DeliaIrisFan

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.

IMO the OJ trial happening when it did, as opposed to the timing of Iran-Contra, etc., made for kind of a perfect storm for soaps. In hindsight, a number of formidable writers/producers with strong points of view were recently gone from the industry or stepping back. Many of the shows weren't offering up their strongest material to begin with, and nearly all of the showrunners were less experienced than some of their recent predecessors at successfully standing up to the networks to protect their vision (to the extent they had one). For my money, GH was the only soap that was at the top of its game by June of 1994, and Claire Labine has said managing the networks was something she wasn't the best at. But she and Bill Bell (who was probably more insulated from network meddling) had decades' more experience as head writers than just about anyone else working. I also suspect Reilly's DAYS benefited from being, unintentionally at least at first, counter-programming. On the increasingly rare day when even 15 minutes of a soap aired, the possession story was different from anything in the wall-to-wall OJ coverage. Of course, by the time the ABC/P&G shows started getting mandates to copy it, the trial was no longer offering up sensationalized drama that was at least related to real-life issues, which had been kind of the bare minimum you could expect from most soaps up until that point. And the drop in ratings across the board seemed to feed into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Network execs doubled down on their micromanaging, which had already probably weakened some of the lower-rated shows, because now almost every show's ratings constituted a crisis. At least, it did in their minds, although the fact that any shows are still on the air 30 years later—all with much lower ratings—casts doubt on the idea that most/all soaps weren't still turning a healthy profit back then.

The May 1995 episode is a great find from the Labine era. I've seen that mob shooting montage itself—which, unlike any number throughout the late '90s and '00s, involved characters who were genuinely trying to extricate themselves from that kind of life of violence, and the emotion was earned—a number of times over the years. But I'm not sure the full episode has seen the light of day in almost 30 years. Although the shooting happened at night, the show opened with everyone waking up/eating breakfast, and various characters dropped in briefly throughout the day without necessarily appearing in all or most of the acts: Lucy only showed up mid-episode/midday for an ELQ board meeting (that was indirectly related to the mob war), early Emily talked about A Wrinkle in Time and her other favorite books, and Bobbie was in just one scene: doing a good deed for Emily's dying mother, Paige, out of friendship to Monica. In fact, there were a number of fairly extended scenes between friends: Monica/Paige, Mac/Felicia (who were broken up at this point and years away from a reconciliation), and Brenda/Robin. This episode also featured the full end credits, including non-contract players. Some soap marginalia: Larry Lau, presumably the same actor who had played Greg on AMC, was credited as a coroner (I'm at a loss as to what story at this time that would have involved). Also, "Sonny's guy" was played by Mike Sabitino. My guess is this wasn't the '90s soap hopper Michael Sabatino (and Crystal Chappell's husband), who probably would have merited a character with a name at that point in his daytime career, but I can't find any actor on IMDB who spelled their name that way. Most likely this was the Mike Sabatino with a number of '90s credits, including that summer's (in)famous Batman Forever.

Ah. Maybe. But they always had chemistry, it's just that Lois knows (or knew) better. Actually, has Lois had any substantive scenes with Michael? It just occurred to me that Sonny's adopted son and a Quartermaine heir running ELQ might seem to Lois like an unholy alliance between two forces she was always ambivalent about. It would make more sense if Lois had told Sonny about Nina because she wanted to thwart whatever Michael was up to in keeping that secret, to make sure her daughter didn't get caught up in it.

Oh, sorry, I thought you meant Lois's current involvement in the music business was through L&B. I guess that makes sense for the character.

The scene circa New Year's Day when Lois was egging Sonny on not to "forgive" CW's character was the most bizarre I've seen. Unless Lois has some history with Nina that went completely over my head, if Lois even cared one way or the other, she should have reminded Sonny how things turned out the last time he exiled a woman who "betrayed" him and asked him how many more chances he thinks he's going to get.

I don't even know how the music industry works these days, but I just assumed Apple, Amazon, et al, make most of the money BTS. In any event, I can only imagine the '90s would have turned out to be a lousy time to be founding a startup record company, even one that had signed the fictionalized version of Ricky Martin. I think it would be more interesting if Lois's company hadn't made it for real-world reasons, and that was still a sore spot for her, but she had nevertheless been able to parlay that experience into some industry that one or more other characters work in currently.