chrisml

I'm sure I watched some of GL during the 1994 to 1996 period (or at least kept up through summaries) but I have no memory of most of it beyond a few details here and there. I came back around the time of Cynthia Watros and Amy Ecklund and would come and go depending on how bad I found the show. My mother in particular loathed the character of Buzz and how much airtime he chewed up. I don't understand how a show could be so good in 1991 and 1992 and fall to pieces in 1993 and especially in 94 and 95 (from what little I've seen). What happened? Was it that JFP had no real storyline plans post-Maureen 's death? Or was it a combo of that and all the departures/casting mistakes?

I'd be curious what the demographics were for LOVING. It never struck me as a show for the younger viewers so it always seemed odd to me they would try to facelift it into a "hip" show. I am curious if Linda Gottlieb would have been a better producer for the City. She tried to modernize OLTL, and I thought she did a first rate job in most instances. For most of her reign on OLTL, I thought it was must watch television which is something THE CITY was not. She might have done a better job at getting the writers to work on the plots. I also wonder if not having Lisa Peluso on the show was another negative because I remember a lot of people were upset she was not making the leap to the new show.

I think she is an underrated actress, but I think they miscalculated in thinking Morgan Fairchild was a big draw for soap viewers (new or old). If she had been integrated into the last months of LOVING, it might have been ok, but the writers didn't seem to know what to do with her. And they resorted to the old sexist chestnut of rape to give a strong female character a storyline. IT feels like they got excited about hiring her and penned her entrance into the show, but didn't have any longterm plans for her after the big entrance. That's the biggest problem with the CITY. It felt like a collection of scenes that rarely came together into a cohesive unit. The sets and the direction were wonderful, but if the story isn't there, what difference does it make? Except for the one murder plot, I have no memory of any longterm story on the show. I'm surprised this show has not been sold to a streaming service as it has a finite number of episodes.

I think a lot of The City's problems go back to what a lot of people pointed out. There was no compelling reason to tune in if you were a viewer of LOVING. I don't know why they didn't carry the murders story over to The City. That way viewers have the ability to get invested in the new characters at the same the writers are finishing the Loving murders. When the new storylines didn't work, they resorted to another murder storyline anyway.

I remember there was some discussion (I believe in Soap Opera Digest) about demographics, and how the 12-17 demo loved Jeanne Cooper's character Kay on YR. There was surprise that that demo didn't just want to see teenagers. Yet that never translated to a shift in focus. Instead, all the shows just ignored the data.

That seems to be the history of Santa Barbara in a nutshell. I found this youtube interview Shirley Ann Field gave about her brief time on Santa Barbara. IS she talking about Judith McConnell in the clip? SAF interview

I can imagine the Dobsons were not the easier people to deal with and networks want malleable people at the helm.

In rereading the portion of Jeff Giles's book, I'm curious about Arthur Burghardt. Was he really as awful as Holly and Slezak claim?

I got my kindle version of the book, and it's interesting revisiting the book because Slezak says that Ellen Holly had a right to be mad as they were using her Holly's story/story notes but they were ruining it with the casting. Holly loathed Arthur Burghardt and didn't want to work with him. Slezak agrees with Holly's assessment. Burghardt contends Holly was a nightmare to work with. Holly claims Slezak said the "black B**ches" comment in July 1983 and that overnight Arley was replaced by Rauch. Slezak refutes this accusation. Burghardt says that Holly's racism claims were ridiculous. He says Hayman and Freeman would back him up if they were alive. There is the suggestion that it was less about racism and more about Rauch being an a--hole. They mention Lillian being upset about the firing and then other actors cosign that Rauch was a sadist who liked toying with actors. MY takeaway: I think it was racism mixed with Rauch's sadism. I would not be surprised if someone at the network made the comment attributed to Slezak or something similar was said by someone else and Holly blamed it on Slezak. Holly seems particularly angry at Slezak's airtime on the show.

I have never found soap actors to be accurate when it comes to their storylines or the chronology of events. They do so much within a year that I imagine it would be almost impossible to keep the timelines and stories straight. They often have a skewed view of how the show played to the audience. As much as I adore Erika Slezak, her opinions of the various producers did not always match what I thought about the show. Example: She's extremely critical and dismissive of Linda Gottlieb while praising JFP. As a viewer, I found most of Gottlieb's work to be first rate while I think JFP hurt the show except for giving the underrated Catherine Hickland more to do.

re: Ellen Holly. She was treated so abominably that I think she expected the worst out of everyone because it would protect her. And I'm also sure that she might have heard similar sentiments from other people and I think it's possible that someone on production told Holly that Slezak said that to cause friction and to upset Holly. Rauch seemed to love playing mind games with certain cast members on each of the shows he was on. Also, I can see where Slezak's Emmy win and her status on the show would be galling to someone who made such a huge contribution to the show but was now treated as dispensable.

I still remember my mother complaining that the show was spending so much time on a "crazy woman making a fruitcake!" She remembers little else about the show except the fruitcake.

