Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[Skylover]

I do agree with you there are some good moments. But they seem to be 20% of the show rather than 80% like Neighbours.

[Skylover]

9 hours ago, Dan F said:

What's wonderful is everyone's entitled to an opinion. No one would have it any other way. But comments such as: "The whole show is lazy and written as if it's targeting people who are stupid. It doesn't try" is as insulting as it is incorrect. The people who work on Home and Away (and sweat their butts off - 14 hours a day - week in, week out) do so to deliver the highest ratings possible. Because that's the job. Their careers literally depend on it. So there's never a minute they're lazy or not trying.

This is the reality: the television landscape has changed. As I've said before: if the show was made exclusively for the die-hard fans, it would be different. But the die-hard fans alone don't make up the audience base. In fact, the die-hards are an incredibly small portion of the nightly audience. The demographics are changing as viewing habits change, and the show must (as it is) evolve accordingly. It's utterly necessary. AND proving to be the right course of action. In the show's 30th year, it's still a dominant force in its time slot. That's unprecedented in Australia, in any genre.

So, yes, please disagree and offer opinions - but don't moan about the show not trying, or any of the people who work on it. Lucy Addario is one of the best producers I have ever worked with. The comments are verging on bullying.

Per above: opinions on storylines are wonderful. Please continue to deliver them. But character assassinations of the people who make the show are unacceptable.

Thanks Dan.

And thanks to Dan Bennett who sent that reply. I'm sorry if my feelings were hurtful or insulting, I didn't mean anything personal by them - in fact I have a huge amount of respect for Dan Bennett who I think gave an absolutely wonderful interview to BTTB which obviously took a lot of time and showed what a magnanimous and giving character he is, to allow us to really connect with the behind the scenes goings-on. It doesn't change my opinion on current Home and Away but I do have a lot of respect for him and I hope he knows that. Obviously he is not solely responsible for the show's downfalls; as a collaborative process it just doesn't seem to be meshing together. We can assume from Dan's interview that he was very keen on re-introducing diversity including gay characters I presume, and that would have been a massive step in the right direction. It also seems like the Irene story was his idea which was good in theory.

I understand the ratings for the show are the most important thing and I know that is the case - Home and Away is a financial product after all which is being sold to its audience. But what is essentially being said here is that the television industry has changed to the extent that soap operas as a genre are no longer viable in Australia. Home and Away is no longer a soap opera. Rather, a medical and/or crime drama which airs 5 days a week. However, in contrast to Holby City or Casualty, which are set on hospital wards and introduce us to new characters every episode who are admitted to the wards, Home and Away has the same characters go to hospital or get arrested. This is not what I feel the soap genre was intended to be like.

Perhaps Home and Away as a modern product is just not for me anymore and I have to let go of it. Perhaps Australia is just happier to accept mediocre television? Neighbours has mostly always been superior but was ditched by Australians. Maybe this is why Neighbours has essentially become a British soap opera set in Australia - because the UK likes realistic tv, and don't get me wrong, that show has its faults too, but at least they feature non-medical and non-crime related stories as well. 

However, there seems to be a view among those in charge that medical stories and crime = ratings, and nothing else will attract a high amount of viewers. I don't believe that. The less OTT approach hasn't been tried so how would they know? One of the best Australian shows in recent times, Winners & Losers, heavily focused on character above everything else and rarely crime or medical stories. Perhaps I'm mistaken and W&L wasn't as popular as I thought.

As it stands I wouldn't particularly class myself as a die-hard fan. I got back into modern Home and Away in 2006 after the memories it brought me as a child, and watched it non-stop until about 2013, when I began to only watch the occasional episode (I think Evie was involved in a cult at the time that we lost the Walkers). I did come across this forum but by no means am I a die-hard fan. I just have a good knowledge of the show and its characters from reading about them on this forum. I do love this forum though. I do think it's a UK/Australia debate. I would say the general view of H&A is quite different between the countries, with the Australian fanbase obviously loving the OTT nature of the show, which is reflecting in the ratings. I don't hear anyone in the UK talk about the show anymore other than to point out how ridiculous it is now, when they caught a clip of the 2016 plane crash. The UK does have more to compare it to though, as a soap nation - EastEnders, Coronation St, Emmerdale, Hollyoaks and Doctors also thrown into the mix. EastEnders is the only British soap I watch and it can be over the top at times, in fact a lot of the time, but I find, unlike Home and Away, there is a much better mix of storylines. Currently EE has a 47 year old woman in love with a 17 year old, a man who has just had a liver transplant following a year long alcoholism relapse (what Irene's story could have been), a bus crash, 2 sisters drowning, old-age pregnancy and a baby being put up for adoption, 2 young gay characters, a lesbian, a disabled person and people of varying ethnicities, a grown man suffering from severe depression and abandoning his wife for her own sake etc etc.

