nenehcherry2

Thanks so much for sharing this all (including Nicky's Insta profile . That woman's straight from the Eileen Derbyshire school of social media elusiveness!).. Really appreciated!

Exactly! There would be an element of "titillation" to it as well, meaning it'd be a "hot" 20something guy(s) with abs and a six pack. Being roughly the same age as Christopher myself, I doubt I'd be casted to play a gay or bisexual man because I'm "too old" now for that said titillation element (sorry, I don't personally identify with "LGBT..." "umbrella" labels as much as I don't with "BAME"). This obsession with under 30s is as much of a problem WITHIN the gay / bi /MSM male community as it is from the outside.

Totally agree in the UK chart sense too! Even before I gave it a lot of thought or bothered to dig into the stories behind these tracks, I always associated 95 era Neighbours with "When will you fall for me?" and both shows with "Cruise Control". Those two songs in particular were always in my head. Can see it now... A (UK) Woolies or Andy's Records ad promoting their release with an "as seen in your favourite Aussie soaps!" tagline.

Exactly.... "infant amnesia" kicks in when we hit around 9 to 10 years old. Before we reach that age, it's actually believed that we can remember even some things from the first year of life. After that point, the memories disappear (although we can "remember remembering"). 2 years 5 months have been the earliest verified memories confirmed by psychologists and parents which are directly retained by adults but it's usually about 3 years for the average human. One of my earliest memories involved surfers in the H&A opening credits (true story!) as well as Gail being in Neighbours (was barely 3 when she disappeared from UK screens); in the latter case, seeing her again on UK Gold when I was 7 probably reinforced that.

Unless anyone remembers otherwise, I don't think that was ever directly confirmed. Whilst most guest characters surnames were included in the closing credits from around mid 90 onwards, Christopher (like Duncan) was only ever credited by his first name. So there's not even any indirect clues there. Chris was certainly calling Michael "Daddy" by late 94 (though he calls him "Michael" in 92-3), possibly earlier but referred to his "real Daddy being dead" to Selina a few weeks before Michael himself sadly perished. As those of you who also know Coronation Street will too appreciate, it's similar to the Brian/Martin/Sarah Louise situation. Sarah was told at a very young age that Martin wasn't her real Dad but always referred to him as being her Dad (despite calling him by his name) as she had no memory of Brian. It isn't unrealistic to imagine a now 36 year old Christopher coming back to the Bay to feel closer to BOTH of his Dads; the one he has some young, happy memories of plus the biological one where there is zero memory.

Was Pippa & Michael with Sophie/Sal & Haydn the only time that we saw a "blended family" (of sorts) living together on screen in the pre-Hunter/Sutherland era? And didn't Sally refer to Michael as her "Step-Dad" on a few occasions?

Exactly. And, until the Nashes came, the natural kids living with their parents were either part orphaned (Roo) or from broken homes (Haydn). So it was still "untraditional" compared to other soap families. Then, of course, we had the "reconcilation relationships" of Bobby/Don, Sam/Greg and Irene with her kids.

Talking about kids continuously living with at least one stable, natural parent from birth, I can only think of Roo, Haydn, Tom, Gypsy and Edward in the pre-Sutherland era. With the exception of Tom, four of those five started out as either entitled, spoiled, cunning brats (Roo & Haydn) or highly rebellious in their own way (Edward & Gypsy). "Rebels WITHOUT cause". Not including the legendary character of Christopher nor the rapidly aging Duncan of course!

Great point. I think it was to develop the other "oldies". What would Ailsa and Alf done without Roo, Celia and Morag about? The show had become definitively teen-centric by 1990 and it wouldn't have worked to have a middle-aged couple just bickering in their own house without a family to rub off; whilst running stores and diners does allow for inter-generational interactions to occur, they don't stimulate the most meaningful relationships. Them suddenly deciding to copy Tom & Pip by the book and applying with DOCS for "cold cases" would have been too forced. So, instead, we see them take in connections from Ailsa's past or kids whom they already knew somewhat (Curtis being the exception). Don was an interesting one since, being the Principal, he had ready-made interactions with the teens waiting to happen. And being Bobby's Dad as she continued to grow kept him busy outside of work. I guess Viv just helped to fill out their home a bit. So it wasn't just constantly Don and Bobby hugging one minute and screaming each others' heads off the next! Whilst I suppose that to be the main reason, one added benefit was in enabling more teen romances (i.e. because they were residing in different homes).

As Ailsa would say: oh, I see. As Ailsa would say: oh, I see.

I never found Marilyn gossipy. More someone who put her foot in it at times without meaning to.

