chrisml

In order to have her on the show, they would have cut someone else. Who would they have fired? Pat would have had to displace another character currently on the canvas to get airtime if the actress agreed to come back.

I was for it because it felt natural and because it was part of a major story that relied upon characters already on the canvas. The added bonus was that Carmen Duncan was sensational. Unless I'm mistaken, Pat does not have any major connection to anyone in Bay City around 1988 so it would be a forced situation. Iris worked much better than Pat ever could have. I know you're not suggesting this, but I feel like I have to say that I am not slighting Penberthy or people who love Pat. I just know how I feel when this sort of thing has happened on other shows. If someone is going to return, it needs to feel organic (Vivien, Liz, Iris, etc.) rather than something shoehorned in. I don't have the connection to Pat, so she would be coming in as a new character to me and I would be annoyed because at the same time I would be losing characters I did like over the last year or more. Because Anna Holbrook was so fantastic. I don't understand the point of trying to change/imagining changing something on AW that actually worked. There is enough that didn't work. Why mess with or go back and change what did work?

To be fair, that's a few years before the time in question and before many actors had left or been fired. Again, I can't say anything about Penberthy because I never saw her. I just think AW had moved on, and trying to shoehorn Pat into 1988/89's AW would not have worked for me as a viewer--the same way bringing back Laurie Heineman as Sharlene would not have worked as well as Anna Holbrook. I know this is an unpopular opinion around here because others have the appreciation for Pat. I don't have that context so she would just be some stranger taking up airtime.

By a certain point, I don't think AW viewers would have cared about Pat and they would have resented her being shoehorned into plots. Aw viewers learned not to grow too attached to characters because they could be gone in a flash. Pat seems to be popular here on this thread, but I have no idea who Pat is, and as a AW watcher (1986 onwards), I would have been extremely aggravated if she had been integrated for no reason. For me, it would have been no reason. I'm not saying it couldn't have worked, but Pat's history would not have resonated with me. I'd much rather have kept the McKinnons (except for Jake who should have been shot and killed), kept Nicole, had a decent Sam recast, saved Maisie and Quinn from the Sin stalker, had an African-American family built around Zack or Quinn, etc.

Speaking of Swajeski's work:

Thanks @Soapsudsfor the article. I don't think anyone can match the wretchedness of the Cain storyline so I don't know how they overlook that. My word that was near unwatchable. It's so weird to me how Calla/Simon/Jesse gets so much flack and yet from little I've seen they are the least bothersome parts of 1986. There are so many other parts of the show that are just awful. I've seen some scenes with Lisby Larson's Calla where she was knocking it out of the part. I'm seeing these scenes in isolation so take my comments with a grain of salt, but Larson was miles better than a majority of the cast in the scenes I've seen (her admission to Lillian about her relationship with her husband and the STD was stunning). So many GL actors in 1986 were either phoning it in or completely over the top.

Anna Holbrook was indeed brilliant as Sharlene, so I'm not going to second guess that casting decision. There are enough other mistakes that could be looked at. As I've written ad nauseam, I think the casting choices that really killed momentum during Swajeski's era was not finding a good replacement for Robert Kelker-Kelly. Who knew finding a replacement for him would be so difficult?!? All of the Sams were terrible and had no chemistry with Ferguson or Hossack. I think they bailed before I got to much of Brian Green's tenure so I don't know who they paired him with beyond Ferguson. Lemay's return in 1988 is loaded with so many rumors about big stories and plans. He even claims he had such plans including that migrant story that sounded horrific and tone deaf. It reminds of all the fanfare that happened when the Dobsons returned to Santa Barbara. Their first few weeks were glorious and then the bottom fell out as it became clear they didn't have a clear vision and they were alienating fans that had stuck around during their absence. AW was a different show from what I've read AW was during Lemay's first tenure. I don't know if he understood that based on his remarks.

I know I'm in the minority, but Buchanan is one of my least fave soap actresses (almost as bad as Alexandra Wilson). I thought Buchanan was a disaster as Marley. She couldn't do 1/4 of what Heche did as Marley or Vicky. I don't think she was convincing in any shape or form in either character, and it's not helped that I've spent the summer watching Heche. I know people did like JB. Her GH role was a disaster but that was another instance of JFP hiring an actress without having a developed character. I have no real memory of Chris Bruno as Dennis. I know he's attractive, but that's about it. No other memory of anything he did on the show. I must have quit watching before he did anything. I missed the buildup of Felicia's story but caught the aftermath of Lucas's death where Dano was phenomenal. I know one of the episodes was part of her reel that got her the Emmy. I can't speak to 1992 because I hear it's good (and I think I must have returned in late 1992/early 1993), but what I've seen of 1991 is just so awful. The recasts just kill the momentum.

