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

[pembie]

1 hour ago, greg098 said:

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.

I must say the women are quite easy they don’t really play hard to get Kirby the other day was instantly interested in Malis brother and he didn’t need to do anything haha Like really 

[Homeandawayfan.]

I am not sure the change in style of the show in the last 16 years or so was actually intentional, maybe H&A just evolved that way and not always for the better, but may not have been a deliberate change in style.

[adam436]

Its definitely been a slow shift. When the Braxtons were introduced, we still had a strong focus on teens and families. The teen population was downsized around 2016/2017 with the introduction of the Morgans and loss of characters like Jett, VJ, Josh, Evie, Oscar, Maddie and Matt. And then slowly dwindled away with Olivia, Hunter, Raffy etc departed, leaving us with just Bella, Ryder, Chloe and Nikau, who all left around the same time, being replaced with twentysomethings.

I think the producers just think the Braxtons were really popular (which they were!), and keep trying to recreate that magic with characters of the same age, perhaps forgetting they were balanced out by a well rounded teenage cast and a stalwart cast who were more effectively used.

[atrus]

It should be said, though, that neither the purging of teenage characters nor the sidelining of the elder statesmen/women is likely to be accidental or incidental. Up until the Bella, Ryder etc grouping, new teen regulars had reliably been introduced every year for I don't know how long. You might be able to point at one or two exceptional years, but aside from that, probably every year since the show started. It's been a very deliberate move to change that up and to nuke the school, presumably in response to the ageing linear TV audience, and possibly focus groups. But I must say it isn't a decision that almost any H&A fan I've come across seems to be particularly keen on. Even those who staunchly defend the current show seldom argue that they're actively pleased about the wholesale homogenisation of character demographics; at best, it seems, they don't really mind either way.

I'm equally convinced that the veteran characters are deliberately not being put at the centre of families or being linked in any meaningful way to newly incoming characters. I think either the showrunners or the network, or both, like the fact that they are more or less entirely segregated off into their own storylines, for whatever reason; again I suspect it plays into this idea the network has convinced itself of that it needs to play down the longevity of the show and promote it almost entirely through the lens of the twentysomethings. I'd love to be a fly on the wall of a production meeting and find out exactly what is said about this stuff, but I don't think any of it has happened by chance.

Edited July 26 by atrus

[Homeandawayfan.]

H&A has always had a strong teen focus since it began but the first 2 years were did have some older characters, some of whom were still relatively young, in their 40s like Don Fisher, Alf Stewart, Pippa Fletcher, Tom Fletcher. And the only characters over 60 were Floss and Neville. Des Monaghan wanted to make the younger demographic even bigger in 1989 so got rid of Floss and Neville. I am now the same age group as what Don, Alf and Tom were when the show began, well 2 years older than what Tom was as he had his 40th in January 1988 in the pilot. I think Ailsa and Pippa were only late 30s in 1988.

[adam436]

On 27/07/2024 at 00:57, atrus said:

I'm equally convinced that the veteran characters are deliberately not being put at the centre of families or being linked in any meaningful way to newly incoming characters. I think either the showrunners or the network, or both, like the fact that they are more or less entirely segregated off into their own storylines, for whatever reason; again I suspect it plays into this idea the network has convinced itself of that it needs to play down the longevity of the show and promote it almost entirely through the lens of the twentysomethings.

The segregation between old and new cast becoming more and more obvious. With a few exceptions (i.e. John and Dana working together, Irene living with Dana and Harper, Theo being Leah's nephew), the veteran characters are generally in their own bubble, and only really given storylines because the writers are obliged to. Compare it to say the mid 90s - we still had characters grouped into teenagers, twentysomethings and "the elders", but there was still that crossover and interaction. Someone like Shannon for example, used to share scenes with her peer group, her family and the older characters like Fisher and Alf. 

There is no reason why any of the current twentysomethings couldn't be Irene's grandsons. They wouldn't necessarily need to live with her, but it would at least give us a multi-generation connection. Or if the producers are so obsessed with adult siblings, why not create one for Theo, so it at least gives Leah another family member to interact with? 

In some ways, I can see why Channel 7 is downplaying the longevity of the show. If you talk about Neighbours, some people would say "I didn't know that was still going", implying that is well past its shelf life, even well before 2022. I've not really watched the UK soaps other than Hollyoaks, but I do remember when I was growing up that Coronation Street was often associated with an older audience growing up (my Nanna watched it!). From what I know, it has a larger younger cast now, but I still probably that have association with my Nanna in my head. The producers probably view "classic" Home and Away as a bit daggy and might worry that's how the audience associate it. 

