Does the show need an injection of life, if so, then what?

[Dan F]

I should point out that H&A works quite differently to other shows, in that Lucy Addario as series producer actually has nothing to do with the story generation - she manages the actual production of the show.

The plots are down to the series script executive, who reports to the network drama execs.

[adam436]

On 20/06/2024 at 09:30, GOZZ said:

Thats FANTASTIC!! I love that outlay. However I wasnt aware that Nathan had a wife. What a memory you have.

She appeared on the show during his most recent appearance in 2002. She was a nurse at the hospital and they fell in love at left Summer Bay together. I can't remember if we've had any updates on them since though.

Edited June 21 by adam436

[pembie]

I don’t know kill a few characters off All I know is I find it very slow these days 

[Homeandawayfan.]

On 19/06/2024 at 07:24, Bobby Forever Missed said:

Wow you are probably one of the only long term fans I’ve seen who liked the Braxtons 

 

in terms of bringing new life to the show I really don’t know what they could do, they were obviously trying to do that by bringing Martha back but it backfired because it now makes Alf’s marriage to Ailsa illegal. 
 

 If they bring in another baddy or gang they get slammed by the majority of long term viewers if they go back to fostering (which I agree they should but that’s for another thread) they get slammed by younger viewers who tune in for what the show is now damned if they do damned if they don’t 

personally Lucy has put the show in a corner and i don’t know if it can get out 

As we both know, H&A has not just strayed from its original roots, it is a totally different show altogether, just a new show using an old show's name.

[Red Ranger 1]

Well, inevitably this has turned into another thread for people to talk about everything they hate about the current show and blame it all on Lucy Addario, sometimes in completely nonsensical ways like claiming "Getting rid of children and school" is a recurring theme of hers even though she was in charge ten years ago when it seemed like at least half the cast were teenagers and high school children.

As ever, I'm left thinking if people who say the show should get back to its roots even know what those roots are.Saying Alf and Roo are the only parent and child on the show as if that's somehow shocking: If we're being literal, they were the only ones when it started as well.(I guess, aside from rarely seen child characters, the next would be the retconned Bobby/Don/Morag parental relationship, followed by Michael and Haydn.)The show has never been that hot on introducing obscure relatives of past characters.You can still count the number of nuclear families in the last 36 years on the fingers of one hand.If the show actually did bring in young relatives of Alf and Irene, it probably wouldn't be long before people started complaining that they're just yet more "cookie-cutter" young people.Irene has always been closer to the Selinas, the Chloes, the Joeys, the Wills, the Tashas, and the Belles than her own children: It's entirely true to the character that, as she gets older, she's playing parent to the likes of Xander, Rose, Harper and Dana rather than to her biological family.(And I continue to applaud the show for recognising she's not in her 40s anymore and putting a stop to her acting as though she's only a generation older than teenagers.)The show brought in a nephew for Leah, a brilliant choice that gave her a purpose and a family unit after a number of periods when she's just been a background character, yet people are demanding children of her other brothers as if they've forgotten he existed.

If you strip it down to the basics, it's still a show about families and found families living in a seaside town.The issue is that some people think they're the wrong families.Bringing back fostering wouldn't automatically solve that, because when they do that people often complain it's the wrong sort of fostering (Spencer and Maddy being the example that springs to mind).The cast's age has skewed older in recent years, and I can see why people would consider that losing part of its identity, but there's a feeling that that's the audience they have to cater for now, which may even be right.

I agree there are some aspects I'm not happy with, notably the tendency to expect us to side with characters in the wrong, which the Braxton era heightened although it was an idea that had been growing for some time beforehand.In the earliest days, we'd get tearaways that needed taming and teaching right from wrong, but these days there's a tendency to have them start off worse and not get better enough.I thought they were moving away from that a bit and maybe they have, but it feels like we're sliding back a bit with the regression of Tane, and Mali, a character who was introduced as an anti-River Boy (a tattooed muscly young guy who's honest, hard-working and law-abiding), starting to head the same way.

To try and answer the original question: I don't know. I think the worst thing a show can do is try and give the elder statesman fans the show they think they want, because they'll still find something to complain about. (It's what we do.) I enjoy the show as it is, but I'm very aware that other people don't.If there was some magic answer that could make the show appeal to the wider audience it needs, well, if I knew that I'd be making the show!

Edited June 20 by Red Ranger 1

[Bobby Forever Missed]

23 minutes ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

Well, inevitably this has turned into another thread for people to talk about everything they hate about the current show and blame it all on Lucy Addario, sometimes in completely nonsensical ways like claiming "Getting rid of children and school" is a recurring theme of hers even though she was in charge ten years ago when it seemed like at least half the cast were teenagers and high school children.

