chrisml

You raise such an interesting question. It's fascinating. I think the problem for me is that my viewing is 1986 onwards for all the shows I've watched so all the examples are negative unless I'm forgetting some positive ones--which I probably am. Too often, it's done for insulting reasons. I have never seen much long-term thought put into these decisions. If any thought had been put into the Maureen debacle, they might have considered the ramifications, and that killing Ed would have been the better option if someone had to be killed off. Not that I'm advocating for either character to be killed off.

I wish the interviewer had followed up on her comments about Generations, but he moved on to Dr. Quinn. There's so much that we could learn about the show, but no one is really asking about it.

As a loose rule, I don't think legacy characters should be killed off because too often it's done poorly, and the effects can be devastating for the show and for viewer loyalty. I think it's better just to send them off so that they are still alive in the viewers' minds. It's bad enough when they kill off long-term characters. With the GL producers I've seen, I would not trust most of them to do it in a way that honors the character and doesn't alienate the viewer. I don't know how I feel about soaps being true to life. I watched soaps to escape from life. Life can be miserable enough without soaps reflecting it all the time. On the other hand, I don't want complete fantasy so I don't know what I want the balance to be. Are there other examples of legacy characters being killed off in a respectful way that worked? I can only think of bad examples. @Reverend Ruthledge

This I understand. No one wanted to see Asa hit Renee because it would have destroyed his character. I just think the criticism of the storyline was so overblown in proportion to what worked/what didn't. I often wonder if they complained as vociferously over some of Rauch's storylines that people loathed. You would have thought Gottlieb was destroying OLTL the way some of the critics carried on. I think there are valid criticisms (randos and a storylines that comes and goes) but too many critics at the time were using this one storyline to tarnish everything else.

Thank you for your wonderful write-up. I especially enjoyed this part. I think the whole "episodic" attack was just an excuse to go after this upstart who had the nerve to want to do something new in daytime. There was such an antagonism for Gottlieb in the press and a snideness about the changes she was making on the show. It truly baffles me that people had their pitchforks ready for Gottlieb when the material on screen didn't warrant it. It felt very mean girlish; she's not one of us.

Monty saved GH. She create a phenomenon, and I'm not going to take away from that. However, she also created a monster in that all the soaps chased that monster over and over again. The other soaps made decisions in the hopes of becoming the next GH by following her formula rather than honoring their own shows and their audiences. As an example, I remember when AW did the rain forest storyline that there was criticism in the press that AW was trying to copy GH's formula a decade plus later. Yes, there are significant events that killed daytime besides GM, but I think Monty's GH did a lot of damage. AW did a lot of self-sabotage from what people more knowledgeable about the show have said when they switched to 90 minutes and then started on their merry-go-round of writers. I think the soaps in some ways still chased the GH formula as long as they could even into the 2000's (possibly even longer). I'm not too knowledgeable about the last ten years or so. It was also the excessive quest to find the next teen storyline--looking for the young demographic that would be the next Luke and Laura.

The amount of times soap producers justified raping characters is just insane. You would think it would be a man, but nope, the women are just as sexist and offensive. To keep this AW related, it's one reason I decided to stop with my AW rewatch. I'd gotten up to where Marley was going to be raped and I was not going to watch the storyline again. The whole thing felt cruel and unnecessary at the time, and I'm less patient with stuff like that now. When I think about it, Monty is really responsible for destroying a lot of daytime because soaps spent decades trying to replicate the formula of GH's success even when it didn't fi their show and alienated their viewers. They saw GH's model as the only way to attract viewers.

Susan Sullivan is on this interview programme talking with other actresses (including Genie Francis) about daytime v. nighttime. She discusses how she prefers the daytime way of telling a story. It's around the 4:05 minute mark.

Perhaps one of the internet archive services has some of the material on them? I have found material that way. It's probably a longshot but it's possible.

Thanks for the information. It was hard to determine who was headwriter so I was not sure and I always look for verification since this is a period I'm not familiar with. I wonder if viewers at the time would have had any idea that those characters would be the ones who would still be around at the end of the series.

Who was responsible for creating Victoria/Felicia/Cass/Donna/Marley? Was it Allen Potter? Is he responsible for creating the characters who lasted the longest post-Lemay?

