nenehcherry2

I think the first paragraph is highly obvious really

Yes! What I've always termed "reactive story-writing". An actor wants to leave (or TPTB wish to use their ), so they write hasty "we love each other after all" or "they only married on the rebound" type stories.

Ah, thanks for filling in the gaps! I'd been told the info second hand since I've refused to watch the show for over 15 years. My bad, should have got my facts right first. So thanks for putting me right on some of this. The diaries were read by Alf "not long after Martha's death", so circa 1985/6. So fair enough on the Bobby score. Nonetheless, still a mockery of his marriage to Ailsa & of Duncan's entire existence; after all, she'd shared the ultimate secret with him. I'm guessing that they didn't confirm exactly WHEN in 1988 Alf found out? This is key... Thinking of how he and Ails separate in mid 88 because of his comment about her father's death... If he'd known about Martha by then, that's ultimate hypocrisy. The fact is that Alf, once he knew, allowed Roo to not be aware that her mother was still alive (which had, as you agree, caused her so much pain and reckless behaviour and led to her giving up her own child, named after the very woman at the centre of all this sheer chaos) also adds to my (negatively) refreshed view of Alf. Which is an insult to the character which the show's creator & Ray himself has built.

The Martha retcon destroys so many things for me (both key 88/9 storylines and their longer term consequences for some central characters):- - Totally agree RE Alf & Ailsa's marriage. That's the main effect & I won't add any more to what has already been said. - Duncan's entire existence was built on a lie (as was his relationship with Alf). Enough said. Why hasn't Duncan confronted Alf and Roo about this? - Roo's out-of-control behaviour drove so much of the show's plot in 88' (the whole Frank/Brett/Martha Jr saga, the Ailsa reveal, Bobby & Frank getting together on the rebound etc) and this was, at least partly, attributed to the impact of her mother's death; to find out years later that she'd known Martha was still alive all along ruins the nuances that Justine bought to the character (especially once Roo "came good" in 88). It's suddenly much harder to empathise with Roo's nasty side. - Alf's delayed role in exposing Bobby's parentage is harder to now understand; Alf was already unlikeable as it was presented to us back then, in his initial sitting on the knowledge that Morag was her mother and then even refusing to share with Ailsa and Bobby. Why would he be reading Martha's diaries if she was still alive? He could have confronted Martha sooner rather than later for more information and exposed the entire business much earlier. Allowing Bobby to get away from Al Simpson sooner, for Don to know much earlier on (and thus to stop Don's victimisation of Bobby) and so on... Again, we were led to believe that the pain of reading Martha's diaries had made him not want to dig deeper. Much harder to empathise with Alf now. Don should be appalled with him. - Martha stopped being the go-between for Morag and the Simpsons because she was "dead". Alf could have stepped in to support transferring the money. Again, more letting down of Bobby. - So, therefore, his entire relationship with Bobby before and after the reveal was built on lies. And he sits there crying at her deathbed like the hypocrite that he has since been revealed to be.

Pedantic indeed but it's Christmas! (or for the Aussies & Kiwis in the house!). Only joking, very true point.

If you also count the Sutherlands and the Nashes (who were significantly younger than Alf/Ailsa and Pippa/2 husbands) then that's definitely the case.

Totally agree RE these two! And their short longevity on screen adds to their enigma

Completely agree! I've always used the term "sticking plaster" when evaluating and describing the impact of Rebecca and Travis' era. So said, I really do have a (somewhat recently rediscovered) fondness for many of the characters introduced in that 98/99 era who didn't last long into the Sutherland era... Especially Edward, Judith, Joel, Shauna, Natalie 2 and Mitch. I miss them all when they're gone (which I cannot say for many of the post-2000 introductions, especially the Sutherlands themselves). As much as it pains for me to admit it, I have to agree RE Ailsa. The writers had damaged her characterisation & role (irreparably so) in the community / show so much by the late 90s that I don't miss her when she's gone (it's more a case of missing her as she WAS, especially in the first year but even still a bit until about 94/5). Ailsa left for good for me in about 1994. She's more often than not pretty unlikeable from then onwards and, whilst her having more storylines again was great (and well performed by Judy), there's only so many times you can be held up at gunpoint, have car accidents and nervous breakdowns.

