Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[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.

 

 

[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.