Speed Racer

I'm liking the recent discussion about Holly, but I am not yet satisfied. It appears that Holly throws a lot of us for a loop. Me included. (Which means that "Holly" was actually very well written in general, given that she was always intended to be a neurotic. A very unusual character in soap-land). Here's a question that I don't know how to answer myself. Had she had a real opportunity, would Vanessa ever purposely befriend Holly? Why or why not? What qualities does Holly possess that would appeal to someone like Vanessa?

Oh - and one other thing while I'm thinking about it: With HIS family history, it'd be tempting to turn Phillip into a raging alcoholic. Grant Alecsander in a liquor-induced rage would be pretty frightening. Who in Springfield would have the gonads to stop him in that state? Making the story more interesting in that case.

Had Beverlee McKinsey stayed on, one could have created a helluva triangle between Eric/Alex/Nick. Especially if Alex was away for a period of time so that a strengthening tie could have been formed between Nick and Eric. That's where GL should have went if the show was determined to extend the triangle theme. Think of the unbelievable history that could have been mined with that kind of set up! Wow. Memories/discussion of Brandon and Lujack could be a featured part of that mix. (No flashbacks or ghosts tho - yecch.) Alan who?

Yes!! Finally, another fan of Warren Andrews. What a smarmy jerk...a weasel...and what a fun character! Eric Luvonoczek was Warren's successor, whom I liked even more than Warren. I also was a big fan of Floyd Parker. And I liked Eve Guthrie as well. Reva was always horrible. Mike Bauer was almost as bad (but to be fair, I started watching GL in 1978/79, so I am not familiar with Mike's earlier, non-jack@ss persona). There. All sorts of unpopularity in one post!

So, Brandon was a Nazi? Figures. All evil white men are. I wonder what the typical Scottish/English GL viewer thought of that development? "Spaulding" is hardly a German sir name. A shame that we didn't see Brandon Spaulding often donning tennis whites, bragging about the high quality of his tennis racquets. Now THAT might have been fun! Souring the Spaulding name during the tennis craze of the late 1970s/early 1980s might have generated a small brouhaha in the real world. Imagine Nazis Brandon and grandson Phillip prancing into a room asking, "Tennis, anyone?" LOL. If anything, Brandon should have been a Stalinite. With a real name of Ilya Vasilievsky or some such. A name that even the great Maureen Garrett would have difficulty pronouncing.

PJ: Wonderful writeup re: Van/Reva. Yes, theirs should have been a full blown-up rivalry. Can't have that though, not with Reva and Zimmer on the canvas. I mean, how would it look? I always thought that numerous GL characters should have been regularly snickering about all things Reva behind her back, just like people would do in real life. Characters laughing at Reva, lots of eye-rolling, comments made about how it's best simply to avoid her, etc. Reva was *always* so entitled, wasn't she? Yeesh.

To add to the conversation, there's.... Emily Norris. Ken's daughter. Niece of Holly and Andy. Blake's cousin. Papa Camaletti is mentioned several times but never appears. Mallet and Julie used to talk about him. What about India's father? Did he ever appear? I didn't watch much of GL from 1985-1988, but I do remember her speaking about him. The Baron von Halkein. Andorra. Didn't Alexandra know him? (Thank goodness I didn't watch much...all this talk about San Rios and Alex on a hot rod is all brand new to me. LOL.) Conversely, what I was amazed by was the rather extensive detail re: Eleni's family. Ya-Ya, her brothers, her mother. They all appeared.

Always AMC- Thank you!! Found the GL vault. Is the vault and The Archive one and the same? If someday I were to pursue a watch of AMC, where would the best place be to start? What month and year? I don't have your patience to wade through months or years of crapola (lol), but do appreciate watching maybe 2-3 months of crapola immediately prior to when a soap starts getting good. I like watching favorable transitions (kinda like watching Spring erupt after a long winter). Is sometime in 1994 the logical launch point?

Help! This Archive thing-a-ma-jig....how does one get there to watch old GL eps? I'm a bit thick-headed. Thanks. "I seem to recall Ed throwing a lot of it back in her face back in the day. Typical Marland scenes of a Bauer lecturing others about their imperfections." LMAO! Boy, is that ever accurate!! And the lecturing wasn't just limited to the Bauers, either. Think Bea Reardon and Henry Chamberlain (the latter of whom often would lecture people when he wasn't busy ambushing them alongside Vanessa - LOL! Henry was one cool dude). Kelly Nelson, Katie Parker and Hilary Bauer were not beyond lecturing either. How I despised Mike Bauer! A sanctimonious, fussy, prima donna if there ever was one. Typical lawyer. He needed a half dozen upper left cuts to the jaw.

