The death of Michael. Was it a mistake?

[Stewarts Point]

It just seemed too much after Shane's death. 

It also led to the end of Pippa as a character, albeit two bitter and depressed years later.

It feels like his death killed the early years. Tom was given another chance in Michael (many prefer Tom). But he played his role. But after his death was a massive end that changed Home and Away.

1995 was finally a good year (relatively) for Pippa and Michael. His death ruined what he could have been as a character.

 

 

[c120701]

  On 26/03/2025 at 12:32, Stewarts Point said:

It just seemed too much after Shane's death. 

It also led to the end of Pippa as a character, albeit two bitter and depressed years later.

It feels like his death killed the early years. Tom was given another chance in Michael (many prefer Tom). But he played his role. But after his death was a massive end that changed Home and Away.

1995 was finally a good year (relatively) for Pippa and Michael. His death ruined what he could have been as a character.

 

 

Expand  

I’m not sure, I think the parallels worked, having Pippa & Angel going through it together.

They definitely didn’t waste it, it turned out to be the making of Jack 4 years on.

I think we’d also have missed out on Shannon & Pippa becoming so close too.

 

[adam436]

I never liked Michael, but I can see why some view it as a mistake. When Tom was killed off, the producers opted to marry Pippa off within a year. I don't know if that was always the plan or whether the producers realised that the foster family worked better with two parents. If it was the latter, then the producers clearly learnt nothing. 

If Pippa had stayed longer than she did, then it would have been mistake, but when you consider she left less than 2 years later, it didn't bother me either way. I do wonder if the producers ever considered leaving Michael's death "open-ended". Neighbours did this with Harold after Ian Smith was axed - apparently one writer believed it was a mistake to kill off Harold, so they left the door open for him to return. 

[j.laur5]

Micheal would left in couple more years anyway as both Debra and Dennis move to Melbourne and that’s why Debra quit show and there’s every chance Debra might decided to leave show further down track even if she had stayed living in Sydney. 
 

I do however think would be interesting if Pippa and Michael did leave Summer  bay together as I wonder what storyline they would to give them reason to leave . 
 

But however with both Irene and Ailsa house full up at time they probably would had to still asked Travis and Rebecca to take over. 

[hapitoby]

If Michael wasn't killed off, I'd say it's highly likely him and Pippa would leave together as Debra and Dennis moved to Melbourne. However, if Michael wasn't killed off, they may have stayed a few more years. It probably sped up the process of Debra leaving

 

[cymbaline]

I liked Michael and was sorry to see him go. Having said that, I have no strong feelings about whether killing him off was the right or wrong decision. If you look at Michael when he first came along and Michael by the end, he's a very different character. He was more likeable and funny at the beginning. Perhaps he was written as a sort of romantic lead so that Pippa and the audience would take to him. Once Haydn left, he began to lose his purpose and never really got it back. 

By the time they wrote him out, he wasn't as important a character as he once was. Life went on in the caravan park and then, Pippa moved on. When you look at the timescale now, killing him off was a bit pointless. Debra/Pippa decided to leave the year after and they created a new love interest to send her on her way. Dennis not being there probably made it easier for Debra to quit, but I think they would've moved back to Melbourne sooner rather than later. 

  On 26/03/2025 at 19:50, adam436 said:

I never liked Michael, but I can see why some view it as a mistake. When Tom was killed off, the producers opted to marry Pippa off within a year. I don't know if that was always the plan or whether the producers realised that the foster family worked better with two parents. If it was the latter, then the producers clearly learnt nothing. 

If Pippa had stayed longer than she did, then it would have been mistake, but when you consider she left less than 2 years later, it didn't bother me either way. I do wonder if the producers ever considered leaving Michael's death "open-ended". Neighbours did this with Harold after Ian Smith was axed - apparently one writer believed it was a mistake to kill off Harold, so they left the door open for him to return. 

