nenehcherry2

That's exactly how I divide her up... 88 Ailsa: strong survivor, environmentalist, fighting Macklins etc. 89-94 Ailsa: just an average nice woman, doesn't do much 95-00: lots of crazy storylines but seems broken and miserable much of the time

That REALLY stood out to me too when I watched this again. H&A always felt like the one show which didn't have a Bible. Surely they rarely utilised it given these sheer factual inconsistencies and retcons?

Ailsa was fantastic in 88-early 89. The diner and becoming a sort of foster Mum was the beginning of the end for her. She just becomes an initially kindly (later much grumpier) woman who serves milkshakes and calms Alf down with little purpose otherwise for 90-4. In 1995, they remember Judy's a good actress and give her storylines again but they do not fit the strong survivor she was supposed to be at the start.

I literally heard that annoying crash of wind (only way I can describe it) before the very beginning of the EM theme tune as I read this! Thanks for that Reminds me of the South Park episode "Simpsons did it!"

Sadly only for a few weeks Her and Don had AMAZING chemistry. Such a missed opportunity

Personally, I find Craig the most nauseating of performers to have to watch. He takes over (negatively for me) every scene that he appears in and does this annoying thing where he laughs for no reason - it's like he's ad libbing where the scene doesn't call for it. Overactor. I wasn't sorry to see the back of Grant (nor of Henry). Mouche gave a UK interview in 91 where she essentially said he was a diva to work with. I'll dig it out from BNA when I have time.

I liked Michael and Pippa's separation storyline. It was an unusually realistic (as far as soaps go) case of a married couple having a communication breakdown. And a slow burner at that. No big affairs, secrets, criminal activity etc... just a well-loved couple forgetting to interact regularly and to respect each other as human beings as much as a fostering team. Happens often in the real world I don't think any other soap separation or divorce, beyond even H&A itself, have ever shown a separation without an affair or something unreasonable happening. And the effect on the entire family was shown. So I liked it personally. But... Pretty sure I've said all this before on here so I'll stop there I liked those overlapping transition periods between two teen groups (usually aged two schools years apart). It stopped the show from looking too "night and then day" with its evolution of sub-eras. And it also helped the older teens grow up by having to suddenly set an example of behaviour. Jack hanging around being a pest to Shangel, Tug etc was reminiscent of Sophie befriending Emma and Viv for a good few months before Blake and Karen showed up. In fact, there's a moment in late 90 where Steven forces squabbling Haydn and Blake to play pool together which is IDENTICAL to a moment two years later where Blake makes Shane and Tug do the same.

The Donna/Andrew storyline feels very early 90s to me. Partly because it starts before that pivotal train crash. Essentially what could have become of Ben and Carly had they stayed around. It just doesn't have that later 90s feel (not good or bad, just neutral observation). It's more earlier 90s dark (there's a difference, I just can't articulate it well for some reason!). I can easily see how it could have fitted in 94 as one of the more darker stories like Tug's depression or Haydn's gambling. Whereas the likes of Bobby in the fridge, Somali war victim ghosts in caravans, earthquakes, Saul, Robert Perez, Ailsa shooting Alf every week etc would NOT have worked pre-95/6. THEY felt like the "newer" breed type of darker, somewhat mystical, themes that the later 90s became known for (and helped to define the show against the other soaps at the point in time). Personally, I don't hate 1994. The scriptural continuity is on point, the characters are very true to themselves and I never hit the fast forward button when re-watching. Unlike say late 89 / early 90 which was just... A mess in those senses. I just wasn't a fan of the more slapstick comedy stories like sausage mixups & netball matches were (pardon the pun) somewhat overplayed. And I like a little more drama. But very subjective. I liked how Selina, Jack, Shannon and Curtis spent their first few months (12 months even in the case of Selina and Jack, to @cymbaline's point) just mucking in with the lighter 94-early 95 storylines. It gave us a chance to get to know them as individuals and to appreciate their "gangship" with one another before the revamp put each of them through the ringer! It was, though, very sad to see Jack go from being such an energetic, zany, fun "jack the lad" into a sullen, miserable, bad boy as 95 progressed. Wasted opportunity and didn't play to Daniel's strengths. 1995 ruined quite a few well established characters in my opinion, as much as it bought back the drama and touched on some new ground. Shane became a lapdog, Angel nags more, Ailsa became a shadow of herself, Michael vanishes into the background (obviously written out), Jack becomes sullen, Pippa seems to lose her spark even more so, Alf lost his store and sense of humour, Don becomes an arse again... the list is endless. At least we had Maz back. On a side note, anyone notice how Curtis comes in as a studious, sensible counterpart to Jack but quickly becomes a surf-addicted burnout? Was that intentional?

