Broderick

Don Diamont was having a "mild" degree of success in nighttime and movies around that time; his biggest "success" was The Incredible Adventures of Marco Polo in which he played -- guess who! -- Marco Polo! lol. After that fizzled out, he came back to Y&R. Sharri Shattuck shoulda never happened. Brenda Epperson's exit was the ideal time for Bell to completely shelve the Ashley character and rethink her purpose. Ashley had already changed so drastically from Miss Davidson to Miss Epperson -- from an assertive fireball to more of a traditional heroine -- Bell should've taken the Unfortunate Shattuck Era to ask himself what he really wanted Ashley to be.

The irony is that the Jacksons, Nathan, and Amy were probably actually "filler" in the 1985 episode. Bill Bell was clearly advancing the Lauren story, the Danny story, and the Ashley/Victor/Nikki/Matt storyline, while he appeared to just throw in Jazz dressed as Santa or whatever it was to fill-up the hour. (I didn't watch yesterday, just remembering it from 1985, and it seemed to me he wanted to show Ty and Amy, but didn't have much for them to do.)

He probably thinks all Black men have the surname Jackson. lol. I figured that was the reason it was selected -- so we could see Amy with Nathan. When this episode aired in 1985, I assumed all the way through the episode the "Xmas miracle" would be some kind of mini-reunion between Lauren and Paul. I remember being surprised when Shawn sabotaged that, and instead we got a resolution on the Shawn/Danny storyline.

I'm guessing that article is from 1971 (?) If that's the case, his gross pay from the two shows, which is cited as $350,000 would be nearly $3 million in today's dollars. Not a bad haul of dough. He deserved it, no question.

It's not often that a soap acquired an accomplished, older Hollywood actress in a strange, visible role like KT Stevens had on Y&R. If I'd been Bill Bell, I would've definitely tried her in some storylines other than the endless Lorie/Leslie/Lance/Lucas "quadrangle drama" that consumed her entirely from her debut in 1976 or 1977 until her exit in 1981. I'm sure she was hired strictly to be Lorie Brooks' nemesis, and once that was finished, she was fired. I've always thought it was a waste.

I think Bill Bell was toying BRIEFLY in going in that direction. But "good sense" (or caution) overcame him, and he decided Liz Foster was a more important character to write a romance for, and he thought the audience wanted to see Liz get a "good" man like Stuart and live happily ever after. Obviously, that didn't work. Liz and Stuart really didn't belong together at all, Bell married them entirely too quickly, then had to create a separation, then lost interest in ever reconciling them. By that time, he'd thrown away Vanessa Prentiss in that silly story about jumping off Lorie's balcony. It was -- in hindsight -- a series of bad decisions, in my opinion.

In about 1979, when Stuart Brooks was unwinding from his (doomed) marriage to Jill Foster, Vanessa Prentiss convinced herself she'd been alone too long, and perhaps she and Stuart would make a good couple, as her sons were married to a couple of his daughters. She realized pretty quickly he was in love with Liz, and the story thread was dropped completely. I always felt that was a missed opportunity. If Vanessa had been genuinely interested in him (and not just 100% manipulative), it could've made her a more sympathetic character, and it could've pitted her temporarily against Brenda Dickson's Jill. Vanessa Prentiss, like Kay Chancellor, would've been exactly the kind of rival Jill DIDN'T want to have.

KT Stevens definitely had an "Old Hollywood" vibe to her performances. She'd had an interesting career as an ingenue. I'm sure you've seen the film Harriet Craig from the late 1940s or early 1950s, where she stars opposite Joan Crawford, lol. Like Jeanne Cooper, if she'd laid-off the cigarettes a little bit, her film career would've likely been extended. The movie industry never seemed to have much use for a "wrinkled" actress, unless the actress was playing a comical, character-type role. I always felt KT Stevens was wasted on Y&R. Bill Bell deliberately kept Vanessa fairly one-dimensional -- "I'll destroy Lauralee Brooks if it's the last thing I do!" -- and never really let her develop a sympathetic side.

I don't think "recurring" means they don't plan to utilize her; it most likely means they just don't want to pay her for a guaranteed number of appearances. (That seemed to be the rationale for bumping Chance to recurring. They're still using him regularly, but now they don't have to pay him for 52 episodes a year if they only use him in 46 shows.) That seemed to be the big complaint Doug Davidson had when he went public about his recurring status. "If I'm featured in fewer than my guaranteed appearances, everyone will know I'm secretly recurring!") To me, Ordway has been the best of a sorry lot of Abbys. I didn't see anything wrong with Rylan, but she looked a whole lot older than Ordway (although I understand she's not). The character's just never been terribly well-defined.

