DeliaIrisFan

The characters/dynamics all sound really interesting; and as has been said, much more befitting the 21st century than ≥ 99% of what other soaps have done in the entire 21st century to date. I do wonder about a few things, though... Is it unusual for new soaps to have so many young(er), frontburner couples already together when we meet them, at least since the dawn of the "supercouple" era? Of course, every tentpole soap couple from Chris and Nancy Hughes up until Maeve and Johnny Ryan at least were already married with grown children, and it stands to reason that Betty and Patrick would be similarly established. I'm just thinking about how various new soaps in the past few decades have introduced the couples whose romantic drama was actually meant to drive story. Then again, maybe most if not all of the young(er) characters have yet to meet their actual long-term love interests? It's hard to say for sure from the character descriptions. For all I know, by next summer, Luis will have come out as bi, and both Elizabeth and one of the gay dads will be hitting the gym to take their minds off their crumbling marriages and spending more and more time with their trainer. I don't know, I'm just speculating - I don't mean to second-guess MVJ, least of all before the show premieres. I also hope the show is not written/filmed too far in advance: for a lot of reasons, including because of the timing of launching a show with this subject matter. I have many hopes and fears IRL about the election that this isn't the place to go into, and I know which outcome I want to see as the backdrop for a new DC-based show with the characters as described. I also just don't want the political aspect to be so superficial that we're supposed to be ignorant of what these characters' party affiliations are, the way other soaps have so often watered down stories in that vein. Do we think there will at least be time to edit the first scripts with some references to semi-current events? No comment on the BTS hires.

Oh yeah, that was the other part that I wonder if Nancy Curlee wanted to forget when she got back: the fact that there had been a Kristen DiMera prototype running around town in such an outlandish story. Not only is there very little Nadine/Bridget interaction for the rest of 1993 that I've seen, but there is also very exposition about how it is that almost nobody in town knows that Bridget had a baby when he and the father live in town. Oh, I know she was in college, but I could swear there was some reference to Bridget still being 17 when the story started (I mean, the teens were still in high school when she slept with Hart and got pregnant). Then she was stuck in that dark attic with no human contact except Nadine herself, who was constantly trying to shoo her back up there anytime she wandered downstairs. And Nadine manipulated Bridget's exposure to news of the outside world to keep her compliant, including most egregiously the news of Maureen's death as you mentioned. I know it was not kidnapping in a legal sense, but it was exploiting a very young person, who I still believe was a minor to begin with. Actually, in hindsight both Jenna and Nadine were "punished" in that exact same way, in the same year (still not sure what exactly Jenna was being punished for, though). It did make Nadine more sympathetic, but upon recent viewing it seemed more about making them each dependent on Buzz than any kind of character development. It also didn't make any sense. Beyond the sheer odds that they would each go from being that wealthy to completely broke back-to-back, they both seemed to accept their fates way too easily. Nadine had no reason to agree to a quick divorce from Billy without a settlement when she knowing how eager he was to remarry Vanessa and keep things quiet about Peter; she could have just held out for something and/or threatened to make trouble. And I can't believe one of Spauldings' competitors wouldn't have offered Jenna some kind of consulting gig, if only to pick her brain after she'd run the company for the better part of a year and it was still in business. Given all that's been written about FOJs, it's hard not to think in hindsight that there was a mandate to have multiple established female characters become beholden to Buzz. God bless Curlee and the others who were still writing and made most of the related stories coherent and often compelling, but both characters should have had more promising options than the Coopers' largess at that point in their lives.

