Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[sindikatas]

Do you think the show could have survived if the Braxtons never came to the show?

What do you mean when you say 'the show could have survived" if you say that you don't care about ratings? Ratings is what determine whether the show continues or not.

[jodlebirger]

Do you think the show could have survived if the Braxtons never came to the show?

Of course it would. It is a matter of writing, and not about which characters who are in it. There have also been a lot of complaints about the show for the past 4 years, not everyone have praised it.

As I said, the show didn't rate or rank any worse in 2009 or 2008 than it does now. And even if it did have a dip in 2010, it wasn't that bad either. In Australia the show was always in top 15 every night, and I don't think it dropped that much in other countries either that year. Both Denmark and Sweden dropped the show before 2010 season.

[Homeandawayfan.]

The first 20 or so years of H&A was waaaay better than Neighbours. At the minute Neighbours has nicked the "better show" title off H&A. As I said, in 1988 H&A was much more fun and vibrant than Neighbours, grittier but not in a depressing way. Neighbours was lighter with topical things but was more spartan and dull, teens in Neighbours were less developed. H&A had this exotic look and this get up and go, rewatching 1988 H&A just reiterates that.

I am confident H&A can improve, but to me the Braxtons have not saved the show, it was nice initially to see a darker side to H&A when they first arrived but that was built on and took over.

I'd certainly say that H&A was much better than Neighbours for most of the 1990s, especially around the middle of that decade. From a production standards point of view, H&A has always been ahead. Overall, the mid-90s were especially good for H&A and really bad for Neighbours. While H&A had several disasters around that time, the bush fire, the flood and the earthquake, which were all amazingly well done, it felt genuinely dramatic and exciting, but still maintained the family atmosphere. I must admit to going off H&A a little in 2000 when there were major cast changes, but it got good again once Sally and Flynn came to the foreground.

I would agree that the Braxtons were something different from tradional H&A to start with, but I think they would have worked better as guest characters for 6 months.

Do you think the show could have survived if the Braxtons never came to the show?

Without a doubt H&A would still be very much alive and well today, had they kept to the traditional H&A formula. What might have damaged ratings would have been an over-reliance on teen romance storylines and sidelining the adult cast, like Ms Bower did with Neighbours. Certainly I think the current adult cast of Alf, Roo, Irene, Marilyn, John, Leah and Zac could carry the show.

1988 H&A had much more exciting younger characters, and a bigger amount of them, plus there was much more location filming, and as said better production values. Both Neighbours and H&A may have been good in their 1988 seasons but H&A in the 1980s was the more modern and exotic one by a mile. In 1988 even the older characters were exciting such as Nev, Floss, Betty Falwell, Gordon Macklin, Morag etc.

[Red Ranger 1]

At the risk of going off at a massive tangent, while it has reached the point where I enjoy Neighbours more than Home and Away, mostly because of the characters, I don't see it as a shining beacon of perfection that Home and Away should aspire to be.I mean, I guess it must be doing something right, since it's the only soap which doesn't have viewers calling for the producer to be sacked (Coronation Street, EastEnders and Hollyoaks are receiving similar "Ruined forever!Get rid of Blackburn/Treadwell-Collins/Kirkwood or I'll never watch again!" comments and Emmerdale isn't far off going the same way), but I also think it's guilty of much of what Home and Away is accused of: Bland characters played by actors cast for their looks, endless teen love triangles and a villain whose many crimes including murder are never punished thanks to the police being portrayed as incompetent (and he's been on the show over ten years and the actor doesn't look like he's going anywhere, so there's not even that hope).Perhaps the thing that makes it different is that that isn't all there is.Or maybe not, since I don't think that's all there is to Home and Away either.On the other hand, I do think Home and Away over-emphasises the crime storylines and tends to use the criminals as the viewpoint characters a bit too much, whereas when Neighbours does bring in criminal gangs they do tend to be just visiting.

I'm not really buying that the current HA producers have no respect for the show's history.I mean, when Neighbours was at its worst in that regard, they completely rewrote the history of characters from the 80s, introduced a new family member to the two founding families without any regard as to plausibility, and brushed off queries from UK soap magazines with an arrogant and patently untrue "Australian fans don't care about the show's history, they only care about what's happening now." It was kind of telling at the time that fans compared it to the way Home and Away had quietly added Miles to Sally's back story in a carefully thought-out and plausible way that fans completely accepted.I don't think Home and Away is disrespecting its past by not bringing back Morag again, or by continuing a tradition stretching back to the 1990s of not mentioning Irene's children more than they have to, or by giving the younger castmembers more to do than the older ones, that happens in every soap.The references are there for the fans and no-one's overwriting the show's history.There are some lighter characters and storylines and a few well-acted and empathetic young characters, and the older ones are given enough to do that we value their still being around.This year may well be the high water mark in regards to whether the show manages to move away from certain themes that have put people off or dives right back into them.

