DRW50

@Vee

Likely wants to have people still come on his show and is paranoid about negative comments as a result.

I can see why, but I think the Dingles are too split into pieces all over the canvas. Emmerdale doesn't really seem to have any family structure these days, but I think the closest might be Eric, David, and David's kids. That's well put. The sad part is it has just been such a long, steady process of decay. I don't even think anyone necessarily wanted rid of the Sugdens. It just kept happening, one by one, with new faces and producers coming in and not knowing or caring about the past.

Nothing against David (RIP), but I don't think he was irreplaceable in the role. I would have preferred the scenes with Josie or Rachel over the groom role.

That was a beautiful moment. Whatever you felt about Carl, or even about Rachel, seeing the show's longtime core character finding her own personal happiness again - true love, family and friends all in good places - with that added personal touch for viewers, and Wyndham herself. We knew they were going to be alright, even if we never saw the characters again. Yet the gesture for Ada (and for Constance) also reminded us of what we had lost. It was an honest moment in a genre that by that point was already alien to them. I'm so glad Victoria Wyndham stayed with the show through decades of turmoil and various efforts to drum her out. I think of what Chris Schemering wrote about how Tudi Wiggins called Love of Life "The Lady." The soap was not just there to sell product, it was its own being. Wyndham respected that creature, and respected the fans who were hanging on to see it brought to a natural end.

Yes, that was a week long lecture series from him, with articles praising the decision to kill Reid and leave Luke alone and unhappy in one of the laziest homophobic tropes around, and gushing over the bravery and intelligence of not having any returns. This type of gaslighting is why I will not support any project involving DC people.

I think they knew, they just didn't want to make the effort. Anyway, I would agree with those who felt AW's finale was better than ATWT's. The last scene of a show should not be a dollar store globe.

He was Josie's father and Rachel's ex-husband. He would have been an easy character to bring back.

Goutman also did not seem to care for returns, which is one of many reasons ATWT had a poor finale. Sam Groom also returned, but not as Russ Matthews, because of course let's not actually honor history.

The show was already pretty much done by then anyway. It was in a decent place when it was canceled. That just didn't matter anymore - P&G wanted through with their soaps and NBC unwisely banked on Passions. I'd guess the strands seen onscreen are what would have happened and the abrupt return of Gary was the only real change.

No, he wouldn't have. I'm one of the few who preferred Littlefield. I just don't like Tim Gibbs.

There was a big emphasis on phasing out older characters, which is what led to Anna Holbrook being fired and David Forsyth, Stephen Schnetzer and Kale Browne being put on recurring. This is also around the time that Malone was asked in a soap magazine if Iris would return, and he said younger characters were meant to be the focus. (I don't believe this was his wish, he likely meant P&G). Forsyth chose to leave rather than being recurring. Browne stayed until they killed Michael off in January 1998. Schnetzer was fortunate in that Richard Culliton had written heavily for Cass and immediately put him back on the frontburner. For all the mistakes of those last years, they were at least smart enough to keep this up for the remainder of the show.

Josie and Matt had some scenes bonding with their kids. I think Gary did leave town for a while and then returned to reunite with Josie.

I don't think they will kill off Diane, at least not anytime soon. The character will likely just retire to warmer climates, like Annie Sugden. The sad thing is I don't even know how many current fans care about the Sugdens. They have not been a major part of the show for decades, aside from Andy and Robert. Emmerdale has no real history guide it follows or core family and hasn't in a good while. That is likely why the show seems so aimless. It needs strong producers with a guiding vision, to say the least.

No one is going to confront Goutman about any of those things as he would not agree to the interview otherwise. Much as I find Locher to be cloying, it's not as if he is an outlier. The soap press of the last 20 years has been a shambles, and helped kill the genre.

Soaps at their best served an importance in entertainment nothing else can touch, due to the daily format, many years of continuity and history, making us feel like we are part of a family. I have missed that so much in the Trump years and now with COVID and all the instability. Speaking of classic episodes - these aren't exactly "classic" (especially not the second), but as you have watched quite a few of these I was wondering if you'd seen these or know if they had already been online. The dates are off for us due to them airing in the Netherlands, but they would have aired in the US in fall 1992 and fall 1993. The '92 is only about 15 minutes, sadly. I do understand the complaints people have about Marland's last years as headwriter, but something about 1992 is so rich for me, so fascinating in its bleakness and the sheer weight of stories he built up slowly, slowly unraveling. The 15 minutes there have some wonderful scenes with Emma and Julie (probably looking about as chic as she ever would). I really wish they had done more with all the bitterness Emma felt about the Aaron lie - it would have been interesting to see more exploration of her very dysfunctional relationship with Iva. Marland came full circle in that instance as his tenure started with Iva/Emma dysfunction. The mention of Grace and Logan in Wyoming also shows how important the years of history were in this period, and how much ATWT died when that aspect was dumped by Jon Valente.

Maggie Haberman is pathetic and spiteful beyond belief. That "the paper of record" sees her as a gold standard just tells you why they should be dismissed.

I know some of the people who want to break up big tech tend to see that as lip service, especially from the EU. I guess at this point it's impossible not to see everything as lip service.

I would say Abby was more of a JR, just with more of a conscience. The Lewises were an interesting hybrid because they were obviously Dallas-inspired yet due to the heavy involvement of Reva and her being involved with all three main Lewis Men, they also had much more of a florid, pulpy vibe. The Ewings were more of the "new South" compared to the Lewises.

I think she's just going to move to sunnier climates. This makes me sad for the Sugdens but also because the show has let its older cast leave with no replacements over the last decade. The sense of community is gone. And the soaps now tend to write everyone as being mentally 18, which doesn't help.

I saw that Andy Cohen had Rinna and overexposed Sarah Paulson on to talk about how wonderful Erika is. Bravo really does have a lot invested in that woman, even at the expense of their own show and viewer base.

I felt like they were going to try to make her relationship with AJ real (what with the endless comparisons to Alan and Monica) if Hannah/Sonny hadn't bombed. She was written as being in love with Jason, but as much as they would try to write Jason as having feelings for Carly, Steve would usually do his best to push it back.