Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[Homeandawayfan.]

I still watch the odd episode, or start to but usually it is just the same violence and cruelty, and sadly i think as for the show going back to how it was 15-20 years ago, I think sadly that ship has well and truly sailed. It has to become darker to survive like Neighbours but H&A has taken that to the biggest extremes.

[Gerard]

While the ratings are only an approximation of a show's popularity, unfortunately they don't reflect how good or bad the series is, or even how good or bad the episode is. Nor is it really a reflection of viewer long-term loyalty. How many of H&A's (approximately) million viewers were watching 5 or 10 years ago? How many of the current viewers really love the show and watch every day? How many people watch the show out of habit, and stick by it despite not really enjoying it? Who really knows?

No matter how far removed from the H&A of old it becomes, or even how bad, unbelievable and OTT it could get, or how many people complain, if the series is still drawing in significant numbers of viewers, it won't be axed. For ratings to fall significantly, it would have to be consistently boring, not promoted, and generally unloved for months on end. I don't think that's likely to happen, however OTT the storylines get.

[John]

  On 06/04/2016 at 20:54, Gerard said:

While the ratings are only an approximation of a show's popularity, unfortunately they don't reflect how good or bad the series is, or even how good or bad the episode is. Nor is it really a reflection of viewer long-term loyalty. How many of H&A's (approximately) million viewers were watching 5 or 10 years ago? How many of the current viewers really love the show and watch every day? How many people watch the show out of habit, and stick by it despite not really enjoying it? Who really knows?

No matter how far removed from the H&A of old it becomes, or even how bad, unbelievable and OTT it could get, or how many people complain, if the series is still drawing in significant numbers of viewers, it won't be axed. For ratings to fall significantly, it would have to be consistently boring, not promoted, and generally unloved for months on end. I don't think that's likely to happen, however OTT the storylines get.

Expand  

Great post.  ( I guess that means I agree with it!! )

Australian society has changed greatly since the show first aired in 1988.  The show has had to change as well to remain relevant in its current setting.  Even the way it's core components of fostering and interaction between troubled younger people and older people play out differently.  The process of adopting troubled younger people into foster families is much more highly regulated these days.  The range of family models has become much wider, with a greater proportion of single parent families, blended families and, dare I say it, same gender parented families.

Crime rates have escalated.  Even in a relatively small rural city where I live, murders, domestic violence, drug related crime and racial abuse are not unknown as they used to be.

In my view the current show reflects those changes.  It has had to approach the "fostering" of troubled young people differently but it still does it.  It does portray crime because it does happen.

At times I feel the writing lacks good charcterisation and follow through on issues but at other times it shows great understanding and empathy.

I suppose whether the show is "ruined" or not depends on the expectation or taste of each individual viewer and argument as to whether it has been ruined or not seems to me to be futile.  In some people's eyes it will be seen as ruined, in others it will be seen as having moved with the times to remain relevant, and yes I'll say popular.  As the post above points out, if it doesn't retain ratings with a current audience it will disappear.

[Skylover]

`

  On 07/04/2016 at 03:07, John said:

The show has had to change as well to remain relevant in its current setting.

Expand  

One of the main issues though is that it doesn't reflect the changes in society. Almost 30 years in and it hasn't even had a regular gay character. If it's so obsessed with crime at the moment, why not bring in a gay character who Ash is friends with from prison or something?

I am surprised H&A gets away with what seems to be a homophobic attitude.

[Luke39]

Hey im enjoying The Show atm . But then again my.expectations aren't so can I.say adept. I think ppl.overthink.things. No gay character, no society changes etc. Is it really that deep? I.thought it.was about pretty ppl surfing lol. Just saying I think some, not naming names. Expect more then The show can deliver at times. Yes its crime driven atm.

But no where near as it was in.2012-2014 era. When I see the Teen Group of Matt, Josh, Oscar, Evie, Maddy etc. And Olivia and Sky. Remind me so much of 2000ish H and A. So theirs key components to the show that have improved dramatically. But theirs aspect to the show need work.  And re H and A being axed because its crap. Well ppl say that every year it never happens .

[dee123]

  On 07/04/2016 at 05:43, Edward Skylover said:

`

One of the main issues though is that it doesn't reflect the changes in society. Almost 30 years in and it hasn't even had a regular gay character. If it's so obsessed with crime at the moment, why not bring in a gay character who Ash is friends with from prison or something?

I am surprised H&A gets away with what seems to be a homophobic attitude.

Expand  

I'm sure i'll get in trouble for saying this but i don't believe anyone at H&A is homophobic. The not featuring gay characters is a 7 thing. 7 is mainly owned by people from Western Australia, and take it from someone who has family there, outside of small pockets of Perth, it's not even 1996 there yet. Let alone 2016.

