All My Shadows

Michael Landon has to hold some kind of record for going 3-for-3 with hit shows over a 30-year period (1959-1989). He was only completely off-screen for the 1973-1974 season, and when you add up his three hits, he appeared in over 700 hours of primetime television. I can’t imagine anyone else comes close, besides James Aeneas with 633 episodes of Gunsmoke.

Both "Flo" actresses are gone within two months of each other and less than a year after Linda passed. When you can only ever imagine these people as being so vivacious and fun, it's so heartbreaking to know they are no longer here.

I didn't realize I was in the minority in thinking that most of the male cast of Knots were hotties. Ted Shackelford will always be it for me, especially when Gary was in his ticky, philandering prime cheating with Abby and picking fights with Kenny. James Houghton and Doug Sheehan are up there for me, too, and though Chip was such a slimy character, Michael Sabatino brought that artificial charm that accentuated his sexiness. It was very easy to understand why Lilimae had those unspeakable "feelings" for him. Kinda wish they'd actually explored that more but also very glad they didn't - can you imagine Julie Harris as Lilimae as Barbara Stanwyck as Mary Carson? "Insahde this bawdy, Chip, I am STILL YAWNG!" When I've watched S7 and S8 episodes here and there on the FAST channel, I'm always "Well damn" anytime Pat Peterson walks his thicc self into a scene. He and Steve Shaw both grew well into their looks. Steve's untimely death never feels real any time Eric appears. As much as I want to make a case for Ginger staying on, I really can't disagree with you on any of this. Even though KL predated Golden Girls, it's another female ensemble that (very very loosely) fits the basic mold: Karen/Dorothy, Val/Rose, Laura/Sophia, and Abby/Blanche.

Yay, another episode of my favorite 50s soap! Thanks for the tag, @DRW50!! Every time a new episode turns up, I just have to go back and watch all of them in order so that I can see the new one in its proper chronology. We’ve already seen Ellie gushing about her and Alex’s Bermuda honeymoon, and now we have a little piece of the drama leading up to their wedding. Plus, we now have a bridge between Van getting the phone call about Meg’s accident and bitchy, irritable wheelchair-bound Meg. It’s so nice to see a scene where she is loving toward her sister! If we’re destined to keep getting stuff from this era, I hope we can finally get a glimpse of the Dale parents. One of the great things about having access to so many episodes from one stretch of a few months is that you can really get to know the other characters besides Van and Meg. Ellie is wonderful, and her presence helps us see another side of Van. Van may be the “good” sister, but she’s not naive or driven by fickle emotions the way Ellie is. I also wanna see more of that queen Evans.

I think it reflects a huge difference in how people watch TV. When you have to watch a show at a certain time on a certain date because that's the only time you'll ever get to see it, you're watching it while tending to other business. You're cooking, you're cleaning, you're ironing, you're doing paperwork, etc, and so a slow-moving show doesn't feel so slow-moving when you're also watching the stove, vacuuming, figuring out the monthly budget, etc. The show can really offer you that calmness in the midst of regular life. Now, it's so easy to save a show for when you can give it your full, undivided attention, and when the only thing we're doing is watching the show, slow-moving really does move slow. It's funny, because the only way I'll ever wash, dry, fold, and put away laundry all in one go is if I have classic soaps on the TV. So much of Emmerdale Farm has been watched while washing dishes in my house.

IMO, Laura remains an interesting "main" character through the first three seasons and then an interesting part of the ensemble for the next 2-3 seasons. I can't stand her once she and Almanzo get married, and I generally like Almanzo. One of the things I realized once I decided to start filling in the gaps and watching episodes I'd never seen before (or hadn't seen in 20+ years) is that Nellie gets pushed aside way in advance of her actually leaving the show. Her going after Almanzo at the start of S6 is her last real "bad girl" story, then every time we check in on her, she's going through another major life event. She meets and marries Percival in the same two-parter, then we find out she's pregnant and she gives birth in the same episode, and they announce plans to leave Walnut Grove and are gone in the same episode. Then she pops back up in season 9, and she and Laura are bestest friends. I wish we'd seen more of the progression of their relationship and Nellie's maturation.

Yes lol I tried to start thinking but then it was like, "Almost all of them at some point?" All I'm gonna throw in the ring is, and this is because my mom still owns the family VHS, "The Initiation of Sarah," which Morgan Fairchild made immediately following her SFT run.

Who would yall say is the writer who "got" Brooke the most? Because the last decade of her run as a regular character was one depressing and/or boring story after another. When I first started watching, there were people on the internet with very strong opinions one way or the other about her (I distinctly remember a Brooke hate site), and I didn't understand why because she really wasn't doing much out of being "mom" to Laura. They'd throw her and Erica together for some random sniping at each other, but that was basically it until the stupid Edmund/Maria stuff happened. I just feel like Brooke lost a lot during the 80s when she shed her wild child persona and became the mature matron of Pine Valley.

The Cudahy brothers were both so, so, soooo sexy.

