j swift

https://classicsodloving.tumblr.com

Agreed, but listening to the lyrics, they don't make any sense. The juxtaposition of the idea that "there's always tomorrow" doesn't fit with the concept that the we "only have one life to live." To me, the idea that we only have one life indicates that we should seize the day, make this moment count and, make the most of the time we have. It does not mean that if this day sucks (or the rain won't end) we should wait until tomorrow for it to get better. Here's where you go When it looks like the rain won't end (Where is he suggesting we go? Lllandview? Asa's house? Llandfair?) and then in the second verse (which we only heard on days with extended end credits) he changes the entire meaning of the song Let's live today And find someone to share it with Cause we only have one life to live Maybe it is just the pandemic, but in hindsight, Peabo lacks logical consistency.

Through a 2020 lens, the casting of Connor Oilvera, (the son of El Patron who was facing deportation), is as anachronistically amusing as his appropriation of new jack swing music. Unlike All I Need, Lady in Red, or (Think of) Laura, Connor's lyrics have no association what so ever with the love story of Anna and Robert. Now That You're Here? Anna and Robert spent years around each other while pursuing other lovers, (and were never written as each other's destiny), so it is not like they just found each other. A more appropriate title would have been Now That We've Exhausted All Other Options (including the alien in my garage and your virgin pianist girlfriend). But, I guess, that's harder to dance to. I'm also amused by the rehearsal dinner scene where Mac had founded a jazz club for live music, but the performers lip synced to video backing footage, very 90's cabaret... Lastly, can we talk about the insta-wealth that all GH characters achieved in 1991? Mac went from an environmental activist to a jazz club owner. A family inheritance caused Bill Eckart to go from a dockworker to buying that gorgeous lighthouse. And his sister Jenny (who for some reason did not benefit from that wealthy dead relative) went from student nurse housing to the Quatermaine mansion! Gloria Monty gave up all pretenses of relatability as soon as those ratings drooped.

After commenting on the 1991 SOD thread I researched Connor Olivera and came up with this old thread: What ended up being Connor's storyline? according to, http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/7967/mlynch.html "His character was a singer at TheOutback, and he was pals with Mac. He also used to teach Robin dance moves. He had a crush on Dominique, but she was hung up on Mac, and ended up marrying Scotty. Connor found out that Sean Donnely is his biological father. Connor left PC to further his music career." Sean Donnelly's son? Did he go to the wedding with Tiffany? How long was he on the show? The actor and his song styling did not age well, but the idea of an expanded Donnelly family tree is intriguing. If anyone has any additional information on this character I would appreciate it.

I appreciate that I'm not the only one who searches for New Day in Eden videos on a regular basis

Andy Cohen mentioned on his radio show that RHONY and RHOBH are subject to delays due to editors who had been unable to complete episodes prior to the shelter in place orders. RHOBH specifically had only finished shooting 3-4 weeks before the lockdown orders were in place. Understandably, the editorial process is difficult to achieve while working from home. Just think about the brilliance of the story editors on both show who are able to interweave flashbacks, music, and hours of footage to create a story. That requires people to log every minute of footage and maintain a database of multiple seasons of filming. These shows film for eight hours a day, five days a week, for months in order to get a cohesive plotline that lasts for 20-22 episodes. Which means someone has to sift through at least 40 hours of footage to achieve a 40 minute weekly episode, or one hour of filming for every one minute of an episode. I was compelled to mention this because I read a comment on Facebook suggesting that the shows were re-tooling to edit out insensitive material; much like RuPaul's Drag Race had done with season 12. However, the obvious difference is that Drag Race was filmed and edited a year ago, so it was achievable to be able to go back and cut out a character and substitute other talking interviews. RHONY and RHOBH stopped filming in January and February respectively, so it would be impossible to back and try to change plotlines. The Bravo shows are simply trying to keep up with current production demands and any conspiracy theories about their motives seem ill-informed.

Thank you for this detail But, it still doesn't fit with the character of Alex that we saw within the plotline of the show. Alex was an upstanding citizen, he fought crime, and younger men, like Tony and Trucker, looked to him for moral guidance. So, what made him become a con artist for those few years? Also, I know the Forbes disappeared after the first years of show, but was the mansion always the Alden's? Or did Roger and Ann live in a different mansion than Cabot and Isabelle? Weren't the Forbes also rich on their own, given the facts of the pilot?

OMG, I totally forgot that Roscoe and Randall were married until I read it in the 1991 SOD on that thread.

Was Robin or Randall's debut timed to coincide with the opening of the Crystal Palace? Also, did RH ever have a Studio 54-esque disco, because they all felt a bit too young to hang out at a Rainbow Room-esque establishment?

According to Another World Homepage, Paulina was born on San Cristobal, off the coast of Panama (I'm guessing it is not the same San Cristobal where Reva Shayne ruled as queen on Guiding Light) and her mother was Maria Hernandez Desilva (which doesn't explain why she called herself Paulina Cantrell, but that's another story). Ken and Mac met Maria while they were reporters. That may account for her blond hair, but certainly not her New Jersey accent (lol). http://www.anotherworldhomepage.com/paulinaf.html With regard to Remy, I've always chalked that up to newer writers who forgot (or never researched) Paulina's history because she and Derek were not raised in Bay City so there couldn't have been an adoption judge in town with more information on the child. Unless, there was an unexplored underground illegal ring of family court judges who worked on the Donna, Paulina, and Sylvie Kosloff (Iris's mother) cases, because that midwestern town sure had a lot of iffy adoptions...

When we re-read SOD from that year in a prior thread the transition from Cali to Judi became clear. Judi moved back to the east coast after working on Days (she may have also had a recent divorce). She tested with several east soaps and finally AW made her the best offer and then they fired Cali. It was toward the end of the "Who shot Jake" storyline, so there was a possibility that Tom Eplin may have been on his way out any way. However, SOD characterized the hire as AW's attempt to raise ratings based on the popularity of the actress because Days had shot to near #1 status during her time on that show. I agree that Cali was the superior Paulina. Despite the fact that both actresses were very waspy blonds playing a South American born character (casting that probably wouldn't fly today). I was a fan of Cali from her time on Ryan's Hope. She conveyed a delicate balance between conniving and vulnerability. She wore those early 90's bandage dresses like no one else. And, she had portrayed a sexuality that Judi never brought to the part (despite her pairing with perma-speedo-clad Julian McMahon). Of course eventually, Paulina went from a South American con artist to an Italian chef with a long lost child who somehow knew to try to find her in Bay City, but that's soaps.

If I were to play time-traveling-imaginary-writer, I would have written it that Alex went to Corrinth to tell the Alden's that Clay was presumed dead. However, when he got there the family assumed that he was Clay. In order to spare their feelings (and because he always wanted to be part of a family), he played along with the ruse. Dan (the other secret agent) or Ava could have served the expository function in order to flesh out Alex's motives. The other issue that was never adequately explored was his attraction to women like Ava, Egypt, and Tracy. Why was Alex always going for the schemers? What was the masochistic origin of his desire to engage with women who always had a trick up their sleeve, and left him feeling as if they were never fully committed to the relationship? Loving was pretty good at exploring characters like Ava, Curtis, and even Stacy. We understood their perspective and most of their choices seemed organic to their values and beliefs. For example, we watched how Ava's early baby-buying story informed her later relationships and desire to have a child. We saw that Curtis always felt like second-best in both his family and relationships and therefore was constantly looking validation. And, even an ingenue like Stacy was allowed to grow after being betrayed by love. However, Alex was purely a plot device. Given the time that soaps have to tell their stories, it always feels like a missed opportunity when the audience doesn't get an analysis of the characters.

