Mona Kane Croft

10 hours ago, watson71 said:

Always liked this theme and the one before it. Always liked that they kept the interlocking rings at the beginning of the opening credits as a nod and wink to the past.  Also, for 1981, the credits were technologically advanced- I wonder if the company that created the credits for the Superman movie in 1978 worked on these credits?  They are very similar. 
 

 

The most amazing thing to me is, the original expanding "circle of rings" opening (the one used throughout most of the 1960s and 70s) was created without the assistance of computer technology.  To me, it it almost impossible to imagine how that opening was put together.  Would that be called "analog" animation?  

19 minutes ago, Khan said:

Well, I must admit, the Hannibal Lecter mask and faux Jamaican accent were a bit much, lol.

And Joan Copeland as Alexandra during much of this storyline, while Another World fans were wondering if Beverlee McKenzie was returning as Iris was also a bit much.  LOL.  And all this was around the time Iris did return to Another World, but played by Carmen Duncan.  

3 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

This is what the poster says in the text: 

Clip from AW 03/06/1998 from Eddie's page. I'm dying to find the music from this scene. It was used in here and there on AW in '97-'99 and I believe it was also used on ATWT '99-'02. I also heard it on an episode of Oprah so I know NBC had rights to it. I would so love to know title and composer or source if anyone has any feedback. Clip is of Jake (Tom Eplin) and Vicky (Jensen Buchanan) shortly after Michael and Shane's death.

Thank you for more detail, Donna.   Well, it would not be NBC that had the rights to the music.  It would have been P&G Productions (or Televest) -- at least for Another World.  If it was also used on Oprah's show, then she may have been using the same music production company (who knows?).  In terms of title, composer, and source -- the person inquiring should refer to my earlier post.   

2 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Thanks. Nice to see Anna.

I saw this clip that was posted a few years ago - the person was asking for help trying to figure out the background music. Not sure if anyone can help.

 

Not sure what you mean by "figure out the background music." Are they hoping to find the title of the tune, or the composer?  Actually, to me it sounds like a normal background cue, probably composed and produced by the music company that was providing all the background cues at the time (1998).  In most cases, those tunes do not have titles, nor are the composers names available.    But you could probably find the name of the music production company in the closing credits for episodes in 1998.   

And wow, that was a very long scene -- even by 1998 standards.  In 2024, that scene would be dissected into about ten 30-second micro-scenes, and spread throughout a 60-minute episode.   

1 hour ago, P.J. said:

That I'm not sure of. But Ben lived there before Carrie and Ross. It was hideously decorated with wood every where. 

If I'm not mistaken, Roger and one of his early wives lived in this set.  Possibly Roger and Peggy?   I could be wrong.  

1 hour ago, P.J. said:

Right? I can't really think of one that survived longer. 

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?

2 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

I am in email communication with her. Hard to know but she seems experienced. I've asked her if she will be videotaping for distribution after. No, although that might change. I've asked her if she will be live streaming. No and that will not change. I asked her if guests will be able to videotape themselves. No. She indicated prohibitive costs of $3000 for videotaping and $4000 for live streaming. She also indicated disappointment that neither NBC nor P&G was interested in co-sponsoring this event. That's about it. 

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.   

1 hour ago, Paul Raven said:

It's puzzling to see Liza Chapman's children there. How much knowledge would they have of her role ?

Hopefully, things have been arranged that they are aware of the situation and don't end up being ignored/shoved aside.Maybe the organizer is planning an overview of the early days and they are there to represent.

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.    

19 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Okay, you have given me an idea. What if we come up with some questions? Then I would email them to this Karen person & she'd be crazy not to use them! 

 

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.  

1 hour ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Update!

https://www.greenvelope.com/card/.public-8efca4cc5d754199b8abcf5451a6cc4235373031343331

ANOTHER WORLD 60TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION

Sat., May 4, 2024 in Tarrytown, NY

About 80 tickets left to sell.

