Jump to content

j swift

Members
  • Content Count

    1,522
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by j swift

  1. I was reading this on @will81 Tumblr Soaps of Yesteryear from April 1985

    https://boards.soapoperanetwork.com/uploads/monthly_2021_06/image.thumb.png.a7bd6cd0b06682a9a6460d64b90857af.png

     

    It it got me thinking of two things:

     

    1.  They should have used Maggie's time in New York to explain all of her retconned children, as it would have been more logical than someone else using her unsemenated frozen eggs for Daniel, (and however Summer was created).

     

    and

     

    2.  I know that Micky and Maggie were remarried in a double ceremony with Pete and Melissa.  In the April 1985 plot summaries Melissa just found out that Ivy was pregnant with Pete's baby.  So, when did Maggie return?  Was she gone the entire time that Linda/Madame X was in town?  And how quickly did she reunite with MIcky?  Or, did she leave after the double wedding?

  2. 2 hours ago, pdm1974 said:
    11 hours ago, te. said:

    I agree that this plot should have been drawn out a bit more. It could've been used to create some genuine conflict with Fallon and Liam.

    The guy really had nothing to blackmail Fallon with, I mean what’s so wrong with paying for your husband’s best friend to come and visit?  I thought he would have some information on the expansion, but it seems like that is a totally separate thread.  I hope Blake isn’t doing anything to mess up Fallon’s company. 

  3. What if it is

     

    My only quibble is the sitcom-like solutions at the end of every episode.  It is inevitable that Liam and Fallon would squash their issue, but they will continue next week, so why write a resolve every week where suddenly they understand each others motives?

     

    Once again a shout out to the costume department.  I laughed my ass off when Fallon responded to Blake's 911 call by changing her outfit to meet him at La Mirage, only to be repeated when Blake changed two minutes later to meet with Dominique.  This is one Dynasty that has their fashion priorities in check.

  4. 19 minutes ago, gimmetoo said:

    Charles Flohe did a stint on Dallas, then onto Another Word, Santa Barbara and B&B.

    Lois Kibbee did Search for Tomorrow in 85, then OLTL starting in 86.

    Ann Flood had smaller roles on Search, Another World, AMC, ATWT and OLTL in the years after Edge.

    Mark Arnold had a memorable turn on SB and then several years on OLTL.

    Terry Davis did AW before SB and Sunset Beach on the West Coast.

    Joe Lambie did GH, Search for Tomorrow, SB and a recurring role on Falcon Crest.

    Right, and I guess I forgot that John Allen Nelson when straight from EON to SB

  5. I was just reading The Soaps of Yesterday tumblr about soap news from 1985 and it struck me that Larkin Malloy (Sky), Sharon Gabet (Raven), and Marcia Cross (Liz) were all cast on other soaps almost immediately after EON was cancelled.  In fact, one story noted that Larkin started on GL the week after EON was cancelled.

     

    However, so many other talented actors faded into obscurity. 

     

    Can anyone think of other cast members that found work in daytime in the first year after the cancellation?

  6. It is April 1985 in the newest upload.  JMR and LH are very annoyed that Michael Zaslow was written off OLTL because he was a good actor and they felt there was so much potential in his character.  Hugo Napier became a US citizen and was then promptly fired from AMC.  Denise Pense was let go from GL as Katie, just before her character's brother Floyd was arrested for murder.   Lisa Brown is also leaving GL as Nola and Michael Tylo sounds pissed off that it meant Quint's exit as well.  He suggests that GL kill off Nola and play stories of Quint as a widower, because "single parenthood is hot these days."  https://thesoapsofyesterday-blog-blog.tumblr.com/

     

    Meanwhile, we've got some filing to do...

     

    Filed under "temp recasts that I don't recall"

     

    Filed under "I told you so last week"

     

    Filed under "Lynda Hirsch continues to have the worst editor in newspaper history", in an answer to a question about Dynasty star Michael Praed they misspelled Ms. Hughes's first name and character

     

    Filed under - "Did this marriage ever happen?", right next to "Whatever happened to her?", but before "Remember when 'perennial bachelor' was a euphemism for gay?"

     

    Filed under @BoldRestless gets his answer

     

    And finally filed under "I wonder why DAYS doesn't use Maggie's time in New York to explain all of her retconned children?"

    Please register in order to view this content

     

     

     

     

  7. I was honestly entertained by reunion.

     

    Andy was clearly not a fan of the show, (not that he showed any disdain, I just think he didn't watch it weekly for 15 years), but he brought he charisma, uniqueness, nerve, and talent when asking intriguing questions.  The set was beautiful.  I thought the Kris Humprhey stuff was interesting, including how many of them thought it wouldn't work, and the idea that Kim didn't feel forced by production to get married, but she worried about the public perception of her not getting married. 