What was Alex Master's original motive for "stealing" Clay Alden's identity? He didn't seem to be in it for the money, because he never tried to con the Alden's or raid the coffers of their business. In fact, he was never written as money-hungry, or even particularly ambitious. He didn't initially hate Clay. Their rivalry seemed to build once Clay returned to Corinth and Alex was hypnotized into trying to kill him. He also never expressed any animosity toward the Alden family. He was kind to Trisha and tried to be a stabilizing force to Curtis. Finally, he didn't seem to be trying to uncover any mysteries that would necessitate him going undercover as Clay. I read that the Alex's reveal occurred during a writer's strike and I wonder if that was the cause of the lack of inquiry into his motives. He was one of those odd soap guys, (like Roman Brady or Shane Roberts) who arrived without a backstory but within a few years their entire history became totally convoluted. Alex was not only an escapee from a prison camp (twice), but also a spy-for-hire who was married to Egypt, and a federal agent who had an affair with Tracy Quartermaine when he investigated the mob. Age-wise he was old enough to be the father of Rick (who seemed to be in his early 30's in the mid-1980's), Trisha, and Curtis, (who was nearly the same age as Ava), but young enough to have fought in Vietnam. Also, (much like Roman Brady), only in a soap town could a man who was once brainwashed into being an assassin become the chief of police (there should be a list of all the former spies, foreign traitors, and assassins who join small town soap police forces; I talking to you Anna Devaine and Robert Scorpio). So, I'm left with a couple of questions. Did Alex know Clay was alive when he came to Corinth? Does anyone recall any exposition about his plans? Did Alex ever mention his family of origin? I found this great resource, but there is very little discussion about Alex's true motivation http://www.stybz.com/monszter/RM/lov88.htm

I was referring to early Phoebe and early Liz, before they both developed a sense of humor

This made me reflect that one couldn't create a character like Phoebe or Liz today without including some degree of camp. I would pin it to Alexis on Dynasty, that ever since that period it is hard to name an older female character who is just mean, without the injection of some camp (e.g. big hats, witty bon mots, boy toys).

I really appreciate this character dissection because (1) it is a great distraction during an awful time, (2) it brings back memories of when I was devoted fan of soaps and they inspired so many ideas about the culture, and (3) we experienced characters subjectively which makes us all experts. I get a little frustrated by posts that claim to know the motives and creative process of the production because those arguments always seem reductive and often ill informed.

This is an interesting hypothesis that gave me pause. However, what held my interest in the early Rachel/Steve/Alice triangle was that Rachel and Steve's motives (as the "bad people") were well explained. One of the highlights of AW was that every talk-to in Bay City had some sort of Freudian ability to analyze Rachel and Steve so that the audience understood their backstory. Ada was frequently explaining how Rachel was seeking the type of attention that was denied by her missing father. John figured out that Steve escaped his family of origin and was trying to recreate a new family in Bay City. So, their actions made sense and never seemed plot driven. In contrast characters like Alice were never as well defined. She was just a 'good girl.' My humorous take on her is derived from the fact that she often got away with poor behavior because other characters defined her motives as benevolent. However, in hindsight, her actions were often selfish and inconsiderate. My take on the characters of today is that their motivations are never as well defined. I have no idea why Gabby on Days maintains a different set of values from her brother Rafe. Modern soaps are filled with unidimensional citizens who engage in behaviors for no explicable reason. Also, the lack of multigenerational characters offers little insight into the younger set thus there is therefore less investment into their lives. I'm not so sure about this because my addled memory was that Alice's return coincided with David's death and Sally initially hid the fact that she was Kevin's mother because she feared Alice's reaction. Of course, the whole story was a retrofit that never gibbed with the history of Sally that we watched on screen.

