DeliaIrisFan

On 1/24/2021 at 4:40 PM, safe said:

 

 

Had to search through my old magazines to find this - I recalled this from a Labine/Mayer interview where Soap Opera Digest said they created the Kirklands 

 

 

 

July 19, 1983 issue

 

"Ryan's Hope" : Long Awaited Return to Familiar Faces, Familiar Dreams

 

Once ABC owned the show, "Ryan's Hope",  began to change. "There was a difference in opinions as to which direction the show should take," Paul reflects. "The network wanted a new family on the show," Claire says. "All I have to say this in all justice -- philosophically, it was a viable decision. We had worked the veins of the Ryan's at this point! ABC have breathed new life into 'One Life to Live' by bringing in a new family in. But the problem here was that Paul and I had been doing this show for seven years and we were making up a new family on demand. We didn't  feel the need for it."

 

Nevertheless, because they relinquished creative control by selling the show, Paul and Claire created the Kirklands, a wealthy, power-monger family. Hollis Kirkland was played by veteran star Peter Haskell. Hollis fairly burst onto the "Ryan 's Hope" stage and his plotline, which linked him to the show's other reigning power-monger, Rae Woodard, soon consumed the whole serial. It was the end of "Ryanness" as the new emphasis on glitz, intrigue and heavy plotting took over. Viewers who had known and loved "Ryan's Hope" for it's done-to-earth storylines didn't know what to make of it, and ratings dropped to an all-time low.

 

 

22 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

Labine seems to be contradicting herself here, admitting the Ryans were pretty much bled dry and a new blood was necessary but then saying a new family wasn't needed.

I would think they would be enthused about working a new family in to provide fresh material for the Ryans.

I think she's not so much contradicting herself as admitting she wasn't an objective source.  She was ordered to create a new, paint-by-numbers family, but admittedly had no inspiration to do so and maybe that was partly why it didn't work.  The early Buchanans (and the Lewises, for that matter) seem like shameless Dallas rip-offs in some ways, but someone at least was excited to be writing for them and seemed to genuinely have a vision for how they could shake things up...I suspect that's partly why those families evolved and carved out niche roles for themselves in their respective canvases, and ultimately outlasted the primetime soap fad by several decades.  Whereas the Kirklands were at least derivative, but there was nobody creatively invested in them.

The quote also kind of dovetails with something Labine said in another interview decades later, about how she wished by the early '80s she'd admitted she was burnt out and taken time off.  It seems like she acknowledged something had to give, and maybe new blood with a less jarring transition would have been more successful.

Based on this great find from safe, I'm modifying my previous theory—my best guess now is that there were elements of the Kirklands that Labine and Mayer enjoyed writing (Leigh chief among them, which makes me all the more curious about whether Munisteri or whoever arbitrarily changed the name of the Kirkland daughter who was first introduced, or if the plan was always for Leigh to arrive last), but by and large their hearts weren't in it and when they returned it seemed easy enough to send most of the family packing and start fresh.

22 hours ago, Sean said:

 

Considering the significant ratings drop that occurred midway through 1982, I assume there was pressure from the network to do a sweeping overhaul, even if it meant jettisoning an element that they'd been pushing heavily a few months earlier.  Something like 10 contract cast members were dropped between January and March 1983, with only one (Roscoe Born) being by the actor's choice.

I am curious how much the ratings actually dropped in 1982.  It seems likely the show would have reached "an all-time low" by the end of the year barring a miracle, because the entire ABC lineup had enjoyed GH's lead-in audience during the Luke and Laura heyday (it's a cruel irony that the highest ratings of the show's history were probably during that putrid strike material in the summer of 1981) even though the long-term trajectory of soap viewership by that point was downward.  It's hard to believe RH plummeted as drastically that year as it did in 1984, after the show had been completely gutted and lost its timeslot to boot.  But of course ABC stayed the course for at least a year after that, with the even more radical changes they had implemented after Labine and Mayer left again.  It seems like if ever there would have been the time to do a complete about-face, that would have been it—not in 1982 with the Kirklands or 1983 with the McCurtains.

22 hours ago, Sean said:

 

It's definitely an interesting contrast with her return in 1987, when Max Dubujak was the only major character that got knocked off the show, and that move seemed destined to happen anyway given the way the Overlord storyline made no qualms about his (cartoonish) villainy. (And while I realize being a consultant is virtually always a toothless role - as shown over and over again throughout daytime history - part of me wonders if the higher-ups implemented some of Labine's suggestions when she joined RH as a consultant partway through 1986, as the show was much better then than it had been during pretty much any other period under Tom King and Millee Taggart. Maybe just my bias showing!)

 

 

Before Hardy moved over to General Hospital in late 1989, he was the executive producer at Loving for a little more than a year. According to a Nancy Reichardt article I came across, his transition to Loving was announced at the show's five-year anniversary party in June 1988, where he joined Agnes Nixon in cutting the cake. In articles where he's interviewed, Hardy has always struck me as the kind of EP who didn't necessarily have his own vision to imprint on his shows but was instead happy to implement the directive of his network. That seems to be the spirit in which ABC moved him over first to Loving and then to GH, both shows that were seen as being in choppy waters (of different kinds) at the time.

 

According to the same press coverage, Felicia Minei Behr took over at RH on June 20th (not sure if that was the production date or airdate). I believe FMB joined the show as a producer in either 1982 or 1983, so she would have overlapped with Labine & Mayer's 1983 stint as well.

I suspect Labine being in the room in 1986-87 couldn't have hurt, plus the fact that she was welcome back in the room was probably itself an indicator that there was general interest in making the show better and reviving the core.  Whether or not aging Little John so drastically and making Delia a grandmother (even with Yasmine Bleeth/Ryan, her surviving parent was muuuch older) was the best way to do that, at least they were trying.

21 hours ago, DRW50 said:

The Ryan family feels played out and at a real loss by the time the Soapnet run ends, with Pat and Frank gone, a wan Siobhan recast and an unsuccessful introduction of cousin EJ after bailing on her brother Barry after only a year. I can see why ABC may have wanted a fresh start, while still keeping the figureheads of Maeve and Johnny, along with Siobhan. I can also see why they tried to rebuild after the changes caused further audience erosion. I haven't really watched enough of 1983 to know how it would have worked out - the Delia stuff is so bad and the show just feels very flat in that way ABC soaps of the '80s sometimes can, if you know what I mean. That and I'm not exactly rushing to see Faith/Pat round 4 (or was it 5...).

The treatment of Delia/Ilene Kristen was shameful (although I'll take Labine's word for it that it wasn't what she and Mayer wanted to do), and Pat and Faith did nothing for me, but aside from that I would say that brief 1983 period was a high point for the show, and not like any other '80s ABC soap I've seen.  The dialogue was never better, and the characters had energy and life again.  Even Pat and Faith were a visual cue that the show was looking like itself again, and Faith was at least being written as a functioning member of the Ryan-Coleridge circle.  And I think Charlotte's mystery was genuinely exciting and she was the kind of new blood that could have actually helped the show, especially if she'd stayed at least long enough to overlap with Maggie, which I have to assume was the original plan.

