DramatistDreamer

Yeah, I have to agree that the writers' lack of intense storylines for the older characters toward the end of the show's run spared them from a lot of potentially character annihilating storylines. A good writer would've been able to put them in the midst of active storylines without putting them OOC but we know good writers were almost completely nonexistent toward the end. This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion but I'm not even sure that Lily and Holden should ever wind up together, their indecisive ending actually appeared true to form when you think about their history as a couple- they spent enormous amounts of time apart, were married to others at least twice,etc. They spent so much time "on the outs" with each other that it seemed fitting that as the show was ending, they were again "on the outs" , with a slight possibility of reconcilation. To a lesser extent, Carly and Jack would've been headed in that same direction since that seemed all the writers were capable of at that point. They only seemed capable of creating these convoluted make up to break up storylines. I guess that was the one saving grace of the old characters being somewhat neglected at that stage.

I loved Rusty and Mindy too. Now that these shows are off the air, I wonder if asked, would these actors spill all the tea?

It's amazing how consistent a character Susan Stewart was through various regimes. Actually characters like Bob, Kim and even John (with the exception of a wayward storyline here or there) were remarkably consistent over decades. My one quip is that the final decade, the writers made Susan quite oblivious with the Dr. Rick Decker storyline but the writing was far from top shelf at that point. But when you compare these characters with characters like Craig, whom they took a sledgehammer to in the final decade and even having Barbara jump out of windows, many of the characters who were created in the 60s and 70s remained pretty true to their personalities-- you didn't see a whole lot of OOC stories.

I'm not sure the campaign knows best how to utilize Bill. The media is no better. One day, I read an article praising Bill for a new understated style where he puts the focus on Hillary and apparently away from himself. The day after next, I read an article that claims that Bill is too understated and seems to be holding back. No one wants to admit that Bill was very effective when he related policy to the public by using stories and anecdotes that personalized facts and figures, he made what seemed to be impersonal very personal. He's probably been instructed to tamp down on all that. And Bill became very effective at going into attack mode, especially the years when he went up against Republican opposition but he has to check his instincts to go on the offensive and try to land the first political punches or else, we get statements like the one he made in 2008 (the fairy tale remarks). Hillary needs someone who can be fiery and energize her followers and undecided voters but it can't really be Bill and when Hillary tries to do it, it often comes out forced or just plain shouty. Bill is in kind of a weird and unprecedented position. Has there ever been a case where a former President of the U.S. is campaigning on behalf of his wife's presidential bid? How does Bill be the campaigner that people expect, the campaigner he was known for during his '92 campaign, while not taking the focus from Hillary? Seems like they have yet to find the right balance. And judging from the remarks in the media, no one really knows how to effectively do this.

You're welcome, @marceline. I must admit to being a bit embarrassed by that typo though. Roll, not role. In my defense though, I was headed out and away from my desk when I was typing this. The only thing I didn't mention though, is that many younger Cuban Americans, despite the vast majority believing the embargo needs to be done away with, many feel a bit conflicted with having diverging views than their parents. I once had a conversation with a guy whose parents are Cuban and he ddn't really know why the embargo was still in place but he felt that he had to respect the fact that his parents were vehemently anti-Castro and didn't want to be in disagreement with them, so he openly expressed ambivalence about the entire situation. I'm glad I helped clarify a bit.

