Sapounopera

11 hours ago, DRW50 said:

My main memory of those episodes is just finding the show incredibly dull. I do think that Miranda could have worked with better writing, rather than trying to make her a new Iris.

I think the writing was fine. The real problem was the directing, way too old-school for 1980 fans. (I don't mind it at all now that I am watching again. The first time a few years ago, I thought it was shockingly dull.)

Another problem was that there was no big new character in the younger crowd. They didn't really invest in a new charismatic character or couple. 

10 hours ago, j swift said:

While I agree that the writing in 1980 did not match the prior regime, but I would argue that the conception of new citizens of Bay City was intriguing.  Having a character based on the story of Patty Hearst was unique.  The idea of a character hiding from her past is a soap staple, but a nurse who is actually an heiress that had experienced a kidnapping attempt is unique.  Of course, it is ridiculous that after trying to change her name, the entire family would follow her to town, but I particularly liked Rick and his romance with Marianne.

I also enjoyed the Cecile/Pat feud at Brava. It was one of the only times that Cecile was written as smart and conniving. And, I think it was good writing to use their feud as the introduction of the Harry Must Die book which became the clue in Janice's plot to poison Mac. 

Given that Iris was being spun off to Texas, I think Miranda was good substitute.  She was well placed to be a rival for Mac's affection as well as a plaything for the nefarious Philip Lyons.  Also, Jason's relationship with Tracy was interesting and it is the only role that I enjoyed as played by smarmy-guy-specialist Warren Burton

It is one of those times in soap history when it is hard to pinpoint the cause of the issue because with the change in tone from Lemay, the loss of Willis and Iris, and the increased competition from OLTL it became a big ship to readjust.  It was still an adult oriented soap, which I appreciate, even though there were heightened story elements that were uncharacteristic.  It may be that I am a Tom King apologist (as well as a Lemay fan), but I think there is a lot of blame to spread all around at the time, and it wasn't just King's fault.

I agree eith everything you said. No crazy stories, quirky characters etc. The Cory Publishing crowd was charming and sophisticated, not oil barons and cowboys.

I really liked Willis. He seemed like a sleazy guy from a primetime soap. Ron Harper was not very interesting as Taylor, but his family was not a bad addition. They were not loud or sleazy like most of the new 80s families on soaps. At the same time the show had all these normal people and families with lovely older people.

Losing the iconic intro and music and replacing it with something cheap looking and generic was another foul. Cecile lost her charm with the recast, all these big and loud characters took over and then those "action stories"... All the show needed was some tightening, and a boost of excitement and it would be just fine. 

(In another world, Douglas Marland would so have paired Joey Perrini and Sally Frame.)

I have been watching some 1980 episodes and it is not as bad as I remembered from watching a few years back. (I can't watch 1981 because of the new intro, which I hate)

All that poor show needed was some stability. I adore the Cory Publishing crowd and love the scenes at Miranda Bishop's home. Young Sally could be their Laura. Ada's kitchen and Jim with Aunt Liz, give the show such a warm feeling. There was no need for a revamp in 1981, 1982, 1983 and so on. 

8 hours ago, Tonksadora said:

The reason that I thought I was looking in a good place was because Reva had just found her long-lost sister, Cassie, and they had just gotten custody of Tammy back from Annie & Alan, so it seemed like a good spot for animosity. And, I made a typo in the date. It was Thanksgiving time period 1997 not 1977. 

We all understood it was a typo Tonks. No worries. 

I want the ambulance opening back and Y&R to get rid of actors names in the intro.

2 minutes ago, Soapsuds said:

 

Melanie Smith as Brenda Barrett 

I always thought that Melanie Smith would make a great Macy on B&B.

4 hours ago, Forever8 said:

She or Melinda Clarke were my choices for Phyllis before Gina was hired for the role. And I'm Jamie or Melinda wouldn't showcase how bored they're in scenes like a certain actress presently on screen. 

When Kassie DePaiva was playing Eve on DAYS, I thought in my opinion she would've been better suited as a recast Melissa Horton or even a recast Kristen Forrester-Dominguez on Bold and Beautiful. 

KDP would make a great Karen Spencer on B&B.

Why did they do these things to her? Out of the blue? I am so sorry for her bad experiences, but these incidents sound so random. Has she ever given a backstory?

On 2/2/2023 at 6:54 AM, SteelCity said:

I'm in love with the idea of Jamie Luner as Phyllis on YR. She's got that sexiness that Phyllis is supposed to have and plays the bitch well. 

