Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[Homeandawayfan.]

6 hours ago, Gerard said:

If you think back to how they used to write characters in days gone by, each one was well-defined and unique. You could almost predict how someone was going to react. The characters used to have back-histories, complex relationships and personality traits. Alf was a decent guy with a fiery temper and a sense of humour, old-fashioned values etc. Ailsa was a strong, but very caring, no nonsense, though quite on edge, with a detailed back-story of being in prison. Don Fisher was intellegent and well-read, quite tough at the start but softened over the years. Even the younger cast were well defined and strong characters. Steven was quiet and intelligent, Bobby was fiery and rebellious etc.

Nowadays there are only a handful of characters like that. A lot of especially the younger cast are pretty interchangable, and many of those at the moment you wouldn't even notice if they disappeared without warniing. Perhaps this is deliberate, so that any character can be slotted into any storyline. E.g. "We need a tough-acting thug for that. No problem, there are several to choose from, who isn't too busy right now?".

I suppose if H&A was realistic, most of the characters would be sitting around with their tablets and phones, surfing the internet or playing Pokemon, so it would make for a boring show. But things can go too far in the other direction,

Don Fisher was quite villainous when the show begun, he had narcissistic tendencies, thought he was the bees knees and tried to stitch Bobby up and was very offensive to the Fletchers. But that is as nasty as a regular character would get. Don's fiery temper simmered down as did his nature. Out and out baddies such as Barlow, Shannon's attacker and Robert Perez were guest characters, once they were caught they were off, in prison and never seen again. Barlow was a great 1988 baddie, but got banged up and we never saw him again. Now baddies are regulars and can kill 2 or 3 people and walk around sipping cocktails on the beach and chat up girls in the Diner as if nothing has happened.

[dee123]

On 24/07/2016 at 8:13 AM, jodlebirger said:

Yes, but the situation was badly handled from Denny's murder. It was swept under the carpet. It feels like people think that killing off Charlotte was far worse than killing off Denny and that criminal. Denny's only crime was being a dull character. Kat didn't arrest Charlotte straight away either, and that is the reason why everything got out of hand. 

I think they should stop doing these murder cases. Leave that to crime series. At least they are doing it in a proper way. They should focus more on relations, family problems and small offences to create the drama. 

H&A has been a mess when it comes to "giving right messages" from 2004, with the small exception from at least trying to do the right thing in a short period in 2008. 

I don't have a problem with a murder mystery. I don't have a problem seeing them every couple of years or so but the plot device has been used way too much recently and needs a rest.

1 hour ago, jodlebirger said:

Excactly. These villains have a tendency to be glorified on H&A, just because people think they are exciting. While it is more easier to jugde character that we know more. 

I don't understand why it is so important to put Charlotte on a pidestal. Certain people on here have even said that Charlotte wasn't responsible for her actions, and think it was Hunter's fault. How she has been described from the start, she was a really psychopath, worse than her son, and she was the adult one. 

I really don't like these kind of characters at all. Because they always end up being admired by a lot of fans, no matter what they do. 

Some people are sheep.

[emmasi]

We're going to need to have T-shirts made: 

#TeamAndyDidIt 

#TeamTankDidIt

#TeamRooDidIt 

I don't think Charlotte was a psychopath. I think Hunter is. Or, I think he WAS and they changed their minds and watered him down to be another interchangeable teen. I still hold some hope that they'll remember how unique he was when he arrived and go back to that, but I'm not confident. 

I think Charlotte's actions were a direct result of Hunter's actions, but that doesn't take her responsibility away. Killing Denny was an accident, but everything after it was deliberate, and the Facebook thing was just cruel.

If a character does something bad and an actor portrays it in an interesting way, I'm going to like that character and defend their right to be on the show rather than lobbying for them to be locked up and gone, because that's what should happen to them in real life. This isn't real life. I'm not watching a reality show about prison inmates, and I don't want to. I'm watching fictional TV characters and if I like the characters I want to continue watching them, so being off-screen serving a life-sentence where I can't see them doesn't help me much. Neither does killing them off and dragging out the "mystery" for months.

I liked Charlotte because she was different AND I liked the idea of her being killed off because A. if they kept her around they would've made her the same as everyone else, like they did to Hunter,  and B. it would've been interesting to see a "good" character do an "evil" thing by deliberately killing her. Instead, they copped out by having a character who already had a criminal history kill her by accident. It was completely pointless and a waste of two good actors. 