On 1/19/2021 at 12:47 PM, Sean said:

 

(I've always found that situation--in which the show held off using these scenes for roughly eight months--fascinating as well, given how seamlessly those scenes with Kate Mulgrew were incorporated into the ongoing Jack/Leigh story. Imagine how frustrating it would have been had the change in headwriters/story ultimately junked that footage.)

 

On 1/20/2021 at 8:39 PM, j swift said:

I don't know this story.  May I ask you to fill in the details?

Several years after Mary was killed off, Kate Mulgrew returned for a few episodes, in which Jack and Maeve imagined conversations with Mary that helped them make peace with her death.  The impetus for everyone having Mary on the brain was supposed to be Jack's budding relationship with Leigh—whom they all discussed by name, and at length, in those Mulgrew scenes.  Several news articles reported that those scenes were pre-taped almost a year in advance, before the show had even cast Leigh, apparently to accommodate Mulgrew's schedule.

However, before those scenes could air, the show's creator(s) were pushed out, Leigh's family—which was also referenced in one or more of Mulgrew's scenes—debuted, and then said creators returned and promptly introduced Leigh at the same time they wrote out the rest of her family.  And, in spite of all that, I dare say Mulgrew's scenes made sense, both in terms of character development and story continuity.  I'm fairly certain the executive producer was replaced in the interim as well, but the editing looked consistent from a visual perspective as well.

On 1/19/2021 at 12:47 PM, Sean said:

 

I assumed the Kirklands were completely Munisteri's doing (Leigh excepted), but in spending some time during the early days of the COVID lockdown digging through old newspaper columns my impression is now that Claire Labine's stint as solo HW lasted longer than it's usually presented and would have overlapped with the introduction of both Hollis (week of April 26-30) and Amanda (week of August 2-6).

 

Paul Avila Mayer was gone by the St. Patrick's Day episode that SOAPnet aired, as he's not listed in the writing credits for the episode. Lynda Hirsch reported his departure in her column on February 7, 1982, only a few weeks after the end of the SOAPnet run:

 

When Claire Labine and Paul Mayer sold "Ryan's Hope" to ABC last year, they probably didn't think the move would break up their writing team-up, which goes back many years. However, that's exactly what happened. ABC has decided to retain the services of Claire Labine and team her with several writers to produce "Ryan's Hope." As for Paul, he is no longer writing scripts for "Ryan's Hope," but we assume he will turn up on another daytime drama - not that he needs the money, however, since he was given quite a hefty piece of change by ABC network for "Ryan's Hope," which is its leading soap opera. We understand ABC Is gearing up for competition that may be coming its way from the newly spruced-up "Search for Tomorrow" when it hits the NBC airwaves March 29. ABC is also aware of "Young and the Restless," which always runs a respectable fourth or fifth in daytime ratings, but has no plans to change the basic "Ryan's Hope" format, which is never at the top but also never at the bottom.

 

Jon-Michael Reed reported that Kate Mulgrew's scenes were filmed in late July 1982, and there's a subsequent Connie Passalacqua column from early September 1982 in which Claire Labine is quoted about Kate Mulgrew's return that implies that KM returned as a favor to Labine. (Also, not that this is anything conclusive given that Labine technically remained a consultant after she was fired as headwriter, but she was also pictured prominently in the cast photo at the 7th anniversary party in July 1982, alongside Mary Page Keller and Peter Haskell.)

 

(I've always found that situation--in which the show held off using these scenes for roughly eight months--fascinating as well, given how seamlessly those scenes with Kate Mulgrew were incorporated into the ongoing Jack/Leigh story. Imagine how frustrating it would have been had the change in headwriters/story ultimately junked that footage.)

 

The first mention I've found about Labine's ouster as HW was in Jon-Michael Reed's column on October 2:

 

"RYAN'S HOPE," once the most sparkling gem among daytime soaps, has fallen on weak-ratings times as well as uninteresting plot times. The show has lost its luster since ABC took over control from creators and former co-owners Claire Labine and Paul Avila Mayer. Labine was "kicked upstairs" from headwriting chores to a consultant position, while Mayer is no longer associated with the program. One of the most recent and not-so-bright decisions was to pack off the character of Jane Ryan, played by Maureen Garrett, a brightly and sprightly conceived and executed lady.

 

Lynda Hirsh reported this in her October 17 column, mentioning Munisteri as Labine's replacement:

 

Mary Munisteri has been named head writer of "Ryan's Hope." Mary, who worked for a time on the show at dialoguer and sub-writer positions, takes over for Claire Labine, who will remain on the show as a consultant. Claire was the original creator, producer, and co-head writer with Paul Mayer on "Ryan's Hope." Labine and Mayer have also worked on "Love of Life" and "Where the Heart Is." 

 

Of course, by late January 1983 these same columnists were reporting Labine & Mayer's return in an effort by ABC to go back to basics and save the ratings.

 

(Regarding the choice to recast Amanda, one of the columnists reported that Mary Page Keller was replaced because the network felt she would look too young paired with Malcolm Groome, who returned in early February 1983 and replaced the 4-years-younger Patrick James Clarke. While I can understand the hesitation around the 12-year gap between MG and MPK, her replacement Ariane Munker ended up being only 1 year older! Age also didn't seem to play a factor when the show paired 37-year-old MG with a 21-year-old Nancy Valen in 1986...)

 

Sorry to go on for so long - figured this was a good opportunity to share some of the (admittedly mostly useless) information I dug up earlier in the lockdown.  From the recaps I've read, I totally agree with your take on Munisteri. She was the logical candidate to take over the reins from Labine, but the comments I've read about her other headwriting stints do seem to suggest that she was better suited to executing the visions of others rather than establishing her own. In the case of RH, that meant emphasizing the gangland wars and the wealthier Kirklands (including Rae and Kim) that ABC favored.

 

I don't disagree with that - in many ways, it sounds like fan fiction. I assume that, with the show's future looking increasingly tenuous, Labine wanted to bring Jack's story full-circle, both by having him settle down with newly-returned Leigh and by having him once again revisit his abandonment issues. However, it definitely reads as being too neat an answer, at least on paper.

 

Having only read recaps of the story, I wonder how the show had Jack grapple with the fact that he is the son of a man engaged in the very system of violence that killed his wife in 1979, nearly killed him and destroyed his career in 1981, and consistently imperiled his sister-in-law for the better part of a decade. I could see Labine doing some interesting things with that, but not necessarily the scabs. (I should also add that in that same article Labine mentioned that she couldn't bring herself to actually watch the show and was instead relying on recaps of the action when she returned after the strike, so I'm sure there must have been other things amiss with the execution that a simple recap wouldn't capture!)

 

ETA. Found that article about the strike, which DRW50 posted here. Here are the relevant portions:

 

As it happened, Labine had left RH in extraordinary good shape before the walkout. “It was as well-organized as it has ever been,” she says, noting that former Executive Producer Joe Hardy, Producer Felicia Minei Behr, and Coordinating Producer Nancy Horwich closely monitored the non-union writers and stuck close to her plot projections. “They were terribly careful and, out of deference, tried very hard not to commit to anything new.”

 

There was really only one hitch—the Jack/Silvio/Sister Mary Joel situation. It wrapped up way too quickly [Labine had hoped to carry it into the new year] and, somehow in the shuffle, also wound up concentrating way too much on Jack’s daughter, Ryan. Other than that, no gripes.