I have been following the daily updates of 1990, but I accidentally clicked on a fall 1991 episode by mistake. The difference in quality is enormous. The dialogue and pacing was way off. I don't know what happened within the year, but the quality took a nosedive. Jensen Buchanan is terrible as Vicky. I don't think the woman can act. I've now seen her on three shows (OLTL, AW, and GH) and she was unwatchable on all three. So many good characters from 1990 are gone and we have a whole new set of returning actors, recasts, and newly created people (Jenna, Dean, Kathleen, Hannah, Carl, not my Paulina, terrible Marley/Vicky, Sam, Spencer, Dennis, etc.). Rachel is being chased in a building's rafters by some madman. The man's been hired by Carl which makes their eventual relationship insane. At this point, I really don't know if I want to continue 1990 if this is where it's going to end up. I know AW gets better, but when? Evans will still be there as Paulina and they never get rid of Eplin or Buchanan.

I don't fault the performers (or at least most of them) because they can only work with what they were given. And I like the OLTL cast I've seen. It's the ridiculous stories and the lack of heart that leave me uninterested in a lot of the scenes/stories I've seen from Rauch's era. It reminds me of how Santa Barbara went from sophisticated drama to a lazy plot-plot driven mess under his watch. Ritchie was underrated. A shame his personal problems got in the way of him really achieving greatness on that show.

I didn't see a lot of Rauch's tenure when it first aired. I have gone back and watched some of the material out of order, and it just doesn't work for me. It's very campy (as @DRW50points out) and devoid of any real depth of feeling/emotion. I'm all for camp, but there have to be real moments and I don't get that from Rauch produced material (maybe from AW but I have not seen much if any of his work).

Some people find it highly offensive when people share performers' personal medical information regardless of their age. Others do not find it highly offensive. The forum moderators/owners could make a decision on this and then people could abide by whatever decision they make. This would prevent a lot of problems, and it would keep this discussion thread from getting locked down when the the disagreements get too heated. They may have already made a decision and I did not notice.

I also adore Xanadu when they are singing and dancing. How do you create that fantastic rock/40's mishmash and then direct those painful dialogue scenes? When the dancing and singing stops, it's not good. I know Xanadu is not GL related, but it does remind me of how a soap can have something that works beautifully and then everything else is just a mess (GL 1986-1988). I think Pilon was sexy and that he could have stayed longer. He didn't get the best material (a common theme back then) but he did the best with what he was given. He had more chemistry with other characters. He had potential. I don't get the decision to fire him. I would agree the Sonni story was dragged on for a long time, but it was the only story that had any life to it especially (as you note) compared to other stories. I think they knew the viewers loved Michelle Forbes and just kept playing that up. It would have been interesting to see what Long would have done with the character, but she may have just turned Sonni into a supporting character for Reva's upcoming stories. I remember when Alan Locher asked Dennehy about her favorite stories, and she looked at him like he couldn't possibly be serious. Goulet and Neil never had a chance which is a shame because they are so talented. It's so frustrating when soaps hire talented performers and do nothing with him.

Thanks for all the comments about Harding Lemay. I read his book, but it's hard to know what to believe and not to believe because I didn't see his work firsthand. With Zimmer, I knew when she got things wrong about the show because I kept up with the show or watched it. With the Rauch/Lemay version of AW, I know some of the history, but it's confusing. The hostility Lemay shows for Jacqueline Courtney is just out of proportion for anything she allegedly did. MY assumption has always been that something untoward happened between JC and Rauch, but that's just an assumption. I've read some of Lemay's comments about his return to AW in 1988 and his remarks make me question his ability to tell a good plot. He wanted to tell a story about migrants where the main migrant child was really a white child in disguise?!!? He based this on a real life kidnapping that had nothing to do with migrants (which was later solved as a murder). I'm glad he was not allowed to tell that offensive story. I don't think that storyline would ever work well on a soap especially not on AW.

