Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[Red Ranger 1]

I'm...not entirely in agreement about Stu.I take the point of there being a cycle of violence but Stu was responsible for his own actions.He put Sasha through hell for a long time, not just physical abuse but mental as well, threatening to hurt himself if she ended the relationship.I'm not saying he deserved to get beaten up or to die, but he brought his fate on himself just as much as Jake and Charlotte.As I recall, Sid was the only witness to his latest assault on Sasha (which mostly consisted of closed fist punches if memory serves me correct), otherwise he was very careful to do it in private and play the doting boyfriend in public.Stu would have gone to jail but he decided to attack Sasha again and it...didn't go well for him. And I realise that these days I'm slaughtering other characters for doing similar things to what Sasha did, but she was far more of a victim than the Barretts, who also brought their fate on themselves.All she did was fall in love with the wrong person.

The rest of it...hmm. I get that it's something that divides people down the middle but to me Andy is the person in the caravan park explosion who can least be termed a victim, he did the damage then left others to be hurt or killed. Ruby...well, despite her last scene somehow becoming all about Brax, she was dealt with reasonably sympathetically. Apart from April (who was a self-righteous cow about it but then she often was very irritating), I don't think anyone really condemned her actions and most of them did seem to show at least token remorse over how things ended up.

[Luke39]

8 hours ago, Jacklost said:

Still he can't be blamed for her death, no one can predict things like that happening

True, but Jake, it all was part of Brax's world. I am not saying Brax was soley responsible. But if Charlie was never part of Brax's world. Things like Jake coming into the picture was a manisfestation of his world. Therefore he loaded the gun. 

5 hours ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

I'm...not entirely in agreement about Stu.I take the point of there being a cycle of violence but Stu was responsible for his own actions.He put Sasha through hell for a long time, not just physical abuse but mental as well, threatening to hurt himself if she ended the relationship.I'm not saying he deserved to get beaten up or to die, but he brought his fate on himself just as much as Jake and Charlotte.As I recall, Sid was the only witness to his latest assault on Sasha (which mostly consisted of closed fist punches if memory serves me correct), otherwise he was very careful to do it in private and play the doting boyfriend in public.Stu would have gone to jail but he decided to attack Sasha again and it...didn't go well for him. And I realise that these days I'm slaughtering other characters for doing similar things to what Sasha did, but she was far more of a victim than the Barretts, who also brought their fate on themselves.All she did was fall in love with the wrong person.

The rest of it...hmm. I get that it's something that divides people down the middle but to me Andy is the person in the caravan park explosion who can least be termed a victim, he did the damage then left others to be hurt or killed. Ruby...well, despite her last scene somehow becoming all about Brax, she was dealt with reasonably sympathetically. Apart from April (who was a self-righteous cow about it but then she often was very irritating), I don't think anyone really condemned her actions and most of them did seem to show at least token remorse over how things ended up.

I think since 2010. Alot of the well meaning characters who do rash things, get slaughtered. But alot of the characters who are more prone to do bad stuff. Get Free Passes like Brax. I mean Casey put Sasha through the same kinda hell, slept with her, used her. But were susposed to feel sorry for him. Oscar, as much as I advocated Matt and Maddy. Was uneccessarily put through the mud. And came across as the bad guy, which I thought was cruel. They keep doing things when a storyline could just organically decay. Throwing in abuse, cheating e.t.c. Is just not neccessary. H and A has had this sense of danger for a long time.  

[jodlebirger]

There were a lot of witnesses to Stu slapping Sasha. And remember several others tried to stop Sid. Roo was one of them, and it led to her breaking up with Sid. 

I am always wondering why some here think that if you have a behaviour problem because of what happens in your childhood and youth, you are a criminal and is never going to change and don't deserve any support but to be put away to rot in a jail. Of course they need to be punished for their actions, a bad childhood is an explanation not an excuse. But they also need to get some help and understanding, so they can move on.  I feel the cases with Stu/Sasha and Tank/Evie had something in common. But Stu's case was even far worse, living in that house with an abusive father.  And he was younger (at least looked younger). 

Sasha fell in love with the wrong person, but she really did more than that... She didn't listen to her dad or other around her. And when things went badly, she didn't tell others about it. Yes, women who gets abused tend to be afraid of telling others about it. In a way it was understandable, she was young but on the other hand she did have a good family. It is not an excuse for what she did and didn't do. Young girls (and boys) need to learn how to take care of themselves.

But the real "criminal" in this was Sid. He was the adult one, he was a respected doctor - and could easily have gone to the police. Instead he decided it was better to beat that boy half to dead without thinking about the consequences for the boy or for his own family.  And that destroyed Sid as a character. A loving father and a respected doctor isn't doing things like that. Not at all. There are no excuses for what he did. I found it hard to belive in Sid as a character after that. For me the fuss about Sid's involvement in the Romeo cancer case was quite strange. Because the case about Stu was far worse. 

