Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[samdanfan]

15 hours ago, Luke39 said:

I still think H and A is more watchable then Neighbores. Technically Neighbors is superior. But I still enjoy H and A more. But I don't think h and a being more like Underbelly, is a reason why it's bad imo. The content is fine. It's the current format. I mean theirs clearly a majority of the audience who loved the Braxtons. And their is prob a majority of the audience who enjoy the Morgans stuff. It may may not be traditional. If your a nostalgic. But it's popular with a large proportion of the audience. I guess it's just one persons individual interpretation end of the day.

I love to recreate the magic of 80s era Aussie TV. To that end IF new characters were created for the bay here what I suggest.

A family moves to the bay and in a twist has NO issues. The father is a Doctor who wanted to get out of the city and he has 2 girls one 12 and one 16 both who would be at the high school. His wife who  from a previous relationship has a 2 grown sons both who take jobs in the bay. It be nice to have a happy family trying to fit into a new town.

 

My only issue Im torn between casting whether it be icons or do as many are doing now and bring in unknowns?

[cadyctslover]

I think in the modern television climate they fear introducing characters that don't have some sort of mysterious, dark secret. They feel (quite rightly) that viewers need to be immediately gripped by the new characters. However I find it infinitely more interesting and watchable when these characters are introduced with realistic family issues such as infidelity in the parents (Walkers), and children bored in their new countryside home and missing the city (Walkers and Sutherlands).

Witness Protection, cult or gang involvement as a backstory doesn't do it for me in the slightest. But these themes have come up again and again in recent times.

[samdanfan]

4 hours ago, cadyctslover said:

I think in the modern television climate they fear introducing characters that don't have some sort of mysterious, dark secret. They feel (quite rightly) that viewers need to be immediately gripped by the new characters. However I find it infinitely more interesting and watchable when these characters are introduced with realistic family issues such as infidelity in the parents (Walkers), and children bored in their new countryside home and missing the city (Walkers and Sutherlands).

Witness Protection, cult or gang involvement as a backstory doesn't do it for me in the slightest. But these themes have come up again and again in recent times.

Yes as a former source in melbounre told me they like to see conflict and many actors enjoy playing the bad role.

Your right I do not see the trend changing it be nice though to have a happy ending and a as you said its realistic bring city kids to live in the bay which I hope never goes out of style.

 

[Homeandawayfan.]

Al Bateman based H&A on that very thing, city kids being moved to a remote Australian town from Sydney, and being placed in a foster home.

[samdanfan]

3 hours ago, Homeandawayfan. said:

Al Bateman based H&A on that very thing, city kids being moved to a remote Australian town from Sydney, and being placed in a foster home.

And since it worked so well why change it.

[samdanfan]

Like a Bloke told me you always find you typical Hottie yet what I cant find is an Angel of Bobby from the past. I agree with him we should given new characters a chance yet part of me will always love the old days.

 

 

[joany208121]

I have always thought that the heart and soul of the show was the fostering aspect, and that the show wouldn't survive forever unless it continued with the successful path of taking in waif and stray kids and turning them from troubled teens to mature adults. 

But is that really the case? What if all the show needs is a "central family" like the Sutherlands or Fletcher-Saunders family or MacGuire-Patterson-Baker Clan to be the focus, with the ensemble cast having professions or relations that require constant interaction with the main family. 

Or do you think that more than one family is required to maintain balance and to allow a comparison of situations to be created, like the Ross/Stewarts families did in their time. 

 

[samdanfan]

1 hour ago, joany208121 said:

I have always thought that the heart and soul of the show was the fostering aspect, and that the show wouldn't survive forever unless it continued with the successful path of taking in waif and stray kids and turning them from troubled teens to mature adults. 

But is that really the case? What if all the show needs is a "central family" like the Sutherlands or Fletcher-Saunders family or MacGuire-Patterson-Baker Clan to be the focus, with the ensemble cast having professions or relations that require constant interaction with the main family. 

Or do you think that more than one family is required to maintain balance and to allow a comparison of situations to be created, like the Ross/Stewarts families did in their time. 

 

Yes I love to see that one good family or character that would make people say wow or become Sons and daughters as one source once told me she was a fan of.

[Luke39]

I think when your being nostalgic, you tend to wear rose tinted glasses. And compare to the past a lot. Specifically in this thread. And the past show and characters. But was the past that better, then it is now? Traditionally yes. But it seems the format right now is fitting a more modern age of Home and Away. So I think they have abandoned their roots. Particularly the Fostering. So love too see that return this year. Saw sort of with Maddy and Spencer. But like to see big focus on that this season. But my point is. Technically H and A right now for what it is. It's watchable. Okay 2016 was not the best year.  Not the worst though. But I guess it's all based on your level of investment. If you started watching post 2010. When the show drifted. Maybe you wouldent notice a difference. If your a long term fan, clearly you would. 

As for the family aspect. I don't think they need to centre the show around one family. Like they did with Pippa etc. Back in the late 80s, early 90s. I think he good if Duncan returned. And they centred the show around The Stewart's. But balance is what's needed. I just want to see everyday Aussie lifestyle and culture portrayed. A new family been introduced this year be good. Not since the Walkers. Other then the Morgans had one. And be nice contrast to The Morgans. Have an every day Aussie Family.

[sindikatas]

I disagree. 80s and 90s certainly didn't have as many ridiculous and unbelievable storylines as the current show does. Take Pippa and Michael's seperation for example. In the current show they would probably go to ONE counselling session and that would be it. Like a magic cure. Then there's an actual comparison with Dale and Rocco an their respective cot deaths. How is it more modern that a baby has to be rushed to hospital every week and die from something completely unrelated? Then that horrible casting of VJ. If Bobby had an accident now, she would wake up from being brain dead. Of course those eras had their weak spots. For example writing characters in their 20s as if they were in their 40s. But what I'm complaining about is not flimic look or crime aspect. I'm complaining about lazy writing. I do not enjoy being treated as an idiot by the writers.