At the risk of repeating a blasphemous hot take on Alice from a few years back on this forum; I never liked her or her family (except for Pat and Aunt Liz). Alice was emotionally unstable and sexually stunted, yet her siblings considered her to be bonanza rather than a burdon. Whether it was Steve, Elliot Bancroft, or Ray Gordon, Alice was always the consolation prize trying to be top banana. Alice tried to slut shame Rachel, as if Steve didn't play a role in their affair. She was so jealous that Rachel had a child first that she tried to keep Steve from bonding with Jamie and demanded that he never have time with Jamie and Rachel together. That resulted in Steve becoming so crazed in his need to spend time with his son that he conspired a fraud with Rachel's father in the custody trial and went to jail. She was also snobby with Lenore about Rachel's desires to want Russ to provide a good life. As if Alice couldn't understand why Rachel wouldn't want to live as a newlywed in her husband's teenaged bedroom, with her father-in-law, his sister, and two daughters. Yet, as soon as Steve built her a house, she never wanted to give it up, despite the fact that Steve's son was the rightful heir to his property upon his death. Alice pretty much stole Sally from her parents family when they died because everyone in Bay City knew that she was desperate for a kid. After she got tired of raising Sally, she sent her off to a soapland school to grow up on her own. Until Sally became a teenager and moved in with Aunt Liz (an honorary Matthews by marriage). Then, when Alice finally returned to town in the mid 80's, she slut shamed Sally for having a child with David, while totally ignoring that she missed Sally's weddings to Peter, Caitlin, and Denny. Later when Sally died, Alice never sought custody of her grandson and allowed Kevin to be raised by his ex-stepfather (who barely knew him) and his convicted murderer wife. BTW, for those who mourned Sally as gone too soon, she ate up a lifetime worth of plots in her five years as an adult on the show. Also, I hate a soap romance where one partner tries to domesticate the other. Alice's insistence on calling him Steven, when the rest of town called him Steve was the perfect example of her misguided attempts to change him. She then pressured him to sell his football team in order to go into construction and employ her drunk brother-in-law. Any relationship based on the false ideal that love can change someone's true nature is bound to fail in soapland. Obviously some of this is written in jest. But, in hindsight, Steve's stay in Australia makes sense if he was trying to avoid Alice at any cost.

Not to rejudicate plots from 40 years (although that's what we do on these boards), but I think the replay of the Steve/Alice/Rachel plot failed for more reasons than just the recast. David Canary was an excellent Steven Frame, he was sexy, debonair, and had an easy chemistry with most female leads. The build up of the story was great because everyone was talking about Edward Black before he came to town. That created intrigue about the character while there was never a clue about his true identity (much like the introduction of Adam Chandler on AMC). I remember the silhouette of what seemed to be Reinholt turn into David Canary in his first scene even before seeing it again in the clip that was posted because it was such a classic cliffhanger. And sufficient time had passed between the actors that the recast was less jarring. However, (from a plot point of view), the breakup of Rachel and Mac to facilitate the triangle seemed rushed. Mitch was a viable option for Rachel, but as an audience member, the true rooting value was for Rachel and Mac to reunite. She had changed so much during their romance, and she had fought Iris and Janice in order to be with Mac, that it made no sense that Rachel would regress to point of wanting to get back together with Steve. Also, Mac was caddish playboy with a wandering eye when he met Rachel, so sweet nurse Alice was unlikely match for such a lusty guy. Furthermore, it didn't help matters that during the storyline Rachel (who had just survived a barn fire) suffered from car-accident-induced-amnesia and then car-accident-induced-blindness making her the most accident prone character in Bay City. George Reinholt,(like many soap hunks in a triangle) was never the appeal of the original story. He was wooden, he had terrible hair, and his delivery was so contrived he made Drake Hogestyn look like Laurence Olivier. We tuned in to watch Alice and Rachel fight. The classic scenes were Rachel crueling informing Alice that she was pregnant at the engagement party and then Rachel crueling trying to kick Alice out of the house when Steve died. But, by the 1980's Rachel had outgrown her cruel nature. She was still impulsive, but she was no longer driven by a need for attachment to men who didn't want her, like her father. So, the story felt like a big step backward for Rachel. Also, without Jamie as a major character within the story, Steve's motivation was suspect. Jamie was in Bay City during the storyline, but he did not have much of an impact on the plot. Why would Steven abandon Jamie after fighting so hard for custody that he went to jail? Why would Steven be so devoted to his horse loving stepdaughter Diana that he would forget to ask about Jamie's well being? Why would Steven build a new company and not want to take care of Jamey financially? So much great plot resulted from Steve's death, including the evolution of Willis (my favorite AW male character beside Robert Delaney), the introduction of Ray Gordon and Olive Randolph, and mostly the Mac/Rachel/Iris storyline that reviving the character at any point afterward would never be as good.

@FrankoDo you have the link to the source you are using for 1981 summaries?

