Skylover

Loved this interview with Lynne McGranger. If you want to hear an hilarious interaction between the H&A cast and a rude member of the public, I've timestamped the story here. I was dying listening to it

I don't see it with Roo as much, but I do think Marilyn took some time to find her feet. Still, Cameron chose to bring those characters back which I think are two of the best decisions made in the last 15 years. I don't think a decision like that would have been made by Lucy Addario. Even though Georgie Parker is very different to the first version of Roo, I think she looks more like Alf and is a great actress, so I was very happy with that recast. It would have perhaps been interesting to see her have a baby late in life, instead of the miscarriage she had a few years ago. I think Ailsa was a bit light on storylines from 1990 to 1996 (I've not seen 1997-1999) so can't comment. She did get a good storyline in 2000 so it's a shame she was absent for that. Michael, Pippa and Irene were always integral to the show, but they were more in the shadow of the teens' storylines. Obviously, there was the cot death, and Michael and Pippa's marriage troubles, among other storylines. But I definitely feel like in comparison, Neighbours focuses more on the adult/long term characters in a way that H&A hasn't as much. But obviously it was much better in the 90s than it is now with the older characters often shoehorned into scenes.

I think if they were such different shows to the point that H&A has less need to bring back relatives of existing characters, then there wouldn't have been a purpose in listing the people H&A has brought back since 2016. I think this is a good point, and most notably, when I've made the point that John Palmer being crowbarred into 3 scenes an episode about his car isn't entertaining, no-one replies to that comment to explain why it is. And that's because those long-term characters aren't treated well, though in all honesty, I'm actually quite surprised that characters like Roo and Marilyn are still around, because of the contempt the producers treat them with. We're lucky that Cameron Welsh was around in 2010 and decided to introduce the characters, because I think we could have a very different show right now if Lucy Addario had become producer earlier on. The older characters have never been treated all that well in H&A, even as far back as the 90s, however it's definitely become worse and worse as the years have gone on. They don't really invest in the future though. Once Alf and Irene are gone, you have Roo and Marilyn, but what about once they're gone? It would be nice to have someone carry on the Stewart legacy, but if the show lasts another 20-30 years, I can't see that happening. Although I can't see the show lasting much longer anyway the way it is.

That H&A list of returnees is weak in comparison to EE. All those people you mention were guests other than Theo and Ryder who were new characters. I had to think for a moment who Dmitri Poulos even was. He and Quinn's only purpose was to facilitate the introductions of Theo and Ryder, before they were quickly dispatched again. It's practically nothing compared to what EastEnders has done. If we're talking since 2016, they actually brought back and recast Kat's sister Belinda Peacock in 2016. They have also since introduced Little Mo's son Freddie Slater, brought back Alfie Moon as a regular, had Sean Slater back for guest stints, also had Big Mo back for guest stints as recently as 2022. That seems pretty sufficient, it's not like Kat has been isolated as a character, as she has all her kids on screen, and Jean, Stacey and her kids. Elaine Lordan (Lyn) has given up acting, Kacey Ainsworth is clearly busy with other roles and Michelle Ryan has made it clear she doesn't want to return. In terms of the Jacksons, they actually have brought back Bianca Jackson on a number of occasions, in 2019, and attempted to in 2020 (which didn't make it to air due to the pandemic). They also brought back Robbie Jackson as a regular character from 2017 to 2019. They brought back Tiffany as a regular for a few years. They brought back Lauren Branning for Dot's funeral. Speaking of Dot's funeral, they brought back Disa, Colin, Barry, Lauren, Mary, Lofty etc for her funeral, whereas Morag Bellingham just hasn't been mentioned after her actor's passing. Kathy's brother's family is actually a good shout, and I do think they should do more with them or acknowledge Kathy's 'missing' years more. But the facts above speak for themselves when it comes to the difference between EE and H&A in how they invest in their established families and characters. EE actively makes an effort to, H&A actively makes an effort not to.

That's very broad strokes. Real Home and Away was about a foster family and the surrounding community. I'm not talking about turning it back into 'real' H&A, I'm talking about taking it in a direction which will make it good and watchable again, and not the crapfest it currently is. Making it somehow a bit more credible. Surely anyone can see that the show is not in a good place right now, and that it needs a shake up. It happens more on H&A than other soaps. You can only see over the years how much more successfully EE for example has used past characters to its benefit. Off the top of my head, in the last couple of years, they've recast Bobby Beale, Chelsea Fox, Dotty Cotton, Peter Beale, Ben Mitchell, Sam Mitchell, Louise Mitchell; brought back Keanu, Lola, Nancy, Ricky, among others, created a brother for Sharon with Zack. While EE hasn't been firing on all cylinders at times, this is how soaps should be run. John Palmer crowbarred into 3 scenes in an episode talking about his car isn't what I'd call entertainment. And it's a waste, because I like the actor.

So characters don't exist anymore if they're not mentioned? I think you've been watching Home and Away too long @Red Ranger 1

Really? I've never known soaps to do that. Coronation St used to do it around 1980 with characters like Annie and Ena (at least I think they might have, I wasn't watching at the time). But that doesn't really make much sense.

Shandi's the only one who falls into this category. Presumably Irene's kids and grandchildren still exist. I also assume Martha jr still exists. It's just the show doesn't acknowledge them.

Thanks You'd think they'd do the respectful thing and kill the character off, but thinking about it, I'm not surprised ?

Was Morag ever killed off?

I think the proof is in the pudding with Theo and Ryder. They've worked much more successfully than most of the other characters of the last 10 years, and in the same vein, so have the Astonis and Morgans, because they were bigger family units. The sibling duos don't work at all. Even if Shandi or Irene's grandchild were involved in the latest love triangle, I still think I'd be more invested in them than the current characters.

Home and Away actually never was about people having different surnames. The original show was actually about a foster family, and the wider community around that foster family. So the current set up is pretty much as far away from the original concept as you can get. It's too late in the day to go back to the fostering concept now though, so they may as well put the anchors of the show to good use and have some unconnected characters as there always has been.

It can be a mix, which is what I'm advocating for. I'm not saying the cast should be made up of Shandi, Martha, Damian, Nathan, their kids, Duncan etc. But there should be a mix. If I was the producer, I'd certainly be looking to bring back Shandi, Martha jr and one of Irene's grandchildren, but I think that would suffice. There should still always be a mix of unrelated characters as well, but I don't agree with the militant stance against using characters' families, which feels nonsensical.

Except H&A hasn't been like that for years. All the older characters just interact with each other, and the only time they speak to the younger characters is to serve them coffee. So it's not an argument that stacks up.

I don't watch it. I watch the occasional episode but that's it, it's so bad. I think that's a stupid suggestion though. I'd rather the show was improved than me having to not watch it. Home and Away has had its day. Whether Neighbours is a success on Amazon or not, Home and Away is way more crap than Neighbours and has been for years. I'd rather they were both flourishing, but it is what it is. Actually, in soaps it's far more unrealistic for a long lost relative to disappear. But if you think John is a fascinating character mingling around on his own, then fair enough.