adam436

Georgie Parker has said in the past she isn't going to leave while Ray Meagher is still around: https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/home-and-away-exclusive-georgie-parker-reveals-exit-plans-034813096.html If or how long she stays beyond that is anyone guess, but I suspect she'd probably move on within a year or two. We might be wrong. She does also love working with Emily Symons, and as Georgie says, H&A gives her the flexibility to pursue theatre roles.

You also never know what's around the corner - other soaps have had veterans we expected to stay "forever" unexpectedly quit, which would have taken the producers and audience by surprise. What is the succession plan? Following the "big six", the next longest running characters are Justin (8 years), Mackenzie (5 years) and Tane (4.5 years). The producers must be happy for Justin to stick around for the foreseeable future or they wouldn't have married off him and Leah, but Mackenzie has had very little development - as I said, she just jumps from one relationship to disaster. It's been 5 years, so I would have hoped the producers would have invested in at least some development if they wanted to keep her around for the long haul. I do wonder if the producers might look to the not-so-distant-past to fill the gap - I can't see any classic 90s characters returning, but I could see the producers trying to lure back Dan Ewing or maybe Sophie Dillman and Patrick O'Connor to fill a void if any of those stalwart characters left in the next year or two.

This would call for a massive cast overhaul, which I suspect the producers would be reluctant to do right now. The number of twentysomethings would need to be reduced to make way for new teenagers and children. We'd still have Justin and Leah, Roo, and maybe John and Marilyn, but Irene and maybe John as a single man are probably getting on a bit to be active foster parents at this point. Consequently, it may also call on me of the younger couples to become foster parents, which would be out of character because of how the characters have been developed so far, i.e. Eden barely works so wouldn't be plausibly responsible, Tane has a criminal record etc. They aren't the responsible younger characters like Travis and Rebecca, Sally and Flynn etc. In the 21st century, it's still very surprising there is such a gap between Australia and the UK (no idea where Ireland are at). Lining them up would make for more unleaked twists etc too, especially for season finales, which air out of sync, making it difficult to avoid spoilers for UK audiences. It's also still surprising that H&A hasn't been cut to 4 episodes a week. Not only would it suit Channel 7's schedule, but it seems to be the way soaps are going. Neighbours has been 4 episodes a week since the revival, and Hollyoaks and Shortland Street will be making the transition to fewer episodes in the coming months. I've no idea what other UK soaps broadcast per week. These two aspects would give the show a bit of a reset. It would also allow for tighter storytelling rather than padding out storylines unnecessarily to fill five weekly episodes, and probably give the cast a bit of a refresh because like Hollyoaks, I'd imagine there would be casualties in the cast and crew though.

As I've said, the show needs to be starting thinking about the next generation of stalwarts, but the writing needs to improve first. You can have the best actors in the world who want to stay for the long haul, but if the writing and development is there, then it won't work. Tori was character who developed - like Mackenzie, she too would just jump from one relationship disaster to the next, but the writers eventually took in her new direction with a baby (and a unique take on the pregnancy for H&A too, rather than just an unplanned one!). We've definitely had characters in the last 10 years who I thought had long-term potential. The producers could have created a little family for Dean and Ziggy with Jai, Isabella and maybe a teenage sibling of Dean's. Ryder was a character who worked naturally with both younger and older cast and links to the iconic Stewart clan. For those complaining about too many younger cast staying too long, another part of the problem is that they are all the same age. Back in the day when we had a wider spread of ages, characters staying 4+ years seemed less noticeable because the different ages would mean different interactions, different storylines and development etc. We also need to keep in mind that actors are generally on 3 year contracts. Looking back 3 years, 2020 had a low turnover of cast and many of the 2021 additions (Chloe, Mia, Logan) left after 12-18 months. 2022 was a bigger year for comings and goings, so it would be reasonable to expect a bigger refresh in 2025, either the actors wanting to move on or the producers deciding the characters have run their course.