I honestly feel like most (if not all) soaps that were produced by larger Hollywood studios kept their episodes. For instance, "Bright Promise" was produced by Bing Crosby Productions, which also made "Hogan's Heroes" and "Ben Casey." Would they have kept the masters of their primetime series while junking their (AFAIK) only daytime series? I think it's UCLA that holds all of 60s GH (up until either 1969 or 1970). Besides the big three California soaps (GH, DAYS, and Y&R), it would just be shorter-lived 60s soaps, but it makes me wonder if the likes of "The Best of Everything" and "Return to Peyton Place" were saved.

Okay, so the Wolfbridge climax is heating up (I'm on the third to last episode). I should have been finished with S5 by now, but I really couldn't watch over the last few days. Some thoughts, though: There's the Laura I know, completely regretting her decision to get involved in this mess. I can believe that after Richard left, she was feeling herself as a bad bish and vying for her piece of the pie, and now that things have gotten much more complicated, she's dialing it back. Her exposing Abby was very satisfying. Speaking of, as much as we love an Abby, I've loved watching her get her come-uppance in all of this. I'm learning more about who this character is, and the layers keep coming. It's like she's at a higher level than Laura, wanting to be THAT GIRL who makes big sht happen, but she, too, found herself in too deep, and now she's panicking. She's a lot tougher than Laura, though, so she won't give up so easily, and she'll maintain her composure and cool exterior even as she's quietly freaking tf out inside. The one thing that's feeling hollow here is the sudden "Gary has been murdered" angle. Were viewers in 1984 really supposed to believe that Gary was dead? It all happened so quickly, and for the supposed death of the show's male lead, it's felt so inconsequential, everyone's reactions seem so false (even Val's), and it just feels rushed - especially literally an episode after we've been led to believe that Ben might be dead, too. Maybe I'm making it up, but I feel like I've read that they wanted to end this season on the cliffhanger of "Did Gary die?" but were forced to extend by a few episodes?

My post was in response to the fan who tweeted saying that the Leslie story is stupid and why he stopped watching the show, not MVJ’s tweet. I agree with you, though, that it’s not always a good idea to defend story points on a platform like Twitter.

It's not necessary, but it's also not rude lol again, have I fallen into some alternate soap fandom universe where people haven't spent the last 25 years being very blunt and honest about what's on screen? Re: "constructive criticism." I might stand alone on this, but it's not a viewer's responsibility to provide "constructive criticism." We can certainly choose to be in-depth with our feedback, and spaces like SON have been built on (mostly) healthy discussion. But in the bigger picture, we ain't part of the production team. We ain't sitting at a table with TPTB and "constructing" this show with them. Sometimes "This sucks" is all an average viewer can say in response to a story/character/scene/episode/whatever, and that's perfectly fine. TPTB can let that get stuck in their craw, use it as fuel to re-evaluate, or (and this is my suggestion), roll along and understand that you can't please everyone. That said, I don't see a problem with what MVJ tweeted, because AFAIK, it was a general statement put out there to the general fanbase. I like that because it does show that she's still a writer who pays attention and cares about how things are landing with vierwers. When it becomes an ultra-defensive back-and-forth with individuals because not everyone loves your show, then it's about time we get you ready for bed, champ (Ronald David Carlivati). PS, I'm only here because @Khan so graciously tagged me in reference to an opinion we share. I've seen maybe an act or two of the show since I said I needed to take a break from it. Glad y'all are still enjoying it.

Dude, literally anyone who’s spent a day involved with classic soap discussion within the last 25 years knows that ABC didn’t start preserving AMC and OLTL on a regular basis until some time during 1977-1979. No one’s hunting down sources to support something literally everyone here (except for you) knows and has known since the Clinton administration.

You're absolutely right re: the business storylines. From the little sneak peeks I've seen on the FAST channel, the anchor does stay in the cul-de-sac for a while, and I think that's why I'm not as turned off as I thought I would be. I'm 100% here for the ladies all being career women, and I still can't get over how much I love Val as a character and how much she's evolved since the first episode. Meanwhile, Gary is still getting played by Abby while making his own dumb mistakes. The one thing about Val that is pissing me off is that hideous dark pink living room. It looks like a set from a 70s John Waters movie (which isn't a bad thing if this is a 70s John Waters movie). I'm actually finishing up "Reconcilable Differences" right now, and yes, I can already see that the real meat of the addiction storyline will be the fallout for the McKenzie marriage. It still feels like they're kinda just pushing Laura around with no real plan. Idk. It's like she playing the role Shannon Tweed played on Falcon Crest - the supporting "associate" of the main baddie who gets her own jollies every now and then.

Yes, because my first reaction was, "...and then they were all burned in a fire." Yall, what about those damn Christmas movies? We were had, weren't we?

I always wondered why we never saw Sid's daughter Annie again after the pilot. Now that I'm in the second half of S5 and that awful twit Diana is finally absent for a long stretch of episodes, I think it would have made a lot of sense if we'd seen her reconnect with a reformed Annie would promises Karen that she'll take care of her. Speaking of Karen. I absolutely understand why Michele Lee disliked the pill addiction story. She fell into addiction way too quickly and with no nuance to speak of. We've had more of her as a hardcore pillhead who is pushing away everyone who loves her than we had of the build-up to addiction. I'm slowly adjusting to the "new" show. It's a deep dive into three soap subgenres that I've never been crazy about - crime, business, and politics - at the expense of what, to me, is purest subgenre of soap - domestic life. I think what's tough for business on KL rather than business on the other three shows is that the other three shows had family woven tightly into the business storylines. For Knots, the more you go into business, the less you're in to family.

Dropping in to say that Polly Holliday's death so soon after Linda Lavin's stings so sharply. The entire original cast of regulars from "Alice" is now gone. I imagine it holds the unfortunate distinction of being the most recent series, outside of Golden Girls, where the whole main ensemble cast has passed away (up until the arrivals of Diane Ladd and later Celia Weston, of course).

My immediate reaction to that photo was "LARISSA?!" in Shay/Buckey's voice.

I’ve been watching some episodes of Hollyoaks from its first decade, and I’ve always known that it was stylistically very different back then, but it’s still pretty hard to believe that this is the same show. It begs several questions: Did ALL of the UK soaps just melt into a blob of generic sameness by 2005 or so? Has Oaks ever been rerun regularly in the UK or abroad? It’s so easy to find tons and tons of classics eps of the other main soaps, but there are only a few handfuls of pre-2005 Hollyoaks. When the show glammed up and went the way of camp during the Kirkwood era (did that start with him or before him?), was the general consensus that the show needed that kind of change? Not just for ratings and relevance but for quality. They went from one episode per week to five episodes per week rather quickly (over the course of eight years). Was it necessary? Did that have a lot to do with the change in tone? We know that the once-weekly soaps are held in a different box from the daily soaps in the UK, so was the rapid expansion part of a plan to get Corrie/EE-style attention? In the long run, have the McQueens been that popular or are they seen as having eaten the show at times with all the various relatives with quirky/tarty names popping up? I do love Nana (RIP) riding her power scooter in the current opening sequence.

There were soOoOoOoOoOoOo many characters who were introduced in the 1990s and 2000s who were no blood relation to Susan and had not much of a connection to the remaining Stewarts lol for the life of me, I've never understood the idea that it's pointless to bring back characters if they don't have many connections on the canvas while new characters pop up with 0 built-in connections to the canvas all the time. If they brought in one or two of the quads, then they would have been "the remaining Stewarts." They would have also been completely fresh slates, ripe for building their own relationships with the rest of the canvas at whatever time they would have showed up. And then, maybe, under TPTB that cared, their presence would have then prompted return visits from Ellen and/or Annie. The fascination with them is that they were characters born into the second-most important family of the show's first 30 years on the air and were never reintroduced later on as a means to maintain the Stewarts' position on the canvas via adding a new, younger generation to the family. The fact that they were born and then disappeared is perfect because, again, fresh clean slates. ATWT rolled in so many short-term, out-of-the-blue characters near the end (remember Elwood!? The Z twins!?). Several of them could have been written as Ward quads instead (and no, I don't mean all four showing up all at once). It might not have made a difference story-wise, but it would have provided something all of the newly-created characters couldn't have - continuity. ATWT was on the air for 50+ years, and it wasn't an anthology series. It was meant to trace multiple generations of these families over the decades. Bringing in even just ONE of the Ward kids would have honored that original premise in a huge way. PS. I don't think Christina Hughes ever existed onscreen outside of her mother's uterus, and plenty of people spent time wanting her to pop up in toward the end of the show's run, too! The whole point of wanting that was so that she could indeed become a fully realized character.

Thank you!! My problem is I don’t really care if providing my thoughts brings or brought down the thread lol I enjoyed periods of ATWT in 2006-2007 when all anyone ever did in those threads was rip the show to shreds. I managed to deal. I see nothing wrong with being thorough in praising what you like and constructively criticizing what you don’t like.

I can’t get past the 3-day June reveal and now the 3-day Leslie/Barbara reveal. I don’t ever wanna see anybody claim that “it’s nice to finally have a soap play out all the beats of a story again!” Bullsht!

I think I’m done with BTG for a while bc the June/Samantha/Tyrell stuff is pissing me right tf off. The lion’s share of characters in this show are bad people, dumb af, or both. Y’all enjoy!

The Duprees lie and keep things hidden whenever it suits them. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that Vernon was being phony all along about not knowing Barbara. I’m not saying it’s likely, but it’s not impossible. I feel like if Dante was the father, he would have already made his appearance. There’s less shock/juice/“soapy goodness” in revealing that her father is a character we’ve only heard about but haven’t actually met yet. Peaches could have known that and dropped it along with the Barbara reveal, and not a single beat would have been skipped.