nenehcherry2

Exactly. And the rural settings without fixed streets allowed for "new" (to the audience, that is) characters to "emerge from the background"; folks who'd always lived in the villages and already knew the core characters (e.g. Rob Storey, Selina, Betty Eggleton).

Oh God, no! I hated that storyline on so many levels! Just a personal view. 1. It's hard to watch in 2024. Why are the audience expected to support the culling of a wild animal (especially belonging to a species, the Great White Shark, which has existed for over 450 million years) in any circumstances? Oh yes, just because some dimwit GUESTIE went too far into the surf! Forgot that justification. Let's have a cameo of David Attenborough this time around... 2. The writing is shoddy. Why is Rory mourned like a long-term resident of the Bay? Oh yes, because it was a low point of the show in terms of writing great storylines. Forgot that detail... 3. The storyline goes nowhere whatsoever once Rory gets spat out. Unless you count Zac's sexual harassment of Pippa along with Tom's oh so macho response to that (yes, more shoddy writing). Let's at least have some despised, dead wood, major characters chewed up (quite literally) this time around please! The story belongs firmly in the Jaws era, when folks were obsessed with turning Great White Sharks into one dimensional, blood-crazy man-eaters. When, in fact, they're more three dimensional in nature than Morag, Ailsa and Don thrown together! Let's reserve one dimensional characterisation for current characters in soap operas (including H&A).

That was exactly my point RE being rural and set over entire settlements ("villages" by UK definition). This also allowed some fluidity with locations / characters' homes and, to your very point, some ambiguity with the distances between locations; the characters in both ED and H&A were not neighbours but were co-residents in the same communities. Whilst those over-the-fence, neighbourly disputes drove a lot of the stories, comedy ones especially, in the other soaps (e.g. Max Vs Ron in Brookside, the early Battersbies Vs everyone else in Corrie, Madge Vs Mrs Mangel and so on), this wasn't a factor as such in H&A or ED (and still isn't). Without a core street or adjacent houses for neighbours to bicker around, Emmerdale and Home and Away always relied upon those "centre of community" sets (the Diner, Woolpack, School, Kathy's Diner etc) as well as the external backdrops of beaches, farms or dales for this "glue" even more so than the others relied on their pubs, corner shops, factories or car lots. Whereas, in the soaps that are set in streets / adjacent streets, the houses almost became characters in themselves, there was less need to introduce new homes and having the continuous, consistent street setting allowed for the formula of entire new families arriving en masse into a pre-existing vacant house (less so in EastEnders perhaps since so many of the houses were divided into flats). Whereas H&A didn't have (or need, given the fostering theme) such fixed houses to allow for this formula (especially in its earlier days before SBH and the Beach House became iconic), hence it's been "lost" since the fostering format was removed. Pre-mid naughties (since I've seen very little of the show since), the only families to arrive into the Bay en masse were Michael/Haydn (into a caravan), the Bowmans (into Don's pre-existing house), the Nashes (who had a link to an established character and moved into a never-seen-before home) and, ultimately, the Sutherlands (who moved into the show's most iconic house, so the first time H&A truly matched the arrival story formula of the other shows, as I've described above).

That was it, thanks!

I've always said this about H&A and Emmerdale's analogy; being rural and being set over entire settlements (as opposed to a street, square, close or collection of such, as in the others).

So true but, even by the early/mid 90s, Neighbours' bigger popularity in the UK was more based on the "brand" of what it had been in the late 80s (UK pace) "golden years" (perhaps still reinforced with the continued presence of Helen, Jim, Paul and Madge) and less based on what it actually currently was by X point in time (if that makes sense) This was really felt in the 95 low point... many people were watching Neighbours out of habit or custom without expecting to be entertained by whatever the current storylines were (infamously lacking in 1995); its iconism was ultimately based on events from 5-8ish years before. It had become a "brand". Just as Coronation Street had been for MANY years by the late 90s. Even non-viewers of the two shows knew most of their respective brand hallmarks (long-standing major characters, Kylie, Jason, theme tunes etc). Having said that, I think that 96/7 changed that a BIT.. Madge and Harold's returns were VERY talked about and then EVERYONE was talking about Karl/Sarah and whatever the latest Billy/Anne saga was that week. Whilst its popularity was still firmly rooted in the past, there was more appreciation for the NEWER elements of the show from that period onwards. Whereas H&A has never really had a strong brand identity in the UK. Even in the 90s. From anecdotal memory, people were watching it more for whatever was happening right now. So the viewing figures were never quite as consistent or solid as Neighbours' numbers. What little brand identity H&A had (fostering, beaches, recycled teenagers, Pippa, Alf, Sally,Don, Bobby, theme tune) wasn't quite enough to make it as iconic to the overall general British public's imagination as Neighbours. Which I personally preferred, as watching H&A felt more of a PERSONAL viewing experience as opposed to Neighbours (more collective).

