Why do the producers ignore Shandi Palmer?

[atrus]

1 hour ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

Home and Away is about people with no family being accepted into a community.

This is really stretching it. The premise of the show was about waif-and-stray kids being welcomed into surrogate families, not any old people with no relatives turning up in the Bay to live there just because. That just feels like an attempt to make the current show - which clearly bears very little resemblance to the one that began in 1988, save Alf and the beach - fit in with the loosest definition possible. Yes, unrelated people turn up and yes, they are accepted into the community, but that isn't a premise of any kind and nor do I think the current producers see this remotely as their raison d'être or proudly continuing a tradition, beyond that they're saddled with Summer Bay as their setting ('community') and people have to turn up and live there ('being accepted') in order to keep the cogs turning, and seemingly that the network has the strange idea that they will alienate their demographic if the entire cast bar five isn't replaced every three years with completely unconnected people who never reference the show's history. The whole point of the original ethos was to depict nurturing families and communities helping young people who had been on the wrong side of the tracks or who had had deprived childhoods. Not just, "a band turns up in a van and everybody in the community gets on with them."

It's certainly fair enough to argue the point if you don't want all Alf and Irene's long-lost relatives to turn up - maybe you're happy with the status quo - but I don't think it can be couched in the argument that the show is being truer to its roots by eschewing that. H&A has brought in plenty of biological families and relatives for existing characters since its Fletcher/Ross glory days with much success, so clearly the only reason they don't bring in any relatives for them now is because they're more than content to have them sit around in the Diner and chat between themselves. And yeah, there are other ways to tackle that than bringing in biological family, but H&A isn't pursuing those either. This should be an argument about whether the show is treating its longest-term characters with respect in terms of giving them significant things to do and units to be a part of, not about whether it's sticking close to its roots, because we all know really that those were abandoned some time ago.

Edited January 21, 2023 by atrus

[Red Ranger 1]

4 hours ago, Homeandawayfan. said:

I think Emmerdale also tends to ignore any characters prior to the Dingles. They could bring back Sam Skilbeck, the son of Matt and Dolly, or children of Sandie Merrick, or cousins of Jack Sugden/Amos and Mr Wilks etc. Yet they seem to neglect this and just keep rapidly expanding the Dingle demographic.

Corrie, EE and Neighbours always bring back past characters or relatives of them. Seems odd why Emmerdale and H&A are hell bent on ignoring their past.

I think that's equally true of EastEnders and the Mitchells: It's doubtful Kathy would have come back if she didn't have a link to Phil and Ben. Emmerdale brought the Tates back not so long ago. Coronation Street has the advantage of 60+ years of history and thus characters who would seem like veterans on any other show still feel like newcomers, but they're starting to head the same way as Home and Away in having a small number of ageing stalwarts who won't last forever. Neighbours even more so: It's telling that we still only know that they're going to keep the so-called "big four" around for the relaunch, with the other characters seemingly considered of lesser importance.

[CaptainHulk]

16 minutes ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

I think that's equally true of EastEnders and the Mitchells: It's doubtful Kathy would have come back if she didn't have a link to Phil and Ben. Emmerdale brought the Tates back not so long ago. Coronation Street has the advantage of 60+ years of history and thus characters who would seem like veterans on any other show still feel like newcomers, but they're starting to head the same way as Home and Away in having a small number of ageing stalwarts who won't last forever. Neighbours even more so: It's telling that we still only know that they're going to keep the so-called "big four" around for the relaunch, with the other characters seemingly considered of lesser importance.

They likely don't want to show their hand just yet and plus the big four represent familiarity and have become synonymous with the she

Paul - The prodigal

Toadie - The boy who grew

Karl and Susan - The couple who brought back a family feel and have been through everything

(Look, Neighbours is one of five elements I defend to the death, Mum and Nan are the other two )

[Skylover]

6 hours ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

That's because they're very different shows and always have been. Home and Away is about people with no family being accepted into a community. EastEnders is mostly about a small number of large families and how they're all related to each other, bringing in new never-before-mentioned relatives and bringing back old ones (recast if necessary) whenever their numbers run short. Home and Away also has a much more tight knit cast. EastEnders can afford to have about a dozen characters related to Phil Mitchell by blood or marriage. If you did that in Home and Away, that's over half the cast and it'd be even more obviously incestuous.