Good point. I assume he was just bought in as an insignificant guest to support the Irene / Fin story & they then decided to bring him back in 92 as one of the latest "bi-annual reset year 10 teens". Especially given his links to Fin and established abuse backstory. Since the original actor was available again, Matt was bought back. All guess work of course. Bringing in siblings of established characters was quite the trend in 92: Damo, Shane & Roxy. Irene 2's first stint was one of the most random H&A guesties ever in my opinion. Sure, she brings a lot of comedy to the Bay but, other than that & a few touching moments with her kids in their journey of reconciliation, she's just "there" for 3 months. And a total characterisation rewrite at that. It makes sense that they needed a long term guest or two to fill the numbers up at that point with so many actors out (especially Debra's maternity but also Mat, Tristan, Ray, Nicolle & Bruce taking time off / doing panto here & there) plus it's that time gap between Sophie / Blake and Angel. But Irene of all people?! Lynne's autobio would suggest that Jacqy was initially asked back. So perhaps an "Evil Irene: part 3!" sequel was initially planned but Lynne's comedy edge changed things. Whatever happened, it was enough to impress them long term and the "rest is history".

Another trend I've noticed from the early/mid 90s (given this thread's conversation is beautifully evolving since certain TV networks recently f****d around with our minds RE 88 repeats!) were what I like to call the "testie guesties"... Guest characters who appeared for several weeks or even months with little to no storyline purpose and were either bought back months later as permanents or never seen again. In the latter case, they were clearly testing the audience engagement with the character / actor but decided they weren't right. "Testie Guesties" who made it: - Sam - Irene #2 - Selina - Travis - Chloe (not counting Tug as his first couple of stints felt more like genuine guest stints for specific stories & Tristan has confirmed that). Ones who didn't:- - Paul & Mullet Jensen - Jane Holland - Patricia (maybe or just filler for Grant's break?) - Kelly Chan - Bill Cunningham (maybe? Or maybe a genuine story for Luke? Always felt bit open ended to me) - Kevin - James (I know this for a fact; Simon got a better offer so never came back when offered) - Sonia (and maybe Frankie?) - Nelson (he did nothing of note in his second stint & even had an exit storyline; were they testing both him and Chloe with only one perm role on the table?) - Kylie? Probably way more I'm missing!

Haha! It's true though (I think Adam or someone else commented on this point too...); the start of the 95 revamp was less about high major character turnover and more about a rejuvenated plot-writing style. Characters like Ailsa who'd become very staid in the 90-4 period were injected with some much needed spice again and the stories weaved and webbed far more again. Imagine if Donna had arrived a year earlier and had the same tenure. No doubt, there'd have been no Andrew Warren & she'd likely have been given storylines about sausage orders, netball spats or country dancing contests. She'd have been about as memorable as Frankie or Sonia. The enigma of Donna Bishop was totally interdependent with the timing with which she was on the show. That said, H&A definitely became more plot-driven (by any definition of the term) a year or so in, once we lost three major characters. But still with a lot of heart and very real characters.

Great point. Maybe they bought Travis back for good later on because they knew by then that Matthew wouldn't be coming back?

I didn't know that either! Still doesn't explain the lack of even a temporary exit story... Did his wife go into prem labour and there wasn't time to rewrite scripts? Or was it only supposed to be for a couple of weeks paternity leave which he never came back from? We can only wonder 29 years on!

Thanks Adam, that was super insightful!

Not sure how long her contract was for but there was an interview in Inside Soap at the time where she said it allowed her to focus on building her music career, so she seemed quite okay with it all. Bit of trivia: Nicola then came to the UK to do panto (Xmas 95) & had a fling with actor Ian Kelsey (who played Dave Glover in Emmerdale). He also confirmed this in, guess what, Inside Soap. Lucky woman! No idea RE Rob / Steven but agree that it was bizarre how Kelly then arrived afterwards if budget truly was the reasoning. I personally really liked Kelly. It was the first time in years that we had a truly professional, career-driven woman in the show (since Stacey & Morag were around). And I liked how that often put her at odds with some other characters, besides Travis.

I disagree with you there. I think that Stephanie had lots of mileage & that Fleur's a fine actor, she was EXCELLENT in Heartbreak High. Besides, it meant a lot to many viewers at the time (myself included) to see a character / actor of colour.

Nicola was axed to make way for Emily's return. Emily had got divorced and was planning to move back to Australia. So, the Producers called her, commited her return and ended Nicola's contract early to make way financially. This was quite well publicised at the time. A shame because, to my point today on a different thread, Donna likely may have been "one of the greats" had she been given more time. We will never know, as they say.