     

    I thought the family openly discuss the struggles of who is more or less willing to discuss their lives on the show.  They obviously felt a dynamic between wanting to make good TV, but not being willing to be judged.

     

    I always felt badly for Kim after the Paris robbery, especially remembering her thoughts about how her sisters would be traumatized by seeing her dead.  However, I also really appreciated that she knew from the beginning that she was not interesting enough to carry a show and needed her sisters to help bring in some story.

     

    Kourtney, once again, demonstrated that she has experienced the least amount of emotional maturity amongst her sisters.  She is a woman in her mid 40s, aging in Hollywood, and is still making faces and continuing the same judgements of others that she made in her 20s.  One gets the sense that she has no time or space for self reflection.  Unlike, Khloe who just doesn't seem very bright, Kourtney seems to have made a conscience descision not to develop over time. 

  8. 5 minutes ago, Mitch said:

    It really is too bad if true...Beecroft seems to have been his own worst enemy. I guess now I know the answer of why they never brought him back to GL.

     

    Unlike other workplaces it continues to amaze how actors with bad reputations on one show found work on other daytime shows.  Melanie's complaints about Beecroft were published at the time in SOD, but he still worked on several other shows after ATWT.  Vigard's time on the show was characterized as "tumultuous" in the Tumblr articles after she left ATWT, but she still got a job on OLTL.  I guess actors don't need letters of reference, but it never ceases to interest me that those who were perceived as difficult by their co-stars continued to book gigs.  

  9. 8 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

    The opening lyric, “I guess I should’ve known by the way you parked your car sideways that it wouldn’t last,” has been in my head ALL week for some reason.

    It was Saturday night, so I guess that made it alright.

     

    In hindsight it is funny that Prince's lyrics were so obtuse that we just assumed he was using sexual allegories.  However, did he really try to compare female reproductive organs to both little red corvettes and raspberry berets (or just the kind you find in a second hand store)?  Meanwhile Purple Rain remains one of the most beautiful songs to me, both emotionally and harmonically, but I have no idea of the intended interpretation of the lyric.

  10. 53 minutes ago, Soapsuds said:

    I wish they've talked more about the remote with the cable cars which they briefly touched on and Marland changing Daryl as the killer

    One wonders, after watching so many of these reunions, how much insight the actors have into the production forces that guided the shows?  So many of them tend to have focused on the drudgery of having to preform in five hours a week of soaps, that very few were aware or informed about what was happening in the writing and production offices.  Learning that many scripts, as well as the egocentric qualities of most actors, generally means that those in front of the camera were more concerned about their own appearance and performance than they were about the inner workings of their show.

     

    That's why when actors are willing to discuss their relationship to other actors it is intriguing, but their opinions on writing and producing seem like supposition.  One of the reasons many fans have negative views of certain producers, writers, and network executives comes from the interviews that actors gave after they were fired.  However, just as most of us would experience in our own workplace environment, people who were fired are rarely reliable sources, or least they do not always reflect the majority opinions.  For example, I am sure certain actresses were perfectly lovely to their fans, but if you were working on a show and a writer clearly found a muse in another actor or character, I think jealously would be a natural response. 

     

    Alan's reunions remind me of Larry King's show on CNN.  He was not the best prepared interviewer on TV, but he had access to people that nobody else could match.  So, are there people who are more informed about ATWT history; of course.  But, Alan was first to the plate and he gets the choice experiences.

  11. I would hazard to guess that the renewal is more about the pandemic's effect on the inability to develop new programming rather than any perceived commitment from CBS to this particular show.  Given that the panel has been decimated, there are few guests, and even fewer informational segments, the show is obviously on its last legs.  However, there's nothing waiting in the proverbial wings to take its slot and even CBS wouldn't revert to form from the 80s and show primetime reruns in daytime.  Does anyone else remember when One Day at a Time reruns were a staple of the daytime network schedule, rather than just on local or cable stations?

     

    In my experience podcasts have taken over the "diverse cast discussing pop culture" genre.  The Talk was always hampered by the fact it wasn't live, so they were never responding in a timely manor to the day's events.  More 18-24 year olds undoubtedly listen to daily pop culture podcasts than would watch a one hour show with commercials in the morning.  And the current cast brings nothing in terms of humor, charm, or expertise to entice me to want to hear their day old take on what is happening on TV.

