nenehcherry2

My money's still on the Stewarts making interesting choices when it came to naming family pets... ?? Seriously, was there ever any scriptural evidence of Debra's humanness? Hark at you, Daran Little! ??️ You impress me, you should have been employed by Seven as the show's archivist!

I loved the fact, in that 88/9 era, that there was a clan (the Stewarts) who'd been in the Bay for many generations. Very reflective of real life rural communities (especially back then) and gave a stark contrast to the fostering outsiders from the City. The complex (not so) adult sibling relationships between Alf, Morag and Celia added to this unique role in the series, as well as Roo's manipulation of these inter-relationships / later conflict of interest and the audience viewing these dysfunctionalities from the objective POV of Ailsa marrying into the context provided further nuance (i.e. illustrated the irony that a traditional, settled "blood family" could be even more dysfunctional than a transient foster family). We lost this juxtaposition somewhat when Roo, then Morag and then Celia left. Alf and Ailsa just simply evolved into yet another example of a couple taking in teens or lodgers in Summer Bay's fostering capital for some years. Ok, so Alf ran a store and lost his temper a bit. And Ailsa (apparently) ran the diner. But that was about it. Especially with little to no presence of Morag, Celia and Barbara through the 90s, the Stewarts as a FAMILY lost their initially important key differential role in the show for a decade or so (albeit, Alf and Ailsa remained linchpins themselves). They became "Pippa overflow". Even Don, Bobby and Rebecca's close links with them were virtually forgotten. It only really changed again as Duncan grew up and Morag started making more regular visits again. For me, that generated a "Stewart renaissance" (something the show really benefited from with Sally's eventual departure). Not mentioning post 2008 developments since they do not exist in my universe!

I'd always assumed that Morag was the oldest Stewart sibling too until I also saw that clip where Alf suggested she was younger.

Nicolle has been short sighted since she was a child (believe she's since had LAZIK) and was already in glasses most of the time offset by the time the show started. Read interviews from the time where she said the glasses became a necessity for Bobby too as her eyesight worsened and she was struggling to film without them. But then she soon started wearing contacts, so we can assume they were no longer needed when she was at work on set either. Shame they couldn't keep them for Bobby at least, it was great realism to have a character with glasses on the show (H&A's answer to Deirdre Barlow, at least Bobby stopped short of a Weetabix-shaped perm!). And no on screen explanation for their disappearance ? Interesting fact, the last time Bobby wears them was the episode before Greg arrives. Her first meeting with Greg also happened to be the last time she ever uttered a "rack off".

I always seem to agree with your posts ?! Speaking about hairstyles, a lot of my sisters' young friends had "later" Bobbyish hairstyles in the same period. Bobs were pretty big at the time. I especially quite liked the style Bobby had when she first took in Sam and then met Greg. It was shorter than what it had become by 93. That was SUPER cool at the time, wasn't it? I'm fact, I was watching clips of some raves from 1990-5 on YT the other day and 35% of the girls had "the Bobby"! As far as Bobby's styles go, also quite liked her look in the late 89/early 90 period. The "Dumb Street" era. That's like "proto Bob" (but the sides are much shorter). Not a fan of her 88 style, the early 89 cut (wedding to Frank) nor of that awful mess of a do she had around the time Tom died. She also looked nice with long hair (later 90-very early 91). But the blonde was dreadful. It's not too bad in 92, it's just some subtle caramel highlights at that point. But into 93, she goes full on beach blonde and it did her no favours at all. I could never work out if her original colour was brown or auburn.

VERY true, great point! In my own case, I was a "sunshine baby" and had 3 full siblings who were 15-20 years older than me. I guess that helped in me seeing some of the "nuances" with different age ranges WITHIN "adults". Whereas, to your point, kids usually see everyone as unanimously"old" after a certain point (ie older than your own parents). At 6-7ish, I assumed that Julie Martin in Neighbours was mid-late 30s. Just because she was "Mum" to Debbie and Michael, who were much older than me (was too young and unexposed to blended families to appreciate the step-parent nuance). But also thought she looked only a bit older than my brother (Julie Mullins is only 2 years older than him). And looked much younger than my own Mum at the time (which she obviously was). So I guess those two opposing factors "averaged her out" in my head to about 35-7 whereas any other young kid would just see her as "old". Now, watching clips, she most definitely looked like a woman ten years younger than I am now (!) in very dark makeup trying too hard to be older!

Ray certainly did not look 58 to me in 88, interesting perception.

