GL Oldtimer

In regards to Marcy Walker, it's interesting rewatching her time on Guiding Light as I have been thanks to YouTube. The writers threw Tangie with nearly every character and in nearly every storyline, and nothing seemed to work. It certainly wasn't for a lack of trying on Walker's part though.

Annette

@Contessa Donatella, thank you for explaining to me what block voting is and how it works as it pertains to soap operas.

Annette

I have what is probably a rather stupid question, but what exactly is block voting? I don't understand the definition of it as it pertains to the Daytime TV Emmy Awards.

Thank you in advance to anyone that can provide an explanation.

Annette

Did Beverlee McKinsey ever discuss publicly why she didn't submit her work during her run on Guiding Light?

Annette

Beverlee McKinsey was just an absolute powerhouse! I loved watching her scenes. She was very measured and realistic in her approach, which I appreciated as a viewer. In those moments when Alex showed anger or shed tears, I really felt it. The country club scenes when Alex takes down Roger are simply epic. Same for the scenes when she confronts him about his infidelity. Talk about a masterclass in acting. 

Annette

I started watching Guiding Light in the summer of 1989. It was Reva and Josh's wedding at Cross Creek that intrigued me as I was flipping channels. Up until that point, I had just watched nighttime soaps. I remember being so mesmerized by all of the location scenes. I stuck with the show for several years after that.

My favorite years of the show were between 1990 to 1994 as I felt like it was very much an ensemble at that point. It seemed to me that most characters had a least some sort of storyline, and I thought the writers did a nice job of having multiple characters interact with each other. Springfield felt like an actual community to me. I watched religiously for a nearly 12-year span, and the early 90s were just awesome.

Like most of you on this board, I didn't just watch one soap opera. I was also a fan of As the World Turns and One Life to Life. While I certainly had my favorite characters on each, I do think soap operas were a better viewing experience when they focused on multiple storylines involving multiple characters. I realize that there are going to be ebbs and flows with storylines and characters, but it's never good when one or two characters monopolize a show. I think Guiding Light was one of the worst examples of allowing that to happen.

Annette

Thank you so much @DRW50 for tagging me. What a gem of a find! It's so exciting to watch episodes from so many decades ago.

Thank you.

Annette

I had no idea that Michael Zaslow wrote for Another World! That's very cool.

Annette

I started watching the show in 1989 and thought it remained very strong until about 1995. I know a lot of people feel the show started to shift downward in 1993, but I didn't feel that way until 1995. That's mostly thanks to the fact I was intrigued by the Roger and Holly pairing. Once things ended between them, my interest started to wane.

It's very disappointing when quality doesn't translate into ratings.

Annette

@Khan, you mentioned in your post above that it's pretty much show up, stand on your mark, and go. This must be why when I catch some episodes of soaps airing now, there's not as much blocking or movement as I remember when I watched in real-time during the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s.

Annette

Are soaps not rehearsing scenes at all at this point?

I'm glad I was a fan of the genre in its heyday when every major network had several soaps on in the afternoon. Those were some awesome days! I remember how much I looked forward to the new issues of Soap Opera Digest and Soap Opera Weekly to hit the newsstands. I just remember it being an exciting time to be a fan.

Annette

@Khan, I remember the scene you're referring to fondly between Roger and Meg. I remember Holly witnessing his talk with her daughter as well. I believe it came at a time when the writers were trying to soften Holly's stance on Roger.

Michael Zaslow could convey so much with just a look. In fact, someone commented on one of "Blake Marler's" YouTube videos that you could always see how Roger felt differently about Holly versus all of his other women by the look in this eyes. Zaslow was just a tremendous actor, always giving his performances 150%. 

What happened to him, and how the top Proctor & Gamble/Guiding Light brass treated him was such a tragedy.

Annette

@Donna L. Bridges, thank you very much for sharing the Beverlee McKinsey interview. She was a tremendous force on the screen. In regards to the Wheeler storylines, I do wish I liked more of what I saw, but I'll keep going through those years and perhaps I'll think differently when I'm finished. 

