Jump to content
Key Links: Announcements | Support Desk


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by EricMontreal22

  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. I never fully got that--couldn't they have done the show without story arcs and still filmed it only six months a year?
  4. 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
  5. 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...)
  6. 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).
  7. 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.
  8. 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...) 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...
  9. 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!
  10. Remember for a while there she was very against the idea of returning to a soap (I think she felt the work wasn't important enough)> She did AMC for six months (with a special title card in the opening credits with her image) as a favour to Agnes Nixon who only convinced her to do it when she said her character, Amy Tyler, could and would speak out against the Vietnam war and reflect Rosemary's own political beliefs. She also did How to Survive a Marriage in 1975 when it started because it was being contextualized as the first truly feminist and progressive soap that wouldn't show women dependent on romantic fulfillment (some people said this is partly what killed it--many long speeches that didn't feel natural, etc). I *believe* she played a marriage counselor (I'm not even sure if she lasted for its brief run--the focus seemed to move to other characters and it quickly changed writers). She also wanted to focus more on theatre, etc, as well. Of course, like many actors who leave soaps for a variety of reasons, after some time her feelings about them seemed to mellow (and perhaps she also appreciated the steady income they'd provide) and I'm sure she would have returned to ATWT on a more permanent basis... That all sounds vaguely familiar. It did seem like suddenly they were getting very ambitious (did they ever release AW sets?) and then *boom* they closed up shop. You're right, of course, that it's pretty common for companies to want to sound as hopeful as possible about a future return, etc, even when that doesn't seem likely... Frustrating.
  11. Also how come so many names (with Lemay getting an "and" credit) get the first grouping, then the break down writers and script writers. Does the WGA make it so that everyone who contributes to the longterm story has to get that first credit? (The people I was surprised to see were Lemay--as I thought he was a silent consultant--Gillian Spencer who i had no idea was ever on the OLTL team and Tom King)
  12. Randomly watching bits of episodes from the BELOVED Jill Farren Phelps era of OLTL, and specifically the 8 month period between Pam Long and McTavish's HW stints when there was no credited HW, these writing credits caught me by surprise by a number of names listed--including one person who I had always thought had just been an uncredited consultant for a brief period...
  13. That's all well and good and in theory true--but it isn't whatsoever what Jarrod was spouting.
  14. Oh Hugh, calling Debbie Reynolds' appearance "bland"! The Debbie Reynolds Show was one of three attempts by creator Jess Oppenheimer to recreate his success on I Love Lucy with sitcoms around a bored wife and her schemes/fantasies based around a minor female celeb (Angel, and Glynis being the other two). His son, Greg Oppenheimer, has a YT channel and has uploaded high quality copies of some of his father's stuff, including a ton of episodes of Angel (1960-61) which actually reversed the I Love Lucy concept a bit by making the wife the foreigner who mixes up English words and expressions. Watch at your own wish (I wish they'd upload some of Glynis if only because I adore Glynis Johns...) All I've ever found of Glynis (she played a mystery writer who helped her husband solve mysteries)
  15. I wish I knew more about the deal SoapClassics made. They licensed their stuff for... a year? It seemed a very brief amount of time, anyway (none of the P&G soaps have ever been *my* soap, but I did plan on at least buying a few of the box sets except that during that time I was deeply in dept and I always assumed, while I knew they were around for just a limited time, that they'd be more easier available a *bit* longer than they were--BTW is there a site that lists exactly how many different box sets they DID ultimately release and which episodes? Everything I can find online, now that their site is gone, seems very incomplete). At any rate, they seemed to be a very small company and yet I gather the DVDs did sell at least as well as expected. Surely this shows that such releases of classic soap episodes is very possible and would do decently? (The only commercial release I know of that has been done in N America are the B&B sets...). All very frustrating. Oh, and I agree with everyone else about ATWT (and to a lesser extent GL) around the holidays and how missed it is. I was never a regular viewer, but would always watch during Christmas break (and especially enjoyed the vintage episodes they usually aired on days off).
  16. SHe deserved a better show than one written by a novelty songwriter, but I've always loved this performance. Ed Sullivan (SOFA Entertainment owns the rights I think) *really* needs to do something with the hours they have of brilliant musical theatre performances. A lot of us theatre geeks have bootleg copies of the stuff (when I was a teen one of the first bootlegs I got was a present of 8 VHS tapes filled with them--all with a timestamp like this has), and most of it is on Youtube if you look hard enough though SOFA has been known to every few years wipe them all out. They release ONE hour long DVD (with promises of more) with a few of the iconic ones, but it would be great to have them in the best possible quality (unlike the soaps and so much other TV, I believe every episode of Ed Sullivan, at least from 1955 on, was saved on video). Just so many gems, and so often recreated with the original costumes, staging and choreography and some remnants of the original scenery for shows and performances that otherwise would be completely lost.
  17. Ha I had the same thought. It is true though that the premise of the episode seemed to be SUCH a trope in earlier gay (comedy) stories--down to the "You're not my type" conclusion joke. I suppose it was a relatively safe and inoffensive way to deal with the issue--focusing it through the eyes of a straight character, reassuring the viewer that *they* won't be gay or whatever, etc.
  18. Catching up on this thread, but Carl's quote above reminded me of something. I found that plot point well done and yet in some ways annoying, maybe for the same reasons. It *didn't* surprise me--I was sure they'd have a gay character on the new show and I was sure it would be Pat since every time I've seen the comedian do standup, his routine has revolved around being a gay Indian, etc and it just seemed odd to cast him in a role where he seems to be playing himself and not using that. But it also used the now (thankfully) very old fashioned trope where when a TV show, specifically a sitcom, would show a progressive/tolerant view of homosexuality, it almost always involved one of the main characters worrying he was or being mistaken for being gay when it was actually a secondary character. Of course thankfully in this episode that was only *briefly* played for laughs with Miles and not the focus of the storyline--and it does fit in with the history of Miles as a character (though you'd think he'd be more aware of gays living in DC all these years since the show ended ). And then recently on my news feed one of those "explaining gay pop culture" videos from Matt Baume popped up on my feed. I find Matt Baume's videos both well done and sometimes insightful and extremely obnoxious and annoying (and no, it's not just because he did one devoted to musical theatre where he spouted off things about Sondheim shows which were factually *wrong*... I swear ). I guess there's gonna be a second video addressing this Murphy Brown episode, but here he talks about a '90s episode that did play off the Miles might be gay thing for the entire episode--and to my surprise I suddenly remembered that episode and how uncomfortable it made me watching it with my parents...
  19. Absolutely agreed in regards to DS. You're right about networks wanting to milk a hit, etc, but in regards to Murphy Brown I guess it's a bit more complicated (and of course they're not saying anything for sure here--I had read the Hollywood Reporter article before this one--which it references--that said it was always only meant to be one season so now I'm just confused). https://people.com/tv/murphy-brown-revival-future-uncertain/
  20. I agree about the quality and some of the reasons for why the 91 reboot failed. I will say that it also may be harder the more time passes. In 1991 there would have still been a ton of TV viewers who remembered DS from when it first aired, very well. It was 20 years after it ended. Now it is 45+ years after it ended and sure it's still a relatively large cult thing, and a ton of it still influences a lot of pop culture, but... I thought the remake was more than solid, but I do think they were burning through plot and characters foolishly fast...
  21. Haven't there been gay/straight Odd Couple takes? *edit* Maybe not and certainly I can't recall what I thought I saw which had the GAY guy be sloppy (though there was that odd John Goodman sitcom where he played a slobby gay guy) and the straight guy be prissy. But there was Some of My Best Friends, the sitcom version of Kiss Me Guido which had Justin Bateman rooming with Danny Nucci, written by a post Golden Girls but pre Desperate Housewives Marc Cherry. It wasn't good but wasn't all that bad either -- it seems to all be on youtube including the original pilot when it was called Kiss Me Guido and had a slightly different cast. Which is why I don't see it as strange at all. This way (I say cynically) they don't have to pretend it's actually a new concept, and they hope they can pick up audience members nostalgic for the originals. Which is why it particularly makes sense with network TV (though I know Netflix arguably really started the trend) which now more than ever depend on an older demo. Still, it's not an entirely new trend. Lucille Ball to some extent basically tried to reboot I Love Lucy (OK there she did pretend it was something new) all her life. Dragnet in the 1960s was already a reboot (of a tv show that was adapted from a radio show, no less). Etc Yeah I was so obsessed that I became a bit... oversaturated with it and have needed a break lol I think that assessment is more than fair--and I agree about the cast and their chemistry, especially considering how so many of them had essentially retired from the industry. I'm assuming one reason it seems we won't get a second season was that many of the people involved sorta thought it would be a one season and done from the start, but that's just an assumption based on all the interviews and press. This is not meant to sound insulting towards Capitol, but wouldn't it simply make more sense in this case to simply create something new with a similar concept> Capitol holds (at least in the social world I live in) absolutely zero name recognition whatsoever. I dunno, it would be like if Hulu had decided instead of rebooting AMC and OLTL (*cry*) they had announced they were rebooting Loving instead. And I say that as a huge Loving fan Those would both seem like mistakes to me because it was Falk and Lansbury--much more than any other element of either show--that caused people to tune in for so many years. Of course the same could be said about something like Hawaii 50 or Magnum PI and their stars, I guess, so what do I know. But I still think a reboot is pretty useless when 90% of the appeal was really for an actor who won't be a part of the new one.
  22. I'm impressed that she seems to remember so many story details off the cuff from 30 or so years before this interview was done--full character names, etc. Seriously, so many soap actors can't do that (and I don't blame them).
  23. " Also you have no idea if I am multiracial/multicultural. Or others on this board. We are not shoving our ethnic heritage front and center in the majority of our posts. I think you get a weird satisfaction from going round and round in circles about race. I am not against a good dialogue about race, but you have to start saying something new, something different, not beat the same old drum all the time. It alienates others who would likely be on your side because they believe in progressive issues as a whole. I feel sorry for black people who over identify with being black; I feel sorry for white people who over identify with being white; and with gay people who over identify with being gay, etc. It's only one part of who you are. Stop narrowly defining yourself and clinging to victimization. Be truly progressive and move yourself forward. The second A in NAACP stands for advancement. Advance yourself, stop pulling yourself back and allowing yourself to be defined by one part of yourself that you can't even be positive about, a part that on some level must seem like an inescapable curse. " This is the most inanely bizarre thing I've read on this board in a VERY long time. And that's saying something. Sure race or sexuality is only "one part of who someone is"--but it IS one big part, and it is you Jarrod, who has the problem if you find it irrelevant that someone would bring it up on here when discussing how they've seen different storylines handled where it becomes incredibly relevant.
  24. Ah I missed that--had no idea ABC even acknowledged the online versions....
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy