adrnyc

This Friday's episode for me was 1490 above. There is a scene at 40 minutes (the video is Thurs & Fri together) where Jack confronts Delia about who gave her the money to start the Crystal Palace. I loved Randall in the scene and it made me think about what @amybrickwallace asked me when I was in the midst of my disgust with Delia for purposefully trying to run down Barry with her car. Amy asked me how I would've felt if IK were doing the storyline. Ever since then, I've been thinking about the difference between the two performances.

Edited to say: Thinking back on that storyline of Delia/Barry/Car, I do think that if IK had been Delia at the time, I would've believed that the character would do something like that. I still wouldn't have liked it, but it wouldn't have seemed so out of left field as it did to me with RE.

While I personally don't care for IK's acting, I understand and appreciate that she *is* Delia. Her version of Delia is obviously bi-polar or manic depressive or has some sort of serious psychological issue. Randall's was ditzier but also not so manic. In the scene I mentioned above, I was trying to picture IK doing the scene. It would've been slightly OTT, manic, and it would've been so OBVIOUS that she was lying. I prefer Randall's acting because, although both the audience and Jack can see that she's lying, it's subtle. You can see that she's trying to keep her cool but her face gives her away here and there.

Anyway, I thought it good stuff and wanted to bring it up. David Rasche is also back as Wes Leonard - Rae trying to use him to make Michael jealous - and succeeding!  I really love her acting as well. In the scene that is (I believe) before the Jack/Delia scene,  Rae is with Wes at dinner; Michael comes to try and pull her away via work matters. Wes is talking to Michael and Rae is watching Wes. From the look on her face, I get that she likes Wes, doesn't find him attractive in the slightest, but he is playing his part exactly as she hoped he would. She appears both pleased and amused. Just little details that I love so much from many of these actors. 

I do wish we saw the Ryans more but, with Siobhan back, I'm hoping that changes. Right now, we just get a lot of Siobhan and Joe, which I also enjoy, and I understand they're re-establishing them on the canvas. When I think of the fact that, at the end of this year, the SoapNet run is over, I do get a little sad. I have quite enjoyed Ryan's Hope over the past 6 years!

Thanks so much for sharing that!! Wow - that video takes me back! I couldn't watch it all as I'm currently watching 1989 and it was just too strange to skip ahead like that. If I remember correctly, at this point, the wonderful Sharlene/Sharly story had been used to death and this was just rehashing the same storyline in a very tired manner. I fast forwarded through the rest of it. It was so strange seeing Grayson as Cass' brother. I never liked him in that role although I floved him as Dusty on ATWT. The Matt/Donna pairing I never got - although seeing him in a towel is never a bad thing!  This was the point of AW where I started to fade away. College was over and Swajeski was gone. From my perspective, only having started watching the show in 1987, this was when AW started going downhill. (I know that, for many others, the downhill spiral had started LONG before I even started watching!)

9 hours ago, Nothin'ButAttitude said:

 

True.

 

I think that is why Lemay was one of the greats b/c he understood the importance of having class structure on his shows. Do you think that, that would appeal nowadays to soap audience? I just don't. I feel like people are SUPER ostentatious nowadays and care all about material goods. I just don't see kitchen sink drama boding well over here like it does in the UK. 

I think you may be right. One of my best friends, who is obsessed with Emmerdale, (we're both American) texted me this once: "It's so refreshing to see the UK soaps be about real people. None of these crazy rich types globe-trotting." And I replied to him: "I was just thinking today while watching Another World: I'm so glad they made Felicia a rich romance novelist. How else would she always be wearing such fabulous hats, scarves and gloves?!"  

Gosh - whenever I see clips from this early in the show, Barbara always blows me away - she's just so young and my word, she looks like every model in the magazines at the time. Simply Stunning!   I did not recognize many of these characters although I knew their names. It's fun to see Dee, Barbara, John, Craig so early. Those 70s/early 80s sets that look so dull and lifeless. I'm never able to get used to Deas' Tom - a little too shouty most of the time for my liking. Still....I'd pay good money to watch all of these episodes in full!

Have been enjoying re-watching the SoapNet run. When you have one of those not-so-great days, it's nice to come home at the end of it and forget about everything by watching Sharlene tell Russ that Josie is his daughter. Aunt Liz comes in and just rips Sharlene a new one! Plus Donna and Vicky are scheming to keep her and Jamie together now that the paternity test revealed him to be Steven's dad. I'm hoping I can continue to find the SoapNet run and many thanks to all of the collectors and owners of these classic soaps who share them.

5 hours ago, Soapsuds said:

The storyline with Bob/Kim finding out and leading to them going around the world to find her was great but once she appeared full time it was meh.......

I wish I could've really seen that part of the story. Most of it isn't on YouTube that I could find. There was a little bit of stuff late '86 around the holidays when they're tracking down some info and visiting with Penny. But then it skips to the reveal and then I think again it skips a bit. Even from there on out, most of the episodes I'm watching didn't have much of the Sabrina storyline.  Until lately....which is why she's been bugging me so much. 

@DramatistDreamer  When I watch the two weeks of Bob & Kim's wedding, JM just seems so PERKY to me. (Editing this to say that perky is the wrong word....MANIC. That's the right word. Which at times, comes across as SUPER SUPER PERKY!!!) Her dourness in the scenes you mention come across as being forcefully pushed. Same in some of the early '86 stuff I've seen. She's overdoing it, imo. The overdoing it continues through the Douglas Cummings storyline and kidnapping to me. She screeches her way through the weeks in the cabin being OTT hysterical to the point where I seriously thought Kim was going to slap her. HAHA  

I never knew JM had a soap role before this! I think I've just always heard announcers or interviewers say (obviously incorrectly) her first acting role was ATWT.

On 3/1/2018 at 5:03 PM, Mitch said:

I think Marland had a burr up his ass about Sabrina and thought she was great, as opposed to the rest of viewing audience. "Hey Julianne, to show your range we are going to have a twin sister to your docile, nice Frannie....what, is she going to be wild and a slut..no...she is docile and nice..but you will get to wear glasses, wear a wig and have an accent!!!"

 

I hate boring Sabrina too,  (oh my God, the endless scenes of boring Sabrina with boring ass Seth...) what a waste when they they have could have brought some cockney ho bag into the Hughes family! "Hey Gram..that Holden looks like a nice piece of a** "

Hey now! You lay off my Other Husband, Seth!!  He's a tall drink of water who is sensitive and sweet and brooding and I would claw out that Sabrina's eyes to get at him!!!

17 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

 

Personally, I liked the actress that replaces Julianne Moore as Frannie much better then Moore... so hang tight for that.. I think that's in 1989 I believe.

That's good to hear!  I adore JM as an actress but this first acting job for her has been difficult for me to get through. Frannie was just SO PERKY the first year. The one thing I'm grateful for in regards to them bringing on Sabrina is that it taught JM had to ground herself as an actress. The transformation in her acting was quite interesting to watch. I found Frannie to be much easier to watch once Sabrina was a part of the Oakdale canvas.

It's interesting, the little I've seen of Meg Ryan as Betsy, I've not really enjoyed her interpretation of the role whereas I find Lindsay Frost to be an absolute joy!

@DRW50  Thanks for the info! I didn't realize she would be leaving so soon. She must go during the writer's strike. Am at 4/4/88 right now. Frannie just returned home to let Kim and Bob know that Kathy told her Andy had a drinking problem. It was good to see her!

OMG - I hate Sabrina Hughes with the burning passion of 1,000 suns!!!   I want to smack her face every time she opens her mouth.  They sent Frannie away to Boston just so Sabrina could get more screen time? Was the character of Sabrina popular at the time?  Or were TPTB just trying to force the audience into accepting her?

TPTB are just shooting themselves in the foot by forgoing the socially relevant storylines, imo.  Soaps dealt with divorce when nighttime didn't. Soaps dealt with abortion when nighttime didn't. Soaps brought on HIV and gay storylines when nighttime didn't (or at least, didn't do it well - Jodie from Soap, Steven from Dynasty - although I always thought of him as bisexual, not gay, but I digress.) Losing that over the past few decades is exactly why they're fading away. So frustrating.....

@DramatistDreamer   Great points. Soaps absolutely used to deal with so many topical issues.  I'm writing a soap opera right now and am thinking of all of these things. I've already had a bit of social commentary in there and am about to start a major story that will touch on BLM.  Am nervous about being able to do the story justice....we'll see.

I must admit that I don't watch any current soaps (B&B, occasionally, but from '14 via the CBS app) but I still follow the news and I don't hear of any socially relevant issues being made into storylines.  A) It's different times, I suppose and B - there very well could be and I haven't heard of them. If I did hear of one, it might actually cause me to check the soap out. 

I hear that the foreign soaps still do a fair amount of this though?

17 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

 

Susan has some good stuff coming up in the late 80s into the mid to late 90s.  You will not be disappointed...and it might answer any brief references/tensions between her and kim...and her and Lucinda.  You will not be disappointed, but Susan in the late 60s and all of the 70s was her at her peak (I w asnt born yet).

Great to hear!!!

11 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

A year or so ago, someone posted an episode from the 70s featuring Susan and Dan Stewart and it was pretty progressive as it seemed to highlight a discussion between the couple concerning whether to have an 'open marriage'. 

You don't even see such a thoughtful examination about a taboo topic being done with today's daytime soaps.

 I'm pretty sure I've seen that episode, probably from when it was posted here. Agree with you - although I'd go further and say that a thoughtful examination of any topic wouldn't be done on soaps today.  

@DramatistDreamer  Good point! They couldn't even last 2 seasons!!

To get the topic back on track to ATWT....I thought I'd ask people's opinions of Susan Stewart.

I only watched in the aughts so she was certainly a shadow of her former self, but I always enjoyed both the character and the actress.  Even though she got saddled with some silly storylines, I was always happy to see her front and center.  I know I missed her heyday in the 70's and have read the Soaps & Serials books which have given me some insight into her.  She's just recently returned to the Oakdale canvas in my watch of the 80s and I'm hoping there's still some juicy stuff to come from her. Right now, she's really only there as a sounding board for Emily.

Me too!  So sad that we lost her so young.

13 hours ago, I Am A Swede said:

 

 

The "new" Upstairs, Downstairs was horrible in my opinion. Not even Eileen Atkins and Jean Marsh could save that travesty. To be perfectly honest I didn't even think Jean was all that good in it.

But I admit that I'm biased since the original is my favourite tv-show of all time.

It's a good one to have as your #1, that's for sure!

26 minutes ago, DeeeDee said:

 

It gets worse. Much worse.

 

Oh no! Really??  Well, then I'm probably going to end up agreeing with the masses. I've FLOVED the machinations and scheming up to this point. And Rae most definitely did catch them on Monday. Fired Michael. On Friday, we were left with Senaca returning home from his business trip to find Rae and Kim screaming at each other.  Was hoping that, since it's sweeps month, this storyline would end.   Guess not!  I'll continue to share my thoughts as I make my way through 1981.

Edited to add:  Thanks for the warning!

4 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

Have you ever seen the rebooted Upstairs, Downstairs?  That was the first time I ever remember seeing Claire Foy.  Other than that, I didn't really find the reboot to be all that good.

I did - totally forgot that Claire Foy was in it! I am a fan of Alex Kingston,  and enjoyed the second series more than the first, I believe. But yes, I didn't enjoy it in any way as the original. I just go so involved in those original characters. It was unhealthy.

Yeah - I definitely enjoyed Downton because it was just a soap opera set in the past. Like Upstairs, Downstairs.  Although I enjoyed the original Upstairs, Downstairs far more than Downton. And I loved Downton!!  I've never cried so hard at a series ending as I did Upstairs, Downstairs though. My dog actually came over and pawed me out of concern.  

Edited to say:  As The World Turns comes in second. That was a lot of crying I did when I sat down and watched the final week of the show on that Friday night. (I was in grad school at the time and had to wait and watch on the weekends.) Even though I didn't love the show in its final 3-4 years, I thought it came around a bit at the end.  I bought the final 2 weeks from Soap Classics, and I believe that, when I watched it again, I cried just as hard the second time I viewed that ending. 

