What should they do for the 35th anniversary?.

[homeandawayroxsomuch.]

3 hours ago, atrus said:

The show certainly seems to have no intention of removing the veterans altogether, and there must be a good reason for that - therefore, why would it not also want to celebrate the long history that they represent?

They've been fairly successful with introducing family for both Alf and Leah in recent years (Ryder and Theo being believable relatives, and Dimitri visiting), but while the introduction of Mick Jennings as Irene's son was sort of believable (the timeline would have lined up with Australia's forced adoption period for unwed mothers and could have contributed to Irene's alcohol issues), the execution was terrible with him assaulting Billie and then abducting Irene, with nothing positive coming out of that long-term.

And then with long-term viewers being able to search that Marilyn returned in June 1995 having recently separated from husband Phil Bryant (it felt very fresh), Heather being born in April 1995 doesn't make timeline sense (because that would have made the split from Phil MINIMUM of 10 months earlier than previously assumed).  And Marilyn just sleeping with her boss makes no sense because 90s Marilyn was pretty conservative in terms of wanting to wait until marriage.  And then Heather was just out for revenge against Marilyn with no long-term benefit.

They'd probably ruin any reunion between Roo and Martha if Jodi wanted to come back, to be honest.

And when Celia Stewart returned in 2012/13, hadn't she developed a gambling problem?  Celia Stewart???

[adam436]

9 hours ago, atrus said:

I could understand the idea that you don't want new people tuning in and being completely bamboozled by intricate backstories and inter-relationships dating back 35 years that might impede them getting to grips with a show.

I could see the nostalgia element being alienating if I were a new viewer of Neighbours, since they went too far in the other direction. 

Someone like Paul Roberts for example, could be introduced without having to go into the backstory of his birth and kidnapping. To new viewers he would simply be "Irene's grandson", whereas older viewers would be familiar with his backstory.

They've got a rare opportunity there, since how many babies on the show have gone on to become major characters? I can only think of Duncan, Olivia and VJ, with Christopher, Lily and Tamara being supporting or guest characters in their teenage years.

[Jamie!]

I've just read the linked article. The person in question says that "maybe they're reading this wrong". Yes. Yes, they are.

[Helena]

That's a pathetic excuse

[Red Ranger 1]

Okay, it feels like people are putting words into the network's mouth somewhat.Or, rather, that they're responding to things the network said years ago on the (probably correct) assumption that their attitude hasn't changed.The network's actual "statement" was nothing more than a flippant remark that didn't really answer the question.And their actual way of marking the 35th anniversary was to make dozens of episodes from all eras available on 7Plus(with Channel 5 doing the same on My5 in the UK).Which is fair enough, that's how shows and networks usually mark anniversaries and milestones:Not on the show.

I think people's views are coloured by the fact Neighbours marked its 35th anniversary by bringing back Lana Crawford and Mark Brennan. But Neighbours for much of its last decade was made for the fans by the fans, which frankly is the policy of a show on the way out: The fans are the last people you make your priority if you want people to watch, because they're the ones who'll watch anyway.(As this thread demonstrates!) It remains to be seen how "new and shiny" Amazon will insist on their new toy being.

If a "normal" soap was marking an anniversary on screen (eg Coronation Street, Emmerdale, EastEnders), what they'd most likely do is have a big event episode to coincide with the anniversary - a stunt or a party or a wedding - focus largely on the current cast with maybe one or two old faces if appropriate and have Alf randomly declare that it's 35 years since he sold the house to the Fletchers as a wink to why they're there. They could have done that and maybe should have done, but even then long-term fans would probably be disappointed that it's not got enough references to last century in it.

[atrus]

29 minutes ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

Okay, it feels like people are putting words into the network's mouth somewhat.Or, rather, that they're responding to things the network said years ago on the (probably correct) assumption that their attitude hasn't changed.The network's actual "statement" was nothing more than a flippant remark that didn't really answer the question.

