KMan101

Also happy to see you back @EricMontreal22

I've never really heard an interview with her. I could listen to her talk all day. Her voice is fabulous. [!@#$%^&*] Paul Rauch. I know he's passed but [!@#$%^&*] Paul Rauch. It really is very "current" for something that was a clear problem 50 years ago. It's disgusting how women have been told they're crazy, difficult and that gets repeated and people just ... believe it! It's so bizarre the clear sexism (and I'm a man but I'm not a straight man ...). My heart breaks for Ellen Holly and all she went through at One Life to Live. She really cared, really took pride in that character and being the face. She's absolutely right in so many of the things she said. She likely, and rightfully so, saw herself as the face of OLTL. But the two gorgeous blondes come in and she's shoved out. I understand her resentment completely but I don't know why she's so dismissive of the actresses. She's not mean or anything but it's almost like she places the blame on them (and I don't really think she's meaning to; she has a great head on her shoulders and she "gets it"). I LOL'd everytime she'd throw out "the third Viki" If treated better there's likely no doubt she wanted to be there "for life". As disappointed as I am she turned them down to return in 1993 and likely would anytime asked, I respect her for it and I think she had every right to not want to go back. She probably felt she'd be used and discarded. (Although, social wise, that was a fairly solid period for the ABC soaps; she would have worked well in the more diverse Llanview Gottlieb/Griffith/Malone wanted - and hopefully treated better, but I remember them not having a use for Wanda and discarding her) I wish more notice was taken when people like Ellen Holly, Sarah Brown and Victoria Rowell speak out. But soaps (edit: and especially women of color) are ignored.

I agree with this. I'm not sold yet. I don't dislike her, but it was one episode and I have no familiarity with her otherwise. Feels like a more perky but brunette Elisabeth. Elisabeth at least had some quirky charm at times. I don't *hate* Meghan, but sometimes she plays the victim and often is sensitive and takes things not meant to be taken a certain way, a certain way. I'm very hot and cold with her. lol. Sometimes I like what she has to say. Other times her attitude is a turn off. But my heart breaks for her right now. She does seem like a good person with a good head on her shoulders. It's usually not about politics for me with her. Often she's not even explaining *her* view, she's explaining her parties. I think the problem with Meghan and the co-hosts is not great communication and not truly listening to what the other is saying before having a reaction. She just takes things the wrong way. And sometimes they take her wrong because often times she isn't even explaining her own personal view but I think they take it as such. Anyone else notice this and that it seems to be the cause of them sometimes not understanding each other? At least neither Meghan or Abby are onboard Trump's crazytown train. I think Abby tries to be more diplomatic though, lol. I'm glad to see Joy took at least a one episode breather from her Trump rants. I'm usually right there with her but she needed to calm down a little. The stress wasn't good for her Anyone else think Whoopi couldn't have been less interested in Abby? I imagine Meghan pushed for her friend and Whoopi is close with Meghan ... not that I mind more balance there. It could certainly be far worse than Meghan/Abby when you think about it. I can't get over them. I still miss Nicolle and Jed. And I already miss Sara's presence. I get why she left the View for GMA Day, but why is Strahan still dominating the original GMA? I actually like him, but they push him so much.

I guess. It was made too much about politics from the start and Roseanne unfortunately didn't help matters. It's kind of tacky, but they have to promote the show. I'm glad for the cast but IMO you either keep Roseanne or you move on altogether (I was initially all for "The Conners" but I'm more meh now for whatever reason). But we'll see how it goes. I have a lot of feelings on this one but I've kept them to myself.

I'm good with it. The cast deserves a chance. I'm glad they're getting it.

I agree with this. She did better earlier on.

It was so awful.

Personally I think you can like both Maureen's. They each worked for me when I've watched episodes with them. Parker just exudes warmth and fits the matriarch role Maureen was put into. Dolan wouldn't have worked in that. But I liked Dolan as Maureen too, personally. Parker just felt so fitting for GL and Maureen ultimately though. I didn't grow up watching either so I have no connection that way, just putting it out there how it comes across to me. I always felt Dolan was more cold on ATWT. She had life to her on GL. Oddly, I think Dolan "fit" better on ATWT, even if I was never the biggest fan of her as Margo. Sometimes I'd be. Always so hit or miss for me depending on her acting or the craptastic writing for Margo. I feel like Dolan checked out at times over the years on ATWT, but I can't say I blame her.