I think if they were such different shows to the point that H&A has less need to bring back relatives of existing characters, then there wouldn't have been a purpose in listing the people H&A has brought back since 2016.

5 hours ago, atrus said:

This should be an argument about whether the show is treating its longest-term characters with respect in terms of giving them significant things to do and units to be a part of, not about whether it's sticking close to its roots, because we all know really that those were abandoned some time ago.

I think this is a good point, and most notably, when I've made the point that John Palmer being crowbarred into 3 scenes an episode about his car isn't entertaining, no-one replies to that comment to explain why it is. And that's because those long-term characters aren't treated well, though in all honesty, I'm actually quite surprised that characters like Roo and Marilyn are still around, because of the contempt the producers treat them with. We're lucky that Cameron Welsh was around in 2010 and decided to introduce the characters, because I think we could have a very different show right now if Lucy Addario had become producer earlier on. The older characters have never been treated all that well in H&A, even as far back as the 90s, however it's definitely become worse and worse as the years have gone on. They don't really invest in the future though. Once Alf and Irene are gone, you have Roo and Marilyn, but what about once they're gone? It would be nice to have someone carry on the Stewart legacy, but if the show lasts another 20-30 years, I can't see that happening. Although I can't see the show lasting much longer anyway the way it is.

[adam436]

1 hour ago, Skylover said:

And that's because those long-term characters aren't treated well, though in all honesty, I'm actually quite surprised that characters like Roo and Marilyn are still around, because of the contempt the producers treat them with. We're lucky that Cameron Welsh was around in 2010 and decided to introduce the characters, because I think we could have a very different show right now if Lucy Addario had become producer earlier on. 

I wouldn't say either character was treated that well under Welsh either. Marilyn's was all over the place in her first year or two (the Nicole baby story springs to mind immediately!) and the writers definitely took a while to define the new Roo, which perhaps might have been a case of Georgie finding her feet and trying to find her own take on Roo. 

That core group of six mainstays clearly love working together and are quite close and I'd say that is a contributing factor to them all staying as long as they have. I'd love to know Emily's and Ray's true thoughts about the retcons with their characters, but that's something we are ever unlikely to hear. 

 

1 hour ago, Skylover said:

The older characters have never been treated all that well in H&A, even as far back as the 90s, however it's definitely become worse and worse as the years have gone on. 

I have to disagree here. Pippa, Michael and Irene were all very much integral part of the show and their households, even when they weren't having major storylines. Ailsa had a quite big stories in the 90s (her mental breakdown, Shauna being her long-lost daughter, the car crash) and Donald was very much a main character during his marriage to Marilyn. 

Alf and Donald were definitely treated poorly in the early 2000s though - they both lost all their key family members in one a short space of time. Donald lost Marilyn, Sam and Rebecca and then Alf lost Duncan, Ailsa and Shauna and was shunted off to a small flat. I'd say Alf didn't really have much of a purpose again until he moved in with Sally in 2006. 

It's definitely really bad though, but I have no complaints about how the older characters were treated in the 90s. 

 

1 hour ago, Skylover said:

They don't really invest in the future though. Once Alf and Irene are gone, you have Roo and Marilyn, but what about once they're gone? It would be nice to have someone carry on the Stewart legacy, but if the show lasts another 20-30 years, I can't see that happening. 

If they wanted to continue the Stewart legacy, Duncan Stewart is the obvious choice. His son would be 12(?) now and he could have remarried and be given a few stepchildren too. That seems unlikely though.

If Ray and/or Georgie left, I wouldn't be surprised if the current producers stopped bothering with the caravan park and Summer Bay House set to be honest. 

[Skylover]

29 minutes ago, adam436 said:

I wouldn't say either character was treated that well under Welsh either. Marilyn's was all over the place in her first year or two (the Nicole baby story springs to mind immediately!) and the writers definitely took a while to define the new Roo, which perhaps might have been a case of Georgie finding her feet and trying to find her own take on Roo.