Wholeheartedly agree about the Daniel St John story. If there was a dud of a story during the early 1990s, that was it. I did like the dead woman's sister quite a lot (Jean Wetherill). Both the actress and the character were loose cannons. Holly and St John were a mismatch and Samantha was a pesky gnat. The Chelsea stalker story was okay. I liked the actress who portrayed Dana. A shame she was bumped off. They should have kept her and kept her with Frank for a while. Kim Simms was ahead of where Mindy was early on; Mindy "caught up" with Simms as time went by. Mindy grew a lot more than Simms did, which is reasonably fascinating. Simms comes across as a class act in real life. No ego, no b.s. Well mannered. Generous. Joe Breen was excellent as Will. Really liked him. I get the impression that he was not original signed as a longish-term contract player, but I could be wrong. I didn't watch when he came aboard. I regret not ever watching the period when Maureen Garrett rejoined the show in 1988. I should have. Now, I can't.

Thank you, MLH. Appreciate that. I'm gonna disagree with you on Hart; I liked him. As someone here said, Hart could've been killed off once Phillips left. A-M is a trickier proposition no matter which way you look at it. Yes, Alan-Michael's persona changed between Evans and Hearst, but imo it's not unreasonable given the circumstances. You have A-M getting played by Blake and somewhat by Harley in the divorce. Meanwhile, no one on the Bauer side is looking out for him. Maureen and Ed are not Mom and Dad, so it makes sense that A-M would not spend a lot of time at the Bauer's. Not many people spend a great deal of time with their aunts and uncles. It was A-M's more or less rudderless status at both the Bauers and Spauldings that prompted me to think of having Ed marry Amanda. With a half-sister at the Bauer's and Alan returning to Spaulding, A-M might surprisingly find himself in familial demand rather always be left on the outs. That'd make for an interesting undercurrent story for quite a while - just how will Alan-Michael turn out? Instead, A-M got saddled with Lucy and after he'd had enough, Hearst quit. The End.

MLH - You watched Guiding Light from 1989 to 1998 AND you're a tough critic. Fair enough. What about Guiding Light did you find considerably above average? Which actors, storylines? Details, please. I know you liked Calhoun/Curlee, but the former wasn't around all that long. What caught your nod of attention after Calhoun's departure? Thanks. I watched from 1978/79 to the end of 1983, and from 1990-1998. I didn't see the Dana/Looney Rae Rooney stuff (late 1989) until a year or so ago. I watched all of 1989 retroactively.

Yeah, Reva saved Holly from committing suicide on the bridge. Of course it was Reva. No one else possibly could have saved Holly. Reva, our Savior. There were some Holly/Josh scenes earlier. Those scenes were passable but not notable. Garrett and Newman working opposite each other was weird, as if the two actors didn't know each other. I found the Holly/Reva bridge scene so inexcusable that I never again watched GL. Literally. Not even the last week in 2009, in real time. Not that giving the heave-ho to the show was difficult in the late 1990s. Apparently, Reva was flushed down a toilet at some point during the 2000s. That would have been worth seeing. I would have enjoyed a Reva-gets-into-a-car-wreck-that-leaves-her-completely-mute-for-an-entire-year storyline. Or a Reva suffers from a real nasty bout of venereal disease storyline. Both simultaneously would have been killer!! Reva needed to suffer in silence. For the good of Greater Springfield.

"One thing I'll say about the writing team in 1989 was how the writers effortlessly weaved Holly back into the canvas even though her primary scenes partners were no longer on the show (other then Ross, Ed, and Alan). There was one episode where Holly was at the country club where she had been put in charge of the tv station and she interacted with Rose, Ross, Josh, Mo, and Will.. and she had great rapport with all of them. Soaps hardly do those types of interactions nowadays." This was one of the best things about Guiding Light during its better eras. The cross-pollination of everything. A much easier task for the writers to accomplish when Reva was off the canvas. I do wish that Ed and Harley had been in a story together, maybe a three-month arc. It would have been interesting to see the two actors and characters deal with one another. Very different from each other. Ditto with Billy (Clarke) and Alan-Michael (Hearst).

