DeliaIrisFan

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.

I totally think Brenda was exaggerating her importance—at the same time, making Sonny feel guilty and twisting the knife re: Karen—but now that you mention it, that dialogue does ring a bell. So does the other stuff. Now that you mention it, I wonder if they had actually been planning to pair Brenda and Sonny whether she would have emerged from the Jagger breakup as more of an outcast. I assume the original plan was for Brenda to end up with one of the Quartermaine brothers, so she had to at least have Lila's seal of approval. But instead, Sonny and Brenda could have bonded if more people blamed both of them. I also wonder about how the cast cuts that were made to finance Luke and Laura's return, and if Brenda and Julia were both on the list. And I momentarily forgot about Sonny and SJB's Carly, so I will amend what I said previously: Sonny arguably should never have been heard from again, except for one guest stint in 2000. At the time, I thought the story leading up to Sonny leaving Brenda at the altar was stupid, and her believing Jason was stupid, and I have absolutely no desire to rewatch anything from GH in 1997 so I can't say if I'd feel differently now. I was actually thinking of something darker for the tragic exit that the Labines planted the seeds for: after a year or so of becoming more and more cut off from everyone he once cared about, Who Killed Sonny (with or without a body)? His brief return to impregnate Carly could have been an homage to James Stenbeck on ATWT: Hello Brend...wait, who the hell are you???

Not only that, but RH's title worked (until it didn't, when ABC kept trying to sideline the titular family, but that's another story) because it was a half-hour show. Every good story that show ever told tied back to the Ryans in some way. I don't see how an hourlong, daily soap could feature one family nonstop, and I fear the rest of the characters' stories would feel like filler if the show were named after one family. Anyway, I love being able to quibble over the title of a new, promising soap opera.

Ah, my bad - I was thinking only of U.S. soaps. Sorry about that. But to answer your question, I was (and still am, on YouTube) able to forget the HOTL lyrics altogether whenever the instrumental background score comes on. It was great at Hamp and Gilly's wedding, when Roberta Flack appeared to sing it, and the lyrics were appropriate if not groundbreaking. After that, though...

I agree 200% with both takes on Hold Onto Love. I will always associate the opening as well as the melancholy (instrumental) background score with the best soaps can be. That said, the lyrics were very superficial, and didn't add anything. In fact, at times they cheapened great scenes: like in the courtroom when David was exonerated. How many soap themes have had lyrics? These are the ones I'm aware of, ranked in terms of quality of the lyrics: 1) Edge 2) Search for Tomorrow (We'll...) 2) One Life to Live, (We Only Have...) - admittedly I may be downgrading this one or two rungs because of Paul Rauch 4) Another World (You Take Me Away to...) - this is tough because I have so many happy memories of it, but the lyrics are mediocre at best 5) Hold on to Love 6) Didn't Loving have not one but two lyrical openings? Both were atrocious IMO.

Was Brenda really Karen's bridesmaid? Which wedding? The red dress Brenda was wearing on her way to the one that didn't happen looked nothing like any bridesmaid's dress I've ever seen, let alone what Karen would have picked. And I just FFed through the wedding at Kelly's on YouTube: Brenda was also wearing red there, and her outfit looked nothing like Robin's. I assumed Brenda was invited (both times) as a courtesy, which seemed reasonable in a small town, etc., but that she was not part of the actual wedding party. Bridesmaid may have been overkill, but otherwise, I can't blame the show for not lingering on the gross Brenda/Karen stuff as it's described here (I wasn't watching). If nothing was ever proven, it's reasonable that other characters wouldn't hold it against Brenda, and I can't imagine seeing it litigated on-screen would have been entertaining at all. Presumably the decision had been made to keep VM long-term, so isn't that what Brenda "paying" for it would have required? @dc11786 - a Labine GH without the mob would have been interesting to me as well, but I can't imagine any other plot device from Luke and Laura's past adventures that she would have had any desire to explore. The mob (at least at the time) was a credible source of physical and moral conflict, but could exist in the same universe as realistic, character-driven stories. Of course, why Claire Labine was selected to write GH during L&L's return given her style remains one of soaps' great unsolved mysteries for me, but I can't fault her for how she executed any of it. Tony Geary may have hated Luke's 1993-94 story and/or given himself and his friend credit for the idea, but Luke and Laura's comeback was well-written, compelling, and true to everything Labine and Riche wanted to do with the show. In fact, I give Labine even more credit for how seamlessly it all came off on screen, having read Geary's account. As for Sonny, what he became under later regimes (and what the rest of the show eventually became to sustain him) was a travesty, but I don't blame Labine for any of that. Other than Ryan, I've never even heard of any of those early '90s villains, but Sonny would have left a lasting impression for me even if he were never heard from again after he first left. In hindsight, I can see how the Labines may have actually been laying the groundwork for Sonny's downfall (moving way up in the organization + losing the people who brought out the best in him) if their successors had been willing to go there, knowing MB's contract was up the next year and he'd probably want to try other things. I loved Sonny at the time but I believe I could have accepted that, and I don't argue that a break from the mob would have made sense at that point.

