adam436

It might be "When Will You Fall for Me?" by Vika and Linda

Depends how long she stayed I guess. If she was still around today, I doubt the producers would keep the fostering element just because Pippa is still there. She'd probably either be taking in adult lodgers like Irene has or be in a "mature share house" (for lack of a better term) like Alf, Roo and Mariyln have. They'd probably have kept sending foster kids her way up to the mid 2010s though, so she'd probably have ended up with kids like Brodie Hanson and Peta Janossi that some of the larger families fostered. Or maybe she would have become the "foster grandmother" of the show like Alf pretty much was to the teenagers that Sally, Miles, Roo and Leah fostered or unofficially took under their wing.

It was the first big cliffhanger of its kind. We'd never has a siege of that scale before. It was more shocking than the big scale disasters like the landslide, earthquake etc. It was probably the big turning point of H&A which hurtled into the new dramatic era where we almost had unhinged villians and a "disaster of the week" in 2005-2010

It was one of the biggest moments we'd had at that point. I still remember being shocked that they had killed off Noah, one of the more popular characters at the time. I thought we were going to have Kane die a hero, or guest characters Peter would be the death.

I have a mug from the mid-late 90s. It's just a black mug with Home and Away in their branded font written on it, but I scored it from Kristy Wright and Nic Testoni l. They were doing a shopping centre appearance, and gave away prizes for trivia questions. I answered a question about the name of Chloe's baby.

I remember he got into a punch up with Alf in the school corridor at one stage too, but I can't recall why. I think it was because he'd dobbed Curtis into the police after Laura died for something they did prior to her death?

It's a shame them and Ryder left. They'd have been the next generation of stalwarts I think. I know these characters weren't doing much, but I do feel like the writers "give up" on characters if they know they are leaving or they get shiny new characters to play with. Dean and Ziggy were once central characters, but pretty much sidelined (along with Nikau) once Felicity, Cash and Lyrik came along. It's like the writers don't know how to balance new characters with the characters who've been around for 2-3 years, and eventually these actors either leave because they want something more challenging or they are written out at the end of their contracts. Again, it comes down to the writers moreso than the characters or actors. Mackenzie for example, could have been the next Leah, but instead she's not really developed at all in the last 5 years. With her owning Salt, she could have been a constant at that meeting place, as Irene and Leah have been with the Diner. Instead, she'll probably still be making disastrous life choices in 5 years time if the same writers are still around. Others with potential (I.e. Dean and Ziggy) the writers ultimately become bored with once new characters come along.

There were signs earlier of him showing his softer side before that though: walking Sally back to class after she ran away, helping out at the Pappas farm, his friendship with Ailsa, offering Lynn and Carly a lift home to avoid hitch-hiking etc. Lance and Martin were also very two-dimensional early on too and developed somewhat as regulars. Certainly not to the extent Donald did though, but they developed beyond bullying Nico, chasing women, money making schemes and trying to avoid work.

The Robert Perez story. I was only 8/9 when this story originally aired, so I would be curious to watch the story as an adult. The other one would be Edward Dunglass' story arc, which has already been mentioned.

For me, the issue wasn't so much the SORASing of characters, but the fact Olivia and VJ were the same age when we saw both characters born on screen four years apart in relatively recent history (the recast from Felix Dean to Matt Little madw it worse!). Anything less than 2 years they probably could have got away with, but this was a near four year gap and the actor playing VJ looked about 25 when the character should have been 13.

I'm glad you said was. 2015 saw Olivia Fraser and VJ Patterson in the same year at school, despite being born nearly 4 years apart H&A has very rarely done that. We had children grow up on screen like Sally, Sam, VJ and Duncan, but very rarely had children or teenagers leave and then return while they were still school age. Neighbours had the aforementioned examples of Debbie, Michael, Cody and later on characters like Sky, Elle, Andrew Robinson, Holly etc., and have been very inconsistent with their ages. The nature of early years H&A has meant that generally hasn't been necessary - since it was about foster families rather than nuclear ones, it is probably easier to create a new teenage character than to recast a former one. For example, it was easy to create someone like Sophie or Finn, than it would be to recast Lynn Davenport and de-SORAS her to that age group. Neighbours has relied more heavily on nuclear or blood families.

The segregation between old and new cast becoming more and more obvious. With a few exceptions (i.e. John and Dana working together, Irene living with Dana and Harper, Theo being Leah's nephew), the veteran characters are generally in their own bubble, and only really given storylines because the writers are obliged to. Compare it to say the mid 90s - we still had characters grouped into teenagers, twentysomethings and "the elders", but there was still that crossover and interaction. Someone like Shannon for example, used to share scenes with her peer group, her family and the older characters like Fisher and Alf. There is no reason why any of the current twentysomethings couldn't be Irene's grandsons. They wouldn't necessarily need to live with her, but it would at least give us a multi-generation connection. Or if the producers are so obsessed with adult siblings, why not create one for Theo, so it at least gives Leah another family member to interact with? In some ways, I can see why Channel 7 is downplaying the longevity of the show. If you talk about Neighbours, some people would say "I didn't know that was still going", implying that is well past its shelf life, even well before 2022. I've not really watched the UK soaps other than Hollyoaks, but I do remember when I was growing up that Coronation Street was often associated with an older audience growing up (my Nanna watched it!). From what I know, it has a larger younger cast now, but I still probably that have association with my Nanna in my head. The producers probably view "classic" Home and Away as a bit daggy and might worry that's how the audience associate it.

I'm pretty sure it's just Travis and Rebecca and Ben and Carly in the early years. We had a few couples in the 2000s like Robbie and Tasha, Tony and Rachel too, but my memory isn't as great with 2001 onwards so there could be others I don't remember. Then we've had others where the wedding is part of an exit story like Tori and Christian, Dex and April, Will and Gypsy (before their return) I'd agrue it's more to do with how quickly the couple split up (or killed off!). For example, I still fondly remember Donald and Marilyn's wedding, which ended in divorce, but I'd say Frank and Bobby's and James and Chloe's were pretty forgettable.

For me, it depends on the characters involved. I was never a fan of Ben and Carly, so had zero interest in their wedding, whereas others like Travis and Rebecca, Don and Marilyn and Vinnie and Leah were iconic moments for me. Most wedding episodes work best if it's not just one storyline in the episode. Travis and Rebecca for example, got married in the season finale, so there were a few other things happening in the episode. From memory, the other examples I mentioned were the sole focus of the episode, but it was a different time where the show could afford to have an episode off from the heavy dramatic plots. I really can't see it working in 1998, since she was only a year or so older than Justine and Tegan. The only way it may have worked would be if she had married off to someone in his mid 20s, but I feel like that would have been disastrous for her character in the long-term. Sally needed those 6 years to "grow up" before she could take over SBH. In that time, she finished uni and got a decent job at the school, married the town GP Flynn and had a child on her own. She also gained quite a bit of life experience through her storylines in these years which included living in share houses, a romance with a much older man (I can't remember his name, but his daughter had epilepsy and dated Sam), the failed wedding to Kieran, getting engaged to Luke, getting shot, something to do with unwittingly being on a webcam at Vinnie's house and probably more I've not thought of.

Definitely Will, he came back for both Hayley's wedding - the non-wedding to Kim and her actual wedding to Noah. I think the early 2000s was also feeding off the success of the Early Years reruns on Channel 7. We had the big nostalgia fests for Sally's wedding, Summer Bay's bicentenary and Alf's 60th birthday, plus sporadic appearances from characters like Lance and Morag throughout the 2000s. Carly also returned when Sally had a hysterectomy (perhaps Debra unavailable with Blue Heelers?). We also don't see many returns now because there aren't that many mainstay characters and those do don't really have close connections. Marilyn wasn't particularly close to any characters in her previous stints that are likely to return for a major event, John is a relatively new character in the grand scheme of things, Leah's brother Alex wasn't really that iconic or memorable as a character to warrant a return and Alf's family would all be aging at this point except for Dunca. Irene's family is the bugbear for me - I accept that Matt Doran and Tina Thomsen might not want to return, but I feel like if the producers can recast an iconic character like Roo, then Damien and Finn shouldn't be off limits.

In hindsight, the producers were lucky Debra stayed as long as she did. Had she only stayed a year or two, the producers would have been in the same predicament as they were in 1990. Instead, they didn't have to worry about it for over 7 years. There probably weren't too many alternatives at the time. Bobby perhaps could have worked - there were plans in the works for her to become a foster mother anyway, and I'd say there was a big enough gap between Bobby and Sally and Sophie for her to step in as their guardian. Steven only had a few months left on the show, so I imagine they'd probably have just glossed over her being his guardian too just to get through the transition period. If Vanessa had left a year later, I think the producers would have seriously considered Bobby as a possible solution as she was officially a foster mother by then and oldest child Steven was gone. They could have also invented a reason for Alf and Ailsa to move into Summer Bay House, just as they did with Travis and Rebecca when Pippa eventually left. I'm not sure how Judy Nunn would have felt at being the central mother figure though, since she seemed to prefer a supporting role, especially in later years. The Pippa recast would have felt less jarring had Pippa had at least gone away for a week or two. There was a gap between the other immediate recasts: Flynn Saunders went to Perth for a few weeks and came back as a new actor, and the Natalie Nash recast happened over the Christmas break in Australia (maybe not in the UK though?). I'm not counting the "emergency" temporary recasts like Selina, Alisa, Mitch and Rebecca here either.

Its definitely been a slow shift. When the Braxtons were introduced, we still had a strong focus on teens and families. The teen population was downsized around 2016/2017 with the introduction of the Morgans and loss of characters like Jett, VJ, Josh, Evie, Oscar, Maddie and Matt. And then slowly dwindled away with Olivia, Hunter, Raffy etc departed, leaving us with just Bella, Ryder, Chloe and Nikau, who all left around the same time, being replaced with twentysomethings. I think the producers just think the Braxtons were really popular (which they were!), and keep trying to recreate that magic with characters of the same age, perhaps forgetting they were balanced out by a well rounded teenage cast and a stalwart cast who were more effectively used.

I do wonder if that story was cut short when Vanessa left. Her final episode saw Pippa gently letting Donald down, then it was pretty much dropped. It could have just been a coicindence, but the producers might also have wanted a "clean slate" for the new Pippa. Let Debra settle into the role with a seamless transitition as possible, without an ongoing story having over her.

Didn't he also film a scene where someone found him on the floor of the Macklin office? It's been a while since I watched those episodes, but I don't think we ever actually saw Tom collapse.

Agreed! I think Pippa's recast felt bigger because we'd already lost Tom, so it felt like Summer Bay House had a big change. In fact, by early 1991, Kate Ritchie is the only original actor still living in thay out. Tom's death felt quite downplayed. It didn't really feel like the central character was being killed off to be honest, but just one of the supporting characters. The Pippa change was a factor too, since the recast further removed the connection to Tom (I know it's the same character, but I don't associate Debra's Pippa with Tom at all, if that makes sense!). It's possible that the rumoured rift between Roger and the producers was a factor too, and they just wanted to kill him off and move on as quickly as possible.

I also think Tom being absent for much of 1989 was a contributing factor too. If he was still front and centre as he was at the beginning, then his death would have been more shocking. It also felt like the show just wanted to move on from Tom as quickly as possible, rather than grieve for him for months like they did with Bobby.I think the Pippa recast a month or two later lessened the impact of Tom's death too and helped everyone move on more quickly.

That's probably a good way to describe 1994 actually. Most of the early 90s had very little plot, but at least each year had one big iconic story to define the year: 1991 - the David and Sophie story. 1992 - Meg's death 1993 - Dale's and Bobby's death. 1994 had no major iconic story really, and 1990 was such a transitional period between the original cast and their replacements it was probably too hard to have a defining storyline. It's not hard to see why the 1995 shake up was need after a rather complacent 1994.

I actually think the show could benefit from a move to a later timeslot. The show could run those storylines but with fewer restrictions.

I had to go with Marilyn's daughter too. Much of Marilyn's second stint involved her wanting to and struggling to have a baby. It's a bit insulting to that whole story arc in my opinion - with Donald's support, Marilyn would have totally fought for custody of Heather, especially when it seemed likely she'd be happy to have children herself. The Martha one I could almost buy had we just had one or two lines saying Alf told Ailsa the truth and she agreed to keep it a secret. If anyone can understand someone needing to run away from the past/their existing life, it was her. The Mick one wasn't great, but at least it didn't alter any events that played out on screen, like the Heather and Martha ones did. Never really cared about Colleen's daughter (other than Alf dating her, which was ick due to a future retcon) or Colleen being a Stewart.

I always thought Tom came from fostering too, but now I think of it, I can't remember any reference to it. Tom and Pippa fostered because Pippa supposedly couldn't have children of her own. Maybe the Tom reference is inone of the books from the late eighties?