I'll never watch Upstairs, Downstairs' ending again - I won't put myself through that ever again.

@DramatistDreamer  I completely agree with you on everything you said. It's fascinating to me for several reasons. One, just because I love the soap genre so much (although I have abandoned all the new ones to watch the older ones I never saw thanks to the tireless efforts of the fans) and also because I am creating my own soap opera (for reading only, not to produce - I have no money - HA!) and am wondering/toying with how long of a slow burn story I can tell in this day and age.

The only current soap I've been watching is B&B - but I'm back in 2014, watching on the CBS app. It seems to move fairly slowly but I think that might be because I sometimes go months without watching the next episode. 

But I digress...for now, it's back to ATWT - Barbara is out of jail! Laura is snapping Paul's head off for saying bad things about Tom. (I'm assuming she's going to turn out to be just bat $h!t crazy.) And David is back from Zaire for a stint!  Always love it when David Stewart comes for a visit!!

10 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

I think it's very telling though, that some of the longest running soaps (i.e. those that lasted longer than 20 years) had storyline arcs that ran longer (at least until the late 80s, early 90s).  

Didn't Downton Abbey stretch a storyline over several seasons?  The turkish guy who died in Mary's bed? That didn't get resolved until at least Season 2 but maybe Season 3? (It's been awhile.)  I think that shows that people today can handle a long and drawn out story, if it was presented to them. Of course, I think it helped that Downton was basically a soap. 

1 hour ago, safe said:

 

I liked that set, too. I just felt that most of the characters would not be regular patrons of the Crystal Palace because they did not like Delia. Every time one of them walked in to the place - I would say to myself,   "Gee, Jill, you hate Delia! Why are you going there for dinner - or to spend the evening!"  

Haha - that's so true!

@robbwolff   To clarify, my main issue with today's soap storytelling isn't that the stories themselves are super fast but more the couples. (13 week stories - totally fine. That's acceptable. Last I watched, stories seemed to be 4-5 weeks though.) As said above, now you have Character A MADLY in love with Character B for 2 months. Then they break up and move on. Character A is now MADLY in love with Character C and Character B is MADLY in love with Character D - for 2 MONTHS!!! And then everyone switches partners again. They may put Characters A and B back together a year later when they've run out of beds for them to sleep in. Is it so hard to find story arcs for Character A and Character B where they stay together? 

Or, even if it's a Frank/Jill or Craig/Sierra type storyline where they keep the characters APART for several years, through several different story arcs but the main focus for the audience is these two characters wanting to be together but kept apart at every turn.  

I just can't become emotionally involved in a love story for 2 months. I can't become involved in any love story because I know it won't last the season. I watch soap operas to be swept up in grand romantic storylines that keep me watching day in and day out. Not little lust storylines that make me say "why am I watching this?"

I completely agree with Dramatist Dreamer - soaps could've gone back to 30 min. The casts had already been trimmed (at least in ATWT's case) and the sets pared down. I'm sure everyone involved wouldn't have liked having their salaries cut in half but that's better than being cut 100%?

Also, yes, the reason I can't watch soap operas today is that the storylines move at such a frenetic pace. ATWT was the same for it's final 2 or so years. I tried to watch Y&R - the bed hopping made me crazy. Same thing with Neighbours - although I actually watched that for a year and a half until half the cast turned over. Still...the show would focus on a "MAJOR COUPLE" for 2 months and then those same characters, MADLY in love with one another, had changed their minds and both members of the couple were MADLY in love with someone else. 

RH has taken 5 years of back and forth with Frank/Jill. ATWT have had Tom and Margo together (yet having problems) for what? 8-9 years at the point I'm watching? Writers knew how to keep the audience invested in the same pairings over such long periods. When did that ability leave soap writers????

@Soaplovers  That's crazy to hear - that the scabs went through all of his bible that quickly!  The first few months of the strike must be super entertaining - a lot of stuff must go down!