DeliaIrisFan

Oh, I disagree. I think the characters were so complex and unique—partly informed by the actors who created the roles of course—that the show couldn't just go out and find another "type" to replace them. If anything, I think Frank was easiest to recast because he was the least defined at the beginning. My guess is Labine and Mayer had a handle on who they thought Frank was, but the audience was introduced to him in other characters' (idealized) flashbacks. If he had died as planned, I wonder if Frank would have remained kind of an enigma, with all those who knew him remembering him differently. Anyway, no actor had ever fully embodied all those original aspects of who the audience thought Frank might be, so there was more leeway to write to different actors' strengths over the years. Also, for much of the show's run, the Frank recasts may have benefited from audiences having a uniquely positive association with the words, "The role of Frank Ryan will now be played by..." RIP Michael Hawkins, and I know he was dealing with his issues, but the first time those words were uttered a lot of viewers must have breathed a sigh of relief (I know I did when I watched on SoapNet). Andrew Robinson was such an improvement from day one, and most if not all of the subsequent Franks brought something unique and really good to the table as well. Whereas by the time Nicolette Goulet debuted as the fourth Mary inside a year, the audience had to be at their wits' end.

PS: I was sorry to hear Eleanor Labine declined to be interviewed. I hope she does tell her family's story (or write it herself) someday, when she's ready: not just their work on RH but also GH, and anything else she wishes to share. So much TV history.

Awww thanks for the shout outs. I just watched the Locher Room video, and I can't wait to read the book - should be arriving today. What Durham said about Claire Labine was fascinating, although I believe she softened on the subject of Dakota over time. She said in an interview in the '90s that the fallout from that was one of her five favorite stories, on any show she wrote. Not only did I not watch RH during its ABC run, I also skipped 1984-86 on YouTube. With that major disclaimer, I think there were a few issues with the way the interim writers introduced Dakota: 1) No moral judgments about Johnny having an affair from me, but it does seem completely out of left field for the character. How was he not racked with guilt every time he and Maeve lay awake at night fretting about Frank or Pat breaking someone's heart because they couldn't keep it in their pants? As long as they were going for a soap cliche, I think the long-lost son should have been Sean Ryan, the youngest (I think?) Ryan sibling, switched at birth with another infant who had died. 2) Speaking of cliches, of all the ways to reveal a long-lost, illegitimate son of a core family member, he just happened to be the guy his sister-in-law hooked up with while she had amnesia? For a show that had avoided so many soap opera cliches, did they need two for the price of one (three, if you count the character name)? 3) Did Maeve and Johnny even get much material out of the actual reveal? I do remember watching that scene they discussed on Youtube, with Johnny moving out after Maeve said Dakota was no longer welcome in their home. It was amazing, but I remember being surprised to realize THAT must have been the story Labine had been talking about in the aforementioned interview—not devout Catholic Maeve's actual reaction to learning Johnny had had an affair in the first place. And Dakota's mother was already dead, right? If they were going to do this story, they should have cast a stage veteran to play her, at least briefly, and/or used Dakota as a bridge to introduce members of his other family. Anyway, in the later episodes I saw Durham did make a great villain. And he (and Ilene of course) still look amazing.

I of course would have welcomed either actress back as Iris. I'm not sure if I knew at that point that McKinsey had originated the role either, but even if I thought she was Alexandra, that wouldn't have been a bad thing either. That said, if someone actually went to all that trouble to try and get Beverlee back but she was unable for medical reasons, they should have pivoted and ended with a recreation of Carmen's intro: a freeze frame of Rachel answering the doorbell and exclaiming in disbelief, "Iris!" without actually showing who was there. If Iris had returned for the finale, I assume it would have been a cameo like Mark Pinter/Grant anyway, so why not? That way, anyone watching could have imagined her as they remembered her.