If the motivation and execution of a fictional criminal act is written well that's a bonus, but these days I usually just try to appreciate what the actor is doing with the available material. While I barely understand what the Barretts' overall point is (if there is one), I enjoy their scenes together as brothers because the actors put a lot of convincing emotion into it. Again, that doesn't excuse anything they've done, but it helps to explain it. An explanation is not the same thing as an excuse. 

None of the above "evil" characters have been favourites of mine at all, because the writing simply isn't there to make them interesting enough for me to properly invest or care about them. I don't see how liking a character who is intended to be hated makes me a sheep. But I don't care enough about any of them to argue it so whatever. Baa, I guess?

[Wanderer101]

8 hours ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

So you think Charlotte was evil. Do you think Andy and Josh aren't evil? If so, what's the difference? Andy killed Hannah and Oscar, two innocent people. None of it was deliberate on either of their part. It was simply the accidental by product of doing the wrong thing. By those ethics, Zac or Evelyn would be perfect entitled to blow Andy away in revenge.Instead we're supposed to see him as a human being who's deserving of compassion and doesn't need to be brought to justice.

Then why are they okay with it? Andy is as much a cold-blooded killer as Jake, why is one okay and not the other? It seems to be that that is exactly the excuse people use to try and separate Josh and Andy from their victims, that they act to protect each other and so their motives are somehow seen as pure or right, whereas their victims also loved their family and tried to protect or avenge them, yet they get written off as "evil" and therefore not deserving of basic human rights.

Once again, I'm not saying their actions are pure or right, and I also never said I like Andy. I don't like him. And I just saying I don't recall people saying the reason they condone Andy's actions is because Andy and Josh like eachother.

[Red Ranger 1]

7 hours ago, Jacklost said:

Technically Roo killed Oscar and Hannah since she bought the tanks knowing they weren't safe

Charlotte buried Denny's body and pretended to be her for 3 months and threatening people while Andy killed a very evil thug murderer. Andy didn't kill them, the one responsible for using unsafe tanks did wether we wanna admit it or not. At least Andy confessed pretty quick and he was willing to serve time for it,

the only reason he escaped was because of Josh

Andy killed Oscar and Hannah. The whole point is Roo didn't know the tanks weren't the right ones. If she'd exchanged them for the correct ones, or if she'd secured them like Andy apologists insist she should have done, they'd probably still have exploded when Andy beat someone up next to them and damaged them. Josh walked away leaving Charlotte's body in the sea, probably hoping she'd never be discovered. Jake never killed anyone innocent, he killed a bent cop and a convicted arsonist and armed robber who'd both killed someone themselves. Yet he's an evil thug murderer and Andy isn't? Andy was happy to let Tank take the blame until Greg guilt-tripped him.

And there we have it: The fact that he was trying to protect Josh used to somehow glorify two killers escaping justice while their victims remain dead.

[dee123]

41 minutes ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

Andy killed Oscar and Hannah. The whole point is Roo didn't know the tanks weren't the right ones. If she'd exchanged them for the correct ones, or if she'd secured them like Andy apologists insist she should have done, they'd probably still have exploded when Andy beat someone up next to them and damaged them. Josh walked away leaving Charlotte's body in the sea, probably hoping she'd never be discovered. Jake never killed anyone innocent, he killed a bent cop and a convicted arsonist and armed robber who'd both killed someone themselves. Yet he's an evil thug murderer and Andy isn't? Andy was happy to let Tank take the blame until Greg guilt-tripped him.

  Reveal hidden contents

And there we have it: The fact that he was trying to protect Josh used to somehow glorify two killers escaping justice while their victims remain dead.

 

Perfectly said. I really don't know how people can seen it any other way.

[Jacklost]

6 hours ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

Andy killed Oscar and Hannah. The whole point is Roo didn't know the tanks weren't the right ones. If she'd exchanged them for the correct ones, or if she'd secured them like Andy apologists insist she should have done, they'd probably still have exploded when Andy beat someone up next to them and damaged them. Josh walked away leaving Charlotte's body in the sea, probably hoping she'd never be discovered. Jake never killed anyone innocent, he killed a bent cop and a convicted arsonist and armed robber who'd both killed someone themselves. Yet he's an evil thug murderer and Andy isn't? Andy was happy to let Tank take the blame until Greg guilt-tripped him.

  Reveal hidden contents

And there we have it: The fact that he was trying to protect Josh used to somehow glorify two killers escaping justice while their victims remain dead.