Maureen Garrett always seemed to have great rapport with nearly everyone, both professional and personal. (I really liked the very brief two-week interaction between her and the guy who played Kirk on ATWT....Tom something. Those two had fantastic chemistry. He was another Sam if I remember correctly). One thing that must be said: Holly and Reva never belonged in the same scenes together. Two very different versions/ideas of Guiding Light personified between them. A dichotomy. A schism. A ravine. Yuck.

"I also do like the last one that had a bittersweet tone to it, and actually looked like a party in someone's yard. There was one of the "Ed-less years" where Rick and Abby took time out of the party to screw...obviously no writer ever threw a big family party as that is the LAST thing on your mind when you have 50 people in your house." Wanna bet!? How wrong you are...I am proof. I had a great time throwing parties for family, friends, co-workers....lol. People would show up early to my house, not late. I was good with it. Be yourself and everyone will have a great time. Be an uptight/nervous host, serve cheese-and-crackers, onion dip and other staid nonsense, and your party will suck. The Bauer July 4 BBQs were a snore, for obvious reasons.

Yeah, mid-1989 is the timeframe to start watching "modern era" GL. Early 1989 isn't all that great; yes, it's better but what isn't better than 1988? Guiding Light really steps on the gas in March/April 1990. As I've said earlier, you can see and feel the transformation. Some WTF(!) moments, like the one MLH mentioned with Roger's admission to Alex that he raped Holly. The show was suddenly more intricate, with tentacles increasingly spreading in multiple directions, pulling in more and more characters. The rest of 1990 through mid 1992 are definitely worth watching; mid 1992 through mid 1993 is considerably above average. Mid 1993 through April 1994 is good, too, but cracks are appearing. Curlee's last storyline was the Peter custody battle in early 1994. Reva's only good storyline ever was her post-partum story during the first half of 1990. "Reva" was subdued(!) and acting all weird during that time frame. She did her kamikaze act into the ocean off the Florida Keys in July 1990. I was ecstatic!!

Dee - Thanks for the info about Penelope. Barbados must have been 1984 or 1985; I wasn't watching much back then as I was in college with full schedule, two internships and a job. All simultaneously for 2 years straight. I have nowhere near that amount of energy these days, lol!

Regarding Alex: I agree 100% with MLN on this topic, and have stated already that Bev was mistaken in her opinion that "Alex" was a victim of character assassination. Given, the chance, i would have told McKinsey so. That said, upon the dissolution of Nick and Mindy (Simms), Alex left town "for a little while. not forever" to "think about things" and "find herself". I thought that was a great way to backburner Alex while McKinsey took her six-week vacation (which we all know she quit the show). Had McKinsey stayed on, a great way for her to "find herself" would be to learn upon her return that that she would soon become a grandmother, either via Mindy or Eve. Either as mother to Alexandra's grandchild would have worked well. Lots of opportunity for Alex to grow/adapt/find herself in a situation like that. And by the way, what do we know about Alexandra and Alan's mother? We know some things about Brandon, but what about her? Regarding the Blake/two twins story....one of the two should have died as a tot. Whether it was Rick's or Ross', it would've made for some rough drama.

MLH - I'm surprised by your A-M/Gilly remark....what would A-M being part owner of The Journal have to do with A-M/Gilly potential? An aside - the crux of A-M/Gilly interaction took place well before A-M become part owner (Winter 1993/1994 versus Autumn 1994). The Four Musketeers? Passable, but hardly excellent. Beth/Lujack was good at times. What I never bought into was the horrific pairing of Morgan Richards and Kelly Nelson. Here's a dippy, plain jane girl (Kristen Vigard, whom I detested) that somehow enamors studly Kelly, who is pursuing an MD degree and is easily 10+ years her senior? The two don't work together on ANY level - intellect, ambition, age, experience, looks. The whole thing was pure nonsense, and an obvious ploy to attract the attention of high school age female viewers, who at that age naturally are devoid of sophistication. Yeah, the Bridget pursuing Hart a second time was tedious. You would think that Bridget wouldn't return to that territory after Dylan left. No imagination on the part of exec producers and writers of the time. More mid-1990s garbage. More reason to tune out.

A-M and Eleni were never a supercouple. An unexpected supercouple that never came to be was Alan-Michael and Gilly. Their on-screen chemistry was remarkable. It flew off the screen! A great many viewers saw it; how could they not? And a great deal of story could have been mined from their pairing. Early 1994 GL was determined to ram A-M and Lucy down our throats, sadly. Speaking for myself, I would have easily settled for a quick change of storyline direction, even if it meant derailing that part of the show for 1-2 months, to create a future for Gilly/A-M.

