Chris 2

I liked Richard Van Vleet, but he was also the first Ed I ever saw. I like him less now that I’ve heard Susan Pratt’s stories about what he was like on set (“I used to be a big deal on All My Children!”) As for Robert Gentry: I never saw him during his original run, but he seemed like a complete miscast upon his return. I’m guessing too much time had passed (something like 30 years) since he originally played the role, and the character had changed.

I like how Jerrold Immel, who wrote the them for both, paid tribute to Dallas with the early versions of the KL theme, ending both with the same five staccato notes.

Growing up in the 70s and 80s, I always thought Y&R was slow as molasses. But I think it got a lot of credit for consistency as well as production values. The competition tended to experience wild changes in tone when behind the scenes personnel changed (such as when Paul Rauch took over OLTL or when Wes Kennedy took over GH from Gloria Monty). But under Bill Bell’s steady hand, tone was consistent, long term stories were well-thought out in general, and history was respected.

I always heard great things about Gillian Spencer on OLTL and her chemistry with Lee Patterson. What a shame that most of her episodes were taped over.

When Susan Lucci was going through her Emmy dry period, I remember reading several articles stating that she didn’t have a wide range and she didn’t deserve the award. So I don’t think that opinion was too unpopular. Now here’s an unpopular one: Beverlee McKinsey tended to be hammy. Frankly, I’ve found a lot of those popular leading ladies - McKinsey, Slezak, Lucci, Robin Strasser Jess Walton - to be over the top at times (and for some of them, it’s a lot of the time). The one who I found to give consistent controlled performances was Victoria Wyndham.

Johnny would have had a stroke. He could barely tolerate one daughter being involved with Jack, let alone two.

AMC had class, didn’t it? I think of the lovely theme songs or the epigram that was included in some of the intros.

AMC was one of the better-regarded soaps from a critical standpoint. It didn’t go into action-adventure like GH, or veer wildly in tone (such as fantasy) like OLTL, and wasn’t dull like Loving. Although GH was generally higher rated during the heyday of daytime soaps, AMC was ABC’s crown jewel from a quality standpoint. So it doesn’t surprise me that it has had more of a lasting cultural impact.

You could tell just by the title, “JR Returns,” that the producers were making the same mistake that they did in the last few years of the series: making JR the exclusive focus as opposed to the ensemble. They only had four returning original cast members: Larry Hagman, Patrick Duffy, Linda Gray, and Ken Kercheval. And it was essentially “The JR Show” by that time.

JR Returns ranked in the low teens - better than CBS was doing with regular series on Fridays, but a far cry from the high ratings the series got at its peak. CBS was happy enough with it to order a sequel. Which tanked as SoapDope pointed out.

Good point on the Glenn Close comparison. I always thought Liz Keifer was such a beauty. But I’ve always been partial to strawberry blondes.

If the TNT Dallas reboot had been more successful, I’m sure they would have explored a KL reboot. But with TNT Dallas, the initial ratings were high and then dropped throughout the run.

It was a disappointment in the ratings - ranked in the 40s IIRC. Cast members later speculated that it was too soon after the series ended, and that they should have waited another five years.

Whoa - Kathleen Turner’s performance here is hamtastic.

Off topic, but what is it with some of these veteran actresses who get hammier as they get older? Is it just me who has noticed that? Susan Seaforth Hayes, a big star in her day, is so over the top that I find her performances painful. Similar case with Robin Strasser - I found her to be kind of a ham in her old age. And don’t get me started on Jess Walton. For a non-daytime example, see Florence Henderson.

It does - thank you!

I liked Back to the Cul De Sac. It was better than the Dallas reunion movie from the same era. It wasn’t perfect, but they had storylines for everyone. I didn’t much care for the Meg recast, though. And i thought the storyline with Anne was a bit odd. I can’t remember many other specifics. I did a rewatch of the entire series a few years ago but the 1997 reunion wasn’t easily available. I’d like to see it again. There was no KL special that aired in the US prior to either of the two episodes, though. Maybe the above poster is thinking of the Block Party that aired immediately prior to the two hour final episode in 1993.

I’ll be surprised if even the proposed Pine Valley comes to fruition. The demographics simply don’t make sense. TV is all about 18-49 year olds, at least as far as advertisers go, and you’re not going to get a younger demographic with a revivals of shows that only people 50 and over remember. The P&G soaps have been out of production and out of sight for a long time.

Yes, it was originally developed with Linda in mind - Barbara Curran reported on this in her book.

KIng’s Crossing was not a bad concept - shades of Falcon Crest with the father bringing his family back to his hometown. It was just ultimately dull. I remember the pilot had this lightly classical-sounding theme song, and then from episode 2 on, it was replaced with a bombastic sounding theme from Jerrold Immel (of “Dallas” fame). ABC probably thought the show was dull, too, and wanted a more excited theme.

I always thought there was an opportunity for a revival with an adult David returning to the family home with his wife and kids to get a fresh start in life. And you could use some of the surviving cast like Kathryn Leigh Scott. But Perry’s idea could work too.

I don’t remember it being high end - it was made for fans of the show, who loved watching a show about rich people, but weren’t necessarily rich themselves.

I have to be honest: I’m shocked. I can’t imagine that the ratings for the second cycle of the early shows on Retro are that different than the first cycle. And I thought they’d just continue to monetize the shows that have already been digitized. This goes beyond just a business decision, I suspect. Some with budget - whether its at Retro or at SFM - really loves these old shows.

Mark Perry is a pretty reputable writer. He was a staff writer on the early, superior seasons of “Party of Five.”

If you’re going to focus your soap on perfume or models, then you’re limiting your audience from the outset. A show about perfume following the A-Team? Who came up with that brilliant scheduling?