Don Fisher storyline dropped in 2015-2017 (more details)

[homeandawayroxsomuch.]

2 hours ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

^Or they could have just had a positive story where, if the catalyst was Marilyn's amnesia, he could have just come back and helped her come to terms with what her life was like now, which would have been a nice reversal of both Don's utterly depressing 2007 return and the 2010 retcon that Marilyn refused to see him when he turned up for a big reunion. But no, they had to say "And while we've got him, let's kill him."

Marilyn refused to see him when he came to visit when she had breast cancer?

 

Firstly, I don't remember that.

Secondly, super harsh if she did refuse to see him.

[Homeandawayfan.]

Dan Bennett would have been good as a producer, he would keep the gritty feel but would understand the shows history.

Now that Neighbours is going, we need H&A to keep up the nostalgia of Australian soaps, seeing as both were huuuuuuge in the UK 30 years ago.

[CaptainHulk]

1 hour ago, homeandawayroxsomuch. said:

Marilyn refused to see him when he came to visit when she had breast cancer?

 

Firstly, I don't remember that.

Secondly, super harsh if she did refuse to see him.

She herself admitted it when she came back in 2010.

I reckon a 4 hander with Maz, Don, Palmer and Jett would have been the go in the amnesia story.

[Red Ranger 1]

10 hours ago, homeandawayroxsomuch. said:

Marilyn refused to see him when he came to visit when she had breast cancer?

 

Firstly, I don't remember that.

Secondly, super harsh if she did refuse to see him.

Yes, she mentioned it in passing when she came back. And yes, it is pretty harsh.

[Jamie!]

20 hours ago, hapitoby said:

I'll never understand the current producers clearly avoiding returning characters. It's like they're ashamed of the shows history. We had 0 returns for the shows 30th anniversary  - which also contained the 7000th episode. Nothing to celebrate the shows history or characters.  Next year is the 35th anniversary and will feature the 8000th episode. I highly doubt we'll get any returning characters once again.

 

I don't understand this mentality of ignoring the past to focus on the future. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Its very odd.

 

Also, I wish they'd bring the opening credits back but I know that's never happening. I accepted that like 10 years ago lol

I completely agree. By ignoring what's happened in the past, they're alienating a big number of long term fans. Most of Home and Away's biggest, most popular moments are events that happened when the show was in its heyday, when the viewing figures were in the millions in the UK. By ignoring these moments, almost making out as if they never happened, they're basically saying that they don't really care about the long term fans, and are only interested in keeping the attention of the newer viewers, who don't know about the show's history and what it used to be like. The show used to be a form of escapism, with a very warm, strong community feel to it. Every character felt real and they felt like you knew them in real life.

They should stop ignoring the past because "the past" was when Home and Away was at its greatest, with its most iconic, beloved characters who aren't primarily popular because they're good looking, troublemaking, law-breaking bad boys. Look at the effort they put in to promoting Heath Braxton returning, (nothing wrong with the actor, but he's hardly a legacy character), and he was only there for all of five minutes and the storyline could have very easily carried on without having him part of it. They would never put all that effort in promoting an iconic character from the show's past because they don't care about them. I personally know a couple of people who have stopped watching the show because of how totally different they've made the show now. I understand that times change and that shows need to evolve in order to keep up with modern times, but that doesn't mean that they have to be totally different to what they were. You can still keep it a mainly character led show with a strong community feel and strong links to the past. Look at Neighbours, for example. If they've done it, why can't Home and Away?

And I've never understood their argument for not having opening credits on the show. Even if someone hasn't watched Home and Away for years, or even if they've never watched it at all, if they heard the theme tune, then chances are they'd instantly know what show its from. It's an iconic theme. So to not have the opening credits because of "time constrictions" and so they can include more drama into each episode without them is in my opinion, a nonsensical argument. The show went through a total of about 18 years and over 4,000 episodes where the opening credits were part of the show for every single episode and the show didn't suffer at all by having them then. So why would they suffer from having them now?

[Red Ranger 1]

7 minutes ago, Jamie! said:

Look at Neighbours, for example. If they've done it, why can't Home and Away?

I think that's an argument in favour of 7 Network getting it right. Because, you know, which show's ending this year? Sure, Neighbours is beloved by the sort of people who frequent forums like these or write columns in soap magazines because for years it's been directing itself mainly at people who get excited about storylines that rely solely on nostalgia for something that happened 30 years ago. But aiming a show solely at the super fans, the very people who are likely to keep watching anyway if only to say it's not as good as it was in the early days, turns out not to have been a viable model for a successful show, and even they're going to get fed up by meandering storylines about how a forgettable character from 15 years ago isn't dead after all, except she is, except she isn't, oh and we've changed her family history for a laugh... I mean, look at the botched return of Olivia for an example of what Home and Away would be like if the lunatics ended up running the asylum!

So, while I'm not exactly in favour of the show ignoring its past, I don't think you can really deny that what Home and Away has been doing for the last decade has built an audience strong enough to keep the show on air, and what Neighbours has done for the last decade hasn't. It would be nice if we could bring younger viewers discovering the show for the first time along with us in understanding and appreciating the show's past, but perhaps they actually are the ones that the show needs to appeal to in order to survive.

[Jamie!]