  12. I read the news of John Gabriel's death this morning from the (not so) reputable New York Post.  I noted that they mentioned that he played the "controlling" doctor Seneca Beaulac which I found remarkable because I don't think that controlling was a defining characteristic on the character.  Then, I looked at the wiki, and I found that they lifted the adjective from the one sentence character profile on the Ryan's Hope page.

     

    Anyway, I see that Seneca returned for the finale, but I was wondering if anyone remembers his exit storyline in 1985?  Where did Seneca go and with whom did he end up?

  13. 29 minutes ago, BoldRestless said:

    I found that story about Chris Robinson being sentenced for tax fraud and wanting to continue on GH during the day and being incarcerated overnight fascinating. I wonder what ended up happening with that.

    In the synopsis Ginny's trial for the murder of DL Brock was dropped because the DA took note of Bobbi saying about how violent DL had been.  Looking back, there was a lot of build up to Ginny's trial only for her to be set free rather quickly (they hired James Horan and it was one of Jake/Sam Behrens first stories), so I would guess it was planned to be a longer trial.  I believe Ginny and Rick leave Port Charles as soon as the trial is over, so I don't think Chris Robinson got his wish.

  14. Linda/Gina and Robin/Gina are like two different characters each with their own strengths.

     

    For example, I didn't recall how fluid Gina's backstory was in the first year between the adoption of Brandon, her daughter Lily and this guy who I totally forgot

    Please register in order to view this content

    I though Linda did well with Gina as a reluctant drug addict, because she played the manic versions of the character that made her vulnerable.

     

    On the other hand, I think Gina's relationship with Keith Timmons and Ethan Asher needed the stronger and more willful presence that Robin brought to the part.

     

    I also wonder, going back to the original recast, if there wasn't a need to create more of a distinction between Gina and Santana.  Gina and Santana were given very similar stories at first and they play played redundant roles in the plot.  Gina and Santana were both in a love triangle with CC and Mason.  They were both antagonistic toward Eden, and they were both social climbers.

     

    Robin had just finished playing Delia on Ryan's Hope, a character who was known for balancing humor with enmity, so perhaps there was a wish that she could play a different side to Gina than Linda brought to the part.  Certainly, Robin's longevity in the role is testament to her ability to portray a multifaceted character who fit as both a romantic lead and jealous villain.  Finally, I would hazard to predict that Judith McConnell's Sophia could have eaten Linda/Gina for lunch, and she needed a broader actress like Robin to play against in order further the CC/Gina/Sophia triangle.

  15. The new articles are up and there's a lot of sad news about the death of Charita Bauer.

     

    But, there's also disco.  Peter Strong (aka Bob Georgia) loves to boogie and

     

    Speaking of disco and nightclub owners, an interesting tidbit about the loss of Kim Ulrich on ATWT

     

    I'm always amused at what they get wrong.  Here, poor James Horan gets his name misprinted three time in the same article

     

    Then, there's this bold prediction about Dynasty

     

    And finally nobody seems to know who Laken's father is

     

    Please register in order to view this content

     

  16. Ryan the Stripper's motivations are suspicious, which is odd for a show where most things are so obvious to the viewer.  Does he really want to keep stripping?  Why wouldn't he accept money from Sam, then take a loan from Culhane who is a complete stranger?  I am willing to suspend disbelief about law schools that interview students one day, inform them of their acceptance and financial aid the next day, and then they start a week later, but I can't help but think this is all a con.

     

    Adam being in contention as chief of staff with only one competitor was a little bit harder to accept.  The Dynasty clan is able to sneak into anyone's office every episode (in fact the doctor's office look suspiciously like last week's journalist's office).  And Adam's plan to take ownership over the "billions" in medical research seems only tenuously related to being Chief of Staff, considering that he was already in charge of the MRI (still a good joke), and they could only fund one research grant at a time.

     

    Culhane's sudden wealth made him even more of a candidate for death in my book (I was sure the car would blow up in the final scene).  Although, I didn't get why he is wealthier now that he sold the team than he was as an owner (I guess his funds are more liquid now).  I enjoyed the scene with Anders,  Alan Dale is a real charming actor, and his presence brings the right kind of humor to every scene.

     

    I though the Blake and Fallon business story was a bit of a missed opportunity.  When Fallon brought up team building, yoga, and wrongful termination lawsuits, I thought they were setting up an interesting dynamic between the rise of business in the 80s versus today.  It would have been fun to show how liability, leveraged costs, and diversity have changed the workplace, but Dynasty seems a little too superficial for that type of story.

