Khan

Could I just say again how much I am floored by your analyses, @dc11786? You bring so much insight into GH (and other shows) that, in many cases, have me re-assessing my own opinions about them? Thank you so much for all your contributions to this board (and for God's sake, will someone PLEASE hire @dc11786 to join their show's writing staff, lol?).

nm

I'll admit that AMC was not in very good shape when it was cancelled and that it hadn't been in many years. But to suggest that OLTL was running proverbial rings around them just because their ratings might have been higher...? That's absurd. The truth is, I thought OLTL had become just as unwatchable as AMC and thought it would've needed a miracle in order to save it, ratings be damned.

You literally could build an entirely new show around all those damn kids. Call it "Jim Henson's General Hospital Babies."

It's a MSW rarity: a Christmas-themed episode, and the only one in the series' history where the victim doesn't die!

It probably didn't. From what I have heard and read over the years, the Lechowicks often had to change course on their stories. Apparently, they couldn't figure out that what plays well "on paper" doesn't always play as well on the screen. Plus, unlike other writer/producers on KL, they never consulted with the cast, who knew their characters better than anyone, nor welcomed any of their input. And it was, for lack of a better word, easier to keep on a show that still had some audience - even if most viewers had abandoned it years before - than to try and launch a brand-new show at a time when your network is literally fighting for its' life.

I pray it wasn't in a manger when it died (but given how this show works sometimes, I wouldn't be a bit surprised).

Just think: if MSW had premiered in 2024, rather than 1984, we'd probably have to watch Jessica Fletcher spend at least five seasons on-and-off trying to figure out who murdered her husband, Frank, during one of his fishing trips. BTW, I have to add to my original post like this, since we no longer have the "Edit" function here. Apologies for spamming the thread.

Tell that to the Cassadines!

Well, I think it would've looked ridiculous to have Hubbard playing any younger version of Lucinda. It's like when they had Susan Lucci play Erica Kane at 15 y.o. for those flashbacks to when she was raped. Your head is out of the drama completely, because you can't get past the ridiculous filters they're using on the cameras to make the actresses appear decades younger (and I say that as someone who adores SL and Erica).

I wouldn't say it shouldn't have seen the light of day - I would've been fine with Vanessa staying with Matt until the end, just because I thought the ship had long sailed for her and Billy - but I do believe their relationship could've been written more honestly than it was. GL's writers would've been wise to watch "All That Heaven Allows," starring Jane Wyman and Rock Hudson, and see how you handle a May/December relationship between an older, well-to-do woman and a younger, less refined man with care. Which was odd for me to watch, because I could've sworn that Dinah and Vanessa had laid a lot of their issues to rest when Jennifer Gatti was still playing Dinah. Frankly, I never understood why Vanessa was supposed to be wrong for giving up Dinah for adoption. She was ill-prepared to raise a child alone at that point in her life, so she did what I thought would've been the responsible thing for any woman in her position to have done. Was it Vanessa's fault that Dinah ended up being raised by some low-class carnies? Absolutely not.

J.R.'s battles with Sue Ellen were becoming as cartoonish as his battles with Cliff, as J.R. and his opponents kept fighting the same fights over and over, with no real repercussions for J.R.

I agree. KL suffered from her departure - just as it had from the departures of Julie Harris, Lisa Hartman, Constance McCashin and Douglas Sheehan - but Abby crossed the line, IMO, when she set up Harold and basically let Ted Melcher get away with murder. In times past, Abby wouldn't have wanted to see anyone hurt like that.

ICAM!! If the show was hurting for story for Abby, they could've had her deal with something like breast cancer. Donna Mills was never greater as Abby than when she had to deal with something that was real and out of her control, like with Diana's kidney failure or Olivia's drug addiction.

I actually needed to stop, google Rory and try (in vain) to recall even one scene with him. That's how hard I struggle these days with the 42,000 people who are on this damn show (41,980 of whom Frank refuses to fire).

The truth is, DAYS was largely on auto-pilot by 1989. I know Jack and Jennifer had their legions of fans, but to me, it just seemed like the show going through the usual, supercouple motions.

I agree, lol! They really needed to play up Matt's insecurities over being married to an older woman who'd accomplished more and was more ambitious than he much, much sooner than they did. In fact, as soon as they got married, we should've seen Matt really struggle to find his place within the Chamberlain/Spaulding corporate world; realize that, in fact, all he was was just a tight butt and a smile; and end up doing something really stupid and self-destructive that would've torpedoed his and Vanessa's marriage. Instead, we got chat rooms and "Mr. Reardon Builds His Dream House."

