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

[adam436]

4 hours ago, Revealed said:

I would say the characters they've made foster parents in the last 20 years have never really worked. One that stands out is Sally fostering Cassie, they always seemed more like sisters and not helped by the fact Cassie arguably looked older than Sally.

I agree with Sally fostering both Ric and Cassie. Both actors were playing well younger than their actual age. I'd say on the whole they've mostly worked - John and Marilyn/Gina, Leah and Zac, Miles. I wasn't watching in 2008/09, so I'm not sure how much Kirsty was involved with Jai, Nicole and whoever else lived there at the time, but she seems another that would seem unconvincing.

[Red Ranger 1]

I accept Sally never quite felt like a mother figure but she didn't feel like a sister either: She felt like what she was, an adult looking after them. I found Sharni Vinson convincing as 15/16 and was shocked to learn she was 22, and Mark Furze wasn't even much older than his character: I think he was 18 playing 16 when he started? I think it also helped that we'd had seven years of Sally as an adult character before she started fostering, which meant there was a big distance from her teenage/high school years and she did feel a lot older than them.

I think Kirsty could have worked (and I do think she was a more natural fit for the house than Leah, given it was her old home a la Sally) but the show never quite committed to it: Christie Hayes was always credited as a guest during her second stint as if no-one was quite sure if she was sticking around, and it was disrupted by that awkward period where she leaves the family and goes back to Kane, seemingly to convince us she really had chosen Miles and wasn't just with him because Kane was in jail (like that ever works!).

[adam436]

11 hours ago, Red Ranger 1 said:

I found Sharni Vinson convincing as 15/16 and was shocked to learn she was 22, and Mark Furze wasn't even much older than his character: I think he was 18 playing 16 when he started? 

I think the problem was they were initially hanging out with Henry and Matilda, who and were 14/15, and then later others like Lucas who were closer in age to the characters they were playing. 

[Revealed]

OK John and Marilyn/Gina did kind of work, the problem was Gina died a few months after Jett arrived and Marilyn married John a few months before he left. I would however say that John is too old to be doing that now.

I've actually forgotten who exactly Leah and Zac fostered. Lots of interchangeable teenage characters in that era and can't remember who was where.

Kirsty's comeback was terrible. The actress was still only 21 and had only been 3 years or so since she'd been the pregnant teenager on the run. I think she'd gone before Romeo arrived which is just as well because the actor who played him was older.

I was in my mid-20s when Cassie arrived and I thought there's no way she's 15, she looks older than me and I don't exactly look young for my age. 

Maybe that's what went wrong with teenage characters in the 21st century, you had an actual 16 year old being best friends with a 23 year old playing a 16 year old. 

[adam436]

4 hours ago, Revealed said:

I've actually forgotten who exactly Leah and Zac fostered. 

There was Zac's niece and nephew Evie and Oscar, and possibly Matt Page. They also had their own kids with VJ and Hunter (who turned out not be Zac's son) to round out the family unit.

I think Leah also kind of took Ruby and Tamara Kingsley under her wing too.

[Red Ranger 1]

7 hours ago, Revealed said:

I was in my mid-20s when Cassie arrived and I thought there's no way she's 15, she looks older than me and I don't exactly look young for my age. 

I was the other way round, to me she looked like a kid and I thought of her as much younger than me, so it was a bit of a jolt when I looked up her age and thought "22-year-olds look that young to me these days"? (Mind you, I was the same with Peta, who I also considered a kid and was shocked to find the actress was older than me!)

[Revealed]

That's why it never felt like they were foster parents, essentially family and 1 random person.

Was Tamara a teenager? The actress certainly wasn't. Similarly I thought Ruby was grown up by the time Charlie died but I might be wrong.

Peta certainly never struck me as someone where the actress was older than the character. What I found more surprising is that if the internet is to be believed the actor who played Will was younger than the character. 

[Jamie!]

On 03/10/2026 at 16:28, Gerard said:

It's hard to believe the show has evolved so much that it no longer has any teens or fostering given this was the whole premise of the series when it first started and for the first 30+ years. The fostering set-up was an absolute dream scenario for family drama where young characters could come and go, staying weeks or years. Much of the drama in H&A revolved around the young characters trying to find their way in the world, making mistakes, and clashing with the older generation.

The strange thing is that the series feels like it's dipping a toe in the water around fostering without actually committing to anything. These days a few of the 20/30-somethings seem to have been in the fostering system, yet it's only mentioned in passing and nothing is made of it. Long term characters like Roo, Marilyn, John could easily have been long term foster carers. Cash and Eden also seemed to consider the idea then put it on the back burner. The police/hospital set-up could easily be used to introduce younger characters who need looking after because their parent is sick or in trouble. Feels like TPTB are trying to dangle an invisible carrot.

We only need 2 or 3 younger characters in inject some life into a foster family, with numerous existing cast ready-to-go as foster parents. The cast seems is a bit heavily biased towards 30-somethings. Maybe next time one or two of this group leave, it could be a good excuse to bring in a couple of teens. I doubt it would happen. 

But with the 40th anniversary not far off, it would be a hugely missed opportunity not to have any teens/fostering in some form or other.

I think I may have said this before, but with the show's name being Home and Away, it needs to have fostering as a regular element of the show. Because the name "Home and Away" refers to the fostered kids being both "home", (living with foster parents), and "away", (away from their biological families). And the original name for the show was "Refuge", which again references the fostered kids finding a refuge. The title of a TV show or film should basically give it its identity and tell people what it's about. Today's Home and Away doesn't do that, as there are no full time characters, (and there haven't been for a good while), that are in Summer Bay being fostered and having a home away from home. Not that I'd want them to, but they may as well give the show a new name that fits what they're doing now.

[Red Ranger 1]

On 08/10/2026 at 01:42, Jamie! said:

Not that I'd want them to, but they may as well give the show a new name that fits what they're doing now.

What TV Tropes calls an Artifact Title! Although frankly it's nowhere near as bad as some examples. Mainly because most of us needed the title explained to us even when it did have fostering and it...still has people coming to town and finding a new home away from their old home, I guess?

Edited October 11 by Red Ranger 1

[pembie]

Oh is that the idea behind the title I have never actually known that