@OpportunisticSlut, oh yes, Roger Thorpe is definitely an entertaining villain. Despite all his misdeeds, he's easy to root for. I think so much of that is thanks to the way Michael Zaslow portrayed him. There were just so many layers to Roger. He certainly had his soft spots, and I loved that vulnerable side of the character.

Annette

I agree that the episodes posted on YouTube by "Blake Marler" have absolutely been a Godsend. I watched Guiding Light in realtime from mid-1989 to about 1999, and it's been such a treat to revisit the years I originally watched. As I've said before on this board, I'm a big Roger and Holly fan and I think the early 1990s were some of the best years for these two characters. Now that I've been rewatching some of these years, I also felt the show had a nice balance of romance, mystery, scandal, drama, and comedy. Also, no one character seemed to really have the spotlight, at least not from my perspective from 1989 through 1993. I do think things started to shift a bit in 1994 when there was a lot of attention paid to Buzz. Regardless, it truly has been fun to rewatch episodes from over 30 years ago. I also admire actors like Michael Zaslow, Maureen Garrett, and Beverlee McKinsey so much more now than I did as a teenager because I can really see all of the nuances they brought to their work and characters. Soap opera actors truly don't get the credit they deserve.

I've seen glimpses of the show from when Ellen Wheeler took over and introduced Peapack, but I find it a tough watch. I don't have much to add from what people on this board have already said about those years, but from someone who didn't watch the show then, I can appreciate that there was an attempt to save the show by trying new things. However, in my opinion, the production values and the storylines from what I have seen from the Wheeler era are so poor, that I found it hard to stay engaged with the characters. 

Annette

I actually think Mark Derwin was effective as Mallet in lighter moments, especially during some of his banter with Mindy and Harley. I also thought he was quite good in some of his romantic scenes. I do see his appeal, but I had difficulty with him when he had to deliver really dramatic moments. I just didn't feel like he was able to do those as effectively. I watched him as Ben Davidson on One Life to Live, and felt he had similar struggles in dramatic scenes, especially when he was acting against Erika Slezak.

One of the reasons why I watched Guiding Light was because I always thought the acting was some of the strongest on the soaps, at least during the time when I watched in the late 80s and early 90s. I could watch actors like Michael Zaslow, Maureen Garrett, Kim Zimmer, Rick Hearst, and Beverlee McKinsey recite the phone book, especially Maureen Garrett. I was always so intrigued by her as an actress.   

On page 812, @bboy875 asked if anyone knew what the show planned to do with Roger/Holly/Amanda before Michael Zaslow and his replacement, Dennis Parlato were let go from the show (I'm sorry for repeating the question here, but I haven't figured out how to copy someone's comments as I've seen done in other posts). I've often wondered this myself. Before Zaslow was let go, it seemed as though the writers were working toward a reconciliation between Roger and Holly. Holly had certainly softened toward Roger by the time Zaslow was let go and was replaced with Parlato. I wonder if the writers had to abandon whatever they had planned when Zaslow was let go. 

Speaking of Roger, I think the show lost a lot when the character was written off. He was such a great villain and soaps need that. Of course, I think a lot of credit goes to Zaslow for creating such a nuanced villain. He was just a marvelous actor, and despite all of Roger's misdeeds I found myself rooting for him at times. I always felt bad for Parlato because he truly had impossible shoes to fill, and the entire situation with Zaslow was handled so poorly by TPTB.

I do wonder though if handled correctly could a character like Roger ever be successfully recast? There have been some successful recasts of other big characters, so the precedent is certainly there. I just think Roger's absence left a big hole in the show. Of course, being a huge Michael Zaslow fan, I think I would have had a tough time accepting another actor in the role.

Annette

@SamandWillowFan, I always thought that Holly was supposed to be between 45 and 47 when she became pregnant with Fletcher's baby. Does that make sense to others on this board?