Expand  

My theory is that their hand was forced re. the creation of Michael. They would've got away with having one foster parent in the Fletcher's if Vanessa had stayed around. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall in the production office when she handed in her notice! Losing both foster parents and expecting audiences to believe Debra was the same person as Vanessa was quite a stretch. They needed to steady the ship after losing two of the most important characters on H&A in such quick succession. They felt they needed to have two parents back in the caravan park house, restoring the status quo. It certainly would explain why they had Pippa 2 marrying Michael exactly a year after Tom died. 

Would they have left the door open to his return? Who knows. It seems to be a tactic that rarely works. Bobby Ewing's return to Dallas is the most high-profile example of that going wrong. Dirty Den's return to EastEnders doesn't seem to have been a success, though, of course, that's now clouded by Leslie Grantham's webcam antics. Bobby came back through Ailsa's fridge, so perhaps they gave some consideration to which household appliance Michael could manifest himself through. It'd have to be Pippa's oven.

Edited Saturday at 01:23 by cymbaline

[adam436]

  On 27/03/2025 at 14:39, cymbaline said:

If you look at Michael when he first came along and Michael by the end, he's a very different character. He was more likeable and funny at the beginning. Perhaps he was written as a sort of romantic lead so that Pippa and the audience would take to him. Once Haydn left, he began to lose his purpose and never really got it back. 

Expand  

I'd agree with that. Pippa and Michael never felt like they had equal value as characters in the same way Tom and Pippa did. It could just be a case of Pippa being there first, therefore the producers valued her more, but it did feel like the writers often treated him as "Pippa's husband" rather than a character in his right (if that makes sense). 

 

  On 27/03/2025 at 14:39, cymbaline said:

My theory is that their hand was forced re. the creation of Michael. They would've got away with having one foster parent in the Fletcher's if Vanessa had stayed around. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall in the production office when Vanessa handed in her notice! Losing both foster parents and expecting audiences to believe Debra was the same person as Vanessa was quite a stretch. They needed to steady the ship after losing two of the most important characters on H&A in such quick succession. It certainly would explain why they had Pippa 2 marrying Michael exactly a year after Tom died. 

Expand  

Pippa would have remarried eventually, but I don't think it would have been as quick. And I imagine Pippa1's new husband would have been a very different character to Michael, but I could be wrong. I just can't picture marrying Pippa1 marrying Michael, she'd have wanted a more lighter and fun character, whereas Michael always felt so serious. Pippa2 always seemed more joyless and serious, so her and Michael worked well together.

 

[cymbaline]

  On 27/03/2025 at 19:28, adam436 said:

I'd agree with that. Pippa and Michael never felt like they had equal value as characters in the same way Tom and Pippa did. It could just be a case of Pippa being there first, therefore the producers valued her more, but it did feel like the writers often treated him as "Pippa's husband" rather than a character in his right (if that makes sense). 

 

Pippa would have remarried eventually, but I don't think it would have been as quick. And I imagine Pippa1's new husband would have been a very different character to Michael, but I could be wrong. I just can't picture marrying Pippa1 marrying Michael, she'd have wanted a more lighter and fun character, whereas Michael always felt so serious. Pippa2 always seemed more joyless and serious, so her and Michael worked well together.

 

Expand  

Yes that makes sense. If you think about it, Michael is a character we learned very little about. They gave him enough backstory to get him going (i.e. the divorce, the kids, the failed business) and then there was little more. Did he ever mention his parents or any siblings, for example? I wonder too if there were ever plans to bring in Kate, his estranged daughter? The writers seemed to forget about her once Michael resumed his relationship with Pippa.

I've never been able to believe that the two Pippas are the same person. Even if I sort of managed that, I couldn't see VanPip being with Michael, nor DebPip with Roger. Both actors worked well with their version of Pippa so that was a job well done. Recently, I stumbled across a podcast that Debra and Dennis did with Cameron and Daddo last year https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/does-keeping-the-romance-alive-matter-debra-lawrence/id1463023422?i=1000653111872 Dennis was quick-witted and funny on it. It's a real shame that that side of him never really manifested itself on Home and Away. 

[j.laur5]

I can imagine Tom and Debra Pippa lot more then I can  Vanessa Pippa and Michael .