Jump to content

Santa Barbara Discussion Thread


dm.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

@Jdee43 I think the C.C. / Santana revisit in 1991 would have been effective if had been allowed to play out to what I imagine was the natural conclusion. When the Dobsons returned with the dinner party episodes, it was established that Ruben and Rosa Andrade had been tricked in some land deal with C.C. It was later revealed, before Santana arrived, that the land in question was the property that the Capwells had built the Oasis on. The setup for this would seem to be that the Andrades were going to come into some level of power in Santa Barbara.

Cue Santana's return, where Dr. Grant Jameson, on C.C.'s payroll, has kept Santana locked in a psychiatric facility against her will before she learns the truth about what was going on. When the trial occurred regarding the incident involving Santana's imprisonment, C.C. continued to wield his power before Jameson had a moment of consicousness and confessed all his sins, but not before admonishing C.C. for his behavior. While I don't think C.C. directly caused Santana to be kept locked away, he certainly wasn't willing to listen to Santana. His arrogance and hubris played a role in that story. 

Similarly, you could see the parallel plots being developed in two ways. Firstly, Santana had been locked away and kept from Brandon in a manner very similar to the way C.C. had kept Pamela from Mason in recent years. During the trial, Santana's biggest supporter was Warren Lockridge. Sliding Santana into the triangle with Warren/Mason/Cassandra would seem like the logical steps once the full arc of the Santana and C.C. story played out. Secondly, Gina, who had kept Brandon from Santana, was now pregnant via artificial insemination with C.C.'s child. To me, it was clear the Dobsons would have had Santana raising Gina's child via C.C. in order to atone for the sin of being kept from her own child. 

Part of the issue was that Paul Raunch was the producer. Production staged the C.C. and Santana relationship as romantic with a splashy montage of C.C. and Santana making love to Vanessa William's "Save the Best for Last." While I think the romantic element should have played to an extent, this was not a romance story. It was a story of power and revenge. Santana was playing C.C. Rosa makes that very clear in her confrontations with her daughter reminding Santana that she cannot turn C.C. into the late Channing while Santana leaned into the shared grief over Channing's murder. I don't think the Dobsons wanted us to root for Santana and C.C. to be an endgame couple. 

I imagine the story would have led to a small civil service between C.C. and Santana, who would marry because C.C. wanted to make a play for custody of Gina and his son and wanted to provide him with a stable mother figure. Once Santana and C.C. secured custody, I imagine Santana would have arranged a situation or have allowed Gina to have a situation where C.C. ended up locked away long enough for Santana to secure her birthright, the Oasis, which would have shifted her into the world of Cassandra and Mason. 

Of course, some of this played out and some of it didn't so I may just be overthinking all of this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I just watched episode 89 from 11/30/84. The show is finally trying to pick things up with Mason, by having him be accused of his brother's murder. It doesn't really make much sense as to why his sister and father would take the word of a lowlife that Mason was guilty, and why Mason would then suddenly start acting as if he were really guilty, but much about this show just doesn't make sense.

Episode 89 features the first knockdown verbal fight between Mason and his father. It would have been so much better if Peter Mark Richman were still in the role of CC. Charles Bateman just didn't have the gravitas or the menace. Richman I believe could punch his son and pull a gun on him; with Bateman, it all just comes off as pretty ridiculous, he's so not believable. 

 

Edited by Jdee43
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think any actor (not even Jed Allan) who portrayed C.C. Capwell was all that effective.  It's possible that C.C. was just a hard part to cast for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Watching the show, I think Mark Arnold was completely miscast as Joe.

How about Jack Wagner as Joe Perkins in 1984? Or Jack Wagner as Joe Perkins in 1991? That would have made much more sense in terms of the kind of character Wagner ended up playing. Joe would have had tons of reasons to be pissed off. I never bought Wagner as Warren or liked what they turned Warren into to fit Jaxk Wagner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In 1984, Jack Wagner was pretty solidly ensconced and popular on General Hospital as Frisco, so unfortunately that wouldn't have worked. I do agree about Mark Arnold, though. I guess he had a pretty successful run on The Edge of Night for a few years before this, but here I feel like he basically turned Joe into Shouty McYellerson. It seemed like his Joe was just constantly yapping about something or other and it just got obnoxious after awhile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

I've been watching that storyline right now- well parts of it, I skip a lot. It was like March/April 1990. I also thought it was dumb, although there are a couple of good scenes between CC and Sophia talking about Lionel and the past when they think he's dead.

I don't follow/know the production crews the way you guys do, but I thought the end credits said John Conboy but then he left somewhere during that time as well, bc I think now it's someone else (June/July 1990). 

I'm wondering about the Cassandra character. It was kind of odd when she just showed up but now she fits in a little better. I assume she was an unpopular character? 

ETA I was wrong, it still shows Conboy as Exec Producer at the end.

Edited by Keri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the actress, Karen Moncrieff, is very well-suited for soap operas.  She is beautiful, she looks great in gowns, and she has very expressive eyes.  She can embody an intriguing and charismatic character. 

However, the stories for Cassandra were preposterous.  From her convoluted backstory to her odd choice of romantic partners, she was a mess.  And, in order to make this mess into a leading character, they had to retcon both Minx and Warren's history.  I mean, between Brick, Channing, and Cassandra, Minx was a monster when it came to allowing babies to raised by their mothers.