These old episodes that have recently been posted here are just awesome to see!

Annette

A few pages back there was a brief discussion about all of the actors that played Alan Michael. I absolutely loved Rick Hearst in the role. He was just brilliant! I also agree that it would have been great if his character was paired up with Gilly. They had good chemistry. I also liked some of the scenes he shared with Holly through the years. I thought they had a nice chemistry too.

@Donna L. Bridges, thank you so much for posting these clips here so I could see them. The scenes are certainly very intense.

Thank you.

Annette

@Donna L. Bridges, the only exposure I've had to the rape scenes is what I saw via Roger Thorpe: The Scandal Years. I'm assuming there's a few places on YouTube where I might be able to find more from that time period. Even though I didn't watch the show in the 70s when Roger Thorpe was first on, he seemed like such a different character when he returned to the show in the late 80s.

@Fevuh, thank you so much for the link to the Instagram page. What fascinating posts!

@Soaplovers and @Mitch64, I think your ideas for ending the Roger and Holly pairing make so much more sense than what actually happened on the show. Using the couple's past as the catalyst for the relationship ending would have really played well with the couple's long and rich history on the show, a history that writers used very well at times, although not in this case. I knew Roger and Holly would never last, but to this day I still don't understand Holly's motivation for leaving Roger in favor of Fletcher. I think I'm still in shock that they got married and had a child! If someone has a reason for the character's motivation, I would love to hear it!

I've really enjoyed reading your thoughts about the Roger and Holly pairing. They were certainly a dynamic duo, and some of my favorite scenes were those when you could sense the yearning for each other underneath all that hate. I just found them fascinating to watch. I still do. 

Annette

I totally get why some Guiding Light viewers didn't like the pairing of Roger and Holly as a romantic couple or understand fans that enjoyed them together.

For me, I think it helped that I didn't watch the show in the 70s when the rape and abuse happened. I imagine if I had, I wouldn't have wanted them together.

It wasn't just the chemistry between the two actors or the attraction between the characters that sold me on them as a couple when both characters returned to Springfield in the late 80s, it was the vulnerability that Roger had when he was around Holly that I really liked. He wore his heart on his sleeve around her and while his feelings for her certainly didn't keep him from lying to her, I do think he felt bad when he did lie to her. It was an interesting dimension to his character, a contrast between good and evil. It's what made him more than just a cookie cutter soap villain. It's also what allowed me to feel sympathetic toward him. That was a feat considering all of the lives he tried to ruin.

When things were good between them, they were so good. The characters had a nice maturity about them and they had some great scenes in 1994 when they were working through some things regarding communication and trust. I think there was a relatability about them during that time. 

I think it also helped that I'm a big fan of both of the actors. Maureen Garrett and Michael Zaslow were my favorites on the show so seeing their characters together was the icing on the cake during the time that I originally watched the program.

Like every soap couple, I knew they weren't going to last.  But the way the writers handled their breakup still gets to me, especially since Holly went back to hating Roger, despite how far they had come as a couple. As a fan, it was hard to watch it all unravel, and the chance for them to rekindle their relationship or at least get back to a better place ended when Michael Zaslow was pushed off the show. I feel like their journey together as a couple was accompanied by a lot of missed opportunities and premature endings.

Annette

Donna L. Bridges, thank you for the information regarding the petition to award a Posthumous Lifetime Achievement Award to Beverlee McKinsey. I have added my support to it.

Mitch64, you make some interesting points about how Bloss took over the character of Blake. I never looked at it like that, but I agree with you.

I do like both Keifer and Stringfield in the roles. I can't really say that I have a favorite, but I just noticed in revisiting the episodes from the early 90s how much different the character is from Stringfield to Keifer.

For those of you that are in the know about these things, what was the overall reception from Guiding Light fans to the pairing of Fletcher and Holly? As a huge Roger and Holly fan, I still find it hard to rewatch the episodes of Roger and Holly's breakup and Fletcher and Holly's pairing. Nearly 30 years later it still bothers me :). 

