Jdee43

It's unfortunate that a lost of these visionary efforts have been lost to time. Some of Matinee Theater has survived though. There are some episodes on youtube. Apparently some of the later years were shot on color film and syndicated under different titles. It just seems like an incredible undertaking. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-tampa-tribune-matinee-theater/19147159/

It's interesting to read that ABC tried to have a salary cap on their actors in 1991, however modest; actors could get no more that a 5% raise. I wonder if that really did cause anyone to bolt to other networks.

I guess Geary really is done. If he's not coming back for this, he's not coming back I guess the death of Luke and the funeral they had for him in January 2022 is all real; it's the true end of his character. I wonder if the network played a role in this. His character is pretty reprehensible. Maybe they just wanted to put a definite end to it and move on, as well as preclude any return possibilities.

Too bad they couldn't do the funeral on the prime time special. Maybe then they could have afforded having more actors there, past and present, along with more flashbacks.

I remember watching Santa Barbara on and off from 1987-1993. I've been doing a rewatch since the summer of 2021. I'm only up to episode 105. The show is boring, I can barely watch more than one episode at a time. The best way to watch it is to have it on as you do something else. It's good background noise.

Surprised Scorpio wasn't there.

I just watched an episode of the TV series Cannon from 1975 called "The Iceman." Having 4 scenes in it was Margie Impert. Impert was on Another World as Rachel from December 27, 1971 to February 15, 1972, according to the AW Home Page. Reading online, apparently she was intended to be the new permanent recast for Robin Strasser, but it didn't work out. The producers then brought back the original Rachel for four and a half months, from February 17 to June 29. Victoria Wyndham permanently took the role on July 21, 1972. 1972 was the year of 3 Rachels. Was Impert really intended to be permanent and not temporary? If so, I wonder what went wrong. Whatever it was, it happened quickly; she wasn't even there two months. Watching her on Cannon, I could definitely see her as a 1972 Rachel, a mix of being innocent, manipulative, and nasty. From a first impression, it seems like Impert would have been a nice recast.