Well, I was responding only to what the network bloke said the other week - I can't remember exactly what was said years ago. Yes, it's not a scripted policy statement and was an answer given off the cuff but equally, it presumably didn't come from nowhere and seems to shine quite a clear light on their thinking, which matches the vibes that (as you say) we've been getting about their attitude for some time now.

31 minutes ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

And their actual way of marking the 35th anniversary was to make dozens of episodes from all eras available on 7Plus(with Channel 5 doing the same on My5 in the UK).Which is fair enough, that's how shows and networks usually mark anniversaries and milestones:Not on the show.

I don't know about other types of show, but I've known numerous occasions where soaps have marked occasions on-screen - perhaps not explicitly with a big "35" (or "40" or "50") in fireworks, but at least with a big milestone storyline, a cheeky reference or two and/or a few old faces. Call me sentimental, but I think many viewers appreciate it when a bit of a fuss is made on-screen.

However, I do entirely take your point about the classic episodes being released. That certainly isn't nothing, and is arguably going to please old fans more than anything else - and I for one thoroughly enjoyed reliving the ones on My5, while Seven seemingly put up several times that amount. So, absolutely, credit where due. I'd be very interested to know whether the "shiny new" viewers who saw the classic streams were appalled to learn the show didn't start in 2019 after all, or went back and watched any of them for the first time - and if so, how they felt about them. (That's not me knocking new viewers - I am genuinely interested to know, if there are any about.)

13 minutes ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

I think people's views are coloured by the fact Neighbours marked its 35th anniversary by bringing back Lana Crawford and Mark Brennan.

  They were two out of nine returnees from multiple eras across a special themed week of daytime episodes, topped with five additional episodes in prime-time. I wouldn't for a minute expect H&A to match that or even come close, but you've suggested a lot of sensible ways they could have marked the occasion more modestly, which many fans would at least have got something out of. I certainly don't accept the logic of, "well, long-term fans would only be disappointed anyway so they might as well do nothing."

13 minutes ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

But Neighbours for much of its last decade was made for the fans by the fans, which frankly is the policy of a show on the way out

And on its way back in again. I wonder whether Home and Away's cancellation would draw anything like the same impassioned outcry that Neighbours' did.

9 minutes ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

The fans are the last people you make your priority if you want people to watch, because they're the ones who'll watch anyway.(As this thread demonstrates!)

You might have a point there, but it's a bit of a cynical approach for a network to take  - yes, fine, we can take our decades-long fans for granted because they'll lap up whatever we dish out. It's also a case of selection bias because those of us still committed to H&A are the ones moaning here, but how many long-term fans have already dropped off the radar because they feel the show has lost its heart somewhere along the way? While I've heard a lot say so anecdotally, I don't know the numerical answer, by the way - maybe they've picked up more "fickle" and "shiny new" viewers than they've lost diehards, proportional to overall declines in TV viewing figures - but I'm only making the point that we can't assume everyone has stuck with it in the way we have.

53 minutes ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

even then long-term fans would probably be disappointed that it's not got enough references to last century in it.

While the odd reference to bygone years would not be unappreciated, I think reducing it to that rather underplays fans' concerns, and the significance of what the network is saying. It's not just that the show is uninterested in revisiting the specifics of the past, it's that it's jettisoned much of the spirit of it, too, and intentionally so. Or at least, a lot of people seem to think so. Maybe it's true that we're being a bit over-sensitive, but I think it's obvious why the comments have got people's backs up - and it isn't just the fact that Lyrik haven't been handed an anniversary bunyip storyline to get their teeth into.

[Red Ranger 1]

6 hours ago, atrus said:

You might have a point there, but it's a bit of a cynical approach for a network to take  - yes, fine, we can take our decades-long fans for granted because they'll lap up whatever we dish out. It's also a case of selection bias because those of us still committed to H&A are the ones moaning here, but how many long-term fans have already dropped off the radar because they feel the show has lost its heart somewhere along the way?

