Rewatching The Early Years

[nenehcherry2]

Roger

4 hours ago, adam436 said:

Interesting to know.  I always wanted Phil and Stacey to be end game, and had the new producer came in, I wonder whether they would have. Since they both arrived around the same time, they probably would have been written out together too. 

Interestingly some of the new additions in 1989/1990 didn't go the distance for whatever reason. Viv, Grant, Emma and Ben all lasted less than year. It's probably a case of contracts in the early years being shorter, rather than 3 years though. Adam, Marilyn and Sophie were obviously much more successful though.

  

It makes sense that Craig and Peter were axed. They had essentially been replaced by Adam and Matt in terms of the hair-brained money-making schemes etc, though Adam and Matt were probably less caricatures, smarter and marketed as more "sexier". 

It could just be a coinidence, but Fiona, Vanessa and Roger all had significant absences in 1989 and then all were gone by mid 1990 - Celia went to Europe, Tom recovered from a stroke in a city hopsital and Pippa left to care for sick parents.  

Roger's 89 break was due to a minor heart attack. I've read this in an annual. 

Fiona's was for some Prisoner tour.

Marilyn's 89 hiatus was due to Emily's bulimia (according to a 91 UK newspaper article).

Vanessa's early 90 break was due to panto.

Edited January 3 by nenehcherry2

[adam436]

Thanks for sharing. I didn't know any of that.

It's a shame that Tom and Pippa didn't get to share much screen time in their last 6 months or so due to their absences. There was a crossover period when Tom returned and before Pippa left, most of which they were arguing, and then a few months between Pippa returning and Tom's death.

[nenehcherry2]

22 hours ago, Homeandawayfan. said:

Loved the Lance and Martin duo, and the banter between them, like Damo and Shane and more recently Jett and VJ. Lance and martin were always taking the mickey out of one another and enjoyed it.

It also shows though that there is a fine line between banter and bullying, as if one of them did not like it but the other did then it is not banter if one sided. Lance liked it, as did Martin but if say lance did not like it and Martin liked tacking the mick, then it would be one sided and not banter but more like bullying.

Personally, I didn't at all. I found them funny the first few times I saw them (Living repeats) but now I fast forward most of their scenes. By mid-89, I want the pair of them just to rack off already!

Engagement with Lance & Martin seems to be subjective depending on the viewer. Some I've connected with in the fandom on this subject adored them, others despised them. Like marmite. 

22 hours ago, j.laur5 said:

In way Celia could really be written out then in  1989 as she  really did not do much at all after she return from lengthy absence other then cleaning  out Morag house and hot dog stand and she wasn’t even really much of comically character or busybody by then as she seemed to mellowed by then with her gossip and getting into comical situations. 
 

I could be wrong but I think Fiona might already let producers know she was going to leave at end of her contact and Fiona said interview that she left H&A because she wanted back to Melbourne and Fiona thought show was only going last couple of years. 

I think a lot of the original characters suffered from the point Greg Haddrick took over as script producer (about 400ish). There's a real feel that he didn't get some of them at all in the same way that Bevan Lee did (as well as his immediate successor failed on this count, forgotten the name). So, for example, Ailsa loses all her 88 spark and just goes into "would you mind looking after the place for half an hoaur, Love?" (typo intended) for the next few years with little purpose except for serving shakes, Celia becomes obsessed with hot dog stands (as do Lance and Martin) and so on. And don't get me started on the way many of the others reacted to Pippa/Zac. You're absolutely right in hypothesising that Fiona, Peter & Craig's imminent departures perhaps made them even less "invested" in from this point in time. 

20 hours ago, adam436 said:

Thanks for sharing. I didn't know any of that.

It's a shame that Tom and Pippa didn't get to share much screen time in their last 6 months or so due to their absences. There was a crossover period when Tom returned and before Pippa left, most of which they were arguing, and then a few months between Pippa returning and Tom's death.

You're very welcome! I agree with this about Tom & Pippa. For me, there is no "Tippa" or "Pom" (lol!) once the Dodge story wraps up. They're together for two short bursts. One being the dreadfully written Zac story, the rest is just them being "there" until they have an out of the blue 1-episode bicker about Pippa being "taken for granted" and then his death. This lack of focus on them really helps to make the transition to DebPip and Michael even more believable to me.

Edited January 4 by nenehcherry2

[adam436]

I agree. In 1988, Ailsa was quite independent, stood up for what she believed in (i.e. defending Bobby and Fisher when no one else would, the Macklin resort stuff) even if meant "defying" her husband. This all got lost pretty quickly.

Floss and Neville are another two characters in which the writers lost investment in pretty quickly. Maybe it was because the decision had already been made to write them out or but they'd been reduced to glorified background characters pretty quickly. I found them, especially Floss, pretty annoying anyway.

I liked Lance and Martin early on, but I think they were "dumbed down" once Adam came on the scene. He took over as the comical money-making schemer, which meant they had to find a new direction for Martin.

Carly was another who got lost in the 1989/1990 shift too. Pretty much everything post-Foley was terrible for her.