 

This sounds great. The 90s primetime soap fan in me  also wanted Jamie Luner as GH Carly and GL Blake in the 00s.

2 hours ago, David_Vickers said:

But Nadia Bjorlin(Chloe) has been on the show for awhile now, why would she be returning? 

Because she has returned to the show about fifty times?

Are the ATWT McCalls considered successful or unsuccessful? Nobody hated them (except perhaps the father), but they were gone within a few years.

Y&R really tried it with the new families in the early 80s, but only the Abbotts sticked around. Was the Williams family a success? Steve left really soon, Patty stayed for a few years, Todd never showed up and Carl vanished. 

B&B also tried it with the Marrones, but I wouldn't call them a success. Then there was a time where Lorenzo Lamas and Sydney Penny showed up as a new family unit. Linda Gray was part of the mix.

I always expect to read that Chloe is returning, whenever I am opening such a DAYS thread. Happy for Louise Sorel.

Any idea why Brad never brought Amber back? He was fascinated with her for years. By the end of her tenure he had no idea what to do with her, but when has this stopped him before? 

I think it is sad that he didn't manage to keep Rick and Bridget as core characters. They were probably ruined by lots of crazy story and endless marriages, but who hasn't on the show?

13 hours ago, j swift said:

It is amusing to me that in 1973 Juliana McCarthy was 44, Jeanne Cooper was 45, and Dorothy Green was 53.  Each played the mother of adult children, and they were considered the "older" generation of the show.  Today Amelia Heinle is 49, Sharon Case is 51, and Michelle Stafford is 55 are they are written as perpetual 30-40 somethings who still get annual weddings in sexy white wedding gowns.  It just seems like nobody is allowed to age in soaps anymore until they hit their 70s

/cdn-cgi/mirage/73565c11c9d391dba00339780bba344eb08301b9a492cd30b86b462ff7cb7c22/1280/https://i.pinimg.com/originals/53/5c/09/535c099b69e6e19fdf915960fb8b2146.jpg

And whoever ages before they hit 70, is no longer needed on the show.

The show gives new characters and younger people no room to breath when a group of 50-60 year olds gets to play stories meant for people in their 20s and 30s.

18 minutes ago, NothinButAttitude said:

I think the reason why they weren't so chaotic on the P&G shows b/c during those times, it was apparent that P&G didn't play that mess and were heavily involved in their shows. Also, I the genre pre-Ice Princess (on GH) was rooted deeply in reality. From what I've seen of SB, it was like the Dobson were trying to take elements of what made GH and DAYS pop culture darlings and place them into their shows (i.e., supercouples being thrown into these grand, over-the-top adventures). 

You are so right. GH meets DAYS with a touch of DYNASTY.

I loved the 70s epic intro.

I will always have a soft spot for the 80s opening, because that's the ATWT I got to know and love.

The 90s intro was just fine. It was old school and I can understand why they felt the need to move on from the dynamic 80s one.

I hated all the 00s intros with people looking at the camera. So generic. Every soap did it at the time.

2007 seemed so fresh, dramatic and different. And with a great music theme.

The last one was sad, but I didn't hate it.

On 1/25/2023 at 9:02 PM, chrisml said:

I never got the feeling that the Dobsons cared about practicalities like consistency, history, common sense, etc. They just wrote whatever came into their minds in a given day.

Ain't that the truth. I can't believe they are the same people who wrote Guiding Light.

BTW, I can't remember Robin Strand at all.

I loved the 1975-1981 opening. Haunting and sophisticated.

The disco theme was weird, I couldn't stand the 80s opening. 1983 was better looking and the music was dramatic, but watching it meant that the good old days were gone. Later 80s intros looked cheap and uninspired.

Hold on to Love: I could never make sense of the graphics, but the music was fine.

Shockingly, I liked the 1997 intro. It was short, it didn't need to be renewed and the music was dramatic. I could see a more modern and sophisticated version of this lasting years and years.

2002: @vetsoapfan is so right; these were definitely boob implants.

 2003 was kind of sad.

Actually this was just fine. It was vibrant, the images were soapy and it would have looked much better if everyone was less blue.

The hands-opening: another crazy Wheeler idea. And after that... things got really weird and sad. 

7 hours ago, sheilaforever said:

 

If he appeared in 1986 it must have been on first or second day of January because he is not seen in any of the German Y&R episodes which started with Jan 10, 1986 or sotmething.

 

The Greek episodes also started with early January 1986. 

8 hours ago, sheilaforever said:

Jim Storm had zero scenes in 1986… don’t know his exit date, though.