These are great finds, especially that '82 cast photo.  (Side note: How recently did lower-rated soaps still get swanky all-cast parties for off-year anniversaries?)  Interesting that Claire Labine is standing with Haskell and Nancy Addison, though.  It reminds me that the early recaps involving Hollis had him interacting with Jill.  I wonder if Claire had more of that planned.  Jill representing Hollis in his efforts to take Delia's restaurant—while Rae seethed at the idea of her secret first love spending time with Jill—would have made for lots of interesting scenes, at least.  Or would Hollis have even had a past with Rae—and Kim, whom Labine and Mayer had just written out—or something else?

I do remember, now that you mention it, Labine being credited in the 1982 St. Patrick's Day episode without Paul Mayer, but at the time I assumed she herself left not long after and the Kirklands must have arrived not much later in 1982, given that they were gone a year later.  Knowing more about the timeline, though, I wonder if Labine would have been perfectly content to have Hollis and at least one daughter mixing it up with the original cast members.  Perhaps jettisoning the Kirklands altogether was a consensus decision when both creators returned together—since Mayer had no hand in creating them and I'm sure neither of them were thrilled with their having completely taken over the show by the time they came back anyway.  Labine seemed a bit more comfortable integrating the newer characters into her vision when she returned in 1987 as well.

As far as the 1988 strike, this sort of confirms that Behr took over for Hardy midway through that.  I've always been fascinated that Hardy lasted so long at RH, through multiple transitions, culminating in Claire Labine's final return, at which point he seemed to be on good terms with her—only to go onto his last job (I think?) at GH, which by most accounts was more in the vein of the material he produced at RH during Labine's absence.  And that timeline means Behr only executive-produced the show for a few months when Labine was in the building, but they apparently had a very strong working relationship, though of course Behr was promoted from within the show so they presumably knew each other before that.

On 1/16/2021 at 5:09 PM, dc11786 said:

I wouldn't disagree that Catherine Hicks was the strongest actress to play the role, but I still don't think that version of Faith worked. The Coleridges were meant to be a contrast to the Ryans. While Frank was an arrogant prick, he was self confident. Roger didn't always have that confidence. Jill may have been an independent and strong woman, but she was always someone who didn't trust love because she was adopted and Judith Coleridge was a miserable ice queen. Initially, Faith was also that sort of neurotic mess who had a Daddy complex. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the initial projections called for Faith to be paired with Seneca, which would have made more sense given Faith's backstory involving her college professor. I just didn't get any sense of those neuroses from Catherine Hicks. Her Faith had the sort of Ryan smugness. She almost seemed like she should have been a Ryan cousin rather than a Coleridge.

To be fair, Catherine Hicks took over the role just after Faith had a psychotic break and underwent intensive, in-patient psychiatric treatment (off-screen).  There were many references to Faith having confronted and overcome her neuroses in that process.  Labine and especially Mayer (who found a new career as a therapist) were big believers in psychoanalysis.  Whether or not I 100% shared their perspective that the best therapist in the world could have ever turned Faith Catlin's interpretation of Faith into Hicks', I think Faith had an arc and it made sense internally, and I was willing to swallow disbelief because it suited the recast's strengths.

Wasn't the rumor that Faith was supposed to be paired with Clem Moultrie, but the network balked at any interracial couple?  I suspect, if Frank had also died in the first episodes as originally planned, Faith/Pat/Delia would have happened much sooner and Clem might have played a role similar to Seneca's with Jill.  I guess I could see FC's Faith going for Seneca but I...wouldn't have wanted to see that, if you know what I mean.  Her Faith was soooooo immature that the age difference would have been in some ways even creepier than Kim and Seneca's pairing.

Anyway, I honestly never saw CH's Faith as smug.  And I say this as someone who pretty much rooted for Delia no matter what she did to whom, and could always find a reason why whoever was calling her out was being a hypocrite.  But my recollection is that Faith at that time was a decent human being and had every right to hate Delia, but didn't actually take much satisfaction in that.

On 1/17/2021 at 1:42 AM, Sean said:

Seeing more material from Mary Ryan Munisteri's period as headwriter remains my holy grail as an RH fan. As has already been noted, of the Labine/Mayer replacements, her writing seems easily the most aligned with the show's original identity. I'd love to see the Kirkland story play out, and how it may have shifted over time given that Hollis and Amanda were both Labine creations (I believe). At least during those early months, they appear to have been relatively well-integrated with the show's core characters, so the moniker Kirkland's Hope seems misdirected - I believe that originates with Ron Hale, which makes some sense since Roger was on the backburner for a while after the EJ story ended.

I was reminded of Ron Hale's quote when watching that one late 1982 episode on YouTube, because to my surprised Roger was prominently featured in the Kirkland intrigue that day.  I tend to think it came from a place of Hale being genuine concerned about the show's identity starting to erode, as opposed to pettiness and ego about being backburnered for a few months.  Again, it was also such a blink of an eye period in the show's history that it seems impossible to know who would or wouldn't have had airtime if Munisteri's long-term vision had materialized.

That said, I also get the sense, partly based on what I've read about Munisteri's later head-writing stints but also that one RH episode that's surfaced, that vision just wasn't her strong suit as a writer.  Even in that one YouTube episode, I found myself scratching my head that a serial killer on Ryan's Hope was not treated as more of a BFD.  It was seemingly nothing more than a plot device in the Siobhan/Joe/mob story, and the only people who cared were Siobhan's dueling protectors.  I believe that was around the time DOOL (Pat Falken Smith's DOOL, because everything in the soap world is within six degrees of separation) got so much praise for featuring the first gritty—well, gritty for an '80s soap—serial killer storyline in daytime, and of course this was just five years or so after the Son of Sam murders actually happened in RH's real-life setting.  It seems like blasphemy to speculate, but I am curious—morbidly perhaps—what would have happened if Munisteri had been paired with a more dynamic co–head writer from outside of the show...dare I say, maybe even PFS?  I still would have wanted to see the shows' creators return eventually and go back to basics, but it might have been a more interesting detour.

I suppose some iteration of Hollis must have been a Labine/Mayer concept, or at least a Labine concept (adding to the chaos of 1982, didn't Paul Mayer supposedly leave of his own volition a month or two before Claire Labine was forced out?), although I have my doubts about Amanda given the character was recast and then abruptly written out within a handful of months in 1983.  I am forever fascinated by the bit of trivia that those scenes from Kate Mulgrew's return, in which she and Michael Levin spoke of Leigh Kirkland and her family by name, were supposedly filmed a year earlier, before the writing shakeup.  Even though Leigh ended up being the last Kirkland to arrive, I wonder if she was actually supposed to be the main Kirkland all along and Munisteri changed the daughter's name to Amanda just because, ultimately giving Labine/Mayer the opportunity to revert to their original plan when they came back and finally get to use those pre-taped scenes.

On 1/17/2021 at 1:42 AM, Sean said:

Cesare Danova as Silvio was still a contract cast member when the show ended, though I imagine they would have written him out had the show continued. By November 1988 he'd completely disentangled himself from the mob and attempted a reconciliation with Sister Mary Joel, but she'd made it clear she intended to stay committed to the church. Danova and Rosemary Prinz make few appearances in the last two months'' worth of episodes that are available on YouTube.