Sadly outside out Sydney & Melbourne, Australia is still a very homophobic place.

[Skylover]

It is a shame whatever the case may be, and I think that as well as other factors such as failure to connect to the past, will be H&A's undoing. There are obviously strengths to the current show as well, however.

I do wonder whether that is true though, because other 7 shows have featured prominent gay characters, such as Jonathan on Winners & Losers.

[Matt]

  On 07/04/2016 at 07:51, Edward Skylover said:

It is a shame whatever the case may be, and I think that as well as other factors such as failure to connect to the past, will be H&A's undoing. There are obviously strengths to the current show as well, however.

I do wonder whether that is true though, because other 7 shows have featured prominent gay characters, such as Jonathan on Winners & Losers.

Expand  

Make of the following what you will:

Sarah Walker included a lesbian character in the award-winning hospital drama — the doctor Charlotte Beaumont, played by Tammy MacIntosh. “The character turned straight when I left the show,” she laughs. “This is what happens.” Although she points out the long-running soap Neighbours has had several gay characters in recent years. There are some tricky logistics in having gay characters, she explains. It disrupts the balance of romantic potential among a core cast. “You’ve only got a certain number of characters who are young and able to have romance stories. If you take two of your precious cast and make them gay, you’ve got two girls or two guys on the other side who now don’t have anyone to partner up with. Production-wise, it’s very difficult to justify pulling two people out. It’s an actual storytelling technical problem, to be fair. It’s not all attitudes.”

And...

In the UK practically all the soaps have regular gay characters but this seems to be something which Home and Away appears to deliberately avoid. Why is this do you think? ‘Perryadams’ comments that Pacific Drive’s Zoe was very popular and thinks Home and Away could benefit from having such a character. Could you see it happening in future?
Perry is right – HAA SHOULD have a gay character. I tried several times but it ended up a debacle. It won’t happen while the present hierarchy is in place. I have found on various shows but especially HAA, often the most vehemently opposed person to a gay character is a gay person. Not from homophobia…but simply from fear of ratings.

(Links here and here)

[dee123]

  On 07/04/2016 at 07:51, Edward Skylover said:

It is a shame whatever the case may be, and I think that as well as other factors such as failure to connect to the past, will be H&A's undoing. There are obviously strengths to the current show as well, however.

I do wonder whether that is true though, because other 7 shows have featured prominent gay characters, such as Jonathan on Winners & Losers.

Expand  

I'm sorry but Jonathan to me is a terrible cliche and not that far removed from characters like Mr Humphries from Are You Being Served?

  On 07/04/2016 at 08:38, Matt said:

Make of the following what you will:

Sarah Walker included a lesbian character in the award-winning hospital drama — the doctor Charlotte Beaumont, played by Tammy MacIntosh. “The character turned straight when I left the show,” she laughs. “This is what happens.” Although she points out the long-running soap Neighbours has had several gay characters in recent years. There are some tricky logistics in having gay characters, she explains. It disrupts the balance of romantic potential among a core cast. “You’ve only got a certain number of characters who are young and able to have romance stories. If you take two of your precious cast and make them gay, you’ve got two girls or two guys on the other side who now don’t have anyone to partner up with. Production-wise, it’s very difficult to justify pulling two people out. It’s an actual storytelling technical problem, to be fair. It’s not all attitudes.”

And...

In the UK practically all the soaps have regular gay characters but this seems to be something which Home and Away appears to deliberately avoid. Why is this do you think? ‘Perryadams’ comments that Pacific Drive’s Zoe was very popular and thinks Home and Away could benefit from having such a character. Could you see it happening in future?
Perry is right – HAA SHOULD have a gay character. I tried several times but it ended up a debacle. It won’t happen while the present hierarchy is in place. I have found on various shows but especially HAA, often the most vehemently opposed person to a gay character is a gay person. Not from homophobia…but simply from fear of ratings.

(Links here and here)

Expand  

I'm sorry but that production wise/story telling technical problem is such a cop out to me. The same problem would happen when you have a brother & sister or cousins yet they still appear.

On a lighter note, i fuc*ing loved Pacific Drive. It was sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo trashy and over the top but in a good way. It was highly entertaining, which at the end of the day is all you can ask for.

[Blaxland 89]

I know ratings are important but quite frankly a pathetic excuse. Shows like home and away should be raising awareness and educating ignorant people. Just look at the good Eastenders of done for certain issues. For goodness sakes, the show was more topical in 1995!! Actually it felt more a head of its time in that respect in 1988 then now.