Does the show need an injection of life, if so, then what?

[atrus]

On 23/01/2026 at 21:42, Revealed said:

If you listen to public opinion about why Neighbours is no more I've heard many people say go woke go broke.

Yes, but people who say that are morons, and I can assure you that 'wokeness' has absolutely nothing to do with Neighbours' demise.

On 23/01/2026 at 21:42, Revealed said:

On that basis it's good that Home & Away are sticking to their guns.

No, it's absolutely appalling that they are sticking to their guns. Home and Away not only has no LGBT characters, it also has a lineup of absolutely vapid cookie-cutter heteronormative straight characters with nobody among them who even vaguely goes against the grain of gender norms.

On 24/01/2026 at 23:41, Revealed said:

those who are homophobic aren't going to change their mind because of a TV character. 

Actually, that's exactly the sort of thing that changes people's minds, or at least contributes to it. 

On 24/01/2026 at 20:37, adam436 said:

It just became an issue when there were a large number (5 regulars by the finale!) in a relatively small cast

Even then it wasn't a problem. Three of those five were very much beloved characters. Zac and Colton were new and nothing much good had been done with them at the time the axe fell, but that has nothing to do with them being gay.

On 24/01/2026 at 20:37, adam436 said:

When there are so many interchangeable hetereosexual pairings in the same group on H&A, a gay or lesbian couple might actually feel refreshing.

Agreed, but sadly there isn't the remotest chance of that happening, I don't think.

On 01/02/2026 at 07:15, jakeyy. said:

Yeah the sibling/family combos are killing it, as well as no connection to the older cast ... Home and Away has lack of generational connections. I feel like these 20's sibling combinations are severely killing the show.

I totally agree. It's so turgid now, this formula. 

On 01/02/2026 at 19:11, adam436 said:

I'm not sure if it harks back to the Braxton days. They were obviously hugely popular back in the day, so is it still the producers thinking "sibling families" is the winning formula?

It wouldn't surprise me, I get the impression there are a lot of Braxton fangirls/boys on the production side. And it's not fundamentally bad to have families that are constructed like that - just not every single sodding one of them! And even with the Braxtons you had a sort-of-parent/child dynamic with Casey still being at school. Same with Bella/Colby etc, it gave it a different dimension which wasn't just about dull romances, and chisel-jawed blokes protecting their navel-gazing girlfriends from whichever evil villains are currently on the horizon waiting to kidnap them or stalk them or run them over. I was glad when they introduced David along with Lacey and Jo because at least that's providing an intergenerational family again. But Lacey in particular is such a misery-guts, and the family has only had miserable EastEnders-style storylines, that it doesn't feel like things are much improved with their arrival. 

I went to force myself to watch a couple of episodes tonight and just got a 'spinning' icon on the C5 site, it wouldn't load. I was relieved, which caused me to reflect on why I am bothering.

I'm basically on the cusp of ditching Home and Away for all the reasons people mention, because I really don't want to just hate-watch it through its twilight years, but... I don't know. Something keeps telling me it might turn a corner. I think it's particularly hard at the moment with Irene gone, John away, and Roo on one of her many breaks (at whatever pace I'm watching now, which is as far behind Channel 5 as possible). Does Roo come back soon, do we know? 

Edited February 3 by atrus

[Revealed]

On 03/02/2026 at 19:40, atrus said:

Yes, but people who say that are morons, and I can assure you that 'wokeness' has absolutely nothing to do with Neighbours' demise.

No, it's absolutely appalling that they are sticking to their guns. Home and Away not only has no LGBT characters, it also has a lineup of absolutely vapid cookie-cutter heteronormative straight characters with nobody among them who even vaguely goes against the grain of gender norms.

Actually, that's exactly the sort of thing that changes people's minds, or at least contributes to it. 

I'm just quoting what people are saying but how about trying to understand their point of view instead of dismissing them as morons.

I hail from a rural community like Summer Bay is and none of my peers are LGBT as far as I'm aware. A quick Google search tells me 4.5% of Australians are in this group so as there's currently 20 characters that equates to 0.9 characters. Again I have no objection to them casting such a character but that 4.5% aren't all going to tune in as a result but 4.5% who don't fit that group may switch off.

Most people are not homophobic and those who are will probably always be. I really can't see how a fictional character is going to change that.

[atrus]

1 hour ago, Revealed said:

how about trying to understand their point of view instead of dismissing them as morons.

