wonderwoman1951

re tony lo bianco: according to his imdb page, his first tv roles in the early 1970s were on ‘love of life; and ‘the doctors.’ thought i remembered him as rose d’angelo’s father. on ‘world turns; turns out that was tony musante:)

some interesting soap connections in that episode: the physician who performed the abortions was played by judson laire, who was on both love is a many splendored thing and as the world turns; kathleen widdoes (another world and ‘world turns) played the young woman who had the abortion; augusta dabney (too many soaps to list) was also in the cast. also remember that episode being featured in a mad men episode.

not surprised that james mitchell would refuse to play a homophobic bigot. i wasn’t a regular viewer at the time, but, according to soap central, it was palmer and opal who took kevin sheffield in and helped him deal with his parents, who were not taking the news well. what i do remember is a powerful scene in which palmer confronted kevin’s mother, judith, in public place — country club, restaurant. always thought how satisfying it must have been for james mitchell play that scene. while mitchell may have been in the closet, according to both arthur laurents’s and farley granger’s memoirs, he was extremely popular back in the day.

years ago, i was digging through the p&g holdings at the wisconsin historical society, and have a vague recollection that on atwt, margo was originally called julie.

i think ‘who you calling flighty’ is what they called a colloquialism.

this is such a huge issue for soap writers. years back, i had a friend who wanted to break into soaps. she could spin two years of story without taking a breath, but couldn’t write believable dialogue if someone were holding a loaded pistol to her head. so, she never got anywhere despite the fact that she may well have made a great headwriter. conversely, i had a conversation with the late gene palumbo, who told me that while he had not been a great script writer, having done it made him a better breakdown writer (and ultimately, headwriter) because he knew what scriptwriters needed in a breakdown. as toups pointed out, there are different skillsets involved. of course, that while like football head coaches, headwriters capture the media’s attention, the fact that a great script writer doesn’t have the capacity to shape longterm stories, should in anyway diminish their success.

that was the vibe i got, as well.

the guy interviewing don stewart was beyond obsequious — nauseating, and a little creepy.

it actually began in 1995, when john valente replaced laurie caso. there was a lot of pressure from cbs, which had engineered the executive producer shuffle, and it was les moonves who ‘suggested’ valente hire black&stern as head writers. i was on the set the day they shot the 40th anniversary episode and the constant refrain from tptb was ‘we’re not 40 years old; we 40 years young!’ and for the second time, the hughes family was pushed to the sidelines. the first time was in the early 1980s, as atwt chased the luke and laura phenomenon. ironically, it was laurie caso who righted the ship with bob calhoun and doug marland, which he discusses in the locher room interview (amazed that it’s been a week and no one has commented). things deteriorated further when goutman took over and brought on hogan schefer. the [!@#$%^&*] really hit the fan in 2003, when barbra bloom took over at cbs daytime and start bringing on actors she worked with at abc. although, to be fair, the abcification began in 1997, when felicia mini behr took over from john valente and immediately replaced allyson rice taylor’s connor walsh with susan battan — possibly the worst recast ever!

re maureen and roger: i always thought that rather than driving off the road and dying, had maureen gone to a lawyer and begun divorce proceedings against ed, things could have gotten very interesting between the two of them. not a romantic relationship — though they could have teased that — but their friendship would have deepened. ed would have fallen off the wagon into a bottle of scotch, and maureen and roger aside, dealing with michelle and that fact that maureen wasn’t her biological stories. jill farren phelps squandered so much potential story by killing off maureen. but… since buzz cooper arrived in springfield less than a month after maureen died, i’ve always believed it was to free up enough money to bring justin deas on board.

don’t know why they even bothered. and as far as dramatic — not knowing her father could (should) have been a real issue for katie; finding out that margo was the one who pulled the plug could have created an emotionally authentic rift between them. instead it was as though tptb said, ‘well, i guess we have to say something,’ then just checked it off the list.

exactly! all that history that was never explored. cannot recall katie and margo ever discussing casey’s death. and i don’t think katie and craig — her brother! — ever had a scene together.

i had always assumed it was a straight-up money issue between martha and goutman. but on one of the early locher room reunions she said something — don’t remember exactly what — that may me go ‘hmm.’ didn’t say anything at the time, but shortly thereafter, a friend mentioned that she had heard martha on another podcast and wondered if something had happened between her and gountman. that got me to wondering about goutman’s unholy obsession with katie as the show’s ‘little sweetheart’ (his words). so…

