Jump to content

Santa Barbara Discussion Thread


dm.

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Right? Recasts are pretty much unique to daytime. However, I remember a few recasts on primetime shows. Seinfeld's father was a different actor in season 1 in the very beginning. Also with children, I guess, it's easier. On Mad Men they recast Don Draper's son.

Edited by Lex S
Adding
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Primetime comedies seem to be comfortable doing it more than dramas.
I have been digging through my brain to think of a primetime soap that may have done it and I can only think of The OC and Dallas (Jenna). And the latter was recast from an originally one-episode role so it is obviously not the same as recasting a full-on character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Of course, the biggest primetime recast ever might be Darrin Stephens (Bewitched).

Back to SB, at the beginning Gina seemed to be weak while Santana was strong. A couple of recasts later, with Robin Mattson and Gina Gallego in the roles, Gina became strong and Santana weak. It's really amazing how recasts can truly change the trajectory of a character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is so true. I also can't imagine Robin and Charles Bateman. Or Jed towering over Gibbony would have felt wrong somehow. I wonder if there are reasons for this. Like, TPTB know that the actors will never play it exactly the same, so let's shift the character a bit. 

I'm also fascinated by the characters the DON'T try to recast. 

Dallas temporarily recast Miss Ellie with Donna Reed. And Game of Thrones did it a lot. As long as Downton Abbey never tries it with the Dowager Countess or Isabelle Crowley, I'll be okay. If it does try, you'll hear me hyperventilating through your computer monitor. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Does it seem like Santa Barbara recasted more than the other soaps? They all recast but it did feel like SB did it more often given the short time the show was on. Maybe it was a side effect of focusing on such a small amount of the cast since they wouldn’t have survived with losing 3/4 Capwell kids but we also had recasts for the Lockridge kids, Gina, Santana, and CC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Not to go too far off field, but obviously prime time shows have a period of development prior to air, and replacements are made before episodes are show.  For example, Lisa Kudrow was famously replaced on Frasier by Peri Gilpin as Roz after the initial pilot.   Similarly half of the cast of All in the Family and Buffy were replaced during the development of those shows.  Daytime doesn't have that same luxury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was reading this article on the French SB fansite and two things stood out to me

http://santabarbara-online.com/article3Audience1989-2.htm

Please register in order to view this content

First, I always forget the almost real-life-soap detail that Bridget Dobson was competing against the show her parents created.  I recall an article upthread that Bridget had to convince the Hursleys to let her write because they thought that she was too much of a "party girl".  Then, they tried to manipulate her to stay when she got the GL offer by telling her that she wasn't talented enough to go out on her own.  It is no wonder, with that family system, that Bridget would have difficulties negotiating with the authority figures that wound up locking her out of her show.

It doesn't take a Freudian analyst to see the comparisons between the Capwell family drama and Dobson's own life.  Including the diathesis of  Pamela the evil mother who tries to kill anyone that would compete for the love of her children, and the Sophia, who abandons her kids only to magically return and right the wrongs of her past, which may have paralleled the fantasies that Bridget had about Doris and her devotion to GH.   And the children who volley between rebelling against their father and trying to win his favor and attention. 

Second, it is remarkable that even in a creatively low point for GH, it almost tripled the ratings of SB.

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I would be interested in an actual "scientific" study of the pace at which they recast - although I dont know what the proper criteria be since I don't think simply counting without taking other factors into account would be accurate - but I am pretty certain SB would be higher than most other soaps.
You had a combination of very high turnover of B- and C- level characters and high recast rate of A-level characters in only eight years (that's crucial: four CCs, three Masons, three Kellys wouldn't ring as bad over 30 years) you really get a really fast pace of recasts at least, and a high rate probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It is no surprise that as soon as the Dobsons returned in 1991, Mason (who has previously reconciled with CC) put him on trial at that famous dinner party and Eden has to shoot her mother and go mad in order to leave Santa Barbara.  Because, no matter how old the Capwell kids got, or how much success they achieved, they were still defined by the accomplishments of their parents.

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Having recently read the synopsis of that period, I don't think you should let them off the hook so easily. 

In the fall of 1990, Eden was shot and went into a coma, (presumably to allow Marcy time off).  Then, she magically awakens for Christmas, and Robert Barr gifts her an emerald which causes her to have memory flashes.  In January of 1991 the Dobsons return, and the dinner party marks their first official week of scripts.  Eden has a brief flash during the dinner party, but nobody really notices.  Then, in February, Marcy's departure is announced.  Soon after the whole multiple personality story begins.  Prior to that period, it looked like a story of how Eden and Robert were once thieves for thrills.  It wasn't until the Dobsons return that the whole confusion about multiple personalities, and Eden's anger at Sophia, became a part of the plot.  There may have been a story outline, but one tends to think, given the multiple interviews that Bridget gave about not watching the show while she was gone, that she probably did not feel beholden to the plans of prior writers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I find it hard to believe that they actually watched the same version of "Steel Magnolias" that I did. Are we sure they didn't watch the horrible re-make?    

