nenehcherry2

Fair comment. There are highly ambiguous comments from Bobby of her "giving it all away". I've always interpreted that as her virginity. Perhaps I'm wrong. Interpretation of such ambiguous lines can only ever be subjective. So I don't think the answer is definitive. But you could absolutely be right there. To be honest, I can't imagine her holding off on her genetic sexual attraction to Alan...

And then you had Lucinda's tip toed booty calls to Nick's room at Donald's place... ?

Clashed with "leaving" together or "living" together? ?

I haven't watched the show in over 15 years so can't comment on anything post circa 2008. Laura's death still continues to shock me to the core. Being hit by a train. So brutal. And a soap first at the time (not that us in the UK could decipher what the **** was going on!).

Exactly. The age of consent for opposite sex "activity" (was the legislation typist Celia in disguise?! ?) in NSW at this point was 16. So Tom and Pip were doing nothing wrong in condoning Bobby's booty calls to Frank at Ailsa's flat. Although, the writers insisted that Bobby was a virgin at the time of her wedding night (bull****).

Because he had already ticked the biased producers' quota for a decade? ??

COMPLETELY agree! And when you did get GUESTS (it was never perms) who were differently-abled or neurodiverse, the physical or intellectual handicap defined their whole storyline purpose and characterisation (Danny, Nico, Bill). Rather than them just being ordinary folk who also happened to be in that situation.

Sadly, the only reason the writers didn't make Kevin permanent was because he didn't receive enough fan letters. Wes confirmed this in an interview with Inside Soap that I kept for years. Similarly to Irene #2, Selina, Travis, Chloe and a few others, they'd bought him in as a guestie with the intention of bringing him back as a perm should the viewers have gelled with him. Number of received fan letters was the main measurement back then. Hence why he was written, for the most part, like a regular everyday character with little specific propose (and not defined by a specific storyline with an end point, unlike say Ryan Lee or Dodge). He cited being Aboriginal as the main reason why Oz fans didn't gel with him and hoped that when the episodes aired in UK (6 months later), UK fan letters would pour in. The latter happened (unlike in Aus) but Seven never picked up the phone.

As a person of colour myself (albeit not Aboriginal nor Australian), watching some 80s/90s episodes make me absolutely cringe. Agree with all above so far. A real missed opportunity with Kevin imo. Things that bug me: - Celia moving to "Africa". Burkina Faso? Somalia? Chad? Egypt? No, plain old simple "Africa". The writers didn't even bother to reflect how geographically complex and culturally diverse Africa (a CONTINENT) truly is. Screams of an "it's all the same" post-decolonisation mentality. VERY indicative of unconscious biases and sheer ingorance that folk had at the time. Clearly 1990 scriptwriters weren't immune. And hadn't learned by the time of any of her 2000s returns (nope, she's still in plain old "Africa"). Yet, when Celia came back from "Europe", they made the effort to list some of the countries and cities she had visited. - Stephanie being Somali. On the same theme as the above. Fleur was a great actress and I loved Steph's characterisation / backstory. As well as just having a regular character of colour. I'm not personally of African heritage (mixed Indian/White here) but just seeing someone on my TV screen 2-3 times a week who looked different to the "default" Anglo Celtic was very welcomed. But... she didn't look Somali in any form (neither true ethnic Somali nor "Somali Bantu"). Not convincing. The surname Mbuti is a WEST AFRICAN surname (ie not Somali) and Somalia is virtually 100% Muslim in demographics. "Stephanie" probably doesn't even exist as a name in Somalia. Literally. My Somali friend at the time, growing up in the 90s, found it all embarrassing to watch. So the written backstory and the casting, again, screams of a "every sub-saharan African person looks the same and their surnames / cultures etc are all the same" mindset. I guarantee that they'd have gone to more effort to get these things right with a European character. What would have been less offensive, since I loved Fleur, was to just bring her in to represent an ethnic identity which Fleur could pull off with her own appearance (she is mixed Indian/Angolan/White). And give the character a surname / forename and nationality that reflected this (as well as Fleur's, ahem, Australian accent). Correct. Unconscious bias before there was a word for the concept. No doubt, the far right pond life on social media would be calling that storyline "too woke" if it aired in 2023.

