Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[Skylover]

7 hours ago, Slade said:

When did I say ONLY "die-hard fans" criticised the show?

I wasn't actually referring to you directly. But it's all been implied in various posts.

'Die hard fans' are supposedly a minority and it's assumed that changing the format would only be because of their complaints, implying they are the only ones who don't like the format. It's just not the case.

It doesn't matter anymore as soon I'll one of those people who fall into the category of 'former viewer' so my comments will be irrelevant.

[Gerard]

11 hours ago, Slade said:

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. 

On that note, H&A could be considered to have an inconsistent or negative attitude when it comes to representing certain parts of modern society, but I don't think it could ever be accused of representing women in a negative light (I'm not suggesting this is the point you're making). H&A has had many strong female characters over the years who really have led the way, e.g. Pippa, Ailsa, Sally, Leah, Irene, Marilyn, Morag, Bobby, Roo... the list goes on and on. I would tend to think that the series has actually had much stronger and positive female than male characters in general over the years. If anything, I think more male characters have been represented as shallow, flawed and weak (not forgetting that the majority of "villains" have been men).

But is diversity (or lack of it) actually actively "ruining" the show? I don't know. It is an issue, but I don't think it's the main issue why the series is being "ruined". Given how crime-ridden Summer Bay is, if they brought in new characters (from whatever background) chances are they'd be represented negatively, which would probably be more damaging for the show than ignoring the issue altogether.

[Bobby Forever Missed]

2 hours ago, Gerard said:

On that note, H&A could be considered to have an inconsistent or negative attitude when it comes to representing certain parts of modern society, but I don't think it could ever be accused of representing women in a negative light (I'm not suggesting this is the point you're making). H&A has had many strong female characters over the years who really have led the way, e.g. Pippa, Ailsa, Sally, Leah, Irene, Marilyn, Morag, Bobby, Roo... the list goes on and on. I would tend to think that the series has actually had much stronger and positive female than male characters in general over the years. If anything, I think more male characters have been represented as shallow, flawed and weak (not forgetting that the majority of "villains" have been men).

But is diversity (or lack of it) actually actively "ruining" the show? I don't know. It is an issue, but I don't think it's the main issue why the series is being "ruined". Given how crime-ridden Summer Bay is, if they brought in new characters (from whatever background) chances are they'd be represented negatively, which would probably be more damaging for the show than ignoring the issue altogether.

What gets more up my nose is that there hasn't been a permanent cast member with a physical disability/Wheelchair in nearly 30 years (and don't give me the set restriction/sets are too narrow crap either! Prisoner managed to have two physically disabled characters 30 years ago and that set would have been MUCH worse!)

[Slade]

2 hours ago, Gerard said:

On that note, H&A could be considered to have an inconsistent or negative attitude when it comes to representing certain parts of modern society, but I don't think it could ever be accused of representing women in a negative light (I'm not suggesting this is the point you're making). H&A has had many strong female characters over the years who really have led the way, e.g. Pippa, Ailsa, Sally, Leah, Irene, Marilyn, Morag, Bobby, Roo... the list goes on and on. I would tend to think that the series has actually had much stronger and positive female than male characters in general over the years. If anything, I think more male characters have been represented as shallow, flawed and weak (not forgetting that the majority of "villains" have been men).

But is diversity (or lack of it) actually actively "ruining" the show? I don't know. It is an issue, but I don't think it's the main issue why the series is being "ruined". Given how crime-ridden Summer Bay is, if they brought in new characters (from whatever background) chances are they'd be represented negatively, which would probably be more damaging for the show than ignoring the issue altogether.

I appreciate the response.  The reason why I threw the word 'male' in there as well is because these three terms have been used in this thread before and it's something I've seen in numerous places besides this forum.  IMO people will often use these separately or in conjunction as a way to discredit people who simply offer a different point of view.  Some of them don't even have to mention the "ist" or "ic" terms, just saying you are a straight white male is enough to imply one or all of the three.  And it has reached the point where if someone says you are a straight white male it is often synonymous with being viewed as sexist and or racist/homophobic.  It's a way IMO to force compliance and make anything said by the individual from that point onwards completely null and void.  Unless there is overwhelming evidence to suggest any level of prejudice using these terms is counter productive because once they are used all the time it makes them effectively become meaningless and does a genuine disservice when someone really is a victim.

I agree that females aren't a problem in this show.  But not everybody here sees it that way judging from some of the comments I've read e.g. some female characters are portrayed purely as love interests.  Now that's fine and that's their opinion but I don't think the male characters are particularly seen in a positive light either.  Back to the whole crime thing again.  The issue is IMO that some of the male characters are often given a free pass because they're hot.  I'm not judging people for this and again I think this is absolutely fine but I do think this is relevant because a lot of people here react to how certain segments of the forum on aggregate view certain characters.  It's obviously not all posters but when you have people making allowances for some characters but sticking the boot into others some people will often look to the writing where I feel more often than not it's frustration at the double-standards portrayed by some.

