Jump to content

Talk:Neighbours/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Networks

OK thought I'd bring this up on the talk page rather than revert and risk turning the page into an edit war. Neighbours is moving to Eleven around 11th January, correct?

Some people have been changing the infobox to read Network Ten 1986-2010, however, my feeling is that this should stay reading "1986-" until the first episode airs on Eleven. We can't put Eleven down as a current channel yet, because it isn't until it shows the first episode. On the other hand if it reads "1986-2010" for Ten and then nothing appears underneath it makes it look as if no channel shows the programme which is not the case, the programme is between channels at the moment!

My preference is for it to keep reading "Network Ten 1986-" until the first episode airs on Eleven. Anyone else? --5 albert square (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There's only eight days until it's broadcast on Eleven, surely we can we patient till then? - JuneGloom Talk 00:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes I agree with that too, but it's 2011 now... :S AnemoneProjectors 00:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes but it's not airing on Eleven until the 11th January. My understanding was that we would need to wait until the first episode airs before adding a network to the infobox. If we add Eleven to the infobox now it makes it look like it's showing the show now which it isn't. --5 albert square (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It is on hiatus until then? AnemoneProjectors 01:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It was supposed to be on it's Christmas break from Network Ten until I think today. Then Network Ten decided that the show would just go straight to Eleven on 11th January. So at the minute it's kinda inbetween channels because it's on an extended Christmas break!--5 albert square (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh ok cos you were putting 1986-2010 (here) which confused me because it's 2011 now. But if it's been off air since Christmas then that's ok. Ummm well technically Ten has stopped showing it but Eleven hasn't started yet, so I reckon it's actually correct to put 2010 as an end for Network Ten now. Unless they change their mind before then, but I would say this is almost certain to happen so WP:CRYSTAL says we can put Network Eleven... You don't like this answer do you? lol AnemoneProjectors 01:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
See, that's what I meant, it's confusing! No I didn't mind the reply you gave AP, just thought it would be clearer on the main page to keep Eleven off, for now. Anyway, I've changed the main page now :) --5 albert square (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources

1982? Inaccurate Information?

Nowhere in my extensive files of Neighbours info, including interviews with Mr Reg Watson, creator, does it state that he submitted the idea to Channel Nine in 1982. The Sidney Herald Sun seems to have picked up the info from the Wikipedia article and yet that newspaper article has just been credited as the Wiki source link for the information after I questioned the original source link. I have taken my concerns to the "Actual '80s" site, which contains a great deal of Neighbours info, and the owners seem to share my concern.

http://www.80sactual.com/2011/04/neighbours-and-wikipedia-inaccurate.html

(Solidsandie (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

Hi Sandie
OK, looking back on the article, I think it was dated 15th August 2010. I looked back on the page history and the page edition for 14th August 2010 does not mention that. I'm sorry, I've no idea where the Herald Sun gets their information from but as we didn't mention this before they published the article I'm inclined to think it wasn't from Wikipedia. I think we got the information from them!
As there is a reliable source backing up this claim and they haven't got the information from us, I'd prefer to go back to the previous wording.--5 albert square (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Albert Square.

That is one newspaper report against piles of information from the likes of dedicated sites like the "Perfect Blend" and books dating back to the 1980s. Reliable? Is a newspaper ever totally infallible?

James Oram, an experienced and respected journalist, wrote in his book, "Neighbours Behind The Scenes" (1988):

In 1984 Ian Holmes (president and managing director of the Grundy organisation) was thinking about soaps. So was Reg Watson, head of TV Drama at the Grundy Organisation. Born and raised in Brisbane, Watson went, like so many creative Australians, to Britain because of the work limitations at home. He set up ATV's first game show, 'Hit The Limit', wrote several early episodes of 'Emergency Ward 10', then worked for several years on 'Crossroads'. Always in his mind was the idea of a serial like 'Neighbours'.

"I first got the idea for 'Neighbours' in England watching 'Coronation Street',' he said. 'I spent long enough in England to know that 'Neighbours' was just right for viewers over there too." In fact Holmes and Watson (that duo has a familiar ring) were so confidant it would be a success in Britain they wanted to co-produce it with the BBC and include several English characters. "But that was scrapped when the BBC failed to get its daytime schedule together by the time we were ready to go with 'Neighbours'," said Holmes.'