I believe Claire Labine would have done well at just about any soap prior to 1995-96, before the networks and production companies got scared and/or got taken over by people who didn't understand soaps and wouldn't give writers more than 10 seconds to tell a story and develop characters and build to an earned payoff. The biggest what-if for me where Labine is concerned would have been ATWT when Doug Marland died, around the same time she came back to daytime after almost 5 years (to GH). I know she was offered that ATWT job a few years later, but again I think she would have had problems after Trach had been replaced by Fitts (and then MADD), plus the ratings across the board had everyone spooked. Anyway, the tone Marland had established—family drama and socially relevant stories—which seemingly would have been right up her alley, had already changed by the time she almost became head writer. She had never written an hour show before so I'm sure she would have streamlined the cast post-Marland, but that probably would have looked a bit different than what happened, i.e., probably not Iva and/or Lyla. AW in the early '90s would have been interesting for Labine. I could easily see her writing for many of the characters, now that I think about it. I just wouldn't think of the show as a whole being her cup of tea, structurally, by that point. There was nary a strong core family intact, with most of the stories and couples islanded. Not that GH was much different in that regard, but I think of the Quartermaines at that point as being more robust than even the Corys. Maybe Labine would have introduced her own families in Bay City and/or rebuilt one or more that had been phased out. I could see Emma coming back and having deeper conflicts with Frankie over their different world views, a la early Siobhan/Maeve.

Thanks. I couldn't find it on YouTube - most of the last couple of weeks of January are absent, and now that I think about it, I have a vague recollection of SOD issues being post-dated. Although I did notice some B&W flashbacks in episodes around that time featuring James Rebhorn's child molester character and his mother from back in the day, which I couldn't bring myself to watch. Maybe someone in the wardrobe department had negotiated a good deal on a bulk purchase at an estate sale?

Oh yeah, I was referring to June/early July, when AW was still in the top three (and briefly the highest rated P&G show), but then—as you said—really cratered while ATWT at least stagnated.

It's also interesting to see that AW and ATWT's falls did not (exactly) line up. I always assumed AMC and GH supplanted them both at the same time.

Ryan's Hope at #2-4 is really fascinating...especially at this time. The writing was still good, but soooo many recasts/departures...especially that summer, when so many of the original cast's contracts were up. I wonder if I was a few weeks off when I archived those recaps SoapNet posted all those years ago (SN never indicated the original airdates on their website, so I did my best). Faith's stabbing and Jill finding Frank and Rae in bed together a few weeks later seems like the kind of drama that might give a soap a temporary boost. Either way, this really makes ABC's treatment of Sarah Felder a few years later all the more outrageous. She was front and center that whole summer, and those early scenes of Siobhan butting heads with Mary, Maeve, and Jack were always some of my favorites. These ratings definitely suggest that the years more of story she could have driven would have resonated with viewers who had watched when RH was competitive in the ratings. There is an alternative universe where Siobhan and Jack eventually became the Bob and Kim of RH... In any event, I'm just relieved to learn that the 1981 writers' strike and the coattails effect of GH's Ice Princess story did not mark RH's all-time highest ratings.

The article is great - thank you. Has the flashback episode ever turned up on YouTube? I was trying to pinpoint the dates based on IMDB credits, but Prunell doesn't seem to have ATWT in her IMDB credits, and Litt is credited for three episodes from 1994, which I know must have been too late for this. (Is that just inaccurate or did George appeared in additional flashbacks during the climax of the Royce story?) What were Caleb, Kirk, et al so mad at Lucinda about this time, I wonder?

That does sound vaguely familiar. Maybe that's partly why her name stood out for me in those credits. Having recently watched what has turned up on YouTube from Luke and Laura in 1993-94—some/most of which I was seeing for the first time—the writing was surprisingly seamless, considering the dates in the credits and that article. ABC had allotted ~ 6 months after announcing Genie's return, which should have been more than enough time to plan a story. But then the previous regime was out in August, the Labines' names first appeared in the credits in mid-October, the show was already committed to some version(?) of Suver's story, and the Spencers were back by Halloween. I do wonder if Suver was actually in the building/in meetings at all by that point, or what.