      Please register in order to view this content

      Oh dear lord, did you have to remind me of that?!! That was definitely not Sally Field's finest hour, and Abby (Maura Tierney's character) was surely one of the most depressing characters ever written for tv or film. I'm not sure she cracked a smile even once during all her years on ER.  
    • I always thought Lois was such a unique character and considered her supporting her first run.  She was in a lot of different places on the canvas, but I don't think she had more focus than Brenda or Robin at her peak. With Ned basically out of the picture Lois doesn't quite have enough ties on the canvas to make her relevant and the show has done very little to give her new relationships and friendships.  She's stuck in the Q mansion most of the time. Oh, I agree it's a problem across the board for GH.  The only stable couples on the show are Brook Lynn/Chase and Portia/Curtis.  Unseen Olivia/Ned and Kevin/Laura are happily married I suppose.   Eventually I am sure Liz/Lucky and Dante/Lulu will get their romance, but is there any other couple that's even rootable?   I can't recall an era when Jason, Carly, and Sonny were all at such loose romantic ends at the same time.   Which is fine.  However no other romance besides Willow/Drew is being focused on.
    • https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/shortland-street-fears-speculation-grows-about-shows-future-amid-industry-struggles/T2GECWXTI5AD3AMEV46YYYUE6E/ Still a big cloud over whether the show will get another year.
    • I had hoped they'd pair her with Michael Knight. They had a nice chemistry and he's been one of the better random castings on GH. When it comes to Gio, I found the scenes with Dante to be overdone. It's obvious they're trying to set up conflict for the reveal but I don't think that was needed. It actually made me less excited for the reveal and killed any interest I had in Dante and Gio forming a bond.
    • He also lost the woman he was going to marry, under very sudden circumstances. They are probably surprised Rena has wanted to stay. I think Lois works OK in her current capacity, if they allowed her to have more of a point of view, a bit more life of her own, and not just the reason for Gio's paternity being hidden. The character always felt very thin to me and on paper this dynamic with Tracy, Brook Lyn, Gio, visits from Gloria could be better for her than how overly centered she was on the canvas the first time around. But as of now she could be better used.  Somehow the show that was revived due to supercouples seems completely alien to romance. The older cast has this hardest but even with tiers who are younger or middle-aged, they've really dragged their feet about Liz and Lucky, they have contorted themselves in trying to figure out how to pair a man with Joss, Kai and Trina barely get focus...and others I struggle to remember. They also blew up Sasha/Cody so now I guess we're meant to be waiting to see if she finds true love with Jason? The show is so hesitant and when you are this hesitant it means you are incapable of writing romance.
    • I agree.  Rena doesn't seem to mind the lighter workload and seems happy though. Strangely, a lot of the veteran cast are without viable love interests-Sonny, Nina, Lois, Jason, Tracy, Alexis, Carly (Brennan doesn't count).  The show lacks serious interest in romance.
    • I just can't wait until next week when we can go back to a full weeks worth of episodes. 3 episodes and a mid-week gap has been so difficult to deal with, especially in light of how good the show is.
    • I always hoped they'd change Parker's paternity back to Phillip.  I guess it doesn't matter since Chloe is off the show currently.  I don't recall Holly or Maggie mentioning Parker, so it's not they are close to him. 
    • I’ve reached the summer of 1998.  Until now, my impression has been that the show has steadily improved since the great quality dip of 1994, reaching as high as 8/10 in 1997. Sure, I could complain about a few things in 1997 (Claudia got wasted after her initial storyline; Thorne’s feelings for Taylor were a bit too sudden; the storyline where Sheila lived with James and Maggie while pregnant got rather boring; Mike periodically revisiting Sheila despite being on the run from authorities), but overall it was a very strong year.  I liked the Thorne/Taylor/Ridge triangle, the mystery plot about who shot Grant, the sham wedding to trap Sheila, Stephanie/Eric/Lauren, and Clarke manipulating his way back to working at Forrester. I even liked the Greenland storyline with Eric/Lauren/Rush, although I had expected to hate it. Maybe 1996 tops 1997 in raw soapy excitement (especially as Sheila got a chance to interact with a larger canvas of characters), but certain problems with overall storyline cohesion puts it somewhat below 1997 for me. Unfortunately, early 1998 has turned out to be a bit of a speedbump, perhaps on par with 1995 levels of quality: - Maggie’s character really got trashed after James left her to be with Sheila, and the early 1998 storylines where she imprisoned Sheila in the house from Psycho, or installed those wires and mikes and such in her house to make her think she’s going crazy, were total GARBAGE. So much so that the latter storyline (and Maggie with it) pretty much disappeared into a limbo.  - I have mixed feelings about the twins plotline with Lauren. No way did Rush survive being shot with a crossbow through the chest, and the romance between Lauren and Rush’s good twin brother Johnny was rather dry to me. I did however enjoy the camp aspect of Rush taking his brother’s place to be with Lauren, and Eric rescuing her. But it doesn’t appear like Bell cared too much about the Johnny/Lauren romance beyond the twin storyline gimmick, and it too disappeared in an unsatisfactory manner (come on, why not hire Johnny’s actor for just 5 more episodes for an arc where he realizes Lauren is not over Eric, or JUST SOMETHING?) - Clarke wormed his way back to FC in late 1997, which had exciting storytelling potential, but then he disappeared almost entirely. Sad to see my favorite character wasted in this manner. Does he get anything interesting to do between now and the Morgan saga of 2000-2001? - The Thomas saga was entertaining in 1997, but it got stretched out too much, and made some of early 1998 tiresome, with Ridge having to decide YET AGAIN which woman he wants to be with. On the plus side, I like the plotline of Thorne being neighbors with Macy and Grant, and we’ve finally been introduced to the SORASed Rick/Amber/CJ crowd. The Stephanie/James/Sheila triangle is also starting, and it makes me excited (I remember seeing some if it in my childhood). I know Sheila, Grant, and James are all leaving soon, which I honestly kind of dread - between them and Clarke’s near-absence, it feels like herd is going to get culled too much in the near future. But I know there’s the familiar 1999-2002 to look forward to.
    • LOL - this is a perfect description, and that's what I loved about it! May be a bit campy, but it immediately caught my attention in a good way.  I'm not familiar with the Fishing Trip storyline, I'll have to look that up. I've noticed that about Josh, which has made him less attractive to me overall. He just yells a lot when he's not happy. Wow, Reva was married to HB!  LOL - "Always... eventually, and again"
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy