Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[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.

[sindikatas]

While I have criticized the show myself I do agree that this thread is turning into broken record.

[Slade]

On 22/02/2017 at 7:44 PM, Dan F said:

Anyway, Dan Bennett has been reading the thread (yes, TPTB do read the comments on here) and would like to offer up the following response:

Thank you very much for posting this.  I can't imagine how hard it must be produce a show or write storylines constantly every week whilst trying to keep it entertaining to the point to ensure the ratings are sufficiently high.  I'm not surprised the "die-hard fans" represent a small portion of the nightly audience and are the most vocal when it comes to criticising the show.  And I think other people who enjoy the show or simply think it's OK tend not to say as much.

 

Just now, sindikatas said:

While I have criticized the show myself I do agree that this thread is turning into broken record.

Agreed.  I don't like the idea of censoring people so for that reason posters should be able to criticise the show but a lot of these comments are not adding anything new.  It seems to be the same set of posters bumping this thread every so often saying the show should go back to it's roots, the crime element, the lack of diversity, insufficient character development  etc.

[Skylover]

2 hours ago, dee123 said:

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.

Yeah, sorry, you have a point there. I just meant that Hollyoaks is another show which tends to hire people based on looks and is story-driven in nature rather than character-driven, though of course it's a lot more modern than H&A and more inclusive.

3 minutes ago, Slade said:

I don't like the idea of censoring people so for that reason posters should be able to criticise the show but a lot of these comments are not adding anything new.  It seems to be the same set of posters bumping this thread every so often saying the show should go back to it's roots, the crime element, the lack of diversity, insufficient character development  etc.

Perhaps. I've pretty much written everything I wanted to say in those long posts so I probably won't need to harp on any longer

[Bobby Forever Missed]

52 minutes ago, Slade said:

 

Agreed.  I don't like the idea of censoring people so for that reason posters should be able to criticise the show but a lot of these comments are not adding anything new.  It seems to be the same set of posters bumping this thread every so often saying the show should go back to it's roots, the crime element, the lack of diversity, insufficient character development  etc.

So haters can't have an opinion? that too is a broken record someone criticises the show and others in this thread moan and whinge about it