adam436

There were signs earlier of him showing his softer side before that though: walking Sally back to class after she ran away, helping out at the Pappas farm, his friendship with Ailsa, offering Lynn and Carly a lift home to avoid hitch-hiking etc. Lance and Martin were also very two-dimensional early on too and developed somewhat as regulars. Certainly not to the extent Donald did though, but they developed beyond bullying Nico, chasing women, money making schemes and trying to avoid work.

The Robert Perez story. I was only 8/9 when this story originally aired, so I would be curious to watch the story as an adult. The other one would be Edward Dunglass' story arc, which has already been mentioned.

For me, the issue wasn't so much the SORASing of characters, but the fact Olivia and VJ were the same age when we saw both characters born on screen four years apart in relatively recent history (the recast from Felix Dean to Matt Little madw it worse!). Anything less than 2 years they probably could have got away with, but this was a near four year gap and the actor playing VJ looked about 25 when the character should have been 13.

I'm glad you said was. 2015 saw Olivia Fraser and VJ Patterson in the same year at school, despite being born nearly 4 years apart H&A has very rarely done that. We had children grow up on screen like Sally, Sam, VJ and Duncan, but very rarely had children or teenagers leave and then return while they were still school age. Neighbours had the aforementioned examples of Debbie, Michael, Cody and later on characters like Sky, Elle, Andrew Robinson, Holly etc., and have been very inconsistent with their ages. The nature of early years H&A has meant that generally hasn't been necessary - since it was about foster families rather than nuclear ones, it is probably easier to create a new teenage character than to recast a former one. For example, it was easy to create someone like Sophie or Finn, than it would be to recast Lynn Davenport and de-SORAS her to that age group. Neighbours has relied more heavily on nuclear or blood families.

The segregation between old and new cast becoming more and more obvious. With a few exceptions (i.e. John and Dana working together, Irene living with Dana and Harper, Theo being Leah's nephew), the veteran characters are generally in their own bubble, and only really given storylines because the writers are obliged to. Compare it to say the mid 90s - we still had characters grouped into teenagers, twentysomethings and "the elders", but there was still that crossover and interaction. Someone like Shannon for example, used to share scenes with her peer group, her family and the older characters like Fisher and Alf. There is no reason why any of the current twentysomethings couldn't be Irene's grandsons. They wouldn't necessarily need to live with her, but it would at least give us a multi-generation connection. Or if the producers are so obsessed with adult siblings, why not create one for Theo, so it at least gives Leah another family member to interact with? In some ways, I can see why Channel 7 is downplaying the longevity of the show. If you talk about Neighbours, some people would say "I didn't know that was still going", implying that is well past its shelf life, even well before 2022. I've not really watched the UK soaps other than Hollyoaks, but I do remember when I was growing up that Coronation Street was often associated with an older audience growing up (my Nanna watched it!). From what I know, it has a larger younger cast now, but I still probably that have association with my Nanna in my head. The producers probably view "classic" Home and Away as a bit daggy and might worry that's how the audience associate it.

I'm pretty sure it's just Travis and Rebecca and Ben and Carly in the early years. We had a few couples in the 2000s like Robbie and Tasha, Tony and Rachel too, but my memory isn't as great with 2001 onwards so there could be others I don't remember. Then we've had others where the wedding is part of an exit story like Tori and Christian, Dex and April, Will and Gypsy (before their return) I'd agrue it's more to do with how quickly the couple split up (or killed off!). For example, I still fondly remember Donald and Marilyn's wedding, which ended in divorce, but I'd say Frank and Bobby's and James and Chloe's were pretty forgettable.

