EricMontreal22

My pleasure.

Oh! When I'm done grad school in two weeks and Christmas stuff maybe I'll try to upload some key episodes that aren't there. I admit I did a quick look and I think a few years back there were a lot more episodes from the Murders on YT that seem to be down (I remember the creepy one with Curtis' hospital hydrotherapy bath death being there). I also have the last three months of The City (again I know some of that is online, but this is better quality and complete).

I am busy with my grad school stuff for two more weeks but then will have a LOT of free time trying to figure out what to do with my life so can do it then (it'll take me a while to figure out how to--I've never encoded from a DVD before to a computer file). If I forget remind me after Xmas

Well after a not great day, while looking through several boxes of things I still haven;t unpacked since a move a year ago, I found the 10 DVDRs I made of my recordings of the final 70 episodes of the Loving Murders, which I thought was long lost! I basically started at the start with Stacy's death, and they still look great. I know a lot of this stuff is on YT but still, I'm pretty pleased.

Hey thanks!! it's not a completely done deal yet, I still have the whole defense/presentation bit in two weeks (20 minute presentation/lecture followed by an *hour* of question and answers with the three chosen profs--one of whom I know will constantly bring the question back to why I'm even talking about soaps, but I'll be prepared...) And yeah--I have huge holes in my GL knowledge and so when I am curious about a character, going to those videos is better than any write-up I've found.

They just baffle me in general--the acting style of the more butch lesbian (if that is a style) and everything. I suppose it allowed us to see how seriously Becky was scared to have her baby, but...

I LOVE those profiles. Wish someone would do something similar for other soaps (no, I'd never have the time or patience to do any myself ) And LOL Soapsuds

A research paper that has been approved, that will be published, that I am now preparing a conference presentation for, and that I got to interview personally for several hours two major soap opera headwriters for--just to be clear. Oh and, cards on the table, one that you PMed me about earlier today for God knows what reason with this veiled threat (promise?) and I quote: " It seems like you are back in attack mode. You do know that I won't be able to support your research project after this. There's a consequence. I thought you were more intelligent and level-headed. " I have no idea how you were ever going to "support" my research, and why I should be concerned that you no longer will, but. Yeah yeah, Jean Rouverol was a professor of yours, and she gave you a copy of some unproduced soap from Robert J Shaw, but really I have no idea how that would help or support me--particularly since the emphasis of my research in the end--and this was partly due to the suggestion of both major soap HWs I spoke to who found the idea compelling and not sufficiently explored in soap research, has to do with an aspect of soaps that you have already complained on here that people are focusing too much on. So cheers!

Yep. I keep wishing that a phone bootleg of it will pop up on YT the way recently some Paley Center 1964 AW episodes have... It'll be a while before I get to either Center though it would be one tape I'd view. Oddly I just did a search at the Paley Center and this episode didn't come up! (!) I hope there's just a glitch. The UCLA archive has a bunch of fascinating stuff including several full ABC Daytime original video tapes from 70-72 or so I believe--the complete lineup however their catalog says they haven't been properly archived onto playable media yet (grr--it has said that for the past ten years so obviously there's no rush) and they have no public viewing machines for that format.

Maybe that's true. We're not on a dispassionate forum where every word choice is considered for its intellectual (and frankly dated) meaning and not for what it means to most of the Western world today. Is it a good idea to use inflammatory words, words that make you, frankly, look like a Neo-Nazi in a public forum? I mean sure you say you don't care what people here think of you, but surely you actually care enough about soaps to want your thoughts on them to be communicated without someone reading a post of yours and only thinking Nazi. *shrug*

Odd isn't it? I don't seem to have that issue with anyone else on here.

She was given a contract role. That's a fact. She wasn't a day player. I appreciate your instructions! Honestly, this is kinda hysterical and has brightened up my day, so I guess thanks!

Unfortunately I don't see that happening (God I feel like Debbie Downer). The people who own The Doctors had listed it on a website of properties that could be licensed for years before RetroTV picked it up (I know those are vague details, but I remember it being mentioned on here with a link maybe ten years back). I think that's the only soap they ended up with. ABC of course still owns AMC. And damn, I wish they'd do something with AMC and OLTL--I'd settle even for decent quality best of DVD sets (as long as they didn't just cover the last fifteen years or something--in fact they can skip those ). I still remember when AgnesNixon.com was launched with promises of DVDs, etc, and I had such hope as it seemed legit, especially with all the great rare videos they put up (I believe Bob Jr or one of Nixon's other kids ran it? He was the one who found those two 1970 AMC kinescopes in her attic and helped finish her memoirs). The site is still there but the videos gone and it's never been updated... And yeah... *gets depressed*

Reading comprehension is something that can be learned--fear not! What was said was that Ruth (and in the book she clearly is joking here) said she would happily accept an under 5 walk on role just to get Irna to even consider her for an actual role. But that is not what happened.