The show does need to start cultivating long-term characters. We have 7 mainstay characters which is certainly a good number, but they won't necessarily be around forever. Georgie Parker takes yearly breaks for theatre, Ray Meagher has been cutting back in recent years and Lynne McGranger also takes time out for other projects at various times. Any of those 7 could decide to leave next week for all we know, and the show needs to be prepared for when they do. The problem is that I can't realistically see any of the current younger cast still on the show in 10 years time, or if they are, they will have very little development and probably be going around in the same circles they are now. That's a writing issue though - any character should have the potential to become a stalwart with the right development and writing (not taking into account other factors like acting, viewer popularity etc.).

I'd say it kept the format beyond that, since there has always been some fostering element in the show until recently. During the Sutherland era, Irene had the Smith children and later Tasha and Kim and the Sutherlands had Brodie Hanson. In the post-Sutherland era, we've had various characters become foster children and/or unofficially taken in waifs and strays including Sally and Flynn, Miles, Roo and Harvey, Leah, John and Gina/Marilyn, and of course, Irene continuing to do so. Even in the Braxton era, which is probably the first major step toward the current premise, we still had that element with characters like April, Evie, Oscar, Matt, Jett, Maddie and Spencer, and then post-Braxtons with Olivia, Bella, Raffy and Ryder. Some of them were blood relatives to their guardian/carer, but it was still a compromise on what we have now. I think the 1994 season proved that formula was starting to get tired. I enjoyed the late 90s era, much more than 1989-1994, since the original premise still existed, just with the ramped up drama. 2000 was when the show lost its way for me. I think 2000 had the biggest cast turnover to that point, plus the other changes like the theme music and credits, the new diner, a nuclear family at Summer Bay House, made it feel less H&A to me than the late 90s era ever did.

I agree about the Pippa and Michael/Tom format was getting a bit stale, but I do think killing off Michael shook things up a bit. Summer Bay House was still quite full without him, so I didn't really feel his departure left much of a hole to be honest. Travis and Rebecca gave Summer Bay House another refresh, but I suspect the producers saw them as a short-term solution to see out the current foster children. If Nic and Belinda stayed beyond their contracts, then maybe the producers would have looked at making it a more permanent move and introduced new foster children for them. Does anyone remember at what point Sam moved in with Donald and Marilyn? I don't think it was immediately when Pippa left, but it was definitely before Travis and Rebecca left. Yes - during the Sutherland era there was Nick, Jade, Kirsty and Duncan/Seb fulfilling the "two boys and two girls" formula. We also had Dani, Hayley and Brodie who were still at high school, but they hung around with and dated older guys like Alex Polous, Josh West, Noah and Will.

Yes, that makes no sense to me either. And a softer transition for the show too. It would be quite jarring for the viewers to see a new couple come in and take over the existing foster children, and would have made no sense to farm out Tegan, Justine and Sam to other households just to move a new foster family in there. It also gave them a new direction as characters post-wedding. I can't think what the writers would have done with them after that, other than trying for a family, so they would have probably just tread water. Travis and Rebecca did not acquire any new foster children, so I assume the plan was for them to just see Justine and Tegan through to adulthood. If Nic and Belinda stuck around beyond that, they probably would have been given new foster children to work with.

That's Sharyn Hodgson, who played Carly. I recognised all of them except for Greg Benson. It took me a bit to pick him. Thanks for sharing. It's great to see they all catch up and still in contact

I think Justine Clarke and Mouche Phillips shared a flat. I vaguely recall reading an article about how Mouche was joining as Justine was leaving.

I actually enjoyed the Nashes. The problem was that it in hindsight, it seems like they were just a stop gap between the Rosses and the Sutherlands. From memory, Pippa's exit was written as temporary with her and Ian travelling around Australia, despite Debra officially leaving the show, and then made permanent the following year when Ian returned to say they'd settled in the Carrington Ranges. I'm not sure why the writers didn't rip the bandaid off straight away and make it permanent. Maybe the producers thought they could persuade Debra to come back? Then we had a period between the Nash house burning down and Travis and Rebecca leaving where we essentially had two families in the one house. I liked them all indivually, but the set up didn't quite work. By the time Travis and Rebecca left, Joel and Natalie only had a few months as the main parents at Summer Bay House before they started to be written out. I agree about the Sutherlands though. I never warmed to Rhys in the same way I did to Joel, Tom and to a lesser extent Michael, and having three girls (4 with Brodie!) a similar age and personality didn't help either. They would have worked better with at least one boy in the mix, but ideally a younger child too like we had Sam and Sally in the early years. Maybe that's why Max was created?

Do you mean the characters having a laugh or the audience laughing at the characters? Alf, Irene and Marilyn certainly had their share of lighter moments in the nineties so we know the actors are more than capable of the comedy stuff can do it. And Shane Withington can do comedy too. I can't comment on any of the younger cast since they've never really been given the opportunity. It feels like those characters haven't laughed in so long and with all the heightened drama, a comedy B plot would feel out of place right now. The closest story we have had it recent times would be Marilyn thinking John and Irene are an item, John's misusing his free coffee card and John and Alf's banter. I actually think getting John and Marilyn back together would relieve some of that - they can both be such fun characters and bounce well of each other with the right material, whilst still working well on the dramatic stories. John and Marilyn would give us a "fun couple", leaving Justin and Leah and all the younger pairings to carry all the dramatic relationship dramas. It's actually baffling they even separated in the first place really, since neither character has really grown or been taken in a new direction as a result of the separation. And with John and Marilyn sticking around long-term, they would have rivalled Alf and Ailsa for H&A's longest-running onscreen marriage. It's not easy finding that balance between comedy and heightened drama that H&A needs to maintain to survive. It's been done in the past in the 80s and 90s, but the show and television viewing habits have changed so much that that balance and formula wouldn't work today. That's why the examples I mentioned are probably the most we will get - they are lighter moments to break up the drama without going into veering into full-on sitcom territory like we did with many 80s characters.

It's a soap though - storylines can't move on if one event prevented two characters from being friends or interacting with each other. Hollyoaks does this frequently - the current Ste and Warren story is an example. I guess in a larger cast it is easier for characters to avoid each other (such as Sienna with Darren and Nancy), but it would become quite difficult in a small cast. I think one of my problems with the current show is that none of the couples are stable or feel like end-game: I'm talking Remi/Bree, Kirby/Theo, Rose/Mali, Xander/Dana and Cash/Eden. I understand characters and couples can't live drama-free lives, but where are the great love stories like Shane and Angel, Vinnie and Leah, Will and Gypsy (pre their early 2010s return), Travis and Rebecca, Sally and Flynn, Noah and Hayley etc. The current producers have proved they can give us the big love stories - they did it with Brax and Ricky and Dean and Ziggy. Those couples had their issues and broke up, but ultimately I cared about them and I believed they were end-game. I am not invested in any of the current couples because either the chemistry isn't there or the writers don't really know what to do with them so they break up and get back together every few months. In the 90s or 2000s, couples like Cash and Eden or Remi and Bree would be married off by now and probably starting a family. The writers' decision not to do that probably reflects modern society with people waiting longer to get married and starting a family, but I feel it also reflects a lack of commitment from the writers to create stable couples.

She appeared on the show during his most recent appearance in 2002. She was a nurse at the hospital and they fell in love at left Summer Bay together. I can't remember if we've had any updates on them since though.

It's actually getting ridiculous now - there are 5 pairs in the current cast, plus a vast number of past ones. I think the problem is that the Braxtons were so popular that the producers must think families of adult siblings is the answer - they tried to recreate the formula with the Morgans and the Paratas, but neither reached the same level of success, so now they've just seemed to stick of adult siblings now. They did try at least try something new with Lyrik, but that's just not working for me either. They wouldn't even need Tina or Matt - if Roo can be recast after Justine Clarke's iconic performance, then I'd say Finn and Damien would be fair game. I think it's more likely than luring either of them back to be honest. We've also got Irene's older son, Nathan and his wife Grace. Irene's grandsons via Finn would be the same age as many of the current cast, yet they'd prefer to have randoms like Xavier, Rose, Dana and Harper living with her. For Stewart family, we have Duncan and Ric. Duncan has a son who would now be early teens, and they could easily bring him back with a new wife and some step-kids. Ric was last seen in 2008, so he could also have children who are 14/15 at this stage (older with SORASing). Shandi Palmer or Leah's siblings Chris and Alex could also head up new families in Summer Bay. This is the reason I mentioned Heath Braxton and his kids - it would keep Lucy Addario and the Braxton fans happy, whilst still appeasing the fan base that want family units in the show again.