This echoes other material of the 1980s, 1990s and up to about a year ago! I suggest you read some of the on-line interviews with Mr Watson himself. Would you quote the Sun or News of the World against a show's creator? Also, where does the quote from the Channel Nine Executive Ian Johnson come from? It is not on the Neighbours site as linked, nor in the Sydney Herald article.

I think there is a little on-line mischief going on, and you should consider reverting to the facts as reported by Reg Watson. I also heartily recommend that you study the books "Neighbours Behind The Scenes" by James Oram (1988) and "Soap Box" by Hilary Kingsley (1988). As the years go on, the truth often becomes distorted, but these contain excellent Neighbours material from people who actually interviwed the creator and date from three years after Neighbours first hit the screen in Australia.

Reg Watson has been interviewed so many times on the subject of the origins of Neighbours, and never has he mentioned Channel Nine or 1982.

I'll leave it with you, Albert Square, but when I last checked this page some time ago I was impressed with its accuracy. I no longer am. I think that a little more delving into the huge amount of Neighbours material available, and a little less dependence on a solitary newspaper article would do wonders. An encyclopedia style of writing would surely be more along the lines of:

Whilst the Sidney Sun claimed that Reg Watson first took the idea for Neighbours to Australian TV Network Channel Nine in 1982 (Link/source), and former Channel Nine executive Ian has stated "--------", Reg Watson, the show's creator, has not mentioned this fact in any of his known interviews (links/sources), citing 1984 and the pitching of the serial to Channel Seven as being the starting point.

That is impartial, and as further reliable information becomes available, can be altered and added to.

All good wishes,

Sandie


(Solidsandie (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

I can't vouch for the accuracy, and I've not read all of the above, but all I can say is that the Herald Sun article is dated 19 August 2010, yet the information was not added to this article until 10 December 2010[3]. It is not possible that the information was copied from Wikipedia. Also, if it had been copied from Wikipedia, they could have have included this: 'A former Nine executive has since said it was one of the biggest "missed opportunities" in his 24 years at the network. "You always remember the ones you let slip through your fingers," he says.' –AnemoneProjectors– 09:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it should be removed - it is the sole source for the claim. Thankyou for the advice too - Luckily I have the books you are referring to and many others. However just because it was never mentioned before doesn't mean it is is 100% false.. - So I'd suggest the fansites actual 80's/Perfectblend use their contacts to prove that it was never pitched to Nine. (Imagine if it might have been true?) It is a shame Actual 80's would not use wikipedia for a source, they obviously haven't read many of the well sourced character articles. Also Sandie, because one thing is out of place, you think the article as a whole is wrong? Really?Rain the 1 BAM 13:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because Reg Watson hasn't mentioned it, does not mean the information is not true. I added the Herald Sun article entitled "Slippery Soap", within which the information about the Nine Network was written. I purchased the article (along with many other Neighbours clippings) last year, and added the info. I have not made anything up, the quote from the Nine exec is exactly what was in the article (though don't ask me to find it, because I'm having trouble remembering what I did yesterday, let alone finding clippings I stored away months ago). Also, please remember verifiability, not truth. - JuneGloom Talk 15:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, Anemone is right. The new Herald Sun article, which 5asq added, was published way before I added the info and did not come from here. In fact, I'm pretty sure I haven't read that article before or I would have added the info at the time it was published. - JuneGloom Talk 16:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
In that case it should stay. Mentioned more than once, there has to be something truthful in it. Besides Sandie I don't think persuading another website to adress Wikipedia as completely unreliable - was in the best interests of this place.Rain the 1 BAM 16:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sandie, having done a lot of work previously for one of the dedicated Neighbours fansites, yes I would believe the Herald Sun over them any day even if hundreds of fansites are saying one thing and only the Herald Sun is saying the opposite. The reason being, everybody can edit a fansite to say anything, not everybody can edit an online newspaper. I'm sure the Herald Sun got their information from what they consider a reliable source and published that information with the best of interests. I'm also sure that the Herald Sun would not be stupid enough to include quotes from Network Nine people, basically saying that it was a big mistake, if there was even the slightest doubt that it was untrue as that would probably leave them open to all sorts of libel action especially from Nine and Neighbours!
Don't forget, the Herald Sun are saying that this all happened in 1982 so the chances of finding anything about this especially on the web are pretty remote as it's such a long time ago. The fact that only one source mentions it also doesn't mean anything, did you know that the idea for The Bill was originally pitched to the BBC and they rejected it? I didn't until I was working on The Bill's article for GA! Nothing on the internet states that the BBC refused the idea for The Bill, only one source states that and I have that sitting in my house. The source is a book and Wikipedia says books are reliable, just like newspapers.
I'd also appreciate it Sandie if you could please point out to that website that the Herald Sun don't appear to have got that information from Wikipedia. I'd be more than happy to provide them with a link to the most recent edit prior to that article appearing if they wish to check it. Thanks June for re-wording the article :)--5 albert square (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

