j swift
Member
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by j swift
-
I was reading this article on The Soaps of Yesterday Tumblr about the ascendancy of Y&R in the ratings starting in the summer of 1983, and it got me thinking about the plots of that year. It is interesting to note that while there were more "teen" stories in 1983, (including the introduction of Cricket and the beginning of the Lauren/Traci saga), arguably most of the plot centered on the middle-aged John Abbott. We got Jack and Jill's affair, the first return of Dina, John's stroke, and the mystery of who was sending the puzzle pieces of a picture of Jack and Jill kissing. Victor and Nikki were big in 1983, but they didn't marry until 1984. So, despite the normative reliance of 1980s soaps on younger characters and outlandish plots, 18-25 year old viewers were being drawn to a rather traditional soap plotline mostly involving characters above the age of 40. Also worth remarking, Price is Right was credited with buoying Y&R's ratings (although I still prefer a 30 minute game show format). But, I thought, it was remarkable that classic soap stories about older characters (in contrast to other soaps going younger and more action-driven) were an integral part of Y&R 30-year-plus dominance of soap ratings.
-
Courtesy of The Soaps of Yesterday Tumblr Poor John Conboy tried to get some helpful PR out of a very expensive party Only to get this headline from an uninformed editor
-
Courtesy of @will81's Tumblr - The Soaps of Yesterday I have thoughts about this news. (1) It is always curious when soaps hire actors who were troublesome on prior sets. (2) Ms. Vigard has a similar physicality to Andrea Evans (at that time she was being credited as Andrea Evans-Massey), but she never played any of the evil sides of Tina during her time as Morgan which makes the casting choice seem odd. (3) Given the hubbub at the time that the O'Neils were taking over OLTL, it is interesting to read about how little planning went into their creation.
-
-
-
My anachronistic quote of the week came from the Jon-Michael Reed article @Franko mentioned about the introduction of a lesbian character on AMC. In 2021, I hope nobody would refer to Lynn's sexuality as something "consciously chosen", although I do miss the term "alternative" lifestyle. I keep trying to decide which writer I prefer. Jon-Michael Reed has a fun bitchy style when reporting the news, and I love his clapbacks in his Q&A articles, but his synopses are too brief. Lynda Hirsch has better weekly summaries, but she is in desperate need of an editor According to both sources, AMC's low point included Lars being killed off on Palmer's boat with an American flag (and fans who needed explanations of Nazi atrocities) while Nina's lover Steve (aka Dack Rambo) was being unceremoniously sent out of Pine Valley. Appearently, Mr. Rambo was supposed to make a stop at a paid fan event event for 10,000 people in Texas but his plans mysteriously changed at the last minute to a direct flight to LA. On a side note: I appreciate that both columns were so relatively spoiler-free that they were still unsure about Luke's future when Laura returned. We get the "would you rather?" of the year - Tony Geary in Atlantic City with special guest Genie Francis or "Soap Madness" on Long Island where Steve Bond is going to debut his new song? Also, I find humor in the prices of everything in the ads. Ladies boots were $59, but a portable VCR was a whopping $649.95!
-
Why is it 30 years later that I noticed how f#$%ed up it was that Roger Coleridge was romantically linked to his stepsister Maggie? Maybe I didn't think about it at the time, because Maggie didn't grow up with Jill. As I recall, nobody commented on Maggie being Roger's step-sister. However, he must have grown up with Bess in the household. Bess slept with Roger's father and they shared a baby. He was aware of Maggie's relationship with Jill, whom he treasured. So, in hindsight, it is kind of gross that Maggie and Roger grew close enough to have a child together... I'm willing to chalk it up to one of those soap instances where there aren't enough characters in town to avoid people engaging in romances with their extended family (although to be fair RH took place in Manhattan which is an infinite resource of characters).
-
I read the wiki as a refresher, (I had forgotten that the reboot ever existed), and there was a consistent pattern of actresses who wanted to make as much as Heather Locklear who were quickly killed off. It is amusing that even after the production was sued, and had their business practices exposed, they continued to be petty when it came to actors wanting fair compensation. In hindsight, I always feel for actors in those situations because all too often they can be so associated for their first role, with a seven year contract signed under desperation, then the show becomes a success, and they never work again. Courtney Thorne-Smith was a singular exception to the rule.
-
I always assumed, although I have no evidence to back this up, that the character's name was influenced by the singularly monikered Regine, who ran a set of very exclusive discotheques back in the day. https://www.mrporter.com/en-us/journal/fashion/when-disco-had-a-dress-code-688280
-
Not to be a contrarian, but, I wonder if we can throw Justin a bone for being just as young and easily manipulated as Britney? He was 19 when his solo project was being produced. He didn't write Cry Me a River, nor did he direct or conceptualize the video. It is equally likely that a PR person at his record company came up with the Britney cheated narrative to promote his first solo single. JC Chasez was releasing a solo project the same year, and it is probable that Justin's team felt the need to supplant his record with some sort of drama in order to gain more press. Arguably JC was a better singer and dancer, but Justin won the charm offensive, and was more willing to use his personal life to promote his career. With regard to Janet, he is 100% at fault for the "wardrobe malfunction". However, he could not control the narrative of how the press portrayed the situation. I believe that there is no statement that he could have made at the time that would have turned the tide for Janet because a mixture of racism and sexism fueled the tabloid media.
-
I would argue that over the course of 9 seasons and 220 episodes, most of the characters were fleshed out enough for fans to be able to analyze their motives; which is part of the fun of re-watching a show. Also, the argument that Blake and Alexis divorced because of her assignation with Roger Grimes denies the (retconned) impact of the kidnapping of Adam on the couple.
-
I just read that Robert Milli, who played the second Lars Bogart, quit All My Children because he objected to his character who was going to be exposed as a WWII war criminal, with a collection of stolen German art, who later escaped to South America. Which caused a pause in the story right before November sweeps in order to hire another actor. Ironically, he was replaced by Jack Betts, who had just left the role of Louis St. George on Another World, a WWII war criminal with a stolen art collection, and was best known in daytime for playing Dr. Ivan Kipling on One Life to Live, a criminal who escaped to South America. Apparently, Mr. Betts was unconcerned about type casting. As noted in a prior thread about dropped storylines, ABC had to re-edit several storylines due to news events. GH had a terrorism storyline edited after 9/11. Janet on AMC was going to plant a bomb, but those scenes was edited out after the Oklahoma City bombing, and OLTL had to edit out a storyline about a school shooting with actor Jonathan Groff, after the Virginia Tech college shootings occurred during production. https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=3072097&page=1
-
-
From my recent reading of the Tumblr, PFS's writing period was concurrent with a huge turnover in the cast. Morgan Richards, and most of the cast that supported her storylines either left or were let go. Carrie Marler, Hope Bauer, and those associated with Alan Spaulding were written out when he went to jail. Dr. Kelly Nelson almost left for a musical version of The Three Musketeers, a poor out of town try-out doomed the show, and John Wesley Shipp re-signed for a few more years. So, the focus of the plots were being shifted, and critics were concerned that GL became unrecognizable. Also, The Reardons had taken over many of the plots, but once their creator left, many of the family members were backburnered. Browne was there to continue the shift to a new generation. She wrote the marriage of Quint and Nola. Then, Lisa Brown's maternity leave required a lot of unpopular plot devices including a silly kidnapping plot on their honeymoon. Fans had waited so long for Nola and Quint to get together, but once they wed their stories were sidelined to accommodate real life circumstances. So, like all soaps, the failures that were attributed to writing are hindsight reductive. Real life circumstances, contracts, and failed musicals all contributed to a fallow period. It is also important to note that the success of Y&R had an impact on the rest of the CBS lineup. P&G was rightly concerned that the success of Y&R was not being felt throughout the entire lineup and they wanted a taste of the same ratings that Y&R was achieving.
-
-
-
-
I'm reading @will81 's Tumblr The Soaps of Yesterday and it is filled with facts I did not know heretofore. The timing on this is interesting because a few weeks later they announced the casting of Michael Zaslow as David Rinaldi, Cassie's father. So, either they didn't think Cusi was up for the challenge of that plot, or they needed to age the character to pair her with Rob, or (tragically) she was the wrong size for the part...
-
As the kids say, "I was today-years-old" when I realized that Phoebe was Dr. Tyler's second wife. Although, this convoluted sentence by Lynda Hirsch didn't make it any easier to understand because if Dr. Tyler was Charles I, then wouldn't Chuck's father be Charles Barton Tyler II, Chuck would be Charles the III, and (if he were actually the father, and the kid's first name wasn't Phillip) Charlie would have been Charles the IVth?
-
If you are looking for guilty pleasures I recommend following the Carrington_Colby account on Instagram, they repost classic lines and outfits from the show. I think Blake's pathology is evident in his relationship with Krystal; he wanted to be admired. Young Alexis probably enjoyed his assent to power, but Young Blake needed her to educate him on the finer things in life. He didn't know how to staff a mansion or when the champagne was burnt. She reminded him of everything he had yet to understand, so he tried to erase her from his life the first time she did anything to go against his wishes. That's why his secretary became the love of his life, she already knew how to service his needs (so to speak). It is also why he was closer to Fallon, who lived for Blake's approval, than Steven, who wanted an identity that was different from Blake. Alexis versus Krystal really played on the feminist ideals of the time about women not being satisfied with only serving as objects of desire. Krystal, like her namesake, was a pretty thing to be observed, polished, and put away. Whereas Alexis, like the origin of her name, was a defender, a fighter, not content to just be looked at in a pretty dress, she wanted to own the dress factory and design it herself. I don't think that makes her incapable of love, it just makes her less of a romantic heroine than soaps usually exalt. I would further argue that guys like Dex seduced her with the promise of being partners and then tried to control her which ended the relationship. With regard to how Forsythe chose to play the part, Joan Collins mentioned their animosity on Watch What Happens Live. Perhaps they were both too limited as actors to be able to play subtext beyond how they felt about each other in real life?
-
So, I just saw this image on Instagram, and while I can't name every character off the top of my head, it begs the question: Was Alexis's true love Dex Dexter? I would argue that his betrayal of Alexis by sleeping with her daughter Amanda and cousin Sable disqualified him. But, maybe his independence made him more appealing to her? Furthermore, I would argue that Blake was far more into Alexis than she was into him. Why else would he have kept the mansion exactly as she decorated it with all of her belongings and her art studio intact? I believe Alexis flirted with the idea of loving Blake when he had amnesia, but ultimately decided that he never appreciated her intelligence, so she moved on to other lovers. I think we can all agree that creepy Cecil was never in contention.
-
Capwell Industries was a very diversified company. They were heavily involved in property development from the Capwell Hotel, to the offshore casino, and the Country Club. They were also involved in oil production, as evidenced by John Perkins job, and later the oil rig that was inadvertently blown up by Sophia, as well as medical science. It seems odd that a company with industry in the title did not actually doing anything industrial, and property development and oil don't seem to mix. Amusingly, if you google Capwell Industries, there is a real company that produces flour, rice, and porridge. I cannot imagine a soap about making porridge.
-
How do we discuss so much and neglect the most iconic image of 90s tv?
-
I agree that Melrose was always superior to 90210, and much less preachy to the audience. And while their seasons were long, sometimes those summer breaks can be brutal to try to maintain the energy from the cliffhanger to the resolve. The movement away from the apartment felt inevitable because once the characters obtained enough success to show the type of glamour that Spelling shows likes to portray, it made no sense that they would still be living in their starter apartments in mid-city. At one point, Amanda was the head of an ad agency, Jo was a major fashion photographer, while Jane ran a design firm, and even though Amanda owned the building, it defied logic that they would stay there. On the other hand, a show about people struggling financially into their 30s would probably not attract many advertisers. So, the writers were between a rock and a hard place (or reality and a Melrose Place, if you'll excuse the pun).
-
Perhaps what we learned from Melrose Place is that there is a natural cycle to primetime soaps. (1) Season 2 is always better than Season 1, because it takes time for the show to find the right tone (i.e. Dynasty, Falcon Crest, Dallas). (2) They are hard to maintain in quality for more than four seasons, especially after an excellent cliffhanger is poorly resolved (i.e. Dynasty). (3) The magic of the original cast is hard to replace, unlike daytime it is difficult to get an audience to accept new faces after watching for awhile. (i.e. Falcon Crest, Dynasty).