I don't see it with Roo as much, but I do think Marilyn took some time to find her feet. Still, Cameron chose to bring those characters back which I think are two of the best decisions made in the last 15 years. I don't think a decision like that would have been made by Lucy Addario. Even though Georgie Parker is very different to the first version of Roo, I think she looks more like Alf and is a great actress, so I was very happy with that recast. It would have perhaps been interesting to see her have a baby late in life, instead of the miscarriage she had a few years ago.

32 minutes ago, adam436 said:

I have to disagree here. Pippa, Michael and Irene were all very much integral part of the show and their households, even when they weren't having major storylines. Ailsa had a quite big stories in the 90s (her mental breakdown, Shauna being her long-lost daughter, the car crash) and Donald was very much a main character during his marriage to Marilyn. 

Alf and Donald were definitely treated poorly in the early 2000s though - they both lost all their key family members in one a short space of time. Donald lost Marilyn, Sam and Rebecca and then Alf lost Duncan, Ailsa and Shauna and was shunted off to a small flat. I'd say Alf didn't really have much of a purpose again until he moved in with Sally in 2006. 

It's definitely really bad though, but I have no complaints about how the older characters were treated in the 90s. 

I think Ailsa was a bit light on storylines from 1990 to 1996 (I've not seen 1997-1999) so can't comment. She did get a good storyline in 2000 so it's a shame she was absent for that. Michael, Pippa and Irene were always integral to the show, but they were more in the shadow of the teens' storylines. Obviously, there was the cot death, and Michael and Pippa's marriage troubles, among other storylines. But I definitely feel like in comparison, Neighbours focuses more on the adult/long term characters in a way that H&A hasn't as much. But obviously it was much better in the 90s than it is now with the older characters often shoehorned into scenes.

[EndlessSummer]

2 hours ago, Skylover said:Once Alf and Irene are gone, you have Roo and Marilyn, but what about once they're gone? It would be nice to have someone carry on the Stewart legacy, but if the show lasts another 20-30 years, I can't see that happening. Although I can't see the show lasting much longer anyway the way it is.

I honestly think as long as they keep bringing drama and all these new faces in the show I really don’t think they will ever bring anyone in to return to continue the Stewart legacy. If that’s the case I won’t be tuning in anymore. Unless by then there is a new producer in future maybe then we might have some hope

32 minutes ago, adam436 said:

It's definitely really bad though, but I have no complaints about how the older characters were treated in the 90s 

I think it’s been since maybe the past 10 years it’s been really bad. You just see all the oldies hanging around the dinner pointlessly and Irene dishing advice to all the new faces. TPTB treats them more like extras then main cast. Sure they have all had a few major storylines but they generally feel under-utilised.

[Homeandawayfan.]

Emmerdale is another show that has totally deviated from its original premise, the same way H&A has. Emmerdale was once about a farming family who socialised with the landlord of a local pub, and the local vicar. Now it is about the whole village, with no farming element whatsoever, even if we have scenes in Moira Barton's kitchen it is always about murders, drug deals, heists, affairs and violence. In the Skilbeck and Sugden days it was about farming matters and tales of old country life.

H&A was once a show about a fostering family who took in waifs and strays, and who had a nearby school and shop. Now the show has no fostering elements to it whatsoever, not in the slightest. It is now a crime/thriller/medical drama.

[CaptainHulk]

21 hours ago, Homeandawayfan. said:

Emmerdale is another show that has totally deviated from its original premise, the same way H&A has. Emmerdale was once about a farming family who socialised with the landlord of a local pub, and the local vicar. Now it is about the whole village, with no farming element whatsoever, even if we have scenes in Moira Barton's kitchen it is always about murders, drug deals, heists, affairs and violence. In the Skilbeck and Sugden days it was about farming matters and tales of old country life.

It became more about Beckindale than the farm from about the mid-80s, hence the title being cut in half.

 

That said, the mortality rate in that village, ffs....

[Homeandawayfan.]

On 23/01/2023 at 10:38, CaptainHulk said:

That said, the mortality rate in that village, ffs....

Ememrdale must be twinned with Coronation Street in Weatherfield and Summer Bay then.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Homeandawayfan.