[Gerard]

Without a doubt H&A would still be very much alive and well today, had they kept to the traditional H&A formula. What might have damaged ratings would have been an over-reliance on teen romance storylines and sidelining the adult cast, like Ms Bower did with Neighbours. Certainly I think the current adult cast of Alf, Roo, Irene, Marilyn, John, Leah and Zac could carry the show.

1988 H&A had much more exciting younger characters, and a bigger amount of them, plus there was much more location filming, and as said better production values. Both Neighbours and H&A may have been good in their 1988 seasons but H&A in the 1980s was the more modern and exotic one by a mile. In 1988 even the older characters were exciting such as Nev, Floss, Betty Falwell, Gordon Macklin, Morag etc.

H&A undoubtedly built on the popularity of Neighbours and all things Australian when it was launched in the UK in 1989. The higher production standards was one of the first things that stuck me, and there was without a doubt a good cast of teenagers and adults at the time. I would say that the Neighbours cast was also full of really good characters and actors too. Back in those days, H&A was hugely popular in the UK. Its storylines were a bit more adventurous and edgy than its counterpart. I remember the rape of Carly Morris causing a stir in the media at the time, and we had exctiing storylines like "the nutter", Dodge, and Roo's pregnancy running alongside family dramas. I don't think we really need to draw comparisons between the two series back in the 80's and very early 90's. They were both at the top of their game in delivering their differing outlooks.

Of course, without wanting to go over old ground, Neighbours lost its way in the 1990s, thanks in part to losing many of the core cast,whereas H&A seemed to build on its successes and get better and better... at least until the late 90s in my opinion.

At the risk of going off at a massive tangent, while it has reached the point where I enjoy Neighbours more than Home and Away, mostly because of the characters,....

I also think it's guilty of much of what Home and Away is accused of: Bland characters played by actors cast for their looks, endless teen love triangles and a villain whose many crimes including murder are never punished thanks to the police being portrayed as incompetent (and he's been on the show over ten years and the actor doesn't look like he's going anywhere, so there's not even that hope).Perhaps the thing that makes it different is that that isn't all there is.Or maybe not, since I don't think that's all there is to Home and Away either.On the other hand, I do think Home and Away over-emphasises the crime storylines and tends to use the criminals as the viewpoint characters a bit too much, whereas when Neighbours does bring in criminal gangs they do tend to be just visiting.

I'm not really buying that the current HA producers have no respect for the show's history.I mean, when Neighbours was at its worst in that regard, they completely rewrote the history of characters from the 80s, introduced a new family member to the two founding families without any regard as to plausibility, and brushed off queries from UK soap magazines with an arrogant and patently untrue "Australian fans don't care about the show's history, they only care about what's happening now." It was kind of telling at the time that fans compared it to the way Home and Away had quietly added Miles to Sally's back story in a carefully thought-out and plausible way that fans completely accepted.I don't think Home and Away is disrespecting its past by not bringing back Morag again, or by continuing a tradition stretching back to the 1990s of not mentioning Irene's children more than they have to, or by giving the younger castmembers more to do than the older ones, that happens in every soap.The references are there for the fans and no-one's overwriting the show's history.There are some lighter characters and storylines and a few well-acted and empathetic young characters, and the older ones are given enough to do that we value their still being around.This year may well be the high water mark in regards to whether the show manages to move away from certain themes that have put people off or dives right back into them.

Both Home and Away and Neighbours have had very chequered histories over the past 30 years, there have been time when each show has been at the top of its game, and times when each show has had a lot to answer for. Both shows are guilty of bringing in bland characters cast for their looks, as are other soaps such as Hollyoaks in the UK. Love triangles are kind of the life-blood of most soaps, as are "dark secrets" leading to a big reveal, and when that secret is related to a love triangle, the climax can be immense. Sometimes they are done well, sometimes not. The problem is when they become too commonplace. Neighbours went through its spell of OTT drama about 10 years ago, culimating in bomb on a plane and an exploding fruit van. Home and Away has always been a bit more dramatic, but in the past 10 years or so we have seen numerous stalker storylines, gun crime, explosions, hostage situations etc. You're right that generally in Neighbours the criminals are not part of the core cast, and not portrayed often as heroes to aspire to. Both series had a strong sense of morality, where the baddies would be brought to justice. Neighbours did (maybe not as successfully) deal with Paul Robinson's crimes and while he didn't go back to jail, it was explained away and he did get a comeuppance of sorts by losing a leg. On the other hand Brax may be head of a criminal gang, or maybe a little misunderstood, but he paid for Pippa Junior to get life-saving treatment, so his place in the Summer Bay Hall of Fame is assured,