Annette

Now that I'm revisiting episodes of Guiding Light that I haven't seen in over 30 years, it's interesting to see how much of an impact recasting had on certain characters. I didn't notice it much when I was a teenager, which is when I originally saw the episodes from the early 1990s.

I like both Sherry Stringfield and Elizabeth Keifer as actresses and I appreciate their approaches to the character of Blake, but their portrayals of the character couldn't be further apart from each other. I do think something was lost when Stringfield left the role. Blake lost her edge, her shrewdness, and her sexiness. However, I appreciate the softness and sweetness that Keifer bought to the role, and I really enjoy her bond with Maureen Garrett's Holly.

I think the same can be said for Beverlee McKinsey and Marj Dusay. I have respect for both actresses, but I absolutely love McKinsey's Alex. Her work during the Alex/Mindy/Roger triangle is just incredible, especially when she publicly humiliated Roger at the country club. Those scenes are soap opera gold! I recently rewatched parts of that storyline and she is just incredible.

I don't watch soaps these days. For those of you that do, is recasting still done to the degree that it was done 30 years ago?

Thank you for the warm welcome.

In response to the discussion about building a plotline around Michael Zaslow's ALS diagnosis, I think it would have been a groundbreaking opportunity to tell a multifaceted story.

Zaslow was a highly respected daytime actor dealing with a devastating disease. If he was willing to share his journey with the audience, I think a lot of his fans would have supported him sharing that journey through the lens of the camera. There's no doubt there would have been some difficult days as Mitch64 pointed out when Zaslow wouldn't be available to work. Overall though, I think the creative time could have figured out a way to make it work.

From what I've read, Zaslow and Maureen Garrett were close friends. I also remember reading that both of them loved acting together and the love/hate relationship of Roger and Holly. Combine all of that together and I imagine the scenes shared as Roger's ALS journey is told would have packed an emotional punch never seen before in daytime. I don't think there's enough adjectives that could describe just how heart-wrenching, beautiful, and loving this could have been.

And then there's the character of Roger. A flawed man who loved his family deeply, but also loved power and money. These desires were often at odds, and his quest for power and money oftentimes destroyed the relationships he held most dear. I could imagine him finally realizing as he faces his death that it's not the money and power giving him love and comfort, but those that he's always loved. There could have been some beautiful moments around that realization as Roger sought redemption.

Television just wasn't as brave then to share this sort of journey. I think there's a chance that it would be shared today though as I think television is more willing to take risks.

I will always think about what could have been.

I'm new to this community and wanted to say hello :).

I started watching Guiding Light when I was 13 years old. Specifically, it was the 1989 Josh and Reva wedding at Cross Creek that got me hooked, but it was the love/hate relationship between Roger and Holly that kept me interested in Guiding Light over the years.

It's been wonderful seeing this show brought back to life thanks to some very committed fans who have posted full episodes of the show via YouTube. I'm having a blast rewatching the years that I originally watched, while also discovering new ones.

I was a big Michael Zaslow and Maureen Garrett fan in my teens, and now that I'm older and wiser, I can see all of the layers and nuances they brought to their work that I didn't appreciate as a teenager. Whether apart or together, they still light up the screen for me, and are simply magic together. It has been painful to watch some of the 1997 episodes when Michael Zaslow started exhibiting symptoms of ALS. I know at that time he wasn't yet diagnosed with ALS. I can't imagine what that time must have been like for him. My heart just breaks watching those episodes knowing now what happened to him. In regards to Maureen Garrett, I remember thinking her Holly was just the coolest character - the woman I wanted to be when I grew up. She was fascinating to watch all of those years ago and still is today.

I stopped watching the show in 1999. I had a tough time staying invested after Michael Zaslow was pushed out and the writers turned Holly into the nursery rhyme stalker. That was it for me.

Once I discovered this discussion thread, I went back to the beginning and read all of the posts. I sure wish this board was around when I was first watching the show. I've enjoyed reading all of your comments.