I've been revisiting 87 and 88 and I still think it's so much better than its rep indicates. The casting decisions are what let it down. Getting rid of Petronia Paley was a huge mistake. It still baffles me that was allowed to happen and then Jane Cameron decides to leave which is another huge mistake. They turn MJ into a prostitute which belies belief and is so shortsighted. I wish the writers (and the strike writers) had not written off Cheryl and Scott. Two characters with so much potential, and they saddled Scott with the Dawn storyline that was never going anywhere. Poor Cheryl just seemed like an afterthought after a certain point. I wish the writers had done more to keep the McKinnons more connected to other storylines. It really does feel that there was no plan for Mary or the McKinnons so they had Reginald turn into a one-note villain. It would have been more interesting if Mary realizes who she was, and still felt more connected to Reginald. All of the mistakes just seem idiotic decisions that don't take long-term story into consideration--something that would be a major problem with Swajeski's tenure as well.

I often felt that AW regimes and writers treated longtime viewers with contempt. I often felt like decisions were purposely made to push viewers away, and I definitely did not stay a faithful viewer the last few years of AW as a result. In regards to the Justine character, it was idiotic, but it at least gave Victoria Wyndham something to do. Was it something I could have done without? Yes, but seeing Victoria Wyndham get screen time was a relief. If Lumina had been written properly, and one of the results was that Alice Barrett returned as Frankie I think a lot of people would have forgiven it. Wasn't that the original intention?

One of the dumbest things execs did was not capitalize on Carmen Duncan's talent. She was emmy worthy with the chief takeover/Mac's death. They let the character and character languish and then wrote her off in such an idiotic way. They would do the same thing to Anna Holbrook a few years later. Holbrook won the Emmy and still didn't matter.

I think the problem with the City is that the Loving murders were so compelling, and then the City started, and there was hardly anything there to keep people watching. The long-established characters had been murdered, and no one was turning in for Morgan Fairchild (and I like her so it's not a dig at her). They needed to grab attention right away and I think they should have just had Gwen revealed as the murderer on Loving and then have her continue on The City until she was caught so that Loving fans would want to watch The City. Once Fairchild didn't go over well with Loving audiences, they did the tired and sexist "let's rape a strong female character" trope. The City had a lot to offer, but if you don't pull viewers in from the beginning, you're toast.

It's sad sometimes how much criticism AW got, and when I look back at episodes, I find myself responding to the material. JFP era/post-JFP era was rough, but before that, there's so much good. It's so odd to me that AW just seemed to be pretty much forgotten when it came to the Emmys after a certain point. I always side eye recollections from cast and crew when they talk about storylines because a lot of time they get it wrong. Often, they even get bts stuff wrong because they're holding grudges, or they feel slighted. Or they praise a producer or headwriter who harmed the show.

All this talk about Victoria Wynham made me search for interviews, and I found one with Sandra Ferguson that interested me. She talks about an actor behaving inappropriately towards her on her second stint on the show. I wonder who it could be. I was not watching AW much then so don't know who she would have been working with. Interview

Do you think the problem with the repetitive nature of Alexis's stories was a result of John Forsythe's complaints and demands? If Blake didn't have to win every time, there would have been places to go storyline wise. From what I've seen of the first season, I don't see how Blake became the "moral center" of the show.

As a gay man, I've stayed away from Dynasty because of the whole "straightening" of Steven. I have a low tolerance for stuff like that, and I know it was the eighties, but the same stuff still happens today so my tolerance level is nil. It's always the same: a gay character goes through some sort of crisis and his immediate response is to have straight sex. He usually has magical sperm so the coupling results in a baby. I have seen enough clips and I know about the show, but I haven't watched many episodes. I don't know if I can handle being so annoyed with the Steven aspects while watching the rest of the show.

Was there a storyline that started viewers to turn away from the show? I've always heard it was the Moldavian "Massacre" that started the downhill trend. Was Ali McGraw's character really that awful? Or was just a combination of things?

She probably thought she could get away with and P&G wouldn't sue. I do think P&G overreacted especially as she was only on ATWT for a short bit. And it was all for nothing because she wasn't worth the effort JFP and ABC took to keep her on the show. I have never understood Jensen Buchanan's appeal and that was before all her off the air behavior came to light.

If I recall correctly, Buchanan worked on GH after the lawsuit was either settled or withdrawn. She was only recast temporarily, and then Buchanan returned to the part.

Jensen Buchanan was a terrible Marley. It's no wonder they did away with her Marley after a certain point. As terrible as the storyline was, Ellen Wheeler wiped Jensen Buchanan off the screen when she came back towards the end of AW. Perhaps, Jensen Buchanan was good on OLTL (she was disastrous on GH and didn't last long) but I found her a disaster on AW.

I never cared for Jake after Marley's rape. Soaps will go out of their way to rehab rapists, but won't put in the same amount of effort for other characters and storylines. It's so bizarre to me. I don't think I ever bought Evans as Paulina. It was more of a "this is another character named Paulina" situation. Evans should have been cast as Nancy. For the life of me, I never understood why they didn't recast or try to lure Jane Cameron back.