www.nytimes.com/1991/06/23/archives/television-will-all-my-children-search-for-tomorrow.html TELEVISION: Will All My Children Search For Tomorrow? By Connie Passalacqua June 23, 1991 Are soap operas getting respectable? The question is a perennial. This year, at least, they are getting a little respect. On Thursday night at 9 on CBS, the Daytime Emmy Awards will be presented for the first time in their 18-year history during prime time. The current movie "Soapdish," which pokes daytime programming in the ribs, is a hit at the box office. Today's soap audience -- the 80 million Americans who tune in to the 11 network soaps every week -- is more diverse than ever, thanks to the VCR. The news is not entirely good. For the first time in their nearly 40-year history, soaps are feeling the pinch of the changing economics of the television business. But over those years, and especially in the last decade, audiences changed. "It sure isn't just housewives in curlers ironing in front of a TV anymore," says Mimi Torchin, editor of Soap Opera Weekly, a leading magazine for soap fans. One continuing phenomenon: group viewing in college dormitories, which started in 1980 when a couple named Luke and Laura on ABC's "General Hospital" caught the national fancy. VCR's make soaps available to full-time workers. According to research conducted by ABC, 11 percent of its soap viewers have jobs outside the home. And according to A. C. Neilsen, soaps are recorded more than any other genre, with ABC's "All My Children" and CBS's "Young and the Restless" placing third and fifth, respectively, on the list of most taped shows. As always, people watch for a variety of reasons. Len Berkman, a theater professor at Smith College, says soaps are "just as valid a form of theater as any you're going to see. There are areas of internal and interpersonal character exploration that are remarkable. Like Shakespeare, soaps must appeal to a spectrum of audiences from the intelligent to the least intelligent." Testifies the novelist Gail Parent, now a writer for NBC's "Golden Girls": "I think the plots are just as good as any on night-time TV. And I'd rather be nervous about the characters than myself." The novelist and historian Shelby Foote, who became something of a celebrity for his role as commentator in the public television series "The Civil War," has been watching the CBS soap "As the World Turns" since its premiere in 1956. "What makes me watch the soap is that it is highly humorous," he says. "Whether they mean to be is another question. But a novelist can learn something from the way they handle multiple plots." Their audiences may be more diverse, but soaps are still "geared to the fantasies of women and they're never going to be anything but," says Freeman Gunter, a managing editor of Soap Opera Weekly. "To me, soaps are about a bunch of gorgeous men who pay way too much attention to a bunch of dreadful, manipulative women that real men would have sent packing." The prime example may be Erica Kane Montgomery, played by Susan Lucci on "All My Children": 21 years, 5 husbands and countless beaux later, soap opera's premiere vixen is still searching for love. While the basic soap story has stayed the same, the externals have changed dramatically, especially in the past decade. "General Hospital" introduced shorter scenes, extensive outdoor locations and action-adventure stories, and others quickly followed suit. Soap characters played out their romances in Vienna, Venice and Hong Kong, on every island in the Caribbean. Soap towns were threatened by floods and earthquakes, and soap characters even went on "Raiders of the Lost Ark" treks. But by the end of the 80's, viewers seemed to prefer the basics of home and hearth in their plots. Coincidentally, soaps fell on economic hard times. "One Life to Live," the ABC soap that filmed a wedding on skis in Salzburg in 1989, recently taped the wedding of the original bride's sister on location in New Vernon, N.J. Soap audiences don't necessarily crave originality, says Mr. Gunter. "Look what happened to 'Twin Peaks.' " He summarizes the basic fail-safe plot: "Couples meet, there's the tension, they get along, they don't get along, finally they get together but they really can't be happy because then there's no conflict, and they separate." Soaps have been their most creative when they've done socially relevant story lines. This year CBS's glitzy "Bold and the Beautiful" staged a father-son incest story and sent an amnesiac matron to live with the homeless. "As the World Turns" had a right-to-die story line and a father-daughter incest plot. "You have to give viewers something new and different along with the stock ingredients," says Douglass Marland, its head writer. Says Bill Bell, executive producer and head writer of "The Young and the Restless" and "The Bold and the Beautiful," both CBS shows: "Issues work in daytime because it's a way to show characters exist in today's world. They're not off in some never-never land." Made-for-television movies also cover these areas, "but daytime is the only place where we have the time to most fully explore these problems," says Agnes Nixon, head writer for "All My Children." She began doing issue stories on "Guiding Light" in the early 60's, she says, "because I was angry that soaps got no respect." Like everything in soaps, socially relevant storylines tend to be copied. "No sooner do you see an incest story on one show than it pops up on two others like a virus," says Mr. Gunter. Repetitiveness is indigenous to the highly incestuous world of soaps, where writers and actors frequently hop from show to show. "To make the soaps new, creative and original, we're trying to bring in new blood," says Mary Alice Dwyer-Dobbin, senior president for daytime programming at ABC; she just hired Linda Gottlieb, producer of the film "Dirty Dancing," to produce "One Life to Live." "Soaps have always been the cash cows of networks, funding prime time, and they've been that way since the dawn of time," says Jacqueline Babbin, executive producer of ABC's "Loving." Their main advantage is that they have always been much cheaper to make than prime-time shows. It costs roughly as much to make one episode of a prime-time show as it does a week's worth of episodes of a daytime soap. At the height of the popularity of "General Hospital," in 1981, the soap was earning $1 million a week for ABC. "But this isn't 1981," says Dennis Swanson, ABC president of daytime, sports and children's programming. "We weren't sharing the screen then with other viewing alternatives as we do now, like cable. And network daytime's share of the total television audience has eroded just as much as night-time, weekend and sports." The three network soap slates had 81 percent of the total television audience in 1981. Today they have 61 percent, with a corresponding loss of advertising revenue. Mr. Swanson, who took over daytime programming this year, has begun to cut costs at ABC. His first measure, imposing a five percent cap on the salaries of actors who are renegotiating contracts, has shaken up the industry. Several actors have already left their shows, including Fiona Hutchinson from "One Life to Live" and Jack Wagner, who left "General Hospital" for NBC's "Santa Barbara." Ms. Dwyer-Dobbin says that soaps on her network may soon have fewer characters and that episodes will be shot on location less frequently. While the cutbacks may make economic sense to the financially strapped networks, they could ultimately have an adverse effect on viewership. The cap on actors' salaries is "very foolish," says Mimi Torchin of Soap Opera Weekly. "Soap fans are more loyal to their actors than any other on TV because they come into their living rooms five days a week. When they disappear, so may the fans. When you cut the steak from the bone, you lose the juice." Will soaps survive? In 1981, there were 12 hours of soaps broadcast each day. Now there are 10. Only NBC has a new soap in development. Soap producers are fearful that the extra hours will be filled with even cheaper-to-make reality programming. NBC recently replaced "Generations," about the relationships between two families, one black and one white, with "A Closer Look," a news/interview show. "Game show and reality shows are cheaper but soap operas are the only form of daytime programming that have legs," says Ms. Dwyer-Dobbin. The soaps of the 90's may be leaner and more down to earth, but they will probably prevail. "As long as women have romantic fantasies, there will always be soap operas," says Mr. Gunter.