I always get a bit lost on the absolutely clear-cut definition of "character driven" versus "plot driven". I get the basic essence but the "split" between the two confuses me... I've always interpreted crazy villain type storylines as, ultimately, character driven. Because the drama which unfolds is driven by their behaviours, desires, nuances, warped minds etc. Albeit, the impact happens often on a lot of characters (outside of the said characters' control) and perhaps the fire that the villain starts spreads further than it should (for dramatic effect), with the catalystic aid of a plot device. But, ultimately, it all stems from the psychological makeup "token evil guestie" who's causing the pain. And that's the CHARACTERISATION that they've been given by the writers. Now what I do agree with is the suspension of belief regarding the above. Statistically speaking, there aren't many crazy villains in the World as soaps these days would have us believe. Or, at least, not ones who carry out murders, arson, organ theft (whatever even happens on today's H&A). Is this what we mean by "plot driven"? You could argue that a LOT of 95-00 is plot driven (as I've always interpreted it, perhaps wrongly?), especially the natural disasters... Bushfires (though, arguably, that was initiated by Jack going off the rails), earthquakes, cyclones, Shane's death. In fact, if you go back far enough, Bobby's death was entirely plot driven... by a stick (Adam's recklessness was a SECONDARY factor if you think about it). As was Tom's and Meg's. Yes, we then see the response of the grieving characters to those events. Please help me out here... I've lost the (pun intended)... plot! @j.laur5 What confused you? My articulation or are you equally confused by the distinction / overlap between what is character-driven versus what is plot-driven? Just curious. Thanks, SB

Exactly my point... What's to say that Steph, Liam and Casey wouldn't have been given meatier stories (to make them more memorable) had they all lasted into 98-99. I think what happened there was a case of Selina, Shannon, Chloe and Curtis staying on much longer than usual at that age

On the point of the 94-6 gang having some bed-in time prior to the 95 revamp, I feel the show very often did a great job of allowing newer characters time to find their feet before throwing them into the deep end. I.e. no heavy storylines for their first year. Take Sophie for example... the David/Tammy arc which defined her was only the second half of her stint. Her first 18 months was very light and she probably wouldn't have been that memorable had she left the Bay only a year or so in. Yet, her latter arc was more effective and iconic (and annoying in the end?!) BECAUSE we'd had that low-key 18 months to get to know her first (with b-plots of teenage romances, singing contests, domestic rivalries, obsessive teachers and illiteracy cover ups). Similar story with Blake prior to Meg. Would Shane have been as remembered as he was if he'd gone before Angel arrived (even though he was more interesting as a CHARACTER before her)? It's likely that many of those characters who only stayed for a year would have gone on to be some of "the greats" had they'd been around long enough to pass this "first year storyline cutoff" period, especially those about during the high-drama periods. What's to say that Casey or Stacey may have become just as iconic as Angel, Bobby or Shannon if they'd had more time?

Haha! Well, I ended up loving Tasha (as far as my limited mid 00s viewing went) but I did find the arrival story a little bug-bearing to say the least! I fully understand the logistical reasons why Pippa couldn't take them in but it was still a stretch (character wise) for Ailsa and Alf to be the solution. I did like how this was LOOSELY reflected in the writing (with the unusual nuance that, this time, Ailsa was the reluctant one whilst Alf essentially missed his bond with Blake); showed some growth in Alf but also, whether intentionally or not, the very seeds of Ailsa's breakdown / change from "middle Ailsa" to "later Ailsa". I don't think that Alf, Sally and the others were right to push her into it. She had the right to say no. Then she has one chat with Frankie (along with some reinforced encouragement from Irene) and just changes her mind?! Typical 1994 writing!! Ultimately, she fails Curtis big time months later. She shows no empathy with how he's feeling over Laura's death and even dares to compare it all to how tired she is "what with Alf away". What a self-centered, uncaring analogy to make! A far cry from the warmly maternal attitude she showed her beloved Blake when he lost Meg. It was from that very point that Ailsa went from being a firm favourite of mine to a very disliked character; Alf abandoning her for panto... I mean... fishing trips didn't excuse it for me! It's very hard to believe late 90s era Ailsa helping out a character like Bobby in the way that 88 Ails did. The closest parallel was with Justine (who she approaches in a very Celia-esque way). Correct! It was confirmed at some point in early 1990 that the fostering application had "finally" gone through. Viv even makes a joke with Emma about calling him "Daddy Flathead"! Clearly, the Department forgot that Don was a registered foster parent in later years as they never seemed to knock on his door again. Or are we supposed to assume that DOCs had an "exceptional cases" category where someone would be approved for one particular case only (e.g. the Stewarts with Bob?).

All of those street kids who just happened to rock up in Summer Bay, the fostering capital of Australia of all places in the World... Beginning with Dodge and culminating in THAT Pig Latin speaker in the mid 00s... Even them taking in Curtis was "reactive" to an extent. DOCS had originally approached Pip for both kids and it was Sally's (perhaps not so) bright idea for the Stewarts to take in one. They were likely still registered foster parents following their brief stint with Bobby 6 years before (Emma was "kinship care" as opposed to fostering in the legal sense). After Curtis, DOCS presumably didn't keep the Stewarts on their list of suitable foster parents for future "cold cases". That and / or Ailsa & Alf decided that "true fostering" wasn't really their vocation in life, especially after the "ageification" of Duncan. But that they didn't mind taking in more well-behaved, older kids without the formal responsibilities nor the long term obligations.