 

Actors:

Judith Barcroft Washam (Lenore Moore 1966-1971)

Barbara Rodell (Lee Randolph 1968-1969)

Leonie Norton (Cindy Clark 1970-1972)

Ariana Muenker (Marianne Randolph 1975-1977)

Susan Keith (Cecile DePoulignac 1979-1981)

Janice Lynde (Tracy DeWitt 1979-1981)

Linda Dano (Felicia Gallant 1983-1999)

Lewis Arlt (David Thatcher 1983-1984, Ken Jordan 1990-1991, Scriptwriter)

Sofia Landon Geier (Jennifer Thatcher 1983, Donna Love 1990-1991, 1993, Scriptwriter 1992-1999)

Kale Browne (Michael Hudson 1986-1993, 1995-1998)

Laurence Lau (Jamie Frame 1986-1990)

Anne Marie Howard (Nicole Love 1987-1989)

James Kiberd (Dustin Trent 1989)

Russell Todd (Jamie Frame 1990-1993)

 

Crew:

Janet Iacobuzio (Scriptwriter 1989-1992, Associate Head Writer 1994-1995)

Steven Bergman (Set Photographer 1990-1999)

Jim Semmelman (Stage Manager 1996-1999)

 

Family Members:

David & Honor Heath, representing their Mother, Liza Chapman (Janet Matthews)

Mark Penberthy, representing his Mother, Beverly Penberthy (Pat Randolph)

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.

31 minutes ago, Khan said:

But the truly funny/sad part is how PASSIONS tried to re-brand itself as tongue-in-cheek satire after they realized how much of a thud they had landed within the general soap watching community.  "It's campy, because it's supposed to be campy!"  Bitch, please!  Your show reeks and you know it!

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.   

27 minutes ago, Khan said:

The fact is the soaps, and the people who work in the soaps, always have been ashamed of themselves.  They don't see what they do for their most loyal fans as being as "legitimate" as what primetime shows and movies do for their audiences.  IOW, daytime has suffered for a long time from a massive inferiority complex; and it's that complex, IMO, that has been the primary cause of its' downfall.

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????

19 minutes ago, Sapounopera said:

Which are the two other favorite openings?

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.

22 minutes ago, SoapDope said:

That's interesting. It kind of looks like someone shooting outdoor footage and trying to test the camera zoom lens

Actually, I believe that is exactly what it was!   Something like that, anyway. It was definitely not something shot specifically for Guiding Light. 

50 minutes ago, Sapounopera said:

The idea behind the opening is not that bad. If only the colors were a little bit more vibrant. 

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.   

24 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

When TGL resumed in June 47 it was acompletely different show, now set in Selby Flats. 

Dr Charles Matthews (Hugh Studebaker) was pastor of Church of Good Samaritan in Selby Flats , an underpriveleged area of LA.

The good doctor's philosophy of life was keynoted in the opening installment by a lamp of friendship delivered to him by a divinity student from Five Points.

'It's the symbol of 'The Guiding Light' says Dr Matthews.Now I know what to say at the state prison.'

The next scene took place at the prison and the new storylines unfolded

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.    

5 minutes ago, Vee said:

I always enjoyed the idea of GL calling back to Reverend Rutledge and the lamp/lighthouse/etc. near the end of the run. I just think the execution of it was very poor. If GL was ever rebooted it would be nice to find a way to tie all these little details together - maybe a location bit or someone's correspondence, or a character from Selby Flats or Five Points, etc.

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.  

1 hour ago, Khan said:

As you probably know, the show is off the air for about seven months between the end of the Five Points era and the start of Selby Flats setting in June, 1947. 

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!!

3 hours ago, SamandWillowFan said:

So you stopped enjoying soaps by the early 80s? I think most people consider the early to mid 90s to be the best of GH.

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.   

4 hours ago, kalbir said:

Of all the soaps I've watched

Y&R: 1998

B&B: 1993

As the World Turns: 1993

Guiding Light: 1992

I take it you weren't a fan of the supercouple era or Reilly era.

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

1 hour ago, Soaplovers said:

I've been watching the last few weeks of her stint head-writing Guiding Light (December 1979) and I understand exactly why Douglas Marland said that GL was the only soap he ever inherited that was in excellent shape.

Those last few weeks neatly resolved the Holly prison story, revealed Roger was still alive, Rita revealing her affair to Ed, and Diane starting her full descent to the dark side. 

It's no wonder why Marland's first few months on GL is thought of in such a great way because he had inherited a strong show... and that was due to the Dobson's.

RIP

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?

10 minutes ago, Khan said:

I know that L.A. itself played a crucial role in the storyline where little Mike Bauer, upset about all the attention being given toward his newborn baby brother, "Billy," ran away from home.  IIRC, they searched for Mike in several, well-known parts of the city before finding him in (I think?) Griffith Park.

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?