zanereed

4 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

As Leslie Bauer, Rodell had a sweetness and nobility that Adams lacked. Adams was a capable actress, to be sure, but her interpretation of the character was cooler and more reserved. Compare Hillary B. Smith's emotional and loving Margo Hughes to Ellen Dolan's colder, more aloof version and you'll get the idea. I wanted to protect Rodell's Leslie, but with Adams...ehhh, she could take care of herself. LOL!

 

ITA that Elizabeth was too neurotic and unstable to fit the role of the Bauer matriarch, and while I liked Trish, she was way too young for Mike. Of his remaining potential love interests, Jennifer Richards would have been the most viable, but with Don Stewart's resistance to various leading ladies, the actor was sealing Mike's fate to remain single...and be written off the show. Stewart did praise Deborah May, and claimed that she and he had on-screen chemistry, but I never found her Renee Dubois or Ivy Pierce to be particularly interesting. I saw no chemistry with Mike Bauer there, like I did with Stewart and Rodell.

 I don't remember any chemistry between Mike and Renee, either, despite what Stewart claims. There certainly wasn't any between Mike and Ivy.

Oddly enough, I always wondered about pairing Mike with *Holly* post-Roger. Basically, some sort of storyline where Holly works with Mike and the Springfield PD as a plant while working for Alan Spaulding (with the premise that Alan offers Holly a job after catching wind that Holly and Roger talked about "leverage" Roger had when she was with Roger in the jungle - Alan being suspicious about how *much* Holly knows about that "leverage", so he makes Holly an offer to work for Spaulding so he can keep tabs on her to determine what she knows...). This would have led to Mike and Holly becoming closer,  bringing out jealousy in Ed (whose marriage to Rita was already still on shaky ground).

I also thought Rita a Mike would have possibly worked.

@vetsoapfan - what do you think, as you probably have even clearer memories of this time than I do.

13 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

Mike and Leslie should have had a son to have more Bauers available to keep the family going.

Exactly. This would have helped solidify Mike and Leslie as the tentpole couple. Imagine in the 1980's after both being SORAS'd, that Mike and Leslie's son had conflict with Rick (Freddie) over the fact that once their son was born, Rick felt ignored as he felt Mike and Leslie's son was the favorite.

It would have made sense to have Mike and Leslie be the tentpole couple as the show moved forward. I think had Barbara Rodell been allowed to stay on, that might have happened. From what I understand, the role was always open to Lynne Adams should she wish to return, which is what she did in 1973. However, from what I understand on this thread (I was way to young to remember), Rodell and Don Stewart had the better chemistry. The other point was that Mike and Leslie had yet to have a child of their own. Had that happened, it might have further cemented them as that couple. Mike was always the more stable of the Bauer brothers, and Leslie had the Bert-like wisdom in place. But, Adams returned, then left three years later, as she apparently didn't think the writers could do much more with her character. Mike was then free for more stories, the most famous being in the Justin/Jackie/Alan/Elizabeth storyline for the remainder of the 1970's. The problem was that Mike (and the show, in general) never found anyone to replace Leslie in Mike's life. In my opinion, Elizabeth was too unstable and Trish Lewis was probably too young. I was fine when they paired Mike with Jackie (Cindy Pickett, NOT Carrie Mowrey!), Jennifer, and especially Alexandra. From what I've gathered, the person who vetoed these pairings was Stewart, himself, and eventually this led to his firing by Gail Kobe.

I, too, was all for Ed (when played by Mart Hulswit) and Holly circa post-Roger. As vetsoapfan states above, Peter Simon's Ed and Garrett had zero chemistry, so even when the show paired Ed and Holly up again in 1989, it didn't work like it should.

5 hours ago, Elsa said:

 

Kelly Nelson's storyline should have been given to Billy Fletcher. 

Agreed. Or, they could have at least brought Billy and Peggy back once Roger returned from the dead. At that point, they could have given Hart's storyline to Billy.

On 1/4/2018 at 12:08 AM, vetsoapfan said:

 

ITA. The series was seriously crippled by 1984, and limped through the 1980s on life support. It rebounded with the return of Roger and Holly, and much better writing, in 1989, and then had its last hurrah for the next few years. After they stupidly killed the heart of the show (Maureen Bauer) and Nancy Curlee left, TGL 's fate was sealed. Still, TGL was TGL from 1937 to 1983, and then again from about 1989 to 1994, so we had a good, long ride.

 

How the show staggered along for its final 15 years, I'll never understand.

I completely agree. It was amazing how much the show kept getting worse and worse in 1984. By the time 1985 came around, I completely stopped watching. I returned in 1988 once Maureen Garrett came back as Holly and was hooked once it was confirmed that Roger would be brought back from the dead. By 1995, I couldn't watch it anymore.

16 hours ago, Faulkner said:

For me, 1997 was sort of a strange outlier. You had Annie's awesome reign of terror, which almost by necessity couldn't be maintained. (They tried disastrously with Signy Coleman.) You had the accidental chemistry of Beth Ehlers and Grant Aleksander (before Beth Chamberlin came in and ate the show and Harley became the humorless harpy she was from then on). Abby and Rick could have re-ignited the Bauers, but again, they couldn't figure out how to build on it or simply didn't want to. For a moment, they presented us with shiny objects that masked deeper problems in the show in hindsight. And then shortly thereafter was Ben Warren, all Cassie all the time, the San Cristobal crew, the mob, Clone Reva, the list goes on, and everything went to hell.

I'm glad you brought this up. I had brief hope for the show at the beginning in 1997 for the reasons you stated above, especially when they started the year out by having a celebration for the 60th Anniversary (and finally brought back Mike Bauer!!!).

21 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

I originally thought that was Joe Roberts. I'm glad you were here to clarify.

Not a problem! You've helped clarify a ton of items for me concerning TGL over the course of this thread, it was the least I could do .

On 1/1/2018 at 12:08 AM, DRW50 said:

Is that the first Meta?

That's the second actress to play Meta on television, Ellen Demming. The first TV actress to play Meta on TV was Joan Allison. There were a couple of other actresses who played the part on the radio.

The character pictured with Meta in the ad is Mark Holden (Whitfield Connor), who Meta began seeing after her second husband, Joe Roberts, died on Christmas Eve in 1955 from cancer. There would eventually be a love triangle between Meta, Mark, and Kathy Roberts (Meta's step-daughter). So I would place that ad from either 1956 or 1957 at the latest.

Wow, what a great find - thanks for posting that! It's great that it at least has a glimpse of Lynn Deerfield as Holly.

On 10/4/2017 at 4:24 PM, DRW50 said:

 

I think she did, yes.

 

Lisa Brown was getting a lot of focus around this time, both for GL and Broadway - maybe it was her?

 

Or maybe one of the Morgans.

You are right - it could very well have been Kirsten Vigard (Morgan #1). I can't recall Lisa Brown getting bad press during this time period, so the odds are probably on Kirsten.

18 hours ago, ~bl~ said:

I thought Elvera in the video said it was a GL actress who had bad things said about in the press, not an actor. Did I misunderstand?

Now I REALLY wonder who she is referring to...?!!?

On 9/29/2017 at 2:01 PM, vetsoapfan said:

 

Maybe Mart Hulswit, who had been fired as Ed Bauer and denigrated in an interview by Douglas Marland?

I suspect so, as Mart was the only one I can remember who Marland denigrated to that extent in an interview. I can't remember anyone else in TGL cast having bad press in 1981.

This was posted on the ATWT thread, but I didn't see it here (apologize if I missed it). This includes a brief snippet of Roger and Hillary #1, played by Linda McCullough.

On 9/29/2017 at 2:06 PM, Nothin'ButAttitude said:

 

But GL actors didn't start even getting nominated until Zaslow's first nomination, which looks like '92. Sad that so many actors around that time were overlook and never nominated. Weird that Mart Hulswit, Chris Bernau, or Don Stewart were never nominated. Just odd. 

 

But to Roger being beyond redemption, I agree, but MZ was so good at what he did that I felt for Roger at all times. I've always said that Roger, John (of ATWT), and Jack (of DOOL) were the only characters that were rapists but felt remorse for their actions at all times and strived to do better while misstepping at times, hence why I could feel something for them. I never felt that Todd (OLTL) or Luke (GH) felt bad for their actions, which is why I never liked any of the characters. 

Quite honestly, also I felt Maureen Garrett's work that year was also as strong as Michael's, maybe even more - especially at how she portrayed Holly post-rape. She really should have had a Best Actress nomination

On 9/17/2017 at 8:21 PM, Nothin'ButAttitude said:

 

I'm sorry but Zaslow could've read a manual and still should've won every year he was nominated. Him and Bev should've won for the country club scenes. 

 

GL so got shafted so many years when it came to the EMMYS until towards the end of the show's run where they stayed showering them with awards.

Zaslow should have been nominated as early as 1979/1980, as his work on TGL in 1979 was stellar (and some good scenes are available on YT from that year). I don't know why either he wasn't submitted or didn't make the final cut. Even though Roger was beyond redemption after raping Holly, Zaslow still didn't play Roger as a one-note villain.

On 9/28/2017 at 8:14 AM, jam6242 said:

I wonder which cast mate Elvera was referring to when she mentioned someone getting bad press?

Good question. What year was this interview - 1981?