I think Nadine keeping Bridget locked in her attic (wasn't Bridget still a minor at that time?) so that she could be Nadine's handmaid was pretty evil. I feel like the show (or, more specifically, Nancy Curlee when she returned from maternity leave) realized that as well and tried to memory hole Nadine's role in Peter's origin story, even while his parentage and custody continued to be an umbrella story for another year. For a long time, Bridget and Nadine had no scenes together, and even once or twice when they were in crowds together, I could swear there was deliberate staging/editing to avoid any interaction. I also don't agree that Jenna was written as the "favorite" for Buzz. I remember Lucy and Nadine and even some under-fivers who were playing random Fifth Street neighbors constantly degrading Jenna. I just think Buzz was sexist/ageist, and perhaps more importantly someone behind the scenes (clears throat) had internalized some of those same attitudes. So it was just a given that a much younger woman would find the new patriarch irresistible, and not one character questioned why she would look twice at him. I preferred Buzz and Jenna in the '90s to Buzz/Nadine, but I think that was partly because I misremembered Buzz/Jenna as something that started as an odd-couple friendship subplot and became something more organically. I rewatched much of 1993 on YouTube a few years ago and they still have chemistry, but the way they were presented was jarring, and made me like them together much less.

I am finally caught up on the past week-plus, after falling a bit behind on account of the demoralizing BTS news and holiday weekend. I agree with those who've said that killing off Gregory at this point, the day after his biggest health concern was that he wouldn't be able to finish officiating a wedding, was a copout. If Gregory was not a beloved enough character to headline a long-term ALS story, then someone should have thought of that before they started. (I find it hard to believe the previous regime and/or FV wanted to go all-in and Mulcahey took the easy way out, but if that's actually happened then that's not okay either.) Unless they were going to do an equally realistic and dramatic euthanasia story. Whether a story about a 100% terminal illness with a known trajectory makes sense dramatically on a daily soap opera is another question. I would argue that it does, or at least it could. The suspense wouldn't have been about what was going to happen to Gregory physically - instead, his worsening symptoms and knowing he's going to die soon ish could have raised the stakes for any and all other drama. The story wouldn't even have had to center around Michael Easton, if they are or were writing him out - Finn could have gone off to rehab and Gregory could have moved in with the Quartermaines, along with Brook Lynn and Chase now that he's a Q-in-law. Caring for a parent with disabilities could have been an added stressor for whatever newlywed drama the show has planned for them. And we could have seen an actual relationship with Tracy play out, and what that might look like as his physical condition deteriorated. Meanwhile, the Lane Davies stuff did not work for me at all (never watched SB). I am not a lawyer but I can't believe that was how a bar association hearing would play out? In fact, I just caught a Golden Girls rerun in which LD played a lawyer in a courtroom scene that was supposed to be a farce (this was a later-season episode) and the tone seemed pretty similar, except the directing and jokes on GG were way better, and there were comic geniuses on hand to play off his ridiculous character. Was "Fergus" supposed to be there as a family member of the "victim"? He was seated at what looked like the prosecution/plaintiff table and they kept referring to him as "opposing counsel." At times, Alexis seemed to be acting as though his family connection was a bombshell revelation, but if that would have made for an improper conflict of interest, why was he allowed to stay? I also had assumed the dead brother whose hearing Alexis perjured herself at was the character LD previously played (they kept saying she was disbarred in 2020 and I was trying to figure out how LD had lasted so long) and they were supposed to be twins. I now realize that wasn't the case, so why not make him an unrelated character who could spar with Alexis in a more realistic way, like one of the judges? That whole interlude—more than anything to do with the awkward pacing, poor editing, and unwieldy number of characters nobody knows what to do—is the one thing I've seen on GH that makes me seriously question whether PM was ever best suited to be a head writer. He's presumably the only one involved who would have cared to do any of this, so it's easy to say this reflects his unadulterated vision. But you know what, Mulcahey has proven he has enough writing talent that I would have rather he'd been given the time and the breathing room to prove himself one way or the other. Because otherwise, I've still been enjoying the material. I don't care about Sonny at this point, let alone Jason, but the reactions of the characters in their orbit work for me by and large. (Most of) Sonny's adult kids are genuinely interesting. The wedding was fun, even if I'm not invested in the couple. Ned and Lois were awesome (I wish it had been Ned to tell Tracy about Gregory, like they had foreshadowed). Watros and West are getting powerful material, and even Mathison is charming and engaging. Was any of that leading anywhere? We'll never know, but now for sure it won't lead anywhere. You'd think after decades of micromanaging and/or playing musical chairs with writers, someone with power in this industry would finally remember that the promise of payoff used to be what kept audiences tuning in, and any backstage disruption is going to set a show back months if not more.