Was there any reason why the Dobsons chose to begin Santa Barbara with a murder mystery? Were they fans of Henry Slesar or the Edge of Night or something? Watching the mystery drag on over the show's first year, I'm not sure if that kind of thing was really their forte. It's interesting, for their own show, they chose to go with stuff that they weren't as strong writing, teen hijinks and murder mysteries/ crime. If those elements were toned down, perhaps the show might have been better, especially in the beginning.

I would say for GH 1996 and DAYS 1994. AW 1993.

I've been trying to finish the 1968 episodes. Pamela Toll has been a highlight! She definitely was an appealing performer! It's unfortunate that they never really found a proper story for her. She's either involved with characters that are way too old for her, like Nick, Althea, Steve, and Carolee, or being stalked by weirdos. To be honest, I'm not sure her character ever really fit in to the show. I guess she was on to serve the youth quota, but they never really treated her like a normal youth. They never gave her any youthful stories or friends her age, which in 1968 was 20. Maybe had she turned out to be Matt or Maggie's daughter, or Maggie's niece, it would have felt more like she belonged. Instead, she feels like one of the show's short-term characters who should be, or should have been, written out when their arc is done.

It's a shame the Dobsons weren't hired by any soaps after Santa Barbara. They definitely could have elevated the mid to late 90s and 2000s. 1984 Santa Barbara isn't that wretched; just fast forward all the scenes with the younger characters and it almost becomes watchable. The most quirky part of 1984 are the Lockridges, which might have been the characters who were also the most autobiographical for the Dobsons.

It's too bad that Sam and Lahoma were forgotten after 1974. With Sam being Ada's brother, they gave Ada and Rachel family ties and people to talk to. Sam was also friends with Steve. I guess Ann Wedgeworth was hitting the big time by 1973 and wasn't coming back. They had Sam as a stand alone character for a year in 1974, but I guess that didn't work out and he was gone. The actor Jordan Charney did play other soaps in the mid 70s, including OLTL. I guess the writers tried to create new characters that echoed Sam and Lahoma, Sam and Lahoma types, but the new characters didn't have the family ties or the history of the originals. A Sam and Lahoma return, with original Sam and a recast Lahoma, with their kids, could have been interesting, especially in the early or mid 80s, but I guess the show had gone through so many writers by then, perhaps the writers weren't aware those characters even existed. I believe neither was mentioned for the 25th anniversary?

Lois has been written like a cartoon. You'd think on Thursday's show, they'd finally let her get real and say that yeah, she did have a problem with her best friend marrying her ex-husband. Then maybe her and Olivia could have had a deep conversation for once, but nope. Very disappointing.

I don't understand why they killed off Luke in the first place. For him to say goodbye to his sister, he has to come back from the dead. It's ridiculous. Was part of the show's delay in dealing with Bobbie's passing giving Geary the opportunity to get in shape and look presentable when he appears?

I was wondering, what was the point of killing off Luke back in January 2022? Did Geary piss off people behind the scenes? Or did Geary sign off on how they ended his character? The guy was the star of the show for 30 years, and that's how they end his character? I hope he makes a cameo as Luke alive, watching from afar, whenever they do Bobbie's funeral. He always wanted his character to be a bastard. That would be a bastard thing to do, to let everyone think he's dead, and he just walks away from it all. Maybe that would be enough character assassination for him to come back, since he really should be there for Bobbie's funeral.

I thought Tristian Rogers was always a fan of Gloria Monty's? She brought him on, kept him on, and made him the star of the show when Tony Geary left. Wasn't Rogers going to leave at the end of 1990, and her coming back convinced him to stay one more year? Was that year so bad, that at the end of it, he not only left, but bad mouthed Gloria to ABC and helped get her fired too? I find that hard to believe. I thought Rogers was always going to leave at the end of 1991/ beginning of 1992 no matter what, that there was no way to get him to stay.

In the summer of 1990, weren't they repeating the same general stories from 10 years before? Alan and Monica were having affairs, and there was also a young couple on the run, falsely accused, with the latter story set in a strange place, the circus? And then in the winter ABC brings back the EP who did those stories originally back in 1980? ABC must really have wanted to recapture GH's heyday. It's surprising they didn't give Monty more time to work magic, only a year. I guess ultimately she wasn't well liked by those in charge. The whole thing smacks of hubris; Monty thought she could do anything, but then found out quite different.

It's just funny, in the late 80s, Days of our Lives gets General Hospital's Laura, while Anotner World gets Laura's parents. Another sign of Another World's second class status by then.

For the 86-89 period, I never understood why they would bring on Denise Alexander and Chris Robinson. Were they trying to recapture the magic of Rick and Lesley on General Hospital? Were Rick and Lesley even that magical that they deserved to be reunited on another show? Would people really tune in for that? If they were going to take stars and couples from other shows, how about taking younger ones? Or better yet, how about mining Another World's own history and the history of its spin-offs for people to bring on?

Instead of everyone pretending like she looks the same as she did in 2008, it would be really interesting if they dealt on-screen with how she looks now, especially from her point of view. The show and those involved probably couldn't handle something that real though.

I think I'm going to say the first 4 months of Texas were worse than the first 4 months of Santa Barbara! There were so many uncharismatic actors on Texas, either very green or full of ticks (Jerry Lanning being one of the worst offenders). The writing was very boring too. What they did to Iris, turning her into some sort of tame romantic heroine, felt very wrong. Her story, and the casting of her beau, weren't very inspired. Also, the show had a strange feel to it; it was set in Texas but shot in Brooklyn? It never really felt like Texas to me. At least with Santa Barbara, it felt like Southern California; in that small way, perhaps NBC learned a little something from one of their earlier failures.

The episodes are still free to watch on the itsrealgoodtv website, but there are now commercials, 30 second ones spaced throughout the episodes. Presumably they'll make more money this way than the $2.99 a month memberships? On the 1968 episodes, the video for me is still jagged. The motion is not continuous. I'm watching their website on a Samsung smart TV, which never seemed to go well with their technology. Hopefully they'll fix things some day..

I always got a William Shatner vibe from him, in a good way. In his best scenes, he always had a Shatner type of energy, connection, sincerity.

Which is considered worst, the first four months of Texas in 1980 or the first four months of Santa Barbara in 1984?