Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[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.

[Blaxland 89]

The fostering element up to 2000 was pretty good. They put a lot of effort in to included the technicalities of frosting. Then the angle moved with the introduction of the drop in centre. I though another interesting way to introduce new chapters. But I don't think it was used to the best of abilities. Bar Brodie I'm not sure many new character came through that door. 

So in 2004 we return to the fostering theme with Sally park at the caravan park. From then on I don't think it was done as well. The characters came in it rather too conveniently. Was much more contrivesd. Thought Sally was still way to young to put her in that position and there was barely any talk of the department etc. So that same way of writing happened with Irene too and is still in the show. 

[~Lynd~]

38 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.

It's not a complete waste of time.I understand blood does not make a family.Still doesn't make it fostering though.Not the way this show was built on which is next to non existent now.As a former foster child myself I always liked having that representation.I'm not likely to ever get disability representation, even though it's becoming a bigger issue in society and we don't just hide away never to be heard from again.

[Wanderer101]

1 hour ago, dee123 said:

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

I don't 'get the difference'? Ok. I know there is a difference. That is different to me saying whether what is happening now should be completely disregarded or not.

[dee123]

2 hours ago, Wanderer101 said:

I don't 'get the difference'? Ok. I know there is a difference. That is different to me saying whether what is happening now should be completely disregarded or not.

I never mentioned anyone personally. I didn't say a few or some i said a lot. I meant a number of people in general. Outside of this website when talking about H&A's problems with friends/fellow viewers at work this has topic has actually come up.

Sorry if you thought i was talking about you in particular, i really wasn't.