j swift

We've discussed Melinda Fee so often on these boards that I was inspired to go back and look @slick jones thread about Soap Hoppers. To my surprise she was on five daytime soaps and three nighttime soaps, three times as a re-cast. She may have been the most underrated soap actress in history to pull that off. Which is a roundabout way to mention that she's on the same page of that thread as Heather Tom, which got me thinking about re-casts in general. When Heather was cast as Kelly Cramer on OLTL, the character was in an uncharacteristic time in her life. Suddenly not only was Kelly desperate to hang on to Kevin, (whereas in the past she was always the pursuit not the pursuer), but she also valued things like political power and social status (the underpinnings of her motivation during the baby switch story). All of which were features that we'd never saw in Kelly, nor what was popular about the character. Thus, I would propose that one of the principles of a poorly accepted re-cast is when the actor is asked to play a part in name only, but the character is written with none of the qualities that made them iconic enough to be re-cast. Heather Tom is talented and if she was just playing Kevin's social climbing wife that he married off-screen I think that she might have had more longevity on the show (especially because in the end, they didn't need Kelly and Paul to be siblings in order to make the baby switch any more convoluted than it already was). BTW speaking of re-casts, the moral of Paul Cramer is, if they have to re-cast the part three times in one year, it's the character that's not working, not the actor (for other examples see Dawn on GH)...

I read it so you don't have to - Chapek is getting 23 million dollars cash in severance, a pension, and a bunch of stock after loosing 1.5 billion dollars this year in grosses for Disney, on streaming alone, this year.

A couple of years ago I re-watched the unaired pilot "The Vintage Years" (still can't believe they named Abby Dalton's character Dorcas). I marveled at the idea that the wine industry could've made for a perfect seasonal arc. You have the planting and harvesting periods, the annual release of that year's vintage, and the reviews. It was a literally organic structure for each season's arc. If you've ever read the background of Maison Duboeuf's Beaujolais Nouveau, you'll know there's tons of intrigue there. Somewhere along the way writers felt that horse racing and international spies were necessary when, in fact, they already had a reliable formula. BTW, I already know that Dorcas was one of Jesus's disciples. But, nobody names one kid Emma and the other one Dorcas without some negative consequences...

I'm never good at who wrote what and when, but here's what I know. Marcy was on her way out because the year before the split personality story, she took time off from SB (Eden was in a coma for autumn 1990), then she signed a development contract with NBC in February 1991, and her exit from SB was announced, resulting in the ill-fated Palace Guard series that went nowhere, but she also got a couple of movies-of-the-week out of the deal. The whole plot starts off weird, because Eden wakes from her coma for a magical Christmas (weren't they all in Santa Barbara). Then, Robert sends her a gift of a necklace with a big jewel. At first, it seems like they're going to do a jewel thief story, similar to the plot of Marcy's new show Palace Guard. Then, the Dobson's arrive and suddenly Eden doesn't recall being a jewel thief (which makes it seem cruel that Robert sent her the necklace, but I guess we forgive that detail because its a new set of writers). Presumably, the Dobson's would not have known when they returned in January that Marcy would announce her departure in February. If, as @Marissa Gallant recalls, the Dobson's didn't want a DID plot is correct, I could see both sides of the tale because Eden had a strange reaction to the jewel prior to the Dobson's arrival, but the first signs of Eden's personality split occur during the infamous dinner party. So, who knows when the idea started and why they felt that they couldn't course correct that plot, when they torpedoed so many events that occurred during their time away from the show? Then, we see the flashback of Sophia falling off of the Lochridge yacht, which becomes a retcon that Channing and Eden were on Lionel's boat, and they found out that Lionel was Channing's father, then saw Sophia fall off of the boat. Which is different that the original tale that Marcello (the German psychiatrist whose family was saved by CC in WWII and then was "adopted" as an adult by Count Armonti) told Eden. He said that he saw her on the beach when they both watched Sophia fall off of the boat, then he rescued Sophia and took her to Italy. Either way, it never really stood to reason why Channing knew he was Lionel's son but chose not to discuss it for eight years until the day of his murder. Or, why Eden's split personalities would blame Sophia rather than Lionel (except I don't think Nik Coster was on the show during the Eden DID story) and in the end it has nothing to do with jewels, but for some reason Eden is still pissed that Sophia killed Channing.

I take it this was Lenore's mother? I don't know anything about her, can you fill me in?