In contrast Home and Away has the Morgans who moved to the most dangerous place in Australia as part of a witness protection programme, and months and months and months of them being targeted and hunted down. It's exhausting.

Spoiler

Alongside this you have a long-standing character becoming a pyromaniac (with the convenient excuse that he has a brain injury making him do it, I presume). I know this happens and perhaps it would have been good if it wasn't for the overwhelming, suffocating nature of the other very extreme storylines. A comic relief character like Marilyn being used as part of a burns storyline.

A plane crash. I ask this question; are storylines like an old-age pregnant mum deciding to give up her baby for adoption not as gripping as stabbings and families in witness protection? Is Irene realistically having a 3 month alcoholism relapse and needing a liver transplant not as gripping as her son being a psychotic kidnapper? Is it really thought that exploring a variety of issues rather than just crime and lives in danger is not as successful at bringing in audiences?

Are ratings really likely to dwindle if the show is at all lighthearted? This essentially suggests that romantic comedy movies are not relevant anymore - I know soaps are a totally different ballgame, but people the world over go to watch romance movies which generally make people laugh and don't involve a string of people in hospital or committing crimes...that's what action and thriller movies are for. How do these movies manage to achieve such success if there is no room for positivity in the entertainment industry? I know soaps are not the same but the point kind of still stands - that ratings can be achieved by blending lots of styles together. Somehow the current show is attracting decent ratings, but the bigger picture needs to be looked at - will the show still be achieving high ratings in 10 years if it keeps burning itself out? In the short term the show is succeeding, financially, but in order to get people stay it needs to have a human side. It has been taking this OTT approach for 10 years but it has been ramped up to new levels in the last 5 years. That is not a long time. I suppose time will tell. I know nothing will change while the ratings are good so I suppose I'm wasting my breath. But I just want to get it all out and move on from it.

On the plus side I like the actors who play the Morgans, they work very very well together as a unit, and I like the fact that their household features a realistic living arrangement (probably the only one in the bay). Though I would have preferred them to move to the bay just because they wanted to rather than some sinister reason behind it.

Spoiler

In addition to this, despite not being a huge fan of VJ and Billie, I do think her exit episodes were beautifully acted and shot.

One thing you can't fault H&A on is its production values and acting; it has some brilliant actors.

Lastly, I will say I do think the scripts day-to-day are well written. They tend to have an excellent amount of humour in them and lovely one-liners - it's more the over-arching storylines that I have an issue with. If the storylines became more diverse and more engaging rather than the same old medical/crime stuff, the show could be great.

I'd love to know what Dan Bennett thinks about past characters disappearing forever, when they could return and enhance the show.

Once again I apologise if I caused any distress or upset. I am sure that the people who work on the show work very hard, I'm merely pointing out how the show comes across. Ultimately, my words shouldn't cause any ill feeling if the people in charge were confident and happy with the way the show is progressing. But I get the impression the conditions placed upon them (not allowing gay characters - speculation I add) causes a certain amount of disillusion with the craft.

[Blaxland 89]

I don't think a little more aftermath of stories, more characterisation, more humour and diversity, an opening title with a proper theme and some originality is old fashioned and would make the ratings go down. I would never suggest anyone on the show is lazy. Working on a soap must be one of the hardest genres in the industry. However I'm sure there's room for a little bit more imagination surely. If the show is rating well perhaps a bit more care in the storytelling could increase the ratings even further. 

[samdanfan]

19 minutes ago, Blaxland 89 said:

I don't think a little more aftermath of stories, more characterisation, more humour and diversity and some originality is old fashioned and would make the ratings go down. I would never suggest anyone on the show is lazy. Working on a soap must be one of the hardest genres in the industry. However I'm sure there's room for a little bit more imagination surely. If the show is rating well perhaps a bit more care in the storytelling could increase the ratings even further. 