They were sure enjoying their steaks, lol. I've rarely seen people on TV eat so voraciously.

Because he "wanted" her (and he was a smoldering anti-hero), and she was too "good" to have sex with him unless she was forced to. lol. But in hindsight, what they probably should've done is film it several different ways. They should've given us a genuine seduction to "Rise", in which Luke seduces her, and she responds positively, and they have a mutually satisfying sexual experience. Then the next day, have Laura begin hearing the music but this time we see a totally different version of it -- a brutal rape (which is what she intends to tell Scotty happened if necessary). And then have Luke hear the music and we see a third version of it, in which Laura is the primary aggressor and Luke "does her a favor" by obliging her. After seeing multiple different versions of it, the audience -- most of whom didn't record it on their VCRs -- wouldn't have remembered exactly what really happened between the two of them -- only that they both remember it vividly, are drawing their own conclusions about it, and can't move past it. I think it would've made a more complex & interesting story.

About Luke & Laura -- as a kid in 1979, I never understood why there was a rape in the first place. If you'd given me a typewriter, a blank sheet of paper, Genie Francis, Tony Geary, Kin Shriner, a disco, and Herb Alpert's "Rise", I wouldn't have crafted a "rape". I would've written a seduction -- a little misunderstanding or miscommunication between Laura & Scotty, a kind-hearted and unexpected gesture from Luke (a knick-knack or a flower), and a gloomy event on the horizon (the death of Mitch Williams). Put Luke and Laura in the disco, turn on the music, let them dance, let him seduce her, let her respond, let them have sex. And the subsequent storyline would've been the two of them "re-framing" what happened. She could convince herself he'd raped her, and then remind herself he hadn't. He could remind himself she'd willingly responded, and then convince himself she hadn't. To me, that would've been far more interesting and opened far more complex emotions than what Monty and Company actually wrote. And it would've gotten the two characters to the same destination without the absurd "I'm in love with my rapist" aspect of it.

Once Bill Bell made the decision to put Nathan Purdee on contract, the writing team took great steps to assure us the character's name was really "Nathan Hastings" rather than "Kong", as I believe it was fairly obvious "Kong" wasn't sustainable long-term (and likely should've never been used in the first place, lol). All they really needed to do for the (unfortunately named) Mamie was establish her given name was Mary or Marguerite or something. It seemed GLARING when Cricket gained a "real name" and Kong gained a "real name", but Mamie -- bless her heart --- she just stayed Mamie forever.

(I believe Mamie Eisenhower's name was actually Mary Geneva Doud Eisenhower, and 'Mamie' was just a cutesy nickname she had.)

Back when Y&R was a half-hour in the late 1970s, the timeframe was often very "vague", lol. Leslie and Lance might meet for lunch, and a couple of episodes later, they'd still be out on their "lunch date", except it would clearly be nighttime, and they'd be dancing. You'd start wondering if they'd been in the Allegro continuously for several hours, or did their lunch just magically turn into dinner. Meanwhile, Jill Foster might drop a document in the mail, and before Leslie and Lance's long "lunch and dance party" has ended, Kay Chancellor has already received the package in the mail and confronted Derek about it, as though multiple days have passed.

It would've been awfully easy to establish that the character's name was "Margaret" or "Mary" or "Marguerite" (which was actually the first actress's name, for heaven's sake!), and that Mamie was just a childhood nickname that she slowly abandoned as an adult.

1) I've often wondered what the solution SHOULD have been to the Larkin Malloy situation. Yes, he was extremely popular as Jefferson Brown, he had great chemistry with Sharon Gabet's Raven Swift, and the story of Jeff Brown's "reign of terror" (and death) was GOOD material. Watching him become so coldly evil and watching him knock off one victim after another was very memorable to me. I can see why Slesar found it necessary to "revive" Larkin Malloy in the Schuyler Whitney character, but the entire Jefferson Brown storyline was predicated on the fact that Schuyler was dead. It was almost an anti-climax to reveal that Schuyler was still alive, after all. With Draper and April gone, it made sense to step-up Raven and Schuyler into their roles as the young adult leads. But when you'd planned for Schuyler to be dead, and now suddenly he's not, and you're having to rework all your long-term story projections, and there's a writer's strike also -- I believe it CRIPPLED Henry Slesar for the rest of his run on the show. Surely none of us really wanted Smiley Wilson, the Republic of Eden, and all the shenanigans of the Maskers. That period became an unfortunate segue into the Nora Fulton storyline, which like the Jefferson Brown story, was (potentially) a GOOD story and a classic Edge story. And we know it was essential to tell the Phonebook story simultaneously with the Nora Fulton story, as the two were intended to merge in the denouement. But the PACING always seemed off to me (too little of the Nora Fulton investigation, and too much of the Phonebook storyline.)

