Khan

With any luck, he will be. But I must admit that I've had this idea of Sharon shocked to see Dylan again -- not just b/c he's back in GC, but also because he's put on a ton of weight since he entered the Federal Witness Relocation Program (with the explanation that he's been working at a bakery). Dylan would hope he and Sharon could pick up where they left off now that the people who were after him have been caught and/or killed, but could Sharon look past his physical changes and rediscover what she once loved about him?

And then you had Jean Louisa Kelly, who had the personality of a jar of mayonnaise. I tell you, those four (Clark, Kelly, O'Malley and Snyder) were LUCKY to be on a show that ran for six episodes, much less six seasons. I don't remember too many of the details surrounding Burt and Loni's breakup. I just remember it being very messy and sad; and I worried, too, how their son, Quinton, would be able to handle it all as he grew older and inevitably became more aware as to why his parents were no longer together.

Hugh Wilson declined to participate in "The New WKRP in Cincinnati." That right there should have been a warning sign to everyone involved with that misguided project. No, you're right, the "Yes, Dear" cast did, at one point, spar with their critics - of which, there were many, lol. The cast was basically defending the indefensible, however. IMO, Jim Belushi has always been a better dramatic actor than comedic.

Such a bleak period in the history of US sitcoms, lol. Agree.

Wow. I think I might have read about that some time ago, but I had let it slip from my memory. Still, wow. Thanks, @DRW50.

That might be good! Which means, of course, it'll never happen; or, if it does happen, it'll be sunk the moment William deVry or Dave Coulier pops up as "Tiny."

Lloyd and Estelle's daughter, played by future superstar Jane Krakowski. Oh, you're not talking about SEARCH FOR TOMORROW, are you?

It's possible - just possible - that CBS and/or SONY lit a fire under Josh's ass.

I can't believe "Webster" ranked that highly, lol.

I'm certain you're not exaggerating it either, lol. That's certainly how it felt to me at the time as well. In their eyes, TV comedy belonged to two women: Heaton, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus. However, the difference between those two women was that the latter was actually funny. (And I say that as someone who was never a "Seinfeld" fan.) Even when it was still on the air, ELR was a show that was supposed to be so popular, yet hardly anyone you knew actually watched the show or admitted to watching it. You could hear folks go on and on about "Seinfeld," or "Roseanne," or "Friends," but ELR? Not a peep. Agree! Believe me, I treasure just about every moment of "Designing Women." I'm just saying that my love for that show does not blind me to LBT's faults as a writer and as a feminist.

IA. "Evening Shade" wasn't a perfect show by any means, but I think it was the closest that Linda Bloodworth-Thomason has ever come to writing and producing a sitcom that's character-driven and literate and genuinely funny, and not just political soapboxing dressed up as comedy. Tying this in with the purpose of this thread: IIRC, one reason why Loni Anderson took the job on "Nurses" was because of her and Burt's very public, very nasty divorce. Either she needed the money or she needed the image rehab/career boost, can't remember which, lol.

Again, they operate on the principle that all men think one way, while all women think another; and from my experience, at least, that's just wrong. Not all men are knuckle-dragging neanderthals, and not all women are bra-burning feminists either. It would have been so much more interesting to see at least one of the ladies -- like, Charlene, for example -- challenge Julia's views and argue that maybe the men had a point, and vice-versa. Oooh! What happened on Patty Heaton's last show? (The one about the housewife and mother who becomes a doctor later in life, right?) The worst has to be "Ann Jillian." There, you have an actress who deserved a hit series being asked to play mother to an actress who didn't.

"Evening Shade" was blessed with an amazing, once-in-a-lifetime cast. I mean, Burt Reynolds, Charles Durning, Hal Holbrook, Elizabeth Ashley, Ann Wedgeworth, Michael Jeter AND Ossie Davis, all on the same show? Incredible.

I try not to let an actor's political or other beliefs cloud my opinion of them or their work. However, in Heaton's case, I can't help but feel her conservative beliefs (which certainly clash with mine) literally ooze from her pores in every performance. I mean, you just know she's gotta be a Karen IRL, lol.

Again, this is strictly my theory, but given what Delta Burke had told Barbara Walters years before about how awfully Harry Thomason had treated the "Designing Women" cast on the set, I suspect Hagerty witnessed some of that behavior for herself and decided almost immediately that she wanted out. However, like I said upthread, she was either contractually forced to return OR she returned with a promise (that might have been quickly broken) that HT would "behave himself" from then on.

Pretty much. The Thomasons originally cast Hagerty; however, she dropped out just before the pilot, citing "scheduling conflicts" (which I suspect was just a cover story). Subsequently, the Thomasons replaced Hagerty with Mahaffey, who played Suzanne's sex-starved secretary, Jennifer Malone, for the first four episodes, before she was replaced with Hagerty, who was suddenly available again. HOWEVER, after only TWO episodes, Hagerty quit (she wasn't dumped), so the Thomasons brought back Mahaffey for one more episode before dumping her and the character altogether and replacing her with Rieffel's character, a young Congressional intern working for Suzanne. My theory: Hagerty actually quit BOTH times. However, either the Thomasons or CBS (or both) forced her to return after the first departure. Hagerty stayed long enough to extricate herself from her commitment legally, then bailed again. Mahaffey might have been a better fit with the rest of the cast, IMO, but in the end, none of that mattered. By that point, the Thomasons had decided that the character was a dud. I certainly think Teri Garr would have made a better replacement as Murphy's EP after Miles than Lily Tomlin. On the other hand, Kay Carter-Shepley was such a poorly developed character, it's probably not Tomlin's fault that she never clicked with the rest of the MB cast. God bless Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, but I think she's one of those feminists who thinks that a man (or, at least, a man over a certain age) couldn't possibly be sexually assaulted under any circumstances. Men, in her opinion, have entirely too much power in the world to be victimized that way.

Ashland's story sounds convoluted af. For all anyone knows, Ashland could have been in the oncoming car. He could have been trying to kill Victoria, but wound up killing Rey by mistake.

Craig looks as if he is literally questioning his sexuality again in that pic, lol.

I feel like the networks forced LR on producers, saying they had to cast her or else their shows were no-go's. However, I give Teri Garr a pass for being lackluster, since it was clear by that point that her MS was beginning to affect her performance and overall health.

For some reason, I always pictured Charles Keating as Dietrich Lindsey.

Didn't CNN+ just launch, like, six minutes ago? And it's doomed already?

But I really don't see this as being specifically about the strong possibility of Bo Brady returning from the dead. He just happens to be the latest in a long, long line of characters (both on DAYS, and on daytime as a whole), coming in at the point where I have to call a Zach Morris timeout. To put it another way: if we were talking about Laura Horton (possibly) returning from the dead, and NOT Bo, I still would say what I'm saying now: No. More. True, character resurrections are but one of many factors that have crippled DAYS creatively, tarnished the legacy that Ted and Betty Corday worked so hard to create, and undermined the power and longevity of soaps in general. Nevertheless, I'm left the same dilemma: if the viewers have been conditioned over time not to take anything that happens on "their stories" seriously, knowing that even death itself can be retconned, then the emotional investment is gone; and if the emotional investment is gone, then why the hell are these shows (or ANY shows) still bothering to tell stories? If your audience can't engage with anything you give them, because they can't trust or believe that what they're seeing is "real," then you're just wasting their time. It's as simple as that. And yes, I am aware that even Agnes Nixon wasn't above bringing people back from the dead if it meant correcting past mistakes. What can I say? Agnes was wrong, too.