1982 and other Reg Watson/Reg Grundy Organisation soap operas; other issues

Following the above discussions...

This is a really interesting thread. My gut feeling is that ideas for new shows are generally pitched to all networks at various stages of their development. (I generally think that what was pitched, to whom, and at what stage of its development is unlikely to be acurately documented at the time in a news source-these are routine behind-the-scenes negotiations about future potential shows - not so interesting to the general public.)

In mid 1982 the Reg Grundy Organisation was busy producing lavish serial Taurus Rising for the Nine Network in Australia. Taurus Rising had been created by Reg Watson [4]. Taurus Rising, a Dynasty-type serial, was quickly cancelled and moved to a late night slot within the year. This article suggests Neighbours was pitched to Nine: [5] but it mentions Sale of the Century, ignoring Taurus Rising.

The following year, 1983, Channel Nine broadcast new Grundy soaps Waterloo Station (created by Reg Watson) and later, Starting Out (created by Reg Watson). These shows were both cancelled within the year. Both shows had a large number of youngsters in the cast, mixed with older parental and authority figures. David Clencie, later of Neighbours, was in Starting Out.

In 1985 Watson's soap Possession was being broadcast by the Nine Network. It was cancelled within the year. Possession featured Anne Charleston, Maggie Millar, Ally Fowler, Briony Behets who all later acted in Neighbours. (Fowler had previously been in Sons and Daughters; Millar and Behets had been in Prisoner).

I guess it is possible that Neighbours was pitched to Nine. Clearly - what with Taurus Rising, Waterloo Station, Starting Out, Possession, Prime Time (TV series), Nine were seriously considering new soap operas. And clearly Watson had been creating and pitching various soaps c.1982 (many actually got made afterall.)


On this topic I get the feeling that recent press reports on Neighbours like to conveniently ignore lots of intervening Australian soaps - it makes for a tighter, more dramatic and simpler article. However they are giving a misleading picture.

Unfortunately I can't find the "Slippery Soap" article online, but it is used in this wikipedia article as a reference suggesting Neighbours was spawned by the success of Coronation Street and Crossroads (TV series). But the suggestion that "Watson decided to create a soap opera [Neighbours] after working on Crossroads and seeing the success that it and Coronation Street were having" seems wrong to me. A quote above mentions Watson and Ian Holmes and Corrie, yet back in 1971 Ian Holmes had asked for a "Coronation Street type serial" for the Ten Network, with the result being Number 96 (TV series). (Australian TV: The First 25 Years. Melbourne, 1981); [6]. Holmes was no stranger to soaps.

There were several Australian teen soaps in the years before Neighbours, so Crossroads and Coronation Street wouldn't really have been a direct influence. To say that Watson could "decide" to create Neighbours based on the success of Crossroads and Coronation Street ignores intervening serials which surely had some influence. Watson had been working in Australian commercial television routinely creating soaps for years before Neighbours - Neighbours was just another of his soaps. He might, as he claims, had had the idea to make a Coronation Street type serial when he was in England watching that series. However it wasn't that novel an idea and pilots in Australia like Lane End (seven 30 minute episodes in 1972, featuring Carole Skinner), Somerset Street (made by Harry Michaels) and People Like Us [7] had tried the same thing (families and a suburban locale).

But overall, linking Neighbours directly to Coronation Street seem wrong because it was Number 96 (1972-1977) that came about due to the success of Coronation Street. At least one of the 96 scriptwriters, Johnny Whyte, had previously worked on Corrie. Since 96 had already been a big success on Australian TV, its influence can't really be ignored.