It's kind of funny that Mia gets all the blame for the inadequate housing, when we know that production really rented the place (or least presented multiple restrictions in terms of finding a home, within a certain budget, that let them install lights, and film, with nearby accommodations for an entire TV crew). When you know if Mia wanted to impress the ladies, she would have rented a floor of suites at The Four Seasons (and hoped her husband wouldn't see the credit card bill). It's like when they go to Bar One, you know they wanted to go someplace cooler and hipper in Miami, but they couldn't film there....

Yeah, but, again where are the stakes? Carrie was always going to fall on her feet, either by writing, producing, or marriage. There's no conflict there. If we take the example of Dynasty, Alexis was always going to be rich, but her ambition ruined her family and romantic relationships. Dallas's JR and FC's Angela were constantly conflicted about loosing their father's legacy business while maintaining control of their family. Knots was about sustaining the community. CPW lacked those kind of stakes because the conflict over the magazine seemed trivial. Communique never seemed like the central asset in either Adam or Allen's portfolio, Stephanie never bought into the central theme of the magazine. Peter could've left the DA's office for a megafirm with one phone call. Carrie was untalented, and Rachel could only style miniskirts. So, if it ceased publication, all of them would be fine. Sidelining the family by making Lauren Hutton and Ron Liebman supporting characters, not establishing a long term core conflict, and having no central set for all of the characters to interact took away too many of the things that make a show a soap; for me. But, the costumes were great, until Raquel Welsh was cast.

Am I the only one who doesn't think of Victor as being a menacing threat? Maybe its his resemblance to Shane Donovan, maybe its that his most sinister action so far was putting Charlotte in a boarding school (although, to be fair she wasn't getting that much attention at home), or maybe its that middle-aged Laura seems to be able to easily thwart his plans, but without goons and a goal, this guy seems like his bark is worse than his proverbial bite. I mean he can't even afford his own underground liar. Which does raise the question that given that Helena's will was already dispersed, who's funding Victor's plan?

There is a ton of Dynasty content on TikTok that mirrors the older youtube "S&*$ that Alexis Said" video compilations and it reminded me of how authentically funny the show could be. I think the memory of John Forsyth's deadpan delivery on those Forever Krystal perfume ads clouded my memory of the fact that the show had at least one or two laughs per episode. Not only was Joan Collins an underrated comedian, but Linda Evans and Pamela Sue Martin had some great zingers. I was just watching the scene when Kirby is threatening to shoot Alexis, and Joan Collins's ability to play cool-under-pressure while disarming Kirby verbally was too fun. The modern version was obvious camp, but the 80s scripts were more subtle and clever in their use of bon mots. I mean who could forget Alexis meeting Fallon in her first episode in the courtroom by greeting her after eight years with "I'm glad to see that your father had your teeth fixed; if not your tongue."? That is some Shakespearian level shade. BTW, I still don't get the setup of Alexis's condo. She had a private elevator entrance, but apparently there wasn't a doorman because at least once a week someone appeared unannounced and unwelcome. The same was true for her office where Dominique could swish by at any moment. You'd think someone like Alexis would have a better secretary to keep the riff raff out.

I am compelled to use my most despised phrase in social media - yes, but - because yes it may be unfair to criticize the show within a modern context. But, Margaret Ladd's use of a baby voice in order to indicate mental fragility seems as if it was her own acting choice, not written into the script, and it always felt annoying, inauthentic, and unrealistic.

You'll get no scoff from me, but I tend to think movie studios would be more concerned about the publicity fallout from Liz's time in jail, her rapist father, or her drug dealing brother than her age. I mean Bette Midler played a bathhouse for one year, while appearing on Broadway, and people still bring it up. Imagine what Liz's profile in Vanity Fair would be like?

I'm at a loss in remembering if Liz got an exit storyline or if she simply left town on tour and never came back? Her daughter would be a fun rival for Sarah.