Possibly I was a bit too blunt there, and you are of course quite right that some long-term fans have drifted away from the show feeling it's not what it was. I guess what I'm saying is that it's a mistake to turn the show into something that requires a detailed knowledge of its 35 years to fully understand or appreciate, because then you're appealing to only a small fraction of the audience and alienating the rest.And that's probably a larger proportion than the fraction that get put out because they don't point to a particular episode and say "That's the 35th anniversary episode."

6 hours ago, atrus said:

It's not just that the show is uninterested in revisiting the specifics of the past, it's that it's jettisoned much of the spirit of it, too, and intentionally so.

Maybe so, but that's another discussion and an issue that won't be solved by making one anniversary special!

[CaptainHulk]

There was life in Summer Bay before the River Boys and there will be after.

As for the Neighbours going too deep into Nostalgia argument,  there was a period where they did their level best to try and paint over their past and by god, did it alienate people. And as a new viewer I'd be intrigued to see what made A/B/,C/D tick and revisit moments leading to that present characterization (same with any other longrinning

What H&A needs is producers who *respect* the show's roots instead of mashing up legacy characters as shown with Maz/Heather (Thank you to the "genius" who cooked THAT up ) I understand things evolve but severing/twisting roots does nobody any favours.

Back to the Celia thing, despite her being cold and clinical at times (Les' death likely killed her warmth), she IS human so that does seem somewhat believable. Moreso than some of the other tosh.

 

[atrus]

2 hours ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

I guess what I'm saying is that it's a mistake to turn the show into something that requires a detailed knowledge of its 35 years to fully understand or appreciate, because then you're appealing to only a small fraction of the audience and alienating the rest.

I don't disagree with this at all. If any daily soap required that level of knowledge from its fans, they simply wouldn't work. But I think there's a big difference between requiring that knowledge and respecting/occasionally rewarding it. I do think most soaps manage to strike a sensible balance between making the show accessible and acknowledging long-term fans' commitment with occasional forays into past characters and stories. Obviously this shouldn't be gratuitous; it needs to be done in a way that's true and meaningful to the current ongoing roster of characters, and thus still accessible to the audience. It's not that H&A never does this, but it does seem rather allergic to it most of the time these days, and I think honestly that they're worrying unnecessarily. The show has done it successfully in the past and the world hasn't ended; the 2002 Mirigini saga was a good example of how numerous past characters can be brought back in a pretty unintrusive way that long-term fans appreciate to mark a big occasion, yet still puts current cast centre-stage - and that wasn't even a real-world milestone, as far as I'm aware!

Ultimately I guess my standpoint on this is that longevity and nostalgia are a huge part of why people commit to soaps across huge chunks of their lifespans. You lose that altogether and you are to some extent losing the soul of the show. I'm not saying everyone feels that way or should; but numerous comments I've seen here and elsewhere that H&A is discussed online reflect that this is quite a widespread feeling, I think, and as such the response to the Seven comments has been almost wholly one of annoyance.

[homeandawayroxsomuch.]

8 minutes ago, atrus said:

you are to some extent losing the soul of the show

This is really picking out only a small part of what you're saying, but Home and Away has got rid of what the original show was about (a family with 5 foster kids moving to a small town) over the past few years.  While Neighbours did what it said on the tin until the end (the trials and tribulations of families/friends living mostly on the same suburban cul-de-sac), there is barely any hint of a child/teenager in current Home and Away never mind a foster family.  We get the occasional visit from 7/8 year old Jai, but then the next youngest characters after that now are 22+ year olds.  Whereas if you picked up an episode from late 1995, you had Christopher, Duncan and Dylan at 5-7 year olds, Sam at 12 years old, Sally and the teens, Angel and Shane, then the nearest characters to 22 years old were Steven and Travis.  Why such a shift in demographic?  There's a whole heap of teen issues that don't get addressed and some things just hit different emotionally when it's happening to a teen character.

And then the lack of teens has left Roo without Summer Bay High scenes and just flailing around the house or the diner, not sure whether to tutor or to do something else.