nenehcherry2

Former PM. William McMahon was Prime Minister from 1971-2. And a prominent politician aside from this premiership. He and his wife were celebrities (in the 70s/80s concept of the word) of sorts for some time after this. So the family (including Julian) were quite well known when Ben was devised. You could loosely see Terry Donavan (Al) in the same bracket; even before he was Doug Willis, he was both a pretty well-known bit part actor and, of course, "Jason's Dad" right at the peak of Jason's fame.

Totally agree RE Carly too. She just becomes subordinate to Ben's controlling behaviour. We see no drive, dreams or desires from Carly. Other than to please the highly difficult-to-please Ben. Something else that I personally didn't like about the late 89/early 90 period was their emphasis in bringing in "big names": Dannii (big in Australia before Kylie), Craig (Neigbours poach) & Julian (Prime Minister's son). Looking back at trailers from the time, it feels like the marketing angle of the series became more about "look at who we've scooped" rather than developing the original characters. Though, I do feel that the show finds a new (more sustainable) formula by the middle of 90 which sees it through the next 5ish years.

Personally, I didn't at all. I found them funny the first few times I saw them (Living repeats) but now I fast forward most of their scenes. By mid-89, I want the pair of them just to rack off already! Engagement with Lance & Martin seems to be subjective depending on the viewer. Some I've connected with in the fandom on this subject adored them, others despised them. Like marmite. I think a lot of the original characters suffered from the point Greg Haddrick took over as script producer (about 400ish). There's a real feel that he didn't get some of them at all in the same way that Bevan Lee did (as well as his immediate successor failed on this count, forgotten the name). So, for example, Ailsa loses all her 88 spark and just goes into "would you mind looking after the place for half an hoaur, Love?" (typo intended) for the next few years with little purpose except for serving shakes, Celia becomes obsessed with hot dog stands (as do Lance and Martin) and so on. And don't get me started on the way many of the others reacted to Pippa/Zac. You're absolutely right in hypothesising that Fiona, Peter & Craig's imminent departures perhaps made them even less "invested" in from this point in time. You're very welcome! I agree with this about Tom & Pippa. For me, there is no "Tippa" or "Pom" (lol!) once the Dodge story wraps up. They're together for two short bursts. One being the dreadfully written Zac story, the rest is just them being "there" until they have an out of the blue 1-episode bicker about Pippa being "taken for granted" and then his death. This lack of focus on them really helps to make the transition to DebPip and Michael even more believable to me.

Roger Roger's 89 break was due to a minor heart attack. I've read this in an annual. Fiona's was for some Prisoner tour. Marilyn's 89 hiatus was due to Emily's bulimia (according to a 91 UK newspaper article). Vanessa's early 90 break was due to panto.

I've read some contemporary interviews from the time RE Stacey. Sandie was actually on a 12 month contract (i.e. 260ish episodes; that's usually the cut-off for permanent vs. short-term) but a new Producer came in some months into her agreement with the show (presumably Andrew Howie, whose first episode as Series Producer was 261) & told her that they wouldn't be renewing her contract after that period expired. But they allowed her to finish the full contractual period since they needed the time to find more "suitable" long-term replacements (presumably Emma, Grant, Sophie etc). So (pure speculation here) perhaps the plan was to add her to the credits from the ep 281 revamp but they quickly discarded that idea since they already knew she wouldn't be long-term (to avoid the cost). Very similarly, John Morris (aka Phil) was also initially signed up for 1 year but the "new Producers" felt it wasn't working out. But, in his case, he was let go early. There's an interview with Cornelia from early 1990 where she confirms that she was also axed to "make way for younger blood". I'm assuming that that decision was made much further into 89 since she made the credits. Moving further ahead, It's never been officially confirmed (as far as I can find) whether Roger and / or Fiona were axed or chose to leave. Their second-year contracts were at their natural end length, so either scenario is possible. Cornelia's interview does say that "Roger and Vanessa left in the ruccous which followed my departure" & there's an old annual which stipulates it was his choice but there was a rumour at the time that he was axed due to his (unconfirmed) sexuality. I've read several sources which imply that Craig and Peter were axed.

The jury's still out for me on this possibility... after all, Bobby had inherited Celia's hairstyle and colour by circa 93!