I feel like the acting was the major failure. Lorenzo Lamas, Robert Foxworth, and Billy Moses were very wooden as the male leads. Margaret Ladd and Abby Dalton lacked any sense of nuance and made a mockery of mental health issues, even though their characters were never given proper diagnoses. Dana Sparks and Jamie Rose were underdeveloped. And Cliff Robertson and Gregory Harrison seemed to sleep their way through scenes. The guest stars were laughable, from Gina Lolabrigida still trying to be sexy in her older years to Lana Turner whose face could no longer move, Cesar Romero still playing his character from Batman, and the well-past-their-prime Leslie Caron, Ursula Andreas, and Rod Taylor. I would excuse Kim Novak, who was still an intriguing actress that was able to carry a very convoluted plot on her back. So, we're left with David Selby who was sexy, but could only really play intense, especially when compared Bill Devane. Susan Sullivan and Jane Wyman who were the obvious highlights. Laura Johnson and Ana Alicia who had the capacity to be the leads, but got the raw end of the stick. And Chao-li who never got his due. In comparison to Knots, or even Dallas, whose actors were able captivate an audience regardless of the writing, FC was just a cast of good looking people.

But, can we say definitively which soap had the first anniversary episode (with clips)?

I think the Dobsons' dinner party scene was memorably acted, but poorly timed due to the fact the Dobsons totally ignored everything that happened in their absence. And they seemed to project their anger at New World and the fight over the casting of Pamela onto the plot, at time when it no longer fit the growth of the characters. At the risk of repeating my self from 2019: Mason decides to put CC on trial for his "crimes" against the family, and in turn brings back Pamela and eviscerates Sophia. However, CC and Mason had resolved their differences in a scene the prior year. In fact, for most of Terry Lester's Mason, (in the year prior to the Dobson's return), he and CC did not have a lot of interactions because he was being plagued by Gina and his alternate Sonny personality. Gordon Thompson's Mason arrived two months before the Dobson's and did not have the history with CC to carry those dinner party scenes. Even the dinner party table was new and had never been in that place on the set, before or after that episode. And Kelly is inexplicably living in the Capwell mansion which she had moved out of months prior. Finally, it defies logic that Mason would still be angry at CC after a year when both he and Eden had near-death experiences resulting in a Christmas episode (a month before the dinner party) about how happy they were to be reunited as a family.

The recent discussion about the dismissal of Jed Allen aka Don Craig from DAYS in the 1980s reminded me of an SOD column from the time which hypothesized that in order to attract younger viewers soaps were trying to veer away from nostalgia and historical elements (so funny how misguided marketing execs are about attracting the youth). Anyway, eventually the networks began to embrace and promote soaps as an inter-generational activity. Which leads me to the following questions: (1) What was the first instance of a special anniversary episode for any soap on any network? (2) What are the best anniversary episodes? (worst need not apply - I'm looking at you ATWT episode with the ladies stuck on a bus in the woods).

A new low from a WSJ article on the advent of SoapNet came this comic image (which is especially odd given that WSJ is renown for their expert illustrations). The names are in the spoiler, but try to guess who they think this looks like. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB940376237946079968

@te. While I would concede to your point about Carrie's column, what bothered me is that (a) there's no real conflict that Carrie wouldn't be able to write her column somewhere else, (including the tabloid that employed Alex), and therefore (b) Carrie's vitriolic need to destroy Stephanie's marriage makes her seem as nuts as Mark turns out to be. So, while the conflict is setup by the plot, there is no investment in it for me because there are no existing stakes. Even when Stephanie fails, she just returns to her old life with another professional deal, so all that happened to her was that she got a fabulous Tom Ford for Gucci wardrobe and she dropped her cheating no-talent husband.

This thread inspired me to re-read the excellently summarized wiki. I was instantly struck by the idea that the central conflict doesn't makes sense. Rachel and Carrie hate Stephanie for absolutely no reason. There's a rumor that Stephanie was having an affair with Carrie's stepfather to get her position at the magazine, but Carrie doesn't like her step-father and her job was never in jeopardy. Carrie never mentions that she wanted to be editor-in-chief, and she seems like more of a creative-type than a managerial-type. Initially, Stephanie respects Rachel's expertise, as she knows little about fashion and is supportive of her skills. However, Carrie and Rachel are vicious toward Stephanie's mere existence in New York. Beyond the fact that in hindsight print magazines seem so "90s New York", there's also very little to establish that this publication, (a) whose focus changes as needed by the weekly plot, (b) with subscription number we're constantly reminded are dropping, and (c) a budget that would be through the roof given that in the Fashion Sucks episode they seem to be able to scrap several articles and re-edit the whole issue over night, would be such a source of financial intrigue between powerful media moguls. Also, if Peter is famous enough to have paparazzi follow him on a date, would the DA's office really be constantly threatening to fire him? He's clearly supposed to be JFK Jr, who famously was able to keep his job as a Manhattan ADA, despite failing the state bar multiple times. I think it is ridiculous to set up Carrie and Peter as nepo-babies and have their conflicts based on their professional lives, despite the image that they live glamorous lives and have multiple other options if they fail.