 

Unlike the 1981 Writer's Strike, I believe the scab writers in 1988 aligned very closely with what Labine had outlined in her story projections for the year. SOD or another publication at the time had writers comment on the work of the scabs, and her only complaint was that they'd overly emphasized Ryan in the Jack/Mary Joel storyline. Compared to the creative resurgence the show experienced in 1987, 1988 an odd year in terms of how many long-term characters left the canvas: Jill, Maggie, Pat, Dakota, and finally Joe. As much as I've enjoyed what's available of Roscoe Born's return that fall, moving Siobhan out of Joe's orbit strikes me as a wise choice.

 Oh, right, I forgot Jack's long-lost father turned out to be tied to the mob.  I'm surprised that Labine said that, because what I've read of that story sounds like exactly the kind of far-fetched, stereotypical soap material she always fought so hard to avoid.  And it wasn't just something that happened with random character(s) she inherited from another writer and could maybe have some fun dabbling in the melodrama of it all—the story seemingly cheapened/watered down Jack's nuanced and fairly original backstory, which dated back to the show's original bible.

Not having seen any of this material play out on screen, I just assumed some scab writer said, "Oh, Jack always was so attached to that nun—what was her name again?—and we don't know anything about his birth parents.  Wouldn't it be interesting if it turns out she was really his birth mother?" In any event, even if this was something Claire Labine might have come up with herself, I feel like half of the experience of seeing her tell the story would have been the dialogue, and if the 1981 episodes that aired on SoapNet are any indication the scripts in that period may have gotten very rough.

41 minutes ago, Franko said:

Now, of course, the real fun would occur if Max had acted exactly as Stefano did. Imagine him being drawn to Maeve!

That I would have watched!  Better yet, Maeve's partner from that 1982 dance hall story could have been a secretly rich Hollis Kirkland/Max Dubujak type—and all of his evil, uber-rich deeds were just part of his master plan to make Maeve his Queen of the Night.  And if he'd had a history with Rae, to top it off...

In all seriousness, though, I just rewatched that first Max episode and now that you mention it, he was pretty much laser-focused on Jill's slide.  Despite the fact that they ended up crossing paths about as much as Stefano and Julie did; and, in that very same episode, Rae commented on the fact that Jill already had her hands full with drama.  However, RH hadn't completely overhauled its writing team, not yet anyway (Judith Pinsker and Nancy Ford were still credited, among others), so Max's henchman at least made a show of talking up Jill's time on the Yale Law Review and her recent run for Congress.  The implication being she might prove to be a thought partner or whatever, and Jill's photo (probably Nancy Addison's headshot IRL) conceivably came from whatever source prominent individuals willingly provided with such images pre-Google.  Whereas it sounds like Stefano was just ogling photos of women taken without their consent based solely on their looks...ick.

Just now, Franko said:

Correct on both counts. PFS was ripping herself off.

 

(from the old Who's Who in Salem page)

In early February, 1982, Tony DiMera went to Rome, Italy, to visit his powerful father, Stefano, who was making plans for coming to Salem to move the DiMera business and build a family there. Stefano had asked Tony to bring slides of the life and people of Salem. Tony had recently held a gala at his home which he had secretly taped for his father. Viewing the images from this party, Stefano got to know the good people of Salem before he arrived, acquiring a great advantage over them. However, he also wanted to see the female scenery. While watching the video, two women stood out to Stefano: Dr. Marlena Evans and Julie Williams. Marlena, Stefano thought, would make a great addition to the DiMera family as a bride to Tony. He believed her to be a great choice to give birth to a future DiMera heir. But Julie...Stefano wanted Julie for himself, despite the fact that she was married. A third woman, Kayla Brady, also caught their eye and they believed her to be very valuable in the future, although Tony warned Stefano that her brother was a captain in the police force.

Wow.

18 hours ago, DRW50 said:

 

How much of Labine's tenure overlapped with Max?

Virtually none, to my knowledge: Pat Falken Smith was credited as head writer in Max's first episode.  His first scene, to @Neil Johnson's point, was very Stefano DiMera–esque (didn't PFS create him as well?) and indeed jarring—the same week Faith was written out and right before New Year's, driving home the point that it was a new era.  Max was in some far-flung locale viewing photos of the Ryans, et al, on a slide projector while a henchman briefed him on their backstories.

I think the Labines did bring Max back for a cameo as part of the story that introduced Barbara Blackburn's Siobhan, but that was around the time of the writers' strike—so who knows?—and anyway it was a means to an end: a way to kill off Joe for good in a way that brought closure to their story and freed Siobhan up for new relationships (just before the show got canceled, alas).  I can see how Max would have seemed like the most expedient choice of villain.  The one thing I will say is that if Joe had died saving Siobhan and/or other Ryans from a member of his own family, it would have hearkened back to Mary's murder, which in my mind was much more interesting history than what I've seen of the Max/Siobhan interlude.  I believe at some point Joe had a cousin or something on Uncle Tiso's side, but I skipped most of the mid-'80s episodes that have been posted on YouTube, so I have no idea how he was written out or if it would have been at all plausible to bring him back.

@j swift, the Dubujaks are definitely a good example of the future turnover I was thinking of that almost made the Kirklands seem down-to-earth by comparison.  Again, I wonder if the fact that the Kirklands never ran their course may have indirectly led to the even more drastic changes that came later in the decade.  ABC may have justified it because Labine/Mayer's return and their back-to-basics approach didn't improve the ratings, and it wasn't completely off-base to conclude that the Kirklands hadn't actually been around long enough to prove that the show couldn't be successfully reinvented for the Dynasty era (not that Labine/Mayer were given much time or likely full creative control either).  You're right, the Dubujaks were way more omnipresent and omnipotent—and, presumably, even richer—than the Kirklands, by all accounts, and the acting was much worse.

Although a part of me is surprised ABC didn't bring back Kimberly yet again in 1984 and try and center the show once more around her and her various long-lost relatives—either the Kirklands and/or Arley as the new teen ingenue, assuming she had aged at the same rate Kim's pregnancy had progressed.

@amybrickwallace, I suspect the actors who returned for the finale did so mainly as a favor to the writers/remaining cast members, and I don't imagine there was much love lost on the Kirkland portrayers' part after they were let go, even if there was any interest on the part of anyone still working at the show.  Jack and Leigh did mention Hollis Kirkland by name on-screen several days/weeks before the last episode, and I will say their absence from their wedding didn't seem glaring given the history.

6 minutes ago, Khan said:

 

Frankly, Margo went from homewrecker to scrappy heroine, because of Margaret Colin's popularity.  Otherwise, I don't think the character would have recovered.

 

IIRC, when Margo confronted Barbara about her and Tom's (alleged) ONS, she did mention that fact.  However, James and Margo's affair had happened a long time ago (at least five years in real time, who knows how many more in "soap time").  If Barbara's motivation in upsetting her ex-fiancee's marriage was revenge for his wife's being the other woman in her marriage to James Stenbeck, then she took her sweet ass time making that happen, lol.

 

Personally, I've always chalked up Barbara's transformation during that period as her growing tired of always getting the short end of the metaphorical stick whenever it came to the men in her life.  There were her ill-fated relationships with that guy named Steven (who turned out to be married, I think?) and with Tom, which ended with the discovery of Paul's existence; and then there was James, a marriage that turned out to be made in Mary-Ellis Bunim hell; and then there was Gunnar, whom Barbara fought tooth and nail (and bull!) to be with, only to watch him leave Oakdale, terminally ill and in a hot-air balloon; and then there was Brian, who ended up falling for quirky Shannon before moving onto boring Beatrice.  Barbara had just had enough.

For sure, I get that—but I could see how Zenk might have been annoyed, having played the initial story with Margo and James, if Barbara was treated as just a pariah when she tried to get Tom back.  At minimum, I think Barbara could have helped justify it to herself because of that history, even if it was ancient history by that point.

I guess part of my question was whether Margo's evolution had made sense and that history could have been presented as a major component of the triangle with Barbara and Tom, or if getting into that too much to justify Barbara's actions would have opened Pandora's box because Margo was essentially a different character who had never really been redeemed from her earlier behavior.  That's kind of what I suspected, and it sounds like I was not entirely wrong.

Was there a layer to Barbara's initial transformation (in the triangle with Tom and Margo) where she justified her actions—and/or any other characters at least sort of sided with her—specifically because Margo had been Barbara's husband's mistress?

I admittedly do not understand how Margo went from that to the HBS/ED scrappy heroine version, and I've seen very little of Barbara in vixen mode before she was sort of redeemed once James came back from the dead and put her through (more) hell.  In fact, most of Barbara's mid-'80s villainy that I have seen involved Brian and Shannon, whom I don't believe had done anything to Barbara; Shannon just seemed to be replacing Barbara as the ingenue in off-beat far-flung caper stories, with Barbara now as the heavy.  I could see how Zenk might have resented that.  On the other hand, if part of Barbara's reasoning for going after Tom had been that Margo deserved what she got because she had been in league with James, who went on to ruin Barbara's life, it would be hard to fault her.

The comparison between Zenk and Hubbard is kind of ironic, because by the time Sheffer arrived Barbara was presumably close to the age Lucinda would have been during the Marland era.  Perhaps by that time, Zenk was content to be playing a lesser-written version of Marland's Lucinda, given what was happening to many of her contemporaries at that time.

On the other hand, I wonder if some of Hubbard's aversion to Lucinda as the perpetual villain of Lily's stories was because sometimes Lucinda was being punished for actually doing something atrocious, but other times not so much.  Lily's reaction to finding out about her biological parents, aka the first time she ran away, was so over-the-top—and her anger didn't seem to be focused on the things Lucinda had actually done wrong, like the shadiness of the adoption, given that she treated Iva equally abysmally.  I can see how the aspect of Lucinda's role that involved walking on eggshells around Lily all the time might have seemed tedious, when there were other ways to create conflict between Lily and Lucinda.

18 hours ago, Mitch said:

Pam Long originally create 5th Street to be the down rent version of 7th Street, which was blue collar but respectable..When Harley first came on she was termed a "river rat" as she lived in the wrong side of the river. I do wish later writers had dug that up..like she she married Phillip and someone would snicker.."Wasnt she a river rat???"  Reva during her attempted suicide (and I agree with Zimmer, totally out of character) jumped from the rich side and was saved by Cain and dragged to the poor side...which is why she bought "Reva Bend." which was a dump until she let H.B. pay for renevations.  So, RevaBend was not out in the country.. in SF but the wrong side of SF. I do like Long's attention to geography and the class system....the Bauers, the Spauldings, the Chamberlines and the Lewises lived "on the hill" and then here was 7th Street and 5th Street, etc. I would think by the time Holly bought it, that area was gentrifying.

Fascinating.  Well, in those scenes when Holly moved in the house was...not that.  Ross made a joke about Holly being alone in the middle of the woods like in a horror movie...

Was it ever stated on-air that Holly's was supposed to be the same house where Reva lived, or is it possible they just reused the set?

On 12/30/2020 at 3:36 PM, dc11786 said:

In regards to Mary Ryan Munisteri, I think Labine was fond of her tenure. The majority of her tenure seems mostly like what you'd expect from "Ryan's Hope" but slightly diluted with the introduction of Hollis and Amanda. I don't think the show overloads itself with Kirkland drama until the tailend when Christine Jones is introduced as Catsy Kirkland in December 1982. I would like to see the dance hall storyline from that time where Johnny and Maeve spar because Maeve ends up spending more time with her dancing partner which makes Johnny jealous.

 

When I think about everything I've read about the Kirklands, I have to remind myself how short-lived they really were.  Especially Christine Jones, who, as you mentioned, came and went in three months.  That's the kind of turnover we didn't start to see on soaps in the '90s and '00s.  I loved most everything about Labine/Mayer's 1983 return (except Delia's material or lack thereof, likely because of ABC's influence) and on principle I'm opposed to the idea of any show's creators being forced out and a new core family being forced down everyone's throats.  But especially in light of the turmoil that was still to come, a part of me wonders what would have happened if the Kirklands had just run their course for at least a full year.  Presumably ABC would have introduced more of the types of younger characters that came in 1984 at the same time.  Assuming it wouldn't have worked, maybe Labine and Mayer wouldn't have been driven away yet again after they ultimately returned.

I too would love to see an episode from that dance hall story.

I'm making my way through those February 1991 episodes.  I'm not sure how much of this was posted before, but I think I skipped whatever bandstandmike had posted from earlier that year and started with the summer—although I always meant to go back and see how Curlee/Demorest, et al laid the groundwork for what came later.

I'm curious how far out in the middle of nowhere was Holly's (previously Reva's, I know) house supposed to be?  The way her first visitors were carrying on was surprising to me because, in later years, it seemed to be as centrally located as anywhere else in Springfield, like when Roger managed to drag himself there with a gunshot wound and hide out in her basement.  And Holly made a reference to setting up a fax machine and modem so that she could keep in touch with WSPR...was she supposed to be telecommuting or what?  I guess she was 30 years ahead of us (and technology).

In any event, I so hope there are more episodes coming and we get to see that party Nadine talked Holly into throwing there to introduce her to Springfield as the new Mrs. Billy Lewis.

Wow...I believe that Christmastime episode is the first one from the Kirkland era ever to be posted on YouTube (except for the early 1983 ones that came next in this batch and have also been posted previously, in which the newly returned Labine and Mayer ushered most of their family off the show and brought Frank back all in the same handful of gorgeously written scenes).  I can't believe I wasn't aware this was on YouTube sooner.

It's fascinating to see the original Ryan's Bar set with Maeve and Johnny on hand, even as the emphasis shifted to those infamous new characters.  A part of me wishes someone had been able to make this show work without Claire Labine involved, even if it inevitably would have lost some of its uniqueness and the focus shifted, or at least expanded.  This wasn't it, from what I can see, but it's probably the closest the show ever came to getting it right without either creator involved.  They played around with shorter scenes and introduced more plot-driven/sensational elements (a serial killer targeting presumably never-seen-on-air sex workers...how early '80s), but still made at least a superficial effort to keep the core intact.

The rest of me knows full well that even if new blood had somehow bought the show more time without completely gutting it, I would not have wanted to see what the network would have likely done to it in the late '90s, let alone later.

