Mona Kane Croft

Were Nancy and Chris already being minimized by this time? And the credits indicate there were other head-writers between Marland and the Dobsons. Am I correct about that?

How are we defining the term "storyline"?

I agree, it was getting close to science fiction and definitely was not a good fit for GL. I put it on the list of twin and doppelgänger plots, because it is two characters with the same face and uses the same technology to produce on camera. We could classify them twin/doppelgänger/clone plots, I suppose. But the real focus of my post was that P&G had purchased the camera technology, and pushed their soaps to utilize it. Which they did.

P&G had invested in the expensive camera technology that allowed them to shoot twin/doppelgänger scenes almost flawlessly. So I bet they had set out mandate for all three of their remaining soaps to use it as often as was believable. From the mid-80s until the mid-2000s we got Frannie/Sabrina, Lily/Rose; Marley/Vicky, Rachel/Justine; and Reva/Dolly. Any others from P&G during that period? Even if some of the twin storylines were pretty bad, I will admit many of those scenes were amazing. One in particular -- when Sabrina came up behind Frannie (with both of their faces toward the camera) and touched Frannie on the shoulder. That one about blew my head off! I think that scene is on YouTube someplace.

My tone was based on an episode of The Andy Griffith Show, in which Barney Fife continually used the phrase "nip it in the bud." And if that sets somebody off, they are most certainly welcome to "come after me." LOL.

Yes, I believe Josh met a relative of Reverend Rutledge during GL's final couple of years. But that really has no connection to Meta's speech years earlier.

Let's just nip it in the bud right here. I've read lots of books, and they're all in favor of bud-nippin'. Although I'm not suggesting anyone is lying, I just do not believe this purported Style Manual is real. And if it was real, it was certainly not created nor followed by Harding Lemay. Anyone who knows anything about Lemay's scripting style would realize he never followed a rule that suggested a character could only say one sentence at a time. Absolutely ridiculous! Watch five-minutes of a Lemay episode from the 1970s, and you'll quickly realize I am right. It's possible another head-writer at AW initiated a rule such as that, but it most certainly could not have been Harding Lemay. Let's consider this bud nipped...

Yes, it is wonky. But it seems the script writers at least tried to make it vague enough to be palatable to soap history buffs. Meta did not literally say the Bauers lived in Five-Points. And even though she used the term, "best man I've ever known" -- even that is a bit vague. Did she literally "know" him? Perhaps not. Is it plausible the Bauers listened to Reverend Rutledge on the radio from their home in Selby Flats? The radio airwaves were full of preachers back in the 1930s and 40s. I know I'm grasping at straws, but I do find the words of Meta's speech carefully and vaguely written. Since the Bauers never lived in Five-Points or even met Reverend Rutledge -- nor did any other existing character on the show -- the only way to mention the show's origins on-camera was to stretch the truth a bit. The only other option would be to forget about anything pre-Bauer and pretend GL began when the Bauers showed up. I really don't think any of us would have liked that!!

Actually, I'm almost certain Meta did mention Five Points in that Christmas speech. I'm not sure she said she had lived there, but I think she did say that. The speech is on YouTube -- it used to be, anyway.

Does anyone remember the rumor that Claire Labine (when she was GL's head-writer) planned to bring back Trudy Bauer played by Helen Gallagher and Ed Bauer played by Gil Gerard? I read it online a few times, and I believe the news (or rumor) actually made it into one of the major soap magazines at that time. This may have been while Mary Stuart was off the show for illness, or perhaps after she died. I don't remember the exact timing, but I believe Paul Rauch was still the executive producer.

He earlier played a role on Love of Life -- a more likable character and a good guy. I think he was a doctor. The actor was quite good in that role, so maybe he was just miscast as sullen pouty Brad.

What is a cyclorama? Is that the same thing as chromakey?

Who was the head writer at this time?

I thought it was a strange decision. Because on one hand, TPTB put at least some effort into keeping the Hughes as the show's core family. But at the same time, TPTB thought the matriarch and patriarch of that family didn't need an on-camera home. That silly decision just made it more difficult to keep the Hughes family in the center of things. Especially during holidays, because the extended Hughes clan could no longer gather at Bob and Kim's place. And a soap opera's core family is always at its best during the holidays.

Goutman had some nutty ideas at both AW and ATWT. It seemed every decision he made was an affront to the long-term fans. Was that intentional, you think? Remember during the last eight or nine years of ATWT, they got rid of all the staircases on the sets? Every staircase was gone, except the stairs in the Snyder kitchen, which were behind a closed door most of the time. First, Bob and Kim's house set stopped appearing, and that set had featured a prominent stairway in the foyer. The Kasnoff house had a staircase which just disappeared, even though they continued to use the set. Then they stopped using Lucinda's house set, and it had a staircase too. They stopped using Lily's living room set, which had stairs. Later Tom and Margo got a new house set with a stairway, but within a few months the stairs had disappeared. Am I leaving any out??? LOL. What was the purpose of the no staircase rule on ATWT? Are sets with stairs harder to maintain? Harder to set up? More expensive?

They did not destroy them. But actually organizing and digitizing the episodes is quite an effort. And the audience is very small, so very little profit is likely. Just my opinions of course.