When Y&R uses a green screen, it usually ends up looking like those Saturday Night Live "Cinema Classic" spoofs, like when the chipmunk or the squirrel is driving the car.

Slesar was definitely due for a rest (or some creative collaboration). He was kneecapped in the summer of 1981 when Draper and April both left. I'm sure he felt the rug had been yanked out from under him, as they'd driven his main stories for the past three years. He still had a good story in process (Jefferson Brown). The popularity of Larkin Malloy necessitated re-writing the conclusion of the tale to include a character Slesar had planned all along would be dead (Schuyler Whitney). I think those two events (the cast defections and the necessity of writing more story for Malloy) led Slesar into a "quagmire" that he was unable to dig himself out of -- resulting in the less than spectacular stories of the Maskers, Smiley Wilson, Jim Deidrickson, and several other rambling stories that didn't play out well. I'm glad the person uploading the videos made us aware that the final weeks of the Nora Fulton/David Cameron storyline were scripted by some "uncredited dialogue writers", because I could see, even as a kid, that something was OFF about the scripts. They got to the "point", but there was nothing Slesar-esque about the dialogue or the scenes. The "reveal" of Nora's killer was an especially poorly written script, and the episodes immediately following are also bad. As someone said above, the characters didn't change (much), but the film noir style of writing was gone by the 20th of May.

I sure hope they asked Stephanie Williams before defaulting to another actress. I don't think the show had ANY control over the second time she left. If I'm remembering right, she returned without a contract, making her a free agent to come and go as she pleased. After she taped a few episodes, General Hospital offered her a control role, and she took it. I'm guessing Amy will reveal she was pregnant when she left town, and Lil Nate has a half-brother who's now got a chip on his shoulder and will find his way to Genoa City to make life miserable for Nate (briefly) in some ill-conceived storyline, will bang Audra Charles once or twice, and after his storyline fizzles in six months, he'll be thrown in the dustbin with Keemo's daughter and Noah.

Stephanie E Williams & the Amy character were highlights of Y&R in the 1980s for me. She was so pretty, had such a dazzling smile, and she had great chemistry with all the characters in her orbit (Jazz, Tyrone, Paul, Andy, Lauren, Traci, and Nathan). When she left in 1988, I felt like Bill Bell had made a fairly serious mistake letting her get away. It annoys me that they're randomly bringing her character back with a recast. As far as I know, Stephanie Williams is still involved with the arts in St. Louis and is still suitably pretty. If they'd asked her, I bet she would've returned.

Trump certainly isn't any great intellectual or any great strategy specialist, but the "Springfield Urban Legend" clicks every box for him -- it concerns his favorite subject (the border), it highlights a trait he adores (racism), and it has a certain "tabloid sensationalism" that he loves (eating domestic animals). I look for him to keep this story going. He tried another "tabloid" type story at the debate -- "Joe Biden HATES her; he HATES her." That's the world in which Trump thrives.

I suppose the episode with Mrs. Handleman ("Constant Companion"?) was supposed to be a tour-de-force for Ginger, but it was written in such a way that the short nerdy guy from the school (Arthur?) and Mrs. Handleman stole the show, lol. It became less about Ginger's abortion and more about that weird little Arthur. And then to make matters worse for Lankford, Valene was getting her GED in that episode, and that's the storyline where all the seasoned acting was occurring.

Houghton & Lankford ain't HOWLING bad actors by any means, but when you stick Ginger in scenes with the other three girls in the cul-de-sac, you notice right away who's the weakest of the four. Even very early on, the other three girls seem to have established their characters in a more firm manner, and are already working certain "quirks" into their performances that Ginger just doesn't have. Same thing is true when you compare Kenny with the three other guys. You notice it even in simple scenes, like when Richard Avery is explaining the Pythagorean Theorem to Valene with kitchen utensils, and John Pleshette, Joan Van Ark, and Michelle Lee are sitting there acting their asses off over a triangle made with butter knives, lol.

They're definitely the weakest couple (acting-wise), and I suspect Jacobs & Fillerman picked up quickly on that unfortunate trait. I'm about finished with the first season, and they've basically thrown ONE episode exclusively to Ginger -- the one in which Mrs. Rebecca Barnes Wentworth torments Ginger about her teenage abortion. And even then, it was more of a "whodonit" (about a stalker), rather than a genuine look at the remorse a woman might feel about an abortion at sixteen. Almost immediately, that episode was overridden by Karen Fairgate's pregnancy & miscarriage, which were handled with introspection and sensitivity.