[nenehcherry2]

11 hours ago, adam436 said:

I agree. In 1988, Ailsa was quite independent, stood up for what she believed in (i.e. defending Bobby and Fisher when no one else would, the Macklin resort stuff) even if meant "defying" her husband. This all got lost pretty quickly.

Floss and Neville are another two characters in which the writers lost investment in pretty quickly. Maybe it was because the decision had already been made to write them out or but they'd been reduced to glorified background characters pretty quickly. I found them, especially Floss, pretty annoying anyway.

I liked Lance and Martin early on, but I think they were "dumbed down" once Adam came on the scene. He took over as the comical money-making schemer, which meant they had to find a new direction for Martin.

Carly was another who got lost in the 1989/1990 shift too. Pretty much everything post-Foley was terrible for her.

Totally agree RE Carly too. She just becomes subordinate to Ben's controlling behaviour. We see no drive, dreams or desires from Carly. Other than to please the highly difficult-to-please Ben.

Something else that I personally didn't like about the late 89/early 90 period was their emphasis in bringing in "big names": Dannii (big in Australia before Kylie), Craig (Neigbours poach) & Julian (Prime Minister's son). Looking back at trailers from the time, it feels like the marketing angle of the series became more about "look at who we've scooped" rather than developing the original characters. Though, I do feel that the show finds a new (more sustainable) formula by the middle of 90 which sees it through the next 5ish years.

[Bobby Forever Missed]

33 minutes ago, nenehcherry2 said:

Totally agree RE Carly too. She just becomes subordinate to Ben's controlling behaviour. We see no drive, dreams or desires from Carly. Other than to please the highly difficult-to-please Ben.

Something else that I personally didn't like about the late 89/early 90 period was their emphasis in bringing in "big names": Dannii (big in Australia before Kylie), Craig (Neigbours poach) & Julian (Prime Minister's son). Looking back at trailers from the time, it feels like the marketing angle of the series became more about "look at who we've scooped" rather than developing the original characters. Though, I do feel that the show finds a new (more sustainable) formula by the middle of 90 which sees it through the next 5ish years.

Julian was Prime Minister's son??

[nenehcherry2]

5 minutes ago, Bobby Forever Missed said:

Julian was Prime Minister's son??

Former PM. William McMahon was Prime Minister from 1971-2. And a prominent politician aside from this premiership.

He and his wife were celebrities (in the 70s/80s concept of the word) of sorts for some time after this. So the family (including Julian) were quite well known when Ben was devised.

You could loosely see Terry Donavan (Al) in the same bracket; even before he was Doug Willis, he was both a pretty well-known bit part actor and, of course, "Jason's Dad" right at the peak of Jason's fame.

Edited January 5 by nenehcherry2

[Bobby Forever Missed]

1 hour ago, nenehcherry2 said:

Former PM. William McMahon was Prime Minister from 1971-2. And a prominent politician aside from this premiership.

He and his wife were celebrities (in the 70s/80s concept of the word) of sorts for some time after this. So the family (including Julian) were quite well known when Ben was devised.

You could loosely see Terry Donavan (Al) in the same bracket; even before he was Doug Willis, he was both a pretty well-known bit part actor and, of course, "Jason's Dad" right at the peak of Jason's fame.

Wow I actually never knew that about Julian, you learn something new everyday 

[Homeandawayfan.]

H&A did often hire big name Australian stars in the very late 1980s and early 1990s such as Craig McLachlan, Dannii Minogue, Guy Pearce, Julian McMahon and Terence Donovan. I found Terry's brief role in H&A was quite brilliant.

H&A always was a soap for younger people such as the foster kids but Des Monaghan did seem to not always understand what H&A was about. 1990 was probably the first transitional year for H&A even though it stuck to its original premise. Then again H&A has always been a show that has reinvented itself, like Madonna.

[nenehcherry2]

2 hours ago, Homeandawayfan. said:

H&A did often hire big name Australian stars in the very late 1980s and early 1990s such as Craig McLachlan, Dannii Minogue, Guy Pearce, Julian McMahon and Terence Donovan. I found Terry's brief role in H&A was quite brilliant.

H&A always was a soap for younger people such as the foster kids but Des Monaghan did seem to not always understand what H&A was about. 1990 was probably the first transitional year for H&A even though it stuck to its original premise. Then again H&A has always been a show that has reinvented itself, like Madonna.

Agree with all of this. I think a lot of it was also that the Producers who came in in late 88 - 89 (Andrew Howie, Des and Greg Stevens) needed a year or so to find their own formula. So they tested the original characters they'd "inherited", removed the ones they didn't like and replaced with the big names. They didn't work out for whatever reason so they went onto bringing in 4-5 year 10s every couple of years or so which saw the show through quite a long time to come. And made all the "sparkier" 88 adults who were still left over back-up foster(ish) parents. And removed a lot of the more 80s elements of the show. By the beginning of 91, this new direction was set in stone I'd say (complete with DebPip and Michael being at the helm).

Edited January 5 by nenehcherry2