Thank you. True. But does undoing that mistake by bringing him back from the dead after we saw him die on-screen really make it better? Again, thank you. There's just some mistakes that can't be rectified. No matter how much you want them to be rectified. No matter how hard you try or what lengths you go to to rectify them. I wouldn't make Bo the lone example. He'd be but one of many, many examples. But someone has got to draw a line somewhere. Maybe, if you can't draw the line at Bo Brady, we'll have to draw it at someone else, but we have. To draw. The line. So, now we're suggesting turning Kayla Brady into a liar in order to justify bringing yet another character back from the dead on this godforsaken show? I'm sorry, but as someone who CHERISHED Steve and Kayla's romance BITD, I find that proposition to be just as insulting as bringing Bo back from the dead in the first place. No way would I ever believe or accept that someone like Kayla would put her loved ones through that much pain. IDC that she lied for the ISA or that letting others know the truth would have been dangerous. It's still bullshit. One more time: thank you. Oh, please, I beg you, in the name of God and Agnes Nixon, don't bring up that [!@#$%^&*] again. God knows I had given up on AMC long before ABC had cancelled it (or, more appropriately, had put it out of its' misery, and ours), but it was bad enough watching AMC "die" on ABC after DECADES of outrageous mishandling on the network's part w/o seeing it all end with a full-on zombie invasion on top of things. THAT was an insult to my memories of that show -- memories that stretched all the way back to as early as I could remember anything -- and to its' tremendous legacy, too. It made my feelings of grief and loss both harder and easier to process -- because, really, who wants to save a show that would have stooped so damn low? -- and it also reminded me and many others why we were having to say goodbye in the first place. So, DAYS should just go on being the silly, ungrounded mess that it is and has been since I-can't-remember-when, instead of spending what is likely its' (and soaps overall) final days with some dignity and intelligence reattached? If you follow that line of thinking, then Claire Labine should never have tried to re-ground GH after it had spent over a decade being a mixture of action/adventure and sci-fi stories; and Michael Malone and Josh Griffith shouldn't have tried to bring back socially relevant stories to OLTL in the '90's after the show had spent the better part of the previous decades telling wonked-out tales about exploding wedding cakes, absorbable poisons and underground cities. (And I hated watching much of Malone & Griffith's work on OLTL, so you know I'm pissed if I've gotta sit here and hold them up as good examples of anything!) And if I hear that phrase "(not the) hill to die on" one more time from anyone.... Note to all apathetic millennials out there, who'd rather stand in the corners and judge the rest of us for fighting (and for compromising when we have to) than put on their big boy or big girl pants and get on with the business of adulting: every hill is a hill worth dying on, okay? And that (bringing Jesse back from the dead, even though, like Bo, he had died on-screen, and he had made several ghostly or angelic appearances in the interim) was wrong. I cried ugly tears when Angie and Jesse reunited at that theme park train station, because Darnell and especially Debbi played the hell out of those moments. But it was still wrong. Look, some of y'all - and no, I will not name names - seem fine with the status quo of resurrecting hoards of dead or presumed dead characters on these soaps, no matter how impossible it'd be for such occurrences to happen IRL, or how insulting those resurrections are to the audiences' collective intelligence and tastes. And you know what? It's fine that you're fine with it, too. Obviously, TPTB have conditioned you very well. But please. Do NOT stand here and pass, for lack of a better word, judgment on those (and yes, I include myself in that bunch) who think and feel otherwise. Just refrain from telling us you don't see what the BFD is that Bo Brady might be returning from the dead, or that we're making too much out of bringing back this-or-that character or group of characters from the dead, or that we just need to lighten up and accept such ridiculousness as par for the proverbial course, even as a cherished American institution like daytime drama continues to vanish from our screens. I, for one, do not appreciate being made to feel like I'm the idiot, or the bad guy, or the spoil-sport, because I can't go along with one more unrealistic resurrection when I know there are people in my own, personal life whom I've lost and will never see again in my lifetime. So just stop. Maybe bringing characters back from the dead so often that death itself doesn't mean anything on the soaps anymore isn't exactly hurting the genre -- even though, from where I sit, it seems like TPTB's cavalier attitude toward such matters is precisely why we're down to four soaps now -- but let me just say (before I head off to work) that it's not helping the genre either.

Let me guess: Albert DeSalvo Weston? At least it's not "Who's Sarah This Week?".

White women will literally destroy this country "in the name of God."