I agree. I'm hard-pressed to come up with CBSD actors from that era who had the same kind of appeal with younger audiences that ABCD and NBCD actors had. I mean, who, on CBSD, was as big with young viewers as Genie Francis and Tony Geary, or Kristian Alfonso and Peter Reckell, were (and who hadn't already gone onto films, like Meg Ryan; or had had their own series, like David Hasselhoff)?

Like @Chris B said, theirs was a storyline that, in part, was supposed to explain how Abby became Abby. The thing is, did we really NEED another explanation for how Abby became Abby? Abby was Sid's kid sister, who'd had enough of being the submissive, suburban mom to Jeff, always clipping coupons and rushing the kids off to this recital or that after-school game practice, so she decided to go after money and power in the male-dominated corporate world instead. AFAIC, you don't need more explanation than that, lol. It's obvious KL wanted to exploit Peter Reckell's popularity with DAYS fans (same went for FC and Kristian Alfonso) without knowing exactly what they wanted to do with him. Yep, I could see that going down in the coffee shop that Karen and Val would've opened in '95, lol.

I thought 1987 and 1988 were okay years for DAYS - not great, but not entirely unwatchable either - but I definitely can see how folks thought Leah Laiman's writing was formulaic and predictable. For me, the problems don't really begin until 1989, when Anne Howard Bailey takes over as HW. That's when the whole "supercouple formula" that had defined DAYS wears itself out. Once Bailey's gone, DAYS spends the next couple years in semi-course correction mode, with "Cruise of Deception" winding up as being '80's DAYS' last hurrah, even if it happened in the '90's, lol. When Sheri Anderson returned as HW in '92 or so, I was really excited, as I thought she was the next best thing to Pat Falken Smith and Bill Bell. And I definitely think she tried very hard to breathe new life into the show, too, creating new characters like Austin and Billie and the Lombards and so forth. But whether it was due to BTS issues or just simply the changing times, I think it was clear DAYS needed something more. Unfortunately, that something more turned out to be JER, lol.

I know one of the actors from "The Baby-Sitters' Club" (the '90's TV series, not the movie or the other series that came later) played young Lucinda in some scenes, but maybe Hubbard played her in some scenes as well?

And I think you're right! Just as I think Kevin Dobson/Mack and William Devane/Greg were added in order to steal male viewers away from "Hill Street Blues," and the whole "Sumner Group" dynamic was added in order to get people away from "L.A. Law." I'm just glad KL was gone by the time "Friends" hit it big, or else we would've had to endure scenes with Karen or Val hanging out in coffee shops, lol.

Even now, in the era of streaming, MSW is so easy to watch. You can watch an episode here or there, or watch several in a row, and you don't have to worry about missing some convoluted arc that stretches over multiple seasons. Plus, unlike so many shows produced today, it's not "dark" or "heavy." You don't feel an existential crisis coming on at the end of every episode. It's light-hearted and comforting, the way TV is meant to be. And, of course, there's Angela Lansbury, too. At a time when there aren't too many TV actors that you know or recognize, it's nice to be reminded of when you needed a lead who was someone you WANTED in your living room every week. ICAM!! I feel the same way about "The Equalizer." Denzel Washington and Queen Latifah have tried their best, but no one - and I mean NO one - can make me erase my memories of Edward Woodward as the original Robert McCall. Good! That way, that you can pick-and-choose episodes to watch at your own pace. I love the MSW Pluto channel, but it's not always easy waiting for your favorite episodes to come back around in the rotation. I'd really love for Pluto to have episodes available on demand as well.

I know they tried years later to give Matt some angst over living in Vanessa's shadow by having him lose all that money to bad investments or whatever, but to me, it just seemed to come about ten years too late, lol.

I suspect it would've gone somewhere, had the Lechowicks' not fucked up the casting, like they always did. The Manny Vasquez story is exactly the story that makes me question the Lechowicks' whole "We chose to work on KNOTS over DALLAS and FC because KNOTS was more real" explanation. You chose to work on KNOTS because it was more real, but you end up writing a drug smuggling storyline that smacked of "Miami Vice." Make THAT make sense, lol.