Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[Gerard]

2 minutes ago, c120701 said:

The difference was they were a catalyst for a story rather than the entire story itself. 

Exactly. The "bad guys" were usually guest cast, not regulars, and normally the wrong-doers got their comeuppance in the end. Unlike these days where main characters literally get away with murder, and are rarely even condemned by anyone.

[Homeandawayfan.]

Take Robert Perez. Robbie Perez was soon apprehended and jailed for kidnapping Gypsy. If that was today he would kidnap someone, kill 4 people, shoot a plane down and still be walking free and serving drink in the diner.

[emmasi]

6 hours ago, Homeandawayfan. said:

Take Robert Perez. Robbie Perez was soon apprehended and jailed for kidnapping Gypsy. If that was today he would kidnap someone, kill 4 people, shoot a plane down and still be walking free and serving drink in the diner.

That's ridiculous. He'd be serving drinks at Salt

 

[dee123]

On 24/09/2016 at 11:11 AM, Luke39 said:

Times change, so format has. The innocent, sweet home and away of past years, is gone. They have gone to far. I actually think Home and Away is pretty good right now, best it has been in a while. But that is just me. I Think Nostalgia can paint a certain picture, probably the case 15 years from now, prob be saying how amazing Home and Away was in 2016 haha. 

That was never really H&A, what are you talking about?

[Luke39]

3 hours ago, dee123 said:

That was never really H&A, what are you talking about?

Was in the early years, had an innocent about it. I don't think anything about current H and A is innocent. Seeing how crime driven it is. 

[dee123]

40 minutes ago, Luke39 said:

Was in the early years, had an innocent about it. I don't think anything about current H and A is innocent. Seeing how crime driven it is. 

I guess. Neighbours was almost Brady Bunch levels of innocence for a time. H&A never was.

[Luke39]

1 hour ago, dee123 said:

I guess. Neighbours was almost Brady Bunch levels of innocence for a time. H&A never was.

Oh yeah I diddn't mean H and A was innocent, and that was its only dimension. Guess should of been a bit more clear. H and A compared to neighbours around 1989-2001. Had a lot more layers. The human condition. The Good and the Bad, and the ugly. H and A these days is mostly the bad heh. 

[CaptainHulk]

2 hours ago, dee123 said:

I guess. Neighbours was almost Brady Bunch levels of innocence for a time. 

Have to disagree. In its first season references to Sex (Scott/Kim Taylor even though nothing happened), Prostitution, Alcoholism (Carol Brown) and even gunplay (Terry's ex turning over the Pacific bank and later holding her and Shane hostage and let's not forget Terry later shooting Paul). There was even a freaking stripper! (Daphne even though she was never seen in anything less than Lingerie )

 It was initially a more mature product but was not enough to hold interest, leading to its initially cancellation. However, when they decided to skew young (rolling out characters like Clive, Mike, Charlene etc), they made it lighter. The only reason Neighbours came off "soft" over here is in the mid-90s a lot of stuff got butchered (the tamest things)

 

[Homeandawayfan.]

H&A was more like the EastEnders of Oz and Neighbours the Corrie of Oz but H&A and EE (more so H&A) were never depressing, just grittier. But sometimes Neighbours could be more like EE and H&A more like Corrie.

[Matt]

1 hour ago, Homeandawayfan. said:

H&A was more like the EastEnders of Oz and Neighbours the Corrie of Oz but H&A and EE (more so H&A) were never depressing, just grittier. But sometimes Neighbours could be more like EE and H&A more like Corrie.

I'd tend to agree here. I find that H&A, whilst at times (in the past, not now in my opinion) overly violent, has never really been boring. Whereas I go through periods of watching Neighbours drag on for half an hour with no real development. No matter whether you like the show's current format or not, H&A is never boring.