Home and Away's lack of Returnee Characters

[Red Ranger 1]

17 hours ago, adam436 said:

I hate to say it, but you're right. Most viewers wouldn't care, even if those characters do have links to the current cast. 

Any sort of 40th anniversary reunion is likely to be top-heavy with cast from 2011 onwards like Heath and Bianca, Ricky, Dean and Ziggy, Ash, Jasmine, Jett, Bella, Ryder, VJ, Tori etc. with maybe one or two token early years icons like Sally, Gypsy and Colleen. 

Sounds like quite a good episode, actually.

[Homeandawayfan.]

Jason Herbison and Lucy Addario certainly do have their work cut out producing those two ageing Australian soap operas, and the 2 biggest ever Aussie soaps as well.

[adam436]

4 hours ago, Homeandawayfan. said:

Jason Herbison and Lucy Addario certainly do have their work cut out producing those two ageing Australian soap operas, and the 2 biggest ever Aussie soaps as well.

I agree. And Neighbours is certainly looking and feeling more aged than H&A. I'd say a large factor in that has been the volume of returnees and older characters. There was a long period where the producers chose not to introduce any new characters into the cast and just brought heaps of returnees back as regulars, which really does not work in such a small cast. I don't think it's a coincidence that the only characters I am really invested in at the moment are Haz and the Varga Murphys, the few new characters to be introduced in the revival. 

H&A has its faults - the disregard for its history and spread of characters ages being the primary ones - but it has evolved and moved with the times. It looks sleek and modern, the storylines are more engaging and watchable and it's still rating well. If it were still a soap about a foster family in a sleepy coastal town, it would most likely have been cancelled years ago. 

H&A has always felt a head of the game to me. In 1988, H&A was airing stories like Carly's rape and Roo's pregnancy, Neighbours were playing it safe - I think the worst they had that year was Scott kissing Jane. In 1995, when H&A went darker, Neighbours had one of it's dullest years. When the Braxton era started, Neighbours was in the peak Susan Bower years. Perhaps the only time Neighbours has felt like the stronger soap (ignoring the first few years, before H&A aired) has been 1992-1994 when Neighbours had that revamp and went a little darker. The rest of that time it has felt like Neighbours have just been catch up. 

[Jamie!]

2 hours ago, adam436 said:

I agree. And Neighbours is certainly looking and feeling more aged than H&A. I'd say a large factor in that has been the volume of returnees and older characters. There was a long period where the producers chose not to introduce any new characters into the cast and just brought heaps of returnees back as regulars, which really does not work in such a small cast. I don't think it's a coincidence that the only characters I am really invested in at the moment are Haz and the Varga Murphys, the few new characters to be introduced in the revival. 

H&A has its faults - the disregard for its history and spread of characters ages being the primary ones - but it has evolved and moved with the times. It looks sleek and modern, the storylines are more engaging and watchable and it's still rating well. If it were still a soap about a foster family in a sleepy coastal town, it would most likely have been cancelled years ago. 

H&A has always felt a head of the game to me. In 1988, H&A was airing stories like Carly's rape and Roo's pregnancy, Neighbours were playing it safe - I think the worst they had that year was Scott kissing Jane. In 1995, when H&A went darker, Neighbours had one of it's dullest years. When the Braxton era started, Neighbours was in the peak Susan Bower years. Perhaps the only time Neighbours has felt like the stronger soap (ignoring the first few years, before H&A aired) has been 1992-1994 when Neighbours had that revamp and went a little darker. The rest of that time it has felt like Neighbours have just been catch up. 

I respectfully disagree with that. I'm not saying that the show has to be exactly the same as it once was. It's just during the times when the ethos of the show was about fostering, there were still dramatic storylines happening - physical abuse, sexual abuse, addiction, violence, teen pregnancies, (etc). The only difference was back then, even during the more dramatic moments, the show still felt character driven. Someone posted this comment on one of the videos in the Home and Away Early Years Instagram page and I agree with it:

 the stories were so good because the characters were well written... nowadays they're constantly chasing their tails trying to outdo the last murder or explosion or kidnapping which are always forgotten a week later. They don't realise if you have good well written characters you don't need the big dramas. Characters we care about having kitchen sink storylines is more interesting to viewers than characters we don't care about being kidnapped because we know it will all be forgotten next week.

[hapitoby]

4 hours ago, Jamie! said:

I respectfully disagree with that. I'm not saying that the show has to be exactly the same as it once was. It's just during the times when the ethos of the show was about fostering, there were still dramatic storylines happening - physical abuse, sexual abuse, addiction, violence, teen pregnancies, (etc). The only difference was back then, even during the more dramatic moments, the show still felt character driven. Someone posted this comment on one of the videos in the Home and Away Early Years Instagram page and I agree with it:

 

Very well said. I think dramatic storylines should complete and enhance what's going on with the characters that we are attached too. If they're not well written, then it's not as engaging - which is probably why we get more dramatic stuff. It's the lazier approach to captivate audience when it's happening all the time because nothing else is compelling.

[Homeandawayfan.]