responding to the unabortion topic here only because dough marland set the gold standard for how to rewrite a soap opera’s history. i wasn’t watching amc at the time, but when i heard about the unabortion, i felt, as most did, that not only was this an insult to viewers, but to agnes nixon’s groundbreaking story, as well. went without saying that the science to support the story simply did not exist. then a few years ago. i caught an episode of ‘the bold ones,’ an anthology series from the early ‘70s. one of the segments, ‘the new doctors,’ focused on cutting edge medicine and seemed to be grounded in some kind of reality — one episode from the last season dealt with acupuncture. this episode was titled ‘a substitute womb,’ and dealt with a woman with a serious cardiac condition who was advised not to continue her pregnancy. the doctors wanted to try implanting the embryo into another woman’s uterus. it was her sister, so lots of drama ensued, and i don’t recall how things turned out. i poked around online to see if there was in fact some early research behind this episode. but, with ivf, there’s so much info and i couldn’t out how to refine my search to find out what might have been going on in the late 60s-early 70s. often wondered if megan mctavish had seen this episode. of course, even if she had, it was still a stupid, unnecessary story. a substitute womb

not sure where black and stern fall in the pantheon of bad headwriters. what i can tell you is that it was at les moonves’s “suggestion” that black and stern became atwt’s headwriters, which they both told me, and was confirmed by lucy johnson, head of cbs daytime.

atwt taped the 40th anniversary episode which aired on 2 april in mid-march.

from the creation of another world “While the AW bible may have revealed nothing about Pat Matthew's pregnancy and abortion, according to Elana Levine, as the story unfolded, NBC censors requested a number of script changes. Some were to insure medical accuracy: making clear that the cause of Pat's sterility was the infection that resulted from the abortion, not the abortion itself. Others addressed Pat's level of responsibility for the situation, with one NBC censor warning against her being portrayed as "totally innocent or blameless." While this placed responsibility on Pat for her sexual behavior, not the unjust societal expectations of young women, Levine points out, "it also attributed to her some agency, even sexual agency—'good' young women who got themselves in such situations were not mere victims of duplicitous men." Levine goes on to say that while these changes were likely made to provide NBC cover from being seen as endorsing immoral or illegal behavior, "they also resulted in greater ambiguity about the causes of Pat’s troubles—did she make bad choices or was her situation an impossible one to navigate? If the latter, what made it so untenable? The openness of soap storytelling invited such questions." ”

just finished watching the first 2 episodes of truman versus the swans. about 31 minutes into the 2nd episode truman is watching an episode of ‘family,’ and observes: ‘the writing on this show is so good. i mean, tennessee would be jealous. the secret is they love each other no matter how badly they behave.’ who’d a thunk… reminded me how much i miss this show — and the now-defunct decades, which has been replaced by catchy comedy.

I didn't see that as the best of times as I felt that sites like DC and their agenda in favor of certain regimes held too much sway, but I do miss the We Love Soaps interviews (and if not for them a number of precious GL and ATWT episodes would still be in the vaults). i’m not clear about how daytime confidential held too much sway… however, the time i’m referencing, the mid-late aughts, when bloggers all read each other, and would point their readers to posts they found interesting. there were conversations, along with the occasional disagreement. it was great for fans who learned a lot. no one worried about clicks. but that all went away when the suits started monetizing. haven’t talked to roger in a while, but wouldn’t be surprised if he’s shut it down — may have become too expensive to keep online. i remember when ‘snark weighs in’ — which i loved — just disappeared one day, never to be seen or heard from again, same with mediadomain: no warning; just one day it was gone.

oh absolutely! inevitable with a genre that continues for decades. but, what was interesting — and the source of considerable online discussion in the late aughts — was how character driven story found its was into primetime serials: not ‘dallas’ and ‘dynasty,’ but shows like ‘friday night lights,’ to name but one. here’s what ‘snark weighs in’ had to say: [M]any primetime fans are former daytime fans who now stick exclusively with primetime, because it’s the only place they can get anything resembling the socially aware, character-driven, serialized storytelling they used to get from soaps.”

for sure! but it was also the best of times for serious discussion of soaps online. before the suits figured out how to monetize the web, there were so many websites — media domain; we love soaps; daytime confidential; snark weighs in; marlena de la croix; tom casiello; sara bibel; a couple on the now defunct red room; the soap pages on television without pity (i’m sure i’ve forgotten a few) — where the authors read and commented on each other’s postings. miss those conversations and connections.

it’s funny. in the late aughts, when ginia bellafante was one of the ny times television critics, she was deep in the closet about even watching soaps. at that time, she made a lot of disparaging — even insulting — comments about soaps. can’t remember who the blogger was who called her out. but, over the years she came around.

another ny times piece by the same writer: ginia bellafante on ryan’s hope

capote link here you go

I thought that at one point, too, and I even posted that. But then I found out that P&G had no problem with it & the invitation was extended. I learned about the invitation & about her health & her inability to fly at that point which caused her to have to decline, from her son Scott who is a friend, as well as being a Director at DAYS. donna — pretty sure that we both heard the initial report from the same person, who was in a position to know at the time. i also posted about it. thanks for the updated info.