Completely agree, the 95 revamp was very gradual and, if anything, that's why it worked for me. Even in later 95, there's still lots of day to day scenes in the mix alongside the bushfires, cults, Dodge etc. But (perhaps thankfully) the comedy storylines were mostly gone by then (it was mostly one liners from say Maz or Irene in the context of dramatic scenes). Early 95, pre-circa Laura's train crush, is just carryover from later 94 for me. Still lots of the comedy-centric filler from earlier 94 but with a bit of early 90s style melancholy becoming more mixed in. It's much closer to say 1990/1 in style than it is to the show of 12 months later.

Agree! I also think Mid 88 - late 89 had a very 80s/early 90s EE feel to it. The "who's the father" with Bobbygate (alas Simon Wicks), Roo's teenage pregnancy and jilting Frank (Michelle/Lofty), the secrets and lies with Dodge burning down the store and covering it up for 80 episodes, Who killed Gary Samuels (Reg Cox/Eddie Royle vibes), Ailsa threatening to snuff Baby Duncan felt like Mary's reaction to her second baby. Then the yuppie characters of Stacey/Brett/Nicolas whilst EE had James WB, Debbie etc. All glued together with Celia acting like "the Dot Cotton of Summer Bay" (to quote two other forum members' regular analogies! ).

Sometimes it's not even intentional. It's simply a case of an episode writer in say 1988 saying that Alf is 47 and then a different episode writer 7 years later giving the same age in the context of day to day dialogue. Yes, the 95 writer probably should have checked the "Bible" to reference an accurate age but would him being 52 really have made much difference to the context of the line being delivered? Either way, Alf is still broadly middle aged (aren't we all by now?! ) and being in that wider bracket defines his role in the Bay (with its median age of 20) as one of the "oldies". At the end of the day, the precise age or birthdate of a character (e.g. whether they're 43, 44 or 47), especially as they get older, is largely irrelevant to their purpose in the show. Their age bracket, on the other hand, is very relevant to the storyline direction given and wider character purpose. Unless, of course, it's one of those things which dispenses with reality (eg Bobby being allowed to foster at barely 20/1 - legally possible in 1991 NSW and an in-character move for her to make but I find it highly unlikely that DOCs would have approved it in real life).

Which leaves only Don, Lance and Martin I haven't watched 88 in quite a while. How was Celia towards him out of curiousity? Was this really shown.

But maybe her presence beyond 1990 would have stopped the show becoming sooooo teen-centric beyond that point?

Why 1990? Why not longer? Be interesting to double click a bit more on your perspective here...

Believing that Ailsa was late 30s in 1988 is a huge stretch of one's belief. She looks 48ish (Judy's old face for her age). Whereas, I've always seen VanPip as early-mid 30s in 88 in looks and youthful mannerisms (I age her more on the basis of how "old" she'll become once DL takes over). Definitely didn't seem late 40s (bit of an insult to Vanessa Downing I think!). Ailsa always seemed (looks and behaviour) significantly older than Pip to me but the gap seemed somewhat smaller with Deb than it did with Van. By 98, Pip feels about mid-late 40s whilst Ailsa seemed late 50s, pushing 60.

You've got it!

I can't think of anything more hideous as a prospect which never was... The fun of Morag/Bobby was seeing them hate on each other; Corny & Nicky were so good at playing that up too. I'd love to have seen them on-screen together again but definitely not as some loving Mother/Daughter... Where's the entertainment in that? Or... Maybe I just love bitchy "camporama" too much!

