nenehcherry2 Posted January 6 Report Share Posted January 6 (edited) One for me is the Pippa/Zac storyline. Or more how Tom and the other characters react to it. It's partly very bad writing (especially the likes of Bobby & Ailsa acting so out of character) but the attitudes of some of the male characters is very of the time in their refusal to believe Pippa. Whilst it isn't a popular storyline (and clearly very badly written filler in a low period of the show), I personally find the concept of Zac very fascinating. And I think the actor played the part very well. It just could have been explored so differently & had a more long-term impact on Pip. It highlighted the fact that Pippa was still a young, attractive woman. And just as vulnerable to a (very hunky, let's be honest) sex pest like Zak (precisely what he was) as the even younger women were. There are men out there like Zak who sexually harass & chase women in such a pushy, aggressive manner. Her being a saintly foster mother didn't exclude her. THAT was a fascinating context, for me anyway. In 2023, I'd like to imagine that Tom (especially), Alf etc (and perhaps Pippa herself) would be written as immediately seeing Zak for what he truly was & there being some consequences for him in the follow-through. Thus, the angle of it being a "no one believes that I'm not having an affair" probably wouldn't have happened, nor the storyline lasting only 15 episodes. The 89/90 incarnation of the story is simply appalling to watch and goes nowhere at all (and perhaps hard to believe it would be written with Debra Lawrence in the role, no offence to her). For instance, why didn't Pippa mention it a couple of years later in the Sophie story (predicts a response to this comment from one specific forum member!)? Edited January 6 by nenehcherry2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymbaline Posted January 6 Report Share Posted January 6 (edited) It feels like something that was thrown in to liven things up in the Fletcher house before they sent Tom on that one-way car journey. What would've made for interesting watching was Pippa or Tom or Michael actually having an affair. All they ever did was rattle the marriages from time to time but an affair or the chance of one would've made things interesting. Edited January 7 by cymbaline Fixed typo in first line. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nenehcherry2 Posted January 6 Report Share Posted January 6 (edited) 28 minutes ago, cymbaline said: It feels like something that was thrown in to live things up in the Fletcher house before they sent Tom on that one-way car journey. What would've made for interesting watching was Pippa or Tom or Michael actually having an affair. All they ever did was rattle the marriages from time to time but an affair or the chance of one would've made things interesting. I do agree with this idea of showing the humanness of Tom, Michael or Pip by them having an affair BUT (cue a shameless digression!)I also love the fact that Michael & Pip's temporary separation didn't involve an affair. VERY unusual for a soap to focus on a breakup which WASN'T caused by an affair but was simply a case of two individuals forgetting how to communicate with one another. This (and their gradual reconciliation) is far more reflective of true life situations where affairs or lies are not nearly as always involved as television would lead us to believe. Edited January 6 by nenehcherry2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHulk Posted January 6 Report Share Posted January 6 14 hours ago, adam436 said: Re-watching the 1988 season on 7Plus, I am going to add the Steven and Narelle storyline, especially with the amount of onscreen kissing between them. Steven is 15 and Narelle is 19. There was an age gap between Roo and Brett and Roo and Frank, but she is 17 and Frank seemed younger at the beginning because he was still one of the foster kids. Frank was established as 19 and aged out of the system but opted to stay with the Fletchers until he moved into the Store Flat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam436 Posted January 6 Report Share Posted January 6 (edited) 13 hours ago, early years fan said: Pretty sure the age of consent in Australia back then was 16. Yes, that is moreso what makes it uncomfortable. And the fact that his age is constantly referred to and as the line "he's a child" or words to that effect. And most of the adults didn't seem that phased about it. With Roo and Frank/Brett, Roo is 17 and I don't think it is ever really stated that either of them took advantage of Roo. Frank also felt more immature because he was still living in the family home at the time. 6 hours ago, cymbaline said: All they ever did was rattle the marriages from time to time but an affair or the chance of one would've made things interesting. It felt like all Tom and Pippa did in 1989/1990 was fight - firstly when Tom became a workaholic which lasted a while until Tom went missing at sea, then the Zac stuff and then their final fight leading up to his death. It was a far cry from 1988, where aside from the Danny stuff, they don't seem to have any big arguments at all. Edited January 6 by adam436 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