You sure have a lot to say about how you don't care what others have to say about you. As to "pro-Aryan" it is a term that is now exclusively used in a way that you'd have to be stupid to not realize. Sure, continue using it, but if you want people to actually consider your opinions and not assume you mean something you claim you don't than I'd think twice. Word choice has power. There are lots of terms I could use if I wanted to because I personally don't feel they carry the meaning and weight that others do. But the fact that virtually everyone else feels they do carry that meaning means that the point I want to make will not be made. I'm really giving you the benefit of the doubt here... BTW, you may wanna work on the things you accuse me of yourself. Starting a post with, "I think your comments are awful and you seem like you are trolling. You have gone out of your way to insert yourself in an argument which suggests you either have a lot of..." sure sounds like "lecture mode" (or something worse) to me...

I'm white. I think I have every right to discuss the myriad reasons blacks and other minorities have often been under-represented, and poor represented on soaps. That is NOT the issue people have with you. I am not in attack mode. If I were I wouldn't address you as Jarrod but rather call you by some stupid name reflective of your avatar, or whatever you're doing here with DramatistDreamer. That shows you on the defense. For someone who claims to be smart, the very fact that you used the term "pro-Aryan" as you did, no matter *what* your intentions (look up any use of that term) shows a shocking lack of intelligence at the very least...

Why aren't you letting black people speak for themselves, by that logic? It was VERY clear from her post that she meant that stories about romantic relationships starting with rape are no longer tolerated the way they once were. EJ and Sami may be a couple many people love, but there has also been pushback against them for this reason *from the start*--something that was rarely even thought about back in the 1970s (the true pushback about Luke and Laura didn't really happen until these issues started being discussed more in the 1980s). Incidentally the same is true of romance novels--I'm not a romance reader, but reading a lot about the genre while studying and researching often denigrated popular and pulp forms of art and entertainment, particularly those that are often associated with women (ie soap operas), it was shocking to read about just how many romance stories--by some scholarly accounts surveying hundreds of titles including some that were and are extremely highly regarded like Kathleen Woodiwiss' The Flame and the Flower (which I did read, and even kinda enjoy, in an undergrad pulp fiction course), a good 80-90% of romance novels in the 1970s and early 1980s involved the "romanticized" idea of rape (ie tropes like that the hero was essentially good but he just wanted the heroine SOO much that he couldn't help himself--he later apologizes and they fall in love, etc). *blink* Oooh boy. You sure you're not just a made up persona? *wow* ...I rest my cast.

Well yes--exactly the point I was making and why I think it's pretty ridiculous to consider that actors in her situation would crumple up at having to do Guiding Light (although I should point out her role on GL lasted nearly 2 years and while very much a supporting role as a nurse, was *not* an "under-five").

I'm more than fine with Dusay... As for Strasser--I could see her playing Alex if she made it a bit less Dorian and slightly more like her AMC character (who I know she hated playing).

Toxic, I get that but couldn't they have just filmed a thirty minute soap in six months--filming each day for the length of time they'd do an hour soap? Robb I remember that suggestion as well. Of course not the same thing but when Gottlieb joined One Life to Live she wanted to try shorter featured stories as well and I think the plan was they'd last three months. At least one got done with movie actor Craig Wasson coming on as a wife beater and then the characters leaving at the end of their story--but quickly she realized that that wasn't working out too well.

I never fully got that--couldn't they have done the show without story arcs and still filmed it only six months a year?

This is a trip--Camille Paglia is apparently a soap opera fan and here she is talking about them (and promoting her book which mentions them) back in 1994. Like with most of Paglia's controversial feminism (or anti-feminism as some might say) I kinda agree with her in theory but I don't agree with her very unflinching, black or white take on soaps (she says she admires Agnes Nixon but thinks she's the worst thing to happen to soaps as they should be ALL about the "sleazy" sexual power of female archetypes and not have any dealings with social issues at all--and feels Y&R is the only soap that still does that--ignoring I guess how badly Bill Bell used to do social storylines). Still it's a hilarious and interesting clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okwYLVKsRtQ Dang dunno why it's only coming up as a link

No thoughts on the odd lesbian storyline (I still don't know if their acting is meant to just be a fit with the sometimes incredibly low energy acting that is a Roseanne show trademark or if they're just bad...)

I mean personally I would have loved that lineup, but ultimately by the late 90s I don't think it would have done anything to change the current soap status which has devolved into what it is in no real part because of its lineup. Incidentally Wendy Riche has said she was responsible for Port Charles getting the dreaded early time slot--she was buddies with the then head of ABC Daytime and in Dec '96 they were talking about how The City was expensive and didn't seem to be improving on Loving's numbers. Riche said they could do a soap on the cheap using GH's existing sets, set it in a different wing of the hospital and that she felt (since she had a background in programming for Fox and how to schedule things) that PC should start the ABC soap block and GH should end it, effectively causing GH, or some semblance of it, to bookend the lineup. I can't comment on the story arcs as I think I stopped watching after Time in a Bottle... (not really due to lack of interest just due to lack of time).

Keep in mind that virtually every actor on Citizen Kane was new to movies (including future film regulars Agnes Moorehead and Joseph Cotten). Ten of them came from Orson Welles' own rep company, Mercury Actors. Ruth Warrick in fact was one of the few with prior, minor, Hollywood work (Warrick thinks he cast her because she looked like his mother when she was young). It also was a commercial *flop* big time and only a mild critical hit. To go from Citizen Kane to GL ten years later, before Kane had really earned the reputation we now give it, would just seem like business as usual, really.