j swift

It also highlights the plot hole of Reginald, Donna, and the baby pictures of her twins. Reginald shows a photo to Donna, she goes nuts, turns into Philece Sampler, that detail gets lost for a while, there's a rumor that Donna actually had triplets and Scott may have been one of them, then finally it is shown that John is in the picture which scared Donna because she feared that he could have fathered the twins. Spoiler alert: John didn't father the twins, it is all a red herring. However, if Michael left town after the twin's conception, but before their birth, why was John present when they were born? I get Reginald spiriting Michael out of town after finding out that Donna was infanticipating. That fit with the reason that Michael never knew that he shared the twins with Donna when he came back to Bay City. However, if Reginald was building secret rooms in the mansion, and hiring doctors to hide Donna in a special room at the hospital, why would he let John in to take a photo with the babies (see photo below from Another World Homepage)? Reg and Mary ran away in 1969, so if Scott was meant to be the third triplet it also didn't make sense, because where would he have been stashed for the prior two years? Also, how soon after Cheryl was born did Mary take off with Reg?

Between Elizabeth Love's disappearance, Ryan Harrison's conception, and John Hudson's Vietnam experience, I've tried to do the age math before and it is a total mess. We need a new soap term other than SORAS which indicates that post-collegiate soap characters are eternally thirtysomethings until they become grandparents. Perhaps we could call them E30s? Time just moves differently in soapland.

I apologize for repeating an earlier question but these first episodes reminded me of my quandary about Loving. I know Cabot and Isabelle came after the first year of the series, but does anyone recall the exposition about where they were when the soap debuted? Why were Ann and Roger living in their house with Curtis? And was there any mention of the Alden's company (AE?) before Cabot arrived? I seem to remember that Ava and Jack worked at Forbes construction when Jack was being a rebel and doing menial labor, but I don't remember if there was any references to Jack's maternal family's business. Also, does anyone recall the circumstances of Roger's death? My vague recollection was that he won a political appointment and left town (although I may be conflating him with Frank Ryan).

In retrospect, one of my main problems with Sunset Beach was the lack of integration of characters. When a soap is named after the town in which the characters live, that town should play a central role in the interactions of the characters. However, in Sunset Beach there were a wide swath of people who seemed to never meet each other. The soap became known for its large set devices like the earthquake and the sinking boat but, even within those plots there were characters that never shared dialogue. Some of the examples that come to mind are Cole and the other male characters his age. Cole seemed to exist on a island all of his own and mostly shared scenes with his wife and mother-in-law. Cole never spoke to Mark, Casey, or Michael. I have no memory of what his relationship was like with Ben and I barely recall any scenes between Cole and Annie. Similarly, Meg, (who was arguably the lead character), seemed to have no defined relationship with Caitlin, (the secondary lead). I think they were both on the boat that sank, but I don't remember if they liked each other or if Meg judged Caitlin for her baby switch. It seemed like a bad structure for a new soap that the writers never explored the various relationships around town, or even had people comment on the other plots going on around them. There were days when it felt as if you were tuning into a totally different show because nobody was mentioning what was happening in the news to the other people who lived in this small beach town. If you read about early Pine Valley or Bay City, there were always connections between the families in town. Even though there were strict socioeconomic divisions in Landview, you got the sense that Viki knew what going on around her. The characters in Sunset Beach might as well have lived in different countries because their actions rarely affected the lives of others in their community, and for me, that is heart and soul of a soap town.