I don't think it's fair to equate Pat Falken-Smith and Claire Labine's respective tenures at RH. Labine created the show and was at least equally responsible for its best material. I get why Mulgrew's peers—especially Hicks, who was amazing as Faith—didn't like their characters being in Mary's shadow, and Mary got on my nerves many times, but she was central to the creator(s)' vision for the show and KM was never boring. And her Mary with Michael Levin's Jack was lightning in a bottle. The less said about the recasts, the better, but that just proves to me Labine's instincts were right: to kill off Mary when KM left. ETA: That's not to make excuses for what Ana Alicia and other BIPOC actors who were stuck in supporting roles described in the book. In my mind, that's a separate issue/whole nother level, but I had momentarily forgotten Alicia and Hicks spoke of being friends/allies backstage. I was really disappointed in the shows' creators when I first read that section of the book. As for the early '80s, Labine admitted she was burnt out by then and would have taken a breather had she not feared what ABC would do to the show without her. And her fears weren't off-base. She tried to incorporate what (she thought) ABC wanted with Prince Albert and the Egyptian tomb, etc. into the show RH had been, in ways that interested her. It didn't work and that was that, but IMO those stories were not even close to the show's low point. I don't know why Falken-Smith took the gig or what she was trying to accomplish or if she even had any creative control. When I first read about that era (and tried to watch some of the YouTube material), she was an easy scapegoat, and from the book she clearly wasn't beloved backstage. By all accounts, though, she had talent and knew how to make soaps successful, so it's really just bizarre. I remember calling Jill "Shrill" on the SoapNet board in the early '00s, and I've regretted that since 2016, at least... The historical significance of Jill's character is really something, perhaps even more so all these decades later. FWIW I always knew Nancy Addison was a great actress and, like Mulgrew's Mary, Jill was never boring. As far as how RH would have fared in the '90s, I think recasting the younger generation when the first round of contracts came up, particularly Ryan, could have opened up new dramatic possibilities. Depending on the recast, of course. A new actress could have played a more grown-up, independent Ryan who acted like a daughter of Mary and Jack. It might have helped turn the page from the Ryan/Rick era: kind of like when Kimberley Simms took over the role of Mindy on GL around the same time, and brought more nuance to the role. Alas, with ABC owning the show, a part of me fears RH would have eventually met the same fate as Loving, perhaps around the same time: 12:30 was a better timeslot but not ratings kryptonite by any means, especially post-OJ. Maybe ABC would have even used RH as the launching pad for The City. If there was any possibility of Maeve becoming a serial killer and dispatching with most/all of the Ryans—so the surviving, younger characters could be free to move downtown—I can't say I'm sorry we missed that.

This is the take I agree with the most. I didn't love everything that's been happening on GH the last few months, but I've watched regularly for the first time in decades. I don't even know if PM is cut out to be a head writer, but if reportedly he (he and MK) weren't given time to write a long-range story, then who can say? I feared it would end up something like this, but this sequence of events is truly bonkers, especially for 2024. The comparisons to Claire Labine's tenure at Paul Rauch's GL are apt. Although in hindsight I can at least kind of understand how that went down at the time, when we weren't that far removed from soaps being incredibly profitable and attracting key demos and most of the shows were bleeding viewers year upon year. Daytime wasn't that far removed from a time when an esteemed head writer could bring a show from the brink of cancellation to pop culture phenomenon. And in 2000 there was at least a cost-benefit justification that could be made for the amount of micromanaging that clearly went on in those days. Even if anyone who knew soaps could have realized that approach itself would prove disastrous for a genre that needs to build trust with viewers that there will be payoff for what they're watching. You can't convince me that in 2024 anyone with influence over a sizable amount of the remaining soap audience knew or cared who Mulcahey was; or that GH could be that much more in danger now than it was three months ago; or that anyone at ABC believed either of those things. I too worry about The Gates, not that I didn't already, but I have some more hope on that front for a couple of reasons: 1) Nobody has created a daytime soap in this millennium, so hopefully Michele Val Jean's contract will be more like a primetime deal, in terms of creative control, if only for lack of an alternative template. 2) At least she'll be starting with a blank canvas, and can establish an internal reality that can allow the show to have real stakes. The fact that the big story PM was ostensibly hired for was Jason coming back from the dead for the who knows many number of times in his 50-something years and saving Port Charles never did bode well... Still, I'll probably watch the remainder of PM's material. Hopefully TG will be something better, but this may be my last chance to see what a head writer I have respect for might do with a show that has decades of history.