First of all, I thought it was an interesting detail that both Kyle and Dorit now live in the valley. Dorit said she is two minutes away from Kyle, and Kyle lives in Encino, so that was a revelation. Erika lives in Pasadena, Denise lives in Malibu, Garcelle seems to be moving to some suburban subdivision, and Sutton lives in the much tonier Bel Air. Thus, only Teddi and Rinna actually live in BH-proper. Which begs the question, why would Rinna travel with Erika to Encino when they live 30 miles apart from each other? Also, lesson learned, whether you are an actress in the umpteenth revival of Halloween, a broadway star in the 95th recast of Roxie Hart, a real estate agent, or a nuclear physicist, nobody wants to hear you monologue about your job at a dinner party.

The 1969-1979 part of Sophia's timeline is what never made sense to me. The storyline led us to believe that CC and Sophia were destined to be together. However, she was married to the Count three years longer than CC, and she had an affair with Lionel twice during their marriage. There are several loose ends that were never resolved. Did Marcello spend the entire series in jail? Why did Joe only served five years for shooting Channing, but Marcello spent nine years in prison for falsifying evidence? Why did Sophia completely forget about Marcello, with whom she had a longer relationship than she did with her own children (like she forgot about Brick and his child)? What did Armonti Industries produce and why did they move their manufacturing from Italy to Santa Barbara? Obviously, some of those are written in jest. However, Sophia deserved to be a much more layered character. Her history is suggests conflicting interests in fulfilling her own desires for fame or lust, versus her duties to the needs of her family. She was redeemed through a cancer storyline which made her into a martyr and as a result her history was quickly dismissed. Changing writers and a focus on the younger characters never allowed her to be explored as fully as she could have been.

Lionel pursued Eden when they both originally returned to town in the first few months of the series because she reminded him of Sophia. Although from Eden's first episode when she mistakenly skydived into Lockridge estate it seemed like the plan was to pair her with Warren. Then, when the earthquake hit, Lionel turned his attention back to Augusta in order to support her during her blindness. In hindsight, not pursuing a Lionel/Sophia paring at any point in the plotline was a missed opportunity. Like most, I would assume, Lionel and Augusta seemed like each others endgame because the actors were so charming and they exuded chemistry. They certainly made more sense than the eventual Lionel and Gina pairing which seemed to stem from the fact that there was nobody left for them to hook up with by the end of the show, rather than any actual character history. However, Sophia could have been a viable threat to the Augusta and Lionel's marriage, especially during her periods of estrangement from CC when she seemed to always choose the most unsuitable men in town.

Though it feels odd to quote myself, I stand by that this is my favorite minute in soap history. I also find it so clever that Logan telling Raven that she was incapable of loving another was the catalyst for leaving Jamey with April, and it became a character trait that haunted Raven until she had children with Sky.

It's ironic how we personalize, (and romanticize) the failing of retail. However, like many industries, the failures in retails are multi-variate. Take Barney's for example, real estate was more of an issue than sales in the demise of the company. Once Barney's expanded from their initial site on the UWS of Manhattan they were subjected to rental prices that rose and fell regardless of the sales of their designer garments. GAP once owned vast amounts of San Francisco real estate, that was sold in order to finance bonds to fund further expansion. While I've not shopped at Banana Republic for years because I have all of the khaki workwear that I'll ever need, their sales stock is not what is tanking that brand as much as the cost of maintaining employee health care and the demands of stockholders wanting to raid corporate pensions and other cash assets. Locally, in Los Angeles, I was amazed that long standing companies have been unable to sustain the loss of a single month's revenue during lockdown, simply due to debts incurred by selling off their real estate holdings, and then being unable to leverage its value during a downturn in sales. While this is a relatively trivial concern, it will be interesting to see how older luxury brands will survive in the current market. Chanel once produced couture collections as publicity for their high margin items like cosmetics and perfumes, because customers enjoyed the experience of buying luxury items from specialty retail spaces within department stores. However, with young luxury customers more interested in hyping their purchases on Instagram, the days of wanting to experience an interaction with a snooty perfume saleswoman are gone. As a result, last year, Dior made more from the sales of tee-shirts than cosmetics because the customer wants something that can be seen on social media rather than the experience of personal interactions with luxury brand salespeople. Who needs a $50 lipstick, when you can get one for $5 and achieve the same look in pics?