Nathan. Posted April 28, 2008 Report Posted April 28, 2008 It seems that the 2007 revamp was not as successful as what the producers had hoped. Where did they go wrong? If you were in charge of it, what would you have done differently and what would you have done the same?
Drew Posted April 28, 2008 Report Posted April 28, 2008 I think it helped to begin with, but now I'm not so hooked. It did some justice but they're already jumping back to the lows it used to be and I've also noticed the increasing numbers of life and death situations which I'm really over now... I like some characters and stories, but now... I dunno. It's just something I watch if I don't have anything better to do.
emmasi Posted April 28, 2008 Report Posted April 28, 2008 Having half the characters p*ss off within the year doesn't help Will, Pepper, Rosie, Frazer - all introduced for the revamp and all of them gone already. What was the point of that!?
Drew Posted April 28, 2008 Report Posted April 28, 2008 Didn't they arrive during 2006? Athough they were brought in to "revamp" the show. I don't like the Parker's now. They're bland, and when something happens to them, you just cringe. Miranda and Steve remind me heavily of Rhys and Shelly. You just want to switch the channel every time they're having a blue.
Ryan Posted April 28, 2008 Report Posted April 28, 2008 I recently brought the old DVD's of Neighbours and when you watch them, even everything's sunny and bright. You then watch it on Five and it;s like someone's ****ed around with the brightness setting on your TV. I don't actually like the way the show looks. It's so dark and lifeless. I agree with emmasi as well, these characters lasting such short periods of time isn't helping either.
emmasi Posted April 28, 2008 Report Posted April 28, 2008 Didn't they arrive during 2006? Athough they were brought in to "revamp" the show. I don't like the Parker's now. They're bland, and when something happens to them, you just cringe. Miranda and Steve remind me heavily of Rhys and Shelly. You just want to switch the channel every time they're having a blue. I agree about the Parkers. I love Ned and I don't care who knows it - I LOVE NED PARKER!!!!!! - but his family are just pointless without him. Bridget has her moments, but without a kangaroo, a walking stick, or more recently a guitar, I just don't care that much. Why is she stuck in the 80s anyway?? A 'Relax' T-shirt with suspenders?? Would she even know the meaning of the word??? The parents are so bitter and dreary that I don't even care to remember their names. Someone told me Steve the other day, and my friend keeps assuring me that the mother is brilliant, but she just seems like a sour old cow to me. Has she ever cracked a smile that wasn't being used ironically to let us know that she thought she was better than someone else? And don't get me started on Riley. Just... don't. I'll admit, I'm not great when it comes to remembering the specific dates of characters coming and going, but I do know that all four of those I mentioned were wonderful in their own right and they were all gone way too soon. Will left because something suddenly came up of the actor, and I respect that. Oliver wasn't a bad substitute (I don't like him much either, but at least he has some class and the man can act). But Pepper, Rosie, and Frazer... ugh, such a waste! Surely the actors couldn't have been that unhappy with the show that they had to leave so soon? The Robinson/Napiers and the Kinski/Kennedy's, featuring Ringo (and forgetting about Libby, who has been a b*tch ever since she came back) are all I'm interested in anymore. God help me, I prefer watching Rachel - honest to God, Rachel! - than I do most of the other characters. Ty is a good addition, but I'm still just seeing him as Dean Geyer right now. He's not a bad actor at all, but he hasn't really done much as a character yet. I'm watching him with interest too. I just want Ned, Mickey, Paul and Karl to come back. What's the point without them ? (^Not that they've officially left as far as I know, but I don't know where the hell they are.)
emmasi Posted April 28, 2008 Report Posted April 28, 2008 Oh hell, sorry. I forgot this thread wasn't at Australian pace. *Edits things.*
-Andrew- Posted April 28, 2008 Report Posted April 28, 2008 Yeah, I agree about the darkness, the set lighting is awful! What's missing is the humour, call me crazy, but I liked storylines like Angie and Janelle challenging eachother to a boxing match and all those other 'silly' storylines. The characters seem suited to that kind of humour, and to just take it all away like that and turn into this miserable show. Plus I'm kinda annoyed that H&A still has the bad rep for hospital drama/ Life in the line, which people on Neighbours forums mock, yet Neighbours has actually had more of that than H&A this year! with them collapsing both a warehouse and a mine on residents (we've only had Sally, Cassie and Aden (?), all of which resulted in goodness with purgatory, HIV and sexual abuse storylines mixed in!)
Drew Posted April 28, 2008 Report Posted April 28, 2008 I actually liked the Timmin's and was quite annoyed when they shifted them all out. It's good to have a dysfunctional family that isn't like everyone else, because when they are the show is just dull. Any show needs colourful characters and I can't seemed to put my finger on one right now. They're all boring.
Nathan. Posted April 29, 2008 Report Posted April 29, 2008 I like dysfunctional. But I don't like annoyingly dysfunctional. Which is what I thought the Timmins were. I was glad to see them go, IMO. The kind of dysfunctional I like - think the Walkers from Brothers & Sisters.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.