Mona Kane Croft

Didn't Roger Thorpe live in the set in the 1970s?

Does anyone think that Seth might be Audra's working-class father?

Half of one of NBC daytime's earliest super-couples has died. Rest in peace, Bill Hayes.

Our dear Bill Hayes, rest in peace.

Oh no.

Did anyone else notice the slight change in the werewolf make-up during the Leviathan storyline (as compared to the werewolf earlier in 1969 and 1897)? Suddenly the werewolf had strange cheek-bone projections that had never been visible before. It makes the make-up look more like a plastic mask, rather than applied make-up. Can anyone speculate on why this change was made?

Thank you for the information, Donna. Well, I guess there isn't much any of us can do about it at this point, except show up at the celebration, lead the applause, and ask questions. Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend. I'll continue to think about your idea of submitting potential questions for the Q&A panels. Yours is the best option I've heard so far. I wonder if the organizer has considered involving Alan Locher in this event? He might have connections to get it videotaped, or perhaps parts of it streamed on his podcast. At the very least, he might be able to offer some advice. Yes, it is puzzling -- yet sorta wonderful that Liza Chapman would be remembered all these years after Janet Matthews left the show. I began watching AW regularly in 1971, and I'm confident Janet was not mentioned at all during my years of being a fan. So, if even I don't remember Janet, how much attention are her children going to receive at the gathering? We can only hope the organizers have dealt with fan gatherings before, and have methods of integrating early stars equally with the more recent stars. I really just need to release this concern, as there isn't much any of us can do about it.

This is probably a good idea, Donna. But oh boy, it might be tough. I'm probably one of the older AW fans in this group, and even I would have a tough time coming up with questions for a few of these earlier (older) actors or their representatives. Do you know the person in charge of this gathering? Or are you in contact with her? Do you know if she has experience planning this sort of fan event? I'm hoping we can assume, since she knows enough about AW to invite some of these very early actors, that she has a plan to make sure they all get appropriate attention during the program. But I'm afraid we cannot assume that. Of course this is all really none of my business, and I'm not trying to interfere with the planner's intentions. But I've seen things like this go wrong before, and do hope the earlier actors do not find themselves in a disappointing and embarrassing situation.

I hope whoever is in charge of this gathering can make sure the earlier actors (Barcroft, Roddell, Norton, Muenker, Chapman's famiily, Penberthy's son, etc.) get some applause and aren't met with crickets when they are introduced. I assume most of the fans will be on the younger side, and many likely won't even know who some of these earlier actors (or their characters) are. And if there are Q&A sessions, I hope they plant some questions for these older actors, to make sure they don't feel left out. Can you imagine sitting with a group for Q&A, and not getting any questions?? It's been a long time since some of these folks have received much attention, so I hope they are made to feel welcome, included, and appreciated. I'm confident no one will be intentionally rude to them, but they could still easily be minimized or nearly ignored unintentionally.

Re-brand itself? I thought Passions was tongue-in-cheek satire from day-one. Are you saying Passions was serious drama until it re-branded? At what point in the storyline did Passions re-brand? Maybe I don't understand your point.

Interesting analysis, and I tend to believe you are correct. But if the folks in charge of daytime dramas have had a long-term inferiority complex, then why did that complex only emerge in the mid-1980s, 1990s, and the 2000s, with the crazy plots, campiness, and insulting comedy? Why were soaps so serious and compelling in the 1960s and '70s? There must have been a catalyst to propel all the change in the early 1980s. What was it? An outsider might suggest it was simply a misguided grab for ratings. But nearly all the soaps had very high ratings in the 1970s. Why change something that isn't broken?

I can speculate on the "when." But no idea about the "why." I think it was soon after Luke and Laura's "freeze the world" adventure on General Hospital. The reason I say "after" is because I think Gloria Monty took that storyline pretty seriously. Although it was clearly over the top and fundamentally science-fiction, it really wasn't intentionally campy or humorous, in my opinion. But soon after, it was the soap operas that attempted to copy General Hospital's style that took their efforts too far -- the earliest and most obvious example was Days of Our Lives, which quickly turned Euro-gangster Stefano Dimera into a moustache-twriling super-villain, and sent Bo and Hope on campy cloak-and-dagger adventures. Many of the other soaps eagerly copied the trend, branching into comedy (rather than traditional soap opera humor) and maximizing the campiness, rather than focusing on believable human drama. A few held-out, still attempting to play out believable storylines. But on to the "why?" I have no idea. Any thoughts????

My other two favorites are: the one before this one -- the one with the lighthouse. That was a grand old theme song that, again, was perfect for its time. It is also one of my favorite "classic" soap opera openings. And next, "Hold on to Love". That theme, along with the visuals, was one of my favorite "modern" soap opera openings. That opening should probably have been kept until the show ended. Nothing after it ever measured up, in my opinion. Actually, I believe that is exactly what it was! Something like that, anyway. It was definitely not something shot specifically for Guiding Light.

If I remember correctly, the video for this opening was found footage. I believe I heard that on a daytime talk-show fairly early in the run of this opening. Don't remember which talk show or why they were discussing Guiding Light. Sorry. It was nearly 50-years ago. This is one of my three favorite GL openings, and I believe it fit the show perfectly at the time.

