vetsoapfan

I am one of the people who loathe when soaps focus heavily on the mob and glorify degenerate criminals as romantic leads, so I had no interest in watching GH at the time. That being said, I do know numerous fans who have praised the Metro Court stuff. I noticed a major drop in quality on B&B after Bill Bill stepped down as head writer in 1993 and his son took over. I was sorely disillusioned by the soap medium by that point (except for Claire Labine's GH and Nancy Curlee's TGL), so I missed the Taylor-returns story as well.

Thank you, @Maxim, for alerting the community to these episodes. And as always, @DRW50, I appreciate your tagging me about such things which I might otherwise miss. It's true that I was disappointed in AW by 1981 and couldn't stomach watching the show live, but a break of 44 (!!!) years makes me less bitter about the show's destruction, and just seeing folks like Jim and Pat is nostalgic and touching. I'm looking forward to watching these eps.

I appreciate being tagged, as always. Thanks, @DRW50.

Thank you very much, @DRW50 These shows are new to me, but I am always interested in hearing about and listening to vintage radio broadcasts.

To be fair, any "sensational and lurid" rape storylines on DAYS in its first decade were conceived, plotted and launched by William J. Bell, the head writer. Early in her tenure as a dialogue writer on that soap, it wasn't PFS, herself, who "featured" the rapes. PFS is on record as being against the Bill/Laura Horton scenario, believing that this would never result in a beautiful love story. She was also against the idea of Jack Clayton sexually aggressing his stepdaughter Trish, when Bill Bell presented her with that saga. I don't remember her creating or writing rape stories on Where the Heart Is and/or Ryan's Hope either. As far as I know/can recall, the only sensational and lurid soap sexual-assault storyline that lives on in infamy, which can be attributed to Smith, is the irresponsible Luke/Laura fiasco.

The atrocious music changes discouraged me from buying the DVD sets. If Paramount were to restore the music, I'd probably but the series.

Thanks, @slick jones. I always appreciate getting tagged in posts of interest.

I'm glad that it's been remastered and looks outstanding. Now if the original music has been restored (as much as possible, anyway, with some serious effort made), the fans will be in ecstasy. I was over the moon with how well Time-Life brought China Beach to DVD.

Wait, what? The show has been remastered? The DVD and syndication versions were of poor quality and badly edited (or, more accurately, butchered). Could you tell if the original music was included in the remastered prints, or do we still get stuck with that dreadful musak replacement junk?

I would say that overall, no. The Dobson' brand of quirky storytelling and characters did not permeate GH the way it did Santa Barbara. Perhaps it was ABC or Bridget's parents who ruled the show with an iron fist at the time, but while they were overseeing Port Charles, GH was a fairly generic soap with only a quirky character or two (i.e. Kira Faulkner). It was interesting to see the ratings dwindle as their reign went on. The Dobsons were significantly superior to the next three headwriting teams who succeeded them.

ITA with all of your points. Y&R needs to move away from the dry, tedious boardroom plots and return to the lush romance and interpersonal relationships that brought the show its ratings success in days of yore. Do the majority of viewers even care about corporate takeovers and infighting? In a secondary capacity, perhaps, but not at the forefront of the show. Like all the remaining soaps, Y&R could easily clean house, and do away with some actors/characters who have long since run their course. Viewers are strongly attached to their vets, but having the bulk of their characters well over 50 leaves Genoa City feeling lopsided. TPTB have failed for years to nourish and replenish the younger generations and keep a solid balance of youth and maturity intertwined on the canvas. Its past time for Victor, Nikki, Jack, etc., to move into supporting-character status and for the writers to develop viable, charismatic romantic leads upon whom to build rich and emotion-based drama. With savvy PTB in charge, Y&R could regain its former glory.