I do recall seeing a video of those scenes of Faith grieving over Mitch before, and I've seen photos of him, but in my mind I must have confused him with the Jim Speed policeman character from a year or two earlier.  What an odd choice of love interest for the show's then-longest-running 20-something romantic ingenue, at a time when new management was emphasizing youth and glamour.  I wonder if they actually had some kind of offbeat chemistry that worked or...what.

He seemed like a solid character actor FWIW, but then of course Christine Jones and Pater Haskell were certainly capable as well.  A far cry from some of the atrocious acting I've seen when attempting to watch mid-'80s scenes.  It almost seemed like they were just trying something slightly different in 1982, instead of actually ushering in a new generation.

2 hours ago, safe said:

Kathleen Tolan and Helen Gallagher(Maeve) were friends. Helen had Kathleen come in to audition for the role of Siobhan and they hired her to play Mary.  According to another message board,  Kathleen had a serious problem with nerves and would get physically ill before taping but it was said Claire Labine really liked her. 

I remember when Tolan's first episode was broadcast in the SoapNet run, she seemed to have more energy/personality than Mary had shown since Kate Mulgrew left.  In hindsight, I believe the first Mary recast, Mary Carney, turned out to be the best of Mulgrew's replacements.  But during MC's entire run she essentially seemed like a placeholder, and to be fair she never got much material to showcase her abilities and/or build a rapport with co-stars.  I do recall Tolan flubbing her lines, and once Mary and Siobhan really started going head to head, Tolan's Mary had to go to places I'm not sure any performer could have made work, but in any case her take could be hard to watch.  I can't believe Helen Gallagher would have recommended someone with no talent just because they were a friend, so it's a shame that KT wasn't able to sustain that initial promise—as they discussed on the reunion, not everyone was able to adapt to the medium, talent aside, and this was a particularly challenging role to try and make her own.  (If she was in fact dealing with performance anxiety, I'm sure the mail and calls to the studio from viewers wanting Mulgrew back and/or rooting for Siobhan didn't help.)

Speaking of the reunion, it was indeed great.  The guests were a bit of an eclectic mix, i.e., Geoff Pierson had not overlapped with several of the other guests at all, and we didn't even get to see the comic relief of his reaction to how quickly his on-screen son grew up to be Ash Adams—it seemed they all knew each other already, presumably through Cali Timmons' remaining on the show for years after.  But I do think GP was the best Frank, from what I've seen of his run over the years on YouTube, and he's often forgotten in the mix so it was nice to hear from him. 

I'm probably the only one who cares, but I wish he had been asked to speak about what, if anything, he knew/remembered of the original plans for the aftermath of the Charlotte Greer/McCurtain story that first introduced his rendition of Frank.  The climax of that was what landed Frank in the hospital in the scenes GP and CT alluded to, which did indeed coincide with Maggie's introduction—because Charlotte disappeared and Maggie immediately replaced her as the main threat to Frank/Jill.  After Delia, who had most often been the thorn in the Ryans' side, had been sidelined earlier in the year, I might add.  It's been reported the network insisted on backburnering Dee, and it's hard to believe Labine and Mayer put all that time and energy into Charlotte's story and then decided on their own just to drop it overnight...had they stayed and been left alone, could the Ryans and Coleridges have headed into 1984 being forced to contend with Charlotte, Maggie, and Delia all at once?

I am watching Bryan Buffington's interview now, and I will most certainly catch Ellen Parker, et al ASAP.  I will not criticize anyone who is doing this for free, and I am grateful, but I do have a dumb question: What is the rationale for streaming these live?  It is sometimes nice to hear "so and so is watching and just tweeted that they miss you"—depending on who "so and so" is—but it doesn't seem like they're taking that many questions from the audience in real time.  I haven't been able to watch any of them live, and I don't feel like I'm missing out on much other than having to wait.

Is there a legal reason, something to do with the video component, because all of the interviewers appear to be archiving recordings of the full interviews for posterity?  I remember Brandon of Brandon's Buzz never posted (audio) interviews live on his podcast—I assume so that he could edit—and in hindsight those seemed much smoother without technical interruptions when he finally dropped those.  (I do hope Brandon is okay, BTW—I've checked his site repeatedly during this time hoping he would post some soap content.)

With these Zoom reunions, even if someone isn't a professional video editor it seems like they could just start recording when everyone is truly connected and take a pause in the conversation when someone is having technical issues (or cut them out of the conversation and focus on the remaining guests) and get a tight hour or however long these beloved people are willing to offer.  Fans could submit questions beforehand, etc.

Rewatching the 1991-92 episodes in the past few years, the main problem I had with how Alex was written wasn't so much 99.9% of what she said or did, but how most everyone reacted to her.  In a sense, Mindy was the only other character who saw the writing on the re: Nick's parentage.  Meanwhile, in a town full of otherwise smart people (at the time), most everyone else assumed Alex must be delusional for suspecting that two men who looked exactly the same and were allegedly born weeks apart were identical twins.

They could have at least portrayed other characters as divided on the matter—and Nick living up to his reputation as a brilliant investigative journalist by having doubts about the people he knew as his parents—prior to the switched DNA test.  At which point, the sensible people of Springfield could have deferred to science and started to distance themselves from Alex after she refused to accept the test results, but they would have still had it in the back of their minds that the whole thing was a bit weird and felt badly for her because it was understandable why she had gotten her hopes up.

And/or there should have been a red herring that maybe Lujack and Nick were in fact twins, but neither one was Alex's—that Brandon or Alan or even Alex herself had been the one to steal one of the twins after Alex lost her baby and passed Lujack off as hers.  Alex would have continued to insist Nick and Lujack were here sons, but it would have at least been a plausible explanation to others...especially Nick, who was predisposed to suspect rich and powerful people.  Not to mention, it would have raised the stakes for Alex, who would have risked losing her claim to the memory of her late son, not just some stranger who looked like him and wanted nothing to do with her.

The last month or two before BM left did go off the rails and probably did not bode well for future writing, with Alex risking her son's life by sending him to that made-up country in the middle of a war and trusting Roger to delay his evacuation in order to increase the likelihood of him and Eve rekindling their old flame.  I tend to attribute that to Curlee being on leave, and JFP and Reilly being more willing to strain credibility to try out some of the plot devices they would become known for later in their careers—like Mindy using her complete lack of medical training to waltz into the hospital and switch the DNA test in a sequence that looked like the computer opening sequence from Doogie Howser.  Up until then, the story could have been defensible as a realistic treatment of how believable characters with otherwise real-life problems would react to an overdone soap opera trope.

11 hours ago, BetterForgotten said:

Since Buzz has been mentioned a lot lately, someone asked Patrick Mulcahey about the character and his creation on Twitter. Seems like Mulchaey had a lot of personal connection to the character and used him to work out some of his own father issues.

 

He also said that at SB and GL, there wasn't a big firewall between the actors and the writers like there was at other shows, so he got to work with actors and the production staff to really hone-in on characters better.

 

 

I love Patrick Mulcahey and his work on GL in particular, and I liked Buzz's character back in the '90s, but...