Yes the episodes exist (post-1979 and a few scattered episodes from earlier periods). And it would be great if P&G would release their archive to a streaming platform. But I don't hold out any hope that it will happen any time soon. Although I do believe P&G still maintains the episodes, the logistics of organizing, preparing, and releasing the episodes would be a financial boondoggle for P&G. Streaming those old soaps would not be a profit-maker for P&G, in fact it would likely cost the company money. First, the thousands of tapes are not accurately and chronologically labeled. They are on old technology (one-inch videotape cassettes, I believe), and they have not consistently been stored in a climate controlled environment. For example, I was told by the P&G lead archivist that all the AW tapes had been stored in the basement of the Brooklyn studio until the show was cancelled. At which time, he personally flew to NYC to assist in moving them to a centralized location. My point here is -- even organizing the tapes to prepare for digitizing (which would be required to broadcast/stream today) would cost untold thousands of dollars. So far, no profit. Next is finding a platform interested in streaming the various soaps to their customers. That would involve uploading and storing on their servers thousands and thousands of digitized episodes for streaming, and possible re-captioning (to provide required closed captioning) for every single episode (unless that transfers from the videotapes, which is unlikely). And then promoting and finding an audience for the various shows. I just don't see any profit here. Next, we haven't even discussed the size of the potential audience for old soap operas, which I believe is a very small group of die-hard fans (like many of us). Maybe 5000 individuals tops nationwide, would anyone agree? Again, too much effort and cost for the return -- no profit in my opinion. I think the most similar situation to study is RetroTV's broadcast of The Doctors during the past decade. Although there are mixed opinions about whether that effort was profitable, at least RetroTV did get the episodes on the air and on a streaming platform. But did Colgate-Palmolive (who produced the show and supposedly still owns the show) make a profit from this? Did SFM Entertainment (the show's distributer) make a profit? And did RetroTV itself even make a profit? Did any of those entities break-even financially? At this point, would RetroTV do this again, if they had the opportunity? Would Colgate-Palmolive or SFM Entertainment do this again? I've never seen the answers to those questions. But something tells me, that entire effort was not a big money-maker for anyone. Maybe the best option would be to remove the profit angle all together, and convince a museum (like the Paley Center for Media in NYC or the Broadcast Museum in Chicago) to create a streaming platform and sell memberships in an attempt to break-even financially. Since most museums are non-profit organizations, they would be happy with something approaching a break-even situation. As much as I would like to see all the old soap operas made available for streaming, it is not something I expect to see in my lifetime.

Interesting. Thanks for the information. It's fun to know the writers were savvy enough to use Missy's move to Somerset to propel a plot in Bay City.

Not trying to start an argument, but this is untrue. P&G still maintains ownership of their tapes -- which include most of the soap opera episodes they produced post-1979. Most pre-1979 episodes were erased to reuse the video tapes. The P&G collection of tapes is very unorganized and not particularly well cared for, but they do still exist and in the custody of P&G. The idea that they were all destroyed about a decade ago is a myth.

Yes, they used the kitchen as the set for Katie's silly talk-show.

Does anyone know where Missy Matthews lived after she returned to Bay City in 1970 (before the premiere of Somerset)?? She and Bill had previously lived in a house which was bought by Walter and Lenore Curtain when Bill and Missy left town. So in 1970, did Missy live with Liz? With Mary and Jim? Or did she live in an apartment? She was only in Bay City for a few months before spinning-off to Somerset, so I doubt she would have purchased another house in Bay City.

I liked this storyline a lot -- especially the reveal that Andy was the father of Denise's baby. Does anyone else remember nearly the entire plot took place in Bob and Kim's kitchen? It was crazy. This was after they had stopped using Bob and Kim's living room and foyer set, thinking the Hughes house would no longer be needed. But suddenly scenes in Bob and Kim's home were necessary again, so they just used the kitchen. During that entire lengthy storyline, the only part of the Hughes house we saw was the kitchen. LOL. And of course after that, we never again saw the interior of Bob and Kim's house. What a crazy decision.

And to top it off, I believe every single character involved in that plot (with the exception of Barbara) was written off at the end. Including Frannie! If all the characters were that unimportant, why even write it in the first place??

I can't answer your question directly. But I do know many soaps did not have a full-time cop (on contract) until well after transitioning to the 60-minute format. And most soaps did not have a standing police precinct set until well after that.

Colin was an interesting character, but not really permanently connected to anyone. Wasn't he introduced during the Frannie/Sabrina discovery storyline in 1986? And played by three different actors? I didn't remember he stayed on the show for four years! And didn't Tonio leave the show for a fairly long time before returning near the end of Marland's run? Oh, and that Carolyn Crawford murder mystery! Must have been the worst storyline Marland ever wrote! Marland always said, he never wrote a plot without knowing the ending. But I think he broke his own rule during Carolyn's murder mystery. That plot went on and on for months, and meandered all over the place. Plus, it featured mostly fairly minor characters in whom the fans were not really invested. This plot took place so late in Marland's run as head-writers, I've often wondered if he was ill at the time, and not really writing at his best. Clearly something unusual was going on with the writing, because that plot was very un-Marland in my opinion.