DRW50

Several Daytime Dilemma moments, and a duet between Ruth Warrick and Richard Dawson near the end.

A clip of Jack/Lily/Curtis in this Daytime Dilemma video, midway through. It repeats later, with better audio.

A number of RH moments in this "daytime dilemma" video compilation.

15 minutes ago, te. said:

This whole show is essentially cat nip for the gays. There's a bit of annoying anachronisms in there, but overall, if you like things like Desperate Housewives, this is a show for you essentially.

Marc Cherry was such a bad writer - is he involved in this?

1 minute ago, Soapsuds said:

The guy they're saying is Dario(Gabi brother) last played by Jordi Vilasuso.

I never cared for Dario.

I'd totally forgotten Dario existed.

Did he also dress like a slut?

Again?

I guess Laura Leighton is trying to set a record for how many times Sydney can return from the dead.

Hopefully Heather is in a better place now and this might help her.

7 minutes ago, Soapsuds said:

Oh and someone said that the role of Samantha was originally for Jane Elliot. The role Marland had hired her for.  But when Marland passed she decided not to do the role.

Wow. I had never heard this. I guess it could make sense as Jane was leaving GH around this point and she ended up as a producer on Loving - the only time I remember her working in that capacity (I may be wrong).

I would have been interested in seeing Jane in the part...but imagine Terry Lester, Jane Elliot, Liz Hubbard AND Mary Kay Adams all in the same family? 

Typical of daytime, especially P&G, to ask Brooke to audition again. AW asked Ellen Wheeler to audition again for Vicky/Marley. She did and they still didn't hire her. 

I didn't hate Sherri but she was much colder compared to Brooke and the character had no inner life. 

I do get the sense the atmosphere changed for the worse after Calhoun left - I think we got some hints of that with HBS, among others.

Thanks @Soapsuds . I will try to watch sometime. I thought Tom and Brooke had such great chemistry. I know there were claims of her not being able to remember her lines (not sure if that was mentioned here) but I still think the show was wrong to get rid of her.

48 minutes ago, Jdee43 said:

I always thought it too bad that soapnet started with reruns from the middle of 1987. It would have been more fun to see them start from early 1983. The show was stronger in 83, and we would have seen the beginnings of a number of major characters who dominated in the late 80s and 90s.

They claimed that was a clean start, but I agree with you.

I guess they used David Canary's photo as he was known to Soapnet viewers through AMC. Not sure why they used a bootleg "The Music Sounds Better With You."

37 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

It was very strange to suddenly have (not one, but) TWO of Mac Cory's nephews arrive in town as law enforcement officials, with no mention of that being unusual -- considering the multi-generational wealth of the Cory family. Wouldn't it have been expected that someone (Mac? Rachel? Ada? Jamie? The maid? or someone?) might mention how odd it was to have two brothers coming from a millionaire family and choosing law enforcement as a career? Trying not to stereotype, but it was written as if the Corys were suddenly working-class, with two nephews "movin' on up" into law enforcement.  

I'm not suggesting it should have been a huge deal in the scripts, but still it was worthy of mention.   And the situation itself could have made for some good social-class drama, had it not been ignored.  Imagine how Iris would have felt about two of her cousins joining law enforcement?  Or how about Neal and Adam's mother? She could have come to Bay City to express her displeasure about her sons' choices.   Lots of opportunities for class-conflict that were ignored or lost.  Just my opinion, of course.  

Do you think the show lost the idea of Mac being from wealth due to Douglass Watson's take on the character? It seemed like the initial take on Mac, pre-recast, had this as more prominent. Mac certainly was comfortably rich and held on to what he had for dear life, but it feels like the show chose to focus on wealthy trappings more with others in his life like Iris and even Rachel (resorting to bribery to get rid of Blaine).

@Huntress Is Deniz still on AWZ? Does he do anything?

I've also seen a number of Nina fans who are upset over the whole thing because Drew threatened her with violence not that long ago. I get that, I suppose, but this is a show with many, many years of history with abusive men being treated as hot pieces of ass, so it's hard to be surprised.

Thanks as always @Huntress

31 minutes ago, JaneAusten said:

Good grief a couple of articles. Tell me other than twitter fans and the Beltway - both in all cases out of touch with the mainstream, who is paying attention to them. I have been hearing since Dobbs how women are over this blah blah blah. And it's always men who equivocate. But please put your faith in the Beltway who has been wrong about this issue and most others for years.  

It's not always just men who equivocate - I posted a clip a month or two back with Mara Liasson from NPR going on about how if Trump called for a 16 week ban, he would be a normal politician because that's in line with the public view. She spun it in a positive way for Trump, because that's what the press wants. One of the reasons these ploys go on and on is because they are able to drag many different faces of the Beltway in.

Stop Pretending Trump Is a Savvy Politician | The New Republic

The reason I posted the articles was to show the media doing all this again and how easily they are swayed, not to say oh women are going to be fooled - I even said in my first post I thought most people who voted for Trump were going to do so anyway not because he convinced them about abortion. My point was that these cynical games will drive up a lot of the usual media takes and support from certain quarters that have an interest in pushing votes toward him and away from Democrats, like many on the far left.

I'm not going to put my faith in anyone, whether it be the press or a section of voters, because there are too many moving pieces and this country has burned us all too many times before. I'm going to hope for the best, but that's about all I can do. If you take that as doubting women, then there's nothing I can do about it I guess, other than suggest you put me on ignore.

Another example of what I was talking about:

2 hours ago, JaneAusten said:

I have not heard one person or outlet praising him for this not one. And it's not a decision. It's a coward's way out and no one is buying it. Certainly, women who are pro choice are not.

It's the usual awkward positioning - you either praise his savvy or you play in and wink and nod that maybe THIS time, he means it. Various journalists or authors will pop up to play along.

I'd like to believe no one falls for this, but I am always wary, especially with the media and culture we have. I certainly hope you are right. After hearing many say the same to me in 2016 (and yes, I know that was pre-Roe falling) I will just never be sure again.

In RFK news:

A piece on all the angst and equivocating of a few female voters in Bucks County and how they are "RFK-curious" - another part of the plan to try to get those who voted for Biden but aren't sure about doing so again to find an offramp.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/04/biden-trump-kennedy-voters/677988/

And here is one of his campaign people, who was apparently at J6...

Thanks! I was about to post the Lynch article.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/08/trump-says-abortion-is-up-to-the-states-declines-to-endorse-national-limit-00151022

Get ready for all the backflips from the "liberal" media about how smart and brave and savvy Trump is, along with the dead end leftists praising him and saying he is more progressive on choice than Biden and the Democrats. 

(I don't really think it will change minds one way or the other - if voters who care about these rights vote for Trump then they are going to find a reason anyway. I'm still disgusted [if not surprised] by his shamelessness and how I know so many, many, many people in the Beltway and supposed progressives will eat out of his hand)

10 hours ago, Khan said:

I still remember some of those "Friends" clones that came in the wake of that show's success, lol.

The laziest were often from NBC themselves. They never got that Friends was a success because of the cast (and I didn't even like most of the cast).

Remember ABC's Townies, which was also meant to be a comeback for Molly Ringwald?

Another example of why Biden would probably be better off writing off Dearborn if this and the "abandon Biden" movement are what dominate their choices:

5 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

Laugh In revolutionized TV comedy with it's fast pace and edgire humor and was a smash for NBC.

They quickly commissioned Soul, a black version from the same producers which aired as a pilot, but wasn't picked up.

And ABC aired the infamous 'Turn On' which lasted one episode (and on some stations, not even that as local managers took it off the air during the show)

ABC also aired "What's It All About World?' which had Laugh In influence but was short lived.

CBS went a more traditional route with Hee Haw, a rural knock off which was a success.

Speaking of Turn-On, it's as good a time as ever to mention that George Schlatter had not only the first episode put on Youtube, but also the unaired second episode (with France Nuyen and Robert Culp), and a third patched together from unused footage.

Clown Jewels - YouTube

Thanks again for the articles. Still such a stupid decision from Spelling - I suppose he was from the old school where that practice was common.