Just to clarify, Retro TV has lost 30% of their affiliates in the last five years (since Sinclair Media dropped them from their affiliate program). It was off the air or downgraded to "zombie" channels in NYC, LA, and Chicago from 2015-2019. They've been bought and sold three times each time for less money, and they've not posted a profit earning since 2008. Now, that is clearly not the fault of The Doctor's alone, however it is not a successful business model. Lionsgate bought the TV Guide channel to turn it into POPtv for $255 mill, then CBS bought 30% and began airing Y&R and B&B, then in 2019 CBS bought back the whole channel for $125 mil, less than half of the initial evaluation. Again, not the soaps fault, but a loosing proposition. SoapNet was launched in 2000, by 2004 they could no longer afford to produce original content like Soap Chat due to low ratings. Within it's decade as a channel it lost carriage on Time Warner Cable due to poor performance, forcing Disney to change focus in order to save its other channels on the cable supply hub. So, it wasn't just that Disney Jr needed a channel, the whole Disney cable system was in jeopardy if they didn't cease funding on a soap channel. Hence, history is littered with the failed businesses that tried to cater to the niche soap audience. Unlike public domain sitcoms, game shows, and religious programming that still draw enough viewers to support multiple channels from multiple investors. Also, while streaming may be a different advertising model, they are still mostly created by established media corporations who have been burned before by trying to use soap content.

Our preferences for The Balkan aside @carolineg, I think we can agree that while women having affairs with both a father and a son are an accepted part of soap history, it would be rather distasteful in real life.

Can I confess here that I logged out, but didn't deactivate, my account and deleted the app on my phone, only to log back in an hour later after I tried to join Mastodon and was disappointed in the content? I blocked the twice impeached Floridian years ago, and while I am horrified that he's been given a new platform, I still want up to the minute local information about topics that interest me. If a viable alternative pops up then I'm game to jump ship, but I would never to be able to recreate the hundreds of accounts that I follow.

Personally, I enjoy the curated clip show produced by OLTL and GL fans and YT. Other than EON, I find the entire episodes of old soaps to be too slow, and given that I know the outcome, they lack intrigue. I know it may be unpopular, but as we say in the field of psychological research, "the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior", and history is filled with failed businesses that relied on soap opera content (see SoapNet, PopTV, Soap City, and the failing revenues of RetroTV for examples).

I enjoyed Brenda's involvement in The Balkan/Theo storyline, but it emphasized an issue that has never been well resolved. Given that Brenda had an affair with Dante, how much older are Sonny and Olivia than Brenda and Dante? Before anyone replies, I admit that ages on soaps are always a bit of a mystery. However, let's assume that Sonny and Olivia were 18 when they conceived Dante. According to the GH bio, Dante was born in 1984. Brenda was in high school when she arrived in Port Charles in 1992, making her at least eight years older than Dante. So, if Sonny and Olivia are ten years older than Brenda, was Sonny a strip club owning mob boss at 27? And, given that Lulu was born on screen in 1994, does that mean Brenda is 15 years older than her? The Balkan stuff was one of the only times that I felt like a mob story worked within the context of GH. Not only was it an umbrella story that involved Dante, Sonny, Robin, Diane, and many others. There were strong performances from both Daniel Benzali and Adrienne Barbeau. And The Balkin seemed like a credible threat because he wanted revenge for a personal vendetta, he didn't want to dominate the world. Other mob bosses have lacked the gravitas, the sanity, or the intellect to actually be scary. Also, the story provided a logical reason for Brenda's exit while allowing Sonny to pursue other women. If she's not coming back I wish they would SORAS that kid.

Remember how AW used to try to differentiate twins Marley and Victoria by having one sister wear bangs? Or how Capitol visualized that it was Jenny and not Julie because one wore her hair in a tight bun and the other wore relaxed curls? Is DAYS trying to indicate that RSW is Alex and not Ben due to the fact that his hair is brushed forward rather than flipped up? Because I'm going to need a better written character rather than hair and accessories before I accept Alex as a different person. They both still inexplicably speak with a thick mid-Atlantic accent, they both unnecessarily squint, and neither seems particularly bright or ambitious. The glasses are not enough.