Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[cadyctslover]

23 hours ago, Dan F said:

It's easy to do with EastEnders though as its a closed set on the backlot for the majority of 'location' work. Palm Beach is a public place and a large majority of the leaks come from paparazzi and the fans now posting everything they see on social media - and with other fans then sharing things around whilst drawing up their own conclusions through analysing every little detail, it makes it very difficult.

True, but H&A also do a significant amount of studio shooting, and big character returns (for example) could be shot on set in this way, reducing the potential for leaks.

Once revealed on-screen, location shooting can commence.

17 hours ago, Dan F said:

That did seem like a step back in the wrong direction, the change to the Diner's front entrance really screams "it's a set!" now

This simple change took the Diner set from one of the most convincing and realistic, to the most transparently studio-based. I don't know what they were thinking.

[Homeandawayfan.]

The show needs to sort out the chaff from the wheat. There is much more chaff than wheat, but the wheat is there, Alf, Irene, Leah, Palmer, Roo. 3 out of 4 husks are chaff though such as Andy, Maddie, Ash, Josh, Phoebe etc. Bring in a new family.

[Little bean]

One person's chaff is another person's wheat though.  They can't please everyone all of the time. Bringing in new characters isn't going to change that. Some people will love the newbies others will hate them.  I think there are issues with storylines and the writing. It's not the characters, it's what they do with them in my opinion. There is too much emphasis on getting couples together/breaking them up/getting them back together/creating love triangles etc. Then there are wasted storylines that go nowhere (Josh's blindness being the most recent with Charlotte's murder investigation also up there as fast becoming a joke.) They also seem to think that exit storys need to be overblown dramas that do popular characters no favours. (to say more would include spoilers! )

One of the problems I think is the three year contract cycle. It just goes round and round.  The older cast members just potter about in the background with nothing much to do but serve salad in the diner or clean the barbie. Meanwhile, bring in a group of 20 somethings to play a group of teens. Settle them in to live with various older cast members (with ever more tenuous reasons for doing so). Then watch them all get together, break up, get with someone else etc. Struggle with the HSC. Leave.

20 something actors probably all want a bigger career than H and A so they probably choose to leave rather than get fired but it would be nice if we could actually see someone make the transition from school to adult life and watch them grow. If there was some way of staggering the exits and new arrivals it would help too. Probably an impossible task. I think it's always been like this but it just feels worse in recent times somehow. 

[CaptainHulk]

The only person who succeeded in transitioning out of school into Adult life was Sal. She did all 6yrs of SBH, Did three at Uni and taught at SBH for the rest of her time on the show.

[Luke39]

On 23/04/2016 at 2:54 AM, Homeandawayfan. said:

The thing is, 6 years ago what we say about H&A was being said about Neighbours. They said "Oh Neighbours is so far removed from its roots" or "it has no connection to the 1980s" and now it is H&A's turn.

Neighbour's is also stuck in the nineties when it comes to set designs. At least in home and away feels more modern. The show doesent need to connect with any year but 2016. Let alone 1986 lol. Just needs better balance thats all. Last year was great 

[Homeandawayfan.]

17 hours ago, Luke39 said:

Neighbour's is also stuck in the nineties when it comes to set designs. At least in home and away feels more modern. The show doesent need to connect with any year but 2016. Let alone 1986 lol. Just needs better balance thats all. Last year was great 

Neighbours may be twee and outdated but that is much better than turning itself into a show about gangsters, bomb plots and endless cruelty.

[Luke39]

6 hours ago, Homeandawayfan. said:

Neighbours may be twee and outdated but that is much better than turning itself into a show about gangsters, bomb plots and endless cruelty.

Oh yeah sure I completely agree. I just like the beach . To be honest though ain't that the world we live in now? Gangsters, Bomb plots. Endless cruelty? So you know. I just think the show needs a better balance. Neighbors is too connected to its past. But not the present. H and A needs to be on the middle of the spectrum. 2009-2011 is a great example. Almost golden years imo 

[j.laur5]

This is the longest running thread.  We had a similar thread in 2009 and that thread was called is Home And Away on a downward spiral!.

2016 is much better than 2009 and the only thing I chose to have from 2009 is Charlie over Kat.  

[dee123]

3 hours ago, j.laur5 said:

This is the longest running thread.  We had a similar thread in 2009 and that thread was called is Home And Away on a downward spiral!.

2016 is much better than 2009 and the only thing I chose to have from 2009 is Charlie over Kat.  

Didn't know that. It says well, something about the show then, doesn't it?

[Homeandawayfan.]

14 hours ago, Luke39 said:

Oh yeah sure I completely agree. I just like the beach . To be honest though ain't that the world we live in now? Gangsters, Bomb plots. Endless cruelty? So you know. I just think the show needs a better balance. Neighbors is too connected to its past. But not the present. H and A needs to be on the middle of the spectrum. 2009-2011 is a great example. Almost golden years imo 

There may be cruelty, bombs and gangsters in the world, but H&A is representing this to the huge extremes. Shows like Corrie, Emmerdale and Neighbours are closer to the real H&A than H&A is. Nowadays the show is 28 years old in name only. When it reaches 30, unless it can drastically improve the balance, it will be 30 years of H&A in the title only, of which the meaning of the title has been ripped out from its foundations.