15 hours ago, adam436 said:

I agree. And Neighbours is certainly looking and feeling more aged than H&A. I'd say a large factor in that has been the volume of returnees and older characters. There was a long period where the producers chose not to introduce any new characters into the cast and just brought heaps of returnees back as regulars, which really does not work in such a small cast. I don't think it's a coincidence that the only characters I am really invested in at the moment are Haz and the Varga Murphys, the few new characters to be introduced in the revival. 

H&A has its faults - the disregard for its history and spread of characters ages being the primary ones - but it has evolved and moved with the times. It looks sleek and modern, the storylines are more engaging and watchable and it's still rating well. If it were still a soap about a foster family in a sleepy coastal town, it would most likely have been cancelled years ago. 

H&A has always felt a head of the game to me. In 1988, H&A was airing stories like Carly's rape and Roo's pregnancy, Neighbours were playing it safe - I think the worst they had that year was Scott kissing Jane. In 1995, when H&A went darker, Neighbours had one of it's dullest years. When the Braxton era started, Neighbours was in the peak Susan Bower years. Perhaps the only time Neighbours has felt like the stronger soap (ignoring the first few years, before H&A aired) has been 1992-1994 when Neighbours had that revamp and went a little darker. The rest of that time it has felt like Neighbours have just been catch up. 

When H&A began it did make Neighbours look quite tepid and dull in comparison. H&A had better settings, sunnier weather and more sparky extroverted characters who were exciting.

[Jamie!]

15 hours ago, hapitoby said:

Very well said. I think dramatic storylines should complete and enhance what's going on with the characters that we are attached too. If they're not well written, then it's not as engaging - which is probably why we get more dramatic stuff. It's the lazier approach to captivate audience when it's happening all the time because nothing else is compelling.

Yes, as the person that runs the H&A Early Years Instagram page has said:

You create well defined, fleshed out characters with strong backstories and unique personalities, put them in a scene together and the drama writes itself. Hence no need for bombs, kidnappings etc. Shame that lesson seemingly wasn't passed down to newer generations of writers/producers...

[adam436]

I agree with that statement from H&A Early Years Insta page and I definitely prefer 1998-2000 over any other era of the show, but sadly character-driven drama is not considered engaging commercial television anymore. 1980s H&A would not survive at 7pm in 2024, even though it was filled with drama like Roo's pregnancy lie, Carly's rape, Alan and Donald's relationship and the Summer Bay Nutter. 

I can't speak for all soaps, but Neighbours and Hollyoaks have less emphasis on character and more on plot now. Hollyoaks has always has inter-family affairs, massive stunts, sinister villains and characters literally getting away with murder, and everyone has moved on the following week and it's often the repeat offenders repeating the same mistakes over and over, meaning very little character development. Neighbours is certainly better with character-driven stories, but it is still under pressure to opt for the plot-driven stuff, like Terese and Toadie's marriage being an obstacle to keep her and Paul apart, Karl becoming caricature so he can be used for all the comedy B plots and several regular characters being involved in covering up a "murder". 

[zara grace]

The only character from like super long ago they had back recently was Angelo when he came back in 2020.

Like I know Bella came back after she left and that Vj and Tori came back for Leah and Justin's wedding but there are some past ones that should come back as mains and some just for storylines.

 

With both Alf and Roo in the bay, it would be great to see Martha Mackenzie back and to see what her dynamic would be like with Roo as we never saw that on screen. 

Some other good ones would be Miles Copeland, Steven Matheson [they wasted the opportunity they should have made Harper and Dana his and Selina's kids, Dana even looks like Steven in some ways] and Colleen Smart.

[nenehcherry2]

I always get a bit lost on the absolutely clear-cut definition of "character driven" versus "plot driven". I get the basic essence but the "split" between the two confuses me...

I've always interpreted crazy villain type storylines as, ultimately, character driven. Because the drama which unfolds is driven by their behaviours, desires, nuances, warped minds etc. Albeit, the impact happens often on a lot of characters (outside of the said characters' control) and perhaps the fire that the villain starts spreads further than it should (for dramatic effect), with the catalystic aid of a plot device. But, ultimately, it all stems from the psychological makeup "token evil guestie" who's causing the pain. And that's the CHARACTERISATION that they've been given by the writers. 

Now what I do agree with is the suspension of belief regarding the above. Statistically speaking, there aren't many crazy villains in the World as soaps these days would have us believe. Or, at least, not ones who carry out murders, arson, organ theft (whatever even happens on today's H&A). Is this what we mean by "plot driven"?

You could argue that a LOT of 95-00 is plot driven (as I've always interpreted it, perhaps wrongly?), especially the natural disasters... Bushfires (though, arguably, that was initiated by Jack going off the rails), earthquakes, cyclones, Shane's death. In fact, if you go back far enough, Bobby's death was entirely plot driven... by a stick (Adam's recklessness was a SECONDARY factor if you think about it). As was Tom's and Meg's. Yes, we then see the response of the grieving characters to those events. 

Please help me out here... I've lost the (pun intended)... plot! 

@j.laur5 What confused you? My articulation or are you equally confused by the distinction / overlap between what is character-driven versus what is plot-driven?

Just curious. Thanks, SB

Edited June 3 by nenehcherry2