P.J.

Yeah, I just read a piece Silberman wrote in 2013 for the Huffington Post. According to him, he knew Noah was going to have feelings for Luke. I know part of it was that daytime is (and has always been) a crank-it-out factory, and some actors just can't do it. But by that time, there also wasn't the rehearsal time or dedicated guidance for new actors either. Goutman, for all his faults, at least cared about his directing. One only has to watch the [!@#$%^&*]-astic direction on GH to realize Goutman has a gift for that at least.

*waves hand ecstatically in the air* Ooooh---ooooh---Mr Kotter!!! PREACH. The SECOND Scotty B walked back in, I was on Craig's side. Paul and Meg were lying skanks, and short of that child dying, they earned their pain Craig and Ro put them through. And ironically, I was practically begging Carly to have scenes with him---and of course, they barely had any. How long was Scotty back? A year? Maura was probably on maternity leave at some point. Hansis had no right to throw shade at anyone. I guess I understand "checking out" in stories you dislike (and you can see most actors do it at some point), but so much of early Nuke made Luke look like this jealous, controlling little bitch. Specifically what I remember is that Luke basically told people Noah was gay, instead of y'know, letting the guy accept it in his own time, 'cause Luke had a raging hard on for the guy. UGH---if they had portrayed a hetero couple that way, people would have been outraged. Honestly, if all Luke was ever going to get to do is jump on beds and get ice cream afterward, they shouldn't have bothered recasting the role. I thought Jake Weary was a better Luke by far anyway.

Well, they weren't her used panties (that would have been something!) but I think it was like panties with her show's name printed on them. I'm split on Silbermann. I think he was a better actor than he was given credit for. And better than Hansis. But I don't think he was comfortable portraying a gay man, at all. I thought he had better chemistry with Alex Chando's Maddie. I disliked the entire Nuke experience, from the fans who proclaimed them a supercouple from the minute Silberman was introduced to the media, to Hansis' moments of self-indulgent scenery chewing, and all the hubbub over whether or not they got enough airtime.

Luke? Yeah, Luke was kidnapped at least twice in his lifetime, once by Damien, in some convoluted tale. Luke and Holden were both presumed dead, and it culminated in some ridiculous standoff with some half-brother in Malta where he backflipped over a wall and down a cliff and I think survived for one last surprise gasp at killing Damian. The other time I remember is by the horrid little Z twins, who planned to rape him to impregnate the girl with the Grimaldi heir or some such crap. The Luke story could have been so much better if they had focused more on how it affected the family dynamic. To me, it made perfect sense that he told Holden first, because for most of Luke's life, Holden was the stability in his life. Lily, flighty narcissist that she ultimately was, he couldn't really trust to hang around or not make it all about herself. But because they couldn't dare show Lily in an unflattering light (outside her questionable ability to remain faithful), they couldn't play her having a hard time accepting it outside of plot points anytime Seganti needed another paycheck. Hansis was one of the worst casting decisions ever, but the rare times he managed to shine was in dealing with older, grounded actors. So, instead of using that, TIIC threw Luke into stupid teen stories with actors even greener than him, and the stories collapsed into farce. They ain't called IIC for nothing. I'm not sure his stories made less sense than any other ones, but Marland was probably turning over in his grave at the ineptitude on full display. As for Chappell/Olivia/NOlivia---ugh. Sure, maybe Olivia (one of the bigger whores in all of Springfield) would have gotten it on with anything with two or four legs (and the occasional python if it was big enough) but Natalia, prim Amish Catholic that she was? *eyeroll* OOOoookay. And then the way Chappell pumped her fandom like ATMs, selling them panties and crappily made dramas just seemed crass to me.

I don't necessarily object to having some BigAsshat on the show, and in theory Craig could have filled that role. BUT, they hamstrung the character with inconsequential writing and a ham-fisted, tic-filled actor with ZERO charm or ability to convey even the slightest bit of vulnerability. Goutman and Sheffer tried to BS excuse after excuse, claiming Craig was simply returning to "his roots", not comprehending that motivation is needed for the audience to buy such a huge revision for a legacy character's personality. Damn, I'm getting pissed off all over again. And I spent five years gnashing my teeth at how my show was suffering under that sociopath. I damn near had an orgasm when they fired Block. SERIOUSLY. I was like Snoopy happy-dancing all over the house. Honestly, those jerkoffs probably would have turned Bob Hughes into a Hugh Heffner type if they thought they could have gotten away with it. Ugh. LUKE. The gay version of Katie. I may have hated Katie more, but that's only because Luke never had the audacity to chase after one of Carly's men. Luke was a boring character played by a underachieving actor, thrust front and center in the desperate attempt to make ATWT seem "current" with a gay boy story. What's worse---it spawned the Olivia/Natalia story on GL, which, believe it or not was arguably lamer and a bigger publicity grab (and Crystal Chappell rode it 'til it was hard and wet, that's for sure).

