j swift

Wait, did Rachel need Felicia because she forgot how to get dressed, or she did suddenly develop a penchant for feather boas while her brain was recovering?

Which of course lead to the notoriously poorly edited headline credit @will81's fantastic tumblr

Initially, there was some conspiracy between Mitch and Reginald which suggested that Mitch was not going to be a benevolent character upon his return, but that all got undone in order to make him into a viable romantic guy. I would suggest that the purpose he really served was to split up Felicia and Rachel's friendship. IMO, they were never that close, (Felicia was much more tied into Mac through Cory Publishing), but Mitch created a lot of drama between the two, which really paid off years later during Felicia's alcoholism storyline. I objected to his first run when Mac was spun out into a maniac in response to Mitch and Rachel's romance. I guess there was audience support for the coupling of Mitch and Rachel (I mean, I know they were popular, despite my disdain for the pairing). However, Mac had just come off of months of being sidelined while he was poisoned by Janice, and then his character was made into a cruel and jealous old codger during the custody hearings. Janice, Rachel, and Regina (Sven's seductive co-conspirator/victim) proved that Mac was a fool for love whose weakness was any threat to his virility. I think of 1970s (pre-Sandy/grandpa status) Mac as a guy who men wanted to be, due his business acumen, and ladies desired, due to his charisma . So, it would seem natural that he was angered by Mitch's sexual prowess once he learned of his sterility (which back in the day was often confused in the synopses with impotency, although there's no evidence that Mac couldn't get it up). However, it was very unfair to the character (and didn't really fit with the Mac we had come to know) to become so vindictive during the custody trial. To me, Mac was missing a "talk to" character to help him realize how illogical he was responding, given his own history of infidelities.

This reminds me of one of my favorite old threads about soap promos. Three years later, I still think "in the heat of the day there's a different kind of fire" is one of the dumbest lyrics ever written. I mean how many types of fire are there? This thread is filled with both great and awful examples

Later, when Sable comes to Denver, it is mentioned that Frankie and Jason wound up together. However, perhaps due to their earlier neglect of Jeff in his childhood, he never tries to call them or even mention them again. I mean in a choice between perennial bachelor Cecile and family-man Jason, why would Frankie have left little Jeff in his Uncle's care? BTW, a few weeks back I reposted a TikTok of S1 Jeff when he taught Fallon how to smoke a doobie at Blake's party. That's a version of Jeff that we never saw again.

I still don't know why they insisted using the word reliquary rather than ark, which is a much more common term in synagogues. Maybe the writers were thinking of the torah crown, or maybe they thought ark would remind people of Indiana Jones, but it was obviously a choice made by a production staffed by people who had never been to Hebrew school.

This comment has lived in my head rent-free for days (as the kids say) It is so interesting to think about how not just the pacing and characters changed under the new writer, but the town itself. Focusing on Jody's college town, or the wilderness of Standing Elk, or even the suburban environment of the Whitney Mansion (if I were Geraldine I would stayed in my suite of rooms at the Monticello Arms, Sky's staff always seemed incompetent in comparison)) seemed to expand the universe of EON in very unnecessary ways. I was recently watching the Winter Austin trial and the other locations within Monticello helped define the characters. During a lunch break, Mike, Nancy, and Draper dined in a fancy restaurant with tea cups and saucers while Logan and Cliff ate at a diner and kept commenting on the sour coffee. The differences between mugs and tea cups told the audience so much about the hurdles Logan would need to get over in order to win his case. Loosing the urban vibe was a huge change to the identity of the show.

I remember recently doing a re-watch of Dallas s7 and I started to realize that a season with more than 20 episodes requires a lot of filler. Primetime soaps achieved so much in a single episode that plotting a story for an entire season seems exhausting when binging it later. I prefer Knots over Dallas, (and certainly more than Falcon Crest), but one thing that Dallas did well was having tent-pole episodes like the BBQ or Oil Barron's Ball, where characters reacted to recent events rather than propelling the story forward. They were sort of a harbinger for the mid season finales that we get on shows like Grey's today.