Correct. He realised that Curtis and Laura were the ones in the shopping mall. Something about a jacket? To be fair, I can imagine 89-4ish Don still thinking it was right for Curtis to face punishment. But he would have gone to Alf and Ailsa with his findings in the first instance, also being more sensitive to Curtis' grief (for them likely to talk him out of pursuing any criminal justice) and not straight to Hale behind their backs, as he did in this case. That felt like very 88 Don behaviour.

Totally agree! Don always rode that bridge between his "dark" and "happy" sides but there were "sub-eras" during which he was definitely oriented on one side of that divide. For the most part, he's prominently shifted in the warmer direction from later 89-early 95 (though he could still be an *ss to his students at the best of times!). But, by then, his role on the show had gone beyond simply a Principal / neighbour and he was now also a family man to some (whether biologically or otherwise) as well as a firm friend to others (e.g. Ailsa). He definitely goes more towards the dark side again during the 95/6 revamp; I watched the first few weeks of EARLIEST 95 recently and he'd almost become a male Pippa by then!...hanging around SBH to help out when Sally's ran away, helping to reconcile Shane & Ros, constantly hugging Angel and Sam... Only months later, as the show itself enters the "dark side", he's making Shannon's life a misery at school, conniving to have Jack moved to another school to boost the average grade (though it's all balanced with being there for Shangel during Dylan's leukaemia). He definitely goes back to some earlier 88 layers in that period before his romance with Maz kicks off.

To be clear, the strict 1st September - 31st August academic year and intake system which you, myself and some others on this forum grew up within is only relevant to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland (equally part of the UK, as it stands) has an entirely different intake system which is more similar to the New South Wales one (as well as many US states) where parents of kids born in certain months have more flexibility regarding which year their kids start school. I concur that the England / Wales & NI system is ridiculously inflexible. It's a fact that kids develop at different rates, regardless of chronological age Believe it or not, I still remember being in Reception year with a couple of (mostly younger) kids still wearing nappies. I kid you not, one was still needing assistance in year 1. In general, those kids went on to be the ones who never caught up, even by GCSE years (sorry to everyone else for this very England-centric point!). They should have had another year in Nursery. Period. How interesting. I look out for these things and never noticed a direct mention of him being in year 9 (only the implied scene with him in a classroom with Lynn, which easily might not have been in the context of a lesson). Can't believe I missed that!

Stevo was in year 10 by late 88 at least and qualified to be so as he was born before 31st July 73. I never knew about this earlier mention of him being year 9... Wonder if the writers decided to age him up slightly to speed up his teenage bracket years or just an inconsistency?

To be fair, in Cody's case, she wasn't SORASED as such (she'd just stayed in the US longer than planned, falling behind with her schooling) and it was mentioned several times in 94 that she was 2 years older than the others, especially when she was dating Michael. And there were mentions of her being 20, almost 21 in 1995. What made it all the funnier though was husky-voiced Peta Brady being and looking much older even than the character's above actual age (as well as the original actress' age). So you had a 21/2 year old actress (who looked 24!) in a school uniform, playing a 19ish year old hanging around and dating 2 guys who looked barely legal. Strange head f*** to make sense of at my very young age! Funny you say that... I've always said that it would have been great for Tracey Turner to instead have been a Lynn Davenport return. The actress even resembled Helena Bozich! Have her come back to Pippa's to sit her HSC (or even repeat year 11), whatever, harbouring resentment towards Pip that she had had to go back to a s****y family and an immediate jealousy of Sophie... PS there was no evidence that she was in Steve's year except one scene of her in a classroom with Steven and Sandra. That could have been something non curriculum related and Lynn - who was "14" - could have actually been in year 9 (or even an older year 8)...

Agree! The one thing H&A was generally consistent with was school years (Sam and Duncan aside). Neighbours didn't get that right often (e.g. Michael Martin and Cody Willis).

This ever-shifting birthday also changed the school year that Sally COULD have been in based on NSW's school intake laws... If born before 31st July 79, she'd have qualified to be in the same school year as Selina, Shannon, Curtis, Jack and Chloe. Though that would have been optional for her if born between 1st Jan - 31st July 79 (as in, her Grandmother could have opted to hold her back for whatever reason). Parents in NSW have flexibility for kids born between those dates, rather like in Scotland (and unlike in England and Wales where the academic year strictly parallels the intake cut-offs: 1st Sept - 31st August). Sally was smart, so I doubt she was intentionally held back as a young child. I don't think this was ever clarified on-screen, so presumably she was originally supposed to have been born approx late 79 / early 80 and therefore placed in year 3 upon her arrival in the Bay but they kept her school year consistent through to her completing the HSC in 97, despite her moving birthday. Instead, the solution was to skip her a year for Maths only in 95 (so she could be in Steven's classes with the core teen gang once Kate's contract went up to three episodes per week). Whereas, Sam was most definitely SORASED up by a full school year. There's scenes just before Bobby's death where they state he's in year 4 still and "barely 9" but suddenly he starts year 7 in 95. He was aged up by a full 18 months-2 years-ish in later 94 (not quite as extreme as Duncan!). To @cymbaline's point, who was reading this damn bible?!

