Rewatching The Early Years

[cymbaline]

Neighbours was subsidized to the eyeballs and everybody seems to have genuinely thought it was gone. Time will tell whether Amazon continues to prop it up or not. I hope it survives but who can tell. 

Every soap evolves, so I don't get the logic of comparing old and new Neighbours. You could say the very same thing about every other long-running soap. 

[adam436]

8 hours ago, cymbaline said:

She was able to write all those books on company time because they weren't giving her much to do.

I don't think it was a coincidence that Judy quit when they started giving her big stories. In 1999-2000, she had the PTSD story after the diner siege (was that when Ailsa shot Alf?), the car accident and subsequent story when she thought Alf wanted her dead, and then the Shaun story. She was also involved in the mudslide, but Judy would have given her notice by that point. 

Prior to that, she didn't really do much for most of the nineties - her and Alf had marriage issues at one point which seemed like a B plot (I can't remember the build up, but he moved into a caravan and met a blind woman played by Belinda Giblin!) and then her breakdown in which she saw Bobby, but that was probably written as a temporary exit story for Ailsa. 

 

[Homeandawayfan.]

That blind woman may have been Martha Stewart in disguise.

[j.laur5]

I recently rewatched Lois episodes and really enjoyed her character. She made a good villain

I can understand why she didn’t stick around for long. 
 

 

Edited May 24 by j.laur5

[j.laur5]

On 20/05/2024 at 06:25, adam436 said:

. She was also involved in the mudslide, but Judy would have given her notice by that point. 

 

 

I always thought it would be better if Ailsa died in the mudslide as it would have given a bigger impact for her character and show and more dramatic death. 
 

 

[Homeandawayfan.]

In regards to the 1995/1996 cranking up the pace, I think the 1995 revamp of the show probably, at the end of the day, was a shot in the arm for H&A, the show deffo needed to bring some beef into it. 1988-1989 had similar styles but 1990-1994 was pretty tame and could be boring.

Even in the quite relaxed period of 1990-1994 I always thought H&A had quite a lot of things that Neighbours just lacked. Sunnier weather, more interesting characters and many school scenes.

Edited June 1 by Homeandawayfan.

[adam436]

8 hours ago, Homeandawayfan. said:

In regards to the 1995/1996 cranking up the pace, I think the 1995 revamp of the show probably, at the end of the day, was a shot in the arm for H&A, the show deffo needed to bring some beef into it. 1988-1989 had similar styles but 1990-1994 was pretty tame and could be boring.

1995 H&A just shows how a revamp can be done without a massive cast shake up. There was some natural turnover that is part and parcel of H&A, but for the most part, it was using the characters that were already established (the exception was probably Donna?).  Bringing back Steven and Marilyn as full-time cast members was a shot in the arm too. That would have potentially renewed interest for lapsed or long-term viewers, whereas the cranked-up stories and focus on the newer younger cast (Curtis, Shannon, Selina, Jack) would have brought in some newer viewers too, including myself as a 7 year old at the time! 

Compare it to later revamps like 2000, where half the cast were written out to make way for newcomers like the Sutherlands, Noah etc who were instantly thrown into the thick of things. Axing characters seems to be Neighbours' and Hollyoaks' go-to when a revamp is required too (I can't comment on other soaps!), which we know have had mixed results.

[CaptainHulk]

36 minutes ago, adam436 said:

1995 H&A just shows how a revamp can be done without a massive cast shake up. There was some natural turnover that is part and parcel of H&A, but for the most part, it was using the characters that were already established (the exception was probably Donna?).  Bringing back Steven and Marilyn as full-time cast members was a shot in the arm too. That would have potentially renewed interest for lapsed or long-term viewers, whereas the cranked-up stories and focus on the newer younger cast (Curtis, Shannon, Selina, Jack) would have brought in some newer viewers too, including myself as a 7 year old at the time! 

Compare it to later revamps like 2000, where half the cast were written out to make way for newcomers like the Sutherlands, Noah etc who were instantly thrown into the thick of things. Axing characters seems to be Neighbours' and Hollyoaks' go-to when a revamp is required too (I can't comment on other soaps!), which we know have had mixed results.

 

Home and Away held steady here, it was in Oz they needed to step up a gear after "taking their foot off the gas in '94".

[cymbaline]

1 hour ago, adam436 said:

1995 H&A just shows how a revamp can be done without a massive cast shake up. There was some natural turnover that is part and parcel of H&A, but for the most part, it was using the characters that were already established (the exception was probably Donna?).  Bringing back Steven and Marilyn as full-time cast members was a shot in the arm too. That would have potentially renewed interest for lapsed or long-term viewers, whereas the cranked-up stories and focus on the newer younger cast (Curtis, Shannon, Selina, Jack) would have brought in some newer viewers too, including myself as a 7 year old at the time! 

Compare it to later revamps like 2000, where half the cast were written out to make way for newcomers like the Sutherlands, Noah etc who were instantly thrown into the thick of things. Axing characters seems to be Neighbours' and Hollyoaks' go-to when a revamp is required too (I can't comment on other soaps!), which we know have had mixed results.

1995 benefitted from the shake-up of the previous year. That was when they moved on the likes of Luke, Sarah, Finlay and Adam and replaced them with these newer actors. Shannon and Curtis didn't arrive until September and that put in place the final pieces of the next teenage gang. They were also lucky with the two returning old faces. Steven and Marilyn slotted back in easily but that isn't always the case with returnees. 

[adam436]

20 hours ago, cymbaline said:

1995 benefitted from the shake-up of the previous year. That was when they moved on the likes of Luke, Sarah, Finlay and Adam and replaced them with these newer actors. Shannon and Curtis didn't arrive until September and that put in place the final pieces of the next teenage gang. 

That's a good point - Jack, Selina, Shannon and Curtis were all given time to settle in and build a fan base before they were thrown into the thick of storylines. I don't think it's a coincidence that they are probably considered the most iconic teenage gang the show has ever had. 

Many new characters aren't given that opportunity to settle into the show before they are thrown in the deep end, which sometimes affects how well they are received.

 

20 hours ago, cymbaline said:

Steven and Marilyn slotted back in easily but that isn't always the case with returnees. 

It helped that Steven and Marilyn still knew quite a few characters from their time, which is not always the case. Also Marilyn was pretty much immediately moved into the Beach House and Steven had new interactions through his job as a teacher and with Travis (I think it was said that he, Travis and Donna were all in the same year at school together!) so that got him out beyond just interacting with the Ross family. The writers really put some thought into how they were going to work. '

May I ask who you were referring to with it isn't always the case? The only other regular returnees H&A has had have been Jesse McGregor, Kirsty Sutherland, Marilyn in 2010 and a recast Roo, plus Morag's semi-regular appearances in the mid-late 2000s. Jesse's eventually worked, but I felt like they had to pair him off with Leah pretty quickly for it to happen, and I wasn't really watching in the late 2000s, so I can't comment on Marilyn, Roo and Kirsty. Morag's semi-regular stint worked too because she's such a strong character and as a lawyer, was often in demand professionally.