That's very interesting. On the one hand, you'd think Marland would have jumped at the chance to return to GL and salvage characters he had created that were foundering/discarded, and reinforce his vision for a show that had gone in various different directions since he had left. On the other, GL had changed so much in those few years, and the time since he left had been longer than the time he was there. Maybe he knew a "fresh" start would be for the best (I don't think he tried to namedrop—let alone revisit—the Willows or anything else from that brief stint in 1979 in his second run?).

I'm so confused...the Eckert patriarch had millions of dollars to leave in his will? How were these people supposed to be working class? I always thought he had gotten rich somehow from his dealings with Julia's (and Brenda's) father. Anyway, I remember this article - probably from that very same site. It's weird to hear Geary being so enthusiastic about Claire Labine. What's funny is if GH had been seriously committed to becoming a more reality-based, working-class show with the Eckerts, Labine would have been a logical choice (not that I can imagine her and Monty working together). And Geary might have liked Labine's version of Bill or a single Luke. I also remember reading Geary talking up Irene Suver's role in the Frank Smith story in this interview, and I recognized the name in some of the 1993-94 credits that have turned up on YouTube in recent years. She was credited (sporadically) alongside the dialogue writers. I assume that was for union reasons, when stories she contributed to were featured heavily, and not because she actually wrote entire scripts for other characters. Suver's name turned up later into 1994 than I would have thought, at least as late as the first half of May sweeps. The A story in that episode was Luke and Laura and Sean and Tiffany being tied up by Frank's thugs and left to be eaten by an alligator, but by that point Maxie was also very sick and BJ's death was a week or so away. I recall Suver was gone from the credits by the time of the heart transplant episodes.

Interesting. I've always wondered how Riche managed to last as long as she did while the show was in such turmoil. In fact, hadn't the ratings sort of improved by the time Monty had left, although still behind AMC (and Y&R, of course)? I believe it wasn't just that Riche hadn't repaired the damage, but in fact viewers tuned out again shortly after Riche arrived. I'd be curious if DC or anyone has a theory on why some viewers returned (and quickly tuned out). Was the Nancy Eckert murder such a good whodunit that it got the show some attention again? I will say the idea of Bobbie becoming a prison penpal to a convicted killer is a more interesting basis for a story than much of what I've read about GH in the year before or after, but it sounds like it was better on paper. Anyway, back to Riche, I know the ratings had improved by the end of 1992, or at least the rankings. Did they just not find a replacement in time, and Riche was well-regarded enough by the cast that the network was willing to do an about face? I gather part of the reason the ratings turnaround didn't save Monty's job the year before was the backstage tension (and high-profile departures).

Well, that makes sense. But especially if hiring Marland was indeed a coup, why not just sign him with an effective date that worked for all parties? Or have him work with the Dobsons at GL during the transition (which would have made sense anyway, since he still ended up writing the conclusion of Roger's story, etc.)?

I am sure the suits were freaked out, but why would they not just hire Marland for any/all soaps he wanted to write ASAP - and have him write GH-like stories from the start?

I've never understood that whole CBS/P&G musical chairs interlude in 1979, and I do like what I've seen of the Willows more than what I've seen of early '80s ATWT. Were the Dobsons more of a "name" than Marland in 1979? He was the one who had just brought a show from the brink of cancellation to #1 in the ratings. If he was happy with ATWT, why did P&G care if the Dobsons were ready to leave GL or what? For that matter, did either Marland or the Dobsons actually have a preference for one show or the other? It's hard not to play Monday morning quarterback. Marland's longer run at ATWT was obviously more of a success than the Dobsons' time there, and he clearly adored the show or at least came to adore it. Both shows did live to die another day, so it's not like it probably would have made a huge difference in terms of longterm ratings. I just wonder if the Dobsons had stayed at GL and been the ones tasked with "modernizing" it, would they have taken a lighter touch than they did at ATWT, dealing with characters/actors they had known and worked with for years? And if Marland had had a long-term writing stint at ATWT just a year or so after it had been at the top of the ratings, instead of years after its fall, and written the kinds of material he did in the late '80s/early '90s, I wonder how would those recently lapsed viewers have reacted?