What makes you think they'd have gone on to become great friends? I'm not disagreeing with that possibility but just curious as to what other "ingredients" were there for a "great friendship" from your perspective (other than the definite chemistry between Lynne and Nicolle; I'm aligned with that POV). I'm not trying to be dismissive, condescending nor critical of the comment in any way but it feels very anecdotal. Tell us WHY you think these things, whether that's a friendship between Bobby and Irene that never was or why you feel that Ailsa became the Helen Daniels of Summer Bay... pretty please, it's interesting to hear the reasoning behind everyone's perspectives and the clarity RE the WHY helps us all appreciate those interpretations / links more (which in turn, helps to evolve our own thinking of characters, relationships etc; which is exactly why we are all here!).? In the nicest possible way, it just comes across as random without those clarities to connect the dots. I was personally disappointed with how the other characters were written in terms of their reaction to Irene upon her early 93 return. Bobby of all people should have been suspicious of a recently recovered alcoholic who was a convicted child beater. Yet, she welcomes Irene with open arms like an old friend. Same with the likes of Pippa, Ailsa, Michael and Sophie. Very poor storytelling from Boaz Stark & Greg Stevens and out of character for all concerned. I feel that Bobby needed a friend her own age to keep her in touch with her own youth. She seemed to turn into one of the oldies after Maz left. Glad they didn't force a friendship with Roxy, they were too different (but not different enough alas Bobby and Maz), though I did feel that Nicky and Lisa had a nice chemistry in the few scenes they were given (you can see the real life friendship there).

You always make me smile with the euphemisms, Will! Believe me, doing "you know what" often sadly needs little time nor preparation... ?? I can't quite imagine Andrew Howie allowing the words do*gi*g (alas Andrew/Stacey style, hello Chris Hale!) nor pr**a***e ej*c**a**on to be muttered in a 1990 script. We never see certain products on the Stewart store shelf. And plenty of bushland around the Bay for two drivers, the male being a serial adulterer, the female single for some time... So we can assume what occured in a "quick**" offscreen moment. Bobby implied that "nothing happened" in that sense with Danny. And that "nothing was happening" with Frank in their final months. So a year for Bobby without "you know what". Western adults should be able to decipher the rest... Look at it another way, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Bobby herself was the product of "moment of madness" between two married in-laws. Talk about history repeating itself. Wouldn't it have been ironic to see her persuading Carly or Marilyn to hide her own baby?!

She finds out in ep 590. Very common for women to not know they are pregnant for nearly 2 months. Perhaps she was "spotting" or just didn't want to face the truth by taking the test sooner (very in character for Bobby to avoid that for so long, to run away from reality). The Dr confirms that she was at 22 weeks gestation when she loses Baby Tom. It's tricky to work out exactly when ep 679 was supposed to be set time wise but we can presume that was around Christmas so that was a slight stretch of dates.

And not just the "girlies" either.... ?

Yes, their backstage feud made Bette Midler and Joan Davis look like Noddy and Big Ears.

I've never bought him turning 50 in 95. Not only because it doesn't fit with previous mentions of his career history but because Norman Coburn looked 60 when he was 58. Not believable as a 50 year old from that POV alone (never mind, to your point, how old Don also acted). Same with Ailsa's 50th in 2000. I remember being shocked to the core when I read that on a Teletext (yes, I said that!) synopsis at the time. No offence to Judy Nunn, I'm sure she's a very lovely person and all that, but she looks about five years older than her own age. She could easily have passed for 60 by 2000. So that, in combination with Ailsa acting so conservatively by that time, made her being "50" rather unbelievable to me. That would all make complete sense and think we're aligned in all of those guesses! But why didn't they incorporate that in the script? Would have been more bearable than Sophie changing nappies or Ryan sitting at the diner counter looking pretty with no purpose at all! Oh wait... Because the writers in the Andrew Howie era didn't give a **** about such details! Your response has raised a further point from me (never a good thing!)... Why not show Sam's by Bobby adoption on screen? Rather than it being a retrospective mention a year later. Oh, that's right, to justify the Morag storyline... "She's been after Sam since day one".

Highly unlikely. As someone else has said, Pippa was a linchpin. The foundation of the show (at least in her day) was built on fostering, so definitely a Chicken and egg one; the teens were interdependent with the presence of guardians. And Alf/Ailsa and Irene, at least prior to Pip's departure, were seen as mere "Pippa backups" in that sense. Not to mention her being so well loved by most fans at the time. The only exception would have been any concerns about Debra's presence on set. Often the best loved characters in a soap or long running drama are lost or recast because of actor misconducts / employee relations issues. If Debra had ever misbehaved then I doubt they'd have recasted Pip for a second time or bought Vanessa back. But highly doubtful that Debra would ever have been mixed up in any such shenanigans! Unless you count the time that she smacked Judy Nunn one in the face of course!

I agree with both of these posts... I sure don't think it was out of character for Bobby to attempt to foster at such a young age. She was always determined to win whatever she put her mind to and had been longing for a family of her own. I believe that the stillbirth (always bugged me that they referred to Baby Tom as a "miscarriage" given the pregnancy length) propelled that into a "right now" life goal. And, to Hulk's point, everything she'd been through in such a short space of time had ultimately fast tracked her in the aging process. So not out of character for me. But... Do I find the Department agreeing to it a suspension of reality? Perhaps. Not sure RE the legalities (someone would need to research NSW family law and / or DOCS policy as it stood in 91 LOL!) but it does seem a stretch that Louise's only concern was the short period of time since the stillbirth, with nothing being said about her age. I agree with @CaptainHulk suggestions of Louise's reasoning and would also add Bob's own firsthand experience of fostering as a tickbox, as well as the fact that she'd been a rebellious teen herself only two years before, so could empathise (we can only assume that all happened offline) but it would have been more realistic to see those concerns about her age shown on screen and those said "Bobby benefits" being discussed by DOCS . In fact, the only mention was from Donald ("she's barely 21") as well as a couple of more indirect comments from Pippa and Jean. Maybe have the new characters coming in comment on it "aren't you a bit young to be a Mum to a kid that age?!". Especially Greg, surely his son being fostered by a woman even younger than him would have raised a comment? On that point,why did Bobby stop wanting to foster post Sam? Appreciate she gave Sarah a place to live and went on to take in Tug (at one point suggested to Greg they formally foster him) but that was REACTIVE and not PROACTIVE true fostering. So why did DOCS stop visiting her with new kids after Tracy? I don't recall this ever being directly mentioned. Perhaps we should assume that she / they decided Sam was enough for her and / or maybe DOCS didn't think Greg was keen to co-foster (which would have been believable given his attitude to Tug and Sarah). But, again, they should have acknowledged all this in the script. The lack of that acknowledgement makes it all feel like her fostering of Sam was nothing more than a forced way to contrive a (non-traditional) nuclear family for her in a short space of time.

No, not a concern for me. That doesn't bother me in the slightest, being someone who once dated a man 27 years my senior when I was only 20 myself. Some folks may have an unconscious bias issue with age-gap relationships or cross-generational friendships but that certainly doesn't factor into my own perception of Peter's acting style.

Wasn't keen on Peter's portrayal, personally. There was something about his performance which I've always found creepy, especially in his romantic scenes with Sharyn or Sandie. An over-actor in general. This affected my ability to like the character, to the point that I am cheering whenever I re-watch his cringy departure hugs with Ailsa and Tom (and another cringe moment: that bizarre "handing over of Carly" scene he had with Ben which was like something written in the 14th century)!

Not sure what the case was with Andrew Hill's sudden 91 departure but I do recall an Inside Soap interview with Belinda Jarrett from 1993 where she confirmed that was asked to leave in 91 due to her on-set behaviour and was surprised that she was then asked to return. Clearly hers was more planned in advance given the Revhead / David story. Who knows what the case with Andrew was? Interesting how the timing matches. Like so many characters from that period, Haydn appears in EXACTLY 200 episodes (well, not 200 individual episodes but in an assortment of eps from the 657 - 857 range). So, whether it was Andrew's own choice or not, it would suggest that a full contract period wasn't renewed. Other examples of 200 ep tenures include Morag (Cornelia confirmed in a 1990 interview that she was axed), Viv, Grant and (not far off) Emma. Simon and Fin were 100% instant replacements for Haydn and Karen. Perhaps a bit rushed in the writing too. Liked Simon a lot, especially his friendship with Blake, but I fully agree with Stewart's Point that Haydn had that "something". He's almost a mix of a watered down 88 Steven (bratty, pompous with a cause, an intellectual snob) and 88 Roo (deeply loyal to Michael and scheming to break Pippa and him up) when he first arrives - with perhaps a little 88 Carly thrown in for good measure (self-centred, snobbish, saying unpleasant things just for fun). And then we see those layers quickly explored and realise he's a genuinely nice, sensitive kid deep down. Also loved his dynamic with Michael. I felt that Haydn's presence bought out an interesting, pushy parent side of Michael, especially tested in the Lois Crawford story. He prioritises Haydn's educational potential above all else and, at times, somewhat shares Lois' dismay of the "clannish" nature of Summer Bay. I feel that we never saw that in Michael again, not even with the later male foster kids. Once Haydn's gone, he's just an often moody, over-spending Mr Nice Guy in the community!