As in life there is always room for improvement. Your right working on a hit show is Hard. as a scifi fan I go to conventions here in America and talked to many actors and some very well known. they discuss the business and being a "star" in the words of one of my American heroes is " Its Not always Sunglasses and Autographs"

Many actors cannot handle that and one reason some are not working now,. I do think sometimes a better word for lazy would be taking the fans for granted as others  have done.Your Right neighbours has it faults yet its moved on to some fun such as what I watched today and to add I see Summer bay turning in MT Thomas as I do watch Blue Heelers.

 

We here in America have accepted Medicore TV as well.

[Conan]

Okay so I haven't posted on this fourm much, but I've been lurking and a fan of this site since I became a Home and Away fan in 2008, and it has helped me out more than you guys can ever know. 

I was a die-hard Home and Away fan from 2008-2013, and just over the years I just simply fell out of love with it. The show felt like it lost it's heart and soul. It was no longer Character driven, it was instead plot driven. The characters were not driving the story, their actions were all revolving around what the next plot point was, and that's what kinda killed the show for me. Do I see my self coming back? YES, I still binge the occasional months worth of episodes from time to time and love every minute of it because lets be real I love this franchise. But I do feel like the show has lost its way and despite having a cast and crew that is hard working, I feel like they are trying to capture an audience that isn't there. 

I don't want the show canceled, but I really wish the producers and the crew would sit down and examine the most popular era's of the show, and figure out a way to modernize that, similar to how Neighbours has within the last few years, and attempt that, vs. whatever mob/plot driven show that it has become. 

I just find it hard in a day and age where character driven dramas are so popular, both critically and ratings wise, we are focusing on some plot driven foolishness... Anyways just kinda my two cents at the moment. Thank you ALL for doing what you do from the cast and crew who work on the show, to the staff that run this site, to all of the posters that give me as a casual lurker something to enjoy reading and keeping up with, you guys help cheer me up when I'm down and I thank you all for that!

[Homeandawayfan.]

You could say Home And Away left our screens years ago (c2008) and what we have now is a new show using an old shows name, one that ties in with H&A and uses their title.

[~Lynd~]

I would never blame the state of a show on a single person however I kinda find it hard to believe that what rates has changed that much when This Is Us is so massive at  the moment.

[cadyctslover]

13 hours ago, Edward Skylover said:

However, there seems to be a view among those in charge that medical stories and crime = ratings, and nothing else will attract a high amount of viewers. I don't believe that. The less OTT approach hasn't been tried so how would they know? One of the best Australian shows in recent times, Winners & Losers, heavily focused on character above everything else and rarely crime or medical stories. Perhaps I'm mistaken and W&L wasn't as popular as I thought.

As it stands I wouldn't particularly class myself as a die-hard fan. I got back into modern Home and Away in 2006 after the memories it brought me as a child, and watched it non-stop until about 2013, when I began to only watch the occasional episode (I think Evie was involved in a cult at the time that we lost the Walkers). I did come across this forum but by no means am I a die-hard fan. I just have a good knowledge of the show and its characters from reading about them on this forum. I do love this forum though. I do think it's a UK/Australia debate. I would say the general view of H&A is quite different between the countries, with the Australian fanbase obviously loving the OTT nature of the show, which is reflecting in the ratings. I don't hear anyone in the UK talk about the show anymore other than to point out how ridiculous it is now, when they caught a clip of the 2016 plane crash. The UK does have more to compare it to though, as a soap nation - EastEnders, Coronation St, Emmerdale, Hollyoaks and Doctors also thrown into the mix. EastEnders is the only British soap I watch and it can be over the top at times, in fact a lot of the time, but I find, unlike Home and Away, there is a much better mix of storylines. Currently EE has a 47 year old woman in love with a 17 year old, a man who has just had a liver transplant following a year long alcoholism relapse (what Irene's story could have been), a bus crash, 2 sisters drowning, old-age pregnancy and a baby being put up for adoption, 2 young gay characters, a lesbian, a disabled person and people of varying ethnicities, a grown man suffering from severe depression and abandoning his wife for her own sake etc etc.

In contrast Home and Away has the Morgans who moved to the most dangerous place in Australia as part of a witness protection programme, and months and months and months of them being targeted and hunted down. It's exhausting.

  Reveal hidden contents

Alongside this you have a long-standing character becoming a pyromaniac (with the convenient excuse that he has a brain injury making him do it, I presume). I know this happens and perhaps it would have been good if it wasn't for the overwhelming, suffocating nature of the other very extreme storylines. A comic relief character like Marilyn being used as part of a burns storyline.

