, which put him in the impossible situation of killing either a innocent hostage or his own father. I also find it hard to believe that John would be happy for Jett to be around Casey, not just Casey himself, but Casey's lifestyle. Even if John was okay with Casey, he is well aware that the Braxton history comes back to bite them, there is no way that he would risk his young son being close to that.

Then there was the worry about Brax after being shot, fair enough, they know Brax so they would hope that he was okay, but there would have been a lot of comments about all the trouble the Braxtons have brought to the Bay since they arrived. They know the Braxtons lifestyle and would be unhappy with it.

Characters like Sarah, Zoe/Eve, Felix and other baddies were never meant to be seen as heroes. They were characters that we were meant to love to hate, love watching the drama they are causing, but hate them for doing it until they reach the end when the good characters come out on top.

The Braxtons are just as bad, sometimes worse, than their rivals. Why exactly are we meant to be siding with the Braxtons? There are two sides, both as bad as each other, but the guests are meant to be hated while the Braxtons being main characters are the 'good' guys but doing wrong and it is all excused because they are doing it for the family.

It feels like characters are being manipulated into supporting the Braxtons, who they should be hating, especially after what the town went through in the past with bad characters.

And then having the head teacher of the local school marrying one of the villains and nobody having a problem with it is just crazy

Who married who?

[Blaxland 89]

Sorry useless on comps. that was a post in reply to Reo's up the page.

[Reo]

And then having the head teacher of the local school marrying one of the villains and nobody having a problem with it is just crazy

Who married who?

Bianca and Heath.

And I agree, while there would be a few people who are close to both Bianca and Heath who would be fine with it. Other people (including parents of the pupils at the school) should have made a big deal about the fact that the head teacher of the local high school is marrying a guy who is a known criminal that sold drugs... but then Liam also did drugs, so it seems that nobody cares who are teaching the children.

Although I do like Heath, he is the only one Braxton that I think has developed, although he stupidly without thought reverts back to what he was at times.

Character reactions or lack of them, is one thing I really hate in all soaps. Of course there is other things going on, but when something happens that would get the community talking, they don't. I was left confused for months on whether or not people knew about Romeo's cancer (and I still don't know if everyone knows, I assume they do, Roo, Alf and Sally were shown to know), but they at least knew that Romeo had left Indi, but there was little reaction to that.

[Jacklost]

And then having the head teacher of the local school marrying one of the villains and nobody having a problem with it is just crazy

Who married who?

Bianca and Heath.

And I agree, while there would be a few people who are close to both Bianca and Heath who would be fine with it. Other people (including parents of the pupils at the school) should have made a big deal about the fact that the head teacher of the local high school is marrying a guy who is a known criminal that sold drugs... but then Liam also did drugs, so it seems that nobody cares who are teaching the children.

Although I do like Heath, he is the only one Braxton that I think has developed, although he stupidly without thought reverts back to what he was at times.

Character reactions or lack of them, is one thing I really hate in all soaps. Of course there is other things going on, but when something happens that would get the community talking, they don't. I was left confused for months on whether or not people knew about Romeo's cancer (and I still don't know if everyone knows, I assume they do, Roo, Alf and Sally were shown to know), but they at least knew that Romeo had left Indi, but there was little reaction to that.

But Heath is not a villain

[pembie]

And then having the head teacher of the local school marrying one of the villains and nobody having a problem with it is just crazy

Who married who?

Bianca and Heath.

And I agree, while there would be a few people who are close to both Bianca and Heath who would be fine with it. Other people (including parents of the pupils at the school) should have made a big deal about the fact that the head teacher of the local high school is marrying a guy who is a known criminal that sold drugs... but then Liam also did drugs, so it seems that nobody cares who are teaching the children.

Although I do like Heath, he is the only one Braxton that I think has developed, although he stupidly without thought reverts back to what he was at times.

Character reactions or lack of them, is one thing I really hate in all soaps. Of course there is other things going on, but when something happens that would get the community talking, they don't. I was left confused for months on whether or not people knew about Romeo's cancer (and I still don't know if everyone knows, I assume they do, Roo, Alf and Sally were shown to know), but they at least knew that Romeo had left Indi, but there was little reaction to that.

But Heath is not a villain

Heath is a member of a family who have lived the gang and drug lifestyle. The Braxtons always seem to get on the wrong side of the law and they rarely get punished for it. In most people's eyes that would make them seem like the villains And if not villans then I think the Braxton's would be the type of people you would stay far away from in real life.

Even though I think Heath is the one from his family who has tried to change for the better the most.

As for the show these days I feel there are quite a few deadwood sort of characters Kyle especially I don't see why they wanted to add a fourth brother into the Braxtons I think it worked well with the three of them. Kyle too me feels like some kind of spare wheel.

People say that they see great chemistry between Ricky and Brax But to me it seems kind of forced and a bit bland. Josh and Andy are quite dull to watch too I try to care about these characters but I just don't.

But other than that the show's quite good It still has it's over the top stories like it always has and that's the main reason I watch it. Even though it's a shame that it seems to be only the Braxtons who get those sort of stories these days and it's a shame they always get away with stuff.