I doubt Michael would have lasted very much longer, strike or no strike. And the union writers were the ones to write out Kim as soon as they returned, a decision that probably would have stuck if the scabs hadn't defied all logic to make her the mother of Seneca's child and Rae's grandchild. (A very petite woman who'd had an abortion less than a year earlier somehow didn't realize she was pregnant again until she was in labor?) 1981 was a disappointing year for RH all around, but I would rank the post-strike as the best of the year. The ancient Egyptian curse and even the soap within a soap story didn't really belong on RH, but at least there were good actors with good dialogue and the stories proceeded at a pace that suggested there was a plan. The material leading up to the strike was blah and yes Kim was dreadful, but the show at least abided by basic laws of time and space. The strike material was just bananas to me, but again, the scabs threw so much **** against the wall that I wondered if one or two of the changes could have been interesting in a more sustainable way.

I don't even remember Barry's gambling, but I guess the timing of his exit would have lined up with the strike as well. I want to say EJ came to NY looking for Barry, and just missed him. The scab material was very messy, and I 200% support the writers' strike now as I'm sure I would have back then. But indeed there were some scab elements that offered a glimpse as to what qualified writers might have done in the way of new ideas without gutting the show. I'd forgotten about Kim staying with the Ryans, but in a similar vein I do remember Frank and Jill representing someone (Rae?) in Michael's murder and sleuthing to find out what really happened. They actually had a fun kind of Nick and Nora dynamic, after sooo many years of angst. Imagine a well-crafted whodunit on RH at that point, when the realism and original core were still mostly intact. I don't think it's heresy for me to say the creators had earned a break - Labine herself said as much in later interviews, that she was burnt out and wished she'd taken a leave of absence around that time, but was afraid of what the network would do to the show. In many ways, the strike material (not to mention the mid-'80s) confirmed her worst suspicions, but what might have been...

That was nothing against the actress who had guest starred as Kathleen. She was a standout in that small role, but I know had other things to do careerwise. Was Garrett really too young for Kathleen? She was a few years older than Daniel Hugh Kelly, but he was gone and she was younger than 2/3 of the Franks to date. Garrett was believably older than Siobhan and the recently deceased Mary. And in terms of the next generation of Ryans, I think they could have cast adolescents who would have been credible as her daughters and older than Little John and Ryan. (How old was the last child actress to play Christina on GL anyway?) Instead of EJ the young journalist trying to break into the business, they could have established that Kathleen had been a journalism major, decided to stay at home with the kids, and now breaking the Barbara Wilde story was her big chance to jumpstart her career after a decade or so out of the workforce. Not to mention, they dressed EJ ~ 5-10 years older anyway...

Rose was definitely a victim of the 1981 writers' strike. And the fact that Alaio would have shared a farewell party with Michael Corbett confirms that - the whole bonkers story of his exit (and Kim's pregnancy) was scab material. I don't suppose the Guild had any policies around striking writers sending going-away presents to cast members who got the axe while they were on the picket lines. As for that brief era of the Ryan cousins, I can only imagine the backstage politics were much more interesting than most of what happened on screen. Admittedly, by that point, the siblings had all been recast so many times that it may have been a necessary evil to bring in new "blood," but I can't believe Labine and Mayer were that enthused. I suspect Barry especially may have also been some kind of compromise between them and the network: someone related to the Ryans but (openly) enough of a gray character to scheme and backstab with Delia, et al. Barry's ties to the Ryans could have been interesting if the writers had explored Johnny's reaction to someone in his family being so immoral and/or given him some conflict with Maeve about whether Barry should still be welcome in the family. Similar to what Labine later did with Dakota upon her final return. Never mind if someone had actually pointed out that some of Barry's sins were the fractured mirror reflection of things the "good" Ryans had done before. As it was, Barry's name was just an excuse for him to be at the bar, and Backus was a capable actor but didn't really spark either as a Ryan or anti-Ryan. Whatever backstage changes led to Barry finally being cut loose, I will never understand why they wasted a casting coup like Maureen Garrett by introducing her as his sister right after he had left. Especially when Mary or Siobhan #6 wasn't the only alternative in that era. Why couldn't they have brought her on as a widowed or (to Maeve's chagrin) divorced Kathleen Ryan Thompson?

