vetsoapfan

Maybe I should refrain from admitting that I cried during four consecutive episodes.😪

Ahhh, when the dreaded Paul Roach butchered yet another once-grand soap. Sigh.

In Christopher Schemering's book about the show, Gail Kobe acknowledges that writing out core characters (as Kobe and Long had done) was extremely unpopular with the fans, and that viewers should not be surprised to see Mike and Hope written back into the story. Of course, they never were. Soap Opera Digest did a survey about TGL after the 1980s overhaul, and respondents were very vocal about their displeasure over losing so many important, beloved characters. (Viewers were particularly furious over losing the Bauers). So TPTB were well aware of how damaging the cast purge had been to the show, but did little to remedy the situation until the eventual return of Christina as Blake, and Holly and Roger. (IMHO, it was not enough; we still needed Mike and Hope, but at least it was something.) Peter Simon once spoke about the mass firings, and said that of all the vets who got axed at that time, Tom O'Rourke was the last to go, and on his last day, he ranted and raved on the way out the door. As you say, Carl, O'Rourke was attractive, charismatic and a good actor who could have easily remained on the series. Recasting Justin with the wildly inappropriate Christopher Pennock was a bust. Neither Pennock nor Peter Simon exuded the appeal that O'Rourke and Mart Hulswit had, and TGL suffered for it. And hiring Toby Poser as Amanda, and making her Alan's sister (which was historically impossible from what had played out on screen)? EGADS! Soooooooo wrong.

Right. Of course when actors pass away IRL, or choose to leave a show of their own accord, TPTB have to make adjustments, and changes are unavoidable. Introducing new characters into the mix is also essential as shows grow, thrive and evolve. It's just too jarring and off-putting, however, when a show decides to axe, say, 14 characters in quick succession and suddenly introduce a gaggle of 12 newbies to replace them. The audience is wont to revolt and reject the new characters in cases like that. We need to be introduced to new people slowly and judiciously, and get to know and like them before they take over the entire proceedings.

What I found most vexing about the axing-the-vets agenda, was that so many of the newbies who were hired after the vets were dismissed failed to catch on. Soaps developed a revolving-door policy, with new characters coming and going all the time. I think viewers would have preferred to see their "old friends," even occasionally on recurring, than having irrelevant strangers paraded across the screen. I did not care about Derek Mallory as chief of police, even if he was (allegedly) a "hunk." I wanted to see the wise, capable Bill Marceau in charge. Helen Wagner did say at the time she was offered the option of going on recurring, but she pointed out that Nancy and Chris were barely being used while they were still on contract, and found it degrading to be told that she may or may not get occasional appearances after being taken off contract. Don McLaughlin did accept the recurring option, and he was treated like a glorified under-fiver until Douglas Marland returned to the show and brought Chris and Nancy back. And Mike and Hillary and Amanda and...the list was endless, LOL. Soaps 101 for clueless PTB: don't made sudden, sweeping, unnecessary changes to a show that is already working quite well.

I agree; I'd probably have put some of them on recurring, but would have kept Steve Jackson around as Bert's companion until Charita Bauer passed away at least. And he was Frederick's grandfather, so he could have been used from time to time as a "town elder/patriarch figure" even after Bert was gone. I also would have kept Sara around. God knows, there were always enough Springfieldians who could use her help. Springfield was an alien land by the mid-1980s, with only Jerry ver Dorn being left over from the "good old days."

Marland commented, however, that if he had been allowed to keep those characters, he would have used them. I think TPTB were simply on a gut-the-vets kick in the 1980s. Some veteran players like Barbara Norris could arguably be put on recurring or even written out because of their dwindling ties to the canvas, but P&G allowed Nancy Hughes from ATWT, Bill Marceau from TEON, Pat Randolph from AW, and a host of other beloved, core characters to be gutted, regardless of their continued importance and storyline potential on their series. The suits never seem to understand how important familar faces and belovecd characters are to the audience, even if their characters are not at the forefront of driving front-buner stories all the time.

The definitive truth is probably lost to history by now. During Douglas Marland's time as headwriter, he said in an interview that "the suits" were already pressuring him to dump vets in favor of younger newbies. Certainly the similar destruction of ATWT in the early 1980s adds creedence to his allegation. Many reports indicated that producer Gail Kobe was a negative force, complaining about and axing long-running actors all over the place. She infamously told journalist Mimi Torchin that in her opinion, plot was more important than characters in soaps. Newbie writer Pam Long said in an interview that her first move was to "cut all the dead wood" from the cast. (IMHO, there was no dead wood to eliminate...especially not 2/3 of the established actors, who got their walking papers under the new team of Kobe and Long.) I think the soap's destruction came primarily from the massive and unnecessary cast purge and the sudden introduction of cretionously stupid sci-fi/supernatural/fantasy storylines that did not belong on the type of reality-based drama TGL had been for 45 years. So, was the massacre of the show due to mandates from P&G? From the ignorance and arrogance of the new regime who did not know or care about TGL and its history? We'll probably never know for sure, but I'd say there was probably enough blame to go around, and bad decisions were made by everyone involved.

The return of Roger and Holly, vastly-improved writing, and some threads of continuity from the past, helped TGL rebound significantly from the sludge thrown at viewers throughout most of the 1980s. It didn't last more than a few years, but it was a welcome resurgance of a show that had been decimated for most of the decade. IMHO, in the early years, Roger was a deeply-flawed and unhappy man who was presented in morally-ambiguous shades of gray. Once he became a rapist, female abuser and kidnapper, however, the character became an out-an-out villain. I was disappointed to see this play out, because I always find complex, three-dimensional and complicated characters to be significantly more mesmerizing than simple "good" or "bad" people. Fortunately for viewers, Michael Zaslow was brilliant enough to bring nuance to any material.

Many years ago, when I was videotrading regularly, someone who said he had a huge stash of TGL eps from the 1970s contacted me, offering to sell me the set. He was totally unknown to me, and no one in the usual trading circles knew him either. He claimed to have a few years' worth of eps from 1975 (I think) to 1978, which he had allegedly recorded on videotaped for his mother/grandmother. He wanted (IIRC) two thousand dollars because of the rareness of the collection. I asked if he could send me a sample video, with brief excerpts from various episodes, so I could verify the picture and sound quality (a sample video of, say, 20 minutes for which I would pay). He said no, and claimed to be insulted that I did not just "take his word" for it. Pffft! When I remarked that I would never send thousands of dollars to a total stranger with no verification about the existence and/or quality of the videotapes, he became aggressive and then disappeared, and I never heard from him again. Of course I KNOW I was right to decline his "offer," but since then, I have often daydreamed...what if he WASN'T a total scam artist? How wonderful it would be to see vintage Bauers, vintage Roger and Holly, vintage material from the Dobsons again. Sigh. As you say, little or no material from the early Garrett/Zaslow years has even surfaced in the ensuing decades. I have to say, in regards to Simms' comments, many of us oldtimers had seen Zaslow as a romantic leading man early on and not just a villain. He was originally written as a deeply flawed individual in deep pain and with an enormous capacity for love (some would say obsession). Along with Holly, his chemistry was strong with Peggy too. I definitely saw Roger and Holly as End Game, but I would not have been devastated in he had ended up with Peggy, considering how toxic and violent his past with Holly was.

So many excellent soap episodes disappear from youtube regularly, it's always appreciated when re-uploads are referenced. I wish the 1966 episode, with Bert castigating Robert Gentry's Ed for being "small" compared to his father would pop back up. I thought I had saved it, but it must have been on one of my USB devices which got corrupted and died. It's true that in "modern-day" soap storytelling, murder is no big deal. Neither is kidnapping, rape, and a host of other ills, which is why the shows today have so little emotional power, IMHO. Who wants to see morally-bankrupt cretins getting away forever with their crimes...and being treated as romantic leads in the process? Not me. I've always thought Marland's killing off Diane Ballard (and even, to a lesser extent, Joe Bradley) to be poor creative choices. Both actors were strong and charismatic, and could have driven story for ages.

Thank for the links to the episodes from 1980, @DRW50, when our show was still...the show we loved and recognized!

