Dan Bennett running Neighbours

[Closer Each Day]

Anyway, back to the topic, I think Dan Bennett being involved in Neighbours is a great thing.

In the past couple of years, it looks like they have been trying to emulate H&A with bomb blasts, cliffhangers, guns and overdramatic stoylines. I think they were trying to cater to the audiences who tune in for big events but at the same time completely aliented a lot of the die-hard fans who tired of the same crap every other week. The feel of Neighbours was just lost.

The revamp has been fantastic and has proven that you can do interesting drama without resorting to melodrama. I'm a teen myself and I know a lot of pwople did like the past couple of years which I found largely terrible. Those fans may decided to go with the new direction of the show or stop watching but no doubt, those alienated viewers along with those whose interest has been renewed will get back into it.

In the past few weeks, Neighbours has been the show I know and love again, families, relationships, almost like a slewed version of real-life without arsonists, kidnappers and baby-stealing psychos.

[simmins]

The feel of Neighbours was just lost.

I agree, anyway how can the producers get the fell right especially with the new credits, logo and theme tune, its already lost.

[Closer Each Day]

The feel of Neighbours was just lost.

I agree, anyway how can the producers get the fell right especially with the new credits, logo and theme tune, its already lost.

The feel is right. Neighbours is great at the minute. Credits, logo and theme tune does nothing to indicate the quality or feel of the show nor would it matter to the majority of fans.

[Formerly Known as FKAJ]

The talk about Neighbours going "back to it's roots:" From what I read in the episode summaries that have been introduced at perfectblend lately, this would be a mistake: they spend less than two weeks on Jim and Anna's storyline: they had fallen in love in three or four episodes, and I believe they got engaged and broke up during the following week. Rushing, much?

Having six full houses, as it has been since at least the 90s, is a clearly better option than three houses, containing two families as well as a man and his female lodger, which have to rush through 20 storylines each in a year, god forbid they don't focus on one for a few episodes.

Maybe I'm generalizing this, having only read the first 15 episodes and some biographies, but things moved way too quickly: Peter and Julie's relationship was even worse: he wrote her a note before they had even spoken declaring that he was falling in love with her, he proposed to twice by the end of the week, and broke up with her before Anna broke up with Jim.

I seriously hope, for the sake of the show's plausibility, that they don't mean 1985 when they refers to the show's "roots."

[emmasi]

*Snort.* Thank you. I felt like I wanted to say something similar, but as I was born in 1985 and couldn't remember that era, I thought it best not to presume that my earliest memories of the show were the mark of what some people think Neighbours *should* be.

[Closer Each Day]

The talk about Neighbours going "back to it's roots:" From what I read in the episode summaries that have been introduced at perfectblend lately, this would be a mistake: they spend less than two weeks on Jim and Anna's storyline: they had fallen in love in three or four episodes, and I believe they got engaged and broke up during the following week. Rushing, much?

Having six full houses, as it has been since at least the 90s, is a clearly better option than three houses, containing two families as well as a man and his female lodger, which have to rush through 20 storylines each in a year, god forbid they don't focus on one for a few episodes.

Maybe I'm generalizing this, having only read the first 15 episodes and some biographies, but things moved way too quickly: Peter and Julie's relationship was even worse: he wrote her a note before they had even spoken declaring that he was falling in love with her, he proposed to twice by the end of the week, and broke up with her before Anna broke up with Jim.

I seriously hope, for the sake of the show's plausibility, that they don't mean 1985 when they refers to the show's "roots."

By it's "Roots" I assume it means going back to what people love about the show. Family, relationships and a bit of comedy thrown in - things that are associated with Neighbours. In the past couple of years, they adopted a different approach with overdramatic storylines and villainous characters, bombs and stuff like that.

I'm certain that it doesn't mean that it's going back to the pace of the 80s. I don't believe a show like that is sustainable in today's television industry. More like moving back to 2003-ish when the show was really gaining momentum and building it's audience again. When they were tackling storylines in a realistic manner but before it moved too far in the melodramatic direction.

[alexx]

I don’t really have that much interest in Neighbours when it was on Channel 7 - when I think of the Golden Era I think of 87-94, when they really knew what they were doing with the show and took it to a unique level, whereas 1985-86 IMO were just trying hard to be what Sons and Daughters was, and I think I'm right that Neighbours was the replacement soap for Channel 7. Imo, when Channel 10 took it on, they made it there own.

But I don’t think the show has gone back to that anyway, I think they are more around the 1997 mark at present, which is cool with me! 1997 was a fav era of mine too. But I think when they say 'back to basics' they are talkign about pre-2005 arent they?

[Closer Each Day]

But I don’t think the show has gone back to that anyway, I think they are more around the 1997 mark at present, which is cool with me! 1997 was a fav era of mine too. But I think when they say 'back to basics' they are talkign about pre-2005 arent they?

Well, 1997 was seen as another high point for the show after the lull of the mind-90's, so that's a good thing.

I don't think they'll try and recreate a particular era. By "Back to basics" I think they mean that they are going back to the heart of the show, the things that made in great in the first place, family, relationships, realism and well-written and developed characters you care about. But still bringing to the show into new and modern territory that will appeal to a modern audience.

2005 was when the show began to go too far in the melodrama region, and began to become more like The Bold & The Beautiful. And while that may be good and people may like it, it just wasn't Neighbours. Some people do like 2005 - mid-2007 in terms of story and characters but on the whole, it just wasn't working for the show, ratings dropped badly and they needed to do something.

2003-2004 was the most successful period of the show in recent years, so if they can bring back that audience, I think they'll be happy.

[simmins]

deleted

[JamesF]

I think the "back to basics" stuff is basically a spinny way of saying that 2005-2007 was a mistake as opposed to pinpointing a particular era.

If it was going back to something I would say 2003-2004 as a recent example when it struck the perfect balance. There was plenty of comedy and silliness but also some *real* drama like Lyn finding out Valda was her mother, Dee's death, Darcy going to jail, the Kennedy marriage breaking down etc. Dramatically compelling stories that were all rooted in some kind of realism unlike the guns and psychos stuff. They'd upped the ante with new bitch Izzy and higher stakes but nothing totally out there. That's what I want them to get back to. It really was gripping, great soap with all the twists and turns of Izzy's baby lies but the characters were given enough depth and motivation for you to care about it.

It's interesting too that the most successful story of recent times IMO lasted pretty much for 2 years but there was nothing else to carry on on the momentum which is why the writers started piling on stunts and deaths. The moment Karl found out the truth and shoved Izzy to the ground outside Lassiters, the wheels just fell off and everything went crazy. Thankfully this year, the show's gotten some form of structure back.