Moral Yardstick vs Popular Culture.

[Mistified]

I think it depends on where you live as to their reactions so far...

Possibly, but even at UK and Ireland pace Tony and Martha's inability to comprehend what's happened to them respectively has been well dealt with. I mean, Martha poll-dancing is a pretty big reaction!

Tony, 10 weeks on, is still reacting to Beth's death

, and this begins from the day he hears she is dead.

[~Lynd~]

^I agree with you,i was refering to alexx saying they haven't had a reaction,i think they have.

[emmasi]

I don't mind H&A turning into the OC, as long as it's season 4 OC... Roadtrips to kinky alien bars in the middle of nowhere, teenage couples being rooted to their spot in front of Deal or No Deal, one best friend being carried along a dark highway by the other in search of help... cute pet bunnies and suspiciously contrived gay couples... That's the kind of show for me. The addition of an ex-Xena/Hercules cast member would be nice too, and not difficult to do since half of them live in New Zealand. Neighbours had 4 of them at one stage...

But that wasn't really the point of this thread, was it?

The morality of the show has gone severly downhill. There seems to only be two kinds of characters: those doing the wrong thing, and those lecturing them about it. There's not really anyone leading by example, it's more a "Do as I say, not as I do" sort of sentiment. I don't like it.

The example of Amanda is not a particularly good one. There's someone who has done everything wrong that she possibly could do, including adultery, prostitution, theft, fraud, murder, assault,

leaving her own sister in a burning car

, and borderline-statutory rape to name a few, and yet she still got a happy ending. And she got that without really working to change herself. In fact, she ended up with the brother of the man she cheated on, and the father of the boy she slept with...and they were both happy for her. How is that a real consequence?

I love a good villain as much as the next person - maybe more - but when it seems like everyone in town is engaging in villainous behavour, it cheapens the experience when a real one comes along.

Dean for example was two seconds from forcing himself on Matilda to keep up a damaging lie, and was quite content to watch Lucas take the fall for all his deception. That, on paper, is villainous. Except that it was presented more like a perfectly acceptable and understandable thing for him to do, given the pressure of having to hide the fact that he was gay. And everyone lived happily ever after.

Then you have someone like Jonah, who is actually in real fear for his life (as well as Robbie and Tasha's) if he doesn't do what he's told. He ends up drugging and raping a girl he cares about because he feels he deosn't have a choice. It's literally a matter of life and death for him, not just pride and shame as it is for Dean.

Yet, because Jonah actually went through with it, even though there was no intent of intimidation or violence as there might arguably be in another case of rape, he's considered a villain and sent to prison. This after he actually did change himself and take a huge risk to be a good person.

These are probably realistic consequences, but are they truly moral ones? Does one guy get to go free because he was scared, and another one get locked up because he was even more scared? Morally, it doesn't make much sense.

The main problem I've had with H&A is the constant dependance on alcohol. I know we're a nation of alcoholics, but is that really the message we want to send to the next generation? "Say no to excessive drinking! Unless your wife has left you or you need to kill the pain. Or you just want to have fun with your mates. Or to soliacise in general - that's fine too. Unless you're under 18, because if you are you'll immediately chuck your guts up and possibly die. Oh, you ARE 18! Here, have a beer then! Oh what the heck, have ten!"

Classic example was when Dan, Flynn and Jesse went camping and the campsite was littered with beer cans the next morning. Now, I would think that drinking that much would leave quite a bit of alcohol in your system, yet one of them was able to drive back to the hospital where Flynn proceeded to perform surgery on Leah... go figure.

[claire_louise]

The example of Amanda is not a particularly good one. There's someone who has done everything wrong that she possibly could do, including adultery, prostitution, theft, fraud, murder, assault, leaving her own sister in a burning car, and borderline-statutory rape to name a few, and yet she still got a happy ending. And she got that without really working to change herself. In fact, she ended up with the brother of the man she cheated on, and the father of the boy she slept with...and they were both happy for her. How is that a real consequence?

Sorry to be picky, but isn't that a spoiler? I don't actually know how this storyline turns out so I'm not sure if it is or if you just got mixed up! Anyway, I agree with a lot of your points. Although Amanda clearly knew that she'd done wrong, she never really made up for it (saying sorry over and over in a whiney voice doesn't count). The thing that struck me the most with her is that she actually killed a man (inadvertantly, but still) and never got found out. That would never have happened in previous years. But I think the problem with characters like Amanda, Josie, Kane etc is that the writers can't seem to decide whether they're 'good' or 'bad'. That's why we get these mixed messages and don't know if we should sympathise with them or hate them.

[Tulip]

I guess soaps are always tied between promoting a good message and creating drama.

While people constantly say, "soaps aren't real life, get real" and therefore drama is OK, others say that soaps have a responsibility in promoting a good message to their viewers.

Money and ratings talk and it's something the executives can see the impact they're having, but they can't see the effect the show's having in terms of its impact on viewers morally.

I think people should take soaps with a pinch of salt and shouldn't look to them as something to live by, but at the same time they should be clear about where they're going with a character.