It's her show, her memories and video. They were such a minuscule part of the video, and that was your main reaction? Not appreciation that we have this time capsule? Her husband and her mother were huge AW supporters and of Linda Dano. Anyone who knows about Linda Dano's career and personal life knows what their deaths did to her, so to make that comment is rather heartless even on a soap opera thread.

I would have liked it if Clarice had shown up for the anniversary episodes because I had heard so much about Clarice but I've seen so little of her. By the time I started AW, Larry was on his way out and he just disappeared with no fanfare. Was there a writer or producer on AW at the time of the anniversary episodes that knew the history of these characters that people in this thread have offered as possible candidates for inclusion?

That was the response some of the soap journalists had at the time. Marlena DelaCroix wrote a whole column about how disappointing AW was and in particular, JAke's shooting storyline. I'm sure someone on this thread might have the column or it might be somewhere online. I think the acting from Duncan, Timmins, and Heche was first rate. I don't think I was watching consistently when Kathleen and Carl returned. With the recasts of Sam, Anna Holbrook going on maternity leave and the shooting of Jake, I lost interest in AW so drifted away from the show. My problem with the story is that Jake wasn't killed off but was instead made into an anti-hero/romantic lead who then got together with the sister of the woman he raped. I have no tolerance for that kind of b.s.

The way the story plays out I could see that Iris was meant to save Rachel and maybe that was a way to get back into Mac's good graces. It still doesn't explain everything. Having seen what Swajeski's stories end up as, I wonder if they really had planned out the story. Or did they just have the beginnings? I remember the "Who shot Jake?" shooting story getting a lot of flack for being a bit of a dud and Marlena de la croix saying it felt like Swajeski just wanted to do the poker in heaven dream sequence and wrote a story around that.

I don't understand why Gwen or anyone needed to try to kill Rachel. The plot just seemed ridiculous. The revelations and dream sequences could have been achieved another way. That's what always annoyed me about Swajeski: she would have an ending in mind and she would twist characters or a story into a pretzel (as @Tisy-Lishpoints out) to make it happen.

I don't think Kim Zimmer is a good supporting actress on GL. Is she a good team player? I would say those are separate things. For example, she was exceedingly boring when she was a supporting player in the Sonni/Solita stuff. However, I found her incredibly moving on her episode of "Designing Women" and I think she could have carved a career out for herself where she didn't have to bear the weight of always having to be the face of a show. Even if she ended up being the guest star queen, that's still a career of sorts.

I stumbled upon the "Black Widow" story on OLTL where Dorian put up Emily to accuse Sloan of sexual harassment. I specially watched the episodes where Cassie found out that Dorian was responsible. Emily is either gone or not in these episodes. It's the first time since they aired that I had seen them. MY thoughts: Wortham Krimmer was so underrated and he was so invaluable to the show. He's another actor who was overlooked at the Emmys, but I always found him compelling on the show. I thought his scenes with Susan Haskell during the gang rape storyline were phenomenal. There's some of that here, but it's mostly Cassie and Andrew. There's rooting value. Laura Bonarrigo is a wonderful Cassie and I liked her rapport with Princi (meant to say Slezak here but I'm leaving Princi as the unintentional slip), Krimmer, and Thinnes. She has some heavy scenes in the episodes I watched and she does a very good job. Thinnes and Slezak are excellent as always. Michael Storm is solid as always. I don't know why he was phased out because he just reeks comfort and reliability. I want him in scenes. Mark Brettschneider was another revelation. I had forgotten just how natural he was. I don't understand why the show chose Roger Howarth over MB. Brettschneider has a calmness about him that Howarth never did. It made me miss Jason all over again. Now we come to the weak link: Robin Strasser. As we have discussed, her shocking read hairstyle is not flattering and it's distracting. YMMV, but I would have had dye her hair again. Strasser is so over the top in every scene that she nearly ruins the emotional devastation of Cassie losing her baby. In the story, Dorian is constantly showing up like a demented Jack in the box. She plays it as such. Episode after episode, she's rushing into scenes to see Cassie or confront Sloan when she should have banned from getting near Cassie. It takes so long for Dorian to be banned, and then in the next episode, she's showing up in disguise. It's exhausting from a storyline and performance aspect. Strasser had me so stressed with her performance. Now, I remember why her return annoyed me so much. This does not feel like a real character in the slightest. At one point, they have Andrew throttle Dorian (which I didn't like as it was unnecessary) and I thought, "Please succeed so she'll stop screeching!" The ONLY time Strasser is not overdoing it is in her few scenes with Susan Haskell. Haskell somehow manages to calm Strasser down but those scenes are short and Haskell disappears quickly. These episodes reminded me how I disliked Strasser as Dorian. I thought time away from the Princi of it all would make me appreciate Strasser since I'm 30 yrs out from the irritation. Nope. IF anything, I'm even more annoyed that Princi was fired for this.