Oh, sorry, I was talking about naming a random, unrelated character after her. It doesn't seem like much of a tribute, especially if the only commonality is that she shares Amy's most annoying traits (and that's all there is to the character). I think I saw those first few 2010s Nurses Balls and now that you mention it, I remember Lucy's speech and had no problem with it. Now that I think about it, I also want to say Amy's photo was on that tribute wall at the hospital they showed during Bobbie's memorial - I seem to remember a shot of Laura pausing. I just heard a character talk about a birthday party for "Amy" at the hospital and had a sense of deja vu.

Thanks for the explanation. I did wonder if this was another character named who had been named after her, but I was fairly certain I have a handle on all of Laura's children/grandchildren at this point. I don't even know what to say about that "tribute"...

I can't disagree with those who say the pacing is off, but for now at least, I'm having no trouble wanting to tune into the next episode. The dialogue is much better, at least 50% of the cast is good, and there is a sense of community. That counts for a lot for me after all we've lost of soaps. I wish there were more compelling stories, and maybe that will happen. I certainly don't like how every character is being written (see Lucy), and there are more characters than I can count on both hands whom I have no interest in whatsoever. Maybe I'm more curious about what a writer like PM is going to do with a show with this history, whatever confines he may be dealing with, than I'm ever going to be about what happens next in an actual story on a network soap at this point—at least until The Gates premieres. The idea that they're foregoing cliffhangers because of the previews is interesting to me, especially because I've been watching almost exclusively on Hulu and haven't seen previews. Do those only air on the network broadcast, or do you actually have to wait until after the end credits? As far as the show itself, can someone explain to me the history of Anna and Jason's friendship(?)? From my perspective, she seems way too trusting of him, especially when they've made a big point that she's finally seen the light about Sonny. And the explanation that she has given for why her judgment was clouded where Sonny was concerned (because of Robin) actually makes Anna's ease with Jason stand out even more, considering how Robin and Jason ended. That is one of my biggest issues with the Pikeman story honestly. One more random question, that I meant to ask last week: Did I mishear or did Aiden drop off cupcakes for the birthday party (that we didn't see) of a nurse named Amy? He repeated the name several times and I could swear that's what he said. Is Amy Vining supposed to be alive and working at GH?

Oh yeah, I know the filming method is difficult for actors to keep track of their characters' arc even if there is a big-picture plan for which scenes air when. I just wonder if even that thread is now getting lost. From what I've seen, there is typically only one script writer credited in a given episode, and I assume there are union safeguards to prevent significant amounts of material written by dialogue writer X airing on a day when writer Y was credited. But I can't shake the feeling sometimes that an actual writer is not responsible for the sequence/grouping of scenes in any given day.

So sorry if I didn't clarify, I said it would be a copout if he were killed off in a matter of days. I will be particularly disappointed if rumors/suggestions that it will be right after dancing(?!) at the wedding come to pass in any way. I'm by no means an expert but I have lost several (extended) family members to ALS. I just think ending it now would be more fitting for an unspecified soap opera disease than a real-life condition, especially on a show centered around a hospital. A few arguments about whether he wants (as opposed to needs, which seems like an eventuality) in-home care is barely scratching the surface. From what I know of ALS but also from a dramatic perspective, it seems obvious to me that Gregory has a bit longer to live, but his life is likely going to change A LOT MORE in that time, in ways that GH should not shy away from.

