EricMontreal22

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.

4 hours ago, victoria foxton said:

I love the care put into them. I would love to see bio's on other soap characters too. Congrats on the approval  of your research paper.  

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

4 hours ago, JarrodMFiresofLove said:

 

Totally agree with your first paragraph. That's how I interpret it, not the way the other poster working on some research project keeps trying to spin it.

 

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!

1 hour ago, Goldensoaps said:

 

 

A couple of months ago, someone wrote this....I didn't know this episode exists!

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.

 

51 minutes ago, JarrodMFiresofLove said:

 

 If you disliked that phrase so much, when there is nothing wrong with it in an intellectual sense, you'd steer clear of it.

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*

7 minutes ago, JarrodMFiresofLove said:

. It's quite odd to say the least. But carry on, if you must!

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

24 minutes ago, JarrodMFiresofLove said:

 

I deleted your first sentence so we can see how you should be replying to me. Thanks.

 

I don't think her part on GL was very substantial when she started. Surely we can agree on that. If not then you are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

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*

2 hours ago, JarrodMFiresofLove said:

 

I think you're splitting hairs and being argumentative again. From the blurb posted by the other poster, I gather she started as an under 5 on Guiding Light. Nobody said she remained an under 5.

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...

1 hour ago, JarrodMFiresofLove said:

 

I think you're in attack mode again. Why can't you allow a white person to weigh in on how whites are supposedly causing blacks to be misrepresented on soaps? The poster with the geeky Sharon Case photo opened this can of worms. She's been using this forum as a pulpit for months to spout a lot of nonsense about how white people have it in for black people and I was sick of her ridiculous comments going unchallenged.

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...

3 hours ago, JarrodMFiresofLove said:

 

 

Then she says stories about women loving their rapists no longer occur on soaps. WRONG. In 2007 Days of Our Lives had E.J. DiMera rape Sami Brady, and he ended up marrying her twice. In an episode from just last month, Sami was going on about how E.J. was and will always be the love of her life. It's convenient for her to only state "facts" that allow her to play the race card or the feminist card...and to ignore all the other facts that expose her comments for what they really are, a flimsy attempt to play up victimization of black people. And why isn't she letting black men speak for themselves? She's the one who seems sanctimonious to me.

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).

3 hours ago, JarrodMFiresofLove said:

 

I feel empowered calling someone out on their racially motivated soap discussions. I got sick of it and took a stand. If she's going to keep going on about black representation, then I don't see why another person can't discuss pro-Aryan representation.

*blink*  Oooh boy.  You sure you're not just a made up persona?  *wow*

3 hours ago, JarrodMFiresofLove said:

 

As for the others I consider myself smarter than them. So what if it's ego, I feel it's true.

...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?

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).

2 hours ago, JarrodMFiresofLove said:

 

Interesting comment. To go from the heights of CITIZEN KANE to playing an under-five nurse on a daytime soap...other actresses would've crumpled up and died. But she rebounded in a big way and ended up reinventing herself on daytime television.

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.

Ah I haven't compared the DTR Karen on the Stand with the time it was shown in the Farewell marathon though I have both on DVDR--but yeah, I was surprised to see with the AMC episode how they chopped out different scenes--I would have assumed they'd just use the same edit or something.  I first noticed it back when Agnes Nixon's website still had their videos up and I saved those AMC kinescopes which I've since uploaded to YT (how I wish I had thought to save all the video on that site--they had her complete Museum of TV seminar from 1988, the twentieth anniversary of OLTL, online which now seems only possible to view of you go to the Paley Center and I could have really used for my research essay, but I digress).  They all run nearly exactly 23 minutes without commercials, whereas the two kinescoped episodes of AMC that aired as part of the first I Love Lucci SoapNet marathon run about 19 minutes (which I think is the current standard for amount of programming on daytime for a 30 minute soap...)

 

10 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

UGH! The editing of vintage episodes always makes me nuts. When CBS last aired a rerun of Victor's and Victor's first wedding from 1984, the ONLY reason I wanted to record it was to get a quality copy of the Brooks sisters' reunion scenes. And they were all sliced out, to make  room for more commercials. It was sooooo annoying.

What's funny is often at least with the themed SoapNet marathon the stuff that would be edited would be the stuff that didn't fit the "theme" (for example, in the I Love Lucci marathon they'd air a 1983 episode but when they went to trim scenes those would be from the storylines not about Erica).  But usually it was those less well known side stories and side characters (not that the Brooks' sisters should be considered side characters but by 1984 they were) that get trimmed... 

That’s where I think it was from too. All the Daytime to Remember episodes were of course edited for time (some hour episodes were only shown in one half hour slot but all episodes had a scene or two shaved for more commercials just as they would for SoapNet marathons—in fact I noticed one AMC episode shown on DTR had a scene that was cut when it later showed up on SoapNet yet the SN airing had a different scene that DTR cut—I believe it was on the 1979 Tom confronts Erica about her birth control pills episode). But this one more than I knew at the tile as it originally red just a few months after OLTL went to 45 mins. Still at the time I was just thrilled to see the first Dorian!