As we know, Tony Geary debuted on GH with straight hair, but as his role expanded, his hair was permed, he was paired with Laura, and the cultural-media frenzy took off. Rod Arrants had originally had straight hair on Y&R and DAYS. I may be misremembering this because of Chastain's comments in his interview, but I could have sworn Rusty began on SFT with natural locks before his afro showed up. Maybe not. My ancient memory is not what it once was, LOL! When former PTB like Chastain complain about the higher-ups' meddling and baffling mandates (in this case, allegedly directlng Rusty Sentell to have curly hair in homage to Luke Spencer), however, I admit that I am wont to believe them. They have to bite the bullet and remain silent during their years of employment, and I can see them finally letting loose and speaking openly after they are free of constraints. Of course, this is just my gut sense. Whether Chastain was simply initiating an urban legend about this--or carrying on an urban legend created by other sources--I cannot say definitively. Certain stories are easily indentifiable as urban myths, like Robin Strasser and Susan Lucci being Phyllis Diller's daughters (!!!), but the Rusty-perm situation, to me, could go either way. So, you're sure that Travis DID have the perm when he showed up on SFT, which was before Luke showed up on GH? Okay, I'll trust your memory. As I say, Chastain's commentary may have muddled mine. Thanks for the clarification.

Exactly. And what kills me, is TPTB have continued to make the exact same, idiotic and destructive choices for FORTY FREAKING YEARS, about what they dish out on the soaps. There are knowledgeable, savvy, creative soap historians on this and other sites whom I guarantee would make better choices and be more adept at steering the remaining soaps in the right direction.

Back in the day, while all soaps had certain elements in common (continuing storylines, cliffhangers, family conflict, romance, etc), they were prone to having unique identities as well. The Edge of Night was vastly different from As the World Turns, for example. General Hospital was vastly different from Another World. Early All My Children was very different from The Young and the Restless. As time went on and the creative voices of the masters were snuffed out, the "suits" started to micro-manage the soaps and wanted them all to copy whatever seemed popular at the time on other high-profile soaps. Writer Don Chastain of Search for Tomorrow, openly complained that the network and P&G did not want his show to focus on what was best suited for SFT with its own unique history and identity; they mandated that he had to copy what General Hospital was doing with Luke and Laura and their adventures. SFT's leading man even had to perm his hair, because GH's Luke Spencer had curly hair, and was receiving tons of media coverage (any idiot would understand that it was not only because of Tony Geary's frizzy afro). GH had gained a lot of media coverage for its idiotic Ice Princess story, about a mad scientist freezing the world in 1981. Clueless suits jumped to the conclusion that sci-fi camp was why the ratings had spiked, not understanding or paying attention to the fact that the ratings were already sky-high because of the intelligent, absorbing romantic storylines (written by Douglas Marland and Pat Falken Smith) playing out long before a scab writer foisted the Ice Princess dreck onto Port Charles. Low-brow camp started permeating daytime in general, and the initial novelty lured new viewers in for a while, even as it alienated die-hard, long-term fans. As the novelty wore off and fly-by-night viewers drifted away, however, many life-time soap viewers didn't seem interested in coming back after the shows' "reality bubbles" had been burst. IMHO, the supernatural/sci-fi/camp material ultimately killed the genre. Even if some of the soaps which "went there" got surges in the ratings for a while. After those type of stories burned out, soaps' ratings ended up being lower than they had ever been before. The most successful genre soap was Dark Shadows, but even that only last five years. Passions had its tiny cult following and last eight (?) seasons, but was never a true hit in any mainstream sense. Days of Our Lives is the remaining soap that still persists in telling the most egregiously-stupid storylines imagineable, and it's the one with the weakest ratings, even though it does have some viewers who actively support its brand of lunacy. Alas, its "days" are numbered, and it's my contention that the plot choices and writing have led to its downfall.

Yes, once upon a time, soaps were both hugely profitable for the networks AND capable of providing high-quality, absorbing drama that kept millions of viewers hooked for years/decades/generations of families. Those days are long gone, alas.

