Khan

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).

I think that probably was their biggest mistake where RH was concerned. Even if expansion potentially meant losing the team that had created the show and brought it its' initial acclaim and accolades, I also think the network might have been more inclined to save the show, rather than give up on it, which they did at a certain point before actually cancelling it.

I definitely think that (getting another Bill Bell creation) was the reason why they even let P&G take SFT to NBC. They might have thought dumping SFT would have been incentive enough for Bell; but, like you say, @kalbir, Y&R was such a mess after expanding to an hour that he still couldn't entertain the notion.

I'd have to agree with Agnes Nixon (and with Douglas Marland): if LOVING stood any chance at all of succeeding, it needed to be scheduled between AMC and OLTL. And I say that as someone who disliked LOVING and would have preferred RH getting that slot. (If I had had my druthers, LOVING would have been scheduled instead after GH with the hopes that its' youth-skewering cast might prove to be a draw for younger audiences coming home from school.)

GL: Dreaming Death and Infinity. In the mid-'80's, GL came after GH hard with plots that, even then, looked and felt out of place on a show that had been, for the most part, a very grounded and relatable show. Nevertheless, as a grade-schooler, I [!@#$%^&*] loved them for the suspense that they offered, as well as the fact that they seemed to tie in a great deal of the canvas.

THE DOCTORS was effectively dead before the decade began; and GENERATIONS and TEXAS shaped up to be total non-starters. And SFT - that poor show never stood a chance on NBC. It might have had its' old time slot back, but the competition was tougher; and, as I understand it, the clearances were lower, too, with local affiliates either running the show at other time slots (which defeated the purpose of switching networks) or not running it at all. Then, to add insult to injury, NBCD itself ends up being run by the same guy who cancelled SFT on CBS, making Brian Frons the man who'd cancel SFT twice! P&G really screwed the proverbial pooch on that one, lol. In retrospect, I think CAPITOL was doomed from the start on CBS. CBS should have been upfront with John Conboy: "Look, John, SFT's exit leaves us with a half-hour to fill. Bill's not ready to give us another show, but we don't want to give up that time to the local affiliates. So, yes, we're greenlighting CAPITOL, but it's with the understanding that it's gone if/when Bill's ready." After all, Michael Brockman pretty much told Claire Labine (and maybe Paul Rauch) the same thing when they pitched and developed their respective series ideas for CBS after CAPITOL's cancellation. If the network had apprised Conboy of their long-range plans - presuming, of course, that they didn't - then I imagine some events might have transpired differently. I think CAPITOL would have been more inclined to tell a finite story; and maybe Conboy would have stuck with a HW longer, too. As it is, short of CAPITOL cracking the top three, I don't think the show could've done anything that would've changed CBS' minds about its' future. CBS never saw CAPITOL as anything beyond a placeholder for Bell's next show (which, of course, was B&B); and IMO, that's awfully shady. Apparently, no one at the network ever looked at what she and Doug Marland were developing and said, "I dunno, guys, it's not a good sign when I can't even tell you what's the show ABOUT"? I mean, I think they made a valiant effort to describe the show and its' themes to the press before the premiere, but it all sounded extremely vague.

I agree. I understand the show and network's need to get viewers excited about THE CITY while, at the same time, allowing the new show to have an identity that was separate from what was essentially a failed one; but it's like what you said, @dc11786, about the emotional fallout from the murders that should have carried from one show to the next but didn't. The end of LOVING didn't give the survivors or the audience anything to build on for THE CITY.

Thanks, @JAS0N47, for everything you've done and are doing to compile these stats for us. It's cleared up many misconceptions we've held about the ratings about this-or-that show.