A plane crash. I ask this question; are storylines like an old-age pregnant mum deciding to give up her baby for adoption not as gripping as stabbings and families in witness protection? Is Irene realistically having a 3 month alcoholism relapse and needing a liver transplant not as gripping as her son being a psychotic kidnapper? Is it really thought that exploring a variety of issues rather than just crime and lives in danger is not as successful at bringing in audiences?

Are ratings really likely to dwindle if the show is at all lighthearted? This essentially suggests that romantic comedy movies are not relevant anymore - I know soaps are a totally different ballgame, but people the world over go to watch romance movies which generally make people laugh and don't involve a string of people in hospital or committing crimes...that's what action and thriller movies are for. How do these movies manage to achieve such success if there is no room for positivity in the entertainment industry? I know soaps are not the same but the point kind of still stands - that ratings can be achieved by blending lots of styles together. Somehow the current show is attracting decent ratings, but the bigger picture needs to be looked at - will the show still be achieving high ratings in 10 years if it keeps burning itself out? In the short term the show is succeeding, financially, but in order to get people stay it needs to have a human side. It has been taking this OTT approach for 10 years but it has been ramped up to new levels in the last 5 years. That is not a long time. I suppose time will tell. I know nothing will change while the ratings are good so I suppose I'm wasting my breath. But I just want to get it all out and move on from it.

Great post Edward, and I would love to hear Dan's feedback, especially on the BIB. I too watch EastEnders and also find that it manages to be extremely dramatic and gripping, but with a good mixture of different storyline themes. EE also spend an equal effort on characterisation and don't just focus on plot.

I would like to understand why H&A cannot create these realistic characters and interactions, as well as serve the requirements of its financial backers.

[Homeandawayfan.]

Emmerdale and EastEnders both focus on characterisation as well as plot. Emmerdale does comedy and drama like Neighbours does. H&A did this down to a tee until around 2009. H&A now focuses on plot with a smidgen of characterisation. The Morgans are squeaky clean compared to the Braxtons. I think Emmie and Easties would not be as modern as they are now if it was not for Neighbours and H&A in the 1980s and 1990s making them focus on younger characters and modern stories.

 

[Lila_Q]

I've been watching the show since 2003 when I moved to Australia. There was the time when I loved show more and there was the time when I loved it less. At the beginning I liked that topics covered in the show were relatable, at least most of them. I loved strong community, foster kids, school, family issues, etc. During the course there were a lot of accidents, stalkers, criminals, etc., however in moderation.

I understand that television landscape  has changed and that show must be competitive as well as that ratings are important, but in my opinion that is not the reason to have as unrealistic show as H&A is these days. I don't know any show (and I watch a lot) that killed as many characters as H&A in last 5 years. I lost count. Killing character to boost ratings on the days of character's death and than not to have follow up storyline is just ridicules. Casey's death is good example - he died, Brax went crazy for 2 episodes and as soon as he found out about Ricky's pregnancy it was all over, and when Ash came to the Bay it was as if Casey never existed. Although I bet that producers are beating themselves for killing Casey, because now he is the only Braxton they could not drag back to boost the ratings. Hannah and Oscar are other example, so is Danny. IMO only good follow up was after Charlie's death, seeing both Brax and Ruby grieving.

The other thing is inconsistency with illnesses/ disorders. I know that in 'soap' years they can't have recovery time same as in real life, but Casey started walking after 2 weeks, Nate was ok in a week after falling off the cliff, Leah needed liver transplant one day and the next day she was baking muffins, Irene had cancer for whole 6 days, not to mention Brax's injuries which heal as soon as he gets exposed to the yellow Sun (same as Superman), etc. And not to mention April's OCD, Spencers bipolar disorder and Oscar's eating disorder being completely overlooked. Also, no matter how strong you are, being kidnapped, stabbed or shot would put strain on anyone - no character (that I remember) suffered from PTSD, and all characters were kidnapped at some stage on the show. 

Kyle going to jail for something that he did not do, for someone that he doesn't even know, with explanation that that was because he was introduced as criminal, is just absurd, considering that lately at least 50% of characters were introduced as crooks. Same goes for Josh and Andy. I know that producers and writers work hard to make the show/ and compete, but at this stage it looks like poorly written version of Sons of Anarchy and Criminal Minds. Pack to the Rafters and Winners and Losers were very popular as well.