samdanfan Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 3 hours ago, Homeandawayfan. said: Al Bateman based H&A on that very thing, city kids being moved to a remote Australian town from Sydney, and being placed in a foster home. And since it worked so well why change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samdanfan Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 Like a Bloke told me you always find you typical Hottie yet what I cant find is an Angel of Bobby from the past. I agree with him we should given new characters a chance yet part of me will always love the old days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joany208121 Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 I have always thought that the heart and soul of the show was the fostering aspect, and that the show wouldn't survive forever unless it continued with the successful path of taking in waif and stray kids and turning them from troubled teens to mature adults. But is that really the case? What if all the show needs is a "central family" like the Sutherlands or Fletcher-Saunders family or MacGuire-Patterson-Baker Clan to be the focus, with the ensemble cast having professions or relations that require constant interaction with the main family. Or do you think that more than one family is required to maintain balance and to allow a comparison of situations to be created, like the Ross/Stewarts families did in their time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samdanfan Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, joany208121 said: I have always thought that the heart and soul of the show was the fostering aspect, and that the show wouldn't survive forever unless it continued with the successful path of taking in waif and stray kids and turning them from troubled teens to mature adults. But is that really the case? What if all the show needs is a "central family" like the Sutherlands or Fletcher-Saunders family or MacGuire-Patterson-Baker Clan to be the focus, with the ensemble cast having professions or relations that require constant interaction with the main family. Or do you think that more than one family is required to maintain balance and to allow a comparison of situations to be created, like the Ross/Stewarts families did in their time. Yes I love to see that one good family or character that would make people say wow or become Sons and daughters as one source once told me she was a fan of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke39 Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 I think when your being nostalgic, you tend to wear rose tinted glasses. And compare to the past a lot. Specifically in this thread. And the past show and characters. But was the past that better, then it is now? Traditionally yes. But it seems the format right now is fitting a more modern age of Home and Away. So I think they have abandoned their roots. Particularly the Fostering. So love too see that return this year. Saw sort of with Maddy and Spencer. But like to see big focus on that this season. But my point is. Technically H and A right now for what it is. It's watchable. Okay 2016 was not the best year. Not the worst though. But I guess it's all based on your level of investment. If you started watching post 2010. When the show drifted. Maybe you wouldent notice a difference. If your a long term fan, clearly you would. As for the family aspect. I don't think they need to centre the show around one family. Like they did with Pippa etc. Back in the late 80s, early 90s. I think he good if Duncan returned. And they centred the show around The Stewart's. But balance is what's needed. I just want to see everyday Aussie lifestyle and culture portrayed. A new family been introduced this year be good. Not since the Walkers. Other then the Morgans had one. And be nice contrast to The Morgans. Have an every day Aussie Family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sindikatas Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 I disagree. 80s and 90s certainly didn't have as many ridiculous and unbelievable storylines as the current show does. Take Pippa and Michael's seperation for example. In the current show they would probably go to ONE counselling session and that would be it. Like a magic cure. Then there's an actual comparison with Dale and Rocco an their respective cot deaths. How is it more modern that a baby has to be rushed to hospital every week and die from something completely unrelated? Then that horrible casting of VJ. If Bobby had an accident now, she would wake up from being brain dead. Of course those eras had their weak spots. For example writing characters in their 20s as if they were in their 40s. But what I'm complaining about is not flimic look or crime aspect. I'm complaining about lazy writing. I do not enjoy being treated as an idiot by the writers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dee123 Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 On 03/01/2017 at 8:34 AM, John said: Or on the other hand it could just be an unwillingness to innovate or risk anything new. Well this is a show that in 2017 that doesn't have a regular gay, disabled, black, or Asian character. I'm not asking for minority bingo and to have them just because they are a minority but to not even have 1 speaks volumes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samdanfan Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 9 hours ago, dee123 said: Well this is a show that in 2017 that doesn't have a regular gay, disabled, black, or Asian character. I'm not asking for minority bingo and to have them just because they are a minority but to not even have 1 speaks volumes... I love to see Josh Thomas visit the bay and yes they do need Minority characters and that goes for other shows too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skylover Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 22 hours ago, sindikatas said: Then that horrible casting of VJ. I agree. I actually think it's the worst re-cast of all time for any show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.laur5 Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 On 6 January 2017 at 9:38 AM, sindikatas said: I disagree. 80s and 90s certainly didn't have as many ridiculous and unbelievable storylines as the current show does. Take Pippa and Michael's seperation for example. In the current show they would probably go to ONE counselling session and that would be it. Like a magic cure. Then there's an actual comparison with Dale and Rocco an their respective cot deaths. How is it more modern that a baby has to be rushed to hospital every week and die from something completely unrelated? Then that horrible casting of VJ. If Bobby had an accident now, she would wake up from being brain dead. Of course those eras had their weak spots. For example writing characters in their 20s as if they were in their 40s. But what I'm complaining about is not flimic look or crime aspect. I'm complaining about lazy writing. I do not enjoy being treated as an idiot by the writers. I agree both Bobby and Marilyn were written as if they were in there 40s in 1991 and 1992!. In 1995 Marilyn feels like she more closer to Ailsa/Pippa/Irene age then Angel/Shannon/Selina/Kelly age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.