I am curious: are there any changes TPTB could make on the current soaps to elevate them to greatness? Once upon a time, DAYS, Y&R and GH were masterfully done. I can't honestly say B&B was ever a "masterpiece," but it was certainly better under William J. Bell than Thudley. How would you polish up the existing soaps to elevate their quality and status? What characters/elements would you eliminate/introduce or reintroduce? Could you recommend any specific changes in the writing regimes? Would you change the length or frequency of episodes per week? Give your imagination and creative juices free reign!

This GIF is hilarious.

It's been my experience that many dedicated soap fans enjoy learning about the history of their shows. Every time I began watching a series which I had not followed from the very start, I did everything I could to acquaint myself with its past and discover as much information as I could. It adds so much to the enjoyment of the show as a whole.

While I have not watched any of the current soaps on a daily basis for many years, I still remain a staunch fan and advocate of the genre, thanks to the decades in which they were intelligently done and provided engrossing entertainment. Any opportunity to delve into and learn more about those glory days is a joy. Sharing links to rare episodes is a way all of us get to see material which we might otherwise miss, ourselves. Thanks!

Excellent work. We need documents like this for every year of every classic soap. Even the official history books, authorized by P&G and the networks, skimp on details, and many facts are glossed over or missing. Even worse, a lot of the "information" they provide is simply inaccurate. You should do summaries like this for every year of every serial you enjoy and find worthwhile. Collect everything together and publish it (even self-publish it!) in a book. Soap historians would be ecstatic.🙂

This is a hugely valuable document for preserving the rich history of our beloved soap operas. So much information we see about the early years is inaccurate, and a lot of data are missing altogether. No one seems to be intent on gathering and disseminating all the facts. Thank you for doing all the work it took to compose this in-depth synopsis. It is much appreciated.👍👏🤗

As a life-long soap viewer, it pains and baffles me to see that mediocre (or, worse, truly weak) scribes are allowed to continue writing the shows year after year. Just as frustrating, a handful of hacks keep getting shuffled around from series to series, regardless of how atrocious their previous material has proven to be. Granted, most of the master writers are no longer with us, but even hiring outside, new talent and giving them a shot would make more sense to me that allowing proven failures to remain employed forever.😡

Do you think any of the current soaps have scribes talented enough to write truly complex, three-dimensional characters? I think some actors can and do being nuances to their roles, but for the most part, the writing does not support them.

Thanks for the information. This had been nagging at me for years. Although I was watching well before 1968, I could not for the life if me remember everyone (or even anyone) moving from Selby Flats, Los Angeles to Springfield. I kept thinking, "How many episodes could I have possibly missed?" LOL. So the answer to the mystery is simple: TPTB just made the arbitrary decision to change locations without explanation. The rational eludes me. It's like Bay City, Michigan morphing into Bay City, Illinois with neither explanation nor reason. P&G's dropping the article "the" from The Guiding Light and The Edge of Night was another head-scratching move. God only knows what goes on in the minds of executives. Do they impose any mandates onto the shows just to justify their salaries?

Everyone's opinions are always wanted and appreciated; no requests are needed!🙃 The best thing about all these characters was that they were multi-faceted and layered. Drama is always more absorbing when we see conflicting dimensions to both the protagonists and the antagonists. Cardboard, cartoon villains quickly outstay their welcome. These ladies never did.

Oooh, what a thought-provoking question! The only good thing about being so old, LOL, is that I saw of all these fascinating women in their heyday. Lisa Miller really was the trailblazer. She was selfish, amoral and an unstoppable force in the beginning. She manipulated the Hughes family into giving her and Bob Grandpa 's bedroom because it was bigger, and because they supposedly needed it more. Kindly Grandpa didn't put up a fuss, but it infuriated the audience. Unsatisfied with Bob and bored by menial tasks like housework, Lisa hired a cleaning woman to deep-clean the house, then gallivanted off with her extramarital affair partner to cheat on Bob all day. Later, Nancy returned home, looked around at how spotless everything was, and exclaimed, "Why Lisa! How wonderful you are!" Lisa just preened and basked in the praise. I think that is when viewers truly started to loooooathe her. Rachel Davis and Erica Kane shared many traits in common, which is no surprise since Agnes Nixon freely acknowledged patterning Rachel after Erica, whom Nixon had conceived years earlier. The best thing about these women is that, while they were deeply flawed and destructive (as much to themselves to as those around them), they were both driven by pain; a feeling of rejection and abandonment by their fathers. Their thirst for money, position, and a better life was borne from a desperate need for validation and social acceptance. They drove us crazy,, but we couldn't help but pity them, too, because they were such suffering antagonists. At the beginning of Y&R, Jill Foster was actually seen as a hard-working, altruistic, decent young girl who stood by her family and was devoted to her single mother, even though we knew how sad and unfulfilled by life she was. She had dreams of a better existence, like so many people mired in poverty do, but she still had a sense of right and wrong. One day, a prostitute named Gwen Sherman came into the beauty salon where Jill worked. Upon hearing Jill long for the better things in life, Gwen assured her there were ways to make money quickly. She took Jill to the outskirts of Genoa City, to the bordello where Gwen worked, and let Jill look around. While we could tell that Jill was intrigued and tempted by the money potential, she ultimately realized she couldn't go through with it. Her morals wouldn't allow it. Sadly, as she was leaving, who should show up at the front door but Snapper, who was there with a buddy to partake in a night of sexual debauchery. Showing how much of a hypocrite he was, Snapper instantly erupted in disgust and fury at Jill, and smacked her hard across the face. As far as I know, she never went back to the cathouse. But continued hardship (and abuse by Katherine Chancellor) eventually wore away at Jill's soul and her dedication to morality started to fracture. We then saw what she became later in life. The best thing about Brooke Logan was her relationship with Stephanie, IMHO. They were Yings to each other's Yangs. Brooke reminded me of Jill Foster and how Jill evolved, but watching the years-long interplay between Stephanie and Brooke really gave B&B a strong foundation at its core. I don't think the show has ever fully rebounded from the loss of Stephanie Forrester. She was a force of nature! I'd put all these women in the "love to hate" category. There were characters who made you mad, made you swear at the TV, but most importantly made you WATCH. We couldn't look away because their antics were so absorbing. It's all relative of course, but I would rank my personal favorites as: 1. Rachel Davis 2. Lisa Miller 3. Jill Foster 4. Erica Kane 5. Brooke Logan

I tend to agree, because mainly TPTB try to manipulate the audience into seeing the producers' and writers' own designated couples as the ones we are supposed to root for (whether the actors actually have chemistry or not). Viewers will only see romantic pairings as "super couples" worthy of being "endgame" if their charisma and chemistry ignites our imagination and devotion. Jacquie Courtney and George Reinholt sizzled together on screen. Their "je ne sais quoi" appeal was tangible and magnetic. Yet, the triangle was made even more memorable by the layers and facets the writers instilled in Rachel. Her behavior and actions were heinous, but she was so broken and miserable, we could see her pain. Multi-dimensional villains are much more interesting than the flat, cartoonish ones so often seen in the modern-day soaps. Give me a Rachel Davis over a Stefano DiMera any day.

I always had a soft spot for Cathy Greene, the original actress who played Sally as a young child. Of the adult performers, I think MPK had the most charisma and likeability factor.

Gary Tomlin, the writer at the time of JC's return in 1984, later admitted that he had not studied the history of the character, and therefore didn't really know what to do with her. I was dumfounded. I suppose I appreciated Tomlin's being honest and taking the blame for the fiasco, but what sort of careless incompetence leads to not DOING YOUR JOB and researching your own show? If Susan Lucci returned to AMC after an extended break, and TPTB did nothing with her except have her be a talk-to for Bianca, would that be an acceptable excuse? ("Oh, we didn't know much about Erica and what she meant to the audience, so we basically ignored her...then we dumped her because she wasn't making the ratings soar.")🙄