I certainly didn't hate them, but it's not my favourite era of the show either. I preferred them to Lyrik, especially around 2013/2014 once they'd settled in a bit. The only way it can get itself out of it is a complete overhaul. Any cast changes are likely to just replace one batch of cookie cutter twentysomethings with another, unless there is some sort of breakout character to come out of that. But even if there was, I imagine said character would get bogged down in relationship drama before too long. I imagine the introduction of Lyrik was meant to inject new life into the show, but it's been two years now so I think many of us are quite over it. Given how popular the Braxton family were, my suggestion would be to bring back Heath as a regular (since Steve Peacocke would unlikely return). It's probably a compromise that's going to suit anyone - it would appease Lucy Addario and the Braxton fanbase, whilst appeasing the fan base that want some teenagers back in the show. Darcy could slot into the twentysomething group and Harley would probably be 14-15 by now with inevitable SORASing.

And Irene. It was Irene's house he was staying at during his visit. Exactly! We've had worse rewrites of H&A history. Chris is more likely to head up a new family now rather than blend in with the younger cast, which means his coming out story is even more likely to be forgotten. If H&A ever do introduce an LGBT character, it would no doubt be someone in their early/mid twenties, rather than someone 35+

In the very unlikely event he did return, I'd imagine his 2003 guest stint would be forgotten completely.

Vika and Linda also featured in many Diner scenes too, and I'd consider them mainstream.

And Ken Smith with his kids too, but he was only around a year or so.

I think that comes down to the fact there was a mostly stable older cast in the early years: Alf, Ailsa, Pippa, Tom/Michael, Donald, Irene. Then we got Judith, Joel and Natalie in later years, who were introduced with their teenage children. The 2000s had more traditional families like the Sutherlands, Hunters, Holdens, Austins etc. as it somewhat drifted away from fostering.

Another good point - in 1988, all the regular teens lived with the Fletchers except Roo, though we did have a number of recurring and extended guest characters like Alison, Sandra, Alan, Matt etc. to flesh them out. Later teen gangs had less reliance on such recurring characters.

That's true - I guess the producers had no way of knowing that H&A or even Donald would have lasted so long, so it made sense to me for her to be a regular at that point. Maybe they thought one biological daughter for Fisher at a time was enough (again, the producers couldn't have known Bobby would stay so long!). Or maybe the producers wanted to increase the Summer Bay foster children? I think at this point, we were down to just Sally and Steven. Bobby and Carly were now adults (plus Bobby had a new family), an adult Frank and Lynn had left. Fisher fostered Viv and the Stewarts got Emma Jackson, but for some reason, the Fletchers didn't get a new permanent foster child until Sophie in 1990. Given they were the central family, I'm not sure what the reasoning was behind that - they got guest character Dodge, but no one full-time. It could have been that Roger and Vanessa both took extended breaks from the show, or maybe the producers wanted to give the other adult characters to develop more as foster parents.

I assumed it was Debra's maternity leave and them needing a "mum" at Summer Bay house - given she was the biological mother of two (of three?) of the foster children, it made sense logistically. Who else would there have been? Ailsa and Bobby had their own homes/families. On the subject of "testie guesties", do we think Jane Hall as Rebecca was another one? I only ask because just a few months later, Viv Newton was introduced: Viv moved into the Fisher household, was the same age, similar personality (studious, quiet) and also had a relationship with Steven. It's possible the original plan was for Rebecca to fill that gap, but for whatever reason, opted for a new character.

I used to have a VHS copy signed by Nic Testoni, but I'm not sure what happened to it. I can't remember too much about it though - I think it was filmed on Hamilton Island and I recall Belinda Emmett sang most (or all?) of the music soundtrack and it was directed by Nic. memory, it was Nic, Ben Unwin, Belinda Emmett and Kristy Wright on holiday somewhere tropical. It's also sad that two of the four are are no longer with us