Don't get me started on TIIC's obsession with Hunt Block, how they destroyed the character of Craig tailoring it to his limited schtick, and just in general shat upon the entire show with their version of Y&R's Eric Braeden. Given the situation---I was okay with Babs ending up with Henry. She got a happy ending. I'm not really sure who they could have brought back from her past as an alternative, and let's face it---it was a surprise TIIC even bothered writing anything for her. These are the idiots that spent the last nine months obsessed with giving Luke an adult love interest instead of focusing on their core vets. At least IMO.

it was Mike, Henry, Jennifer and Nikki (the recast that looked like Molly and was only on a couple of months) who played strip poker if I recall correctly. Henry didn't start off giving off a gay vibe. He only gay-ed up to become Katie's sidekick.

I seem to remember Nicole was dark-haired at least. Poor Henry---I think at some time or another, all of Oakdale's women got to threaten him with bodily harm. Not with a knife, gun, just all the force their tiny little bodies could generate, being probably a foot shorter than him.

it was a nice episode, but the fact that they just had to complicate the timeline and make Kara's Earth Earth3 really annoyed me. I like crossovers better when they truly impact the story somehow, and other than giving Kara a confidence booster, this didn't. It seems like any new guy paying attention to Kara would have done.

why did no one ever tell me Governor Gatling used to be a Hughes? WOW.

I've never heard CZ having problems with Hugo Napier. But you never know how much everything else influences their personal favs. Considering how little time they had together, and what a different person Babs was with Gunnar, I could get where maybe she and Henry were right for each other at the end of ATWT.

Gunnar St. Clair was on ATWT. Gunther was the creepy waiter on Friends. I think a lot of Gunnar was time and place. I liked him. But I think he was in a clunker story for a lot of his time on ATWT. He ends up rescuing Barbara from James, but then I swear, he's dead like six months later. And I would split it this way---Gunnar was Barbara's greatest hero, while Hal was her greatest love. As for the Dobsons--they are probably the clearest case of pre-and post GH success and how it changed daytime. While I'm sure GL under them wasn't "flawless"---but it was traditional soap with a progressive tendencies. After GH's success with Luke/Laura/Ice Princess crap, every show throws in more adventure/sci-fi "twists" that deemphasize true interwoven drama.

well, I was a preteen and remember thinking her "visions" or previous life thing was boring.

wow...that Tom looks older than Bob in those pics. And look---Franny's like FIVE, while Tom's practically middle-aged. Reading the obits, I had no idea James Douglas was on Peyton Place.

I can't say for sure. There were really few truly graphic depictions of violence on ATWT. Emily's rape by Diego might have rated one. Other than Angel/Henry, something during the Teague story, or perhaps something in the Brock Lombard story, I'm not sure what would have even rated one. When did they start the daily ratings? The early '00's?

Maybe at some point, I will like it more than I currently do---but right now, I can't wrap my head around that. It has the weakest cast, lacks direction and just feels tired. It literally comes across as the prim, Amish cousin of Flash/Arrow/LoT. I can't believe this and Blindspot are by the same people.

I just see a lot of missed opportunities. I think it was a huge mistake to kill off Kara's Aunt (whose name escapes me right this second) so soon. I'll agree this last episode (w/the red kryptonite) was by far the best episode of the season, but it kind of just highlights the show's weaknesses. The characters are earnest but lack depth. I think Lord is supposed to have shades of gray (and I definitely think they're setting up a relationship with the sister), but the actor lacks presence to carry it off (he really reminds me of Ray Palmer, and the pretty but b.l.a.n.d. Brandon Routh). Maybe because I already watch Arrow/Flash/LoT, I'm expecting too much of a first season show. It just feels a little hollow to me.

