vetsoapfan

We are so fortunate that all these vintage treasures survived!

I'm sure it was more than just a (slight) degradation in Hulswit's appearance which led to his termination. Douglas Marland was too vitriolic, almost gleefully so, about the actor for the firing to be about MH's looks. And truth be told, Peter Simon was quite close in age to Hulswit, and had thinning hair as well, so Marland's contention that they needed a "younger, sexier Ed" was absurd.

Years ago, I read a column by Soap Opera Weekly editor Mimi Torchin. She wrote about an interview she had had with executive producer Gail Kobe, under whom The Guiding Light was decimated in 1983/4. Kobe and a novice writer named Pamela Long quickly eliminated 2/3 of the core cast, and introduced outlandish, campy stories to a show that had previously been literate and adult and predicated primarily on family dynamics and interpersonal relationships. Kobe told Torchin that plot was more important than the characters; that viewers tuned in to see "exciting" stories more than any specific set of characters. The fact that a woman who had such an erroneous perception of the soap opera genre was allowed to eliminate beloved characters, including the central Bauer family, and completely rebrand a show that had been successful for decades, boggled my mind. PTB who fail to understand how much viewers care about the characters are the ones who cripple the soaps. Sure, storylines are important, but if they are given to characters whom we do not care about, we are not going to waste time watching. I have often remained loyal to soaps during their badly-written and badly-produced periods, simply because I wanted to continue seeing characters in whom I had an emotional interest. If "my" characters are axed, and I am only left with weak stories, I tune out. It's my contention that putting plot mechanics over beloved characters has damaged most of the soaps over the last few decades. All this to say: I agree with you. Viewers care more about the characters than most new producers and writers ever could. The Guiding Light killed off matriarch Bert Bauer the year after actress Charita Bauer died in real life. Even so, because there had been a major gutting of the cast, very few characters remained on-screen who had had close ties to Bert, and no past characters were brought back for the memorial. As a decades-long viewer, it was disappointing to see. I almost would have preferred if the show had done nothing, and left fans with the idea that Bert Bauer was still alive and well and living in Florida with her sister-in-law. If Emmerdale went ahead with a funeral for Annie, and it was only attended by Victoria, Diane and the Dingles, I would be equally vexed, LOL.

Perfectly said.

Douglas Marland clearly had a personal beef with Hulswit, and was uncharacteristically obnoxious in the press about the actor. He mocked Hulswit for being a "dodo," and claimed that Lenore Kasdorf loathed working with him. How rude. Sadly, O'Leary was not as funny as he might have imagined, and his Rick Bauer became more of an irritant than a viable romantic lead or patriarch. He had very little chemistry with most women he was paired with and his mugging made me impatient. His best chemistry was with GA in their early years together. I would have replaced Rick with Tuc Watkins, who could actually be amusing on-screen AND function as a sexy leading man. (And for the record, I would NEVER have written out Ed and Holly. They eventually became the only remaining links to the "real" TGL of the past. They'd be eliminated over my dead body, LOL.) Robert Gentry was also excellent as Ed, and played the character's inner conflicts with gusto. Watching the show live as I did back then, I was disappointed when Gentry left, but Hulswit quickly won me over. Both actors could convey varying emotions with ease. Both actors were handsome and interesting to watch. The problem I had with Simon was that he was so listless and passive in the role. Ed no longer had the passion and fire that had always made him INTERESTING. Simon's Version was simply colorless. No wonder he faded into the background under writers who neither knew nor cared about the character's historical importance to the show and its core. I've always wondered about this too. After Simon quit the first time, Marland was gone, so it would have been the perfect opportunity to rehire Hulswit. Instead, the show went with Richard Van Fleet, who was a worse recast than Simon. Totally wrong for the part. Shudder. When TGL later rehired Robert Gentry to assume the role, I was hoping for a resurgence in the character's importance, but the show barely used Gentry and then dropped him from the canvas, only to hire Simon again. God only knows what goes on in the minds of TPTB. If Hulswit was the one who declined returning to the show, I would understand and accept that, but I have never heard that they even asked him back.