Watros winning is a prime example of what happens when voters actually watch the submissions. I remember Maurice Benard saying it was one of the best reels he'd ever seen. Too often, the judges just vote for name recognition, if they've worked with the person, or by the show the person works for or any combo. I also remember this was one of the few years where Susan Lucci had decent submissions. Her submissions were not attacked the way they usually were. Davidson's submissions looked awful out of context even though I think she was seen as the frontrunner. I remember there some GL fans who complained Watros were too subtle in her performances. Others find her over the top. I guess you can't please everyone.

I was amazed at just how bad the writing got after Maureen's death. It's as if that was the big event and they had no plans for afterwards. The dialogue and the character motivations suffered greatly. Beth Ehlers is a prime example of how one interview can really sink your career. She came off so badly and unlikeable.

I had no idea Swajeski had turned into a fantasy writer/antique book instagrammer. Thank you everyone for filling me in on Stacey and Gwen/Willis. It helps a lot because I was getting so annoyed with Gwen and Dorothy Lyman (someone I normally like). I would have been happier if Janice Lynde, Jacqueline Courteney, Carmen Duncan, Constance Ford, and Victoria Wyndham had just been the whole episode. Evan's story could have waited until later. I have no idea why the Iris/Rachel feud did not continue until the end of the show. Duncan and Wyndham were magic together. Anna Stuart had some good material in 1990 despite Swajeski not liking the character. I really have no idea why the writers thought Stacey/Michael was going to work.

The problem for Edson is that she was saddled with two poorly conceived characters: Stacey and Eve. Stacey at least had a storyline (the Derek of it all) of her own for a small while even if it went absolutely nowhere. The whole Mikey storyline was just a mess for Stacey's character, and a miscalculation on the writers' part since the viewers sided with Donna. It ruined any possible chance the character had to continue on. I remember people loathed her after that storyline. I don't know what they were trying to do with Gwen. I don't know the backstory of Gwen and Willis so I was baffled. Based on the yt comments, Swajeski and company rewrote Gwen's backstory to fit this new version but as my firsthand knowledge extends to 1986, I can't say what's accurate or not.

I went back and rewatched the 25th anniversary episode. I was struck by several things. Carmen Duncan owns this episode for me, as Iris's story is the most impactful. She has chemistry with everyone. She has meaningful scenes with Ford and Wyndham and she doesn't get saddled with some of the hokey stuff that Wyndham gets saddled with (although Wyndham is wonderful so it's not her fault). I wish Iris and Ada had interacted more because I loved their interactions here. Duncan does subtle work here, but my word she is just wonderful. Jacqueline Courtney is charismatic and interesting and as a viewer, I would want to see more of her. Lemay can go sit on a cactus (metaphorically speaking) because this woman is wonderful. His persecution of her and her action is insane to me now that I've seen several clips of her acting. Dorothy Lyman was over the top and a bit annoying. I also didn't care that much about Evan's story as he took away from Iris, Ada, Alice and Rachel.

And I had no knowledge of any of Stacey's previous history so I find it fascinating to learn. The character didn't work for me the second time because they never seemed to know what to do with her, and her character's personality was not consistent. That's why I don't understand wanting to bring back characters from the past when we've seen what Swajeski does with them. We saw what she did with Russ (and I'm going off how others have reported the changes in his character). And from youtube comments, she rewrote Gwen's character as well.

Very true. They loved to fire people. Although, in this fantasy scenario, I want to keep Denise Alexander. I adored her on the show. I also want to be greedy and keep Hank Cheyne and Kristen Marie. And maybe smuggle in Sally Spencer. I'm not sure who I would fire/not hire to balance things out. Hmmm. Maybe Chris Robinson since they never gave him material worthy of his talents.