I had never seen Buzz's very first episodes until YouTube, and of course it's impossible to watch that now without it being influenced by my opinions about Jill Farren Phelps's subsequent work, but it really seemed like overkill.  And especially jarring coming right after Maureen's death—talk about armchair-Freudian interpretations, the theme of the show for a while there was essentially "Mommy's dead and the the absent Daddy from hell is in charge now."

Buzz also could have had the story PM described without taking over the whole show.  I liked Buzz/Jenna from what I saw in later months/years, but did JD really need to be thrust into a(nother) story with one of the show's leading ladies right off the bat?  I know Jenna had Daddy issues of her own, and my teen self had a complete crush on Michael Zaslow in the '90s so I'm not being ageist, but at times it was just too much watching her make herself miserable because Buzz and Roger weren't paying enough attention to her.  At least she could have told them both to go to hell and hooked up with Henry, and had some happiness.

I also have to question how many cast members got to call writers and complain around this time—probably not just anyone who'd joined the show less than a year ago.  Could Beverlee McKinsey?  Or Ellen Parker?

So I was waiting to post this until I got all the way through to the end of the Who Shot Roger? story on YouTube, but now...

I was struck by a scene between Henry and Billy just before Billy and Vanessa's wedding, and not just because nearly every scene with William Roerick was a gem.  Billy was insisting that he was going to stay sober, and Henry was dubious that Billy wouldn't find some way to mess up again and hurt Vanessa.  They almost seemed to already be foreshadowing Billy falling off the wagon and trying to kill Roger, even though Jordan Clarke was still on the show.  I had always assumed that wouldn't have happened had Clarke not left so suddenly, but it crossed my mind a few times rewatching the early '90s episodes that maybe the writers really were playing the long game to lay the groundwork for one of the show's patriarchs becoming an attempted murderer all along.

For example: when Billy almost strangled Roger at Hamp's restaurant after finding out Mindy had an affair with Roger.  I guess as an adolescent in the '80s and '90s, I was so numb to graphic depictions of violence on-screen that it didn't really register, but that Roger/Billy scene was fairly disturbing, particularly for a soap.  And it was surprising rewatching as an adult that none of the other characters were that taken aback by how out of control Billy was, when so much else about the writing and storytelling at the time made Springfield feel like a living, breathing, interconnected community.  (If memory serves, the next morning Billy was threatening to sue Vanessa for custody of Bill because she went home with some guy.)

Maybe that was the point all along...that the whole town contributed to Billy's downfall by turning a blind eye to those kinds of violent outbursts for all those years?  I was particularly hoping to see Roger and Ed's fight at the country club to compare how that was handled, although if memory serves, Ed didn't hurt Roger nearly as bad as Billy had.  (And, at the risk of posting this outside of the politics thread, Ed presumably didn't own a gun...)  Does anyone else think the show would have "gone there" with Billy if they had any other choice?

That is all so fascinating re: Debra.  Admittedly, she mainly caught my attention in these YouTube episodes because I knew Nancy Addison Altman from Ryan's Hope.  A Donna Love knock-off is probably not an inaccurate description of Debra's character, but I enjoyed what I saw of her...and, honestly, I got the sense that several characters, particularly in the Alden sphere, were similar to ones I'd seen before on soaps.

NAA just looked so great, and I kind of relished watching her have fun playing (what I took to be) a comedic, snobbish character.  She was indeed great on RH, but Jillian Coleridge was sooo long-suffering —and also snooty in her own right, even though she never got called on it.

I did think the scene with Clay's corpse was genuinely hilarious—which again made it so mind-boggling to me that Debra's few appearances in the subsequent weeks were demeaning and/or cheesy filler, when she was never once questioned about why she was hiding behind the coffin.

I didn't get any hint of mental illness regarding Debra, but of course Esensten and Brown didn't have a track record of treating that topic realistically or compassionately at all.  I did wonder about the backstory with Stephanie while watching the scene in which she inadvertently convinced Gwyn to go after Tess at the ad agency that led to the climax of the mystery.  Steffi insinuated that Gwyn knew something about her that explained why she didn't have enough self-confidence to press charges against Tess  That made no sense to me at the time, given that Steffi was not pressing charges so that she could (successfully) blackmail Tess, and I don't know that it makes any more sense knowing all this.  But it was a well-done scene and made me think there was substance to Steffi's character.

That is terrible news, re: YouTube!  I had discovered those early '90s episodes way late and was still a year behind the uploads—actually more, because I had hit a brick wall in June 1993.

I wasn't enjoying Buzz or Nick this time around, and Barbara Crampton's Mindy never worked for me.  Whereas in previous 1993 episodes there were other stories hitting their stride that held my interest, the focus on Hart and the lead-up to Billy/Vanessa's wedding all seemed so anticlimactic knowing as I did that Leonard Stabb and Jordan Clarke would both be abruptly gone in a matter of months for such unfortunate reasons.

I got distracted with the Zoom reunions and, so help me, the Loving murders (if you had told me circa 1999 that I would pass up the opportunity to watch full episodes of GL written by Curlee/Demorest for something written by Esensten and Brown...).  And I even skipped ahead a few weeks ago around the 4th to watch episodes from a year later with the return of the Bauer BBQ, and went down a bit of a rabbithole watching some surrounding scenes of Roger/Holly, Vanessa/Jenna, etc.

The 1993 dialogue and acting (for the most part) were still topnotch, though, and I knew full well there was so much exciting story I actually care about coming up in a matter of weeks: David/Kat, Roger/Holly, Holly/Blake...  I should have just skipped ahead.

A year or so ago, I recall BandstandMike announcing in the description videos that he was making decades' worth of episodes available on a flash drive, but there was a hard stop by a certain date–which, of course, had long passed by the time I got up to whatever episode that was.  Does anyone know if he ever revisited that offer?
 

13 hours ago, FrenchBug82 said:

 

That would have been fun and I certainly think you have a point but here is my "defense" of their choice: as big a name and wonderful an actress as NAA was, Debra was a new arrival for the show. Less than two years by the time the show ended if my memory is correct.
When pressed for time and eager to offer closure, I understand why TPTB, if my reading of the Loving murders was that it was largely directed at the faithful fans who had stuck out the show throughout, would want to play the longterm characters that made the backbone of the show and maybe give less to a character that was fairly recent.
Half an hour is not a lot of time to play all the possible threads if they have a game plan. There were definitely weird choices and missed opportunities but that's inevitable when you try to wrap up an entire universe in a few months.

Oh, for sure.  But I would have traded the whole subplot—if you can call it that—of Debra blackmailing her way into a modeling job and everyone making fun of her during her photo shoot for just a few scenes in which she was considered a bona fide suspect.

8 hours ago, Ken R said:

 

Generally speaking, yes, though it wasn't a huge boost. Loving was hit terribly by OJ. Before OJ, Loving hovered around a 2.8 or 2.9 in households. By November of 1994 the ratings had hit an all-time low of 2.0. Granted, that was also as the horrible Jeremy/Gilbert storyline was in high gear, but most likely the dropoff was OJ's fault.

 

Loving dawdled along with those awful numbers, rising and falling between 2.0 and 2.4 that spring and through the beginning of the murders. As the Murders storyline progressed and it got more attention, the numbers rose to 2.6, I believe, perhaps even slightly higher, in spite of the OJ trial wrapping up around the same time—I'd have to go back and check to give you specific weekly ratings, or perhaps someone else here has that data.