That's so long ago, I can't pin it down to a specific year without looking at the bible. It was a crime to only have Mary Kay Adams for that six months to a year. Killing her off was a mistake. I don't know if that's all she wanted, or what, but it was a shame. Especially when it's like they traded Neal in for Sam, who wasn't nearly as good or interesting. I never found it dark…compared to what Black/Stern did and now Griffith on Days….ATWT didn't come close at that time. That was horrible. I didnt care for that episode. That was so bad….LOL Yeah, I thought the Ross stuff thing was goofier than hell, but I couldn't really come up with other specific examples. The crap that passes for drama nowadays---it's all plot point driven. Yes, Marland got dark and depressing, but for the most part, everyone's actions had a grounded, reasonable (to them at least) motivation and consequences that carried through and generated the next arc in the story. Margo didn't just get raped and shook it off in twelve weeks---we saw her marriage affected, and she underwent HIV tests every six months for like two years afterward. Don't get me started on the crap that is GH, with that supposedly realistic bipolar story. It's rare that I'd notice how badly directed something is, but between Morgan's dock scenes and Sonny's church heroics, I'm convinced GH's stable of directors just don't GAS anymore.

I remember GL having a lot of drama from '90-'94. What GL probably did a little better at the time is showcase it's lighter moments. Something like Ross' election nightmare episode or Hamp's bachelor party with all the guys stood out. ATWT wasn't without humor, but it was most often in banter between characters (like Kirk and Lucinda) and not the broader silliness other shows used. ATWT was really dark for a period, but it was so organically written, you were totally sucked in.

LOL....I understand that the soaps that debuted in the '70's pushed boundaries. But it's not like they reinvented the wheel. Y&R, after all, IS the show that gave us The Hoff. I credit Y&R more with an upswing in production values that made the show more visibly attractive. But can you imagine what social media would say about Bell now? That he was ripping off his own stuff (inventing Lisa and Y&R's scheming Jill), relied on rape way too much, and cast a bunch of models instead of actors.

Maybe I'm not giving Y&R enough credit, but all of television was changing at the time. It's not like Oakdale was full of Puritans who simply yakked over coffee. Most of what I've read credits Eileen Fulton's Lisa for ATWT's meteoric rise in ratings---and she was a selfish, social climbing bitch. It wasn't by accident that Agnes Nixon created Erica Kane.

The irony of Y&R being touted as fast-paced and fresh nearly had me exploding in laughter. It's very much a criticism of the moment, ain't it? Give them a little skin and everything seems a lot more exciting. I'm not denying that shows in the '70's (especially newer ones, I assume) were taking baby steps towards being "topical" faster than ATWT. But it's GL in '78-'79 that takes on marital rape first, isn't it? And I think it was clear that John raped Kim at the time, even if those words weren't used (although this review might be slightly before that happens). What the freak was Y&R doing at the time? Other than showing people in bed, and Jennifer's ovarian cancer,, you had Jill and her daddy issues and Lori and Leslie boinking brothers.

Well, to be fair, it seems like Agnes Nixon took her fair share of swipes at ATWT in the press before this article appeared. What strikes me is that in 1976 (two years before ATWT falls from the number one spot) they're already losing the publicity war. The one thing that always drove me crazy (and this is from the mid-80's on) is that ABC excelled at promoting themselves, while CBS seemed to always be about three steps behind, like deigning to promote their shows was somehow beneath them (or, just simply an unjustifiable expense). I am a little baffled by the author's explanation of the Kim/Jen/Bob resolution. I guess I need to brush up on my history, 'cause I thought Jen died without knowing about it. I thought that was kind of behind Kim's angst during her pacemaker storyline, when Jen came back to comfort her.

I think HBS would have been fine in the right-to-die story, but the rape/HIV story wasn't her type of material at all (she was not at her best at that type of heavy dramatic material on OLTL - she just got shrill). I also thought Ellen and Scott Holmes had more chemistry than he did with HBS. To me it was the writing that destroyed them - once they took away the everyday couple aspect of Tom and Margo in 1995 or 1996 and she just barked and he yelled all the time, they were never any good. Yeah, in part, I don't think the writers knew what to do with them. But I also think TIIC realized Holmes' limitations, and wrote more for Dolan. '95 starts the focus more on Margo, starting with the PTSD and leading into the Alec Wallace/Eddie Silva and the non-reaction of Adam to his bio-dad Hal. Why TIIC didn't just break them up and move them on to other people, I don't know.

I was glad HBS left. By the end of her time, Margo was a shrill hypocrite and everyone kissed her ass almost as much as they kissed Lily's. And I think dramatically, Dolan was a step up from HBS. I think HBS would have played both the right-to-die and rape/HIV stories differently, and softened their impact somewhat. At least in the beginning, I believe Scott Holmes' Tom was less of a "whipped" husband with ED, and they "fit" better than Holmes and HBS. I don't know how "reflective" CZ was, but I remember she got testy at some of the talk that was going on on social media.