@quartermainefan, Rubio is trying to curry favor with the 'old guard' of Cuban expatriates who are staunchly anti-Castro and pro-blockade, even past the point of it making sense. Many young Cuban Americans are in favor of opening diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba and putting an end to the blockade because it has not worked. Many of the 'old guard' expatriates will not be satisfied until Cuba is (re)made in the way they want it to be re(made). I used to have relatives who lived/worked and went to medical school in Cuba and I know from conversations that the young people in Cuba, while they don't really care for Castro, they also fear that the ex-patriates from the U.S. will try to come in and take over the country and make it into a Miami-satellite. And while they want more personal freedoms (which are currently happening very very slowly), they don't want to lose certain things like their education and health systems or what they refer to as their sense of Cubanísmo. But in short, I think that many of the ex-patriates want things all their way or no-way at all. By the way, many people would have you believe that every Cuban migrated to the U.S. to get away from Castro, but I know people whose relatives left while Batista was still in power. Batista, that was backed by the U.S., was utterly corrupt, and while it was profitable for many U.S. businessmen, a select group of wealthy Cubans and some U.S. mobsters, the average Cuban felt humiliation at how they felt they were being treated. Had Batista governed with a modicum of integrity, Castro would never have been able to role into the city from the countryside- there would be no Castro as president.

Good point, @Soapsuds! I'd forgotten how both tend to play rope a dope. Simon seems to sustain it a bit better than Murray, maybe because most of Simon's matches tend to go the distance, while Murray tends to play a bit more efficiently over the past few years. Even his losses to Nolé take less time.

For some reason, Murray vs. Djokovic has become a bad match for Murray. And yes, it has been boring to watch the last several times I've watched them, especially in the Slams. Funny to think that Simon came the closest to being a real challenge to Nolé during the entire tournament. Seeing the women, not just in Oz but in other tournaments, upset the status quo and go for the upsets, I wonder when the guys are going to do likewise. The men appear to be too respectful of the hierarchy and status right now.

Did anybody watch the Men's Final? Anybody? I woke up in time to see that Djokovic was up 2 sets to 0 and seriously wondered whether it was worth it to watch. Murray had broken back and I decided to try to watch what turned out to be the Final Set, nodding off along the way. As soon as the last ball had been struck (an Ace by Djokovic), I was already closing out browsers and getting ready to shutdown my computer. I didn't watch the Trophy presentation, I just went back to sleep. The Women's Final, which I got a chance to watch the last 2 sets was much much more entertaining. I'm not casting aspersions on either guy, it was what it was and that is not very entertaining and for me, not worth getting up at 5:30 in the morning for.

AsTheWorldStillTurns has uploaded a few of the Brock Lombard storyline videos that I don't think have been uploaded anywhere else. Even though, I think we all know how the storyline concludes, I find it interesting to watch episodes that show how the mystery is resolved. Hopefully there are more videos to come that will fill in the gaps in this story. @DRW50 and everyone else, thanks for answering my questions about the 1972 episode. I really do wish our ATWT vets could be interviewed by video podcast while watching an episode and commenting on what was going on in a particular scene and behind the scenes. If only...right?

This is the most gracious I've ever seen Serena in defeat. She wasn't even smiling all that much when her sister Venus beat her! Angelique really stuck to her game plan and never let up. The net was not Serena's friend today and I don't know why she kept going there. Angie has vowed that if she won, she'd jump into the Yarra River. Time to make good on that promise, gurrl. The Yarra, at one time was one of the most polluted bodies of water in the Asian Pacific. I don't know if it still is but enjoy!

I also believe Serena will tie Steffi on Saturday. Apparently though, the media is trying to create the storyline that Angelique Kerber is going to try to block it in order to preserve Steffi's record because Steffi is her idol. I guess it's not enough to simply say that Kerber wants to win because it would be her first Major. You can tell when the tournament is winding down because the media is desperate to create more storyline drama. I guess the match fixing intrigue isn't interesting enough for them. Honestly, I'd rather see Roger play Stefan than watch Milos play Andy. No way in hell, am I even going to bother trying to watch that match. Andy seems like a nice guy, Milos seems reasonable but I often don't enjoy watching Andy play and I find Milos incredibly boring to watch, so this semi-final is a wash to me. Besides, I'm getting too old to wake up at 3:30 in the morning. So @Soapsuds, I guess you're not buying the story that Roger and Stefan's split was mutually agreed upon? Presumably, the word was that Stefan only agreed to like a year and stayed on longer than he had originally agreed to but the choice of Ljubicic is somewhat curious. Especially since Ivan was once really close with Djokovic, hiring Ljubicic seemed like a move designed to get into Novak's head, in more ways than one. If that's the case, so far, it doesn't seem to be working.

Wow, thanks for posting that 1972 episode, @DRW50 ! Susan involved with yet another Doctor, quelle surprise. Her entanglements with the Whitecoats go even further back than I thought! So was Dan telling Ellen that he intended to have an open marriage with Susan? That sure seemed to be the implication. I don't imagine that either of them would just live together as roommates, co-parent and then remain celibate while dating other people? To see him discussing this with his Mother, I guess1972 wasn't as conservative an era as I'd imagined it would be. So this means Betsy's mother Liz had been involved with both Stewart brothers, Paul and Dan? But Dan is still Betsy's father right? Was Betsy's paternity common knowledge at this point in the show's history? I ask because of the scene where Dan tells Ellen that Emily is a Daddy's girl and is as much his daughter as Betsy is Paul's, I was assuming he meant that Paul felt that Betsy was as much his daughter as any biological child but I admit this confused me a bit. I don't feel like anything was lacking in watching a 30 minutes episode. If P&G had any interest in salvaging the show, I feel like scaling back to 30 minutes in the late 90s would've been a great idea, but we know they had no interest in saving the show. I'd love to see a video podcast interview with Marie Masters, where they show her clips of this episode while she comments on it. Kind of like how the DVD extras section where a director, a writer or actor provides commentary on a specific scene with anecdotes on what was going on behind the scenes during the time period. Actually, I'd love it for any number of the show's cast during certain storylines. P&G would probably sue if this were put online though.

Ironically, I hear the BBC elected to cut coverage of the Australian Open this year. And Three Brits in the semis….I find that hilarious….LOL Isn't it though?! Oops.

Ironically, I hear the BBC elected to cut coverage of the Australian Open this year.

So apparently former NYC mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg is mulling a run but only if Hillary doesn't get the Democratic nomination and if Trump becomes the Republican nominee. Nothing against billionaires (hey, I like Oprah) but I just don't believe they make the best public servants and yes, being an elected official is supposed to be in public service. I was still in NYC when Bloomberg ran for his first term and I didn't vote for him. He wasn't all bad as a mayor but he was pretty tone deaf to the needs of the working class and the poor. Nothing ever came of his proposed solutions to homelessness which exploded during his three terms in office. Speaking of that third term, it was a mistake for many reasons, the main one being that it was a unproductive waste. I think he is better in an advocacy role, like he does with promoting sensible gun control legislation. He's light years better than Trump but that's not saying much.

I'm going to try to watch the 1972 episode this evening. I did get a chance to see 1980. It's funny but even though I was a pre-schooler during this time, I knew instinctively that that was Lyla's house and deduced that that must've been Cricket! The dialogue and the direction did the actors no favors. All but a handful of the cast seemed to be stumbling over that clunky dialogue and then there were those awkward pauses. ATWT is my favorite all time soap and so I have an innate fondness for the characters but I can see how the show could've had trouble attracting viewers at this stage. Looking at Cricket, I think every soap had their own variation on this type of character but I can see where Meg could be viewed as being cut from the same cloth. It's interesting to see Kim look at Cricket with such disapproval. What a contrast to the type of relationship Kim would have in the future with her sister Margo! Boy, this is definitely during Barbara's naive phase! There's a lot of obvious exposition in this episode. It feel's like the viewer is waiting for most of the show to see something happen. Barbara being pulled into the elevator with her mouth covered and Dee walking into that scene with John surrounded by nurses (which feels anti-climactic, almost a non dramatic scene). I did get a kick out of seeing that middle aged couple groovin' on the dancefloor though. In terms of the styles, I'm always tickled by 1980-1982 because it seems like 80-81 in particular, styles are still coming out of the 70s, not yet firmly rooted in the 1980s. Seeing how many of the men are groomed, particularly the dark-haired men who are not the main characters. I'm seeing quite a few Burt Reynolds, Tom Selleck and Lee Horseley lookalikes. One or two Bert Convys too.