In the late 80's version of the Viki/Niki story, around the time of the discovery of secret room and Tina's paternity, (not to be confused with the later Jean Randolph period, or the time when Niki hooked up with Vinny Wolek) what do you think was the writer's logic around the purchase of the red wig. Obviously for dramatic purposes the wig was meant to visually indicate to the audience which personality was in charge. However, given that Viki was unaware of Niki, does this mean that Niki bought the wig? And did Niki buy it for aesthetics or to hide the fact that she looked like Viki? How did Viki not notice that she had bought a wig? Did Niki rip it off as soon as she felt the change coming? Or, did Viki ever wake up in the wig? Was it all done in cash? And is a wig all that is necessary for one of the richest and most powerful women in town to go undercover (like Clark Kent and his glasses)? I'd bet that Jean Randolph's penchant for Armani suits really ran up Viki's credit limit at Saks. And which personality showed up for the fittings? Was it the same one that went to the optometrist to buy those glasses? Or hired the contractor to make the cell for Dorian in the secret room? I know we're not meant to question these parts of the plot, but isn't that half the fun of discussing these stories decades later?

I think the ISIS story is a near-perfect melding of sci-fi and soap. While GH was always on the run for some mcguffin that was adapted to whatever the plot required, and was usually only used as a backdrop to romance, ISIS played on the societal fears about the cultural obsession with media and privacy. It came about just as the term "couch potato" was coined and people were worried about TV manipulating images in order to increase consumer sales. Like most good sci-fi it took a common concern and heightened it into a melodrama of middle-aged men being consumed by cable TV, a villain with a weird limp, a literal mustached twirling creep, and bizarre incestual undertones. I was completely captivated. As for the shift in writers, as always, I think it is a bit reductive. We have to consider other factors. Jody was recast, and due to the actor's pregnancy, Raven could not drive story the way the audience was used to. These were the female leads of the show and a huge blow to the momentum of storytelling. Coupled with shifting casts, lost revenue, local stations wanting to expand local news to the early afternoon, and the ascendance of Oprah that's a lot for a 30 minute soap to contend with. Lastly, I think @Broderick's Liz/Beth insight is so smart, and the kind of thing I look forward to on these boards. I can't recall any of the soap magazines picking up on the name issue, and I've never considered it until I read it here. How much fun would it be if the concept was a unique take on a multiple personality story and we later find out in a Sixth-Sense-type reveal that nobody in Monticello ever interacted with both sisters at once because they were actually the same person! They just looked different to the audience as a dramatic indication of their DID. I mean it makes a million times more sense than OLTL Viki/Niki and the mystery of which one of them bought that very unattractive wig.

Forgive me because I know this has been asked and answered, but who wrote the Children of Eden storyline (unsure if it's children or people or whateve's, but the one where Jody was captured before a ren fair).

That's a very logical conclusion, thanks for your expertise

Am I reading this correctly? There are (apparently untrue) stories that are oft quoted throughout the internet about the network or production asking Slesar to change his style but, the man himself said it was a surprise and he was given no direction or warning.

Season 9 has some iconic hair. Michael's slicked back Michael Douglas cosplay, his son's ponytail Charley's mullet, Maggie's sudden short and sassy hair that can't save her from drowning, and of course Angela's final wig with those tiny bangs.

Bo Hopkins -- famous from "American Graffiti" and other '70s cult classic films -- has died. - TMZ I always think it is interesting to see the credits they use when an actor dies. Do you really think he was better known from American Graffiti than Dynasty? Graffiti was a relatively small film, while he reappeared on the season finale of Dynasty, even though the show was in the waning years of the 7th season, it was watched by 17.1 million households.

The YT episodes are up to Thomas and Brooke shipwrecked on the island. I say up to, but, there appears to be no actual logical sequence to how these are being released. Just as this version of Thomas has no logical connection to the current version of Thomas. Any way, it is so amusing because within the story they've only been on the island a couple of days and they're already ripping off their clothes and eating berries like it's The Blue Lagoon. Something tells me that Brooke's missed a meal or two in her day, but suddenly she misses lunch and she is compelled to eat hallucinogenic berries. Like, maybe they should've wondered around a bit and seen if there was hotel or anything on the island before making a fort in a cave.

As a long time horrible speller, you have to forgive my errors on names, I just recently committed to memory that Llanfair doesn't include a "d" (thanks to Slick Jones) And while I agree that they went back to the DID well a few times, and she got some therapy, I think what was missing were the issues of how a person with a serious history of mental illness needs to prove their competency throughout their life.

