titan1978

They did use the cheap version of the formula with Spencer/Esme. The whole Cassadine adventure, the prolonged period of tension between them/keeping them apart, Esme, the banter. And while I believe they improvised the run into each other’s arms, that is about as supercouple as it gets. The biggest difference was due to IMO racism and the stupid FV schedule.

They were the constant frontburner characters for my first 15 years or so watching, and they were beloved for a reason. Robert, Frisco, Anna, etc came and went. But those three were always there, more than holding down the fort. Each one of them still vital when the show stopped caring about them. Stuart Damon alone had years left as Alan with plenty to do. I am happy I got to watch them, some of the best in daytime!

Agreed! Also true.

Judging by the peachy pink color of the hospital walls it was sometime between late 1992 and early 1997, Riche’s first hospital set makeover.

Once upon a time you would have Amy Vining in the background eating it up, and Dr. Hardy rushing in to break it up and reminding them it was hospital!

It’s hard to define. In the 80’s and 90’s, a supercouple for the most part was subjected to a specific formula, which was mostly designed by Sheri Anderson when she worked under Pat Falken Smith at GH during Scotty/Laura/Luke through the Ice Princess. I do think Alice/Steve on Another World and Doug/Julie were prototype supercouples before the formula is set up though. There is something larger than life about the romance. They have to overcome obstacles in order to finally be together, an element of danger/adventure/both, and a lavish wedding. It also almost always burns them for another romantic pairing that lasts, they are seen as a true love. Time invested in their story is a huge part. In more modern storytelling a supercouple is more like Steve/Alice and Doug/Julie. I consider GH’s Robin/Patrick a modern supercouple, but not Carly/Jax for example. A character like Bobbie on GH was in many popular pairings, but none of them hit supercouple IMO. Jake maybe came closest. I think most couples on soaps, even popular ones are not supercouples. The term has become kind of a catch all.

One of the blessings of YouTube is how much classic stuff we can watch. And that confrontation between Monica and Lesley about Rick is iconic. I am so happy that I have now seen most of the entire storyline. LC was visceral in those scenes. And because of the shady nature of the Quartermaines in the 70’s and 80’s, she got to play a character that was complex and wasn’t always a good person within those dynamics. But she was rootable and always worth watching. They all were. It was part of their charm.

Damn. I hope she is at peace, somewhere riding her beloved horses, which she had not been able to do for a long time. I remember a Michael Logan interview with Jane, Tony, and Kin where I first learned her on set nickname, Lester, which I found endearing for some reason and it stuck with me. As @DRW50 mentioned, Leslie had easy and great chemistry with nearly everybody. As rivals with Leslie Webber and Tracy, romantic with several men, and maternal with her onscreen children. I think she and Stuart as Monica and Alan are one of the most important couples in daytime history. Luke and Laura get all the credit, and they certainly were a cultural phenom, but Rick/Leslie/Monica/Alan was a story engine that drove the show up in the ratings in the classic soap sense. She was a pivotal recast! Those first Quartermaines- David Lewis, Stuart, Jane, Anna Lee and Leslie were something special.

The news is just awful, glad you are safe.

Someone in critical condition at the hospital and everyone fighting about it reminds me so much of the Guza years. Willow/Joss was straight out of the Guza playbook, minus a slap to seal the deal of course! Drew and Willow are just disgusting. The problem is everyone is against them, where do they possibly go from here? Nina is not enough to hang a future for Willow on. And now they made Michael a martyr. Who is going to want to watch these people? I will give the show credit though- the explosion looked good, and the aftermath has been watchable. Steve and Laura are acting circles around MB though.

I just do not get the thinking on GH by TPTB. They have done nothing to make Willow or Drew rootable at all. Zero. And they also don’t push Drew so far into scumbag that he remotely fun to watch. And now this fire for Michael. How would anyone watching want to see these two people together?

One of the most memorable was on DAYS when Marlena was revealed as the Desecrator. I was kind of shocked at the time and had to keep watching.

That would seem to me to be the nature of how they put episodes together, and how little care they are putting in attention to detail. They shoot out of order, based on a master schedule, not on a specific episode or even episodes from the same week. Sometimes things were filmed that show up weeks later, sometimes stuff just shot gets dropped in. Then the episodes are put together out of a bunch of filmed scenes. Sometimes it has a flow if they are telling a major story across several days a week. But often it is disjointed because of how they put the show together. Catching up on a few episodes, shocked to see Laura actually dressed in something flattering and stylish! All this Charlotte story is doing is making me grossed out. The background of how she came to be has always bothered me, propping Valentine bothers me, people accepting him as her “father” when she was created by a violation of Lulu bothers me. Now that the actor is older, the Papa and clear mental instability she has been subjected to, by the Cassadines, is unpleasant to watch. If the show wants me to vomit while watching they can keep trying to make Drew and Willow a couple too. Yuck.