He appeared at least once in 1986. I knew the actor from B&B -which started first in Greece- and I was happy to see another familiar face. I  definitely remember him on the phone with Lauren. Telling her that he is leaving for a business trip or something. 

SSM's stint was the last time I enjoyed the show. I am sure Kay Alden also had something to do with it. Cane and Juliet was not a bad story, they brought Dina back, they tried to humanize the Newmans, they cared for Hilary. Gossip queen Hilary was not the best use of the actress. I can't blame them for finding the Devon Chancellor story stupid and his sudden wealth made him even more boring. The BLM story with a black billionaire as victim could be something. We know his love life has never been. 

On 1/17/2023 at 6:07 AM, dc11786 said:

Someone shared some things with me a while back. Unfortunately, from my memory, the main things I recall were the three main stories were outlined: (1) the Kelly / Joe romance with Joe clearing his name, (2) Gina's search to gain access to her son via relationships with both C.C. and Mason, and (3) the youth summer story in Los Angles. The L.A. storyline was intended to cash in on the summer Olympics which I believe were to be hosted in Los Angeles that year. Also, the Hollywood story gave the network the opportunity to cross promote (if they so chose) with primetime by having Danny and Ted get stunt jobs on a NBC series like "Hill Street Blues." 

The main things I recall were mostly about missing parts or serious deviations in the story. Sophia's return was not a part of the original story. Lionel isn't mentioned much. There seemed to be a strange connection between Augusta and C.C. that was never completely clarified. C.C.'s motive for pushing Peter and Kelly together was not just to keep Kelly away from Joe, but because C.C. had found her at least on one occasion on the verge of a nervous breakdown after Joe was arrested and was afraid she would completely go over the edge. 

Santana was suppose to learn that Gina had custody of her son while Gina was living out of town. Gina would have infilitrated the DeMott household posing as the maid and befriending her son. Mason would discover her and threaten to reveal Santana's true identity which would have lead to a relationship between Santana and Mason by necessity. 

I was mostly surprised, and not surprised, to see that of the Perkins and Andrade families, only Santana and Joe were fleshed out and given significant story. I don't think Amy was mentioned at all. Nor were any of the other Andrade children. There was a footnote at one point that John Perkins at some point could become in a corrupt trade union in a story resembling "On the Waterfront." 

The biggest surprise was the reveal that Warren was Channing's killer and that it was all based on the gold coins story. There was no mention of Channing being Lionel's son either, but, since neither Lionel or Sophia were mentioned, this should be no surprise. 

I believe I may have only seen part of the "Santa Barbara" bible. I think there was a second part outlining characters which I didn't get a chance to look at. 

I don't have it anymore unfortunately, so this is all form memory. 

Wow, thank you so much. This is fascinating. Too bad that the Santana/Brandon/Gina was never told properly. It looks as though the Dobsons had bigger plans for it, but they were lost between (unnecessary) recasts and ratings worries. Since there no big Andrade and Perkins families, the bible could have been intended for a half-hour soap, which would have benefited the show.  

2 hours ago, Darn said:

Name a character introduced in the last decade that's as interesting as Jack or Lauren or Michael or Nikki.

Hillary? Who should be one of the show's big stars, but they gave up on her because Newman WTD stories are much more fun.

@dc11786 I have never heard of a Santa Barbara bible. Do we know anything more about it?

7 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I think many of these decisions were based on Lemay's hubris, rather than just wanting to promote Victoria Wyndham. He wasn't close to Jacqueline Courtney the way he was to Susan Sullivan, Victoria, or Constance Ford, and he and Rauch arrogantly assumed she could be replaced. He also seemingly assumed a number of theater actors he had take big roles on the show would stay long-term. This led to a rot where Victoria was one of the only popular actresses who was staying long-term. And as the canvas was so empty, that made it even easier for P&G to run through dumping based on ageism, like what happened to Beverly Penberthy. 

As for Beverlee, wasn't she burnt out of playing Iris the way she had to play her and just burnt out at AW, period?

Victoria Wyndham has said some very interesting things in her interviews. Like writing the show herself, or that they didn't cancel because of her. I am pretty sure someone at NBC really really liked her. 

I think that AW's real problem that after a while -for reasons unknown-  it only existed as a vanity project for Victoria Wyndham.

Getting rid of Alice, the show's heroine so that Rachel could take her place.

Getting rid of all of the veterans so that Victoria Wyndham could be the one and only.

(Why did she get star billing again?)

Sending super popular Beverlee's Iris to Texas. It was 1980. GH and AMC were huge hits, NBC was in trouble. Why do something like that again?