I hope GH is not in (more) jeopardy. I do think it's greatly improved from what I've seen earlier this year, and I want to give these writers more time, but it is hit or miss right now for sure. I agree with many that Nina and Drew are the strongest story. That is a little surprising but also not so much when I remember what CW accomplished on GL playing another throwaway character, in a grotesque and misogynistic story written by lesser writers. And CM is a good-looking man who's not being written as annoying currently. Their scenes work for me, and at the end of the day, drama about adults having consensual sex they enjoy is not a bad thing for the remaining soaps could be focusing on in 2024. Runner up, sort of: A number of scenes having to do with Sonny's impending downfall are quite strong and I can still believe there are real stakes. But I agree it seems increasingly likely all will be forgiven once Carly or whoever proves he wasn't to blame because of his meds. And stuff like Anna confiding in Jason in ways that she can't trust anyone on the police force (which I can't say I blame her for, but if that's the case why is she the commissioner and not at least as focused on cleaning up the PCPD?) also does not bode well. I gather this is unpopular, but Gregory's story is in third place for me right now, at least when he's with Tracy. Jane Elliot is getting really good material. I missed whatever it was that made Gregory so universally loathed and maybe the actor himself took some getting used to the pace, etc. of filming GH these days, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'll actually be disappointed if he really is killed off in a matter of days (both because the material itself is working for me, especially what Jane Elliot is doing with it, and because it seems like a copout). Beyond those 2-3 stories, primarily involving characters I hadn't heard of and/or wasn't expected to care about when I tuned back in, just about everything else still seems aimless. I can't say much more than has already been written about all those career changes, except that I half expected when the congressman announced he was retiring that Drew would ask him to be Willow's co-spokesperson at the "Institute." I singled out Sasha becoming the Q cook last week, but upon further reflection, it's no less random than whatever else she could be doing and putting her in the Q orbit is not the worst idea. But the show is called General Hospital, so why on earth take Willow out of the hospital when she's a nurse? And why are we hearing about all of these businesses that seem loosely affiliated with ELQ and/or used to be (Deception? Aurora?) but not the biggest company in town? For me, Lois as the Deception spokesperson is perhaps the worst in this trend. Lois actually is a well-defined character, and her career goals were always key to her character. The job wasn't fulfilling enough for Sasha, who is still figuring out what she wants to do with her life, but Lois has nothing better to do with her time? I love Rena's Lois, but she's recurring and her daughter is a legacy character (inasmuch as there are any legacy characters on this show anyone cares about) tied to a core family. If the new writers don't have anything else meaningful for her to do, I think they could give her some good supporting material with Brook and the Qs and even Sonny, with the understanding that she's still Lois and living a full life off-camera. On a similar but more disappointing note, if this is how Mulcahey and Co. see Lucy, I don't for the life of me get it but I think I'd rather they not use her at all. She's probably my favorite character left and Lynn Herring is a treasure, but I think I could live with that if their vision for the show as a whole ends up working. What they're doing now just poisons my attitude toward characters they're trying to shore up, at Lucy's expense. I know nothing about behind the scenes, but I do suspect there are issue(s) with the editing that is undermining the writing. Are we sure that any given writer even has the final say about which characters will be in an episode and what the first and last scenes in the show will be? The issue that came up earlier in the week when Maxie said Felicia was babysitting (one of) her kids and then we cut to a one-off scene of Felicia at the hospital with Willow makes me think not. With the chaotic shooting schedule, is there actually anything to stop the production staff from splicing together random scenes for logistical reasons?

Exactly. I assumed it would be a salary downgrade from professional modeling, but I don't know. I'm not even sure where being a live-in cook for a wealthy family falls in the status hierarchy of the culinary field. I'm just assuming with Tracy living there, any servant would be reminded that's what they are from time to time, at the very least. And even Olivia essentially said she plans to cook the important meals herself. So I don't see how this is a promising career move, except we're to believe Lucy was so ridiculous and impossible to work for that anything would be better. Which reminds me of why I resent Sasha's character after < 2 months of watching.

