Khan

I agree. I really love your brief analysis of Rachel vs. Iris, @Soaplovers. If only you had been there to write for the two in the early '90's, lol.

IIRC, too, they all were filmed in Portland, OR, where Gloria Monty had a studio and either wanted to tape a soap opera there, or wanted to create a soap set there, or both.

With this news, I have the feeling CZ is playing Eve, who's now back from the dead and truly pissed.

"Who Shot Alexis?" would have been just the shot in the arm that DYNASTY needed at that point. I mean, she finally - FINALLY! - got the revenge she had long sought against Blake. What better time to have someone try and off the witch in her penthouse? There were certainly plenty of suspects to go around, lol.

I agree. If Heather Locklear had played Lindsay instead of Sammy Jo, she would have had two reasons for seducing and then marrying Steven: to grab a piece of the Carrington fortune for herself; and to humiliate Claudia for humiliating Matthew when she admitted to the affair with Steven at Blake's trial: a revelation that led to the breakup of the Blaisdels' marriage, which, in turn, caused Matthew to flee with Lindsay to South America, where he ended up getting killed. (If I had been in the Shapiros' or Pollocks' position, I might even have thrown in a twist: Blake, concerned that Steven's homosexuality will prove to be an embarrassment to the family and a detriment to Denver Carrington, offers Lindsay $1 million to seduce Steven into marriage, and another million if their union produces an heir). To make matters worse, Lindsay pretends to bond with her new stepmother-in-law, Krystle, despite still being angry over Matthew and Krystle's affair, because she knows how much it would hurt Claudia to lose both her husband and her only child to the same woman. Kirby exemplified the Pollocks' tendency - both on DYNASTY and on THE DOCTORS - to make their "good" characters passive to the point of being frustrating. I would have gone in a completely different direction with Adam. For one thing, I would have introduced him as a priest, someone who wants even less to do with the Carrington empire than does Steven. If nothing else, it would have provided actual conflict with Steven, as Adam struggles with reconciling the tenets of his faith with his long-lost sibling's homosexuality. And you still could have the triangle with Kirby and Jeff, and even the baby, but you wouldn't have needed the rape, because Adam/Kirby clearly would be the couple to root for, with Kirby marrying Jeff and lying to Adam about the baby's paternity, because she doesn't want to cause Adam to leave the church.

True. DYNASTY wasn't everyone's cup of tea - it certainly wasn't mine! - but even I would be hard-pressed to write the entire show off as a failure. It's just my opinion that what it was in its' first season - and, to a lesser extent, what it was again at the end - could have been a successful show in its' own right, too.

If the Shapiros had cast a more charismatic actor to play Matthew: 1) they wouldn't have needed to kill him off between seasons; and 2) they wouldn't have needed to introduce Dex later on, as Matthew could have fit that bill. If Gil Gerard had been cast, for example, his Matthew could have become involved with Alexis, thereby setting up a triangle between the two of them and Claudia. And if Heather Locklear had been a Lindsay recast, Alexis could have become both her stepmother and her mother-in-law.

It's great to see Colleen Zenk on a soap again...but how is Aunt Jordan connected to the Newmans? Is there some backstory that I'm missing?

Played by actors who were drips. I would have cast someone like Gil Gerard as Matthew. (That is, if Gil Gerard were available. He was probably still busy with "Buck Rogers" at that point). If not him, then maybe James Brolin. I also would have recast Lindsay in season two with Heather Locklear instead of bringing her on as Sammy Jo.

Believe me, as a diehard "Charlie's Angels"/"Hart to Hart" fan, I know that as well as anyone, lol. If DYNASTY had started out as nothing more than mindless, campy entertainment, where outrageous fashions and even more outrageous one-liners took precedence over actual storytelling, then that would be one thing. I'd accept the show for what it was and keep going. As I've been saying all along, however, the first 1-2 seasons betray that notion. In its' first year, at least, DYNASTY had much more substance to it than in the 7-8 years that followed. There seemed to be a concerted effort on the part of its' writers to give characters some layers or dimensions, so that they weren't all good or all bad. DYNASTY wasn't perfect - neither were KL or FC when they premiered - but it had potential. All the show needed was a little more time and patience on the part of everyone involved in making it. Unfortunately, I think the Shapiros, Aaron Spelling and ABC misunderstood the viewers and what they had responded to during the first season. They thought the folks at home didn't care about the Blaisdels or the oil fields; I say, at the very least, the Shapiros and Aaron Spelling didn't do enough to MAKE them care. Their hearts weren't totally in the casting or writing of those characters. As a result, those elements were left vulnerable to being phased out in the second year. Moreover, the producers dialed up the glamour and fantasy, because they thought that's all viewers wanted to see every week. I say glamour and fantasy are fine, as a way into the show. However, the producers assumed glamour and fantasy had to come at the expense of character; when, in fact, it's the characters that KEEP the audience watching long after the glamour and fantasy have lost their charm.

...Colby? Colby Dexter. "Cole," for short. (I'll grant you, it's not particularly inspired, lol.)

I believe it is. At the end of the day, a soap opera is about, and should be about, family. No matter who you are, or where you live, or how much money you happen to have in your bank account, your family - or, in many cases, lack thereof - has tremendous impact on every other facet of your life. For many, their entire self-definition and self-worth is determined by the kind of family environment they were raised in; and in a genre that gobbles up story at lightning speed, I don't think there's any ground for dramatic possibilities more fertile than what goes on behind closed doors with one's family. Exactly. THE DOCTORS and GH appealed to fans, because their characters often looked after each other as if they were family, even if they might not have been related biologically. I think it was Sheldon Bull ("Newhart," "Mom") who said it best: "every show is a family show." He was talking specifically about sitcoms, but I think it could apply to every genre on television.

Hey, I could be wrong! Maybe Dex didn't die in the fall and I just misheard. I hope that's what I did anyway, lol. I think Claudia's was the death that annoyed me most on this show. Not only was she reduced yet again to being insane, but she also died in the most idiotic manner, too. (I mean, who lights candles near such obviously flammable curtains? And who stands there and watches their hotel suite become engulfed in flames when they have plenty of time to escape?) Such an ignoble end for a character who, IMO, was often shat upon by the producers.

Staying together is one thing - and IMO, every soap needs at least one stable couple. But it's as if the producers (or the actors) were so afraid to bring any conflict into Blake and Krystle's union to the point of doing away with any and all traits within the characters that would have made them even a little bit flawed. You shouldn't have to bring in an outsider like Lady Ashley or Daniel Reece to give Blake and Krystle marital tension, and it doesn't always have to end with Blake and Krystle splitting up either. There were ways, I think, to create conflict for Blake and Krystle without suggesting that separation was in the future; however, both together and separately, Blake and Krystle became so fundamentally dull that they HAD to bring in outsiders just to give them some drama, no matter how manufactured; and if you were hip enough, you'd know that neither would ever even THINK about hurting the other in any way, so what was the point? (Best example: Mark Jennings. Maybe it was silly to think Krystle would have left Blake and returned to Mark, but in order for Mark to have been a real threat to Blake and Krystle, you needed to see Krystle still drawn to him in some way, but that never happened. Ergo, the entire storyline became pointless.) Same thing happened, I'm afraid, to Jeff and Fallon, especially once Emma Samms took over as Fallon. You could argue that marriage to Jeff and motherhood matured Fallon, but the problem was that Fallon became as lifeless as Jeff. Part of the appeal with Jeff and Pamela Sue Martin's Fallon, after all, was how different they were; he was solid and conservative, while her Fallon was cunning and unpredictable. However, somewhere along the line, that disappeared, then got worse after the recast. ES' Fallon needed to be torn between two men - like Jeff and Miles - just to remain even semi-interesting. In a way, killing off Dex was ironic, since he had vowed to be a part of his and Sable's child life only minutes before. I just wish they hadn't turned his death into a gaudy punch line.

So far, OLTL is still in the top five in '90, even though their ratings are dropping. I'm fascinated to see exactly when that will change.

I kept up with that storyline, not because I thought it was entertaining (I didn't), but because I kept wondering how long and how far DAYS could run with it before it all inevitably fell apart.

She'll always be Fern Newsuranger on "Sisters" to me, lol.

Losing Lesley Ann was probably the part of that story that I liked the least. I thought the writing during the Kobe/Long/Ryder era was pretty strong, but in retrospect, it's sad knowing how so many beloved characters were written out.

Which wouldn't be a bad story, especially if it led somewhere intriguing, like proving Gwyn wasn't the only one responsible for those murders. Realistically, a LOVING revival would never happen, for a ton of reasons. But I think a series about a town struggling to rebuild itself decades after a series of grisly murders caused citizens to flee and the local economy to evaporate would be something I'd like to watch.

If the intent with the story was to write off Maureen Garrett/Holly, either through her death or incarceration, then it would have been a powerful way to exit. Unfortunately, I think the circumstances made Holly's redemption difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Granted, I never liked PASSIONS, but I could see how others would be drawn to its' inadvertently campy style, especially in its' earlier years, before JER got REALLY weird in his storytelling.

Did Morgan Fairchild ever appear on LOVING as a way to help launch THE CITY? If she didn't, then perhaps she should've, thereby planting SOME story seeds that the team could have developed further once the new show had been launched.

My theory was that Bill Bell himself was attempting to compete with GH and DAYS (not to mention, primetime shows like "Miami Vice") but realized eventually that Y&R was its' own thing.

An awfully nice set for a character (or characters) who don't appear to have long-term potential on this show.

I don't think AMC's decline in the late '80's can be blamed entirely on RH's place in the lineup, though. Consensus seems to be that AMC began to suffer creatively somewhere around 1984, with the departure of Kim Delaney (ex-Jenny). The decline was then exacerbated by the loss of both EP Jackie Babbin, who left the show in 1986; and HW Wisner Washam, who left the following year. By 1989, despite HW's Lorraine Broderick and Victor Miller telling some powerful stories like Cindy Parker Chandler's battle with AIDS and Tom and Brooke losing their daughter, Laura, in a drunk driving accident, it was clear to many that the show was atrophying under EP Stephen Schenkel and needed a proverbial shot in the arm - enter Felicia Minei Behr. It's my understanding that Bill Bell agreed to stay on at DAYS (after being threatened with a lawsuit), even though he was eager to focus all his energies on Y&R. He'd write the long-term bible for DAYS; however, Pat Falken Smith and her team were free to use or not use his story ideas as they saw fit. Given PFS' personality, though, I wonder if she elected to use any of her predecessor's ideas at all, lol.

Please tell me this insane plot will lead to Rick Daros' shocking return (spear gun and all).