15 minutes ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

I think that's an argument in favour of 7 Network getting it right. Because, you know, which show's ending this year? Sure, Neighbours is beloved by the sort of people who frequent forums like these or write columns in soap magazines because for years it's been directing itself mainly at people who get excited about storylines that rely solely on nostalgia for something that happened 30 years ago. But aiming a show solely at the super fans, the very people who are likely to keep watching anyway if only to say it's not as good as it was in the early days, turns out not to have been a viable model for a successful show, and even they're going to get fed up by meandering storylines about how a forgettable character from 15 years ago isn't dead after all, except she is, except she isn't, oh and we've changed her family history for a laugh... I mean, look at the botched return of Olivia for an example of what Home and Away would be like if the lunatics ended up running the asylum!

So, while I'm not exactly in favour of the show ignoring its past, I don't think you can really deny that what Home and Away has been doing for the last decade has built an audience strong enough to keep the show on air, and what Neighbours has done for the last decade hasn't. It would be nice if we could bring younger viewers discovering the show for the first time along with us in understanding and appreciating the show's past, but perhaps they actually are the ones that the show needs to appeal to in order to survive.

I'm not trying to say that I feel like Home and Away has to be purely what it was like during say, the 80's and the 90's. I think of the first half of 2008 when original writer Bevan Lee returned to oversee Sally's exit. It still had some moments that the show wouldn't have covered or focused upon in its past, but at the same time, it felt like Home and Away, with its character driven moments and its strong, warm, community feel. I see no reason why today's Home and Away can't be like the first half of 2008.

I don't personally watch Neighbours, (although I'll be more than likely tuning in during its last few weeks), but why is Home and Away more popular than Neighbours in Australia? Is it because of Neighbours focusing a lot on its past rather than the future? Also, one of the reasons why it's being axed is because Channel 5 decided not to renew it, but when they signed Home and Away, they agreed to have it on their channel for life, so if the sad day came that Home and Away ever got axed, we don't really need to worry about it being for that reason.

[Homeandawayfan.]

H&A is a soap that tends to not live in its past as opposed to totally ignoring it.

[hapitoby]

On 15/03/2022 at 11:43, Jamie! said:

I completely agree. By ignoring what's happened in the past, they're alienating a big number of long term fans. Most of Home and Away's biggest, most popular moments are events that happened when the show was in its heyday, when the viewing figures were in the millions in the UK. By ignoring these moments, almost making out as if they never happened, they're basically saying that they don't really care about the long term fans, and are only interested in keeping the attention of the newer viewers, who don't know about the show's history and what it used to be like. The show used to be a form of escapism, with a very warm, strong community feel to it. Every character felt real and they felt like you knew them in real life.

They should stop ignoring the past because "the past" was when Home and Away was at its greatest, with its most iconic, beloved characters who aren't primarily popular because they're good looking, troublemaking, law-breaking bad boys. Look at the effort they put in to promoting Heath Braxton returning, (nothing wrong with the actor, but he's hardly a legacy character), and he was only there for all of five minutes and the storyline could have very easily carried on without having him part of it. They would never put all that effort in promoting an iconic character from the show's past because they don't care about them. I personally know a couple of people who have stopped watching the show because of how totally different they've made the show now. I understand that times change and that shows need to evolve in order to keep up with modern times, but that doesn't mean that they have to be totally different to what they were. You can still keep it a mainly character led show with a strong community feel and strong links to the past. Look at Neighbours, for example. If they've done it, why can't Home and Away?

And I've never understood their argument for not having opening credits on the show. Even if someone hasn't watched Home and Away for years, or even if they've never watched it at all, if they heard the theme tune, then chances are they'd instantly know what show its from. It's an iconic theme. So to not have the opening credits because of "time constrictions" and so they can include more drama into each episode without them is in my opinion, a nonsensical argument. The show went through a total of about 18 years and over 4,000 episodes where the opening credits were part of the show for every single episode and the show didn't suffer at all by having them then. So why would they suffer from having them now?

I wish I could love this post a thousand times over. You've pretty much covered everything. I'll never understand the mentality of alienating fans and you're absolutely right, the show can change with the times without ignoring the past. The Martha retcon didn't bother my as much as some people but I did feel it was pointless and badly executed. Even the explanation could have been solved in 5 minutes but it was vague and danced around for weeks to drag it out, the only this is did was throw Alf's character under the bus.

 

Speaking of Alf, his wedding could have been a bigger event. The only remaining OG character and yet to have an actual on screen wedding even after over 30 years, finally gets his big day. This could have been a big event like Alf's 60th or boat celebration in 2002 or Sally's wedding in 2000 and we could have seen characters return. But no. Not one. None of Alf's friends or families outside the current cast. I'm sure many would have like to see Sally, Don, Mitch, Ric and Mattie, Duncan, Martha to name a few.

 

The credits taking too long is a terrible excuse. It's 30 seconds. If timing was the issue they can trim down a few scenes by 5 secs and just not bother/lessen some of the overhead or beach shots. They could even shorten to recap and/or next episode preview to allow the extra 15-20 seconds they need -sometimes the recap is well over a minute. The wouldn't even have to do the credits every episode. It could be once a week/month/every credit change/ randomly when they can etc. They should just admit they've no interest in doing rather than telling crappy lies. The iconic theme and the shots were such a big part of the show. The fact that they ignore that really illustrates their lack of care for the shows history and its fans. It's really disappointing. And yes Neighbours managed to progress storylines while respecting its history. 

 

I'm not sure but maybe there is some sort of pride or ego thing going on about not wanting to reference things that the current writers and producers weren't part of. I dunno but seeing as the story of Rob being written out (and other actors like Robert Mammone, Luke Mitchell and Jay Laga'aia mentioning issues behind the scenes) I feel like there could be more to it.

[CaptainHulk]

There's a thing about learning from History.