I agree and somehow I don't mind that the Sonni/Will portion is so prominent. When it's just Will and Sonni, I was/am riveted. Reva and Josh are a bit lackluster in comparison. I like Elizabeth Dennehy and Alexandra Neil and I wish the writing had been better for them. Obviously, Stringfield comes in and lights up the screen, but she also had consistent writing on her side. The writers decided on what to do with her character. Dennehy's Blake changed so often I'm surprised the poor woman didn't get whiplash.

The movie is awful and that's leaving aside all the ickiness with the director of the film. The actors try, but my word the script is atrocious. Talk about a song selling a film. Reminds me of the soundtrack to XANADU selling that film (when the music numbers stop in that film, the film grinds to a deadly halt).

This is probably controversial, but is Harding Lemay really as good as everyone claims he is? I keep reading about his accomplishments and what he did for the show, and I get that he did do a lot for a lot for the show. However, he also strikes me as someone (like Marland) who was never able to take criticism or get out of his own way when he made mistakes or was wrong about something. I didn't see any of his work, so I'm only going on what I've read about him and in reading his book. From his book, he does not always come across that well and relentless anger at JAcqueline Courtney seems pathological.

I think 1986's GL is way worse than 1988. I'm not suggesting 1988 was a masterpiece, but 1986 was such a disaster (from what I've seen). It was rough getting through some of the 1986 episodes. I eventually just stopped because life is too short and I was not enjoying the show. As dull as 1988 GL could be, there was always something that was catching my interest. 1986 GL rarely if ever had that. The Sonni storyline might have been convoluted but I didn't care because Forbes was so fantastic in the role. It could have gone for another two years and I wouldn't have cared. The only boring parts for me were the Josh/Reva sections when Forbes were not in the story. It was Reva's inclusion in the story that dragged down in the story for me. I think the problem is that I wanted Sonni to win so Reva was just a gnat getting in the way.

Haven't reviewed the show in a while so catching up now: The film is underway. Nola is plotting her revenge on Deborah (although that has been tabled as recent episodes have been more concerned with the filming of the movie). Lee Godart is now in the mix of the film which was a nice turn of events. He's doing excellent work as a thrown out Eliot. The man isn't just good looking; he's a first-rate actor. I've written this before, but Ann Williams is just sensational. Ann Flood, Lois Kibbee, Denny Albee and Joel Crothers have been pretty much MIA. I feel like I write this next sentence every review. The show still has the same problem: Draper is still the weakest link. He's such a wet blanket. Tony Craig was so charismatic on Family Feud when Edge of Night was on there. April has more chemistry with Logan, and the writers have no idea what to do with April and Draper. She spends most of her time with other characters. She's now a psychic consultant on the film set which is amusing. It gets her involved with the other storyline and away from Draper. It's a nice change of pace. Paige and Brian have cooled off and I can't say I'm all that bothered by that. I know Brian isn't well liked in these parts, but Paige is the character I'm less enthused by. Still enjoying the show. Just took a break and now back to watching.

I actually preferred Adrian Bellani/Gerardo Celasco to Metcalfe. I thought he was magnetic and was a star. It also didn't help that he was incredibly sexy and easy on the eyes.

It's interesting because Judith McConnell is the only reason I cared about the Sophia storyline/disguises when I rewatched it years ago. I thought she was fantastic and award worthy. It was actually Sorel who I thought veered a little bit towards overacting at times in the beginning of the show.

Thank you. Don't know why I wrote this. I thought Mark Arnold and wrote Burke Moses because I looked up Moses because of his work during the Gottlieb era. My mistake is even more annoying because I have been waiting for Arnold to appear on Edge of Night as I am watching that right now. I have no memory of Russ Anderson/Steve Holden. He must have been written off because I watched.

The Brent/Marian storyline had problems but it at least gripped viewers. It got attention, and unlike most of GL's storylines from this period, it was memorable. People were turning into see what would happen. They weren't doing that for so much of what happened on GL. It shows that good acting and a somewhat compelling story can lure in viewers despite plotting problems and all the viciousness. Compare that to all the stunts that JFP kept advertising during her tenure that did nothing to lure in viewers.

I had a question about the opening credit for this version of OLTL. Who is the man between Fiona Hutchison and Mark Arnold?