DRW50

I always get confused over Lisa's history as I thought her father was around for a time, but I know little about him and have never seen him. I've never seen Alma either, outside of photos.

Thanks for finding that. Eileen was such a huge star in daytime, one of the biggest of the '60s and '70s...it doesn't feel right if this is how we found out, rather than the headlines she deserved. But I'm glad, if this is true, she was able to live out her last years in peace (and she seemed OK on the Locher Room a few years ago).

Which episode is this? It has Kentucky Bluebird and early Ryder so I assume early 1985... Search for Tomorrow - March 6 1989 repeat (incomplete)

@slick jones Thanks. Amused that they named a nurse Deana Sirtis.

The last few minutes of this have a September 1978 GH episode. Thanks to @Franko for finding it.

Thanks. What a find! Always glad when we get such very random finds for '70s soap. Any fragment is a gift. Oh that must be the latest appearance of Cathy Craig we have. Didn't even recognize Jennifer Harmon at first.

I felt like everyone at that time they were brought i(the 91-92-93 younger cast) had star quality. As it turns out beyond Weatherly one of the few to really hit the mainstream was one I find lackluster (Rebecca Gayheart). Trisha and Trucker have strong chemistry, and you can see Robert Tyler get better and better, but a part of me does wonder what they would have been with more interesting partners (like Trucker with Dinah Lee, at least before she became so generic). @dc11786 Appreciate your insights as always. I agree Perry wasn't the best either, but I think he had more presence and believability. Something about the Ned/April pairing feels so old fashioned, not helped by April being styled out of the '50s. I was almost startled when Ned pointed out she has to worry about AIDS. I can't remember - how much influence did Agnes have over the show in '87? She must have brought Matthew Cowles over, but I don't know about anything else. Seems like most of the year is about women in peril, aside from Ava. I'm not sure if Loving is ever quite as focused on that aspect again afterward, even though it never fully leaves. The women seem to become more complex or at least have more of an inner life as the '80s close out. I agree Cecilia having Steve's baby would have made more sense, and also made it more difficult for Trisha to move on so quickly after his death.

That's also when I got into Loving. To the point where I didn't even really care much about following The City, as I was annoyed at most of my favorites on Loving in those months being written out. They shot themselves in the foot. I think the first I saw was either Curtis' death or when Gwyn and Ally nearly died of carbon monoxide poisoning.

It's another example of how lazy the writers often were - even back then there was clearly little interest in history. I suppose it's easier with the Lewises and Shaynes as there was a whole clan of them and they were brought in via Oklahoma, Cross Creek was a major part of story for years, etc. (although even then the show later seemed to think Josh had grown up in Springfield). It makes less sense to claim Vanessa grew up in Springfield when one of the story points even by '94 was her hiding away through her pregnancy with Dinah, which would have been more difficult to explain if she had been living in Springfield.

Thanks. I forgot there was an ad break and closing credits. Boy, Steve and Trisha really did not have much time together as a happy couple.

This would have brought better story than him obsessing over Stacey, especially as Trisha would be even more upset with Cecilia after Steve's death. I can't see Gwyn having any use for her either. At least we did get most of a 1987 episode put up yesterday...just wish there was more. (not even sure of the exact date - the AW clips are from the week of May 18-22) Thanks again for all you do with the blog.

That's probably exactly what he is doing to do, unless the Skydance people (who are also big Trump donors/ass-kissers) want it.

I'm trying to remember if they ever really interacted. I think they were both on the canvas in late 1998 or very early 1999 but India may have been focused on Ross at that time.

I do agree Frank prefers Brook Lynn to Lulu, and the story has been framed more her way. It's just the aftermath I don't think has done either of them (or Gio) many favors - I feel like they didn't even have much plan after the reveal, other than slotting in the Rocco birth dramas for Britt's returh.

That's a good point. This is probably also why we got the quasi-Sasha/Jason pairing which seemed like it may have been intended to go further but no one involved (or most of the audience) seemed enthused.

Yes, Sasha/Willow could have gone on for years. There could have been a very messy quad, and then they both have so many ties to Chase. (although he may be on borrowed time too for all I know) Other than Jason there isn't much for Britt, which is why they are having to dredge up ties to Rocco. I suppose in a Friend of Frank contest Kelly is always more likely to win.

I wonder if it was a budget issue, if it was their choice. The character had the potential to be more important to the canvas than she was in a while, certainly compared to where she was last year when there were rumors of Mulcahey writing her out. I suppose it does make sense for Sasha to leave while the custody wars play out...and I have a feeling Willow and Michael will get back together. But I do think she had a good place (and I think she and Rory Gibson had good chemistry). I will miss Sasha - I don't think she was any great shakes, but she was nice and likeable, she had a lot of complicated relationships due to being around for so long, and other than the silly Robert/Holly retcon, she didn't have any blood ties with most of the canvas, so she could have been put into various directions. She's the type of character I think the bloated one hour soaps tend to need in the long run when the same few faces get too much attention. She's similar to characters I had a soft spot for like Gloria on AMC (although Teresa Blake was a more interesting presence). I did laugh at Mattsson basically admitting so much of Sasha's story was made up as it went along and she wasn't sure how to react. I'd think it has to be budget. There are a few others who probably make more I'd consider cutting but maybe they aren't in their contractual cycles yet, or however it works.

Thanks @Errol for all the hard work. Sometimes I take this board for granted and I shouldn't.

I get what you mean. I don't think it helps that the story is directionless. I'm not surprised they aren't that interested in Dante/Lulu but stalling the plot by just having Gio lash out (understandable as it may be) and latching onto Sonny is not going to please much of anyone.

I don't know if Lulu has ever been a character people are with and behind 100%. To me this is the character.

It seems like they probably did most of what they could with Nathan and most of the appeal was tied in with the actor rather than the character.

He was a very charismatic, good-looking guy. I wish I could see more of his run as Curtis as he seems to just be a generic leading man, but that seems to be the way they treated Curtis most of the time when Chris Marcantel wasn't in the role. I probably do become overly critical, but I just don't care for her acting - it's very artificial, which is almost worse than just bad acting. She gets a little better on AW but not much. The Loving blog mentioned 1987 as being almost a lost year for the show as no one introduced that year has any real staying power, other than Alex/Clay (and to a lesser degree, Rick). They may have cut a few too many of their losses (although the main one I might have kept is Ned and I'm not sure if Luke Perry is the one who chose to leave), but I can see why they tried to move on from most of the year. I don't ever know if it was Colleen Dion's choice to leave but with all the time invested in Cecilia I might have tried more with her too, especially as she was becoming an Ava Jr.

I get the idea - the "gotcha" of seeing Trump stumble and his cult stumble over the lies and conspiracies they've been peddling for a decade or more. The problem is there is never going to be a moment of defeat or humiliation for them - Trump will get away with it, and the cult will always go along. This is also likely down to Democrats in Congress listening to the idea that the public wants nonstop trolling and melodrama, which I doubt ever does much to help Democrats. The same public just voted for concentration camps anyway and would likely do so all over again. Comedy Central is such a wasteland, and only got hype due to the election, so I think it would have made sense. The timing with Colbert's cancelation is what makes this blatant. The same as the overhaul at 60 Minutes. They are terrified. I know they were going to gut late night anyway, because it's cheaper to just have Sinclair propaganda alongside sports and "reality" shows, but they wanted to send a message to Trump, and they have. Stewart has always been a narcissist, suffocating in his ivory tower, and loves the fantasy that Republicans are fun and wild while Democrats are the ones truly deserving of scorn. He was more upset over Biden's pardons and people calling Trump a fascist than he has ever been over anything Trump has done. I especially hate that "Who? Lil ol' me?" face he does and the Comedy Shouting And Cursing. He is in his sixties and still thinks he's 20 years old.

The biggest chunk yet of a Loving episode in these from about an hour and 24 minutes to an hour and 42 minutes. I know Loving had some shaky actors in these years, but Alexandra Wilson is a special case. What a choice to have Burke Moses shirtless for all his scenes but make sure we see nothing.

More 1987 from about 22 to 43 minutes.