For me, it depends on the characters involved. I was never a fan of Ben and Carly, so had zero interest in their wedding, whereas others like Travis and Rebecca, Don and Marilyn and Vinnie and Leah were iconic moments for me. Most wedding episodes work best if it's not just one storyline in the episode. Travis and Rebecca for example, got married in the season finale, so there were a few other things happening in the episode. From memory, the other examples I mentioned were the sole focus of the episode, but it was a different time where the show could afford to have an episode off from the heavy dramatic plots. I really can't see it working in 1998, since she was only a year or so older than Justine and Tegan. The only way it may have worked would be if she had married off to someone in his mid 20s, but I feel like that would have been disastrous for her character in the long-term. Sally needed those 6 years to "grow up" before she could take over SBH. In that time, she finished uni and got a decent job at the school, married the town GP Flynn and had a child on her own. She also gained quite a bit of life experience through her storylines in these years which included living in share houses, a romance with a much older man (I can't remember his name, but his daughter had epilepsy and dated Sam), the failed wedding to Kieran, getting engaged to Luke, getting shot, something to do with unwittingly being on a webcam at Vinnie's house and probably more I've not thought of.

Definitely Will, he came back for both Hayley's wedding - the non-wedding to Kim and her actual wedding to Noah. I think the early 2000s was also feeding off the success of the Early Years reruns on Channel 7. We had the big nostalgia fests for Sally's wedding, Summer Bay's bicentenary and Alf's 60th birthday, plus sporadic appearances from characters like Lance and Morag throughout the 2000s. Carly also returned when Sally had a hysterectomy (perhaps Debra unavailable with Blue Heelers?). We also don't see many returns now because there aren't that many mainstay characters and those do don't really have close connections. Marilyn wasn't particularly close to any characters in her previous stints that are likely to return for a major event, John is a relatively new character in the grand scheme of things, Leah's brother Alex wasn't really that iconic or memorable as a character to warrant a return and Alf's family would all be aging at this point except for Dunca. Irene's family is the bugbear for me - I accept that Matt Doran and Tina Thomsen might not want to return, but I feel like if the producers can recast an iconic character like Roo, then Damien and Finn shouldn't be off limits.

In hindsight, the producers were lucky Debra stayed as long as she did. Had she only stayed a year or two, the producers would have been in the same predicament as they were in 1990. Instead, they didn't have to worry about it for over 7 years. There probably weren't too many alternatives at the time. Bobby perhaps could have worked - there were plans in the works for her to become a foster mother anyway, and I'd say there was a big enough gap between Bobby and Sally and Sophie for her to step in as their guardian. Steven only had a few months left on the show, so I imagine they'd probably have just glossed over her being his guardian too just to get through the transition period. If Vanessa had left a year later, I think the producers would have seriously considered Bobby as a possible solution as she was officially a foster mother by then and oldest child Steven was gone. They could have also invented a reason for Alf and Ailsa to move into Summer Bay House, just as they did with Travis and Rebecca when Pippa eventually left. I'm not sure how Judy Nunn would have felt at being the central mother figure though, since she seemed to prefer a supporting role, especially in later years. The Pippa recast would have felt less jarring had Pippa had at least gone away for a week or two. There was a gap between the other immediate recasts: Flynn Saunders went to Perth for a few weeks and came back as a new actor, and the Natalie Nash recast happened over the Christmas break in Australia (maybe not in the UK though?). I'm not counting the "emergency" temporary recasts like Selina, Alisa, Mitch and Rebecca here either.

Its definitely been a slow shift. When the Braxtons were introduced, we still had a strong focus on teens and families. The teen population was downsized around 2016/2017 with the introduction of the Morgans and loss of characters like Jett, VJ, Josh, Evie, Oscar, Maddie and Matt. And then slowly dwindled away with Olivia, Hunter, Raffy etc departed, leaving us with just Bella, Ryder, Chloe and Nikau, who all left around the same time, being replaced with twentysomethings. I think the producers just think the Braxtons were really popular (which they were!), and keep trying to recreate that magic with characters of the same age, perhaps forgetting they were balanced out by a well rounded teenage cast and a stalwart cast who were more effectively used.

I do wonder if that story was cut short when Vanessa left. Her final episode saw Pippa gently letting Donald down, then it was pretty much dropped. It could have just been a coicindence, but the producers might also have wanted a "clean slate" for the new Pippa. Let Debra settle into the role with a seamless transitition as possible, without an ongoing story having over her.

Didn't he also film a scene where someone found him on the floor of the Macklin office? It's been a while since I watched those episodes, but I don't think we ever actually saw Tom collapse.