Absolutely correct, the month of her birthday seemed to gradually, over time, come earlier in the year. In later 89, she's said to be "almost 10", then it seems to be July for a few years. But, by about 2000, it stays in Feb.

The older guy Sally saw was Sean Ellis. I can't remember the daughter's name but I can see her face in my mind (don't you just hate memories like that?!). I totally agree RE Sally needing time to grow up first. However, it was very in character for her to "want" to take over things at SBH whilst Pip was away. Over her time on the show, she'd developed into the role of the "I've been here the longest and wear the t-shirt" (no rude jokes about Sally's t-shirt fitting please, @CaptainHulk! ) towards the newer members of the family. It was also in character for Pippa to realise Sal wasn't ready yet and to refuse to entertain her proposal. Correct. Sal celebrated her 19th only episodes after Pip left (one of those awkward moments where she felt she didn't belong at SBH anymore, ultimately leading to her moving in with Jesse and Vinnie).

Also, do any other folks on here see weddings as iconic moments? Just curious to know what we all think. Subjectively, soap weddings bore me to death. Unless there's some drama (alas Roo & Frank). And, no, I'm not talking about dozy kids getting fingers stuck in plughole or grooms losing their pants / trousers kind of dramas! So said, there's something I miss from the times when soaps would just have the odd episode purely showing a big milestone in a long-term character's life (as much as the wedding itself bores me). More generally speaking, that is. Those days sadly feel very long gone now; in all soap operas. Vanessa and Roger would look like two little gnomes in a garden shed together. Another member of this forum once said this but I'm unapologetically using their witty comparison!

I totally agree... I've always assumed that Pippa would have been married off again anyways had Vanessa remained in the role (though perhaps not as quickly) and they'd have casted an actor for "Michael" (had the character even been named that) based on his chemistry etc with Vanessa. They'd have already known about Vanessa's upcoming departure from the role at the point of scripting Don's crush, so I don't think that was ever planned to go anywhere... Perhaps it was even all written for the purposes of giving Vanessa one final good story to act out, complete with her trademark facial expressions (maybe even as a thank you for her time in the role)...

I have friends (who don't really know how much I love early H&A) who STILL talk about the Pippa swap. And they were only casual viewers of the show. It really was a big moment (especially here in the UK where face swaps of regular characters were still very unusual, pre-Emmerdale's Sarah Sugden). PS they usually get Tom and Michael muddled up too! Things that stood out to them besides stalwart characters (e.g. "iconic"):- Everything about Bobby Pippa swap Shane & Angel Sophie

Correct... Unless they used a life-like, waxwork model of Oakley (unlikely in 1989)

Completely agree with all of that too. There's an article Cornelia did with a UK newspaper from 1990 (maybe I've shared it here before, can't remember?) where she says that, whilst she was axed by a Producer she didn't click with, the fallout led to Roger, Fiona and Vanessa also departing. An overall sense of "scrapping the oldies in the quest for younger blood". And that's exactly what that late 89-1990 period feels like for me. According to one of the annuals from the time, Roger's initial 89 hiatus was due to a minor heart attack but who knows the real reason for that (he was well enough to film a hospital bed scene)? There were rumours in several UK magazines at the time that the producers had issues with his sexual orientation (from my knowledge, Roger has never directly confirmed the latter or even his sexuality).

Very true point! For me, it's the recast of Pippa itself which was the most iconic thing of 1990. And, back then, that seemed to be a much bigger news story than Tom's death or Carly and Ben's boring wedding saga.

I don't see Tom's death as that iconic and wonder if it's BECOME iconic further down the line with a) him being an original character and b) it being reran / rewatched since so many times. At the time of airing, the show had only been on air for 2 years, perhaps not enough time for any characters to achieve icon status. Whereas Bobby had been a far prominent character for almost triple the time, by which point the show was no longer "new".

It so was! I can watch a 1994 episode now, barely remember what actually just happened (the year of so little plot) but... I feel happier than the beginning of the day and am smiling with laughter by the end of it!

Ultimate 1994 storyline! Complete with lots of "Oh Alf!"s and clasped hands from Ailsa about the entire saga.

I think @CaptainHulk meant Eileen Derbyshire (aged 94)