 

Jake never killed someone innocent? He killed Casey? And Casey  was not a murderer, if you have watched the show for the last 5/6 years you would know that he's the one Braxton who always wanted to do the right thing. He was never like Brax or Heath and Casey shooting Danny was a completely different matter! First off, Danny was a very evil and mean man and he practically forced Casey to shoot him. He never wanted to kill someone and he struggled with it for many weeks after, Jake didn't wanna kill Casey specific but he wanted to kill a Braxton so he's a cold blooded murderer...

And yes what if Josh did that? Charlotte was evil, and as I explained in my other comments. After all the things she did killing her even if it was by an accident was still a good thing. It's always a good thing when a evil and cruel person disappears from the world

And how can you compare Andy to Jake? Andy loved Hannah! And cared so much about Oscar. He would rather take his own life then to let them die

 

 

[Janet.D]

I don't think the show is ruined, people do leave to do other things, I didn't like the character Brax, he was no good for Ricky, so I'm glad he went, I wish though that they had given Ricky a better story, and not with the character Nate, he was always in the shadow of Brax, which isn't good, I do hope though that they give Nate a better story line in the future, because I can't see his marriage with Ricky working, that's what we have in the UK where I live.

 

We have some new characters coming in, the new doctor, and her brothers, who seem to me to be to much like the River boys, but time will tell on that

[Red Ranger 1]

2 hours ago, Jacklost said:

Jake never killed someone innocent? He killed Casey? And Casey  was not a murderer, if you have watched the show for the last 5/6 years you would know that he's the one Braxton who always wanted to do the right thing. He was never like Brax or Heath and Casey shooting Danny was a completely different matter! First off, Danny was a very evil and mean man and he practically forced Casey to shoot him. He never wanted to kill someone and he struggled with it for many weeks after, Jake didn't wanna kill Casey specific but he wanted to kill a Braxton so he's a cold blooded murderer...

And yes what if Josh did that? Charlotte was evil, and as I explained in my other comments. After all the things she did killing her even if it was by an accident was still a good thing. It's always a good thing when a evil and cruel person disappears from the world

And how can you compare Andy to Jake? Andy loved Hannah! And cared so much about Oscar. He would rather take his own life then to let them die

Casey might have had good intentions but he still did the wrong thing on occasion. He'd still spent time in prison, he left a boy disfigured for life and covered it up. Saying that the people Jake and Charlotte killed mattered and that the people Andy and Josh didn't is the first step to becoming a fascist state.If Andy had turned himself in to the police for Jake's murder two years ago, if Josh hadn't given him an alibi, if Jake had hit him instead of Casey... then in all likelihood Hannah and Oscar would still be alive. Instead, Andy put their lives in danger by starting a fight in a dangerous place right near where they were. He spends a few weeks feeling guilty about it then pretty much shrugs his shoulders and gets on with his life

and gets away with killing them, making it seem noble because he's...helping Josh get away with killing someone.

Putting the Barretts in jail, so two dangerous and violent people disappear from the world, would be a good thing, not leaving them free to cause more death and misery in the name of protecting each other.

And yes, I take the point about Kane and Kirsty but that was then and this is now.

The current show has Brax go on the run and get everything he wants as a result.

[Jacklost]

12 minutes ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

Casey might have had good intentions but he still did the wrong thing on occasion. He'd still spent time in prison, he left a boy disfigured for life and covered it up. Saying that the people Jake and Charlotte killed mattered and that the people Andy and Josh didn't is the first step to becoming a fascist state.If Andy had turned himself in to the police for Jake's murder two years ago, if Josh hadn't given him an alibi, if Jake had hit him instead of Casey... then in all likelihood Hannah and Oscar would still be alive. Instead, Andy put their lives in danger by starting a fight in a dangerous place right near where they were. He spends a few weeks feeling guilty about it then pretty much shrugs his shoulders and gets on with his life

  Reveal hidden contents

and gets away with killing them, making it seem noble because he's...helping Josh get away with killing someone.

Putting the Barretts in jail, so two dangerous and violent people disappear from the world, would be a good thing, not leaving them free to cause more death and misery in the name of protecting each other.

And yes, I take the point about Kane and Kirsty but that was then and this is now.

  Reveal hidden contents

The current show has Brax go on the run and get everything he wants as a result.

 

Well at least Casey served jail time and community service for his wrong doings but he was still a kind person and he would never hurt someone on purpose. In my onion he is one of the most dramatic death in any show. Barely beaten by Jack Holden

He left who disfigured?