I've always assumed Pippa was born about 53/4. Not that I give it much thought, the show clearly has a poorly constructed "fact bible" and ages/birthdays seem to change with the given episode writer ? She implies to Bobby in early 91 that she wasn't much older than her when she first fostered Frank (1978). She was supposed to be quite a bit younger than Tom and there's also scenes where characters comment that she's quite a lot younger than Ailsa and Donald. Ailsa was born in 193, ahem, 1950 (yeah, right). Of course, both those mentions were made when VD was in the role! It's believable that being married to a somewhat older man and becoming a foster mum to teenagers at such a young age would have (mentally speaking) "aged" her a bit (alas Bobby). But Debra's portrayal (and wardrobe) versus Vanessa's definitely accentuates that. Speaking of Bob, I've seen a few people state recently that Bobby looked about 40 in the early 90s. Not sure I share that opinion and perhaps a bit offensive to Nicolle Dickson. Makeup, written characterisation and wardrobe (though my Sisters of a similar age wore similar blouses then!) aside, Nicolle consistently looks slightly older in the face to me than her true age, maybe more 1966/67 than 1969. But no way has she ever VISUALLY looked 20 years older in the face. That said, the "blondification" of Bobby in her final 12 months did her no favours. Blonde just does not suit Nicolle whatsoever. And she starts wearing darker makeup from around the same time. But the end result always looked more, to me, like a woman in her mid-late 20s who'd been put through the ringer a bit! As a very young kid, I noticed that Bobby only looked 20something but was playing Mum to a boy even older than me. And there was always something very "youthful" about how Nicolle delivered her lines. It confused the hell out of me!

Ray's always looked pretty much bang on his own age to me, so it mostly fits with Alf's slightly fluctuating age range!

For me, it wasn't just Ailsa's dress sense, makeup and hairstyles that aged her but, if I'm honest, Judy's face! Judy was born in 1945 but has consistently looked about 5-10 years older. To me at least. That's also my feeling when I watch clips of Sons and Daughters and, on the flip side, more recent pictures. Like in the This Is Your Life with Ray, she genuinely looked like a woman in her mid-late 80s, albeit one who'd kept in good health etc. Norman has always looked pretty much bang on his age to me. Vanessa and Debra, on the other hand, both looked like women born circa 1957 who'd been aged up by the makeup and wardrobe team. Actually, Debra looks SLIGHTLY older at times but only a little.

No offence to Norman but it's hard to believe that Don was supposed to be so young. Similar with Ailsa/Judy. The visual age of the actors aged the characters in turn.

Nothing that I can recall from that early on though both Gina G (Feeling Free) and Peter Andre (Drive Me Crazy) had tracks unknown to UK era playing as early as 92/3 in the show, some several years before either released music in the UK or Ireland. It was reported in the press that the use of "Never Known a Girl" in H&A had a SLIGHT impact on its UK chart performance.

Waiting a "brad cooper became mark gottlieb of Summer Bay" post to appear at some point ? Oh... Alf!

It isn't just Heather's vocal style that bugged me; not personally a fan of Mike Pickering's production style either. The end result is very poor imitation of the New Jersey style of House (the Tony Humphries / Strictly Rhythm kind of sound = if you know, you know) that he was aiming for. More pop than anything else really and that saxophone in "Moving On Up" makes me want to throw my speakers out the window when it comes on! Don't mind "How Can I Love You More" (it has a bit of a Northern Soul vibe) but not a fan of their other tracks. Of course, music taste is 100% subjective. Most of their tracks entered the UK Top 10, I don't claim to be "right" nor "wrong"! ? blockquote widget

Indeed he did, thankyou! A great example of my point ?

Also a possibility that the drop in centre would never have existed had she stayed. The concept of said centre felt like another example of them trying to "gap fill" some kind of link to the fostering past (minus PIppa's presence) without doing obvious fostering in SBH after the Nash era (albeit, Rhys and Shelley then fostered Brodie!). The drop in centre concept was nothing new for the show. This apparent need for a "drop in centre" or "youth refuge" for teens was something commented on by other characters time and time again from circa 89. I'm fact, they were raising money to construct one when Don paid his daughter's fare for THAT speedboat trip. And the diner its very self was originally intended by Ailsa to be a place for "kids to drop in and hang out" (but quickly evolved into an obesity-inducing profit machine for Ailsa and Bobby). Always found it very bizarre that, of all the places in the world, runaway teens just happened to "wash up" in Summer Bay. A random costal village. Without them even knowing prior that it was "the fostering capital of Australia" (quote: Quinn, 95). Felt very forced to me!

Hence why most of us prefer the original, unlicenced version with the Loleatta sample... which earned her a fair few quid in her lawsuit against them! ? as well as a broken ankle when she did a live PA of said track at a rave on the M25 in an icy English winter! And also, for the record (pun intended), I never purchased an M People track or album - to avoid Small's screaming vocals bursting my ear drums! That felt like a real period of the Fletchers being pushed back a bit in their prominence. Imo, that further benefitted some of the other characters, "old" and "new" (e.g. Don). Whilst it picked up again from 90 (i.e. the Sophie domination era!), SBH never felt quite as "busy" & chaotic again until late 94-96. Suddenly you've got 2 parents with 4-5 kids (excluding Chris) in the house again, a number not seen since 88.

