Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[Bobby Forever Missed]

Just now, sindikatas said:

And I'm allowed to have a whinge.

And those of us who don't like the crime/teens jumping into bed crap are allowed to say so no matter how many times okay? good glad that's sorted

[sindikatas]

2 minutes ago, Bobby Forever Missed said:

And those of us who don't like the crime/teens jumping into bed crap are allowed to say so no matter how many times okay? good glad that's sorted

I'm not banning you from saying anything. I'm criticising. There's a difference.

[Bobby Forever Missed]

Just now, sindikatas said:

I'm not banning you from saying anything. I'm criticising. There's a difference.

and i'm criticising you for having a shot at me i was perfectly willing to let this drop with my last post you realise......

[Slade]

Just now, Bobby Forever Missed said:

But those ARE the main points wrong with the show!

In your OPINION.

 

Just now, Bobby Forever Missed said:

so in a way telling us not to discuss them IS censoring!

I'm not telling anyone not to discuss anything.  I'm saying that it's repetitive. This isn't a case of criticising something once or twice.    I'm pointing out something that I suspect quite a few people are already thinking.  Since the threads inception the criminal element and character development in particular have been mentioned continuously.  Now I accept these are legitimate points to make but I do believe some of these people are aware that nothing is going to change anytime in the foreseeable if at all yet they still bring up these points.  Now that's their right but even in Dan Bennett's quote he acknowledges that the "die-hard fans" are a minority so what do the producers have to gain by changing the current format of the show to suit them? So again I'm not telling anyone not to criticise the show.  That's down to the individual poster but if people are allowed to bring up the same points then surely the comments should be available for criticism which includes pointing out that they are doing this. BTW there is actually a rule against this "14) No spamming is to be tolerated in ANY part of the forum. What we define spamming as:.....Posts that for some reason don’t add anything to the ongoing discussion (i.e. posts that express the same opinion repetitively in various topics)".  I do think it's grey area because if someone hasn't watched the show in months, watches an episode and they still don't think anything has changed then that's understandable.

[cadyctslover]

7 hours ago, Luke39 said:

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.

Balanced and well-informed as ever. Good thing if the UK viewership doesn't matter, because the ratings here stink (why is that?...) Online may be a different matter.

What's C5's financial contribution to the show again? 

[Skylover]

I don't understand where this view comes from that only die-hard fans criticise the current show? Actually quite a lot of lapsed viewers laugh at the show and it's current state in the UK, not just the die-hard ones.

Good thing if the UK's opinion doesn't matter because Home and Away is virtually non-existent in the UK now. But once the Aus ratings do start to decline again, I bet the UK will matter again then. It might be too late at that point.

[Gerard]

I wonder how many viewers from the 80's are still loving the show right now? I guess the point is, it doesn't really matter! TV shows these days on commercial channels have only one real mission - to maximise ratings, so series are not made for the fans, but for as broad an appeal as possible.

Perhaps if H&A had remained how it was, it might have been axed by now, so it has been forced to evolve to stay on air. H&A's target audience is not the long term nostalgic viewer (after all most of us who have watched for this long will continue to watch no matter how awful it gets!), but rather it is trying to capture the current trend for big event based programming, where reality takes second place to an exciting story. Basically whatever pulls in the viewers. However once viewing figures start falling (as viewers grow bored of the endless cycle of life and death situations), where do you go from there? The high drama certainly isn't putting in viewers in UK. For ratings from two weeks ago, H&A's top episode pulled in 610K viewers (scraping into the Channel 5 Top 30), which was just over half of what the top rated Neighbours episode got. So I don't think it could be called a ratings success in the UK. How low do ratings have to fall before Channel 5 decide they need to pay less for it?

 

[dee123]

Hmm... I wonder how many of these people who think this thread is just repeating itself are straight and white? Having one of your favourite shows basically ignore parts of society for 30 years is taxing to say the least. But it's annoying that some here don't get that frustration.

Or don't want to.

[Slade]

5 hours ago, Edward Skylover said:

I don't understand where this view comes from that only die-hard fans criticise the current show? Actually quite a lot of lapsed viewers laugh at the show and it's current state in the UK, not just the die-hard ones.

When did I say ONLY "die-hard fans" criticised the show?  In my posts I mentioned them in reference to Dan Bennett because he was the one who brought them up.  Hence the reason why I put them in quotes.  The impression I get from this particular thread is that the "die-hard" fans are some of the most vocal critics.  Of course it's not exclusively "die-hard fans" criticising the show and it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.  Does this really need to be pointed out?

 

Just now, dee123 said:

Hmm... I wonder how many of these people who think this thread is just repeating itself are straight and white? Having one of your favourite shows basically ignore parts of society for 30 years is taxing to say the least. But it's annoying that some here don't get that frustration.

Or don't want to.

You forgot to add the male part after the straight and white.  Isn't that the usual three?  Straight white male.  So what are you suggesting here?  That people who don't agree with you must be racist or homophobic (sexist if you add the male part too).  Is this just another way to try and shame people who don't share your opinion?.  BTW this is the umpteenth time diversity has been mentioned on this thread.  Repeating yourself yet again.  Although you are kind of contradicting yourself here too.  This thread is about the producers ruining Home and Away but you claim that for 30 years a certain section of society has been ignored.  So in effect you are saying there's been no diversity on the show.  So tell me Dee if there's been no diversity on the show how can not having it be ruining it?

Perhaps you should take the comment and move it to the diversity thread!

[harrietjames]

Of course if we look through out the forum separate to this thread and notice which parts viewers say the like and dislike for example Chris' exit was well liked, Josh and Andy's wasn't based on viewers posts. The former is old school home and away, the later is the "new and improved" that this thread is lamenting.