[Luke39]

1 hour ago, jodlebirger said:

There were a lot of witnesses to Stu slapping Sasha. And remember several others tried to stop Sid. Roo was one of them, and it led to her breaking up with Sid. 

I am always wondering why some here think that if you have a behaviour problem because of what happens in your childhood and youth, you are a criminal and is never going to change and don't deserve any support but to be put away to rot in a jail. Of course they need to be punished for their actions, a bad childhood is an explanation not an excuse. But they also need to get some help and understanding, so they can move on.  I feel the cases with Stu/Sasha and Tank/Evie had something in common. But Stu's case was even far worse, living in that house with an abusive father.  And he was younger (at least looked younger). 

Sasha fell in love with the wrong person, but she really did more than that... She didn't listen to her dad or other around her. And when things went badly, she didn't tell others about it. Yes, women who gets abused tend to be afraid of telling others about it. In a way it was understandable, she was young but on the other hand she did have a good family. It is not an excuse for what she did and didn't do. Young girls (and boys) need to learn how to take care of themselves.

But the real "criminal" in this was Sid. He was the adult one, he was a respected doctor - and could easily have gone to the police. Instead he decided it was better to beat that boy half to dead without thinking about the consequences for the boy or for his own family.  And that destroyed Sid as a character. A loving father and a respected doctor isn't doing things like that. Not at all. There are no excuses for what he did. I found it hard to belive in Sid as a character after that. For me the fuss about Sid's involvement in the Romeo cancer case was quite strange. Because the case about Stu was far worse. 

Yeah I agree. Clinically Stu had a bad childhood. And their was explanation their. Sid was a grown man. And as far I could tell did not have an abusive background. He was a womanizer. And he beat Stu half to death. I understand he was protecting Sasha. But Sid took it too far. So I think Stu was the victim in all of this. And I Think people who watch this show, need to stop passing off Young Teens as Psychos. Even Hunter now. 

[Red Ranger 1]

1 hour ago, jodlebirger said:

There were a lot of witnesses to Stu slapping Sasha. And remember several others tried to stop Sid. Roo was one of them, and it led to her breaking up with Sid. 

But the real "criminal" in this was Sid. He was the adult one, he was a respected doctor - and could easily have gone to the police. Instead he decided it was better to beat that boy half to dead without thinking about the consequences for the boy or for his own family.  And that destroyed Sid as a character. A loving father and a respected doctor isn't doing things like that. Not at all. There are no excuses for what he did. I found it hard to belive in Sid as a character after that. For me the fuss about Sid's involvement in the Romeo cancer case was quite strange. Because the case about Stu was far worse. 

There were no witnesses to Stu slapping Sasha.If there had been, Sid wouldn't have been able to get as far as he did: When other people turned up, after Sasha ran to get help, they pulled him off him straightaway.Yes, what Sid did was wrong.But I'm not willing to write him off because of it.I don't like this idea that if a teen does something wrong then we should all feel sorry for them and make excuses for them but if adult does something wrong then they deserve to die.It was an immediate reaction, a moment of madness, that Sid regretted immediately.Others did as bad or worse (*cough*Aden to Axel*) with far less consequences but people just make excuses for them.

Hunter is a psycho and the fact that the show's trying to pretend he isn't and having everyone in favour of him shagging an abuse victim is one of the things that is destroying it for me.There is no way that prior to 2008 an ill-meaning character like him would have been written at all sympathetically.

[Wanderer101]

I think people go easier on teenagers sometimes because their brains are literally still forming, and their brains aren't as rational or mature as an adult. I'm not saying this fact grants them the right to do what they want, but I think it should at least be considered when analyzing teenage behaviour.

[Luke39]

Why does Stu or Tank get Sympathy but not Hunter? I am not having a go, I Am geniunely asking. I mean I know it all started in 2008-2009 when Aden got Sympathy. Point is back then they had background and psychology to the writing. They explored Aden's background, and his relationship with his Father. With Hunter, we know his relationship with his Mother. But beyond that, no explanation. 

[dee123]

This thread stopped being about what it's title is like 10 pages ago.

[Luke39]

Are the Current Producers Ruining Home and Away? Short Answer Too early too tell. Complete Answer: Probably. 

[Wanderer101]

45 minutes ago, dee123 said:

This thread stopped being about what it's title is like 10 pages ago.

Idk about that, because sometimes this thread goes into specific discussions (right now about teenagers behaviour) which has to do with what some view as what could be ruining the show.