Regarding the shows history, H&A have done quite well over the years to remember the past, but I can't see them fondly looking back on the Braxton era in 10 years time. H&A are not perfect, but they are very good at continuity. Neighbours has gone through spells of bad continutiy, but the past couple of years have seen a turnaround of fortunes there. Without a doubt, Neighbours went through a bad patch under Susan Bower, who famously disgarded the history, but things are much different now, and the series cannot be accused of ignoring its history any more. The "Ramsay Retcon" was a massive error in most people's eyes, but it's done now, over, and we have to move on. Meanwhile H&A bringing in Milco may have pushed credibility slightly, but it's certainly one of my favourite storylines ever, and no one could accuse them of re-writing history. It's just a shame that Sally and Miles didn't have a lot of time together onscreen, or that Miles only lasted for a few years.

I don't think we need constant mentions of Irene's children - might be nice to get the odd mention - after all if a show that is running for nearly 30 years spends its time refering its past, many episodes would be just one big long reminsce! H&A has clearly payed tribute to its past on a number of occasions, and only time will tell how it treats the past when the 30th anniversary comes up in 2018. H&A has always had a tradition of focusing more on its younger cast, but at times this has been at the expense of the oldies. Irene has been very light on storylines for a number of years, and while Alf is a constant presence his doesn't often have storylines of his own. Perhaps it's just an illusion, but there do seem to be certain characters who get more screentime and storylines than others - primariy the Braxton family, who seem to be at the centre of season finales and the dramatic plots. Other characters like John and Marilyn seem to be there more for a bit of light relief, H&A should go back and look at how it's deploying its characters and maybe shake things up a bit - give us something surprising and different rather than the same people getting into trouble time after time.

[alexx]

I'm not really buying that the current HA producers have no respect for the show's history.I mean, when Neighbours was at its worst in that regard, they completely rewrote the history of characters from the 80s, introduced a new family member to the two founding families without any regard as to plausibility, and brushed off queries from UK soap magazines with an arrogant and patently untrue "Australian fans don't care about the show's history, they only care about what's happening now." It was kind of telling at the time that fans compared it to the way Home and Away had quietly added Miles to Sally's back story in a carefully thought-out and plausible way that fans completely accepted.

I don't remember that being the case, not if you go to the Neighbours forums. There was and still is a lot of backlash about the producer doing that and she's still heavily criticised for ruining the show - the 'Ramsey Retcon' being one of the major strikes against her name. Whereas the Miles storyline was fairly well received overall.

I don't think we need constant mentions of Irene's children - might be nice to get the odd mention - after all if a show that is running for nearly 30 years spends its time refering its past, many episodes would be just one big long reminsce!

I don't think it's about mentioning them, but I just wonder why they seem to ignore Irene as if they can't think of anything to do with her, when she has biological kids that haven't been seen on screen in two decades. There's plenty to do with Irene to keep her relevant and interesting, at the moment she's pretty much just an extra and could be written out without it having much of an impact.

[CaptainHulk]

I've seen some old ITV promos with Fiona/Celia/Vera (delete as applicable) saying that "Their storylines outstrip Neighbours".

Talking about Blowing the company trumpet! (Probably was true at the time but IMO, 1989 Neighbours and 1989 H&A were about equally only H&A sort of descended into momentary stupidity at that point with the Bunyip and Shark crap)

[Homeandawayfan.]

I've seen some old ITV promos with Fiona/Celia/Vera (delete as applicable) saying that "Their storylines outstrip Neighbours".

Talking about Blowing the company trumpet! (Probably was true at the time but IMO, 1989 Neighbours and 1989 H&A were about equally only H&A sort of descended into momentary stupidity at that point with the Bunyip and Shark crap)

In 1989 they may have been equal in terms of quality but as I said H&A was the more modern one, it had more location filming and was more exotic looking.

[joany208121]

The show has gotten a lot darker

Compare the bay of love promos In 2010 to this new one

It's so much darker and it doesn't have the summer and energetic feel of haa.

I also feel that storylines have lost significance due to the excessive repetition of them. Remember the 2004 Olympic cliffhanger of sarah lewis. It was a stalker and a hostage and I was on the edge of my seat,so much so I got nightmares thinking of her.

Not think of how many kidnapping or hostages or stalkers we have had recently , Jamie, adam, ryan, vj was kidnapped twice. Can they get a bit more creative.

Neighbours is amazing at coming up with unused ideas and I'm hooked on the show as I'm excited to see what new plots are emerging, haa pick up your game.

[alexx]

^That promo is absolutely horrible. It's everything I hate about H&A these days.