As ever, I'm left thinking if people who say the show should get back to its roots even know what those roots are.Saying Alf and Roo are the only parent and child on the show as if that's somehow shocking: If we're being literal, they were the only ones when it started as well.(I guess, aside from rarely scene child characters, the next would be the retconned Bobby/Don/Morag parental relationship, followed by Michael and Haydn.)The show has never been that hot on introducing obscure relatives of past characters.You can still count the number of nuclear families in the last 36 years on the fingers of one hand.If the show actually did bring in young relatives of Alf and Irene, it probably wouldn't be long before people started complaining that they're just yet more "cookie-cutter" young people.Irene has always been closer to the Selinas, the Chloes, the Joeys, the Wills, the Tashas, and the Belles than her own children: It's entirely true to the character that, as she gets older, she's playing parent to the likes of Xander, Rose, Harper and Dana rather than to her biological family.(And I continue to applaud the show for recognising she's not in her 40s anymore and putting a stop to her acting as though she's only a generation older than teenagers.)The show brought in a nephew for Leah, a brilliant choice that gave her a purpose and a family unit after a number of periods when she's just been a background character, yet people are demanding children of her other brothers as if they've forgotten he existed.

If you strip it down to the basics, it's still a show about families and found families living in a seaside town.The issue is that some people think they're the wrong families.Bringing back fostering wouldn't automatically solve that, because when they do that people often complain it's the wrong sort of fostering (Spencer and Maddy being the example that springs to mind).The cast's age has skewed older in recent years, and I can see why people would consider that losing part of its identity, but there's a feeling that that's the audience they have to cater for now, which may even be right.

I agree there are some aspects I'm not happy with, notably the tendency to expect us to side with characters in the wrong, which the Braxton era heightened although it was an idea that had been growing for some time beforehand.In the earliest days, we'd get tearaways that needed taming and teaching right from wrong, but these days there's a tendency to have them start off worse and not get better enough.I thought they were moving away from that a bit and maybe they have, but it feels like we're sliding back a bit with the regression of Tane, and Mali, a character who was introduced as an anti-River Boy (a tattooed muscly young guy who's honest, hard-working and law-abiding), starting to head the same way.

To try and answer the original question: I don't know. I think the worst thing a show can do is try and give the elder statesman fans the show they think they want, because they'll still find something to complain about. (It's what we do.) I enjoy the show as it is, but I'm very aware that other people don't.If there was some magic answer that could make the show appeal to the wider audience it needs, well, if I knew that I'd be making the show!

Hi pro gangsters or shut up rule 

[Homeandawayfan.]

H&A does need dramatic storylines to keep the show fresh but the difference between say 2024, and 1999 H&A is that in 1999 dramatic dark OTT storylines did not happen in practically every episode. 1999 H&A had drama but also, more so, plenty of feel good moments and everyday stories and people just being them without all the melodrama.

[John]

12 hours ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

If you strip it down to the basics, it's still a show about families and found families living in a seaside town.The issue is that some people think they're the wrong families.Bringing back fostering wouldn't automatically solve that, because when they do that people often complain it's the wrong sort of fostering (Spencer and Maddy being the example that springs to mind).The cast's age has skewed older in recent years, and I can see why people would consider that losing part of its identity, but there's a feeling that that's the audience they have to cater for now, which may even be right.

I agree there are some aspects I'm not happy with, notably the tendency to expect us to side with characters in the wrong, which the Braxton era heightened although it was an idea that had been growing for some time beforehand.In the earliest days, we'd get tearaways that needed taming and teaching right from wrong, but these days there's a tendency to have them start off worse and not get better enough.I thought they were moving away from that a bit and maybe they have, but it feels like we're sliding back a bit with the regression of Tane, and Mali, a character who was introduced as an anti-River Boy (a tattooed muscly young guy who's honest, hard-working and law-abiding), starting to head the same way.

To try and answer the original question: I don't know. I think the worst thing a show can do is try and give the elder statesman fans the show they think they want, because they'll still find something to complain about. (It's what we do.) I enjoy the show as it is, but I'm very aware that other people don't.If there was some magic answer that could make the show appeal to the wider audience it needs, well, if I knew that I'd be making the show!

Great summing up RR1!!

My only addition to that would be that these days the writing is lazy.  They seem very reluctant to tackle issues which arise in relationships and have people actually work through them.  

It's also my feeling that there is too much reliance on constant and repeated high points of drama with the result that they lose their impact.

[Homeandawayfan.]

21 hours ago, Bobby Forever Missed said:

Hi pro gangsters or shut up rule 

Which is why I prefer Blake and Meg, Frank and Bobby and Shane and Angel and Sally and Flynn over any River Boys or gangs. Or The Brennan/Varga Murphy Show in Neighbours.

[pembie]

I think stories tend to have a silly predictable boring ending to them like people not going to prison 

Valerie’s story didn’t really make much sense for her or Justin and Leah 

Plus characters forgive one another fair to easily Marilyn and Roo should have admitted to each other the both drive one another mad and realise they aren’t quite friends 

I think we are owed a natural disaster though to kill some characters off 

Tane Felcity Alf Mali and Theo Bree  would be on my danger list