adam436 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 As well as removing the crime violence aspect of the show, I say bring it back to its roots. They've tried a few times before in recent years - 2004/2005 with Sally and Flynn and 2013 with Roo and Harvey. If Zac and Leah become a stable couple, they could be the ideal foster parents. Leah can't have anymore children (a la Pippa and Sally) and they can obviously both relate to young people. I don't think we will ever see a full-house again like we did with Pippa and Tom/Michael, but it would be good. I also think a large family needs to move into Summer Bay House, as it's always been the centre of the show. Instead, it is now the smallest household (tying with the Palmers) while the Braxton/Barrett and Maguire households are the largest.
Gerard Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Home and Away worked best when it revolved around Summer Bay House as the central family, then you had Alf & Ailsa and Fisher as the other adults, and later Irene, who all at times fostered children (and in a more family sense than just letting out a room to a teenager, which seems to be what happens now). All the families had a close connection to the Summer Bay community and integrated with each other naturally. Now the households are kind of random. OK, you can associate Leah and Zac with the school, and Irene has a long history, as does Marilyn, but why should the Braxtons and Barretts be there at all (for the most part living in their own bubble)? What makes them part of the Summer Bay story?
gutterboy Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Good on Ray - glad someone that at least should have some input has said it, as the producers sure aren't listening to their fans.
Homeandawayfan. Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Will they heed Ray Meagher's words or just brush it under the carpet and just satisfy the target audience of viewers who are under 20 years old and carry on the endless tiresome crime stories and OTT pregnancy plots and love triangles. Lots of younger viewers like the direction of the show whereas us bunch of older fans who watched the show 20+ years ago find it is something they no longer recognise. Mischievous and fun teens of our day such as Damo and Shane replaced with violent hardened criminals like the Braxtons and Andy Barrett. Dan Bennett seems to be back but whether this will lessen the violence and sensationalism in the show remains to be seen.
Gerard Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 To think that back in the day, Shane was the "bad boy" - stole the odd car, but generally just played fairly harmless pranks and got up to mischief with Damian before quite naturally evolving into one the good guys along with Angel. Likewise with Jack Wilson, had a sneaky smoke and blew up a caravan, but otherwise generally harmless fun like mistakenly getting into bed with Fisher (not sure they could do that story nowadays), but all more or less believable and entertaining storylines which either ended humorously or there was a moral lesson. Such antics would be too tame for H&A nowadays, where lives have to be in serious danger week in week out. It's a pity they couldn't try something new here and create a spin-off series (call it "CSI Summer Bay" or whatever) and take the Braxtons & hangers-on and make them centre stage. In that show, bring in some rival gangs and increase the use of the Police Station and the hospital, and increase the budget for crazy stunts and push the PG rating to the limit. Then back in "Home and Away", replace those characters with a regular family or some foster children. Tone down the violence and bring in some warmth and happiness, humour and fun, family dramas. Let the two shows run back to back for 6 months or so and axe the one performing least well - or if they're both successful in their own way, keep them both going. Back in the real world... if Home and Away is ever going to change from its current format, now would be a good time to do it.
Jezz Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 Will they heed Ray Meagher's words or just brush it under the carpet and just satisfy the target audience of viewers who are under 20 years old and carry on the endless tiresome crime stories and OTT pregnancy plots and love triangles. Lots of younger viewers like the direction of the show whereas us bunch of older fans who watched the show 20+ years ago find it is something they no longer recognise. Mischievous and fun teens of our day such as Damo and Shane replaced with violent hardened criminals like the Braxtons and Andy Barrett. You're stereotyping mate! Sure some younger viewers like the current direction of the show because that's all they know with the plot-driven drama that is dished out these days but I think many younger viewers would be happy to see the show become what it used to be like pre-2000. The show was popular with all ages in the 'good old days' so I can't see why it would be any different now. People of all ages will continue to watch if the show is consistently written well with good character-driven drama and an even spread of exposure for each character. I suspect short-term characters get a lot more storylines purely because they only remain on the show for three years and the writers and producers want to add as much as they can with these characters before they're gone in a flash.
Matt Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 Will they heed Ray Meagher's words or just brush it under the carpet and just satisfy the target audience of viewers who are under 20 years old and carry on the endless tiresome crime stories and OTT pregnancy plots and love triangles. Lots of younger viewers like the direction of the show whereas us bunch of older fans who watched the show 20+ years ago find it is something they no longer recognise. Mischievous and fun teens of our day such as Damo and Shane replaced with violent hardened criminals like the Braxtons and Andy Barrett. Dan Bennett seems to be back but whether this will lessen the violence and sensationalism in the show remains to be seen. Whether or not the violence and sensationalism stops, I believe, with Dan Bennett, is irrelevant. He knows the show inside out (a statement from Bevan Lee himself) - even when we had the Stalker, the Wedding Explosion, the School Fire, the Cyclone, the Helicopter Crash (2005/06), the show still had an amazing ability to give off the family vibe and have well-rounded and incredibly three-dimensional characters! I can't wait to see what Dan has to offer, because it's got to be more interesting than the dribble that's on television at 7pm now.
sindikatas Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 Will they heed Ray Meagher's words or just brush it under the carpet and just satisfy the target audience of viewers who are under 20 years old and carry on the endless tiresome crime stories and OTT pregnancy plots and love triangles. Lots of younger viewers like the direction of the show whereas us bunch of older fans who watched the show 20+ years ago find it is something they no longer recognise. Mischievous and fun teens of our day such as Damo and Shane replaced with violent hardened criminals like the Braxtons and Andy Barrett. You're stereotyping mate! Sure some younger viewers like the current direction of the show because that's all they know with the plot-driven drama that is dished out these days but I think many younger viewers would be happy to see the show become what it used to be like pre-2000. The show was popular with all ages in the 'good old days' so I can't see why it would be any different now. People of all ages will continue to watch if the show is consistently written well with good character-driven drama and an even spread of exposure for each character. I suspect short-term characters get a lot more storylines purely because they only remain on the show for three years and the writers and producers want to add as much as they can with these characters before they're gone in a flash. I agree about stereotyping. I was 16 when I started watching the early years and now i'm 21 so I can still be considered a new viewer.
adam436 Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 I suspect short-term characters get a lot more storylines purely because they only remain on the show for three years and the writers and producers want to add as much as they can with these characters before they're gone in a flash. But then using them too quickly can be just as detremental, as there is nowhere left to take them after a couple of years without being repetivie or the viewers getting sick of them. If they had more "down time", the actor might stay longer because the character is still a challenge and still getting interesting storylines. But I see your point - the longer they stay, the fewer storylines they get.
Homeandawayfan. Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 Excuse me I am not stereotyping I can assure you.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.