Everyone knows that no-one is truly evil through-and-through, and it's because we see the characters' personal sides that we see the good in them, therefore it's hard to decide how to present the characters and how much good or bad they can show in them, if that makes sense.

Like for example, in cartoon films you never see the bad guy, so he's just plain evil and has no good side. Whereas on soaps, you get to see who they really are, and you see there is some good in them.

It's hard for a soaps to have a plain evil person, and the message was that Amanda/Josie were mixed up and had problems.

I think some of the stories such as the "who's the father" storylines, while dramatic, don't promote a very good message about responsible sex.

The Amanda/Drew/Belle storyline, for example......while I agree that it sets a good example in not holding grudges, they all seemed to get over it very quickly. If your boyfriend slept with your mother, you would not be over it in 3 weeks, or when it was convenient, i.e. your motehr's wedding to said boyfriend's father, who also conveniently got over the whole son-sleeping-with-girlfriend's-mother thing. A brief shouting match, drug addiction where Amanda helped him overcome it, and all was well again.

Poor storyline, not very well thought out.

But, to be fair, the writers, crew and cast are producing 5 episodes a week and at a very good quality....we can't complain too much without the matter being raised of how hard they do work, and they can't be expected to cover every aspect in detail. Saying that, sometimes just careful planning ot consideration would improve the sitaution.

[emmasi]

Sorry to be picky, but isn't that a spoiler?

Oh sh*t, sorry. I thought

Amanda had already left in England.

Oh but that unfortunate thing just happened... with Beth. Of course... I'm all over the place... Sorry, I'll go tag it now

[claire_louise]

Lol it's ok, you can say that Beth died. But yeah, the Amanda/Kelli thing is unfortunately still going on.

[Frankie]

It seems that parents think they can not let their young children watch in the way that they did before....they don't want their nine year olds thinking that because Martha was pole dancer that this a good career choice I think there has been a clear shift in emphasis... where once you could sit down with granny, mum and kids to watch... there is less in it to interest older viewers...and where also once it was written so that the adult stuff went over the kids heads,... now it doesn't... or are todays kids more savvie than the kids of 20 years ago?

I do think at times that they pander too much to the "perceived" popular culture...and go for things which might generate a page or two in TV Week or a front cover.... but which at the end of the day have far less substance than some of the other story lines. This treats viewers like idiots... although I confess I have seen threads on some sites... including this one... which do no more than discuss what Martha was wearing and whether Jack or Kim is hotter.... not mention of the story line at all.. which feeds into this shallowness. When Home And Away began it was unique in that it refused to cast "hot" looking actors and all the main characters were pretty ordinary looking. The image hype form popular culture... whipped up by an image obsessed media means this is unlikely to happen again...which I think is rather sad.

In the last few years the story lines which have stood out in terms of class, writing, acting etc... have not always been the ones which hit the front covers... thats sad too... interestingly I think they will be the ones we will be talking about in year to come... the ones we remember... but the rest will be forgotten. For example I think in 5 years time people will remember, Angie, Corey poisoning Irene, The Stalker, Flynn dying, Tasha's Dad, Josie, .... but I very much doubt that any one will remember much about the story lines which Martha had. ... despite the fact she is on the front cover more than most. This is not Jodi/Martha's fault... but the fault of those who trivialise what they think we want to watch. In a way its kind of patronising that they think so little of us.

As for comparing now with then.. times change..as do the way we see things... the heart of the show... that is the fostering core... has changed... but that does not mean its any less valid. It is different... though I would like a little more heart and a little less shallow sensationalism form the promo department.

[claire_louise]

It seems that parents think they can not let their young children watch in the way that they did before....they don't want their nine year olds thinking that because Martha was pole dancer that this a good career choice I think there has been a clear shift in emphasis... where once you could sit down with granny, mum and kids to watch... there is less in it to interest older viewers...and where also once it was written so that the adult stuff went over the kids heads,... now it doesn't... or are todays kids more savvie than the kids of 20 years ago?

I do agree that the subject matter is a lot more controversial than it used to be and that the show isn't so family oriented, but I still think it has a strong moral aspect that other soaps (particularly British ones) are lacking. Even with the more adult storylines such as the pole dancing, they made it clear that this was not something to be proud of through the strong reactions of the characters (which were a lot stronger than they would be in real life, IMO). I still think it's safe to let kids watch as long as they're giving this message. In fact I think it's a lot worse for kids to be watching shows like Corrie and Eastenders, which are a lot more realistic (and therefore a lot less moral!).

[kitty_baby777]

The example of Amanda is not a particularly good one. There's someone who has done everything wrong that she possibly could do, including adultery, prostitution, theft, fraud, murder, assault, leaving her own sister in a burning car, and borderline-statutory rape to name a few, and yet she still got a happy ending. And she got that without really working to change herself. In fact, she ended up with the brother of the man she cheated on, and the father of the boy she slept with...and they were both happy for her. How is that a real consequence?

Still often that's the way things work out in real life, sad to say. Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people.