I was actually thinking about the Maureen's the other day. Odd. LOL. Having only seen clips (I didn't become a watcher of GL until 1997 but trust me, I know my stuff), I'd have preferred Dolan's version. I always felt Dolan was mis-cast as Margo on ATWT. But the writing for Tom and Margo was complete [!@#$%^&*] most of the time anyway. I mean, as a newer viewer to ATWT at the time, Margo and Tom were hard to care about or invest in. But I still liked Dolan and sometimes Holmes. They just never got them right, IMO. I can see why they chose Parker as Maureen. I know she was the "Light" at the time, but it aged her too much to have her be the "new Bert" at the time, as some viewers seemed to have wanted. Parker was fantastic. I liked her Maureen a great deal. But I'd rather write for Dolan as Maureen, if that makes sense. I can ultimately see why she could have "failed" in (the ridiculous) the focus groups (I hate that idea for a soap). But she also seemed 'set up' to fail, so to speak. I think Dolan was just more who I'd rather see play Maureen. Hilary B. Smith seemed perfect for Margo. But I can see why they cast Dolan to replace her. Dolan was just too hard at times as Margo, IMO. Kristian Alfonso suffers from this sometimes too.

I like that he let himself go gray too. It works for him. Much like it works very well for Drake Hogestyn.

lmao! Oddly I can see it working. It will feel a little bizarre. But he's older. I felt the same way as you about him on FRIENDS. I think they all developed some egos on that show and have over time humbled. LeBlanc is still desperate to shed Joey (I love his co-stars on his sitcom but I just can't get into it). I think it helped he (Schwimmer) didn't do a lot after FRIENDS (probably because it felt like he regressed as an actor on that show). Some things but not a lot. He kind of fell out of the spotlight then squeezed back in on Murphy's OJ Simpson trial series.

I don't mind the documentary stuff, I find it interesting. And I like they show things like Laugh-In and Dick Cavett and Ed Sullivan. I'm not actively watching any of it but I like it's on. I imagine they'll expand the daytime lineup of shows. They didn't even have a regular daytime schedule until either earlier this year or late last year. The Through The Decades blocks of programming is very recent. So there's room to grow. I think it's a solid offering of shows. I can see them adding more or switching things up. I like they're airing things like Our Miss Brooks and Family Affair. The other shows have been played to death but I still like them. I'm not actively watching most at this point, but it's nice they're offered. Agreed on the Weekend Binge idea. It seems all over the place with the marathons. Commish one weekend and Police Woman the next. I appreciate the idea of the blocks, seeing some shows not in regular lineups.

I've already got the DVR set for Police Woman! lol. I've actually never seen it. I meant to record/watch Tarzan. I forgot all about it. I try hard to keep up with the Decades marathons. They often have some good ones! Decades is what I wanted TV Land to be, somewhat (it kind of was with the retromercials and they did have some "rare" shows every now and then and I liked their weekend marathons and weekend "blocks"). I guess I should say instead that Decades reminds me a lot of how TV Land was and should have been.

It'd be nice to see someone at least try streaming classic episodes. Just to see the interest (or not). It's why I was so happy about RetroTV airing The Doctors. But they've yet to expand on airing soaps (I was hopeful for at least Dark Shadows, even Peyton Place ... but I think Decades has Dark Shadows, even though they don't air it). I fully believe the audience is there. But I understand cost vs. revenue and all that. It's a tricky situation. But like Chris B said, episodes were already made available to streaming years ago, why not just put them up somewhere? It's likely because no one cares enough to.

Thanks for the insight. He seems to have mellowed a bit, I felt, (I always knew he was obnoxious) but I don't really follow him so I don't know how he is. I can believe the politics thing. I didn't realize he alienated them that much. But, again, time changes people. I agree that they better have a darn good supporting cast. I think they could. The right Frederick cast, if they can get Bebe Neuwirth to be a semi-regular. It could possibly work but I agree with you on your take. I think he needs that strong supporting cast. Frasier without that cast would have been another "Flo". You have to have the right chemistry and support you had on the original show. I think fans would expect to see Roz, Niles and Daphne. I would. But I can see a scenario where it goes without them (if it's even an option, just speculating at this point). I mean at the end of the day they're actors and if they want to go back to those roles, and are asked, who knows? They're all still working, not like they're sitting at home waiting for a call. It could be difficult. I could see guest appearances if they all got along. Little arcs. I absolutely agree about Niles and David Hyde, I'd personally rather watch Niles and Daphne's antics. Really though the whole cast was just stellar. It all just worked. Magic happened. The scenario is there (Martin's passing) if they can make it work. I have my doubts though. I had my doubts before but hearing of the cast's issues with each other, it seems even less likely. But stranger things have happened! LOL. I never say never anymore. Kelsey played Frasier brilliantly but I've come to like him better in dramatic roles. It may not have been the best but I liked his Starz drama that lasted a couple of seasons. I think he's more appealing now doing dramatic work. He's too smug as a person for comedy as anyone other than Frasier. JMO. His series with Kristen Bell doesn't look awful.

Well, time changes things. What did he do to piss them off? I had no idea they weren't speaking to him. But to be fair, he could still reboot Frasier without them. Not that I wouldn't want the rest back. EXACTLY! And I think that's the appeal of going back. Actors are seeing the viability in exploring their popular characters again because they realize there are new things to tell. Of course they don't want to go back two years after the show's over, but give 'em 15-20 years and time changes. There's more to explore. We're in a different place than we were when many of these went off the air. For so long you "couldn't go back" but now many are seeing that you actually can and it's not the end of the world. It's like the soaps. That's why people are invested. There's a history and attachment there. I think it's a great idea to revive old shows. They lose me with the "reboots" though (there's a difference between a reboot and a revival, but they all get called "reboots" and I hate it, LOL). But I get everyone lumping them together and calling it all lazy. And some have blurred the lines, like 90210 and Melrose Place. REBOOT: - Charlie's Angels (before it's time? lol) - 90210 (revival on some level, reboot on another) - Melrose Place (revival on some level, reboot on another) - Dynasty - Magnum PI - Hawaii Five-0 - One Day at a Time - Alf (likely to be a mix of revival/reboot "we're continuing the story with a new family") - Facts of Life (not a guarantee and could go either way if any of the cast demands to be involved) REVIVAL - Roseanne / The Conners - Will & Grace - Murphy Brown - Fuller House (spin-off/slash revival) - Dallas (though it seemed to want to be a reboot not a revival) - 90210 (falls under both, IMO) - Melrose Place (falls under both, IMO) Apologies for forgetting anyone.

I mean, look at CBS - Murphy Brown - Magnum P.I. - FBI - S.W.A.T. - Hawaii Five-0 - Young Sheldon (spin-off but it's from the mother franchise) Most companies now want "sure bets". They're very risk adverse, even though risk often pays off. I'm a Disney Parks fan and they're also very risk adverse, cloning attractions and making "safe bets" tied to franchises and IP's that are familiar. Gone are the days of them coming up with their own ideas. I'm not justifying it, just saying it's a corporate reality at the moment. I don't like it but sometimes we can get something good out of it.

This! I'm all for this. The timing would be right. They could work in the passing of Martin and have that be a great launching point. Not like the actors, even Neuwirth, aren't somewhat available. I know they're all busy, not saying they aren't, but they don't have long-term series commitments from what I'm aware of. I feel like Kelsey wasn't on the bandwagon of revivals at first but I wonder if the passing of John Mahoney has him thinking similarly as me. I know people are tired of revivals but I say bring 'em. Give me Frasier realizing life repeats itself with his now adult son. I think Will & Grace's revival has definitely caused others to re-think the idea. The Conners likely as well. Murphy Brown could go either way but I can't help but be a little excited when I see the cast back together. So I'm jumping onboard. I have more of an issue with reboots like Charmed and Roswell and Dynasty than I do with bringing back old shows that I loved. Sure it's the same purpose (use a familiar name to draw a built-in audience) but I'd rather have the history behind it. (One Day at a Time is an absolute exception to this though, and proves it can be possible, but I also understand it's annoying to some and not neccessary and creatively lazy) I'd rather watch Frasier and The Conners than Zach Braff's latest failure. We can't beat it, so we might as well join it. I really never thought actors like Patrick Stewart and Kelsey Grammar would go back to their roles, but time changes people's minds. Frasier doesn't seem imminent (doesn't Grammar have something with Kristen Bell on a streaming service? He was just on GMA peddling it but I don't recall any Frasier reboot talk)

