Soaplovers

Worse, from everything I have read in the past, they changed Iris so much when they spun her off, viewers bailed out of TEXAS, too. A "lose/lose" situation, if ever there was one.

I had heard Iris became nicer when she went on Texas. Did she have the 'daddy' issues on Texas that she had on AW?

Do you think when Iris came back from 1988-1994 that she gradually got rid of the 'daddy' thing? Do you think Mac's death caused Iris to evolve since daddy wasn't around anymore?

The episodes end on 10/5/1992.. just before Donna Swajeski left as headwriter and replaced with the associate writer Peggy Sloane and some other guy. Since telenext stopped uploading episodes before the changing of the guard, I was wondering if there was a noticeable difference in tone, story, characters, etc after the changeover? For instance, was there any sudden storyline shifts, character departures, character changes, etc?

I've found some episodes from August/September/early October 1992... so you are saying not every episode from 7/1 till that point is posted?

A few years ago when GL was canceled I think I said that I thought AW had no more room to grow when it was canceled and that GL did, but looking back I think that's wrong. I'm actually surprised that considering the wrecking ball taken to AW over it's last 4-5 years, it was in as decent of shape as it was.

From what I can recall the last year of AW was an improvement and might have continued to get better if the show had continued. Or since NBC canceled it, there was no interference from either NBC/P & G so the show was able to tell the stories it wanted.

I also recall that Paulina was somewhat repaired in the last year as well and ended up a balance between the weepy stand-by-your man character that JFP tried to portray and the hot-headed woman we loved in the early 90's. I remember when she found out about the guy pretending to be her child.. she decked him hard-core (just like she did to Jake at the altar back in the early 90's when she found out he was trying to take over Cory).

I pick a pack of episodes from Feb. 1992 offered by Telenext productions on Youtube... Thoughts:

Jake/Paulina: She was engaged to Grant but you could see she had a yearning for Jake and vice versa. You could just see the chemistry oozing when you saw them together. I forgot how fiesty she used to be before they turned her into a pill junkie years later.

Marley/Dennis: Strangely I liked the two together.. I remember the buildup to them being a couple was good but once they were together, nothing really happened. However, I will say that I liked JB better as Marley then Vicky. JB played Vicky as an unlikeable bitch while AH always played Vicky with a soft side lurking beneath that tough exterior.

Lorna: Love her!! Felicia and Lorna are snarking at each other and we all know what ended up happening there down the road

Grant: I was surprised that he was actually kind of nice! Plus, he was getting along with Ryan! I figured Grant went all out mean when MP took over... when did Grant fully embrace the dark side?

Olivia: I actually liked this character. What I think soaps fail to do now is make all parties in a triangle likable. Olivia is pregnant and pretending the baby is Sam's. You can see she still loves Sam but that she knows deep down that he's with Amanda. What I gathered in the seven episodes I viewed so far is that she still is optimistic and dreamer. Plus, she isn't focused just on getting a man... she has career goals as a dancer and is trying to figure out how to balance that with the upcoming baby. I also liked the interplay with Sam/Amanda. A part of me wishes that the baby was Sam's because it would have been interesting to see how all three of them would react to one another especially with a baby in the middle. Finally, I forgot that Jenna and Jake were friends with Olivia (another problem with modern day soaps...lack of friendships)

Valentine Day Ball: This proved how soaps used to be the medium to watch to see a party in full-swing. Extras, bigger sets, and some great action to propel the plot forward. You had Lorna throwing a tantrum with Rachel/Felicia trying to kick her out, you had Paulina/Vicky coming in the same dress (every woman's nightmare) and fighting to the death, and you had Jamie chasing after a mysterious red-head (I think that was Kelsey, right?)

Iris: Last and certainly not least! She was awesome! I know some of you preferred BM in the role but I only identified with CD in the part. She had the regal, dismissive essence that BM bought to the part but she was different then BM's Iris. I just loved her and it was a shame they never thought to keep Spencer/Iris together longer then they did.

Thus ends my overall thoughts of Feb 1992 episodes that I happened to catch!

I thought Philece was horrible as Donna, and def didnt pass as Marley and Vicky's Mother, more like a sister. Annas Stuart is and always was Donna Love!!!

Do you think Philece might have worked better as Nicole? I know Nicole came and went several times during the 80's then never mentioned again. How was she received in each of her stints?

I think the ladies of D.C. need Michaele whether they like it or not. If they're smart, they will bring on another "villainess" to pad the nest if they just can't BEAR to be around Michaele for a 3rd season. They need someone like Marlene Cooke, or one of the nouveau riche Persian "eurotrash" ladies. My aunt would have been perfect for this show.

I agree another "eurotrash" character would be interesting, or someone that comes from old money in D.C. who is a really snob. However, I think keeping the Sahali's on would just be rewarding them for their passive aggressive behavior. I agree with another poster to elevate that bitchy Erica character.

In regards to Stacie, I think we need someone who is somewhat above all the backbiting (and her facial expressions are the best!)

GREAT post sungrey. Please, post in this thread more often!

If I'm not mistaken, Stacey Edwards (Hayley) was one of the early victims of focus groups. She was never my favorite character, but she easily could have been a run of the mill milquetoast victim. But Edwards gave her some strength that wasn't necessarily in the writing so the credit solely belongs to her. She wasn't my fave, but I was very sad the day she was hit by that car. And she was AWESOME in that rape storyline.

I also agree that killing off Harley Jane Kozak's Mary was a HUGE blunder. She was a fabulous actress and for my money (and this says ALOT coming from me), she rivaled Marcy's Eden as one of the great heroines on the show at the time. However, I truly think Mason still may have ended up paired with Julia and I think it would have been a DYNAMITE triangle that could have played out for years. It's probably why I'm currently writing that triangle in my SON blog, Return to Santa Barbara (shameless plug). Much unlike the sh!t Julia/Mason/Tori triangle we ended up with. It cracks me up to this day when I see in print that that triangle was one of the greats because the there was no clear choice & both had rooting value. Um, no, not in this viewer's (and I believe MANY others') eyes. Tori was a terrible character, always so desperate & clingy, first with Cruz and then with Mason. It didn't help that Kristen Meadows was just an okay actresss. One other thing I always found unbelievable is how many mags rated her as one of the most beautiful actresses in soaps. She even made it over Marcy, Judith, Nancy, Jane Rogers, and many other classic SB beauties in SOD's (formerly) annual Soaps Most Beautiful Actresses issue.

Didn't Stacy Edward's character accidently kill another character named Amy Perkins? What was that character like?

My mom, to this day, swears SB's fall started with Mary's death and that the final nail in the coffin was when Eden went bye-bye circa 1991.

What was everyone's impressions of Flame? I think she was in cahoots with Quinn then reformed and vanished?

Totally watched part 1 of the D.C. reunion. Cat is so hilarious (her facial expressions, and her snappy one liners) Lynda was a funny, warm person (so not how the promos portrayed), mary is just a void but kind of funny, Stacie is nice but a little too sensitive, and Michaele's weird take on the world (and everyone's facial expression's every time she speaks).

RHOBH: Kyle is my favorite, Kim looks to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown, Lisa is so Alexis Carrington for the 21st century, Adrienne is a scary person (looks and her flattening that guy), Camille is very delusional (sad she spends time talking about her husband... women should look at her and do the opposite in terms of living in hubby's shadow), and Taylor has been nipped/tucked too many times that she looks like Frankenstein's bride on the loose! If you have to have surgery because you fear losing your husband, perhaps it'll be best to just lose the man and go on with your life.

I think they should do a Real Housewives of Chicago. Chicago is such a melting pot with high class, middle class, working class, blue collar, and poor people that it would be interesting to select women from different classes to see how the jive with one another. A sociological experiment at its finest!!

I think I know what it is about Frankie that bothers me -- or perhaps the writing for Frankie. Or perhaps even the actress, Alice Barett. I think it's because she is not nearly as funny as she seems to think she is. Most of her stuff is played for kooky laughs but I don't think I have laughed once at any of her shtick. It's all a little heavy-handed. It is a real contrast with Cass and Felicia's urbane wit, Iris's fabulously bitchy asides and Donna's feather-light delusions/self-deprecation.

That was what was so great about the show in it's heyday! There was enough variety to go around! So if you didn't like Frankie's brand of humor.. you always had Rachel, Felicia, Cass, Donna, Ada, Iris and even Rachel sometimes(especially with her deadpan way of delivering lines).

Nowadays, character's seem to be interchangeable and that's one of the downfall's of soaps (lack of variety).

I loved AW circa 1991/1992. It seemed to include every type of character that you could imagine but they weren't just character types, they seemed like flesh and blood.

I haven't been able to watch the AW episodes on youtube but I was wondering if they focused on Jake/Kathleen's family relationship that much? I do remember one time when she stood up for Jake when he was being attacked but couldn't recall if they had any scenes together (she could have counseled him about Paulina/Marley, had helped him deal with his half-brother Kevin, and they could have paired her with someone else as well) Were they close when she was on in the 1980's?

I agree that Victoria was more interesting before Barnabas. Most importantly, before she became stupid. That's one of the reasons I don't care for the 1795 story. She's so stupid in it.

What I always found funny was that even after Barnabas came into the picture, Victoria was still sort of smart and could figure out things (i.e knowing that Cassandra was really Angelique in disguise, knew that Jeff Clark was Peter Bradford, and that Nicolas Blair was evil). However, when it came to Barnabas, she had no idea that he might be a little weird LOL

I always viewed Victoria as the everywoman of the show. Once she left, it lost a certain something. Granted, they had Julia/Barnabas/Quentin but something feels missing in the later years to me.

Barring the Gorilla appearing in the last episode and that stupid hip-hop dance to lure the gorilla out of the tree.. the rest of the last episode was wonderful. It had a wedding, had every single person give advice via a video montage (sort of a good-bye to the fans as well) and it ended with Rachel looking over all the photos in the Cory living room before she and Carl turned off the light and went upstairs.

I guess Kelly Preston (going under her maiden name) was on the show at the start but her character was phased out pretty quickly circa 1982.

The character I was always intrigued by was Brenda Clegg... sounds like she was the rebellious, party-girl. How did you get along with her parents and siblings? Was she into politics or the complete opposite of politics?

I agree that it's a shame the show didn't survive into the 90's. We could have seen how the show handled the Gulf-war, sex scandals, etc. A soap like this would be great to have now.

Btw, someone mentioned Catherine Hickland was a better Julie. Did she make Julie less sickly sweet? I can't imagine Catherine Hickland playing a nice character (only old enough to recall her stints on loving and One life to live.. neither of which she played a goody two shoe).

Season 3 seems to be the season that has some interesting self-contained episodes along with the ongoing plotlines of Karen's adjustment as a single mother, Abby showcasing her ruthless behavior (i.e. getting her kids back, taking Gary from Val, and trying to snag the wealthy dude to provide financial security for herself and kids), Laura/Richard's marriage breaking up and both seeking out other outlets.

I agree with an earlier post that this season along with season 4, to an extent, was more serial based as opposed to soap-opera based.

I still don't see the point after all these years of making Jill go completely crazy? If the point was to reunite Gary/Val, why did it take another two or three seasons afterwards to reunite them?

From what I've read, the writers just decided to make Jill go crazy.. no buildup, no long-term planning.. just have her go crazy. Viewing all the reruns, I liked that Jill was one of those gray characters. She was neither good nor evil and she fit in well on the show. She got along with karen/Mac, had an interesting relationship with Gary, had good bitchy rapport with Abby and later Paige. I just think she had potential to be a longer-term character especially given the exits of later characters.

Gary/Abby were one of my favorite couples on the show, so much could have been done with them.

I totally loved them as a couple along with Val/Ben. Somehow, I always believed that Val and Gary truly loved each other but were unhealthy for one another. It seemed like Abby and Ben helped bring out Gary and Val stronger sides (if that makes sense). Plus, Abby/Val seemed to always be civil/friendly during that period... which surprised me given all the crap Abby pulled on Val.

I was a kid when Knots Landing was a big hit so I didn't know the specifics of the early years of the show. When TNT reran the whole series in the 90's, I finally got to see the early episodes and was surprised at how different it was. My thoughts are as follows:

Self-contained vs. Serial: I was surprised the first three seasons were self-containted (the first season especially had only self-contained vs 2 & 3 that had some continuing elements going on). I think that this was a great idea because the audience got to know the characters and what made them tick. Once it went to serial form officially in the 4th season, we already knew the character's and cared about them. I think to revive the prime-time soap, you need to start a show with self-contained episodes then switch to a soap like structure down the road. That's what the new show 'Lonestar' is planning to do.

Val: I was surprised at how rural she acted but I also noticed that she had an inner strength and wisdom not seen in later years. To me, she seemed to be the advice giver and less of a victim in those early shows. Sadly in the later years, she became a caricature and always the weak one compared to Karen, Laura, and Abby.

As someone mentioned above, I liked that Val interacted with the other women more. She had some great scenes with Laura, a few with Ginger, and even got along with Abby. What fascinated me about Abby/Val was that they seemed to get along with each other in some respects. They would have coffee at each other's homes, worked out together, and took advice from one another. What's even more interesting was that Abby stole Val's husband but they seemed to still be somewhat friendly with each other in the later years.

Fairchild was delightful. She took over for another actress, and I don't even remember her name. Morgan was truly something special. Throughout my many years of watching soaps, I have always intuitively known when I was watching a special talent, and I had that feeling instantly about Miss Fairchild. I knew that her time in soaps would be shortlived, that she would move on to much bigger things, and she did. She took a somewhat cliched character and made her one of the most memorable in a soap which ran for 35 years -quite an accomplishment considering she was not even on for three full years. I feel that Morgan was well received by the audience. I felt pity for her even when she did terrible things. She was so beautiful yet insecure. She fell for Scott Phillips, an alcoholic who abused and neglected her (and Scott was more or less considered a nice character). He made her pregnant, married her, and still pined for the cold fish Kathy. Seriously, how anyone could ignore the beautiful Jennifer for bitchy Kathy beggars belief. Scott lied to Jennifer, and I will never the forget the day in July 1975 when a confrontation and violent argument between the two led to Jennifer falling in slow motion through their glass patio door. Jennifer was scarred horribly in the accident, miscarried her baby, and nearly died from a ruptured spleen. Scott went back to Kathy, and Jennifer thought no man would ever want her again because of the hideous scar running across her face. Once the scar was removed with surgery, Jennifer found herself falling for John Wyatt. Again, John was a typical man. He had problems with Eunice and turned to Jennifer, and when Eunice wanted him back, John dumped Jennifer. She was desperate to get him back. She and sidekick Stephanie (sort of a perverse Lucy and Ethel) cooked up a scheme to lure John back to Jennifer's apartment by claiming there was a mad rapist loose in the complex! When the plot failed, Jen took an overdose of sleeping pills. The pills caused brain damage which led to Jennifer's hallucinations and psychotic behavior later. It was really sad, and in the end, Jennifer ended up in a mental institution. I was disappointed to see Fairchild go, but she was so special -beautiful, sophisticated, talented, and charismatic- you just knew she was going places.

I just asking because my mom was a huge fan of SF during this time (she was in her late teens/early 20's.. the target demo) and totally remembers Morgan Fairchild, Michael Nouri, and Meg Bennett. When I was growing up, whenever any of those three were on a show, she instantly recognized them and recalled their stories back in the 70's.

I did ask her recently why she stopped watching SFT and all she said was that the show became boring and lost focus. Though she did remember Jane Krawkowski/Lisa Peluso/Cynthia Gibb/Michael Corbett as well but wasn't as big a watcher at that time.

I've never viewed any of Ann Marcus' work but perhaps her style fit better on SFT then other shows that she headlined. From what I heard, the several months at Love of Life were fairly well received (of course, the writer she replaced was horrible).

Just because a writer is fantastic on one show doesn't mean they will work on another show (i.e. Corringtons were great on SFT, so-so on Texas, and not well-received on Capital).

Yes... Santa Barbara and Loving.

How did Morgan Fairchild fair on SFT? I've only seen the one scene on youtube and it was chilling. Just was wondering how the audience viewed her back in the 1970's. Did her character ever interact with Jo?

Yeah, i remember this show.. I remember Michelle Stafford on it but I don't think she came on till near the end of the show. From what she said, her character was slated to become involved with one of the guys but the show went off the air beforehand.

From what I recall, the show did well in the cities that carried it but was too expensive to keep going.

I recently saw all 13 episodes of Paper Dolls on a website and have mixed reactions to the show.

1: Too many Characters: On a daily soap opera, the amount of characters would have been wonderful and more time would have been alloted to develop all the characters. On a weekly prime-time show, that doesn't work because you don't have time to develop the characters before thrusting them into the main plotlines. No character development=no character investments

2. Two shows in one: What I noticed most was that it seemed like two shows combined into one with minimum character interaction to connect the two shows. On the one hand, you had a dysfunctional family fighting each other for control of a company (ala Dynasty and Dallas)... and the other show was about a modeling agency and the models career and homelife (ala.. an early version of Model's inc.).

3. The best part of the show was Morgan Fairchild. She had the best lines, the best wardrobe, and basically interacted with all the characters.

From what I'd read, they had killed off Lloyd Bridges wife and were planning to bring on his sister or sister-in-law to do battle for control of the company. I think the only thing that could have been done was to pick which show to focus on (the family business dramas or the modeling agency angle). Either would have worked on it's own but not together as viewership dwindled over time.

I think the show gradually changing Maggie from her original incarnation to a weepy victim sort of downgraded Victoria's character. However, the thing I noticed about Victoria was that she had the trappings of the typical heroine but with a backbone.

I was watching some of the minisodes of Dark Shadows and I'm up to the part where Victoria has been recast. Based on the episodes I watched, it looked like Victoria was going to continue as a character (based on her presence at the start of the Quentin storyline) but then vanishes into the past.

I was wondering if the plan was to continue the character with Betsy Durkin playing her or was Betsy Durkin just bought in to usher out Victoria? Do you think the character would have served more purpose in the Quentin/david/Amy storyline then Maggie did?