The Lockridges were my favorite soap family, and the idea that Cassandra upended everything that we knew about them within six years of the soap's debut was a fatal mistake.

That being said, the four orphan storyline is one of the best examples of a great pitch/poor execution plot.  The mystery surrounding the connection of these four disparate characters.  Their vitriol toward Mason.  And, how they finagled their way into various parts of the Capwell family was so fun to watch.  But, the casting for the men was not great, and they couldn't stick the landing, in terms of telling a satisfying resolution.  

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanks Keri and J Swift for all the information. I was watching then but I have no knowledge of the storyline Coster hated. I must have blocked it from my memory.

As for Cassandra, I remember liking the character but I was annoyed by the plot. As J Swift points out, it was a mess and just felt cobbled together as they were going on. It was another SB storyline that just fizzled out. The Stephen/Sophia relationship part of the story went nowhere and it was aggravating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah I thought the thing with the 4 orphans made no sense by the end, and I the stuff with the play and Sophia seemed like a waste of time.

The retcons don't bother me much, maybe bc I only started watching real time in late 1990 and 1991, so I didn't realize. 

Now I try not to think about it lol. 

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'm not sure who wanted them to dump REUNION & instead do a "Dallas-like daytime show" but it seems that it def came from NBC to AW through Rauch, so, yes, it absolutely could have been his (cough-another-stupid?) decision!!!! I've just begun the new Lisanti book so maybe I will find out. (I waited for the kindle version to come out.) I would apologize for being so critical & so sarcastic, too, but, well, I'm not actually sorry!  Silverman was NOT a friend to AW.  And, I believe the critique is on point & deserved! I wanted to explain why I think the timing is off for the 90 minute show to be a reaction to the GH Luke & Laura story & its hype. Because, for sure, networks & production companies did react to it! The first 90 minute show was Monday, March 5, 1979.  And, there was some unknown amount of time ahead of that with people arguing about it & then, planning it.  The Luke & Laura wedding was mid-November 1981.  They were on the run from Frank Smith & stayed overnight in Wyndham's Dept. Store early August 1980. 
    • terrible at using forums and inserting photos, but jake in another world had a drag persona named doris, anyone know the episode or year? http://www.anotherworldhomepage.com/ffad19.jpg
    • Yes, I am familiar with Fred Silverman. Agree, the 90 minute AW a very poor decision by Silverman. I think Silverman was behind the decision to go with Texas.
    • Thanks -- you're doing God's work The Gio reveal was everything I hoped for and more. GH got it right. Head to toe, GM is a stunning physical specimen.
    • I really wonder how they'll handle Netflix's usual long breaks between seasons. That girl is going to grow up fast... makes me wonder if this wouldn't have been a better fit for HBO Max considering they're leaning into a more broadcast style of production model with The Pitt.
    • I agree -- I didn't suspect Ted, either. I think a lot of people are giving themselves way too much credit in predicting Ted's problems

      Please register in order to view this content

      And can I have a different take on Ted here? Yes, he's made a huge mistake with this Leslie debacle, and yes, he has to suffer and pay for it. But does that make Ted a terrible human being? I don't think it does. He made a horrific mistake over 2 decades ago, and as far as we know, he's been a good husband and father since. As far as we know, he hasn't strayed or violated his marriage since. He didn't know that he fathered another child, and thought he "removed" Leslie from his life. I won't blame Nicole if she doesn't forgive him, but I also won't blame her if she decides what they have and what they've had more than makes up for what he did. Ted is getting dragged far more than Bill is on these boards, and I think Bill is MUCH worse as a husband and father. How many times did he cheat on Dani during their marriage? How many times did he do vile things in his role as fixer? How much did he hurt his daughters by screwing their friend and marrying her? With Keith Robinson coming in as Ted, maybe we'll see a character change in direction and we'll discover that Ted has many flaws and always had a dark side. For now, though, I'm inclined to both be angry with Ted for hurting his family while also sympathizing with him. I know what you mean, but I do think that was intentional. So much was going on in that episode, and I think they decided not to let Nicole's reaction be lost in all that. Nicole will get those scenes that you're asking for.  
    • That was the original point of me sending you her 6 airdates, so now with those, and the link to the daily episode guide I've provided, that should help you more easily find the additional Ruth Buzzi scenes. I will always repeat myself when it comes to defending my data that I've taken decades to research and compile. But, as you pointed out in a recent post, I am kind, so at least I will do it with you in a kind way as opposed to the usual social media way most people do with just getting rude/nasty. That's not my style, as you correctly pointed out earlier this week, and never will be.  So, all is well! 

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Ambyr Michelle continues to be *that girl.* She’s just a star, period. Elevates every scene she’s in on the sheer strength of her emotional realism and charisma. Can sell any dialogue. I wish the show veered away from the B&B-style scripting. TMG/Leslie’s tirade stood out, I suppose, but she’s getting a bit mustache-twirly. And I wish DD had more to do in that episode than stand and sob.
    • Well, that was down to CBS being weak and not being willing to just pulling the plug entirely. They didn't want to commit to cancelling the show in case they needed it for their schedule basically; plus they kept showing that they were willing to make cuts if needed to be. 
    • I'm sorry but clearly what I've said is not satisfactory to you. I have now read what you have to say, twice. As it happens, my interest at this point is looking at other mislabeled files to find this other Ruth Buzzi content. I do not see any point to each of us repeating ourselves, so I will leave it here. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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