The only way that one would be able to decipher that reasoning now would be to contact Bevan Lee and hope that he even remembers (after 35 years) why he wrote a "secret wedding" for Alf and "Alsa". The life choices that fictional characters make are at the sole mercy of Producers and Scriptwriting teams.

I've always rather thought of Ailsa as the Marge Simpson of Summer Bay...

You're not wrong about other characters with long tenures changing singificantly over time. And I am not suggesting that Ailsa was any less consistent than Irene. I just wanted to use this page to focus on THE Ails alone ? So how do you see Ailsa's evolution over time, J?

Several other fans and I have commented on how Ailsa's personality changed over time. What do you all think? Is Ailsa consistently written and /or portrayed from your perspective? And what "eras of Ailsa" (if any) exist in your viewership of the series? Eras of Ailsa for me (not exactly night into day seachanges, more umbrella categories): 88 - mid 89: 80s Ailsa is politically conscious in a left-of-centre of way with strong opposition to commercial enterprises which impact the environment (such as the Macklin development). She is generally a warm, extroverted, community-focused woman with clearly defined morals and a real passion in helping underdogs like Bobby. Ailsa relates to teens very well, almost an Aunt figure, and seems to look for their company. But she isn't used as a "Mum" at this point, that is very much reserved for Pippa. She doesn't suffer fools like Roo very gladly. Judy portrays Ailsa with a lot of self-confidence and delivers her lines in a General Australian accent. And she is down to earth, examplified by her chewing gum and throwing bags at Lance and Martin. A difficult to offend type. Streetwise and suspicious but sees the good in everyone. And, most important, has central storylines of her own. Bevan Lee and co clearly liked Ailsa! I am convinced that had they stayed (who knows? Perhaps they'd intended to bring back Graham as Duncan's real father!). Late 89ish - late 94/early 95: What I define as "Middle Ailsa". Nice and mumsy. Neither introverted or extroverted. Something changed when Bevan Lee left and the next lot took over (though her leaving the store and switching to the diner started the shift). The new leadership team progressively saw Ailsa as a foster Mum of sorts (the scenarios for bringing the kids in became progressively more forced over time) but, with the "mothering focus" on Pippa, Ailsa just seems to have 1-2 (not truly fostered) kid with her at any one time, so most of her contribution to episodes at this point seems really to be serving coffees in the diner. She is characterised as nice and ordinary (with the occassional snooty side) but isn't as "out there" with her views as the first year or so although still has that mistrust with the likes of Dodge, Nathan and Morag. Gets on fairly well with the teens but definitely more "controlled" interactions than cooler 80s Ailsa. Community focused but that really gets lost in focus once Pippa is recasted (they make Debra's Pip the character everyone goes to with problems with Ailsa as backup). No big storylines between 89-95, more a mere supporting type. As this era progresses, Judy changes the physical mannerisms in her delivery to reflect this lesser focused Ailsa and her accent becomes slightly more cultivated. Lots of "Oh Alf, really Love!" sort of lines and moaning about being busy (especially when Alf goes away every year so Ray can do panto!) Late 94/Early 95 - 00: Ailsa in this period is very inconsistent and all over the place in characterisation! She can be downright cold and nasty at times and very aloof, with the kids especially (I see the start of the shift here being not wanting to take Curtis in at first and full-on by the time Laura arrives). Introverted to the point of avoiding interacting with many characters and often socially awkward. Quite the opposite of mumsy. The accent becomes even more cultivated and she becomes more conservatively dressed and centre right in ideology, often approaching Celia level Right! But in the next episode, she can be just like "Middle Ailsa" again, serving coffees with a smile. However, starting with the breakdown, she does start to get central storylines again. However, these stories make her seem like a victim or deranged. It felt like Russell Webb and his team were aiming to bring back darker, tougher 80s Ailsa to a degree but got it all wrong. To the point that she very often comes across as a judgemental, prickly old witch. She does have kids living with her like in the previous era but her chemistry with them (Curtis especially) is nothing near as warm as what she had with say Blake or Sarah. So what are the consistencies between these periods? For me, there are few. Perhaps the main one is Ailsa's sixth sense with "baddies" (though by the time Quinn comes along, she takes that way too far) as well as being anti-violence given her history. What does everyone else here think? Is Ailsa one woman for you? Or several women?

Awesome, thank you!