Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[Gerard]

44 minutes ago, alexx said:

 it feels like the writers are out of touch with real humans and real Australians these days. Every time I watch it now it feels like I'm watching glossy actors (who've been through hair and makeup) acting rather than real people living in a seaside town and that's entirely down to the casting, the way they dress the characters, how they tell the stories, the types of stories they tell and how each individual character is written. If they all talk to each other the same way there's little variety it's just boring to watch.

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,

[Homeandawayfan.]

All the characters are just so one dimensional. The Braxtons, Barretts, and Ash especially. Nate and Ricky are as dull as dishwater. They may show the odd redeeming feature but they are still all one dimensional. Roo, Alf, Palmer and Irene are glorified extras now. That is why I tune in maybe once a week, if that, and after about a minute I switch over. I religiously watch Neighbours as well as the Big 3 UK soaps, Hollyoaks excluded, never watch.

They have toned down the harsh music a bit but the music is still very generic and dull. In mid to late 2015 the show seemed to be turning a huge corner but it soon reverted back to its usual dirge.

[Red Ranger 1]

9 hours ago, Jacklost said:

But Charlotte and Jake was evil while Denny was innocent. Big difference

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.

9 hours ago, Wanderer101 said:

I don't recall the reason people here are ok with Josh and Andy doing bad things is because they like eachother? And I think the difference with me is I don't necessarily care if a cold blooded murderer is killed. I don't condone it or condemn it, I'm just indifferent.

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.

[Homeandawayfan.]

Andy has killed 3 people, one intentionally and 2 by accident. Whether 2 were by accident, he has still killed 3 people!!! In real life he'd get banged up for a very long time, in America he'd get banged up for life without parole.

Perpetrators play the victim all the time, and vilify true victims.

 

[Jacklost]

17 hours ago, Homeandawayfan. said:

Andy has killed 3 people, one intentionally and 2 by accident. Whether 2 were by accident, he has still killed 3 people!!! In real life he'd get banged up for a very long time, in America he'd get banged up for life without parole.

Perpetrators play the victim all the time, and vilify true victims.

 

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

18 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.

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.

Spoiler

At least Andy confessed pretty quick and he was willing to serve time for it, the only reason he escaped was because of Josh

 

[jodlebirger]

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. 

[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.