Because I'm pig-sick of people throwing the word 'woke' around rather than saying what they really mean. It's cowardly. If people don't want to be dismissed, they need to stop deploying 'woke' as a cover for whatever sentiment they are harbouring. And I know you're only quoting them, not saying it yourself, so this is not targeted at you. But if people put specific points to me I will address the specific points. If they say "go woke, go broke" so as to avoid having to go into the detail of what they really mean, and then refuse to explain what their issue is, I'm considerably less sympathetic and am forced to surmise that they have a very boring bee in their bonnet about some perceived over-representation of gay, trans, ethnic minority or disabled people on TV, and that the objection is probably not really driven by a concern for demographic realism. 

1 hour ago, Revealed said:

4.5% who don't fit that group may switch off.

Really? They're really going to switch off because one gay character comes into the show? And if so, how sad is that? If 4.5% of viewers switch off because one character is gay as opposed to the 19 that are straight, then that kind of says something about that 4.5%, no? You want me to consider it from their point of view - what is the point of view of someone for whom that is the automatic reaction, to turn the TV off if one gay character has the audacity to permeate their consciousness? 

I'd also debate the notion that any show ever has lost 4.5% of its viewers for introducing a gay character. That's certainly not how Neighbours lost its viewers. Judging by online communities, a lot of soap viewers are gay to start with, and remember too that straight women make up a very considerable proportion of soap viewers - and that it's increasingly recognised that they are often as happy to watch gay male love stories as you are to watch lesbian ones! 

1 hour ago, Revealed said:

Most people are not homophobic and those who are will probably always be. I really can't see how a fictional character is going to change that.

But once, most people were homophobic. Why do you think homophobia has declined since, say, the 80s? By magic, or because of increased visibility and awareness? Thankfully other TV shows, including soaps like Neighbours, have been more inclusive, and Home and Away has mostly been happy to let them pick up its slack and not bother contributing except for the odd guest character here and there who leaves in about six weeks. You tell me to put myself in the woke-moaners' shoes and try to understand their point of view. Well, try putting yourself in LGBT people's shoes and imagine what that representation means to them, and how it would feel never to see people like you or stories like yours on screen, simply because the rich, largely straight people who run the media are either homophobic themselves, or terrified that a vocal minority of viewers won't like it and will review-bomb them on IMDb? 

1 hour ago, Revealed said:

none of my peers are LGBT as far as I'm aware.

Well, some may not be out of the closet, and they're less likely to be if their peers are going around saying things like "go woke, go broke". But you make a valid point here and that's that rural communities are likelier to have lower proportions of LGBT people than the cities. It's true, because rural areas tend to be more conservative and cities more liberal (speaking very generally), so people go where they are accepted. However, Home and Away has a wider responsibility than simply representing real-life rural communities. (If it was authentically representing rural life, there'd be considerably fewer kidnappings, police chases, explosions, no?) It's now Australia's only year-round continuing drama - it is not just about representing rural folk, it should be trying harder to represent all Australians. 

Edited February 6 by atrus

[Revealed]

On 06/02/2026 at 00:10, atrus said:

Because I'm pig-sick of people throwing the word 'woke' around rather than saying what they really mean. It's cowardly. If people don't want to be dismissed, they need to stop deploying 'woke' as a cover for whatever sentiment they are harbouring. And I know you're only quoting them, not saying it yourself, so this is not targeted at you. But if people put specific points to me I will address the specific points. If they say "go woke, go broke" so as to avoid having to go into the detail of what they really mean, and then refuse to explain what their issue is, I'm considerably less sympathetic and am forced to surmise that they have a very boring bee in their bonnet about some perceived over-representation of gay, trans, ethnic minority or disabled people on TV, and that the objection is probably not really driven by a concern for demographic realism. 

Really? They're really going to switch off because one gay character comes into the show? And if so, how sad is that? If 4.5% of viewers switch off because one character is gay as opposed to the 19 that are straight, then that kind of says something about that 4.5%, no? You want me to consider it from their point of view - what is the point of view of someone for whom that is the automatic reaction, to turn the TV off if one gay character has the audacity to permeate their consciousness? 

I'd also debate the notion that any show ever has lost 4.5% of its viewers for introducing a gay character. That's certainly not how Neighbours lost its viewers. Judging by online communities, a lot of soap viewers are gay to start with, and remember too that straight women make up a very considerable proportion of soap viewers - and that it's increasingly recognised that they are often as happy to watch gay male love stories as you are to watch lesbian ones! 