So, here's my recollection of Donna Love and her reintroduction to Bay City. Peter Love had already been on the scene as an attorney at Cory Publishing. He has a introductory scene when he was smitten with Sally, and Mac notes that he knew his father (who was not named Reginald at that time). In early 1983, Donna flits into town, a few years after her divorce from Carl Hutchins. Someone had been siphoning funds from her trust account and she was low on money (it was later revealed that Carl was stealing from her). She took a job decorating one of the many refurbishments of the Cory Compound. She flirts with Mac, Rachel warns her to back off as she is recently engaged to Mac, and reminding her of their shared history as neighbors (this was a few months before the double wedding with Sandy & Blaine). The loss of funds is what motivates Marley's return to Bay City from boarding school, because Donna was having a hard time paying the tuition, and so Marley starts to attend public school where she meets Ben McKinnon and all of his friends. I mention all of this because Iris came to Bay City in 1972 and left in 1980 to move to Houston. So, it is possible that Donna was living in Europe with Carl during most of Iris's stay in Another World. We know Donna left Bay City soon after the birth of the twins to escape the gossip of her teenage pregnancy and raise Marley as her sister (given that her mother Elizabeth had disappeared years earlier it would have been suspicious that Donna suddenly had another sister - side note: I only have a vague recollection that Nicole and Peter knew that Marley was their niece not their sister). Neither Carl nor Donna referred to the marriage too often while in Bay City, (perhaps the loss of Perry made their time together too difficult to mention, or more likely, later writers forgot that they were ever wed). So, it is hard to say how long they were married because at some point after Carl's marriage to Barbara, (Perry's mother), but before his marriage to Donna, he had romantic entanglements with Justine Duvalier, (Ryan's mother), and Maria DeSilva, (Paulina's mother). Carl's affair with Felicia was a contributing factor to the end of his marriage to Donna. Perry was very close to Donna and it seems as if she had raised him as a son since he was a teenager. So, we can assume that they were together for much of the disco 1970's, as a result Donna would not have had the opportunity to attend society functions with Iris. Of course the irony of all of this was that Iris was so mortified by Rachel and Carl's romance that she shot him. However, Iris was never around to witness the animus between Carl and her father. So, her motivation to totally loose it over his romance with her step-mother that she never liked seems even more absurd in retrospect. She was never that mean toward Mitch Blake and he tried to kill Mac.

As much as I abhor the use of scabs during a strike because it destroys the purpose of a worker's union, I enjoy reading about those periods of plotlines because they were so wild and often out of character. It is like there is suddenly a substitute teacher in charge and everyone is acting nuts.

As I recall when Frankie Frame was introduced it was established that Emma (her mother) lived in Oklahoma. Which begs the question why she was known as Frankie Frame, when her parents were Ordways? Obviously, the writer's logic was that it helped viewers remember her familial relationship, but it made no actual sense that she would be known by her mother's maiden name. I think the problem with Iris's longevity was that she became an island onto herself. Her raison d'etre became preserving her father's wishes and that becomes repetitive as a character ages. Without a viable Dennis, or a long term husband, she lacked a family base for plotlines. Between Lucas and Michael, Iris was the eternal third wheel in every love triangle. As a result, she became an honorary Harrison, or an adjunct Cory, but she had no family to care for and no business to create story. As we saw with Felicia, if Iris had stayed in Bay City, it was only a matter of time before long lost children came out of the woodwork. There was also that mid-90's foray into soap realism that made bitchy divas seem obsolete. Personally, I hated that period of soapdom when money no longer motivated characters, everyone was only interested in finding eternal love, and the social issue of the moment was the focus of every plot. I prefer over the top villains and ladies who wore hats to the office. Going back to the retcon of Iris's adoption, (and the loss of Lemay's original story proposals), I wonder if the plan was for Iris to be red herring, or create reasonable doubt, for Amanda if she ever became a murder suspect because they shared the same genes and DNA evidence was a big news topic around that time.

One tends to think there are also economic issues at play for production. By that time there was less money for supporting characters like talk-to's and hit men, so the leading ladies were called upon to do things for themselves.

I always find it amusing in soaps when the snobbiest characters in town have a longer rap sheet than those they look down upon. That makes sense, although does that mean that Iris didn't buy Donna's condo? Also interesting to note that there was a Bayview Tower and a Bayview Court (Bay City's version of Peachtree Street/Road in Atlanta or Beverly Blvd/Drive in Los Angeles).