I agree RE Tug. With him, it was the age thing. He was hitting the end of year 12 and the teen gangs were about to be "recycled". As a character in a soap opera, definitely heaps of mileage left. But just not within the format of a show which was still definitively under 18s-centric and didn't have the best record of transitioning teens into adults realistically. Plus, they already had Shane and Angel staying on to turn into the next old married couple. And he was still too young to be the new teacher or doctor (unrealistic to boot for Tug!), so he'd have been repeating year 12 like a loner (alas 93 Fin) or just hanging around Alf in the store. But could definitely have turned into the next Bobby as a character. But, like yourself, I really liked him. And there was something about Tristan's acting (good presenter too). A shame he left the profession but clearly seems happy writing kids' books, good for him!

The most she'd have been able to purchase pre-00 was a quarter share. Nobody could buy the half of Bobby's share of the diner that Sam inherited until 2000 since it would have been held in trust until he turned 18. That's the way intestate law works in all common law systems, including Australia, when minors inherit from a deceased parent. But his share wasn't forgotten, hence the storyline involving Sam & the Stewarts in 00 (by which time Irene was working at the school). Regarding Greg's share (the other half of Bobby's half): unsure what happened to this. There was talk of him selling it in early 94 to (guess who?) Irene (and, to your point, Ailsa was incredibly opposed) but he changed his mind and sold the beach house to her instead. Does anyone remember if Greg's diner share was ever mentioned again? Or do we assume that Ailsa bought him out off-screen?

Haha, so true! Every 94 departure comes across like "oh it's Tina, John, Tristan's last day, let's quickly write in a little leaving do at the surf club in the midst of all the high drama plots about sausages, deb balls & netball. 1994 being such a demanding season from a storyliner's perspective and all that... I've always thought that too RE Haydn. What was the point of bringing him in for her final storyline but not linking that to her departure? Especially given their real-life status at that point. Thankyou! I actually found one of the mentions earlier, it was Louise Scott who referred to her as that when she introduced her to Sam. I KNEW there was another use of it earlier than that. Actually think a nice little moment would have been for Bobby to change her name to Fisher after her divorce to Frank. Even better, after "Simpson's" return (apparently the divorce papers came through not long after then)... Can hear 1990era Bobby now saying this to Don "(Bobby sigh noise)... it's Bobby FISHER now. Okay... sounds daggy, no offence but... I figured why would I want to still have the same dumb name as an evil jerk like Simpson when I COULD have the same name as the not as evil as everyone used to reckon Principal. Who, I guess I sort of love now... Very much". Don (touched but usual flustering): well, I'm truly very.... Honoured. Bobby: I love you, Dad!" (Just grabs him and kisses his cheek).

Fin's was awful. So sad, pretty much fitting with her entire random, dead wood existence in the final half of her stint.

Nick's departure was pretty lame too, especially given Bruce's 3 years service. He even commented on it in a British press article. I believe the circumstances were that he'd given notice to July (he was moving to the UK to be with his girlfriend) but they just let him go earlier with little explanation as to why. On-screen, he stops appearing after the boatshed auction and Shane confirms that he's overseas a few eps later. But no build up beforehand. Saying that, all the 94 departure stories bar Adam's were dull. Characters deciding to leave an ep or two before final appearances. Albeit, they mostly had some kind of leaving scene.

Did anyone else notice that Bobby referred to herself as "Bobby Fisher" a couple of times in circa 90/1 but then seemingly went back to Simpson for a while before marrying Greg. Did I imagine this?

I completely agree RE Alex Papps / Frank. He's good looking but I just don't fancy him for some reason. Whereas I think that Adam Willits is BEAUTIFUL by about 1990 and even more so later in the 90s. Interesting! When & where did you live in the Middle East? I spent a year in Oman in 2019.

Very true as always! At the other end of the "vegetative soapie spectrum", I found some of the characters attitudes to Bobby's probable brain death state before confirmation of the latter (as you quite rightly put it, "we HAVE to let her go") very jarring to watch. In particular, Alf's. As great a dramatic & emotional performance from Ray as it was, it also feels like he's talking to a 90 year old woman with terminal cancer rather than a 23 year old accident victim who MIGHT not be brain dead.