The current GH writing turnover coinciding with a "fan favorite" return made me think of Luke and Laura's 1993 return (not to say Jason is in their league). I just rewatched that Friday show when L&L appeared for < 1 minute at the end and GH supposedly tied(?) Y&R in the ratings in the second half hour. I am curious about some of the choices that were made for this episode, when millions more eyeballs were on this show than ever would be again. I believe the only characters featured that day who had met L&L were Felicia and, of course, Scott. Unfortunately (from my perspective anyway), all of Scott's scenes were with Katherine Bell - Lucy was still a few weeks away from exposing Katherine as a con artist. I just wonder why Bobbie and/or the Quartermaines wouldn't have made an appearance, to give returning viewers some familiarity. That said, I wouldn't exactly say the show was catering to newer viewers, either - there was no exposition to explain who Luke and Laura were. Bill Eckert was also MIA, so someone who had only watched the show for 5-10 years or less could theoretically have wondered if that was him with a new hairstyle in the cliffhanger. I don't mean to fault Claire Labine for trusting viewers to figure stuff out, or even for the way she chose to arrange the deck chairs < 2 weeks after officially taking the helm. The larger what-if for me is what would have happened if the network had gotten their ducks in a row sooner: if the writing team had been in place for at least a few months. Wasn't it ~ 6 months from the time the news broke that Francis was returning before Luke and Laura first appeared? GH got a boost in the ratings from their return, but there could have been even more of an impact if, say, BJ's accident had happened on the same Friday we first saw L&L. Also interesting was that the very last scene before we first saw the Spencers in Canada featured Karen, who had run off with Jagger, deciding to return to Port Charles and come forward about what Sonny and Ray had done to her. This really makes me wonder if Michele Val Jean had pitched the idea of revisiting Laura's rape years before it eventually happened, with the intention that it would dovetail with Karen's story in much the same way it eventually came up after Liz's rape. I know Vee has written about the scene a few weeks after this when Laura found an old disco light and freaked out a bit. Karen being Scott's daughter would have made for an interesting dynamic.

Wow, this is such incredible news. There isn't much more to say that hasn't already been posted. I'm just so happy for MVJ, and for the possibility of some kind of future for this genre.

For sure, Valentini and Carlivati have an enthusiasm for veterans that is admirable, whatever else you could say about their work. (And post-2009 at the absolute latest, there is little else good that I have to say.) I just don't think any writer or producer would have been empowered to center so many characters in their 40s or 50s to such an extent for about 10-20 years there previously. It seems like every regime had to pick and choose, and the vets who got airtime all had to be tied (by any dubious DNA test) to one or more of the teen characters. Or they and/or their love interest were about to be killed off...

Reilly is probably a stretch, true - although to hear Nancy Curlee tell it, he did not play along with CBS/P&G's efforts to divide and conquer their writing partnership at GL. And he did manage to get some of the best GL script writers to Passions (I'm not sure what they did there, based on the dialogue in every scene I ever saw). It wouldn't have had to be a big public thing, but there were writers and producers with proven track records of delivering successful material and not taking any sh*t from the networks who were recently MIA at what turned out to be a critical juncture.

There was something I noticed when I tuned back into GH after many years for Jackie Zeman's send-off last month. This is a slight exaggeration and certainly not scientific at all, but it seemed to me like there are more Gen X breakout soap stars of their day featured prominently on that one show than there were Baby Boomers on the frontburner across all the soaps in the late '90s/early '00s, who would have been around the same age then. To say nothing of even older cast members. It seems like those actors are there now because someone thinks they'll appeal to lapsed soap viewers, even if those viewers are older now. Of course, many of those middle-aged+ performers who are now getting work on GH made their names on shows that are off the air (like Maura West, to bring it back to ATWT) and/or in stories that were mostly lackluster to begin with. And whether they're being well utilized is even further off-topic, so I'll just leave it there on that note. It's just sad this couldn't have happened when there were still ~ 10 soaps with 40+ and 50+ year-old veterans who had rich histories that could still be mined - ATWT chief among them, of course. That said, I don't know if the all-powerful demographic has actually been debunked or if networks have given up on the idea of 18-34 year–olds watching a soap, or perhaps any other network TV in the daytime. Still, knowing what I know now, a part of me wishes TPTB had decided in 1990-something that soaps were on borrowed time and let them keep doing their thing for as long as it continued to make sense to keep them on the air.

Exactly - whatever creative freedom Reilly enjoyed at that time, he might have seen the writing on the wall and spoken up if he had seen multiple writers he knew and respected being steamrolled by the suits. So many showrunners in place at that time seemingly were in over their heads. It's hard not to think some others just didn't care. You might say the networks stepping in was justifiable, at least until they rehired writers and producers who had proven histories and apparently treated them the same way.

Most notably, Doug Marland had died the year before, so ATWT was both struggling creatively and written by people with little to no experience standing up to networks. Nancy Curlee had just left GL, and Robert Calhoun a couple of years before that. Agnes Nixon was allegedly sidelined at AMC during Megan McTavish's tenure (wasn't MM the first person besides Nixon to be credited at the top of AMC's writers?) so probably less inclined to do battle with ABC. And, controversial or not, didn't Linda Gottlieb also leave OLTL that year (although that might have been an effect as opposed to a cause of the changing power dynamics)? Of course, others going back to Irna Phillips had been long gone. ETA: SB had been canceled the year before, so—also controversial—Pam Long and the Dobsons were not working in the industry for the first time in over a decade and several decades, respectively. I just wonder what would have happened if a few more of these veteran showrunners had been around to present a united front with peers like Labine, and Bell, even if he was less personally affected. Even Reilly, with his newfound clout, by all accounts did not like being micromanaged. But he was probably just doing his own thing and to some extent oblivious to what generic writers at lower-rated shows were dealing with.