Number 96 had spawned a series of teen soaps in the 1970s (Class of 74, The Restless Years). The success of those two Grundy teen soaps is more likely what led to Neighbours. Coronation Street hadn't been on Australian TV since the early 1970s and wasn't really very well known in Australia at the time; there was no internet or cable TV in those days and in Australia we really never heard anything about Coronation Street at all.

On topic but a relatively minor thing: the lead of this WP Neighbours article talks of Watson's "other" soap, Sons and Daughters, yet it wasn't his "other" soap - he had several other soaps.


Format (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's late, so I may have to come back tomorrow with a larger reply. The sentence about Crossroads and Corris just needed a little rewording, which was my fault. Watson saw how successful those two shows were in Britain and wanted to create something similar in Australia (you won't find the "Slippery Soap" article online as it's an offline article). I've edited the sentence about Sons and Daughters in the lead too. Oh, and just in case anyone wants another ref about the nine network/1982 that isn't the Herald Sun, there is this - [8] - JuneGloom Talk 23:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
That fabulous resource - Super Aussie Soaps by Andrew Mercado - also downplays the Neighbours/Coronation Street link. According to that book the first soap opera Reg Watson actually created was Until Tomorrow made in Brisbane in 1975 and set in a suburban street in Australia. Watson may well have had the idea to do a Coronation Street type serial in Australia while he was in the UK in the 1960s, and he did do it - with Until Tomorrow in 1975. Then he did it again a decade later with Neighbours. Format (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Modern Day ATV Network And Reg Watson/1982/1984 Neighbours Issue

ATV is not the old ATV Network, which ceased broadcasting at the end of 1981. It is a dedicated band of fans of old ATV shows, most significantly Crossroads, who have acquired the rights to use the name and logo, and who are currently producing a documentary called "Return To Crossroads". They have no access to old ATV company info or offices. There is now a thread on this subject on their site, and one of the moderators has read the "'80s Actual" article and comments thread, but has no conclusive information to offer. http://www.crossroadsnetwork.co.uk/newsmf/index.php/topic,2425.0.html

(Solidsandie (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC))

I don't see how fans would be able to release official press releases. Anyway I think we've reached consensus how we're re-wording it.--5 albert square (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
They just explained the creative process. So two people heavily involved with the network purchased archives from Carlton. Contiued the brand name, heavily involved with another reputable company. Very reliable. They have also offered to write to Reg and ask him - so perhaps if you feel strongly enough about the content, you can take their kind offer and ATV can reconfirm or correct their claim. At present we have three sources to say it was pitched. Only one editor has contested it's presense - there is now consensus for the matter to remain in the text.Rain the 1 BAM 02:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have entered the date of the Herald article, which indicates that the claim is recent. I will investigate further with ATV, but so far nobody seems to know where the info came from and indications are the Sun Herald. I would like to place on record that I am most unhappy with the way this has been carried out, the idea that Mr Watson took his idea to Channel Nine and then straight to Seven is incredibly inaccurate (he pitched to Seven in 1984). I will make no further input to this article.

(Solidsandie (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC))

ATV - PRESS RELEASE INFO - 1982 INFORMATION DROPPED.

ATV Network LTD now state in their Press Release on Reg Watson and Neighbours: "Originally pitched to Seven in 1984, the soap was broadcast on Channel Seven in 1985 - Neighbours bombed, the show was quickly axed. Luckily for Reg and Grundy Television Network 10 saw potential in the saga and commissioned it for their own channel. With some minor tweaks the show became a world-wide phenomenon in the 1980s, making household names of Jason Donovan and Kylie Minogue."

The 1982/Channel 9 information has been removed. Evidently satisfactory grounds could not be found for it.

