Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[Wanderer101]

Well this fostering thing with Irene and Roo, sure it wasn't official legal fostering that went through the process, but in all practical senses, it's quite similar, so I don't think it's fair to just dismiss it as not counting at all.

[Skylover]

Irene, Roo or whoever else decides to foster on a whim doesn't hold a candle to the originals who fostered in the 80s and 90s, the Fletchers. I never bought Alf & Ailsa fostering, and I think it should have remained as only the Fletchers/Rosses who fostered and then another generation could have taken over fostering down the track with appearances from Pippa every so often.

Having said that, Selina was great with Irene, but I'm glad she doesn't decide to foster in the end, just offers them a place to stay. I guess I'll never get my wish of one of Pippa's foster kids taking over Summer Bay House again, unless it's Sally, she seems to be put on a pedestal, but I think Kate has put her permanent Home and Away days behind her.

[Wanderer101]

4 minutes ago, Edward Skylover said:

Irene, Roo or whoever else decides to foster on a whim doesn't hold a candle to the originals who fostered in the 80s and 90s, the Fletchers. I never bought Alf & Ailsa fostering, and I think it should have remained as only the Fletchers/Rosses who fostered and then another generation could have taken over fostering down the track with appearances from Pippa every so often.

Having said that, Selina was great with Irene, but I'm glad she doesn't decide to foster in the end, just offers them a place to stay. I guess I'll never get my wish of one of Pippa's foster kids taking over Summer Bay House again, unless it's Sally, she seems to be put on a pedestal, but I think Kate has put her permanent Home and Away days behind her.

Yeah I already agreed it wasn't an official foster, but I was saying I don't think it should just be dismissed completely.

[~Lynd~]

20 minutes ago, Wanderer101 said:

Well this fostering thing with Irene and Roo, sure it wasn't official legal fostering that went through the process, but in all practical senses, it's quite similar, so I don't think it's fair to just dismiss it as not counting at all.

In the early days of Irene sure but not recently.Sorry but kids in need and bratty teenagers are not the same thing.

[Wanderer101]

Alright, I still don't see why kids in need should still be completely discounted, so we'll agree to disagree I guess.

[Luke39]

Well what would anyones definition of foster kids be? As Maddy and Spencer purpose was to bring the foster aspect. Obviously Jett is the only legit one. But even in 08 Belle for example wasent a foster kid. But Irene looked after her. Like Roo with Maddy. And Irene with Olivia. So guess its been non.existent for a while.

[pembie]

The way I think of fostering is when kids lose their parents when they die, or when the parents can't cope with having kids. Or maybe when the parents are too young or abusive

[dee123]

6 hours ago, ~Lynd~ said:

In the early days of Irene sure but not recently.Sorry but kids in need and bratty teenagers are not the same thing.

Thank you for saying this so eloquently At lot of people don't seem to get the difference.

[Red Ranger 1]

I get that people are unhappy that some of the "foster children" don't have traumatic enough back stories or that their parents are portrayed as simply being jerks rather than genuinely abusive (or dead), and I agree that's a big part of the fostering angle.But I don't think that means the set-ups should be written out as a complete waste of time.The other aspect of it is family, and the fact that it means more than the people you share the same DNA as.I get that the way Maddy was introduced put a lot of people off but I think the bond between Maddy and Roo, and the unconditional love in evidence, especially on Roo's side, was very true to the spirit of the show even if it wasn't strictly speaking fostering.

[dee123]

34 minutes ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

I get that people are unhappy that some of the "foster children" don't have traumatic enough back stories or that their parents are portrayed as simply being jerks rather than genuinely abusive (or dead), and I agree that's a big part of the fostering angle.But I don't think that means the set-ups should be written out as a complete waste of time.The other aspect of it is family, and the fact that it means more than the people you share the same DNA as.I get that the way Maddy was introduced put a lot of people off but I think the bond between Maddy and Roo, and the unconditional love in evidence, especially on Roo's side, was very true to the spirit of the show even if it wasn't strictly speaking fostering.

But they are because for the most part the writing and acting isn't up to it.