[Homeandawayfan.]

I think Neighbours played a part in the British soaps becoming more youth orientated and increasing their weekly episode count in the early to mid 1990s when Neighbours was caning it on British TV.

Edited July 30 by Homeandawayfan.

[Red Ranger 1]

On 29/07/2024 at 21:53, adam436 said:

The segregation between old and new cast becoming more and more obvious. With a few exceptions (i.e. John and Dana working together, Irene living with Dana and Harper, Theo being Leah's nephew), the veteran characters are generally in their own bubble, and only really given storylines because the writers are obliged to. Compare it to say the mid 90s - we still had characters grouped into teenagers, twentysomethings and "the elders", but there was still that crossover and interaction. Someone like Shannon for example, used to share scenes with her peer group, her family and the older characters like Fisher and Alf. 

I'd say the show is a lot better at that than it used to be. Go back to the Braxton era, and the veterans seemed to have no idea what the newer characters were doing and were happy to keep it that way. Nowadays if Cash or Mali or Kirby had a problem, there's a very good chance that the likes of Alf, John, Leah and Marilyn would stop them in the surf club or the Diner to check in on them and offer some advice.

[j.laur5]

Thing that has annoyed me in recent years when certain characters are treated like saints when they are fan favourite like Dean and Ziggy as firstly despite them being couple in real life I did not think there characters were golden couple on show that they made them   out to be and Dean was called lovely by Marilyn recently and that annoyed me because Marilyn year or so was saying  Dean was bad boy and Dean may matured but still had moments that were  questionable like when Tane was stabbed and Ziggy was such hypocritical character as she breaks up with Dean for covering up killing and five minutes later  she hooks up with Tane other  bad boy and helps with Willow to cover up Tane crime and then when Dean almost dies in car accident  she then all suddenly forgives Dean and cheats on Tane. 

Edited August 1 by j.laur5

[atrus]

15 hours ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

I'd say the show is a lot better at that than it used to be. Go back to the Braxton era, and the veterans seemed to have no idea what the newer characters were doing and were happy to keep it that way. Nowadays if Cash or Mali or Kirby had a problem, there's a very good chance that the likes of Alf, John, Leah and Marilyn would stop them in the surf club or the Diner to check in on them and offer some advice.

My memory isn't good enough to recall how often Alf, Irene etc 'stuck their bib in' with the Braxtons and co, although I'd argue they probably had more going on in their own lives and families during that era, so it didn't necessarily matter as much. But even accepting this is the case: it's still abominably slim pickings now, isn't it? In the current show, it's usually little more than platitudes exchanged between the older characters and the youngsters, and is probably driven more by the fact that they're allowed so few characters in any given episode and need to fill out the runtime than any actual desire for them to interact.

On 29/07/2024 at 21:53, adam436 said:

There is no reason why any of the current twentysomethings couldn't be Irene's grandsons. They wouldn't necessarily need to live with her, but it would at least give us a multi-generation connection. Or if the producers are so obsessed with adult siblings, why not create one for Theo, so it at least gives Leah another family member to interact with? 

Exactly. I just don't understand what the sidelining of the elders achieves. It makes the show feel so sad and empty. If the producers are resigned to keeping them on as they seem to be, they might as well make their roles meaningful and build the younger cast around them. Theo really does seem like the exception to the rule of not doing that, but then he was introduced back when Ryder was around and hence before the apparent moratorium on such relationships had come in.

On 29/07/2024 at 21:53, adam436 said:

Compare it to say the mid 90s - we still had characters grouped into teenagers, twentysomethings and "the elders", but there was still that crossover and interaction. Someone like Shannon for example, used to share scenes with her peer group, her family and the older characters like Fisher and Alf. 

Yes, very much so. Worth saying too that, in the years since, as the 'elders' like Alf and Irene got older, there's a fourth age group category of the fortysomething parents that came in, most recently Maggie and Ben for example. This is another demographic that has now been entirely wiped off the board except for Leah, who's only in it because she's so longstanding, and Justin because they have proved a successful pairing.

On 29/07/2024 at 21:53, adam436 said:

The producers probably view "classic" Home and Away as a bit daggy and might worry that's how the audience associate it. 

But in which case, why not just change the name, write out the legacy characters, and put all of us out of our misery - because except for the beach, they've changed everything else? I feel like if it was no longer called Home and Away and the veterans were gone, then that would be my final excuse to stop watching. And then they could board up Summer Bay House for good and do what they liked with the all the identikit adult siblings.

Edited August 1 by atrus