I recall Donna's condo, but it made me wonder if they lived in the same building as TOPS? Was that the Love Towers where Reginald met his untimely demise off of the roof top balcony? Also, is memory failing me or wasn't this all contemporaneous with the return of Jason Frame because Iris's suspected motive at the time of his murder was that Jason was blackmailing her with knowledge that she was The Chief? That being said, I have no memory what her motive was as a suspect in Jake McKinnon's shooting. It was a sign of times that Beverly/Iris was never arrested, but Carmen/Iris was a suspect in three different gun related crimes. Your point about Donna and Iris not knowing each other is valid given that Rachel was presumed to have known Donna for years because they were neighbors. However, I guess it could be argued that Mac bought the Cory mansion right before his marriage to Rachel, so Iris did not live in that house, and thus had no chance to run into Donna at the mailbox or local grocery store (can you imagine Iris collecting the mail?). On the other hand, it was later established the Dennis was a similar age to Marley & Vicky, so it stands to reason that Dennis and Jamie would have met Marley in school before she left for her European boarding school (but now I am veering into the realm of fan fiction). I also agree with your main hypothesis that the de-Sorasing of Donna, through the casting of Ms Sampler, did the character no favors, and Donna lost a lot of her agency in the process. It is amusing that Donna acquired a southern lilt at the same time that Iris got her Aussie accent without much of an explanation in either case.

Speaking of which, the parallels between Iris finding out that she wasn't Mac's daughter and Dennis finding out that he wasn't Elliot's son are interesting. I stopped watching Texas early in its run, but I wonder if there was any exposition regarding the connection between Dennis feeling betrayed in the same way that Iris had felt betrayed. Certainly, the infamous slap that Elliot gave Iris when the paternity was revealed should have shocked Dennis enough to be more supportive of Iris, but the character of Dennis was never a Momma's-boy. All things being equal, (in hindsight), I am happy that character changes that developed for Iris in Houston never became cannon when she returned in Bay City. She lost a lot of her bite when she became the grande dame of the Southwest. Although it is odd that a few years in Australia changed her accent, while after all that time in Houston she never even uttered the word "y'all". One question, upon her return was she always referred to as Iris Cory? I still think of her as Iris Carrington because Louise always called her Mrs. Carrington, and on Texas she was known as Iris Wheeler. Also, I believe when Dennis was reintroduced he was referred to as Dennis Wheeler, so it is odd that everybody else in Bay City referred to her by her maiden name, even though they had never used it in the past. I would argue that the origin of Iris's adoption made sense because of the birth of Amanda. It cemented the relationship between Rachel and Mac, because she was able to give him the biological child that he never had (except of course for Sandy and Paulina, but he didn't yet know about them).

It is an especially interesting quandary when we consider her reintroduction through "The Chief" storyline because her biological origins did not matter in terms of the logic of that plot. My impression was that Iris was trying to manipulate Cory stock so that she could eventually save the company from ruin and win Mac's praise (given that the story was conceived prior to the actor's death). I don't believe she was trying to buyout Cory publishing in order to ruin Amanda and Matthew's financial well being. Iris had always been driven by trying to win Mac's approval. The fact that he now had established relationships with Sandy, Amanda, and Matthew would have threatened her deep seeded desire to be "Daddy's Girl." So, wanted to help him by saving his beloved company. However, establishing her as Mac's biological daughter would have no impact on that story. Mac's will had been the subject of prior storylines and even Jamie was due to inherit part of Cory Publishing just prior to the revelation that Sandy was his son. Iris had been written out of the will during her marriage to Brian Bancroft (AW was still written by Lemay at the time so he had knowledge of those events). She knew that her son Dennis had benefited from both the Wheeler and Carrington estates, because he was included in the wills of both his biological and his perceived father. So, there was no motivation for Iris to be Mac's biological daughter in order to clam his wealth, because already knew that she was getting bupkis. The establishment of Paulina as the forgotten South American Cory was written after Lemay's departure, so there was no logic in trying to establish Iris as a Cory in opposition to Paulina, because she was considered a Cory with or without a biological connection. Finally, there weren't any romantic reasons to make her a biological Cory. Sandy had already left town and Matthew was not a viable love interest. Also, her initial story involved a triangle with Donna and Michael, so her biology did not effect any potential entanglements. While it fit with Mac's rather randy past (remember when he had sex in the back of a limo and Rachel found the underwear as evidence?). It was unnecessary as a plot detail. Unless Iris's biology was somehow going to play into Evan's history...