- please refresh your browsers if neccesary -

http://www.atvnewsnetwork.co.uk/today/index.php/atv-icons/2165-reg-watson

(Solidsandie (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC))

It has been updated - I know because I read it yesterday when it read different. You have requested they change the information to suit you -so your attempting to manipulate sources to suit a viewpoint. So stating that editors on this talk page need to buy some glasses is void. Plus we can see you making personal attacks about Wikipedia editors on other forums and blogs - hardly the right way to try and change everyones mind.Rain the 1 BAM 17:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Reg Watson/Neighbours: 1980s news references

I have been researching whether Reg Watson ever pitched Neighbours to the Nine Network in 1982 by looking at news articles from the 1980s. I found no evidence of this, but there are some interesting articles (listed below). I am about to disappear and will not have web access again until mid June so it is unlikely I'll be doing much with these references, but someone else may find them useful and perhaps use them to update wikipedia? Format (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Neighbours moves to Ten: [9]

Neighbours Scott and Charlene marry: [10]

Neighbours' UK launch: [11]

Neighbours' 1000th episode: [12]

Neighbours actors, Alan Dale, and brief bit on Francis Bell's departure: [13]

Neighbours moves to Ten, review: [14]

Neighbours' sale to the US, 1991: [15]

Reg Watson quits Crossroads to take Aust job: [16]

Watson's return to Aust: [17]

Scripting Neighbours, 1989: [18]

Soapbox book review, bits on Watson: [19]

Watson on doing multi shows simultaneously: [20]

Review of Neighbours, 1986: [21]

Seven cancels Neighbours: [22]

Neighbours mention in 1988 ratings report: [23]

Sources

Long-running

I agreed with this edit that removed "long-running" from the lede, but I see it's back again. Since we're already saying the show was first broadcast in 1985, does the article really need to include this term? Absconded Northerner (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really bothered, but the lead does mention Neighbours is the longest running series in Australian television further down, so I guess we don't need it twice. - JuneGloom Talk 19:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Right, weighing in on this trivial matter. What JG said makes sense and the POV issue AN mentioned does too, so to avoid repetition in the prose and POV - we can leave it out. No there is an edit dispute - However, there is another editor contesting it .. so consensus would seem to be it is not needed.RaintheOne BAM 22:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Not essential so not needed especially as June rightly points out that it's mentioned further down. Certainly not worth warring over.........................--5 albert square (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this is really an issue for another talk page. 24.11.246.211 and Gamalie need to have a chat instead of undoing each other's edits. - JuneGloom Talk 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
You're right June, it's really not the correct talk page to discuss it on as there's only two editors warring over this, hence the reason why I've not locked the page - yet. Both editors may also want to read WP:3RR as they're sailing kinda close to it.--5 albert square (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
*Sigh* I started this topic precisely because I didn't want to start an edit war. Of course, if two editors are going to ignore talk pages then it doesn't help. I'll direct them both to this topic. Absconded Northerner (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I should point out that they weren't specifically warring over Neighbours, it was across a couple of articles. - JuneGloom Talk 12:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I noticed that, but this is the only one I'm involved in and the only one where I feel able to give an opinion on whether the words should stay or not. I wanted to have a topic so I could say "Look - we're discussig this", but it obviously didn't work. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

DVD Release

I have noticed there has been a new addition of a DVD release. However, is this a notable one - isn't this a freebie in a newspaper. Also, the reference is a little iffy - there are claims about what it is all about and the choice of wording makes it sound asif it should have a better reference. Claims as strong as "exclusive DVD", "memorable scenes", "facts" - I just think that should have an online source that meets WP:RS - not citing the medium itself. Was this a big advertised thing that should be noted? Otherwise it'll be a little like we are including everything jusr for the sake of it.RaintheOne BAM 14:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable either, especially if it was just a free giveaway in the paper and not released by the production company. I'm sure The Sun released something similar a few years back and I haven't though about adding that as it's not important. Now if the HS dvd did something special, like break a record for most copies purchased or something, then it might be worth mentioning. I also don't think the reference is very good. I tend to think Cite video is used for events that happen within a film/show not for the actual dvd itself. - JuneGloom Talk 16:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Glad you agree, I have removed it, seeings that it is incorrectly sourced and a non notable unofficial give away by a newspaper.. Can you imagine if editors of the Music projects on here decided to include all of the free giveaway albums British newpapers do on a weekly basis. Not good.RaintheOne BAM 17:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A Neighbours Wikiproject

I have started a discussion HERE about the idea of a Wikiproject for Neighbours and fellow soap opera Home and Away. I am wondering if anyone has an opinion on the matter or would or would not be interested in joining such a project.RaintheOne BAM 18:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neighbours/Archive_5&oldid=1141364089"