I agree - thank you for posting these. IMHO, you've again shown me that 1991 was really a very strong year for TGL - and for me, possibly the last great year they had for me on a consistency level.

19 hours ago, Nothin'ButAttitude said:

I don't think Jeva (the pairing) was an issue. It was constantly trying to figure out ways to break them up and put them back together. After the arc with Annie or Olivia, the two should've remained together to the bitter end the the story should've shifted from them onto Marah and Shayne. Josh/Reva should've just been a staple couple--the pillars or sages of Springfield. 

This EXACTLY. What RN and KZ seemed to not understand is that soaps are a generational medium, whether you are watching them or acting in them. If a character is a long-term, legacy character, their role will inevitably change. Charita Bauer was not always front and center as Bert Bauer. She was initially, of course, but as her sons got older, her role changed. She certainly wasn't missing from the show, but she was more in a supporting role for her sons or other Springfield characters as the sounding board or person to dish out advice. That's the whole generational aspect of soaps. Josh and Reva - with all of their history - would have been great pillars. Reva was certainly no saint, but she could have doled out advice on what NOT to do in one's life. Then Shayne and Marah would have turned around and did the exact opposite of what mom said . But, that would have been okay. That's what kids do.

17 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

 

The late 80s when Roger/Holly came back....diane vs alexandra...diane vs blake...and it would have been interesting to see Diane' s reaction to Vanessa being married to billy...

Agreed. There was certainly no love lost between Roger and Diane, and that would have made for great viewing. Diane versus Vanessa, Diane versus Alexandria for control of Spaulding, etc. Great possibilities.

3 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

 

Would you say Diane was a Dobson creation that Marland wrote well?  I know he had trouble with a lot of the Dobson characters.

 

And do you think Diane could have worked well beyond summer 1981?  If so, in what way?

That's a great question. This is just my opinion, but I think Diane (a Dobson creation) was ultimately killed off so that Vanessa (a Marland creation), had the canvas. Marland didn't seem to write well for some of the stronger female characters (which Diane was, without question). What I loved about Diane was that she was aware of most of Alan's schemes over the years, and I really wanted to see her get a push to eventually take over Spaulding, even for a brief time. I wish they had let her continue to date Mike Bauer, as well. As Hope had done with making Alan want to be a good person, Mike could have had the same influence on Diane - again, even if only for a brief time. I loved how manipulative Diane could be. 

3 hours ago, Nothin'ButAttitude said:

 

But you have to appreciate the fact that writers during that time punished evil characters whether it was jail time or even worse ... death. Nowadays, Diane would still be on the canvas eating up airtime and going unpunished.

 

That's what I loved about Bill Bell. He was a firm advocate that evil characters had to pay for their crimes. I think he was once quoted saying that Sheila was an exception thanks to Kimberlin Brown's performance; however, he was one who all for punishing characters. 

I would have had no problem with Diane going to jail for her crimes. It would have allowed Sofia Geier to leave the canvas if she wanted to for a time, then return whenever she wanted, with an even more vindictive Diane out to get the Spauldings.

While the murder mystery on TGL with Diane Ballard was very good, it was a shame to lose such a rich character like Diane. Joe Bradley I didn't care either way, but I wish it would have been someone other than Diane.

14 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

To be fair, this was the one and only time I ever saw Marland being ungracious.

 

On the other other, Lemay continued to belittle and/or bitch about certain actors for years after he left AW.

Exactly. I was quite surprised by the comment from Marland regarding Hulswit. That seemed very uncommon for Marland. However, it does help to somewhat validate what I have heard about Hulswit criticizing the writing. I would LOVE for someone to interview Hulswit (I believe We Love Soaps has tried before, but no luck...).

Speaking of Lemay and TGL, I was very surprised that Lemay returned to help write TGL during 1980/1981. That was the year they won the Emmy for Best Writing. Has Lemay ever stated in any interview why he returned to soap writing? It wasn't that long after he left AW, so I was just curious if anyone knows any further information there.

20 hours ago, ~bl~ said:

I wonder if the looks issue was just an excuse with Mart Hulswit. I recall reading something about him being involved with the union, (I wish I could find the article...was it posted here?) and if that was a factor. 

I believe that Doug Marland did not like Hulswit at all. I read in some publication that I can't find any longer (!) that Hulswit used to criticize the writing a lot, post-Dobsons, so I wonder if that was a factor? TPTB certainly didn't go with a much "younger" actor in Peter Simon. Simon was only 3 years younger than Hulswit.

6 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

Exactly. Through his acting acting skill, warmth, and intensity, Hulswit made you BELIEVE in his character. I did not care that he was not a perfect physical specimen. Truth be told, I don't believe physical perfection is the main criterion demanded by most viewers, regardless of what some PTB may believe. While shows have hired muscle hunks and beauty queens for decades, ordinary-looking actors like Hulswit, Tony Geary and Judith Light have captured viewers' imagination and loyalty.