Agreed! I think Pippa's recast felt bigger because we'd already lost Tom, so it felt like Summer Bay House had a big change. In fact, by early 1991, Kate Ritchie is the only original actor still living in thay out. Tom's death felt quite downplayed. It didn't really feel like the central character was being killed off to be honest, but just one of the supporting characters. The Pippa change was a factor too, since the recast further removed the connection to Tom (I know it's the same character, but I don't associate Debra's Pippa with Tom at all, if that makes sense!). It's possible that the rumoured rift between Roger and the producers was a factor too, and they just wanted to kill him off and move on as quickly as possible.

I also think Tom being absent for much of 1989 was a contributing factor too. If he was still front and centre as he was at the beginning, then his death would have been more shocking. It also felt like the show just wanted to move on from Tom as quickly as possible, rather than grieve for him for months like they did with Bobby.I think the Pippa recast a month or two later lessened the impact of Tom's death too and helped everyone move on more quickly.

That's probably a good way to describe 1994 actually. Most of the early 90s had very little plot, but at least each year had one big iconic story to define the year: 1991 - the David and Sophie story. 1992 - Meg's death 1993 - Dale's and Bobby's death. 1994 had no major iconic story really, and 1990 was such a transitional period between the original cast and their replacements it was probably too hard to have a defining storyline. It's not hard to see why the 1995 shake up was need after a rather complacent 1994.

I actually think the show could benefit from a move to a later timeslot. The show could run those storylines but with fewer restrictions.

I had to go with Marilyn's daughter too. Much of Marilyn's second stint involved her wanting to and struggling to have a baby. It's a bit insulting to that whole story arc in my opinion - with Donald's support, Marilyn would have totally fought for custody of Heather, especially when it seemed likely she'd be happy to have children herself. The Martha one I could almost buy had we just had one or two lines saying Alf told Ailsa the truth and she agreed to keep it a secret. If anyone can understand someone needing to run away from the past/their existing life, it was her. The Mick one wasn't great, but at least it didn't alter any events that played out on screen, like the Heather and Martha ones did. Never really cared about Colleen's daughter (other than Alf dating her, which was ick due to a future retcon) or Colleen being a Stewart.

I always thought Tom came from fostering too, but now I think of it, I can't remember any reference to it. Tom and Pippa fostered because Pippa supposedly couldn't have children of her own. Maybe the Tom reference is inone of the books from the late eighties?

Georgie Parker has said in the past she isn't going to leave while Ray Meagher is still around: https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/home-and-away-exclusive-georgie-parker-reveals-exit-plans-034813096.html If or how long she stays beyond that is anyone guess, but I suspect she'd probably move on within a year or two. We might be wrong. She does also love working with Emily Symons, and as Georgie says, H&A gives her the flexibility to pursue theatre roles.

You also never know what's around the corner - other soaps have had veterans we expected to stay "forever" unexpectedly quit, which would have taken the producers and audience by surprise. What is the succession plan? Following the "big six", the next longest running characters are Justin (8 years), Mackenzie (5 years) and Tane (4.5 years). The producers must be happy for Justin to stick around for the foreseeable future or they wouldn't have married off him and Leah, but Mackenzie has had very little development - as I said, she just jumps from one relationship to disaster. It's been 5 years, so I would have hoped the producers would have invested in at least some development if they wanted to keep her around for the long haul. I do wonder if the producers might look to the not-so-distant-past to fill the gap - I can't see any classic 90s characters returning, but I could see the producers trying to lure back Dan Ewing or maybe Sophie Dillman and Patrick O'Connor to fill a void if any of those stalwart characters left in the next year or two.

This would call for a massive cast overhaul, which I suspect the producers would be reluctant to do right now. The number of twentysomethings would need to be reduced to make way for new teenagers and children. We'd still have Justin and Leah, Roo, and maybe John and Marilyn, but Irene and maybe John as a single man are probably getting on a bit to be active foster parents at this point. Consequently, it may also call on me of the younger couples to become foster parents, which would be out of character because of how the characters have been developed so far, i.e. Eden barely works so wouldn't be plausibly responsible, Tane has a criminal record etc. They aren't the responsible younger characters like Travis and Rebecca, Sally and Flynn etc. In the 21st century, it's still very surprising there is such a gap between Australia and the UK (no idea where Ireland are at). Lining them up would make for more unleaked twists etc too, especially for season finales, which air out of sync, making it difficult to avoid spoilers for UK audiences. It's also still surprising that H&A hasn't been cut to 4 episodes a week. Not only would it suit Channel 7's schedule, but it seems to be the way soaps are going. Neighbours has been 4 episodes a week since the revival, and Hollyoaks and Shortland Street will be making the transition to fewer episodes in the coming months. I've no idea what other UK soaps broadcast per week. These two aspects would give the show a bit of a reset. It would also allow for tighter storytelling rather than padding out storylines unnecessarily to fill five weekly episodes, and probably give the cast a bit of a refresh because like Hollyoaks, I'd imagine there would be casualties in the cast and crew though.

As I've said, the show needs to be starting thinking about the next generation of stalwarts, but the writing needs to improve first. You can have the best actors in the world who want to stay for the long haul, but if the writing and development is there, then it won't work. Tori was character who developed - like Mackenzie, she too would just jump from one relationship disaster to the next, but the writers eventually took in her new direction with a baby (and a unique take on the pregnancy for H&A too, rather than just an unplanned one!). We've definitely had characters in the last 10 years who I thought had long-term potential. The producers could have created a little family for Dean and Ziggy with Jai, Isabella and maybe a teenage sibling of Dean's. Ryder was a character who worked naturally with both younger and older cast and links to the iconic Stewart clan. For those complaining about too many younger cast staying too long, another part of the problem is that they are all the same age. Back in the day when we had a wider spread of ages, characters staying 4+ years seemed less noticeable because the different ages would mean different interactions, different storylines and development etc. We also need to keep in mind that actors are generally on 3 year contracts. Looking back 3 years, 2020 had a low turnover of cast and many of the 2021 additions (Chloe, Mia, Logan) left after 12-18 months. 2022 was a bigger year for comings and goings, so it would be reasonable to expect a bigger refresh in 2025, either the actors wanting to move on or the producers deciding the characters have run their course.

The show does need to start cultivating long-term characters. We have 7 mainstay characters which is certainly a good number, but they won't necessarily be around forever. Georgie Parker takes yearly breaks for theatre, Ray Meagher has been cutting back in recent years and Lynne McGranger also takes time out for other projects at various times. Any of those 7 could decide to leave next week for all we know, and the show needs to be prepared for when they do. The problem is that I can't realistically see any of the current younger cast still on the show in 10 years time, or if they are, they will have very little development and probably be going around in the same circles they are now. That's a writing issue though - any character should have the potential to become a stalwart with the right development and writing (not taking into account other factors like acting, viewer popularity etc.).

I'd say it kept the format beyond that, since there has always been some fostering element in the show until recently. During the Sutherland era, Irene had the Smith children and later Tasha and Kim and the Sutherlands had Brodie Hanson. In the post-Sutherland era, we've had various characters become foster children and/or unofficially taken in waifs and strays including Sally and Flynn, Miles, Roo and Harvey, Leah, John and Gina/Marilyn, and of course, Irene continuing to do so. Even in the Braxton era, which is probably the first major step toward the current premise, we still had that element with characters like April, Evie, Oscar, Matt, Jett, Maddie and Spencer, and then post-Braxtons with Olivia, Bella, Raffy and Ryder. Some of them were blood relatives to their guardian/carer, but it was still a compromise on what we have now. I think the 1994 season proved that formula was starting to get tired. I enjoyed the late 90s era, much more than 1989-1994, since the original premise still existed, just with the ramped up drama. 2000 was when the show lost its way for me. I think 2000 had the biggest cast turnover to that point, plus the other changes like the theme music and credits, the new diner, a nuclear family at Summer Bay House, made it feel less H&A to me than the late 90s era ever did.

That's Sharyn Hodgson, who played Carly. I recognised all of them except for Greg Benson. It took me a bit to pick him. Thanks for sharing. It's great to see they all catch up and still in contact