Thank you for thinking of me. Over the years, I've vehemently complained (many would say ad nauseum, LOL) about how the quality of the medium has dive-bombed since the golden age of soap operas. Long-time readers of SON are surely well aware of my opinions by now. The main thing I would like to reiterate is, that during daytime dramas' halcyon years (the 1950s-1970s for most shows, into the 1980s for a lesser number of them, and then into the 1990s for a few), high-quality material was to be expected. It was maintained by many/most soaps on a consistent basis. If individual programs faltered, steps were taken within a reasonable time to correct the problems (obviously weak/incompent PTB were replaced). Viewers could simply take intelligent, well-produced drama for granted. The cracks started to appear in the 1980s, with the crippling science-fiction/fantasy craze, and got worse over the decades that followed. Shows' individual nature and unique identities were gutted, as veteran actors were jettisoned, as history was ignored, and finally, as soaps in general seemed to become dumbed down for gum-chewing high-school drop-outs who moved their lips when they read. (Excuse the sarcasm.) Poorly-chosen writers and producers, who failed miserably at one show, were routinely shuffled to another one, only to fail there too. It was (and is) unfathomable how proven incompetence can be rewarded by consistently employing the incompetent to wreak havoc on multiple shows, with similar damaging results at each one. Irna Phillips, Agnes Nixon, William J. Bell, Henry Slesar, Claire Labine, Douglas Marland, Pat Falken Smith and other writers of their ilk being rotated among soaps was a blessing. James Reilly, Ron Carlivati, Thom Racina, Charles Pratt, Megan McTavish, Hogan Sheffer, Jean Passanante, etc.? Not so much, in my personal, curmudgeonly opinion. During my most obsessed/addicted period in the 1970s (soaps' very best decade IMHO), I followed most of the shows on the air. God only knows how I juggled them all. I would alternate watching or recording some of them which were on competing networks at the same time, but there were several dramas that I would never miss if I could help it. I thought the glory days would go on forever, but by the end of the 1980s, I was down to following only a handful of shows, and in the 1990s, it was only Claire Labine's General Hospital, Douglas Marland's ATWT and Nancy Curlee's TGL that captivated me. All this to say: watching the good old days of soaps was a blessing, and I am happy knowing what the medium was capable of; the heights it soared to at its peak. That's why seeing what it has disintegrated into today is so heartbreaking.

Thank you, @slick jones. I've been looking forward to this.

This is new to me, and I'll happily take episodes of vintages soaps any way I can get them. Thanks, Carl!

I agree. JvD had become the beloved spokesperson of the show and should have been retained at all costs. Watching the final months of the series, there were so many miscast actors and totally irrelevant, useless characters in the mix, they all could have and should have been let go before our Ross Marler. While there are mixed opinions on TGL's Ritournelle/light-through-the trees opening and the "lifesavers"/floating breast implants opening, I am relieved to see universal disdain for TGL's dreadful 2003/power-point mess and ATWT's hard-to-stomach "gold" disaster. Even I did not love the "hairy-arm" opening, despite being touched by hearing the iconic Destiny poem every day. I would have preferred having a recording of Rev. Ruthledge narrating the piece (the audio exists), with vintage stills of the show's 70-year history playing on screen. The hairy arms and the kids' narration were off-putting, to say the least.

I did not like TGL's disco theme/opening, and was relieved that it did not last too, too long. An executive at the time reported that it was hugely unpopular with the audience, and fans made their ire well known, so it was replaced. Personally, I loathed other openings more than that disco one, however. This one looked like it had been made by a high-school kid during a rushed 30-minute lunch break at school and was really cheap and tacky; such a come-down from the likes of Ritournelle, My Guiding Light and even Hold onto Love (which I thought was a decent fit for the show. The boob-implants floating across the screen atrocity was also dreadful. As for ATWT, I voted thumbs down to the 1981-93 opening, the 2006-09 one, and the 2009-10 (final) one. The visuals for the toilet-flushing opening were fine, but I disliked the music. Probably the worst opening ATWT ever had, though, was the "gold" opening. Weak music and awful visuals.

I was thinking of TGL yesterday, because of its anniversary, and I realized that there were some of its beautiful theme songs that I still remembered and enjoyed, so I checked them out on youtube. Of course, this led me down a rabbit hole of tons of my favorite themes and musical cues from all my favorite series. Great memories! (Of course, along with the lovely themes of the past, there were some real stinkers too. TGL and ATWT foisted some dreadful ones on us!)

Even today, the classic themes (the ones I loved) make me verklempt!

The Guiding Light made its debut 86 years ago today, on January 25, 1937. While all soaps have their ups and down during their lifespans, to me, TGL boasted the longest, continuous run of quality in the genre.

@DRW50, I also felt that 1996 was a very bad year for our show. John Valente was not good for the show. The writing was weak. The screen was filled with a plethora of people I did not want to watch. Little did I know that everything would get even WORSE as the years went on.