Skylover Posted November 19, 2016 Report Posted November 19, 2016 I've decided for definite now I wish Pippa had been re-cast in 1998, the character was essential to the show.
adam436 Posted December 4, 2016 Report Posted December 4, 2016 I don't think a recast was necessary - shows often adapt when the central character leaves and they continue for years. Home and Away has always largely been an ensemble cast and no one character is bigger than the show itself (despite what the current producers think about the Brax). In 1990 however, the show was only two years old and the show still largely focused on the Fletchers, so Pippa was more central back then. I still think it could have worked without her though - perhaps Alf and Ailsa could have taken over in a similar fashion to how Travis and Rebecca did in 1998.
j.laur5 Posted December 4, 2016 Author Report Posted December 4, 2016 6 hours ago, adam436 said: I don't think a recast was necessary - shows often adapt when the central character leaves and they continue for years. Home and Away has always largely been an ensemble cast and no one character is bigger than the show itself (despite what the current producers think about the Brax). In 1990 however, the show was only two years old and the show still largely focused on the Fletchers, so Pippa was more central back then. I still think it could have worked without her though - perhaps Alf and Ailsa could have taken over in a similar fashion to how Travis and Rebecca did in 1998. I reckon they could have bought in Debra as a new character to look after kids. Maybe Debra could be brought in as a sister of Pippa and come to take over from Pippa as Pippa had enough of living in the Bay and wanted to move back to City. A Sister of Pippa would have had work because she would be like an Aunt to the kids and therefore be realistic for kids to stay behind.
adam436 Posted December 5, 2016 Report Posted December 5, 2016 In hindsight, it was a pretty risky move to recast one of the show's linchpin character months after killing off the other, and luckily for the producers, it paid off. It would have been "safer" option to push established characters to the forefront, and given it's a soap, I think the audience would have eventually accepted this. I bet if they knew how long Ray and Judy planned on staying, they would have given it serious consideration to Alf and Ailsa becoming the main couple of the show!
beau_t Posted December 6, 2016 Report Posted December 6, 2016 I'm not sure how I feel about that but it's quite an interesting idea!! I was going to say that the only problem would be the fostering issue. The kids are legally fostered to Pippa and she can't just leave them with anyone... but then she did with Travis and Rebecca (although I'm sure they had some vetting for realism sake). So yeah, interesting idea.
Skylover Posted December 6, 2016 Report Posted December 6, 2016 I don't like the idea of Alf and Ailsa moving to SBH in 1990, if that's what you mean? I don't think that would've worked and the show would've become stale much earlier on. IMO re-casting Pippa was the right decision but I suppose it's true that it was a risk. I mentioned this on another forum recently but I think when Pippa left in 1998 she should have stayed as the owner of the house, allowing Sally to lodge there provided she rented 3 of the other rooms out. Then, when the time came for Flynn and Sally to get married and start fostering, she would have already been in the main house and could have just asked the other lodgers to move out. However, I'm guessing the producers in 1998 didn't value Sally as much as in later years and perhaps wanted a fresh start?As for replacing Pippa with her 'sister', not sure how I feel about that. If that sister was a foster parent too would it have felt like they were just ripping off Pippa's character and not being brave enough to re-cast her?
j.laur5 Posted December 6, 2016 Author Report Posted December 6, 2016 But only one fostered at a time. Sophie and Steve and Steve were almost 18. But I think it would be too much for Ailsa running the Diner, being a foster mum and running the caravan park .
Skylover Posted December 7, 2016 Report Posted December 7, 2016 Alf and Ailsa wouldn't have suited being long term foster parents. Some viewers seem to be happy with whichever characters fostering whether it makes sense for those characters or not.
c120701 Posted December 8, 2016 Report Posted December 8, 2016 I wonder what made them decide to move Travis & Rebecca into that role. Was it Belinda's Silver Logie nomination?
alexx Posted December 8, 2016 Report Posted December 8, 2016 I remember reading an article about Pippa's departure at the time and the producers insisted that the show was bigger than Pippa and it would go on. Of course that was true, but I can see with hindsight how her departure probably was the start of me not being as invested in the show as I had been while she was running the caravan park and fostering. I did really enjoy H&A up until 2003, I started to drift for the first time during the first half of 2004, I got addicted from mid 2004-2008 and although I complained a lot about the show changing so dramatically from 05-onwards I was still invested. But it was never the same as it was up until Pippa's departure. Re-watching 1995 reminds me of just how important the characters and show was to me at the time, it's actually been quite surprising to me how I feel like I'm actually re-living a part of my life! I think Pippa leaving just shifted the dynamic of the show and it lost a lot of it's 'homeliness' and security so I no longer felt as connected as I had done.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.