Juliet Roberts' "Caught In the Middle of Love" was played a few times in early-mid 95 Diner scenes. More specifically, the "Monster Club Mix" version (as opposed to the radio edit which entered the UK charts). Great example of the very soulful "New Jersey Club" sub-genre of house which was big in the UK & New York City club scenes circa early-mid 90s. Confusingly, what was (at that point, pre-95) referred to as "Garage" in the UK at the time (before the UK then took hold of this sound a few years later & created "UK Garage").

I used to be myself, as a History graduate with an eye for chronological details, but I don't bother giving it much thought now. Different scriptwriters threw in random mentions of character ages / birthdays here and there, often for no real reason. They can't be taken as canon. It was interesting to find out on that "G'day Summer Bay" documentary that they kept a bible with such facts behind the scenes as the inconsistencies of these facts in the first 10 years at least of the show would suggest otherwise. I've actually found the most consistently reliable age indicator on H&A to be the school year of a character. The intake cut off in NSW is 1st Aug-31st July (though parents with kids born between late December - 31st July can "hold" their kids "back" for another year). For example, Bobby could have been born any time between late 1969 to 31st July 1971 based on her school year. The scriptwriters seem to have stuck to an age within that range whenever her age was mentioned over her tenure, albeit the birthday and year of birth differs.

Indeed, she did!

Believing 88 Don to be 39 is a HUGE stretch of one's imagination!

Before I read further into the "facts" RE character ages and birthdays (i.e. the sheer inconsistencies from the obvious lack of a "bible" behind the scenes), I'd assumed the age gap between Tom and Pippa 1 was about 7-8 years. That she was roughly 32-36 over her tenure, he 40-43. Similar to what I'd assumed RE Julie and Phil in Neighbours. I can't take Don's 50th birthday in 1995 seriously since Norman looked his age (i.e. 57/8) by then, possibly older. What was even more unbelievable to me was Ailsa turning 50 in late 2000. Judy was 55 but looked early 60s by that point. Almost certain that I've posted this opinion before! I'm almost certain Pippa says to Bobby in early 91 that she wasn't much older than her (Bobby at that point) when she herself fostered Frank. Which could easily have made Pip born as late as 1955. Then there's a mention of Tom and Pip having been married for 17 years in early 90... The marriageable age at that point in NSW was 16 for females. I don't recall a mention of her 21st birthday.

Alan/Bobby's romance = "genetic sexual attraction" before the term was even known...

I thought this too. Similar to Tom threatening Carly with the same punishment.

Dylan's leukaemia scared me a lot back in 95. Purely because of his young age (quite a few years younger than myself), I'd never seen a child that young with a serious illness before (except on Children's Hospital, a documentary which aired in the UK at the time). 2023 Home and Away writers: please take note of said possiblity! If it helps, tune into a current EastEnders episode for inspiration!

As someone else said previously, we must apply time context when interpreting the brutality degree of a storyline. Meg's death, arguably, felt brutal in 1992. As did Dale in 93; EastEnders had "done" cot death in 85 but the soap was still very new. We had known Pippa (and the show) for five years and she was, arguably, the most linchpin character. We also knew what a great Mum she was. So we felt it immensely. There's also something so real, brutal and clinical about soap comas / brain deaths from the early-mid 90s that we never saw again, before or after, including Bobby's. If you compare with Daphne in Neighbours' ridiculously unbelievably romanticised "I love you Clarkey... Flatline!" (and every soap coma post 2000 with miraculous recoveries or someone murderously snipping a ventilator chord), Bobby's brain death assesment (along with the coldness of the actress playing her Doctor) was a far more accurate depiction of the reality of those situations. Which made it hurt more. Very similar to Tony Dixon (Brookside, though that was a Persistent Vegetative State scenario), Julie Martin (Neighbours) and Samir Rashid (Coronation Street). Factually believable and gritty. With it being Bobby, it just hurt that bit more. Wouldn't it have been so far less effective to see say Frank returning to a "I love you Frankie!"... oh, wait, she's in cardiac arrest type sitiation? I believe so...

She was still at school (repeating year 12, when they first started dating at least) but was over 18 and he was not working there at that point.