early years fan Posted January 7 Report Share Posted January 7 Yes in 1988 Tom and Pippa seemed very happy, with barely any arguments. Probably unrealistic given the stressors and family dynamics/issues and financial problems they had to deal with. Would put a massive strain on any marriage In contrast the Pippa/Michael era seems to be more realistic portrayal of a marriage with many arguments. Both seem to be unhappy and complaining a lot of the time, and Pippa (Debra Lawrence) seems tired and stressed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymbaline Posted January 7 Report Share Posted January 7 9 hours ago, nenehcherry2 said: I do agree with this idea of showing the humanness of Tom, Michael or Pip by them having an affair BUT (cue a shameless digression!)I also love the fact that Michael & Pip's temporary separation didn't involve an affair. VERY unusual for a soap to focus on a breakup which WASN'T caused by an affair but was simply a case of two individuals forgetting how to communicate with one another. This (and their gradual reconciliation) is far more reflective of true life situations where affairs or lies are not nearly as always involved as television would lead us to believe. I think Tom was too good to be true at times. He's probably more popular than Michael but I think Mr Ross was a more believable character. I agree with you about that separation story. Whether by accident or design you could trace the roots of their problems to plenty of incidents, and you could see their marriage souring over time. I like that Michael also carried the baggage from his previous marriage to Alf's missus and that it got thrown back at him when things went wrong. It was cute to see them get back together, especially when they got teased the morning after Michael slept "not in Jack's room". Having said all that, I still wonder would the writers have concocted an affair if they hadn't killed Michael off. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam436 Posted January 7 Report Share Posted January 7 Did H&A ever have any big affair storylines in the early years? Other than Roo/Frank once he'd married Bobby (which was used to facilitate Frank and Roo's exits), I can't really recall any. I think Lucinda cheated on Nick with Ryan, but they weren't really a core couple of the show. There was also Joel and Natalie in 2000, but again, that was just used for Natalie's exit. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nenehcherry2 Posted January 7 Report Share Posted January 7 5 hours ago, adam436 said: Did H&A ever have any big affair storylines in the early years? Other than Roo/Frank once he'd married Bobby (which was used to facilitate Frank and Roo's exits), I can't really recall any. I think Lucinda cheated on Nick with Ryan, but they weren't really a core couple of the show. There was also Joel and Natalie in 2000, but again, that was just used for Natalie's exit. Greg & Fiona was the only one I know of pre-2000 in the married sense. It was implied that they'd slept together a couple of times. And, unmarried wise, Ryan & Loo. I personally don't see Roo/Frank as an affair. They realised that they were still in love (after he'd already started to conclude that he didn't love Bobby after all), had one kiss in the office (raises eyebrows like that annoying presenter on the 2000 episodes special video), told Bobby very quickly that they were still in love and then left together (when Frank already had a job offer). But they weren't sneaking around and sleeping in hotel rooms behind Bobby's back for weeks on end. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nenehcherry2 Posted January 7 Report Share Posted January 7 (edited) 8 hours ago, cymbaline said: I think Tom was too good to be true at times. He's probably more popular than Michael but I think Mr Ross was a more believable character. I agree with you about that separation story. Whether by accident or design you could trace the roots of their problems to plenty of incidents, and you could see their marriage souring over time. I like that Michael also carried the baggage from his previous marriage to Alf's missus and that it got thrown back at him when things went wrong. It was cute to see them get back together, especially when they got teased the morning after Michael slept "not in Jack's room". Having said all that, I still wonder would the writers have concocted an affair if they hadn't killed Michael off. I agree RE Tom. I think Roger Oakley plays a very good role but I just find the character to be very textbook foster Dad. Whenever the kids had a problem, it was always "the department have guidelines about this, here's a video to watch" or "Pip and I stand by all of our kids, always". Although, at the same time, he could also be very neanderthal RE womens' rights etc. Whereas Michael has more flaws, makes more mistakes, blows his fuse a lot. Perhaps because he didn't enter into fostering in the same way that Tom did, so was being shown to be a bit of a rookie in that sense with less empathy for the kids' backstories. Thrown in with regrets about failures with his own two kids. More interesting to watch for me. Especially as it always made Pippa look like the expert (this was all pretty much mentioned in their marriage guidance counselling sessions). On 06/01/2024 at 01:47, Bobby Forever Missed said: 4 years shock horror it’s the end of the world Steven and Narelle never did anything except kiss yet Brett got Roo pregnant at 17 which you’re seemingly excusing? Never mind the age of consent, the marriageable age in 1988 was 16 for girls and 18 for boys. It only changed to 18 for both genders in 91. Edited January 7 by nenehcherry2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.