Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[Homeandawayfan.]

Well 1988 had a rape, an accidental shooting, a suicide, a car crash, a Summer Bay Nutter, burning caravans, cars and the community hall and a drug problem, teen pregnancy, the works, corrupt businessmen aka Gordon Macklin. I think the past can be seen through rose tinted specs as the show has always had a crime underbelly. I think the biggest difference between 1988 and 2016 is in 1988 they were better written plus the dramatic music was much gentler, today the dramatic music is overrused and makes the show seem darker than what it is. In 1988 humour was a key factor whereas now it seems to be boring filler outside the drama.

[Gerard]

24 minutes ago, John said:

The return of characters from the past is an interesting issue. I think any attempt to do this throws up a whole range of difficulties.  

• Viewers recently attracted to the show are looking for new characters ( any character they haven't met before is new to them ) to fit into the feel of the current show.  Longer term viewers, or at least some of them, are expecting the character to still be similar to the one they remember.  These different expectations are very hard to satisfy simultaneously.
• If a returning character is to "work" for newer viewers then a lot of storyline time has to be devoted to reintroducing that character and re-establishing their connection with the current show and its characters. This requires an understanding and "memory" of the character's history etc.  At times it seems that this requirement is ignored. This means that newer viewers don't understand what all the fuss is about and longer term viewers with a love of the show's history feel the character has been "ruined" on their return.

H&A used to be able to bring back old characters without any issue, and Neighbours has brought back many characters successfully in recent years. Much as I like seeing old characters again, bringing them back to change them and shoe-horn them into some different scenario should be avoided. Newer viewers won't care of course, but it is insulting to older viewers. I don't think they should bring back characters to "ruin" them, just for the sake of getting ratings.

Having said that H&A have generally had a decent track record with returning characters. I guess there is a difficult balance to strike between over-explaining to viewers who already know the character and not explaining well enough to viewers who are new to the character. If they could write the character properly from the outset, there shouldn't really be much difference to the uninitiated viewer between the introduction of a new character and a returnee.

[Gerard]

10 minutes ago, Homeandawayfan. said:

Well 1988 had a rape, an accidental shooting, a suicide, a car crash, a Summer Bay Nutter, burning caravans, cars and the community hall and a drug problem, teen pregnancy, the works, corrupt businessmen aka Gordon Macklin. I think the past can be seen through rose tinted specs as the show has always had a crime underbelly.

That's true of course, and one of the reasons I was attracted to H&A from the beginning. It definitely was high drama and plenty of controversy at the time, but somehow it balanced out much better with the humour and family storylines that ran in parallel. The lighter and warmer storylines complemented the darker moments. As has been mentioned before, usually the bad guys went to jail or were run out of town, and there were always consequences and morals in action. Rarely did anyone get away with anything for long. Nowadays crime is not always punished. Serious issues are brushed under the carpet for dramatic efffect, and I think that's the main problem.

[Skylover]

I really like Olivia, physically the casting is good for her to be Chloe's daughter. And the actress is good. I believe the connection between her and Irene.

[Red Ranger 1]

2 hours ago, Edward Skylover said:

I really like Olivia, physically the casting is good for her to be Chloe's daughter. And the actress is good. I believe the connection between her and Irene.

Eh? She looks nothing like Chloe! Or Lachie, for that matter.

[Skylover]

There's something about her mannerisms that makes me find her believable as Chloe's daughter, and how she has a slim frame like Chloe. She looks nothing like Lachie though, I agree with you there.

[Dan F]

24 minutes ago, Edward Skylover said:

There's something about her mannerisms that makes me find her believable as Chloe's daughter, and how she has a slim frame like Chloe. She looks nothing like Lachie though, I agree with you there.

Don't think anyone responded to either agree or disagree at the time I posted it, but I thought Marlo Kelly who plays Skye would have been perfect for Olivia, in both looks and mannerisms.

[Skylover]

Are you not keen on this incarnation of Olivia, Dan?

[Luke39]

Generally h and a gets it right with break ups and pair ups. Like Maddy.and Josh. Then at the time Maddy and Oscar. Although I found the pairing unlikable. I appreciated big part of Maddy maturing. Matt and Maddy was inevitable since 2014 imo. But pairings like phoebee and ash so wrong. Wrong. But yeah im loving Olivia. I.dont get why Ppl Care about continuity. Or connecting past and present. Precedence been set. Its not the first time a new actor played a previous character. In Olivias casee I don't think its too damaging.

[Red Ranger 1]

I really didn't see Maddy and Matt as inevitable at all.They barely had anything to do with each other until 2015 and what little interaction they did have suggested they didn't get on that well.(I always blame Matt for Maddy and Josh's break-up, he gave Josh some very bad advice that showed he didn't understand Maddy at all and that was when their troubles started.)I know we had those spoiler photos of them together at the end of 2014 which suggested they were going to be a couple, and even though I wasn't expecting Maddy and Oscar to get together at that point, I just thought "Oh no, really?Those two?That's not going to do Maddy's reputation any good."So I was pleased when they just became friends and I really wish the show had kept them that way.

Curiously, it does feel like we're where we were in the "golden age" of the mid 90s.Because while anyone who was watching at that time is fond of that teen group, there isn't a single classic couple among them because they never stayed together long enough, every few months they all swapped partners.And it feels like that's the case with the current line-up, none of the teen couples stay together long enough for them to feel like a strong pairing and the ones that show potential get broken up as rapidly as the ones that are a bit rubbish. Same with the young adult couples for that matter.It makes it pointless to invest in anyone.