Well those scenes they taped of their backstory and wedding were really good! Another example IMO of PFS being Monty’s best Head Writer at GH.

Back when soaps could still never air material, and recast and reshoot.

I think the New York soaps really owns the quiet powerhouse. Maureen Garrett really kept a steady hand on Holly through some not very grounded situations.

Holly arrived in 1982, ran a con involving Luke, and then when Geary took an extended leave they paired a pregnant Holly with Robert. She eventually lost the baby and they fell in love. Luke returns, friction at first but he ends up accepting them, wins the mayoral race, and Laura returns. Robert and Holly were a solid and popular couple for at least two years when Finola was hired as Anna, and the backstory began.

For me she falls into the category of excellent actors that started going over the top at some point and just stayed there. The show did her no favors. But the Susan Flannery of Bill Bell’s B&B and what i have seen on DAYS is as you describe and incredible. But the version of her last few years often went over the top to me, a caricature of her former glory. But I am also not a good judge because I don’t watch B&B regularly, never have. But I have watched quite a few episodes on their YouTube account of the earlier period and she is incredible, she can be so warm and then also quite cold and calculating, but not hysterical.

I also thought of both of them shortly after my post! Tricia Cast and Hays, both great. Bryggman’s John Dixon too, even in scenes with Hubbard chewing the stage up he came across as genuine and grounded and equal to her. Hays had that same kind of city gal weariness in her reactions to nonsense that Julia Barr served on AMC. I think the show made a huge mistake by not centering her more in its last decade.

There were times when Anna/Robert had some heat IMO. I think their backstory of recreated flashbacks, including their first wedding, worked very well in disrupting Robert/Holly and cementing Anna as more than just an interloper. I also remember Duke being threatened a couple of times by their closeness, and the show would have Robert kind of look at her with longing sometimes. It wasn’t a stretch for me when he called her frumpy and their actual romance began again with her tying him to the pillar and leaving him there. I think the biggest issue is Anna did not need rescuing all the time, and that was kind of baked into Robert Scorpio. Accepting Anna was a huge ask when she arrived, with her wobbly scar story, being a double angent, Robin and Holly’s popularity. I think Monty cast her and Robin very well.

She did, didn’t she? I was thinking Carly but I don’t think it counts the same because it was three different Carly’s- SB with Sonny, TB with Alcazar, and LW with Jax. Bobbie was in popular pairings but I wouldn’t put her in the supercouple arena. Maybe for Jake. I have seen a lot of the original Roy and I can’t stand him. Laura had Scotty and Luke but I don’t think Stefan/Laura ended up strong enough.

The miracle that man worked on Nina should be studied by modern soap writers. The show had problems, but damn he made me want to watch Nina. I have never liked Nina, through both actors. Nothing against them, she’s just not a good character, surrounded by terrible stories.

In the classic GH thread Kim Zimmer came up, and how when she didn’t go over the top she was capable of incredible things. Which made me think of all the non-bombastic soap folks who used to bring it, were popular, but didn’t lose a more grounded nature to their work. First to come to mind was Julia Barr on AMC. She was good at everything I saw her do- romance, journalism stories, deep family heartbreak, snark, rivalries, comedy. When I first started watching, Brooke had a through line of dignity that just shone through, and I rooted for her.

Which she was doing! I remember the year of Lucky’s fire Zimmer was quoted in a soap mag as saying the Emmy’s overlooked Genie for a nomination that year, and how good her work was. The thing about bombastic soap acting by the likes of Zimmer, Tony Geary, Justin Deas, late B&B era Susan Flannery and Maurice Bernard is that when they got grounded material and played smaller, they really could just rip your guts out. These people were special for a reason, and almost all slipped into louder and with more passion meant more true emotion. Somehow Jane Elliott has skirted the line but never gone over it so much that it became the norm for her acting like it did for the others I mentioned. You know who else walked that line so well? Erika Slezak and Robin Strasser.

I didn’t enjoy Katherine. I was much more a fan of Cheryl and Robert, and lots seem to dislike that pairing too. But I also didn’t mind him with Anna, although that was no Duke/Anna, much like they were no Robert/Holly. I love Holly, but this person they call Holly since the bio toxin storyline is nothing like the woman before. I know she was a con artist, but that was such a small percentage of her onscreen character between her first two runs, now it’s like that is the only part.