Hulswit was an excellent Ed. Replacing him with a morose, listless and reserved Peter Simon was a major mistake. Simon was excellent on SFT and even ATWT, but his interpretation of Ed left a lot to be desired, particularly when you compared him to the warm-but-sometimes-fiery Ed Bauer as played by Hulswit. TPTB claimed they replaced Hulswit because they wanted a younger, sexier Ed, which was absurd. Viewers do not need every actor on the soaps to be a hunk. (That being said, I personally found Mart Hulswit to be adorable.) Indeed, part of the appeal soap patriarchs and matriarchs have is that they look and "feel" like our own parents and grandparents. After Mike and Bert Bauer were gone, Ed became the family patriarch, and I don't believe anyone in the audience would have had trouble with him looking like one. Did anyone reject Bert Bauer for being chubby? Lila Quartermaine for being in a wheelchair? Katherine Chancellor for having a weathered face? On the contrary; viewers adored them all and were fiercely protective of them, regardless of their age and physical appearance. The audience is not as shallow as TPTB imagines.

Oh, okay, that makes sense. Thanks for telling me. The show is careless and stupid for doing this now.

Where was Diane? Instead of Marlon, I would have preferred to see Annie's daughter-in-law at the graveyard with Victoria.

Wonderful ideas. It always strikes me that long-time fans have better and more respectful ideas of how to say goodbye to beloved veteran characters/actors than TPTB do. I remember on The Guiding Light, possibly my all-time favorite show, the "tribute" they gave to its matriarch Bert Bauer was pathetic and mishandled to the point of being infuriating. TGL had its own version of the Dingles, the Shayne family, in attendance...while so many important characters who SHOULD have been there were glaringly absent. While I'm not expecting much at all, I hope Emmerdale handles Annie's tribute better.

If you could be in charge of producing the tribute on the show, how would you handle it, and what characters/actors would you try to bring back for guest appearances?

This is dreadful. I have not had access to the series for a long time, so I cannot watch it any longer. The "older characters," therefore, remain forefront in my mind. Killing off an iconic character like Annie, the original hub of the wheel, may be inevitable, but NOW? When a respectful and full-blown tribute to the actress and the character will be basically impossible. What a bitter disappointment.

I have two VHS tapes of this...somewhere. Unfortunately, they were not among the tons of material I sent to a friend, which he later digitized for internet purposes. If I find the tapes, and if they are still playable, I'll let you know.

She was there at the beginning of the story, and then sort of "petered out" (yikes, bad pun!) as it went on. It was weird. Chris and Snapper were on a vendetta to get rapist Ron Becker, and they became a focal part of the action. Several weeks went by without anyone in the family even saying Peggy's name. That "someone" might have been me, LOL. Peggy put in a brief appearance on the day that the Brooks sisters gathered at their parents' house when Jennifer died. As the other three sisters were comforting each other, we saw Peggy running out of the living room. That was at the end of one episode. At the beginning of the next one, Chris asked, "Where's Peg?" Lorie replied that Peggy was unable to handle the situation, and had left. It was quite...glaring that the actress/character was not used throughout the saga surrounding her mother's death. All the other sisters were featured prominently. (Pam Peters had appeared on another episode a while earlier, on the day of Stuart's and Jennifer's 30th wedding anniversary, however.) She appeared at the beginning of the trial, but was glaringly absent later on as the story unfolded. I always wondered if TPTB gave her another chance in later years because SO MANY of the original actors were leaving, and the show needed familiar faces on board. Patricia Everly was a dud. (Aside from Jess Walton, Y&R did not have a lot of success recasting core characters.) Actually, another thing that bothered me about Peggy's rape trial: the courtroom was basically empty. Chris was there one day when she came to testify, but in general, none of Peggy's family attended. I was used to the P&G soaps, which always had the courthouse benches packed with familiar characters whenever there was a trial. I wondered if it was a budget consideration for Y&R; if the show did not want to pay for leading actors just to sit silently in the background.

Pam Peters was gone a great deal of the time in 1976 and 1977. Anthony Herrera said that at one point, while filming, she looked directly into the camera, announced, "I don't understand this scene!" and simply walked out. Her absence during Peggy's rape trial (!!!) and during important moments regarding Jennifer Brooks' death suggested to me that the actress had issues on set.

I have read more than one interview in which Bell confirmed that saving all the episodes was mandated in his original contract when he created the show. My memory bank is too clogged with data to remember the specific titles or dates of those interviews, however.

Right. It is only NOW that many of my decades-old videotapes and audiotapes are being digitized and shared on the internet, by technology-savvy people who know how to do it. Had it been left up to me, all my vintage material would probably have withered away and remained unseen by other fans, because I just did not have the equipment and the know-how to share it on-line. Thank heavens for hardworking friends who do! As soap fans, we all win when we share rare or long-lost videos!

That's why the revisited Steve and Alice story bombed. (To be fair, even though the writing was weak, David Canary was a fine actor, and had he been paired with Jacquie Courtney, there might have been some sparks there. But with bad writing, a "new" Steve, a tepid Alice, and careless misuse of history, it was all doomed to fail.)

I think TPTB tried, but there were issues with the actress.

UGH, two of the worst writers to hit daytime TV.

I have uploaded the first four years' worth of story synopses (as well as lots of other early Y&R goodies) in my Vetsoapfan's Treasure Trove: Vintage Soap Material. They are on page three. And just for clarification purposes: the sleazy photographer who tried to lure Jill and Chris into "erotic" modelling was Michael Gregory, the first Rick Webber on GH, not Chris Robinson (who was Rick Webber number two). I remember that episode soooooo well. I was shocked when Chris strode out of his office in indignant rage, but Jill hung around and went back in, offering her services to him. I thought, "Liz Foster would have a STROKE! And Snapper would be MURDEROUS!" Another memorable episode was when Jill accompanied one of her clients, Gwen Sherman, to the "cathouse" on the edge of town where Gwen worked. Wouldn't you know it, while Jill was checking out the establishment, Snapper arrived at the front door to hook up with a prostitute. He took one look at Jill, became enraged, and smacked his sister right across the face. (Of course, his hypocrisy was glaring!)

The Chris/Snapper romance, Chris' rape, etc., were stories told during the show's first few months, and Bell was justifiably proud of the excellent work he was doing. I understand him being discouraged at not having stellar ratings instantly, but as a writer who had been working on soaps since the 1950s, he should have known to be patient. ATWT, AW and DAYS (series he had written prior to Y&R) ALL took a year or two before their ratings began to climb significantly. How dumb to talk about cancelling a show that was making him money and was less than a year old. He's lucky the network showed more patience than Bell did. Yikes!

Oh yes, I remember Bell saying that the initial ratings disappointed him, but CBS was satisfied because they knew that every new soap opera takes a while to build up its audience. Bell remarked that all the shows he had ever written had become highly successful in the ratings and he expected the same for Y&R. IIRC, by 1975, it had already ascended to the top three (behind ratings powerhouses ATWT and AW), which was remarkable. The writers' strike saw most soaps' writing take a nose-dive, but when Bill Bell was at the helm, Y&R was amazing. Soap fans were so fortunate to have him and other master writers (Agnes Nixon, Harding Lemay, Henry Slesar, Claire Labine, Pat Falken Smith, Douglas Marland, etc.) at the top of their game in the 1970s. Today, none of the remaining soaps has a truly talented headwriter.

Please do try and find that interview. I've read and watched many interviews with him over the decades, and only heard him sing the show's praises. It would be fascinating to read an article in which he hoped his own show and money-making machine would get axed. (I'm not being snarky or sarcastic; I'd really like to see that.)

Yep, that certainly is true: the internet can be awash with...((ahem))...interesting people. 🤣

I have literally never heard any rumors about Bill Bell being unhappy with the first year of the show. Indeed, the only comments I have ever read and heard from him were about how proud he was of Y&R during its debut season and how successful it was. When the show was not instantly at the top of the ratings, some fans wrote into the soap magazines wondering if it might be cancelled, but Bell was quoted as saying that CBS was happy with the show's steadily-increasing ratings and there was no concern about cancellation. I DO recall Bell saying that if he could do the early years over again, with a significantly higher budget and all the advantages of modern technology, he would love to see what it would look like. As for the Bell/Conboy feud, I do believe it's well documented that Bill and Conboy had issues working together. Particularly after Conboy wanted Bell replaced, LOL. But their differences aside, what the two men produced together on-screen during the 1970s was soap magic. Who claims Bill Bell hated his own show? That contradicts all the print and video interviews I've ever read and seen with him discussing and praising its first years. I've only ever read that he would have liked to see what those early episodes would look like if they could have been done on a much-higher budget and using more modern filming techniques. The show did not move at a glacial pace in 1973 at all. Indeed, part of its appeal was that viewers applauded how fast the stories moved, and that you HAD to watch every day to keep up (which was a genius move on the show's part; forcing viewers to watch more regularly and therefore become more attached). It only took Chris and Snapper nine months to make it down the aisle. Contrast that that Bell's Days of Our Lives, in which it took Laura and Bill Horton...nine YEARS, LOL). Yes, during the 1970s, the show was really on fire and it revolutionized the soap opera genre. Today it is bland, listless and generic (admittedly, like all the other soaps still on the air). What a shame.