But once, most people were homophobic. Why do you think homophobia has declined since, say, the 80s? By magic, or because of increased visibility and awareness? Thankfully other TV shows, including soaps like Neighbours, have been more inclusive, and Home and Away has mostly been happy to let them pick up its slack and not bother contributing except for the odd guest character here and there who leaves in about six weeks. You tell me to put myself in the woke-moaners' shoes and try to understand their point of view. Well, try putting yourself in LGBT people's shoes and imagine what that representation means to them, and how it would feel never to see people like you or stories like yours on screen, simply because the rich, largely straight people who run the media are either homophobic themselves, or terrified that a vocal minority of viewers won't like it and will review-bomb them on IMDb? 

Well, some may not be out of the closet, and they're less likely to be if their peers are going around saying things like "go woke, go broke". But you make a valid point here and that's that rural communities are likelier to have lower proportions of LGBT people than the cities. It's true, because rural areas tend to be more conservative and cities more liberal (speaking very generally), so people go where they are accepted. However, Home and Away has a wider responsibility than simply representing real-life rural communities. (If it was authentically representing rural life, there'd be considerably fewer kidnappings, police chases, explosions, no?) It's now Australia's only year-round continuing drama - it is not just about representing rural folk, it should be trying harder to represent all Australians. 

Home and Away doesn't have the responsibility to represent anyone. It's a business there to make money and to do that it needs customers i.e. viewers.

I can't think of a single character past or present that represents me and I'm fine with that. Even if they were to introduce an LGBT character there will still be LGBT people who will be unhappy. If they introduced a lesbian character people will say what about the GBT ones or they'll demand another lesbian character for them to couple up with. Some will complain that despite the same sexual orientation they're not relatable in any other way. Or if they are made to match the stereotype people will complain they're portraying all LGBT people as being the same.

I don't know how many people would switch off if they introduced an LGBT character. Like I said before I wouldn't switch off but it would be naive to think nobody would switch off as a result.

I'll give you an example of when I did stop watching a TV show. I watched Heartbreak High when it first started in the 90s and loved it at the time. Then there came a point where most of the new female characters they introduced were either feminists or tomboys who would barely show any leg whilst the male characters seemed to get half naked every show so I stopped watching. When they brought it back I read about who the new cast were and it sounds like they all tick one box or another in the LGBT community. I have no problem with a show like that, it has its place but not the sort of thing I'd want to watch.

Also when you do have such shows that represent the LGBT community then there's no need for Home and Away to do the same. 

[atrus]

6 hours ago, Revealed said:

Home and Away doesn't have the responsibility to represent anyone. It's a business there to make money and to do that it needs customers i.e. viewers.

Presumably it's not a statutory responsibility, but if you think soaps don't have a public/social responsibility and that how much money they make for networks should be the only determining factor in what they churn out, then I fundamentally disagree. I actually think most people who write for and work on soaps would disagree, too. 

6 hours ago, Revealed said:

I can't think of a single character past or present that represents me and I'm fine with that.

What you've probably never even thought about is that 100% of the current regular cast represent you by virtue of being heterosexual. That's not to say each or any character represents you in any more profound way than that, and I understand why you wouldn't see or think of it that way - but you surely have to understand that that kind of representation matters differently to gay people, and why it does. 

6 hours ago, Revealed said:

Then there came a point where most of the new female characters they introduced were either feminists or tomboys who would barely show any leg whilst the male characters seemed to get half naked every show so I stopped watching.

It sounds like you have different reasons for watching TV shows than I do. I'm not bothered about anyone showing leg or being half-naked. I want stories and characters that mean something to me. 

6 hours ago, Revealed said:

When they brought it back I read about who the new cast were and it sounds like they all tick one box or another in the LGBT community. I have no problem with a show like that, it has its place but not the sort of thing I'd want to watch

Personally I've enjoyed Heartbreak High, both the new and the old incarnations, not because of the proportion of LGBT characters but because I think the show has always done a really good job of drawing characters that are interesting to watch. (Far more interesting to watch, by and large, than any of the current characters on H&A, it has to be said.) And the new HH has been a worldwide hit and is soon coming back for a third series, so I guess 'go woke, go broke' doesn't apply in this case.

