Why are there no more Teens

[Irishbraxton]

The show is not the same without the teen characters, storyline run deeper when it's about a teenage character o really hope they reinstate the teen characters at some point.

[adam436]

H&A's audience has supposedly changed and the show is clearly moving with that demographic. 

I think the writing is also a problem though. Yes, there are so many twenty and thirtysomethings, but the writing feels so superficial - it is pretty much all relationship drama, villain stories (I'm using the term to cover off psychos, blackmailers, stalkers etc.) or life-and-death stunts. There doesn't seem to be any meaty storylines for the actors to work with - Bree's domestic violence could have been a good one, but instead it was just used to introduce the next "villain of the week" and be an obstacle for Bree and Remi getting together. 

Even if we did have a group of teen characters, I would expect the same plot-driven relationship stories or life-and-death stunts. I wouldn't expect anything too deep or issue-based like eating disorders, questioning sexuality etc. 

[vinny]

Yet it is the same writers when I google search the names that have been there since 2000 or more .   I see a  couple of new ones but the script executive ? The people who are in charge of the writers look like the same people who have been there for years . Maybe that's the reason the show has gone a bit stale since 2020?

I don't know how Shortland Street writers do such a better job .  Home and Away has become mediocre.

Yes the audience has aged ..  we're in our 30's and 40 's ?  lol ... i don't know if teens or people in early 20's ... about under 25 watch it anymore. 

 

[cymbaline]

It was probably a combination of them trying to keep an audience and not having to deal with inexperienced teenagers. I grew up watching Home and Away from 1989-ish to about 1996. But like most people of my age group, I grew out of the show when I reached my 20s and didn't watch for years. That isn't something you'd hear about when it comes to most other soaps and is probably not a good business model. It's ironic that in the 90s, they didn't seem to know how to write well for characters in their 20s, whereas that's what they have there now. From what I've read, working with teenage actors could be a trying experience. You can see why they'd prefer to work with actors who are a bit older and more mature.

Having said all that, the show definitely needs a shake-up. I watch it occasionally these days and it's not gripping me at all. It looks very nice and it has slick production values. It needs some of the raw energy that came from the younger actors and ropier production design from the 90s IMHO

[adam436]

On 15/04/2023 at 07:57, cymbaline said:

But like most people of my age group, I grew out of the show when I reached my 20s and didn't watch for years. That isn't something you'd hear about when it comes to most other soaps and is probably not a good business model. 

I'd agree with that. I watched religiously from around 1996ish to 2005 at the age of 8 to around 17/18, and also grew out of it. When my peers stopped watching, presumably the next generation of viewers would be tuning in. I guess you can look at the teen groups as the "cycle of viewers" - I started watching around the time that Liam, Stephanie, Joey, Casey etc all started appearing, and then stopped watching around the time Rick, Cassie and Lucas arrived and Matilda started taking centre stage. 

There would of course, still be a core group of viewers who would keep watching and not "grow out of it", which is also essential for soaps.

Maybe with on-demand content now so readily accessible, the next generation just aren't tuning in anymore so the goal has shifted from attracting the next generation of viewers to keeping their current ones? 

[cymbaline]

You could have a point about the cycles of teens coinciding with the cycles of viewers. Thinking about it, my interest started to wane when the teen group I enjoyed began to break up - Damien, Shane, Angel, Tug, Sarah, Jack, Selina, Curtis, Shannon. I knew the game was up when Chloe and Liam and all the others who followed started to come in, and I had no interest in getting to know them. It's going to be interesting to see where broadcast TV goes in the coming decades for all sorts of reasons. Even though Home and Away is easy to find and watch online, will it be enough to attract new viewers? I'm wandering off-tangent now but I'm curious about how the new online Neighbours will fare. 

[hapitoby]

On 03/05/2023 at 00:03, cymbaline said:

You could have a point about the cycles of teens coinciding with the cycles of viewers. Thinking about it, my interest started to wane when the teen group I enjoyed began to break up - Damien, Shane, Angel, Tug, Sarah, Jack, Selina, Curtis, Shannon. I knew the game was up when Chloe and Liam and all the others who followed started to come in, and I had no interest in getting to know them. It's going to be interesting to see where broadcast TV goes in the coming decades for all sorts of reasons. Even though Home and Away is easy to find and watch online, will it be enough to attract new viewers? I'm wandering off-tangent now but I'm curious about how the new online Neighbours will fare. 

Yeah it will be interesting. Neighbours does seem to reward long term viewers for the loyalty whereas Home and Away seems to more aimed at spectacles and other events/ big dramas. If younger viewers are not the target audience of Home and Away, then it's only going to maintain its current audience mostly. However, it does seem to have much interest of the history - which is odd for something that seems like it wants to maintain that fanbase. Then again if they're worried it would alienate new fans then are they the target audience? 

[project90]

On 04/05/2023 at 13:25, hapitoby said:

However, it does seem to have much interest of the history - which is odd for something that seems like it wants to maintain that fanbase. Then again if they're worried it would alienate new fans then are they the target audience? 

There a fine line between revising the history and drowning us in it. Neighbours went bit too over board with bringing old characters back towards the end in my opinion, whereas like you said Home and Away doesn't even seem to care about it’s past by not only not bringing characters back but rewriting history in a big way like Martha being alive after all. I think Home and Away use to have the blend down perfectly we still get returns time to time but wasn't excessive 

[adam436]

13 hours ago, project90 said:

Home and Away doesn't even seem to care about it’s past by not only not bringing characters back but rewriting history in a big way like Martha being alive after all. 

When did this change? Sally's exit in 2008 certainly closed the door on many characters who had returned sporadically (Steven, Carly, Floss) and for those who did return post-Sally, most of them were poorly executed that it felt like they had little disregard for the history anyway (Celia, Pippa, Will, Gypsy and even Sally herself!). Then we got Mariyln's full-time return, a recast Roo and Duncan and Olivia, the daughter of an iconic Early Years character who was SORASed and I felt ruined James' character too. 

The only returns we get now are from the show's recent history - Heath and Bianca, Jett, Angelo - and even then it's been some time. 

I wouldn't want to see the producers go to Neighbours' extremes either - for example we don't need a shoehorned return from Viv Newton or Martin Dibble, but there would have been a potential place for Duncan or Celia during Alf's wedding or the Martha reveal story, or Alex Polous during any of Leah's dramas like her kidnapping or recent accident. There was talk of a Fisher return a few years back though, which given what the story was, would have got mixed reactions from fans.