vetsoapfan

Throughout the decades, I have been a major fan of many supercouples, but only when their their storylines remained grounded in the realm of believability and relative reality. Bill and Laura and Doug and Julie on DAYS, Brad and Leslie and Chris and Snapper on Y&R, Steve and Alice on AW, Laura and Scotty on GH; I could name many pairs. But once the uber villains, spies, mad scientists, ghosts, clones, time travellers and Satan entered the soap equation, I was totally turned off. Supercouples' conflict with a bitter ex lover or baby mama was realistic and compelling; supercouples battling a mad scientist freezing the world or a rapidly-aging clone was too stupid to endure. After loving DAYS since the beginning, I endured the terrible Ann Marcus period, and even survived my way through Nina Laemmle's debacle, but James Reilly made me finally abandon the show. I could never watch it again after what he did to it. (Yes, I know: to each his own, and there were folks who enjoyed/still enjoy supernatural, sci-fi and low-brow camp elements. That is fine, but I'm just not one of them. I truly believe they destroyed the soaps.)

I don't think folks are upset about soaps' being renewed; I see viewers desperately advocating for better product to warrant the shows' continued existence, and to make soaps worthwhile and enjoyable to watch again. I'm know I am a curmudgeon about quality, LOL, but to me, the last time DAYS was well written was under Pat Falken Smith in 1982. I've been more than patient!🤣

Please, Lord, let Ron be replaced, sooner rather than later. Two more years of his material is the stuff nightmares are made of.

I would say that the period written by Agnes Nixon and then the first few years of the Lemay era (1971-74) were the best. The show was weaker between Nixon and Lemay, when Cenedella was on his own, but still okay. IMHO, the writing started to show cracks in 1975, and Lemay's material from 1976 until he left was a step down from his earlier stuff. Again, JMHO.

No, if you've only watched episodes 1-8, you still have number 9 to see, which is the first season's finale.

Joan Bennett received $1,000.00 per week for her starring role on Dark Shadows, which began in 1966. Adjusted for inflation, her yearly $52,000.00 salary would be $480,149.38 today. This is excellent pay, of course, but we've heard horror stories about newbie daytime actors earning surprisingly low salaries during the 1960s and well into the 1970s. I imagine TPTB continued to nickel-and-dime most soap performers for as long as they could, and only lavished good salaries on the superstars of the genre, In January of 1971, Daytime TV magazine (how I miss the golden age of soap mags!) wrote: "Would you like to know what actors now get on daytime serials? The new AFTRA (union) minimum fee is $175 for one show, $350 for two, $525 for three, $650 for four, and $790 for five shows a week."

On the 60-minute version of Another World, George Reinholt said that his contract guaranteed him $70,000.00 a year. Presumably, Jacqueline Courtney would have been receiving similar pay. When the stars transferred over to OLTL, Reinholt acknowledged that ABC would never go that high. For the 30-minute One Life, Reinholt and Courtney received $35,000.00. Even that was allegedly much higher than what other actors were getting at the time, however, which created conflict. Erika Slezak acknowledged other performers wanted their salaries increased to be aligned with what George and Jacquie were receiving. That was in 1975. There's no way any actor on the show would jump to a million-dollar salary within five years.

I love rare/obscure finds like this. Thanks, @slick jones!

When folks are melting down and gnashing their teeth over all these minor, absurd "issues," you know they have lost their minds, LOL. I think FEDRA is run by the "remaining government," and the Fireflies are members a resistance force, so I don't believe FEDRA is run by the Fireflies. The two organizations appear to be battling each other. Check out this essay on the two groups: https://mashable.com/article/the-last-of-us-fireflies-fedra-hbo Pedro Pascal gets cuter and more appealing every time I see him! The fact that soaps no longer even attempt drama like this is a major reason why soaps are failing, IMHO. I'm very impressed by the casting of this series. Everyone, from the leading regulars to the one-time guest stars and bit players are impressive. What did you think of the third episode? I've watched eight of the season's nine episodes as of right now. Every one of them has been a roller-coaster ride.

In her book, Ellen Holly is honest about her bafflement/disappointment over suddenly playing opposite an "old man," IIRC.

Thanks for pointing that out. It never fails to amaze me what fans can find in the nooks and crannies of the internet!

It was so weird transitioning from Robert Milli to Nat Polen in the role of Jim Craig. The potential romantic future of Carla and Jim instantly disappeared (Polen was simply not a viable partner for her) and never even mentioned again in subsequent years. I can relate. After 30-40-50 years, some memories get muddled or simply vanish altogether. It happens to all of us. I remember Pryce Trainor, and a policeman named Jack Neal, both of whom could have made long-term on-screen partners for Carla, but they both only last about two years. In the end, it worked out for the best, because we were blessed with Al Freeman as Ed Hall.

It's even more egregious to see absolute trash being rewarded, as in this case.💩🤢

I have to laugh at how enraged the intellectually- and socially-limited fan boys are, as they scream about how the inclusion of LGBTQ+ characters in the mix is "destroying the show" because "there were no qu**r characters in the game." Um, hello? They obviously never played the original games or know anything about them. They are just jumping on the homophobic bandwagon and soiling their painties in rage out of knee-jerk (emphasis on the "jerk," LOL) bigotry. Their impotent fury is hilarious. Whatever would they do if faced with actual, real problems?

I think most actors would be honored to be associated with the fine writing and directing of that episode (although, I must say, the series has not produced a clunker of an episode yet).

I agree. Often, "genre" series (sci-fi, horror) are under-appreciated at award times, but I can see episode three being nominated in multiple areas, and deserving to win. I am majorly crushing on Pedro Pascal. ZADDY!!!

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.