Rewatching The Early Years

[Homeandawayfan.]

4 hours ago, nenehcherry2 said:

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).

Very true, Michael and Pippa ruled the roost by 1991. I say the late 1990s was when the show started to take a proper turn away from its original premise when Pippa left in 1998 (of course Michael was long gone by then, died 1996) and the Sutherland's were introduced in 2000 and had the drop in centre.

Edited January 5 by Homeandawayfan.

[adam436]

  

8 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.

I'd add Josephine Mitchell and Kate Raison to that list too, who had just come off successful runs on A Country Practice, the #1 drama at the time. They also picked up Neighbours star Richard Norton, though I am not sure how popular he was on Neighbours that it could have been considered a coup in the say that Craig McLachlan was. 

Paula Duncan was also hugely popular from her role in Cop Shop, and had a brief stint as Ailsa's sister/Emma's mother. 

 

5 hours ago, nenehcherry2 said:

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).

Yes, I'd say 1989 was very much a transition year for the show. There was a big clearout in late 89/early 90 (Lance, Martin, Stacey, Andrew, Morag, Tom, Celia and eventually Pippa #1) and then the new direction was under way. 

The comedy was mostly lost with Lance, Martin and Celia too - Celia and Alf's dynamic was often played for laughs, and Lance and Martin were always up to something. They even had some some cringy comedy stories as a trio (the hotdog stand, the mouse funeral) which perhaps was due to the writers just pairing them up because they knew all three were leaving,  

 

32 minutes ago, Homeandawayfan. said:

Very true, Michael and Pippa ruled the roost by 1991. I say the late 1990s was when the show started to take a proper turn away from its original premise when Pippa left in 1998 (of course Michael was long gone by then, died 1996) and the Sutherland's were introduced in 2000 and had the drop in centre.

I'd say the fostering element continued for a few years after Pippa left - Irene still had Joey, Will and eventually Hayley and Nick, though it looked like they were moving away from the fostering dynamic to a stepfamily one, but Ken was written out before it came to fruition. 

Travis and Rebecca had inherited Pippa's remaining foster children, Justine and Tegan. Sam moved in with Don and Marilyn, but I can't remember if that was straight away when Pippa left or later down the line. Then Joel and Natalie inherited Justine when Travis and Rebecca left, and also fostered Peta. Alf and Ailsa had Aaron Wells and Mitch McColl during this period too. 

If we look at Irene as the stepmother rather than a foster mother like I mentioned above, then it was pretty much done by 2000 (along with other early years elements like the original Diner and Stewart house, the classic opening credits and long-term characters like Sam and Ailsa). The Sutherlands fostered Brodie Hanson and Irene fostered Tasha, but otherwise there were weren't really any foster kids in 2000-2004 until Sally was returned to Summer Bay House. 

Edited January 5 by adam436

[nenehcherry2]

For me, the 90s-mid 00s "teen gang" formula wasn't set in stone until Sophie/Blake/Karen/Haydn joined. Before this, the show could easily have just added even more characters in Carly & Bobby's age bracket (besides Adam & Maz) to "grow" with them & have the show evolve to be even more 20s/30s-centric over time. Yes, Viv & Emma were added to spice up Steven (2 years younger) but that doesn't count for me with him being an original character himself.

Using budget to bring in 4 fresh teens when the opportunity arose in 90 tested the direction they wanted to take moving forwards. And then repeating (or, should that be, recycling) this casting approach with Shane/Damo/Tug/Sarah/Angel & so on confirmed this format & kept the teenage centricity. Whether that was the initial long-term strategy or not in 88' remains a mystery.

Edited January 6 by nenehcherry2

[cymbaline]

I think all soaps chase the ratings and try to move with what they think the audience wants. Neighbours had already tapped into the appeal of good-looking young soap characters to a younger audience. My feeling is that they stumbled across this by accident and ran with it. They had some good teenage characters in those early years and I think that's one reason why people continue to have nostalgia for them. I stopped watching regularly after 1996 so I can't comment on the Liam/Steph/Casey/Tiegan etc. combo. My feeling is they don't carry the same nostalgia as their predecessors. 

[Homeandawayfan.]

I always feel Neighbours is closer to its original premise than H&A is but not sure if many will agree or if some will disagree.

[adam436]

6 hours ago, cymbaline said:

I stopped watching regularly after 1996 so I can't comment on the Liam/Steph/Casey/Tiegan etc. combo. My feeling is they don't carry the same nostalgia as their predecessors. 