I mentioned diversity because it is very frequently brought into this thread.  I don't think it's relevant here because I'm not sure H & A really has had diversity.  So as mentioned in my last post if you haven't had something to begin with then how can not having it be ruining the show - This is the subject of this thread.  I think it was very wise whoever started the Diversity thread separately.  Personally I'm not against it in H & A but I don't care much for it either.  Why?  Not because of racism/sexism/homophobia but because I experience it in other soaps - Hollyoaks, Emmerdale, Coronation St and even Neighbours.  What would be interesting to know is if some of the "die-hard" fans had a choice of going back to the golden days of H & A with no diversity or keeping the current format and introducing diversity which would they choose?  I suspect the former but I can't be 100% sure.

[Skylover]

13 minutes ago, Slade said:

I mentioned diversity because it is very frequently brought into this thread.  I don't think it's relevant here because I'm not sure H & A really has had diversity.  So as mentioned in my last post if you haven't had something to begin with then how can not having it be ruining the show - This is the subject of this thread.  I think it was very wise whoever started the Diversity thread separately.  Personally I'm not against it in H & A but I don't care much for it either.  Why?  Not because of racism/sexism/homophobia but because I experience it in other soaps - Hollyoaks, Emmerdale, Coronation St and even Neighbours.

Interesting points raised.

Personally I think diversity should be mentioned again and again because it is an issue which has plagued the show for a very long time and continues to do so. It will probably cease to be mentioned once the issue has been fixed. Its lack of diversity is one of the issues ruining the show because as you say, every other soap features gay characters and/or racially diverse characters. In 1988 I imagine it was a lot more controversial to feature gay characters.  It isn't 1988 anymore. It's 2017, an era where gay people are universally accepted in the mainstream. The fact Home and Away doesn't feature gay characters implies that it has an homophobic agenda, which has been backed up by an quite a lot of evidence. That's why its absence partly ruins the show but didn't back in the day. The producers obviously want ethnically diverse actors in the show as we have people like Justin and Mason, yet their origin as far as I'm aware has never been explicitly stated on screen.

Quote

What would be interesting to know is if some of the "die-hard" fans had a choice of going back to the golden days of H & A with no diversity or keeping the current format and introducing diversity which would they choose?  I suspect the former but I can't be 100% sure.

IMO either of these would be massively preferable to the current format, I have no preference either way as to these. I've made no secret of the fact I think Ash should have a gay mate from prison turn up.

[Luke39]

If you want the golden era of H and A. Well that's what the Early years is their for. It caters to the more long term nostalgic fans. If you want to see the show more modern and progressive, watching Summer Bay in 2017. Then we'll the current show caters to that. Obviously lack of diversity has been a big issue. But i don't think it's an immediate issue imo. What I want more is the portrayal of Aussie lifestyle and culture. While crime does exist in small local beach towns. It's the balance and pacing. New Family I think is needed to balance out the Morgan's. Generally I think H and A is still watchable. I don't see much difference currently from say 1995.

[Conan]

On 2/24/2017 at 9:51 PM, 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.

But here's a serious question, not being in AUS I can't watch on 7Plus, but are there ads on there? Enough to support it? Because that's the entire point of television and home and away / the soap format is to sell advertising, here in the USA Online viewership doesn't really matter as much because while they make 'some' money off of it it's not enough to sustain everything. 

[~Lynd~]

2 hours ago, Luke39 said:

If you want the golden era of H and A. Well that's what the Early years is their for. It caters to the more long term nostalgic fans. If you want to see the show more modern and progressive, watching Summer Bay in 2017. Then we'll the current show caters to that. Obviously lack of diversity has been a big issue. But i don't think it's an immediate issue imo. What I want more is the portrayal of Aussie lifestyle and culture. While crime does exist in small local beach towns. It's the balance and pacing. New Family I think is needed to balance out the Morgan's. Generally I think H and A is still watchable. I don't see much difference currently from say 1995.

Sorry but things like this annoy me a little.HAA is not progressive.There would be more diversity if it was.Can we at least be honest about the heart of the matter and say that the reason so many people don't care is because it doesn't concern them.There is no shame in educating yourself but so many people choose ignorance instead.This is not directed specifically at you however I think the issue is real.

 

 

[Conan]

1 hour ago, ~Lynd~ said:

Sorry but things like this annoy me a little.HAA is not progressive.There would be more diversity if it was.Can we at least be honest about the heart of the matter and say that the reason so many people don't care is because it doesn't concern them.There is no shame in educating yourself but so many people choose ignorance instead.This is not directed specifically at you however I think the issue is real.

 

 

And what's also important about this is that's kinda what Soaps ARE great at, this genera is meant to help teach, educate and help be progressive. Irna Philips (pretty much the creator of soap opera) and her protegees (Bill Bell, Agnes Nixon, Harding Leemay) all continually pushed boundaries with the genera by using characters that people cared about and putting them in progressive stories such as interracial relationships, birth control, abortion, same sex romances, marital abuse, rape, HIV, Aids, etc. It was through SOAP that people were able to have their minds opened and realize the world around them, and I would love to see H&A return to it's progressive roots. 

[samdanfan]

9 hours ago, ~Lynd~ said:

Sorry but things like this annoy me a little.HAA is not progressive.There would be more diversity if it was.Can we at least be honest about the heart of the matter and say that the reason so many people don't care is because it doesn't concern them.There is no shame in educating yourself but so many people choose ignorance instead.This is not directed specifically at you however I think the issue is real.

 

 

Honesty seems to be lacking anymore sadly. People could if they want too.