John Hutton was the 1st actor to play Jason Benedict and he was on during the investigation/pre-trial and the trial and the immediate aftermath. I'd say at least a dozen or more episodes that he appeared in. Hutton is on the list of closing credits for the show during Paul's trial. It seems that he may have taken some time away from the screen (seems as if he did quite a bit of theater) but as of late seems to be currently doing more screen work (he was in Lincoln) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0404632/ Perhaps the actor only intended to stay for the length of the Stenbeck trial and couldn't stay for an extended run. Even as a ruthless dick, I still found Benedict to be more interesting as played by Hutton than he was as played by Hogan. What year was Lisa Brown fired? Just seems like that was a poor decision. The character had life left and with good strong writing, could've been made interesting but even Marland had started to rely too much on making Iva remain 'put upon' and unlucky in love. I found it kind of insulting that she ended up with the doughy faced version of Benedict. I wonder if the actor who played Phillip Lombard, David Cryer (the real life father of actor Jon Cryer) is still acting? I looked at his Wikipedia page and I thought he'd be much older than he actually is. Actually, looking at his imdb page, it looks like he has been retired from acting for quite some time. And the actor who played Joe Barlow is still alive also. He had good chemistry with Eileen Fulton. Had he been still acting, they could have had a brief story arc where Barlow finally retires from overseeing the crime commission and kindles a relationship with Lisa. I don't know, it still rubs me the wrong way how they had Lisa ending up alone and just wandering around.

That does sound like Braeden (LOL). "The men could do no wrong", definitely Y&R. Great clip!

A sports journalist hinted on her social media accounted that it would be someone who would be the least suspected of this. And he is a former US Open champion. I think though these are stats of matches that have yielded suspicious betting patterns. Players don't necessarily have to be directly involved but "match fixers" are sometimes privy to inside information, say about a players health status. I saw some clip on the BBC website where some professional gambler was interviewed and he mentioned that it was often his practice to try to befriend a player or someone in their entourage and engage them in casual conversations over say, lunch or something, to try to use it to his advantage so that he can calculate certain match outcomes and bet. He eventually got banned and is trying to fight the charges but in his case, it didn't seem as though the player was complicit. I'm not much of a Hewitt fan (there was a time that I couldn't stand him) but even I have trouble believing he'd purposely tank or something to manipulate a match outcome. I'm wondering whether his matches carry such suspicious betting patterns because his results dropping off over time despite his reputation as someone who fights to the last. His speed and endurance are not what they used to be especially after surgeries. Still, what a surprise!

Im wondering who the players are?? One is a former US Open champion….and more than 8 are playing the Aussie Open…hmmmmm Supposedly, this is the article that many are referring to. I'm a bit suspicious of Tumblr as a source of valid information. http://showlegend.tumblr.com/post/137644525409/the-buzzfeed-15-exposed