The effects of Truvada and other combination drugs in the HIV viral load management were first clinically confirmed in 93 but they didn't become widely available in most developed countries until 96/7. Unsure when Australia's medial authorities approved of these meds but, here in the UK, they became available on the NHS as an initial trial given to cherry picked folks in late 1996-early 1997 (Mark Fowler on EastEnders was fictionally shown to be accepted on the trials in early 97). I'd imagine that news of impending treatments would have been a headline story in Australia by the time Kelly's storyline aired. PEP didn't become widely available until the mid 00s (nowadays, Kelly would have been given a course of PEP within 72 hours following exposure to reduce the statistical likelihood of transmission). In addition, the patient concerned would likely have been on the treatment and undetectable, further minimising the already minute risk to Kelly. So, overall, this is a very 90s storyline and literally wouldn't happen today. And, of course, PREP became available over 10 years after that point still. But this is only usually prescribed to folk who are statistically more likely to be susceptible to the risk of HIV infection (as opposed to those working in the medical profession).

Correct and good point! A fostering housewife with a nursing diploma and a caravan park is surely a safer bet than a drug dealer for sure! You know when you literally hadn't even thought about a character in your mind for like 10 years? Whilst you hadn't forgotten them? Well, Jo Brennan was one of them for me! "Joanna Brennan? Strewth! Well.... Stone the flamin' crows, that's a blast from the flamim' past eh, Irene!"

It was classic nepotism... Pippa was Don's friend, they'd been through a lot together and he had a soft spot / high respect for her. There were likely much better candidates in the queue who were pushed out of joint for the sake of Pippa and her questionable CV / résumé!

Debra the dog being knocked down by Bob Barnett and Celia being very upset by it.

OMG... I've noticed this too! Especially in the 1990-94 period, lots of characters talking about "times being tough" and "waiting for the dole cheque to come in to pay the rent" sort of lines; paralleled the early 90s recession.

Not storylines as such but:- Any scenes with Vanessa Downing playing Pip, knowing what comes after she leaves It's hard to not get too attached to her performance in the role. Anything with earlier Ailsa, knowing how much her character changes (for the worse in my opinion) by the late 90s.

As a person of colour myself, I don't think there's anything offensive with us acknowledging the fact that words weren't always taken to be offensive (nor in spelling the word out to make the point). Nor do I think that it's helpful to censor the use of such a word in that type of context (especially if the moderator likely hasn't been on the receiving end of words like "the w word" themselves, as I personally have). So said, I believe we should always balance such acknowledgements with showing an awareness of the fact that such words WERE also used by many in a prejorative manner; to objectively display some empathy towards those of us who have been on negative receiving ends of "wog". My view: you can't rewrite history nor should we cancel out what we didn't like about the past. Quite the opposite: we should showcase ALL history so that we can LEARN from the past (learn from what was "bad" and what was "good", whatever that means to the subjective beholder); the shock of seeing something like Max Richards speaking to Jack that way, to most folks at least, should shock us into never having to relive that inter-societal experience ever again. PS, for the record, w** was used to people of colour in the UK, especially South Asian people during the 70s and 80s. Rather a lot in fact. It's just that there were more frequently used slurs which are incredibly more offensive to Black British, British Asian and other ethnic minority folks. If you're British or Irish then you'll know exactly which words I'm referring to. And you'll also (respectfully) appreciate why I certainly won't be highlighting these terms for the non-UK&I folk on here.

Ironically, mortal Shane in the equally mortal Brookside did more in the 2 months he had in Manor Park (before Chimmmmmeeeee Corkhill's smack fix finished him off) than Ryan and Simon did combined in their 2 aggregate years!

He did but Ryan did sod all that we could categorise as "gittish" in that later 92 stint.