But regardless you would have to concede that most shows haven't been like this in terms of their LGBT representation. Home and Away is the only show on a main Australian network that has year-round visibility. Personally if I was running it I would consider it my responsibility to represent LGBT characters as part of the mix. Not to the same extent that Heartbreak High does, but just to some extent would be nice.

Edited February 7 by atrus

[Revealed]

18 hours ago, atrus said:

Presumably it's not a statutory responsibility, but if you think soaps don't have a public/social responsibility and that how much money they make for networks should be the only determining factor in what they churn out, then I fundamentally disagree. I actually think most people who write for and work on soaps would disagree, too. 

What you've probably never even thought about is that 100% of the current regular cast represent you by virtue of being heterosexual. That's not to say each or any character represents you in any more profound way than that, and I understand why you wouldn't see or think of it that way - but you surely have to understand that that kind of representation matters differently to gay people, and why it does. 

It sounds like you have different reasons for watching TV shows than I do. I'm not bothered about anyone showing leg or being half-naked. I want stories and characters that mean something to me. 

Personally I've enjoyed Heartbreak High, both the new and the old incarnations, not because of the proportion of LGBT characters but because I think the show has always done a really good job of drawing characters that are interesting to watch. (Far more interesting to watch, by and large, than any of the current characters on H&A, it has to be said.) And the new HH has been a worldwide hit and is soon coming back for a third series, so I guess 'go woke, go broke' doesn't apply in this case.

But regardless you would have to concede that most shows haven't been like this in terms of their LGBT representation. Home and Away is the only show on a main Australian network that has year-round visibility. Personally if I was running it I would consider it my responsibility to represent LGBT characters as part of the mix. Not to the same extent that Heartbreak High does, but just to some extent would be nice.

By that logic if any of the existing cast turned out to be LGBT then they automatically represent LGBT people. If that's what you think then who am I to argue but I honestly don't see the importance.

It's not a prerequisite but a woman's body attracts me to a TV show and a mans body puts me off.   

[James Martin]

I think it was Coral Drouyn who said the biggest resistance to a gay character within Seven came from gay people, not out of homophobia but a fear of ratings.  Granted this was nearly 20 years ago.

I feel since Theo died the writers don't know what to do with Leah and Justin and the breakdown of their marriage just goes round in circles.

[Revealed]

On 11/02/2026 at 11:23, James Martin said:

I think it was Coral Drouyn who said the biggest resistance to a gay character within Seven came from gay people, not out of homophobia but a fear of ratings.  Granted this was nearly 20 years ago.

I feel since Theo died the writers don't know what to do with Leah and Justin and the breakdown of their marriage just goes round in circles.

Fear of ratings is key though. It's a question of how many LGBT viewers you're going to gain vs how many non-LGBT viewers you're going to lose. 

[James Martin]

1 hour ago, Revealed said:

Fear of ratings is key though. It's a question of how many LGBT viewers you're going to gain vs how many non-LGBT viewers you're going to lose. 

You are right, and I'm pretty sure it was one of two people who blocked it.  But that interview dates from around 2008 at the latest and the show is unrecognisable from then.  It's also aimed at a much older audience now.

[adam436]

I read somewhere there was a plan somehwere that Brody Morgan was going to be gay, but that idea was squashed. 

We've had LGBT characters in the past, but they've never gone anywhere - characters like Ty and Alex in recent years - but even going back further to the likes of Mandy, Chris Fletcher, Joey. None of these characters were ever going to be promoted to regulars or return for an ongoing stint even when fan reaction suggested the demand was there. It's entirely possible that Zoe Ventura was simply unavailable or that Willow's exit was a low key one because she was axed, but Alex wasn't even brought back for Willow's exit - how powerful would it have been had they left Summer Bay together? Yet, it's happened for heterosexual couples like Bella returning for Nikau's exit. Christopher Fletcher was also never seen or mentioned again, despite Pippa returning multiple times and Sally sticking around for ages/taking in teenagers. Could Chris have moved to Summer Bay to live with Sally and Flynn? It wouldn't have reflected well on Pippa (fostering every kid in Australia, yet her own son doesn't live with her!), but with Pippa's sporadic appearances and a decent storyline as to why he had to change schools/areas, it could have worked. 

I also vaugely remember Matilda meeting a gay guy in her eating disorder therapy sessions too, but he didn't last long either and I can't really remember his story arc since I was only watching very sporadically at the time.