Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[Red Ranger 1]

3 hours ago, TelephotoMarigold said:

Since I watched the show from the beginning how exactly did I not notice Roo in the early episodes?     

"Were one of them"  makes it sound as though there is still and "us and them" when it comes to viewers.   

Really? Okay, I must have got you mixed up with someone else.As for the other phrase, all I meant is that some people hold a particular opinion and some people don't.I wasn't suggesting some yawning chasm among the forum members.

[Luke39]

Am I.the only one who doesn't care that Olivia is a completely different character?'i think.casuals who watch dont care either. Not saying they shouldn't connect the past and present. Imo I.Dont think its that big of deal. Mostly no one probably remembers her. She was so young. But yes ppl.harp on the golden years simply because of nostalgia. Ppl in.2001 were probably critizing the show as much. But now 2001 is some golden age of tv lol. Personally im enjoying h and a atm. Its not susposed to be anything but be present. I think its better watching a show move forward in 2016. In terms of set designs, characterisation, lifestyle. Then be stuck in the past. Change is the only constant. I also think some overstate and overthink things. Its just a tv show lol. A show about ppl living near a beach. It aint that deep.

[cadyctslover]

24 minutes ago, Luke39 said:

Am I.the only one who doesn't care that Olivia is a completely different character?'i think.casuals who watch dont care either. Not saying they shouldn't connect the past and present. Imo I.Dont think its that big of deal. Mostly no one probably remembers her. She was so young.

I think that's the point. Olivia was before my time too, and I have little background knowledge of the character.

So why bring her back if you're not going to respect the history of the character (when it will upset the fans who do remember her), when surely they are the fans you're trying to appeal to? Why not introduce someone completely fresh?

[John]

11 hours ago, TelephotoMarigold said:

This thread makes me laugh. 

The show is constantly being compared to other soaps and even though Brax et al has left there are still lots of references to him and besides that most of the commentators go round in circles.  The original question (are the current producers.....) is easy to answer if any of  the following can be answered with a yes: 

• Do you put off watching the show? 
• Do you dislike most/some of the characters to the point that you fast forward or don't watch their scenes?
• Do you miss episodes and find you don't care?  
• When characters leave do you find you don't miss them? 
• Do you easily get bored with the plotlines? 

At some point you need to ask yourselves is it even worth watching.  The show is never going to return to the good old days of when you first liked it and even though you think you want that you don't because you may just as well re-watch the old episodes again and again.  Shows have to move on, they have to grow and usually the audience grows with them.  For those that hark back to golden eras in the soap's history miss the point that there were the same problems back then that they have now, poor writing, sloppy characterisation, plot holes etc but looking back at it is like viewing the show wearing rose tinted glasses, you see only what you want to see. 

I decided it wasn't worth my time anymore and the occasional 2 minutes I've watched since then has only confirmed that. 

RR1 Re: Olivia.   When I've raised my concerns about other characters returning and how their characters seem off to me you've been one of the first to disagree.  I'm not watching the show so I only get information about it from spoilers but it seems to be another case of introducing someone just for the sake of it. 

 

 

I agree with this post 100% right up to your decision that the show wasn't worth your time to watch anymore.  I haven't made that decision.  

I still feel that, on occasion, the show really reaches a high standard.  I enjoyed the Anzac Commemoration storyline for example.  At other times I could be very critical of all the other issues you have mentioned above.

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.

So I try to keep an open mind.  I find aspects to enjoy.

Spoiler

 I found the slow decay of the Maddy/Oscar relationship generally well written. ( RR1 will be rolling his eyes ) The beginning of the Hannah breast cancer storyline annoyed the heck out of me.

While I still find aspects to enjoy I keep watching.  

 

[Gerard]

11 hours ago, TelephotoMarigold said:

At some point you need to ask yourselves is it even worth watching.  The show is never going to return to the good old days of when you first liked it and even though you think you want that you don't because you may just as well re-watch the old episodes again and again.  Shows have to move on, they have to grow and usually the audience grows with them.  For those that hark back to golden eras in the soap's history miss the point that there were the same problems back then that they have now, poor writing, sloppy characterisation, plot holes etc but looking back at it is like viewing the show wearing rose tinted glasses, you see only what you want to see.

I think everyone who regularly contributes to this particular discussion either has stopped watching, but lives in hope that the series will change in such a way that they feel like starting watching again, or more likely, is still watching, probably still enjoys the show to a certain extent, but feels like the series could be a lot better than it currently is now.

I'm sure some of us would like if Alf or Irene were to wake up tomorrow and the past 20 years were all just a dream, but that isn't going to happen. And probably some of us do fondly remember the past as being better than it actually was - or perhaps it really was better back in the old days.

TV series do have to evolve, and especially these days when the audience seems more fickle and likely to get bored of the same thing a lot more quickly. Life is more hectic and at a faster pace than it used to be, so slow-burning character-based drama doesn't really cut it any more. We need explosions, lives in danger, "nothing will ever be the same again" moments on a regular basis, otherwise we'll get bored and just find something better to watch on the 100s of other TV channels available, or the millions of YouTube videos.

Perhaps some day the producers will able to hook viewers with more believable writing, better defined characters, and gripping storylines we can really invest in without resorting to ever greater over-the-topness. H&A used to be like this, but back then, viewers were more loyal and forgiving.

While H&A continues to draw in large audiences - I know viewing figures are down - but while it performs acceptably, they're not going to mess about much with the current formula. It would take either a significant drop in viewers, or some kind of directive from above that viewers need to increase, that we might actually see a real change in direction - but that's not to say the change would actually be for the better.

And as for this thread going around in circles, I can only guess that's because things haven't changed that much and many of the same issues still exist with the series. I do think there has been a marked improvement, especially over the past year, but H&A really has the potential to be a lot better than it is right now.

[Red Ranger 1]

24 minutes ago, John said:

 

  Hide contents

I found the slow decay of the Maddy/Oscar relationship generally well written. ( RR1 will be rolling his eyes )

Spoiler

The beginning of the Hannah breast cancer storyline annoyed the heck out of me.

 

 

I didn't roll my eyes exactly.I just didn't find the storyline at all desirable, at all beneficial to any of the characters involved or anything that the show should be proud of, being a clear sign of poor priorities and how certain characters don't fit into a certain mold.And no, I don't think it was well written or in character or a logical progression from what had gone before.And I think it's left the show and characters in a poorer state.Rant over.

Obviously can't comment on the other thing.

[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.