Thanks for that information. I wish your post could somehow get into some of the soap opera history books. I'm sure 99 percent of GL fans are unaware of the completely different show in 1947. How coincidental (or down-right strange) that Guiding Light went through two changes of locale during it's history, and it is likely that neither change occurred within the scripted narrative. I agree. I enjoyed those nods to history in the later years of the show. But you are very right, the execution was poor. For example, Meta's (Mary Stuart's) speech at the end of one of the anniversary episodes -- where she mentions Five Points and Selby Flats, and even Reverend Rutledge. But none of the Bauers lived in Five Points, and none of them had ever met Reverend Rutledge. So how would Meta be aware of them? And then in even later years, TPTB seemed to try repeatedly to introduce a descendent of Reverend Rutledge, even though the original Reverend Rutledge had no sons, so his name could not have been carried-down through the generations to another male descendant. There was just no logic to the way TPTB tried to call back to the show's earliest days. It could have been done well and respectfully, but someone just didn't do enough research.

Oh no! Another GL mystery? Are you really telling us that GL's move from Five Points to Selby Flats took place off-camera (off-radio [since there were no cameras])?? And if so, did any characters actually move? And did they discuss moving in the scripts? Or was the show just magically transferred from Five Points to Selby Flats without explanation? This conversation is like Deja Vu!!

No, I didn't stop enjoying soaps at all. But I thought soaps were much better when they took themselves seriously. When they stopped being believable and some became campy or comedic, I think the quality of the drama suffered. And the question didn't ask what most people think. Bill and Laura, and Doug and Julie were the first two super-couples on DOOL. So I do enjoy believable super-couples. There is no need to include spies, espionage, or saving the world. All a super-couple needs is a long-running compelling love story. I did not enjoy the Reilly era on DOOL. He seemed to be making fun of the entire genre and using DOOL to do it.

In my opinion: Another World - 1979 Days of Our Lives - 1983 All My Children - 1983 General Hospital - 1980 Search for Tomorrow - 1980 (or whenever the Corringtons left as head writers) I don't have strong opinions about the others

What I've seen of the Dobson era at GL seems wonderful. GL truly had a unique identity among the soaps at that time -- not a copy of Agnes Nixon's style, not as plotless as Harding Lemay's AW but still very character driven. Does anyone have an explanation as to why the Dobson's style on ATWT seemed so extremely different than their work on GL? It did to me, anyway. And then when they created Santa Barbara, that show was an entirely different animal with all that comedy and camp, with dialogue full of irony, that frankly got tiring fairly quickly at least for me. Was Santa Barbara actually what they really wanted to do at Guiding Light? Or at ATWT? Why was the Dobson's work on GL so wonderful, while their later work seemed to have little in common with their material at GL? Anyone care to speculate?

That's interesting. I had no idea about that. Do you (or anyone else) remember when "outdoor" sets were created in the studio, did they include set items like palm tress and other outdoorsy things that one might identify with southern California?

The first actor to play Mac (Robert Emhardt) did play him as a bit of an old domineering tyrant. But we didn't get to know his version of the character well enough to find out if he was also a letch. LOL. I believe it was probably Agnes Nixon who wanted to change the locale. By the mid-1960s nearly all the existing soaps were located in small fictional midwestern towns with little identification to a specific state. So GL's California location may have seemed too exotic for Nixon to spin the kind of tales she wanted to tell. And her later creations seem to support that she was more comfortable placing her soaps in small midwestern (or eastern) towns. And regarding "dealing with issues about living in an LA suburb" -- a couple of years ago on another message board or Facebook group, I asked if GL's California location was often reflected in the scripts. I was surprised when several posters responded, "yes". They said scripts often mentioned things like the weather, traffic, and other issues that did reflect a California vibe. I wish I could remember more of the examples the other posters listed. But several agreed that California was not ignored on GL as just some benign locale unworthy of note. Being very young in the mid-60s, although I did occasionally see episodes of GL, I wasn't paying attention to such specifics.

Based on the evidence, that seems to be the most likely scenario. If true, that's unfortunate. Agnes Nixon was on of the best head writers in the history of the genre. Surely she could have created an amazing and convincing storyline surrounding the move to Springfield. Too bad she apparently chose not to do so.

In addition to what I said in my previous post on this topic, there is one more possible piece of evidence. Although I am not an expert on Guiding Light sets, it does appear that Bert Bauer's house set was the same house both before and after the location change. There were some modifications and enlargements over the decades, but if you view older and later episodes, it does seem to be the same house (or set). If I am wrong about this, I'm sure some one will correct me. So if the Bauers actually moved from California to Springfield on camera in 1965-66, one would assume they would have a new home (and a new set) at the same time. And it appears they did not get a new set, so . . .

That still seems to be a big mystery. Nobody has ever found a script or an old episode that mentions an on camera move of the characters from one city to another. And when Mike Bauer was appearing on Another World, at the same time as GL changed locations, those scripts ARE available. Interestingly, on AW Mike never used the term Selby Flats or Springfield -- he only refers to "my hometown" -- never actually saying the name of either city. So that seems to be some evidence that GL just magically changed locations without mentioning any real move. On the other hand, there are some fans who swear they remember episodes of GL in which the Bauers and the Fletchers actually discussed moving from Selby Flats (which was in California) to Springfield. I suppose at this point, the only way to definitively solve this mystery is for someone to research the old GL scripts form that era, and see if a move is mentioned in any of the dialogue.

Did anyone else ever think Clarice was a bit similar to Lahoma??