     

    I also really enjoy the variety of excuses to get most of them to live at La Mirage, which is larger than Culhane's apartment,but smaller than Cristal's closet.

     

    Can we all agree that only in soaps do women find out that they're pregnant due to fainting rather than missing their period?

  17. 1 hour ago, FrenchBug82 said:

    The rights to that stuff are not lost in outer space; a business has clear lines of authorities and the responsibility for legacy material must lie somewhere, even if they are not active in that field anymore.

    Agreed

     

    But, I don't want my main point to get lost.  P&G did not stop producing soaps because they lost interest in the genre, or even because of low ratings.  They stopped producing them, (and presumably are disinterested in digital distribution), because their consumer testing division was negligent in producing honest research about the safety of their products and once this was proven, civil lawsuits bankrupted the company and caused it to be broken up and sold off by corporate raiders.

     

    My main impetus for responding to this discussion is because every few months somebody writes about how stupid P&G is for missing the opportunity to make money by streaming the soaps, when in reality the company that we all knew as P&G really doesn't exist any longer and it has nothing to do with music rights or lack of interest in making money. 

     

    I feel like we are all at various levels of expertise when it comes to soap history or critical analysis of characters and plots, because we are long term fans of daytime TV.   But I get annoyed when fans assume the same expertise when it comes to production, distribution, or networks executives without any actual experience in those roles.  I apologize for ranting but it remains a pet peeve when fans assume that those with power are dumb or disrespectful because they disagree with their ideas.

     

    Lastly, let's say you did get the job at P&G.  After the failures of Soapnet, Pop TV, and Retro TV, would you want to be the one to try to convince a board of directors to fund a streaming effort for soaps that were cancelled 20 years ago?  Because there is significant data that nobody beyond this website wants to watch those shows.  Disney and Paramount are making money hand over fist by streaming reruns, does anyone really think that if the market existed then old soaps would not be a part of those services?

  18. 6 minutes ago, FrenchBug82 said:

    it is still hard to comprehend why they couldn't at least sell it to someone who is in that business.

    Without going too far into the weeds on consumer corporate history, you would have to ask who is "they"?  P&G now exists as at least 15 different entities, raiders sold off parts of the company to numerous other owners.  So there is no "they" in charge of P&G anymore and it would be like asking people in charge of selling toothpaste to develop a strategy to sell spaceship parts (which P&G also produced at one time).

  19. On 6/9/2021 at 10:05 AM, DramatistDreamer said:

    Then again, P&G is a mess of a company, so no surprise that they can't get anything together and because they are so messy, no other third party wants to partner with them the way the SoapClassics people once did.

    I guess it bares repeating that asking P&G to stream soaps from their archive is like asking GM to remake the Oldsmobile.  The company got out of soap production not because of ratings or disinterest.  According to Alecia Swasy's book Soap Opera: the inside story of Proctor & Gamble, (which I encourage everyone to read) lawsuits over faulty testing of consumer products created such huge loses in revenue that it took down the company.  Toxic shock from tampons, not poorly written characters or insipid plots, caused the company to be insolvent.

     

    Since the 1990's P&G product divisions have been sold multiple times.  I mean when was the last time you saw Prell shampoo or Dreft detergent that were staples of daytime commercials?  And once they stop producing the items that were intended to be sold on daytime TV, it negated the purpose of producing soap operas.  The company was negligent in testing the safety of their goods before bringing them to the marketplace.  This fact is indisputable and bares no relationship to a lack of desire to continue producing or distributing television dramas.   Those that were in charge of production are long gone, and there is no infrastructure in place to set up a streaming service.

     

    Fans hold such a degree of ownership over soaps that it feels like corporate neglect when soap history is not respected.  However, much like Buicks. Oldmobiles, and the AMC Pacers, the company is no longer in the business of producing that type of content and the multiple new owners have no interest in getting back into that field.

  20. 3 hours ago, NothinButAttitude said:

    That seems crazy (their mistakes) because the Dobsons appear to have had a successful run at GL and a semi-decent run at ATWT. Maybe it was because they had checks and balances on the P&G shows that they couldn't change out characters like they did on their own creation. 

     

    I just always found it weird how their show bombed so quickly due to them under developing so much of the canvas. 

    I noted earlier this year that it would be reductive to attribute SB's failure to thrive solely on the creatives in charge.

