Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[~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.

[samdanfan]

2 hours ago, Homeandawayfan. said:

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.

True

1 hour ago, ~Lynd~ said:

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.

There is alot of blame to go around. Its not the fault of one person yet when you built something around one character and something happens it changes things sometimes not for the good

44 minutes ago, Lila_Q said:

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.

Im not happy with Poorly written shows either. Being unrealistic I think many accept as long as their favorite character  around as many fans would like to see their hero get screen time?  That how I feel. I am not a fan of reality shows and violent crime actions and I dislike Pack to the Rafters for other reasons

[LondonF4]

Catching up on this strand after a long absence.  The thing I don't understand from these comments is that the justication for the current tone is ratings - but are the ratings good in Australia?  I would think not given the information available on websites like tvtonight.com.au (well worth a look btw).  H&A is on the top channel but it usually comes third in its time slot every night after news programmes.  It also seems to lose a huge number of viewers from the show before it.  Often the ratings lift again for the show after it.  From a TV station point of view that is a sign that a show is doing very badly and I think it has for some time.  I don't know exact numbers here but it can't ge good as H&A seldom appears in Five's Top 30 shows of the week whereas Neighbours does.  So where is the evidence that the crime and death merry-go-round of plot lines actually make the viewership go up?

[Matt]

2 minutes ago, LondonF4 said:

Catching up on this strand after a long absence.  The thing I don't understand from these comments is that the justication for the current tone is ratings - but are the ratings good in Australia?  I would think not given the information available on websites like tvtonight.com.au (well worth a look btw).  H&A is on the top channel but it usually comes third in its time slot every night after news programmes.  It also seems to lose a huge number of viewers from the show before it.  Often the ratings lift again for the show after it.  From a TV station point of view that is a sign that a show is doing very badly and I think it has for some time.  I don't know exact numbers here but it can't ge good as H&A seldom appears in Five's Top 30 shows of the week whereas Neighbours does.  So where is the evidence that the crime and death merry-go-round of plot lines actually make the viewership go up?

What the general public, however, doesn't see is the online ratings. Home & Away is the #1 most watched online series in Australia. I'm currently at university and due to social events and study, I can't watch it at 7pm so I have to watch it online.

[LondonF4]

Just now, Matt said:

What the general public, however, doesn't see is the online ratings. Home & Away is the #1 most watched online series in Australia. I'm currently at university and due to social events and study, I can't watch it at 7pm so I have to watch it online.

Where is it possible to find online ratings?  Do they really increase the shows viewing enough to put ahead of competitors?  I stand corrected if that's the case in Australia but presumably in the UK the ratings for Neighbours would get a similar boost and it would still be in front total wise.

[Luke39]

From what I read the Billie Baby storyline has increased viewership in OZ. I don't think UK matters. It's an Australian show. I know this is genrerally a bitch and moan thread lol. Let's be honest about that. But I think H and A is pretty good ATM. Best it's been in a few years.

[dee123]

Completely disagree that H&A has become an Aussie version of Hollyoaks. I watch Hollyoaks. HO has had gay, transgender and all different races of people over it's 20+ years and has never not featured them or treated them as token characters left on the sidelines. They have the same ups and downs and everyone else. Sure it can be as camp as hell at times but that's not a bad thing.