Good to read that Marlena write-up above. Especially notable is the observation that at the time, GL wasn't underestimating the intelligence of its audience. It was when GL decided to insult my intelligence circa 1995/1996 that I cut my viewership down to maybe 1-2 days per week. That plus an overload of Reva was too much. I severed ties with the show completely in 1998. Why should I remain loyal to something so determinedly poor? What De LaCroix doesn't mention is the almost unbelievable degree of "adept temperance" that those at GL exhibited during the early 1990s. The actors, writers, producers, stage hands, etc. As an example, speaking of the Lillian/Maureen confrontation in the Bauer kitchen...notice what's NOT in those scenes. The speed of line delivery has been slowed. No out of the ordinary lighting. And, most importantly, NO MUSIC! None. Consequently, there's all sorts of room for the audience to feel a very palpable sense of dread. The scene is set up so well. Yeah, the writing is much above average, but we know that already. People comment frequently on the "suburban joke" line that Parker delivers, but in my mind's eye, it's an earlier line in that scene that really makes my eyebrows go up - where Lillian asks, "is this a good time" to which Maureen responds, "another time might be worse". WHAT?!! Holy sheyit! And other than spoken words, there is no other sound. I've commented earlier how as a consumer of entertainment, I greatly appreciate being manipulated. This is yet another example of it at Guiding Light, when it good.

Speaking of India, I have long thought that she and Holly should have started a business together....perhaps when Holly was ousted from WSPR and went over to the Journal. I think India and Holly would be phenomenal working together. Imagine the love of words the two share! India with her penchant for European commentary and HolIy with her Latin. I'd make them fast friends. Kinda like Donna and Ginger, but much more sophisticated. Holly never had a female friend, so she'd be entering new territory here. MLH: Was it you that thought that maybe Hart should have been killed off when Jeff Phillips left the show? Fascinating idea. Would sure mess with Roger's psyche and spiral Blake out of control from a deep sense of guilt.

"My only objection to this would be Amanda marrying Ed...at least if Ed was still portrayed by Peter Simon. I can't see Cullen and Simon having chemistry. In theory, it's a GREAT idea because Ed and the Bauers are Alan's enemies. If we're shaking up the show, then an Ed recast could have been in order." The more I think about an Amanda/Ed pairing, the more I like it. Both the expected AND unexpected ramifications of their pairing are many, and could veer in numerous directions yet maintain strong legitimacy. Working in tandem, those of us here could easily generate 20+ viable storylines from their pairing. As a consumer, I very much appreciate any form of entertainment (tv, music, film, books, paintings, etc.) that effectively manipulate me. It's one of the yardsticks I use to decide whether I believe the entertainment to be any good. An Ed/Amanda pairing I think could afford that opportunity. "I thought she laughed a little longer too. It doesn't seem to be any longer in the German episodes." I'm pretty sure there's more to it, following the announcement from A-M and Henry. I also very much appreciate how quietly foreboding the conversation is between Hart and Alex: Hart: "Where's he going? He's my father." Alex: "You don't want this, Hart. You don't." Hart: "Yes, I do." BINGO! Just 16 words spoken, more if you want to count hyphenations. No histrionics, no music overtures underscoring the importance of the message. Yet it's near perfect and immensely effective.

"Jeff Phillips is someone I liked & also thought he probably was underappreciated. He does good work in these scenes. I was just watching the Country Club scenes and not for the first time, boy, Kimberly Simms is on fire!!" Agreed. I thought Jeff Phillips was the best Hart that GL ever had. Believable as a farm boy who knew something about horses. (Yet another young actor that McKinsey obviously liked). Two-thirds or more of the GL actors were on fire back then. Great work all over the place. They knew they were riding high at the time. (When the new intro appeared January 1, 1991, I was immediately impressed with its stride and its sense of purpose. It beckoned viewers with the idea of "look at GL now, at how good it's become...and we all know it, on our side of the screen and on yours). The show was on to something and went with it. Lasted three years, a pretty decent stretch for any soap opera. BTW, the McKinsey monologue was done solo. No other character present. Should I come across it, I'll make public note of it. And, yes, that's the Alex scene I was talking about (three significant events happening in one day and her reaction to it). I thought the scene was longer - maybe there's more after the commercial break? Thank you, Contessa and PJ!