On Facebook someone just posted a picture of Jack Wagner as Warren #3 from 1991 (with his awful Caesar/Clooney haircut). It got me thinking about the number of recasts that occurred during that period. Warren, Mason, Kelly and Keith were all recast within months of each other and then Eden left the show. I don't know if any soap could survive that degree of cast upheaval. The cancellation of a soap is often attributed to creative issues, but it seems an important lesson that soap habits are made on repetition and once that sense of normalcy is gone the habit is easy to replace; regardless of the popularity of using actors from other soaps.

This was actually my first response to the news. She had a high profile arrest for DUI in 2002, there was also an infamous Letterman appearance when she appeared to be under the influence. These types of scandals are unfortunately more often over looked for male actors than female leads. I always associate her with the odd tidbit that she was roommates with Sandra Bernhardt when she first left AMC and moved to LA. A quick review of her IMDB page suggests that she has worked consistently since NYPD Blue, but the roles have diminished in quality and star power. So, maybe she was looking for a meatier role, and wanted to work after the stay-at-home orders restricted income for the past nine months? I would hazard to guess that there are a few former primetime actors who would relish the opportunity to work again; given the current economic climate.

@Taoboi @Chris B I get the side hustle, but am I the only looking at former daytime actor's social media posts and wondering how they are continuing to make a living (especially during stay-at-home orders)? Perhaps I worry too much, but nine years without a gig in most professions would put one at risk for poverty.

Agreed (although I would add RKK's pension for short shorts) But I have to put in a good word for Stephen Yates. He was Rachel-est of the Jamie's. They shared the same hair and an artsy vibe. They were also both vulnerable with a hair trigger temper that interfered with their relationships. It was a shame that the character changed so much in later iterations because I thought Yate's Jamie seemed like the one who really shared some character DNA with Rachel (certainly more than Amanda or Matthew ever did).

I think the reunions are a part of the franchise that are no longer necessary. First, the cast goes on WWHL several times per season, so there are ample opportunities for them to comment on the drama, far too often the reunion is a retread of what they have already stated on Twitter or WWHL. Second, they can't reference the reunion directly within the season so they are always referring to it as this obtuse situation that caused a rift in their relationships. Third, there is either never any resolution to the season's arguments or the resolution seems contrived because it happened outside of their natural milieu. I think much like the Bravo blogs that caused more trouble than they were worth, production would be better off by trying resolve story lines within the context of the 22 episodes per season.

It is interesting to recall when GH could maintain multiple plots. That summer had both Casadine island and the Diana Taylor murder plot. The previous year had the Left-handed Boy and the Quatermaine divorce saga. They were really good at balancing an outrageous action adventure with more traditional soap storylines.

I follow Alec Musser (AMC- Del Henry #2) on Instagram for the occasional shirtless pic and it got me thinking. He hasn't had a credit worthy of IMDB since 2011. However, as single man, he travels, he owns a house, and participates in expensive action sports. How do these guys who seem to never work still manage to maintain these lives? I am old enough to know that much of what is portrayed on social media is fake, but I still wonder how former daytime actors with very few subsequent jobs like Scott Bailey, Kyle Lowder, or Pierson Fode allow them to maintain a life of leisure?

I need a second opinion. I found this pic of 80's hunk Christopher Atkins (Dallas) on Tumblr. Is there an inadvertent ball-slip from those short shorts?

I have a theory that the key to decoding any Housewives scene is watching who gets to be the talking head commenting on the action. Thus, it was surprising to me that Denise, (who has been an obvious pain in the tush for production) got such a favorable edit in Rome. Sutton and Dorit were chosen as the narrators and they provided the audience with reasonable doubt when it comes to Brandi's allegations. One could imagine that the fan response would have been very different if Kyle or Teddi's interviews were interspersed in that scene. Certainly every housewife is interviewed about each scene, however, by only using the Sutton and Dorit footage, it was easier to either sympathize with Denise or vilify Teddi. I've read fan theories that RHOBH is focusing on Denise because nothing was going on for the other women. However, I doubt this because there are hours of footage that go into each week's episode and these story editors could have created drama out of any number of events that went unseen. We have no idea about the other scenes of Sutton, Rinna, or Garcelle that could have made for an interesting story. This was chosen because Denise stopped filming and the editors needed to provide context to the story about why that occurred.

I believe the appropriate adjective would be "zaddy" !

Not to be argumentative but, this is a classic example of people interpreting data without basic statistical knowledge. Comparing an average rating year to year does not take variability into account, which is the basis for measuring significant change. For example, Andy Cohen has stated that the ratings for Miami Housewives decreased over the course of the final season. However, if one was to average the high rating at the beginning of the season with the low rating at the end of the season, that average would not seem very different from the average rating of the season before it. Which is why variability in statistics has always been a more important determinant than the average. I get frustrated when fans discuss drops in raw rating numbers because it is reductive in terms of how ratings are used by networks to set fees for advertisers. Networks have always used ratings to provide a prediction to their advertisers about the ratings for a given show in order to set the fee for commercials. The ratings are there to prove the accuracy of that prediction. The audience samples are bias toward those who will buy the advertiser's products and do not include people with digital cable services (like youtube tv), people with certain household demographics, and it does not reflect the proportion of the minority status of the US population. If they over predict then they have to return part of the fee, and if they under predict then they need to charge more the following season. Networks would never release their predictions to the public, (because they want more people to watch than they predicted), so there is virtually no person involved in the system that looks at the data in the way it is presented above. Again, I hope the reader will excuse my exasperated tone, but ratings are not an indication audience response. Ratings are reliable and stable so they cannot be used to interpret if the audience likes a certain cast member or storyline. That data is taken from audience response surveys, not letter writing campaigns, or twitter replies to Andy Cohen. So, as a fan base, can we finally stop caring if an intentionally bias sample of 5% of the audience watches the same show that we like? There are more important things to worry about; like whether Dorit will finish decorating the room at Buca di Beppo on time for Teddi's baby shower.

I think the missed opportunity with Santana was making her the third wheel in the Eden/Cruz storyline. By history, Santana was in love with Channing, and left Santa Barbara to study interior design in Europe, after giving birth to Brandon. Making her into a whiny drug addict who developed a dependent relationship with Cruz really pinned her character into a corner. I would have preferred either an ongoing collusion with Mason, (who needed an ally), in order to take down CC. Or, an ongoing rivalry with Gina. It felt like once Gina was recast with Robin Mattson, she made most of the storyline potential for Santana seem redundant. Brandon was better suited to be raised by Gina, and Eden became too good to scrap with her housekeeper's daughter. However, Santana should have been a Latinx version of Alexis Colby, (regal, snobby, and always on the come up for a richer husband).

If we've learned one thing about Denise Richards it is that she has an exaggerated need for privacy which why I question Brandi's story about her initiating their first kiss in a restaurant bathroom. Given the other woman's responses, it was not common knowledge that Brandi identifies as bisexual, Brandi was admittedly drunk, and they were among friends. So, not only could their tete-a-tete have been witnessed by others in the bathroom, Denise also had no idea how Brandi would have respond, or if she would immediately tell their mutual friend. Thus, the story strains credulity.