 

Mart Hulswit simply was Ed. The morose portrayal offered by Simon and the simpering interpretation given by van Fleet did not cut it.

Exactly. Try imagining this particular scene with Simon or Van Fleet:

15 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

I was also fine with RVF's portrayal of Chuck Tyler on AMC, but his Ed Bauer left me cold. To be fair, with Hulswit the definitive Ed, I still cannot think of any other actor whom I would have readily accepted in the part.

 

Inspired by this thread, I took out my DVD-R's of "Roger Thorpe: The Scandal Years" and a compilation from March/April 1980 when Ed and Mike were pursuing Roger and Holly in Santo Domingo, resulting in Roger's "death" at that point. As I was watching the scenes on each disc that featured Hulswit's Ed, especially during confrontations with Roger, I tried to imagine Simon and Van Fleet acting in those scenes, and I couldn't. I could not see Simon's Ed actually having any physical confrontation with Roger at all, as Hulswit's Ed had. Even though Hulswit certainly wasn't in peak physical condition to chase Roger through the jungle (although Mike certainly looked it), I had no problem believing he was doing it because Ed was not going to give up finding Holly and bringing her home safe. I just couldn't see Simon portraying that effectively (and certainly not Van Fleet).

On 6/15/2017 at 6:18 PM, vetsoapfan said:

 

I always had the feeling that Van Fleet was trying too hard to be sensitive, and it seemed forced, whereas Hulswit projected a natural warmth and vulnerability which drew the audience to him. It did not help Van Fleet, that the writing during the 1980s was generally in the toilet.

 

Yes, Gentry was used on a recurring basis upon his return, which suggested TPTB were not really sure of him or whether or not they wanted to commit to the character. Gentry might have grown on the audience if the show had used him more, or more effectively, but it did not. No one in charge understood the importance of Ed Bauer to the show's core and legacy.

This is a great point. It does look like Van Fleet is trying too hard to be sensitive, doesn't it? I always thought he looked so awkward as Ed, even though I really had no problems with him on AMC.

On 6/17/2017 at 7:17 AM, juniorz1 said:

 

Wait a minute, wait a minute, hold the phone.  I thought it WAS revealed that Josie was Russ's daughter, hence her rivalry with Olivia.  Wasn't that the whole storyline that Russ was brought back for in the first place?  I'm pretty sure I remember watching (and re-watching) that happen.

Correct - someone else pointed that out, too. I had serious memory block on that one.

He did! You can see Peggy actually mention that to Bert during one of the 1979 episodes on YT (during the period after Roger raped Holly). I would have much rather they went with Billy as the "son" for Roger versus introducing the character of Hart.

On 6/11/2017 at 1:46 AM, vetsoapfan said:

 

I loved Holly with Mart Hulswit's Ed, and would have happily accepted them as an enduring couple. I also adored Roger with Peggy , who brought out some vulnerability in him, and would have accepted them as a long-term couple as well.

Agreed. I appreciated that the writers in the late 1980's and 1990's did refer back to this history of Holly and Ed, but I didn't get the same level of chemistry between Garrett and Peter Simon as I did with Garrett and Hulwsit. It wasn't necessarily sexual chemistry, either, but I believed that Holly did love Hulswit's Ed versus Simon's Ed.

I would have loved for Fran Myers to return with an adult Billy to interact with Roger.

On 4/21/2017 at 6:13 PM, denzo30 said:

Are you stating you did not know that or that fact that since she was a Matthews that maybe the family would be a focus again?  I think AW threw away a lot of opportunities but again maybe a sign of the times.  I always thought they should have introduced Frame children from Gwen and Willis and the long lost never spoken about again Vince.  Molly Ordway come back to town.  JQ should have def come back after the 25th anniversary but I think again VW was the star and they did not want to ruffle her feathers either

The latter. It was a storyline line they could have started much earlier versus when they finally revealed it.

3 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

 

It was like on TGL in the 1980s, when in quick succession (or so it felt), viewers had to watch Bill Bauer and Hillary Bauer getting murdered, Mike Bauer and Hope Bauer getting shipped out of town, Bert Bauer disappearing (when the actress became ill), and Ed Bauer parading around with a new face. It was painful.

"Painful" is putting it mildly  That was horrific to watch. Even more horrid was the fact that it happened to the Matthews family beginning in 1982 (some might say even earlier), when Pat and Alice were written out (the latter understandably) and Jim died. I really thought that they were trying to build up the Matthews family again in 1989 when they brought Russ back and introduced Olivia. I even thought that they were going to start a storyline where Josie would eventually be revealed to be the daughter of Russ. Sadly, that did not happen.