 

That number held steady for the first week of The City, after which the ratings fell back down to 2.3, and then steadily lower to what Loving had been getting prior to the murders.

 

One thing I couldn't tell from the ratings while watching on YouTube was which week(s) in September/October those reruns of all the murder episodes aired.  Am I missing something or was there not a significant decline in ratings during that period?

And does anyone who watched at the time remember what those reruns were about?  One of the comments on YouTube when the Loving murders were first posted said something about the sets(?) for The City not being ready yet so they had to stretch the conclusion out, but that seems unprecedented for the time—although perhaps a precursor to "A Daytime to Remember" when The City(?) was canceled a few years later.  But the strategy with Loving was to air episodes only a few months old of a show that, well, had been canceled due to low ratings, which seems...daring.  They also didn't seem to make a point of specifying when new episodes would resume, whereas I still remember Reba M talking about the debut of Port Charles nonstop.  Although I didn't watch the full Loving reruns, just skipped around trying to catch "Stacey's" cute/cheesy cameos, so maybe I missed the announcements.

19 hours ago, FrenchBug82 said:

 

Yeah the downside of the Loving murders is that folks who were not involved in the umbrella story or could not be shoehorned into it got shafted a bit.

Nancy Addison Altman's Debra was one character I don't understand why she wasn't a bigger part of the story.  Nearly everyone else in town was a suspect at one point—including, literally, the butler—whereas one of the victims was her ex and two of the others were her in-laws, and nobody ever even questioned her, I don't think.  Even after that amazing scene with Clay's corpse falling on her, thereby revealing to a cop that she was hiding behind his coffin for some reason, there was no follow-up.  To my point earlier, though, I can see the (cynical) logic in not giving someone like NAA more to do at that time.  I am (now) definitely not the age they were clearly targeting and, even with what little she had to do in these months, the idea of Debra enjoying her newfound wealth at the Alden mansion with the ghosts of her recently murdered former in-laws seemed way more entertaining to me than the stories they were foreshadowing on The City...

On 7/11/2020 at 4:51 AM, FrenchBug82 said:

My personal take on the Gwyn as a DID murderer is that it doesn't really make sense in the context of the history of the show: rewatching the episodes knowing she'd end up murdering many of those people is a jarring experience.

The reason I accepted it was because it was out of the door, it was quite a shocking (in a good way) reveal and boy did CT sold it with everything she had. And it was so good that I appreciated it very much - as an end to the show and the character. If this had been a plot during the course of the show, I would have reviled it as a plot contrivance that ruined a good character.

Also, I think the reason the Loving murders are so fondly remembered was because, of all the soaps that went off the air and I include primetime soap, this is undeniably the most coherent long story arc that has been written to wrap a soap. It was an incredibly bold choice and it was a story from beginning to end that did provide a proper end to the characters the show wanted to drop before the reboot.

Was it always well-written? No. But Loving was a low-rated cheap show. That it allowed itself to be creatively ambitious and memorable for its end is something to celebrate and considering how it often did during its run, this was actually a step up.
Thinking how so many other soaps ended a rushed damp noodle, I still think the Loving murders hold up fine.
The City, however, was a good concept on paper (changing the stilted look of a soap would certainly be at the top of what I'd try if I were to create one today) and had some ballsy ideas for the times (trans character for instance) but was ultimately, well, not very good. But the fact the spotlight on Loving at the end was on closure for the characters that would not make it over makes sense to me; as a fan I would have resented if they had used the end of Loving more as a springboard for the City. They actually made the end of Loving about Loving and, for that too, I give them credit

Well I can't argue with that.   Actually, as thrilled as I was that the Loving murders returned to YouTube so I could get to see those last couple of episodes that I hadn't gotten to when they disappeared, the finale was a bit underwhelming compared to the murder story.  And reading your post right after I watched them was timely, because "rushed damp noodle" perfectly described the swan songs several of the surviving characters who did not move over to The City got.  Angie/Jacob/Lorraine/Charles were the only really interesting part, and of course Angie and Jacob were the last two to leave town for The City.  In a way I would have rather seen Kate and/or Debra snap and kill their progeny (who were effectively abandoning them) than the contrived closure they got.

I do want to emphasize I wasn't suggesting the network/writers/producers should have used the last months of Loving to backdoor-pilot The City.  I was just surprised they invested so much energy (and promotion) into a story that was the opposite of that, for all its flaws.  I agree it would be a delicate balance not to alienate Loving fans, but I'm not sure TPTB were expecting those viewers to keep watching...or cared if they did.

1 hour ago, dc11786 said:

This all happens in 1995. I believe this was around the time that most shows were starting to see a steady decline in viewership. The only show that was seeing massive growth was "Days of our Lives" which I believe hit some highs in early 1995 with the possession storyline. I think network execs saw an opportunity there but didn't truly understand that it wasn't just the possession alone that kept the ratings high. The outlandishness of possession storyline drew viewers in but there were a lot of other storylines building (Bo / Billie, Sami / Austin / Carrie / Lucas, Jack / Jennifer / Peter) that could keep the audience tuning in afterwards. I think having Gwyn (who is now in the mental health field like Marlena) going nuts was meant to goose the ratings to  deliver healthy numbers for the start of "Loving." The Angie / Charles / Lorraine / Jacob story is particularly strong and had that continued over immediately, maybe "The City" would have had a stronger start. There is no conflict with Jacob and Angie just arriving in the City and building their careers. The start of the Kayla story with her holding a gun on Angie seems such a poor choice meant to mimic the shocking stories told on the nighttime shows on FOX. While not nearly as extreme, NBC hired Jill Faren Phelps to overhaul "Another World" in a similar manner (primetime elements / serial killer storyline) and CBS did a much milder version with "As the World Turns" hiring Stephen Black and Henry Stern who flooded the canvas with much younger characters. 

 

The opening episodes of "The City" seemed rather tame. I suspect that the dead body that was found in the carpet during the move in was suppose to let the audience know that things would still be happening, but I don't think that really happened in the early episodes. With that said, the last few months are well remembered. I wonder what would have happened had "The City" survived until the arrival of "The Sopranos."

 

I believe Amelia Heinle was relatively popular on "Loving" and I believe Steffi and Cooper had developed a pretty decent following among those who were watching the show. My guess is that they were hoping to convince Heinle to stick around or at the very least to utilize her popularity to keep people watching. 

I wondered about the timing, not only in relation to Deidre Hall's story, but also (one of?) Erika Slezak's most definitive personality stories.  Gwyneth was clearly Loving's counterpart to Viki.  How long before this story did Gwyn become a "psychologist" (her training/credentialing seemed vague)?  At times, it seemed like Loving was emulating both of those stories at once.

For that matter, had Gwyn's paternity been a plot point before this that they decided to tie up at the end?   Gwyn being confronted by her long-lost father just after reuniting with her long-lost, amnesiac daughter was a bit much.  I had no idea Larry Haines played such a pivotal role in Loving's last episodes, but he too was very moving in these episodes.  Given the multiple assisted suicide plot threads, I was expecting/hoping for a scene with Neil and Steffi before the end.  Maybe that happened...I was still two episodes from the end?