The discussion of the gender dynamics around Sasha's career change are interesting (more interesting than the character herself from what I've seen so far). I admittedly did not consider that when I watched those scenes, but this professional pivot sure is problematic for plenty of other reasons. At its worst, I don't recall Downton Abbey ever suggesting that any of the servants chose their professions over more lucrative options because it brought them personal fulfillment. (It was more the upward mobility than many of them had, with full support from the family, that became increasingly ludicrous.) Presumably modeling pays more than being a servant? And at the risk of minimizing the unpaid labor that women across all social strata often end up taking on, it does seem like Olivia would have more options than most, and certainly more options than hiring Sasha as the new cook. Couldn't Olivia just bring home takeout from the hotel restaurant (especially now that Carly is back at the Metro Court, and presumably will single-handedly solve all the room service issues)? Speaking of Olivia, I've read through the discussion about her similarities to Lois and whether or not to keep Olivia around, but I'm still not clear on whether Olivia and/or Ned/Olivia have fans in their own right. I have only been watching again for < 2 months after decades, so if it ain't broke and all—I really have nothing against the actress, and no opinion on them as a couple—but it does look really bad from where I'm sitting that Ned is married to somewhat so much like Lois. In any event, I would welcome a new character as a love interest for Lois. Although I feel guilty wishing for that when the cast is so overrun and I'm happy to see Lois on GH after all this time, even in a supporting capacity.

Oh, right. I saw some of those clips from the strike (I think?). So it's even more bizarre that Ned disappeared for eons and his first scenes back were at his future son-in-law's bachelor party, as opposed to with his daughter, the bride-to-be.

Perhaps. Even as someone who loved Sonny BITD and still has a fondness for MB, it is impossible to center a show around this character, then let alone now. And the way MB is playing Sonny at this point is not what I believe he is or at least was capable of, and I have no interest in seeing 60-something Sonny continue to lash out at all the women who are obsessed with him for "betrayal." That said, some kind of downfall for Sonny, even if he stays on canvas with fewer defenders, could work for me. I like a lot of the scenes with various characters turning on him, though the pill tampering angle is sloppy and does make me fear it won't go anywhere. Of course, even if Sonny is knocked down several pegs, it's all for naught if Jason is still going to be the hero, after decades as being complicit with Sonny's worst deeds. And I have no love lost for that actor. So you may be right. If nothing else, this might be the last time a really smart, talented writer gets to try and restore a daytime soap opera, so if nothing else it's intellectually interesting for me to watch. I'm also not convinced ABC or any network is still topheavy enough anymore to micromanage Mulcahey to death to the extent that networks did when soaps managed to nab big names behind the scenes at the turn of the century. Anyway, this week so far: I saw another character that I hadn't seen since the credits change: Ned. I almost forgot Ned was one of the living Qs. WTH? I'm so glad Rena's Lois is on the show, I do get that Ned and Lois aren't going to have scenes together, but why can't they each appear in different scenes, have an acknowledged history, but not see each other every day: like real-life exes? I still am indifferent to Brook Lynn and Chase both, but I never thought I'd see the child of a soap couple I enjoyed watching as a teen getting a big soap opera wedding. (Well, we'll see how big it really is.) So, for that alone, I have been enjoying the prenuptial festivities (except for the offhanded, continued Lucy bashing. Did Lois and Lucy ever interact? In hindsight, they should have known each other through Brenda,could easily have commiserated at some point over mutual disdain for Katherine Bell, and should have maintained a mutual respect for each other as entrepreneurs). Speaking of '90s throwbacks, the music montage after Nina signed her divorce papers (with flashbacks to Sonny in a cowboy hat) was cringeworthy but the amazing Watros/West showdown was like some of the best of soaps in the mid-'90s. There is still a ridiculous element to Nina—quoting Maya Angelou probably by way of Hillary Clinton to a BIPOC underling and passing it off as her own sage advice in the middle of her own pity party—but the way Nina is written now, she is weirdly endearing. I would be lying if I said I understood much of any of that plot stuff, but in terms of Cody, I think I get it - the con he was after had to do with who his father was, not Dominique. So did I just imagine during the Bobbie memorial week that Cody had leveraged his claim to be Dominique's son in order to wrest her inheritance away from Scott, and that was why Scott was in need of Tracy's money? I meant to note the other day when I criticized Anna's scenes on Friday that I really did like the scenes with Laura earlier in the week. That made sense and they both came across as intelligent women engaging in real introspection - as opposed to Anna asking an inappropriate prosecutor to handle Sonny's case and second-guessing her own idea to protect Dex as an informant because Jocelyn told her off.

I caught up on a bunch of episodes this weekend, including the tail end of Lucy's abject humiliation on the home shopping show, and I have to echo what others have said about how horrible that was. Lucy is so much smarter than that, and that scene makes me resent Sasha as much as many on this board who've been watching for a while seem to, when up until now I was just indifferent to what I'd seen of the character. I can't believe I'm trying to find any logic in those godawful scenes, but has it actually been established in recent years that the Nurses Ball is broadcast in Port Charles (or more widely)? I have no recollection of that being an aspect of the original concept for the Nurses Ball in the '90s, but that seemed to be what Morgan Fairchild was suggesting? I was even further confused about (fictional) TV programming when Lois mentioned something about her mother watching MF's show - so are we to believe that it tapes in PC and is broadcast statewide, or even throughout the tristate area/nationwide? Beyond my deep disappointment in what is being done with Lucy, I don't know what to think about the show's new direction. It's definitely improved. At times the writing seems intelligent and I even feel like stories are building toward some kind of long-term payoff. But it doesn't help when one of the few characters I actually recognize and still care about is the butt of everyone's joke, and I'm still struggling to know or frankly care who many of the newer characters who pop up every so often are. In fact, having watched every episode since the new writing team has been credited, I swear I'm still seeing characters that are actively involved in (what on another soap would seem like) major stories for the first time every week: like the guy who hired the thugs to beat up Jagger for Sonny, who's also apparently dating the deputy mayor? WTF? Some have praised Anna's scenes on Friday, but I actually felt something was off with the directing or something. Wasn't the whole point of having Dex join the police department so that Sonny wouldn't dare have him killed? That seemed like a calculated risk, at best, but I thought we were meant to believe Anna knew what she was doing. Yet all it took was a college student (who apparently didn't know Sonny could have people killed a few weeks ago) accusing Anna of putting Dex in danger to make her second-guess herself? And then when Molly told Anna it would be a conflict of interest for her to prosecute Sonny, and why, I swear I got the sense that Anna had completely forgotten about/was unaware of the surrogacy story. Not that I could blame Anna, when the major players vanish for week(s) on end (see above). PS: I don't know why I care, but did I read correctly above that Cody really is Dominique's son? From some scenes when I first tuned back in earlier this year for Bobbie's send-off, I thought Cody was pretending to be Dom's son for the money, and he was hiding the fact that Mac was his father because that would blow his cover. I forgot/never realized Mac and Dominique had been an item once. Then again, I've been confused that Cody is working in the Quartermaines' stable if he currently has Dom's inheritance. I also thought Sasha was his accomplice and more of an ethically gray character given that she switched the paternity test. So clearly I missed a lot...

Wow...go MVJ. This is all just incredible. And to think, there will actually be news I can look forward to reading trickle out for the rest of the year, instead of tearing my hair out.

Thanks, @DRW50 - great find.

Yes, it is a soap cliche across the board, but it just seems especially hollow here because none of the relationships resulting in these children seemed to have any kind of resonance in terms of character development. Hence my analogy to ATWT. And I suspect some of those couplings came about because of physical and/or other resemblance to past love interests. And I think that's right, Julian Jerome is Sam's father, or at least he was when Lucas was reintroduced a decade or so ago. That I watched for a bit. It also doesn't help that I keep wanting to call her Olivia, because of PC.

Like they ended up doing with Kevin/Lucy, I could see the Labines, Val Jean, et al having fun paying homage to '40s romantic comedies with Scott/Lucy (just a different kind of '40s romantic comedy). Especially after I just discovered the week of Lucy interrupting Scott and Katherine Bell's wedding is now on YouTube and watched that. I am curious about how a number of the plot details would have worked if Scott had been in Kevin's place. As it ended up playing out, the impetus for Lucy getting involved with Damian and making that bet was her grief at the loss of Serena. So maybe Scott and Katherine would have continued slightly(?) longer (yawn) and/or Scott would have stayed mad at Lucy for a while, to the extent that he would have been in PC but vindictively kept Lucy from Serena after she was born. I imagine Scott would have gradually come to his senses and let Lucy back into his and Serena's life around the time she met Kevin in the version we saw, but of course Lucy couldn't have confided in Scott the terms of the bets the way she did with Kevin, because of his history with Bobbie. And Scott would have been furious when he did find out, leading to another rift.