Very subjective opinion of a complex phenomena really. Many of us feel that "society" has changed for the better, in certain ways at least. There are certainly some things that I personally miss from 1994 (music, TV shows, (UK) Woolworths, the list goes on!) but, to be equally subjective, my own life chances are significantly better:- 1) Without giving too much of my personal life away here, I'd be (literally) dead by 1994 if I'd been born 20 years before but had the same life experiences. Thanks to the work of virologists and medical research teams, I'm very much alive. Same with at least 50 million other people across the globe, many of whom still do not have access to those privileges which benefit many of us. 2) I'm far, far less likely to experience prejudice because of two natural characteristics that I cannot change. Whether that's institutionally led or inter-individual. And I'm not just minimising that said discrimination to name calling or eggs on my windows but to life chances, employment prospects, law enforcement experiences etc. So it's difficult for me to relate to your overall sentiment. That said, not in any way disagreeing with the legitimacy of others' personal views; everyone has a different life experience so can compare today versus X point in the past from a divergent viewpoint. And that's healthy because everyone is fundamentally different in a planet of 8 billion+ folks. But I think sometimes we need to acknowledge that whilst some things are unanimously "worse" to the consensus, many things are better now from the majority's interpretation. And that there are different perspectives of what a "plughole" is.

You mean that "Luke" sounds remarkably like Dave ?

Always found it funny that you don't invert Luke's name instead of Dave, Will! ? Seeing as Dave appeared three years before "Luke". Shouldn't your 93 episode guides have instead read "A new teacher arrives in Summer Bay looking suspiciously like Dave but Alsa, Baby Sally, Samantha and the others insist on calling him "Luke" "?

Nick and Damo were also axed (although Bruce had already long decided to move to the UK to be with his new partner, so perhaps that was partly a mutual decision). Apparently Tina/Fin chose to leave though I can't help feeling that she would have been axed eventually had she not quit given how neglected she was in the final half of her stint. Lots of underused characters in that 93/4 period, wasn't there? It comes across to me that the senior producers and writers had their "favourites". Nick, Fin and a few others were very "make up the numbers" by that point.

I've read an interview with Corny from 1990 where she's quite open about what happened behind the scenes in that late 89-early 90 period. Andrew Howie directly or indirectly (depending on the individual concerned) drove out a lot of the "older" actors (Cornelia, Roger, Fiona and Vanessa) by taking away some of the "spice" (as she put it) that some of the middle aged characters had in 88/9. Morag, Lance and Martin were certainly axed whilst it remains unclear on the Tom scenario (there were MANY unsubstantiated rumours at the time that Roger's unconfirmed homosexuality may have played a part). Similar with Celia (the article simply says that "Fiona, Vanessa and Roger left in the chaos my axing stimulated"). From what she said, he was also was determined to remove everything that made the show "stuck in the 80s" (I'd interpret that to mean binning Lance, Martin, Stacey, Macklin office, cheesier underscores). And "replace with celebrities" (likely Julian McMahon, Dannii and Craig MacLachlan). Of course, just Cornelia's words. But it would make total sense if true, in line with your opinion.

Right

Hey there! Thankyou Miss Kat, hope you be keeping well ?

I agree. I really liked 88 Barbara. She had similarities to both VanPip and to how Ailsa was in the first year or so but also more career driven, stubborn and hot headed with it. Don clearly had a "type" (pre-Mazza at least). Don implied that Barbara and Morag had "regular spats". It's a shame we never saw them on screen simultaneously. Particularly after the Don/Bobby reveal. I can personally imagine Barbara harbouring more distrust and anger towards Morag than to Don over that. She'd clearly moved on from Donald by 88 but to find out that her own sister had stooped so low (not just the infidelity itself but how she deceited Don, Barbara and Bobby, deprived Alan and Rebecca of a sibling etc) would have made for interesting viewing. As well as seeing Alf, Celia and (at the very point she was "changing") Roo all caught up in the torn loyalties.

I'd only personally heard the dialogue mention (Celia could have easily been referring to a pet). Thanks for highlighting the other two. Though, I never take press material as "canon". I'd long stopped watching the show by the time of the flashback. Good to know, ta.