Thanks, DC, that is all fascinating. How long did that window of time last when half-hour soaps expanded to an hour? It couldn't have been much longer than 5 years, and I don't believe there were more than 1-2 shows that networks actually took a chance on expanding while they were struggling in the ratings in an effort to "save" them (GH and maybe Y&R?). It's interesting that Lee may have assumed an extra half hour would have solved Search's ratings problems, based on what had to be only a few examples in a very short blip of time. Especially if the B-C characters she had lined up to fill the longer timeslots weren't strong. Never mind that we now know that ship had already sailed - after AW's disastrous 90-minute experiment, no other soap ever expanded to a longer timeslot, right? I feel like the main benefit some '70s soaps may have actually gotten from expansion would not have applied to Search by that point. Arguably, some shows may have actually gotten a unique opportunity to expand their audience by suddenly having the extra time to feature the Bauers alongside the Spauldings, the Lords and the Buchanans, the Martins and the Cortlandts, etc. without shortchanging either the familiar or the new additions. Whereas it seems like an hourlong Search would have just been a mix of the newest characters/families plus the slightly less new, no?

The most logical next story involving Karen in 1994, had she stayed, would have been for her and Laura to get to know each other, and Laura remembering/acknowledging her own rape after hearing about Karen's ordeal. Not that I think ABC would have allowed such a thing at that point (as opposed to a few years later, under different backstage circumstances). I binged those fall 1993 episodes a year or two ago, and it was such a blast (I believe the poster is active in this thread, so THANK YOU). However, it was also glaring that the revelation of Karen's abuse played out in the same episodes as Luke and Laura's return. I think at least the conclusion of Karen's child molestation story, taken in its own right, was handled sensitively and mostly holds up 30 years later. (I have not watched the stripping episodes, and have no intention of doing so.) But airing a "serious" story about the trauma of sexual violence while selling Luke and Laura's big, romantic comeback for all it was worth...so wrong. I can only imagine what Claire Labine thought coming in, with one of those stories already underway and the other advertised on billboards around the country. I believe Karen's was the only rape story Labine was ever actively involved in writing, I suspect by choice. As for the recast Karen/PC, I agree she was a highlight of that show, and IMO much more interesting than what I've seen of the character's original run. Even at the time, before I know anything about his portrayer's worldviews, I didn't feel like Jagger was needed when Karen returned. Honestly, what I've seen of Brenda/Karen's rivalry would have been at least as interesting had they been fighting over who would get to keep one of his underwear billboards. And it made total sense that a couple who got married right out of high school wouldn't make it longterm (they didn't even need the affair part).

Katherine certainly didn't benefit from her most memorable scene partners being exiled to PC (the spinoff, that is), but I'm not sure she would have added much to the show. And I'm guessing MBE's contract would have been more significant for a half-hour show with much less ad revenue to absorb in their budget? Maybe they could have spun her off to PC for her last weeks/months and had Katherine killed by one of the serial killers or vampires or whatever, so at least someone would have a reaction to her death. Although I wasn't watching either show anymore by that point. I hated Katherine at the time, but with a little wisdom and perspective (and YouTube), I can appreciate MBE's place in the genre. She deserved a better character.

To be fair, Mac and Felicia broke up to move Felicia into Frisco's orbit after he returned. All these characters were at best peripheral to my enjoyment of GH in the 90s, or worse, but in hindsight Mac and Felicia added another layer to the canvas and some pretty amazing stories, and I can appreciate that. And their breakup made sense for the characters - and for TPTB as well, I'm sure, as long as Jack Wagner was available or potentially available. That said, it would have been ridiculous for Mac and Felicia to get back together right after Frisco left for good. They needed to see other people for a while, if only as B or C stories, and Mac and Katherine weren't a bad idea on paper. It just didn't translate on screen.