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

[adam436]

On 02/07/2024 at 04:07, Homeandawayfan. said:

The show still stuck to its original premise until the Sutherland's arrived in 2000 and we had the drop in centre.

I'd say it kept the format beyond that, since there has always been some fostering element in the show until recently. 

During the Sutherland era, Irene had the Smith children and later Tasha and Kim and the Sutherlands had Brodie Hanson. 

In the post-Sutherland era, we've had various characters become foster children and/or unofficially taken in waifs and strays including Sally and Flynn, Miles, Roo and Harvey, Leah, John and Gina/Marilyn, and of course, Irene continuing to do so. 

Even in the Braxton era, which is probably the first major step toward the current premise, we still had that element with characters like April, Evie, Oscar, Matt, Jett, Maddie and Spencer, and then post-Braxtons with Olivia, Bella, Raffy and Ryder. Some of them were blood relatives to their guardian/carer, but it was still a compromise on what we have now. 

 

On 02/07/2024 at 04:07, Homeandawayfan. said:

1988-1994 was when H&A was quite a feel good show and I wish it had stayed that way.

I think the 1994 season proved that formula was starting to get tired. I enjoyed the late 90s era, much more than 1989-1994, since the original premise still existed, just with the ramped up drama. 

2000 was when the show lost its way for me. I think 2000 had the biggest cast turnover to that point, plus the other changes like the theme music and credits, the new diner, a nuclear family at Summer Bay House, made it feel less H&A to me than the late 90s era ever did. 

[CaptainHulk]

On 05/07/2024 at 16:20, Homeandawayfan. said:

Neighbours was also guilty of becoming more focused on misery and darker stories by 1992, like H&A seemed to do c1995/1996. Both shows were proper feel good shows in the first 6 years.

The thing is in 1990 it was dismissed as lightweight with stuff like Bouncer's dream and Christina dressed a peanut and some of  Eddie's comedic stuff. Then again they needed some lightheartedness in between Toby losing both Noeline AND Kerry (TF did that kid ever to do the writers?!)

Also Neighbours in 1992 was suffering an ratings/image crisis and got a much needed theme revamp and some people were either axed or some had enough.  Topic of Sex was back on the table (Todd/Phoebe, Brad/Beth, Doug/Jill), Attempted Rapes (Lucy, Gaby), Marco and Cameron unwittingly getting mixed up in the underworld

Edited July 8 by CaptainHulk

[Homeandawayfan.]

17 hours ago, adam436 said:

I'd say it kept the format beyond that, since there has always been some fostering element in the show until recently. 

During the Sutherland era, Irene had the Smith children and later Tasha and Kim and the Sutherlands had Brodie Hanson. 

In the post-Sutherland era, we've had various characters become foster children and/or unofficially taken in waifs and strays including Sally and Flynn, Miles, Roo and Harvey, Leah, John and Gina/Marilyn, and of course, Irene continuing to do so. 

Even in the Braxton era, which is probably the first major step toward the current premise, we still had that element with characters like April, Evie, Oscar, Matt, Jett, Maddie and Spencer, and then post-Braxtons with Olivia, Bella, Raffy and Ryder. Some of them were blood relatives to their guardian/carer, but it was still a compromise on what we have now. 

 

I think the 1994 season proved that formula was starting to get tired. I enjoyed the late 90s era, much more than 1989-1994, since the original premise still existed, just with the ramped up drama. 

2000 was when the show lost its way for me. I think 2000 had the biggest cast turnover to that point, plus the other changes like the theme music and credits, the new diner, a nuclear family at Summer Bay House, made it feel less H&A to me than the late 90s era ever did. 

I feel the 2000 change in H&A were quite big but at least the main nexus, Summer Bay House, remained. And still does, even though it is less seen.

Neighbours also went through a similar major change 1992-1994 with the exit of the old Waterhole, and the exit of Madge, Jim, Paul, Julie, and new credits, and the introduction of the Kennedy's, Stark's and Rebecchi's. But as said, the old Neighbours format was becoming stale. H&A has survived all these years due to evolving, not always how many want it to.

 

 

Edited July 8 by Homeandawayfan.

[James Martin]

Although it's cosmetic, do you know what I would do?

Restore the opening titles.

The show has lost its identity since they got dropped in the late 2000's.  The one thing Neighbours got right is keeping their title sequence, which is now very Home & Away in style.

I just think having that call to arms would be a good start.

I'm also no Script Producer, but to me it's insane that fostering isn't front-and-centre. My Mum died nine years ago, but in the back end of the first River Boys era she used to comment that "I much preferred it when that lady with the long wavy hair lived in the big house (referring to Debra Lawrence's Pippa) and she used to take in all the waifs and strays." The show did an incredible amount for fostering in its 90's heyday; being that back.

The other thing I'd do is follow Neighbours and Hollyoaks in the UK by taking a Streaming First approach.

Drop to 4 episodes a week, which suits Seven Network's linear transmissions, and then look to get the UK, Ireland and Australia all synced up.

Then what I would do is have 7+, RTÉ Player and My5 all drop the week's episodes at, say, 17:00 Sydney time each Monday.  The three networks would air the same episode; technically it'll still premiere in Australia unless Seven need to preempt an episode; and in the streaming era that's not the big deal it was twenty five years or so ago.

All this would get the teen audience back on board, and the three networks would have an easy way to sell them to advertisers.

@flea mentioned that "H&A used to be a beacon of promoting how family can be two things - the one you are born into, and the one that shows you love."

God that is so true.  That's exactly what's missing now.  I'm all for sex, drugs, rock & roll if there's still a moral compass at the heart of it.

[adam436]

6 hours ago, James Martin said:

I'm also no Script Producer, but to me it's insane that fostering isn't front-and-centre. 

This would call for a massive cast overhaul, which I suspect the producers would be reluctant to do right now. The number of twentysomethings would need to be reduced to make way for new teenagers and children. We'd still have Justin and Leah, Roo, and maybe John and Marilyn, but Irene and maybe John as a single man are probably getting on a bit to be active foster parents at this point. Consequently, it may also call on me of the younger couples to become foster parents, which would be out of character because of how the characters have been developed so far, i.e. Eden barely works so wouldn't be plausibly responsible, Tane has a criminal record etc. They aren't the responsible younger characters like Travis and Rebecca, Sally and Flynn etc. 

 

6 hours ago, James Martin said:

Drop to 4 episodes a week, which suits Seven Network's linear transmissions, and then look to get the UK, Ireland and Australia all synced up.

In the 21st century, it's still very surprising there is such a gap between Australia and the UK (no idea where Ireland are at). Lining them up would make for more unleaked twists etc too, especially for season finales, which air out of sync, making it difficult to avoid spoilers for UK audiences. 

It's also still surprising that H&A hasn't been cut to 4 episodes a week. Not only would it suit Channel 7's schedule, but it seems to be the way soaps are going. Neighbours has been 4 episodes a week since the revival, and Hollyoaks and Shortland Street will be making the transition to fewer episodes in the coming months. I've no idea what other UK soaps broadcast per week.

These two aspects would give the show a bit of a reset. It would also allow for tighter storytelling rather than padding out storylines unnecessarily to fill five weekly episodes, and probably give the cast a bit of a refresh because like Hollyoaks, I'd imagine there would be casualties in the cast and crew though. 

[Red Ranger 1]

11 hours ago, adam436 said:

I've no idea what other UK soaps broadcast per week.

EastEnders has been on 4 episodes for a long time and has never been more than that except on special occasions (although it is, of course, the only soap without adverts, so in terms of minutes per week it's longer than the commercial stations who do the same). Coronation Street has 3 hour-long episodes. Emmerdale, I think, has 5 episodes including an hour-long one? I definitely don't see Home and Away as out of the ordinary, especially in terms of the UK schedule.

[Homeandawayfan.]

I think the show does have a darker tone than it used to be but it does seem more lighter than 10 years ago, I quite like the light relief with the Lyrik storyline even if some see it as insufferably boring. Lyrik is better than The Banned 1986 EastEnders storyline or Afton Cooper's singing in Dallas in the early 1980s.

If I had to choose 1 scene from H&A as my fave ever, it would not be Bobby's death or the wedding of Shane and Angel, or Roo jilting Frank but my fave ever scene is Don Fisher turning up to school in punk clothing. My fave H&A scene of all time.

 

Edited July 17 by Homeandawayfan.

[CaptainHulk]

20 hours ago, Homeandawayfan. said:

I think the show does have a darker tone than it used to be but it does seem more lighter than 10 years ago, I quite like the light relief with the Lyrik storyline even if some see it as insufferably boring. Lyrik is better than The Banned 1986 EastEnders storyline or Afton Cooper's singing in Dallas in the early 1980s.

If I had to choose 1 scene from H&A as my fave ever, it would not be Bobby's death or the wedding of Shane and Angel, or Roo jilting Frank but my fave ever scene is Don Fisher turning up to school in punk clothing. My fave H&A scene of all time.

 

 

I dunno "Something Outa Nothing" is pretty catchy.  At least the Banned knew when to Jack it in

[greg098]

This show needs a complete revamp. I don't watch anymore due to the aggression of the male characters and the female characters sleeping with everyone. I feel sorry for the older cast who are pushed aside and only given dumb storylines which make no sense such as Leahs kidnapping, Irenes 'lost' son, Marilyns 'lost' daughter etc etc. It's just embarassing.
The Braxton era did add some injection into the show but I feel its ran its course but over 10 years later they are still trying to make them relevant. It's honestly sad.
I honestly can't believe this show is still being shown at 7 when its all about fighting, drugs, gangs, sleeping with everyone etc. I am surprised the older cast haven't left as the show is just embarassing to watch now (compared to how the show use to be). So in conclusion, I no longer watch and will refuse to watch until the show takes a drastic turn.

[adam436]

4 minutes ago, greg098 said:

I honestly can't believe this show is still being shown at 7 when its all about fighting, drugs, gangs, sleeping with everyone etc. 

I actually think the show could benefit from a move to a later timeslot. The show could run those storylines but with fewer restrictions.