Grant's two return stints in 1991 are so incredibly random. They're most obviously some kind of contractual obligation (which would make sense as Craig apparently had "very flexible terms" built into his agreement with Seven to allow for his recording commitments). Another random one was Ryan Lee's return in the later part of 92. Lucinda had long gone by that point and he spends most of his time sat on his (really rather beautiful) backside at the diner bar stool. Again, likely a contractual obligation since he'd initially been signed up for a 2 year stint (according to the 92 Annual, at least).

I've always said that it would have made sense to bring in "Roxy" as Michael's daughter (Kate), have her be a bit of a tart / bitch and maybe a rivalry with Bobby. Whether Lisa Lackey would have pulled off this characterisation is questionable but it would have been more meaningful than Roxy's entire purpose.

Fully agree with every bit of your post. Who knows what the departure circumstances were for Haydn / Andrew? I understand that Karen/Belinda's was mutual consent because of her behind the scenes attitude. I've said before that I loved the biological parent/child dynamic that Haydn had with Michael within a "blender foster family" and the layers that this gave Michael. Whereas, Simon was some random guy living with the Stewarts whilst his Dad served a prison sentence (perhaps a warm up for the equitable randomness of Roxy's domestic scenario with them).

Lance and Martin were the Noddy and Big Ears of Summer Bay. Toytown sets and all that! I have an old Inside Soap somewhere in my "broom cupboard" (get it, Brits in the house?!) in which Richard Norton says he was axed to make room for Damo and Shane. Presumably, he'd only been bought in to "replace" Haydn, so essentially a "filler" in the very short period between Haydn leaving and the next teen gang. It wouldn't have made sense to axe Blake instead since Blake had had time to become more "established" with the audience (especially after Meg). That said, it would have made just as much logical sense to have axed Fin at the same time or instead of Simon. She'd also been, presumably, bought in under the same logic to fill the gap between Karen and Sarah/Angel. And did absolutely nothing of interest once the latter two had arrived and Sophie, Blake and Simon were gone. So quite why she stayed around for almost two years longer than Simon did remains a mystery. The power of hats and dungarees maybe?

"Oh Alf!" Ailsa nods head to one side and walks out of the diner (without even checking whether he has capacity to "hold the fort for half an hour").

Alf Stewart: Don't get 'em in a twist, eh, Marilyn! Marilyn: well, Mr Stewart! Pardon me for daring to say how much Ailsa looks like Colleen! (High heels clank as she stomps off). I find some of the comparisons humourous. Laughing with you and not at you. It's all good

This is so true. Whilst both incarnations of Pippa each had their unique nuances, she was always fundamentally a "Mum", followed by "Wife". Her degree of characterisation wasn't strong enough to generate storylines in itself; it was her ROLE in the show which did this (as well as her being absolutely p****d on by life itself). Her characterisation came into play more as a reaction to her husbands' or kids' issues (e.g. her aloofness when Sophie wanted to give up Tammy). That said (assuming she was around in the post-fostering era), her longevity and what she HAD been in the past (as well as all the heartbreak she'd suffered along the way) would have kept her well-loved by the longer term fans to still want her around. But, she'd have had to either evolve into a more independent type (e.g. career-driven) to whom bad things keep happening or just be another Alf, Irene, Roo, Leah etc type (I don't watch the current show but my understanding from this forum is that they're very much supportive to the 20/30 somethings?). To avoid Debra becoming an expensive waste of Channel 5, ahem Seven, payroll. "The Bill Roache of Australia" springs to mind.

Brand or not, the H&A storylines captured mid - late 90s kids (with little to no memory of Scott and Charlene) and teens in the playground far more than Neighbours' contemporary plots did! I recall FAR more talk of Bobby in the fridge or Selina doing anything than Marlene's gnomes. It's just that more parents would tolerate the "safer", more familiar (for them) latter playing on their kitchen telly set over "tea" time than H&A. And THAT explains the ratings difference. All popular terrestrial TV shows in the UK saw proportionate BARB ratings declines from approx 94/5 onwards and we can put that solely down to the acceleration of multi-channel TV (Sky's Multichannel launch of 93 and the simultaneous huge expansion of Cable outside of the key cities from the same period), as well as the increase of the number of TV sets per household.