This got me thinking about two other topics. 1). Although it was not top of mind 20 years ago, it is a missed opportunity that there were not more consequences of Vicki's mental illness. It seemed obvious that they would explore the genetic predisposition with the Jessica storyline (which was offensively inaccurate in hindsight). Yet, Joey and Kevin were totally exempt from any emotional illnesses, not even a six-week period of depression, which would have been six times more likely given Vicki's thought disorder. Also, Vicki was the CEO of a large publishing company, and I don't recall anyone challenging her competency. She made many rash decisions, including "escaping" to Texas to work in a diner, and yet nobody suggested that she needed further treatment. She went through many more traumas including the deaths and divorce, and not once was it suggested that she seek therapy or utilize psychotropic medications. Instead, the treatment of mental illness was still portrayed as evil sanitariums where doctors would forcibly subdue their patients with shots from huge needles. And yet, even a vet like Brody didn't need to care about insurance coverage to pay for his long term hospitalization. 2). I was trying to think of a list of all of the OLTL heroines who killed someone, most often in self-defense. Nora killed Colin (no gun, just pushed him down the stairs), Vicki killed Johnny Hesser (gun), Dorian thought she killed Mitch (a hotel lamp was the fatal weapon), Cathy Craig murdered her drug dealer (gun), Rachel killed Georgie (gun), Blair shot Max (gun). Help me out if you can think of other characters or event in which guns were used for self-defense. Because, in retrospect, the number of times that guns were glamorized as a weapon of empowerment for victimized women really needs a second assessment.

It is an odd choice because most of the country had GH preempted yesterday due to the news, so they could have just replayed that episode and kept the momentum without using an encore episode which seems unpopular.

To @Vee's point, certainly one of the pitfalls of any socially relevant story would be the writing. It is rare that soaps allow alternative viewpoints, without vilifying the character with the unpopular opinion. For example, in response to a school shooting it would seem in-character for a law-and-order guy like Bo to want to arm the school security officers. But, it is also predictable that Nora would oppose it and only her opinion would seem reasonable. There would also most likely be no discussion of other characters past use of weapons, like how Vicki was able to obtain a gun during certain murder mysteries despite her history of mental illness. Or the comedic manor in which Asa's threats of violence had been used in the past. However, I think we agree that despite the artistic failings of certain writers, it is an appropriate and useful story to tell.

I was reading about how CBS delayed an episode of a procedural because of yesterday's school shootings and it got me thinking of the similar situation that happened to OLTL. In hindsight, I think it is at least debatable whether or not a dramatic series should re-write a plot based on current events. I understand that networks don't want to seem as if they are profiting off of suffering, nor do they want to further traumatize their audience by replaying recent issues in the news. However, I also think there's an argument to made that seeing beloved characters go through a traumatic event and watch their recovery could send a powerful message about the effects of gun violence in schools. In OLTL's case, obviously their plot was planned far in advance of the actual event. I think there is value in seeing a dramatized version of the lead-up to the event in order for people to understand that these violent individuals are not spontaneous monsters, but they are troubled humans. I also think watching parents and teen discuss and cope with the event would give voices to varied opinions we see online. In short, I think the standard response that we cannot view a dramatized event after a real incident deserves a second look, because it begins to fall into the "thoughts and prayers" category of meaningless media responses to tragedies.

Also, practically, Scotty is a name, but Dougie is not. Even the 90s rapper spelled it Doug E Fresh

I was hoping this would turn out differently but, I googled it and Susan Lucci is 5'1" while Kate Moss is 5"7'. For those who remember, Kate was remarkably short for a supermodel. However Erica (multiple last names omitted) was only one inch shorter than Kim Kardashian (formerly Thomas, Humphrey, and West). So maybe supermodeling wasn't so farfetched?

Reading @Vee's totally entertaining recaps brought back some great memories about Laura Avery (Sumner). Isn't it funny how many of us as young boys loved watching the emotional strum and drum of a woman trying to find herself after marrying young and denying her own ambition? It was very unlikely, (given most programming focusing on the 18-39 year old demo), and yet that's what made stars out of unpredictable sources like Oprah. Any way, getting back to Knots, I don't want to spoil Vee's viewing, but I can't get it out of my head that Laura's affair with Greg was a surprise to viewers. Does anyone else recall that detail? I have a vague memory that Abby, (or maybe Karen), knew that Greg was having an affair, and then the reveal that it was Laura was a surprise. Maybe there was some other story beat that I am misremembering, but I seem to recall a surprise twist with Laura that changed the trajectory of the character. She acquired more agency and became a bit more cunning.

Corpus Delicti refers to the legal principle that evidence independent of a defendant's out of court statements or the testimony of an accomplice must prove a crime was committed before a defendant can be convicted of that crime. Corpus Delicti is a Latin phrase meaning the body of the offense or crime. For example, a person cannot be convicted of Shoplifting unless the prosecutor can demonstrate the property was stolen. It is possible to convict someone of murder without the purported victim's body in evidence. However, cases of this type have historically been hard to prove, - Wexlaw