I started to reply but I think I got caught up with something else and never returned, sorry Chit. Yeah, seeds are dropping in Oz, Petra is the latest. Vee is my heart but she's got to heal that thigh, it's been wrapped since October of last year! I am not sure what is going on with Halep but she appears to struggle with the weight of expectations these days. I remember reading that she was being stalked last year so I think she really prefers being on the rise and in the pack and being in the hunt rather than in the spotlight being hunted by lower ranked players. Rafa, I read at the end of last season that Uncle Tony mentioned considering adding to the coaching team if things don't improve. I wonder if this still stands... I appreciate wildcards in moderation. Many have mentioned that Harrison received too many too often and I remember the times Young got multiple WC even past the point where I thought he might benefit from qualifying. JMO but I think too many WCs too early in his career prolonged his struggle, he was not fully developed (15 yrs old), and much shorter than most of his opponents on the ATP Tour and he got thrashed constantly by bigger stronger men when he was still a teenaged boy. You could see the toll it was taking on his self confidence but instead of playing more Challengers and maybe just building confidence with more wins, he kept taking more wildcards and more losses (I think Donald somehow believed that him being a lefty would be more of an advantage than it was). It was painful to watch. I think once he fell out with the USTA and they withheld WCs from him (out of spite, imo), he actually committed more time to playing the Challengers and quietly got more wins, more confidence and when he did get on the Tour, it began to pay off. Even in his losses, I could see progress, he was not getting consistently thrashed like he once did. And his run at last year's USO proved that he put in the work and he's capable of beginning to make good on his talent. He's still a bit shorter than a lot of the others but if Kei can be in the Top 10 and Ferrer can get to finals and win tournaments, I don't see why Donald couldn't accomplish similar results. There was a time when he used to beat Kei when they were Juniors. As for Ryan, this is going to sound judgemental but I think he believed his own hype that he was supposed to be the heir apparent to Roddick, the next great American player and somewhere along the way, he became self entitled and started acting like a brat. Despite his claims that he has matured, his unnecessary scuffle with Kokkinakis last year in Cincinnati shows that he still has a lot of growing up to do. Harrison is already being surpassed by Jack Sock, who was born and raised in Nebraska like Roddick and really is now being seen as Roddick's successor. At least Sock doesn't seem to be falling for the hype.

Was the case the James Stenbeck murder case for which Paul went on trial? The one where Jason goes on incessantly about Paul committing a crime of Passion? Jason was a dick but then again so was Kirk when Iva met him and he even was still a bit of one when she began to fall for him. In fact, Iva has a bit of a history of falling for dicks as she was also involved with Tad Channing. I do agree that Iva was thrown with Jason for a happy ending but I could never figure out why? Were they just done with Iva and wanted a safe, doughy middle aged man to put her 'out to pasture' with? Maybe after all that time passed they couldn't get the original guy so just decided to go with a totally different actor and used it as an opportunity to completely change the character? I still think the original Jason was more interesting (jerk and all) and a helluva lot better looking than the 2nd one. Also, I always wonder why ATWT didn't bring back more marginal characters from the past instead of inventing brand new ones? I guess the writers were just not as interested in the show's history by then. Watching now, I can't help but think, instead of characters like Liberty and Janet and Eldridge (or whatever that annoying kid's name was). I'd have much preferred if they brought Brock's widow and two children to Oakdale. Maybe Brock's son or daughter blames Emily for taking them away from the family and their father's death and seeks revenge. Maybe that may have only truly worked had Melanie Smith been in the role but I would've risked it, if only to spare us from the hell that was the Ciccones.

All of a sudden, all these semi-researched articles about match fixing have cropped up over the last 24 hours. No doubt match fixing is real but all but one of these articles are several years old. Why now?

I watched an episode from November '89 and saw an actor who looked really familiar but couldn't place him (actually more than one actor) but I looked up one of them and saw that his name was Jamie Walters and immediate that song popped into my head, the theme from The Heights. I wonder if ATWT was his first acting job? The other actor is coincidentally also named Jamie...Phillips (he played a character named Kevin who I think got into a fight with Duke at the college dance because he made a derogatory comment about Lien to Duke) but I tried looking up his name but couldn't find anything current or even past the 90s. I was just curious but I'm always surprised by how many actors who were on ATWT went on to other successes. It's also interesting to see who went on to lead 'normal' lives after that one acting gig. Originally, I was looking for the actor who originally played Jason Benedict because I wondered why he left the show. Does anyone know? I wished he had stuck around, especially knowing he'd later be paired with Iva. The 2nd Jason seemed so, what's the word? Bland. This one had an edge. Maybe Iva was truly going for safe but they didn't have to stick her with someone so boring, which is who Jason later became with the next actor.