To be fair, most of those characters were written out after a year or so, so didn't really have a chance to gain a fan following. Many characters, particularly teen ones, take time to make an impact and I think some of these would have done given a chance (particularly Tiegan, who I loved!). To make a comparison with other teen characters, if the likes of Blake Dean, Curtis Reed, Kirsty and Jade Sutherland or Matilda Hunter were written out after a year or so, I doubt they would be well-remembered either because they didn't really make an impact straight away. 

Joey Rainbow was also part of that teen group, as was Justine Wells towards the tail end, and they stuck around for a decent time and are fondly remembered. 

I first started watching H&A in "real-time" in mid 1996 (I have seen most episodes prior to that during reruns), so I have some nostalgia about that teen group because of that, perhaps moreso than the characters themselves. 

[cymbaline]

Why were these characters written out after a year or so? If the actors themselves were opting to leave, that's one thing. But if they're being axed, it implies that the powers that be don't rate them. 

[adam436]

48 minutes ago, cymbaline said:

Why were these characters written out after a year or so? If the actors themselves were opting to leave, that's one thing. But if they're being axed, it implies that the powers that be don't rate them. 

I assumed most, if not all of them were axed but I don't know for sure. It would make sense that one or two of them would have had to be sacrificed to make way for the Nash family kids. It seems unfair, since their predecessors were so popular that it was always going to be an uphill battle. Looking at it in the wider H&A timeline, the 1996-97 teen group feels very much like an unintentional stopgap teen group, between the hugely popular predecessors and their successors (see below). The group that followed them seemed to be much more successful IIRC, which perhaps might have attributed to them being more successful: 

• Justine, Tom, Tiegan and Joey. Tom rounded out the group of "survivors" of the clearout. 
• Gypsy and Will
• Mitch, Hayley and a now-teenage Sam. 

There was also Peta and Edward (I can't really remember where they fitted in, but I suspect it was Gypsy and Will's year?), and the recently-recast Duncan in the junior years of high school, who didn't get his own teen group until most of those had departed or graduated school. 

[nenehcherry2]

7 hours ago, adam436 said:

I assumed most, if not all of them were axed but I don't know for sure. It would make sense that one or two of them would have had to be sacrificed to make way for the Nash family kids. It seems unfair, since their predecessors were so popular that it was always going to be an uphill battle. Looking at it in the wider H&A timeline, the 1996-97 teen group feels very much like an unintentional stopgap teen group, between the hugely popular predecessors and their successors (see below). The group that followed them seemed to be much more successful IIRC, which perhaps might have attributed to them being more successful: 

• Justine, Tom, Tiegan and Joey. Tom rounded out the group of "survivors" of the clearout. 
• Gypsy and Will
• Mitch, Hayley and a now-teenage Sam. 

There was also Peta and Edward (I can't really remember where they fitted in, but I suspect it was Gypsy and Will's year?), and the recently-recast Duncan in the junior years of high school, who didn't get his own teen group until most of those had departed or graduated school. 

Will, Sam, Gypsy, Hayley, Edward, Peta & Mitch were all supposed to be in the same year (11 in 99, 12 in 00) but Mitch was repeating the previous year (so in 11 in 00). Hayley then repeated some year 12 subjects in 01 and ended up in a class with Noah (her age, he'd had a year out of high school). Gypsy (and Will to an extent) looked so much older than Sam & Hayley (presumably due to the actors' real ages).

Duncan getting his own peer group in 00 represented the "disneyfication" of H&A for me. We'd seen Sally & Sam on their own at that age and were essentially loners until they hit year 10 (if we really want to geek out, Sal skipped a year for Maths only in 95 to be in a classroom with the core teen gang). But, to see 4 year 8 aged characters all at once in Duncan/Jade/Nick/Kirsty was a bit overpowering for me (the irony being that they were my age).

Clearly TPTB realised that such a strong focus on 12-14 year old characters didn't work as Max was a loner in the Sally/Sam sense when he came on the scene.

Edited January 7 by nenehcherry2

[homeandawayroxsomuch.]

13 hours ago, nenehcherry2 said:

Will, Sam, Gypsy, Hayley, Edward, Peta & Mitch were all supposed to be in the same year (11 in 99, 12 in 00)

I was under the impression that Peta was in year 11 in 2000 too?  I can't remember if it was mentioned when she and Edward were planning to leave school and Judith wasn't happy about it because it would affect Peta's future post-Edward's death as well.

 

13 hours ago, nenehcherry2 said:

Gypsy (and Will to an extent) looked so much older than Sam & Hayley (presumably due to the actors' real ages).

Definitely Kimberley was 3 years older (and then Aleetza Wood and Cameron Welsh 5 and 6 years older respectively), but then Zac was only 3 months older than Ryan and 6 months older than Bec but seemed older.  It also always shocks me that Stephen James King was younger than all of them (a few weeks younger than Bec).