Thank you! Yes, I know Carly is Michael's birth mother, and AJ was his bio father - well, unless Carlivati or whoever rewrote that at some point. And Molly's father was Ric Hearst's character, I think, so that means she's related to Sonny as well? It all just seems really excessive, and made this week's fight scene that was already bad in every way somehow even stupider. I also didn't know how long Ned and Olivia had been together, so I assumed Ned was Leo's biological father. That's an interesting detail.

As someone who hasn't watched GH on a regular basis since the '90s, I was really excited the week before last. The day-to-day writing was an improvement, and I was like Charlie Brown with Lucy's football at the thought of a dramatic, long-term unbrella story on a soap in the 21st century that made sense. This past week was a bit more rocky, and in fact cheapened some of what worked for me or I at least tolerated in Mulcahey, et al's first full week... The stakes of characters like Anna and Carly's daughter with Jax (I think?) washing their hands of Sonny aren't nearly as dramatic if they're still hero worshipping Jason. And I could kind of dig Laura and Heather bonding (and suspend disbelief about walking back at least Heather's most serious crimes) until I watched those scenes with Trina this week, and I remembered that oh yeah, Laura's grandson just died and she could have been talking to this perfectly lovely woman said grandson loved instead. But I powered through and Friday was at least compelling, even though I still have questions about where all this is going. I'm hoping for the best next week. It's still weird to me that I've watched GH more this year than I have in the past 2.5 decades...it figures this would be my midlife crisis. A few random observations/questions: I really cannot keep track of Sonny and Jason's children/grandchildren, especially the ones with Brenda and/or Robin–esque mothers. I don't think it was this hard for me to figure out Bob and Kim's blended family on ATWT, and in this case I actually saw at least some of these characters' origin stories. Did Brook Lynn and Monica have an actual, meaningful relationship? I recall Brook Lynn was the one who explained Monica's absence when I tuned in for Bobbie's sendoff, and it was the same this week. Or was that just a coincidence?

Re: the original plan for Kevin/Felicia vs. Kevin/Lucy in 1993-94, I am pretty sure Kin Shriner's departure was unexpected and the Labines had planned much of what became Kevin/Lucy's material for Lucy and Scott, no? So my guess is Kevin and Felicia was the original plan. The question is how long-term. Speaking of Ashford's Tom, maybe the original story with him and Felicia was a reworked version of a long-term story for Kevin and Felicia, after she was done with both Mac and Felicia and Ryan was dead. Tom was also a psychiatrist, right?

Would ABC have had any interest in Laura and Lucky without Luke, though? GH spent so many years trying to make Bill Eckert work. Even if the network had equal respect for Geary and Francis, which is questionable, wouldn't they have assumed that trading one for the other would have been a wash? Or would Bill have stayed in a separate story? As for the writing change, I get the rationale for pairing Labine and Riche, but my question is why wait until Luke and Laura were coming back? Riche was at GH for almost two years without Labine, who had not worked in daytime since RH went off the air, during which time GH went through a revolving door of writing teams (as you've been discussing). I could have seen ABC hiring Labine and Riche at the same time. And I think I've posted before that what Gloria Monty had tried to do with the Eckerts earlier in the decade was on paper something Labine would have excelled at - I just can't imagine they would have gotten along at all. At both those points, GH was making a public show of turning the page from the '80s action adventure era, and hiring the co-creator of RH would have been consistent with that. Whereas L&L's return signaled an attempt to return to that formula, at least in part. If anything, I'm surprised ABC wasn't trying to get one of the '80s writers back (one who wasn't Monty's sister, after how that turned out). And if ABC/Riche had been pursuing Labine previously and it took a while to come to terms, I would think Luke and Laura's return might have scared her off for good, based on how her previous working relationship with ABC went south after L&L took off. Believe me, I'm not complaining about what we got at all. I just wonder if there's more to the story of how it happened.