Welcome! Apparently it was on this morning. I totally forgot. Or it was supposed to be. I know Logo is airing FOL right now for Charlotte Rae One Day at a Time is back on the schedule THIS Friday @ 12:00PM. But Logo is notorious for switching up their schedules on a whim so DVR is your best bet. It's a Living follows at 3:00PM on Friday. @All My Shadows @ChitHappens Finally they schedule compatible shows together. Looking through the listings ... Monday 8/13 It's a Living airs from 3:15pm - 6:35pm (gotta get those commercials in!). One Day at a Time is on before it at 12:00pm. Tuesday 8/14 It's a Living airs from 12:00pm - 4:00pm Wednesday 8/15 It's a Living airs from 9:00am - 12:00pm (Laverne & Shirley follows at 12:00pm) Friday 8/17 It's a Living airs from 12:00pm - 5:00pm (One Day at a Time is on before it from 9:00am - 12:00pm) Unless it gets pulled, it should be on a lot next week. Who knew Logo would ever be so great for classic TV fans?

It is funny what we can make time for lol. I knew I was forgetting someone about IAL! I'll try and keep track but Logo has an ever changing schedule. Sometimes they stick with blocks of the same shows sometimes they mix it up. I have one of my streaming dvrs set up to record it so I don't miss it. I'll have to look at the schedule. I really liked Season 1. It's a basic sitcom but the leads are all solid. I can see though how it sort of got lost in the shuffle. It's even more generic sitcom plot later, but I still enjoy it. I wish they gave Ann Jillian more to do than. They rarely seem to center an episode around her.

Same here. I forgot how much I enjoyed the show. It's been a long time since I've seen it. Probably since when it aired on TV Land (around 2002-2004?). I need Knots Landing and Falcon Crest to get back on my screen. I haven't watched either since SoapNet. And because I don't feel like starting a thread or finding the other one, It's a Living seems to be back in rotation on Logo. It's started with the first season a few weeks ago on a Friday late night and it seems they've been airing more of it just this week. I've recorded them but haven't kept up with the schedule @ChitHappens and whoever else would be interested. Can't recall who else showed interest.

WOW! I mean, people aren't stupid, they remember where a star got their start. It's bizarre we have this tendency now that if we erase it it doesn't exist ... or pretend it didn't happen ... They should be worrying about other things than that their star got their start on a soap and many of those fans are following them to what they're doing now ... Thanks. I forgot about that, lol.

I remember that. She's a class act all the way around. I don't remember the mocking but it's not a surprise. Soaps have long had a stigma that many still cling to. And sometimes the soaps themselves don't help this ... lawd. lol

Well, yeah ... lol. They have a lot of viewers who feel a certain way and they often seem to play it safe. NBC has come around and Paul, Will and Sonny are pretty accepted it seems. CBS clearly sucks at this. ABC is a mixed bag. I blame it more on the writers and Frank than on ABC not wanting to see "the gays" (I know Brad and Lucas have finally started popping back up again but isn't their story mostly about Julian now? And anything with them is usually off-screen?) And I adore them for it. I appreciate when they can acknowledge their past without a sneer. I mean, Julianne Moore CAME BACK to ATWT as it ended. That was such an amazing gesture. If This Is Us wasn't a ridiculous hit, Hartley would have already probably been back on Y&R, lol. I've been glad to hear over the years actors not too familiar with Daytime acknowledge how demanding it is.

Fair point. But I find accepting online streaming and accepting someone's way of a life very different. I'm part of the community so I welcome everyone to grow and change (and while I understand the point you were trying to make I still find them vastly different). Just saying it "looks" hypocritical sometimes, but I'm not trying to say everyone is. Just certain people and situations come off as hypocritical. Not really a big deal, lol. Just my opinion of course But yes, I welcome anyone who can grow and change and evolve. I'm always trying to learn from situations and I handle a lot of things differently than I did say 10 years ago. I feel like the same person yet in a lot of ways completely different. Anywho ... I'm also tired of daytime playing it safe. UK soaps have numerous gay people and it's not at all a big deal. Not that I think the writing for them is all that great but often they're treated like anyone else and given lots of stories (usually dark and depressing). DAYS treats them like anyone else but it's not really enough.