Yes! That one was used a lot circa 92. Unlikely. Two very different tunes. With "I don't know anybody else", they just played the first four bars of the original track (a Korg M1 piano hook, a very hallmark element of Italian House tracks from 89/90ish) on a constant loop. Used a lot in early-mid 91 diner and surf club scenes especially.

They did this specifically between early 90 and late 91. From late 91, they started playing a lot of the tracks they'd used in 89 again (for example, "Boys Will Be Boys".) There was also a lot of Pop, New Jack Swing and House used from then till circa 95 (including Dannii Minogue lol!). From around 1996, they definitely moved more into a rock / pop-rock direction with diner tunes. Other examples of reworked tunes in the 90-91 era (besides already mentioned):- - Kylie: Better the Devil - Neneh Cherry: Heart - Madonna: Vogue - Black Box: I Don't Know Anybody Else

Was referring to the parellel Universe H&A of 92 that was never seen on-screen... When the teens went off at 8pm to do Flathead's endless homework, the 20somethings went out to play... Now I'm having visions of Adam, Bobby and Mazza at a Sydney rave!

Weren't those 3 just a closet throuple in reality? ? Alas Stevie/Kelly/Travis! THOSE bitchy looks between Ryan and Nick though...

Highly subjective statement. Whilst you may find it "gross" for second cousins to marry / procreate, let's be more objective here and appreciate that everyone is entitled to a different view, as well as the fact that this board represents cultural diversity. It's entirely possible that some of us may have family members or friends who are in that position, so a polite reminder to be more sensitive, empathetic and inclusive when stating opinions driven purely by your own personal disgust. Especially when not even offering any reasoning as to why it disgusts you. Many (if not a majority) of my friends in the UK and US of Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds have parents who are first cousins. It's the norm and, if anything, was historically encouraged. Yes, there's a higher rate than average of certain conditions like Cleft Pallet Syndrome and Cystic Fibrosis in those communities. But the vast majority of those folks are healthy, hard working people. There are other cultures with the OPPOSITE view on this topic (eg most traditional Hindus won't even consider marriage within seven degrees of kinship). The Northwestern European cultural view sits somewhere in between (with the notable exception of European Royal Families). None is "right" and none is "wrong". Just different. So be more respectful, please. Genetic fact = the closer the degree of kinship (i.e. the more the number of identical chromosomal segments shared) between two individuals, the higher the odds of recessive allele sharing for offspring (which can often but not always lead to extremely problematic results). The risks for second cousin offspring is extremely low whereas they are very high indeed for full siblings, parent/child, uncle/niece and so on. That's a biological fact. On a sociological level, many first cousins have not grown up together (and in many cases have never even met), so the "Westermarck effect" never kicked in. So it's less sociologically/psychologically "troubling" for most to accept such relationships versus sibling relationships. Hence why very few cultures, ancient or contemporary (with the exception of Ancient Egyptian royalty) have practiced sibling marriage. But second cousin marriage is rarely a social taboo nor illegal in most (but not all) cultural systems. And first cousin marriage often a (lesser) taboo, dependant on the geographic setting.

Literally have no recollection of Nigeria being mentioned, thanks for sharing this, @CaptainHulk! ? Rushed or not, no reason why the 1990 writers couldn't bother to specify a country. Definitely stinks of an "it's all the same" mentality from TPTB.

Whilst it may be a deeply disturbing concept to many (if not most), GSA is apparently a very true phenomenon whereby very close relatives relatives who didn't grow up together / spend significant time in their "critical learning period" (& therefore meet as adults or teens) feel a deep sexual connection when they finally meet, especially if unaware of their connection. In Bobby and Alan's case, they didn't even find out about their familial connection until after his death. So it's very possible that some serious GSA was going on there. Neighbours explored this in 1991 with Glen and Lucy (who almost did the deed AFTER finding out they were half siblings). And EastEnders with David and Bianca (father/daughter). Of course, Brookside went a million steps further with two full siblings who DID in fact grow up together with lifelong knowledge of their relationship. What makes it all the more (retrospectively) uncomfortable... Bobby was technically a "three quarters sibling" to Alan and Rebecca. That's a true term used in genealogy and in genetics. Not only did they share a father but their mothers were full sisters (Morag and Barbara). In other words, simultaneously half siblings and first cousins. So their level of genetic affinity is around halfway between that of half siblings and full siblings. The script never confirms for sure how far they went. Bobby seemed very defensive in her denials when Don questioned her about it. Of course, she didn't then realise WHY Don was asking such intimate questions, had only just started to like him and so it's very likely that Bobby lied in her response. There's also a line from Morag to Alf along the lines of "though blushing bride is hardly a befitting term from what I hear!". Someone can correct the exact wording ?? So, whether true or not, clearly Bobby had a Selina-esque reputation flying around!