     

    First, it debuted against the first week of the 1984 Summer Olympics on ABC which were a huge ratings draw.  The premiere episode is lavish and provocative, but most people were watching track and field in Los Angeles rather than soaps set in Santa Barbara.  We've all experienced that if a soap isn't established as a habit among viewers, then it will never survive, and SB lost the opportunity to be habit forming because so many people were drawn elsewhere.

     

    Then, you have to factor in that NBC historically had a terrible time adding a third hour of soaps to its lineup.  The 1970s are littered with soaps with  interesting premises but failed to attract an audience because NBC could not gain audience support against GH and GL

     

    Third, soaps overall were down in ratings in 1984.  The Price is Right expanded to an hour and it gave CBS a significant lead in the ratings.  The 1984 Tumblr Soaps of Yesterday, noted that part of Y&R's historic reign at number one was due in part to the lead in of the super successful Price is Right.  Even GH's ratings were down due in part to the popularity of one Miss Reva Shane, as well as the loss of Luke Spencer.

     

    The changes in the first year, including recasting Joe, axing the Andradre and Duvall family, and firing many of the original writing staff were in response to a poor start, they did not cause a drop in ratings.

     

    Like most things in life you can't blame one thing for a project that is claimed by multiple owners.

  21. 31 minutes ago, Wendy said:

    Paula Irvine was way too young as Lily considering her checkered past. The first actress playing her bore a strong resemblance to Robin Mattson. I would have brought her [think her name was Lynn Clark?] back or at least recast with a more age-appropriate actress.

    I think Paula Irvine was a charming actress who was well cast as a scrappy young ingenue.  My problem was that Lily never made sense as a character.  Gina's original backstory was that she adopted Brandon because her husband was older and it was assumed that he had fertility issues.  Then, Lily comes along with questionable motives (was she a grifter?, was she a believer?, was she manipulated by others?, it was never clear). She leaves and is never heard from again for years, then de-SORASed and re-retconned into existence.  I guess after Summer and Mac they had exhausted siblings for Gina.  However Paula's Lily spent so little time with Gina that their connection seemed unnecessary. 

     

    31 minutes ago, Wendy said:

    Brick Wallace, a.k.a. the real Channing Capwell, return as he is an important character yet he just did a fade. Don't know who I'd pair him with, though. But the character deserved more than he got.

    In my opinion the most underrated character was Sophia.  She drove the original plot and then was sidelined for years.  Her exchange with Mason regarding Pamela during the Capwell dinner party lives rent free in my head as one of the great scenes in SB history.  The only reason that I stayed tuned in the final year was that Sophia was finally given a plot that made sense with her background.

     

    Thus, I totally agree that Brick was a missed opportunity.  He was another one whose motives seemed unclear at first, then he was just portrayed as a good guy.  But, I would have loved to see the dynamics between Sophia's kids with CC and her child with Lionel.  The Brick and Warren rivalry was interesting (for the three episodes that they let that be thing).  The issue in bringing back Brick was that they needed to differentiate him from Warren.  Warren was always a junior Lionel, a womanizer with a romantic flair, always up for a get rich quick scheme, but never wanting to work hard in business.  If Brick sided with Minx to try to drum up some Lockridge business interests that might work.  However, good guy Brick was made redundant by good guy Warren.

     

    Meanwhile, I have grown obsessed by my own idea to have Eileen Davidson as Victoria Lane, post Eden.  Victoria was not a well drawn out character aside from her drug abuse.  So, a sober Victoria who wanted to establish a relationship with her child with Cruz, win his trust, and establish herself in Santa Barbara is intriguing.  We would have been spared the odd issue of where Cruz sent his kids in the final year.  It could have established a Cruz vs. Mason issue because Victoria was involved with both of them.  I like the idea of Victoria and Sophia bonding over being aging actresses, or even Sophia being jealous of Victoria's ability to maintain a career in Hollywood.  My fanfic fantasies are overwhelmed with the prospects.

     

  22. 1 hour ago, Liberty City said:

    he Big Shot actually did not bomb; I'm just sure the restrictions her deal with Mark Burnett and MGM (horrible company history, btw) prevented her from doing other things she wanted to do.

    Here's my theory (based on absolutely no evidence, but when did that stop anyone on the internet), the story notes that she co-produced Big Shot with her own production company and she recently changed podcast networks to iheart radio. 

     

    So, I think:

     

    (1) she found out that producing less than 10 episodes of reality TV is not that difficult to do on your own, she can sell it and keep all of the profits for herself,

     

    (2) MGM was recently acquired by Amazon which may effect the distribution of her show to Netflix,

     

    (3) iheart media already owns a lot of tv production firms so she may be able to get a larger cut when she produces her next show.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy