Jump to content

Santa Barbara Discussion Thread


dm.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

If they had stayed with Joe and Kelly, they probably would have made Joe a cop. He was the lead action adventure guy while Dane was in the role. Cruz became what Joe would have been. Same with Kelly and Eden; Eden became what Kelly would have been had they stuck to the original plan and actors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 5 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • Members

Yes, Lester did get ripped off in terms of storyline. I also find it interesting Santa Barbara hired both of the Abbott siblings (Lester/Eileen Davidson) to portray two of the Capwell siblings. On paper, both should have been longterm investments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And they had thankless jobs to try to do because of all of the purists who say Only one Kelly - Robin Wright and Only one Mason - Lane Davies. And, I'm one of them but even though I am I also still think Terry did a good job. Eileen, no, and Gordon, no. But my favorite of Terry Lester is Royce/ATWT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)

No slight to Eileen Davidson, who did the best she could [and she was building a nice vibe with Charles Grant's Connor McCabe], but getting rid of Carrington Garland was one of the biggest mistakes the Dobsons made during their second tenure.

Carrington Garland, I would argue, was almost as popular as her predecessor [not counting Kimberly McArthur here], Robin Wright. She had chemistry with everyone and sparked with whomever she was romantically paired with. I think, had Garland stayed - whether paired with Roscoe Born as Quinn/Robert or maybe Charles Grant then - the show could have weathered the loss of both Marcy Walker and A Martinez better. Yes, there was still the popular Mason/Julia pairing, but Cruz and Eden took up such a large chunk of that show that losing both was a death knell.

On a side note, it was nice that both Marcy Walker and Carrington Garland both attended the 40th Anniversary celebration for Santa Barbara a few months back [with many other familiar faces!]...

Edited by Wendy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Dobsons made quite a few mistakes during their time on this soap: Ava Lazar, Dane Witherspoon, and then Garland. Davidson is a fire talent; she wasn't the issue. The role was. She was not right for Kelly, and Garland had everything right in that role.

I know people love Robin Wright, but I've honestly never been that pulled in by her performances⏤both on Santa Barbara and in her film/television projects. I know she was likely seen as the "Laura" of the soap, but it just did not work for me. I've always maintained that Wright's Kelly and Witherspoon's Joe should have been the soap's OTP and super couple, but we saw what happened when they recast Joe. Garland made her imprint known in the role of Kelly.

I agree; I loved seeing them both attend. I know Garland did The Bay some time ago, and she was just as natural there as she was during her Santa Barbara days, and I wish daytime had kept their eye on her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I thought I remembered reading that Garland once auditioned for another soap - maybe The Young & The Restless? But no one ever scooped her up. One of the soaps should have, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Garland did audition for Mindy on GL, IIRC, but was not chosen. She would have been better than who they cast.

I haven't watched every moment with the two Kellys, but I think both did well with where the characters were. Robin's Kelly was a long-suffering princess, and in spite of her myriad issues with the show and the producers, I think she brought a great deal of depth and honesty to constant melodramatic churn. Garland played a slightly more mature Kelly, who had more complicated romances as well as more complex relationships with family members like Eden. 

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

    • It surprises/disappoints me too that GL's ratings during '89-'93 don't reflect the quality of the show. But when I call it great soap, I'm not defining that by ratings either.  I'm probably in the minority, but I think Reilly takes something intangible with him when he goes. There's a sense of humor that just disappears in '93. 
    • Ok, I know nothing about Another World except their catchy intro song from long ago, but this makes me want to catch!  That crazy mother keeping her son's girlfriend or wife hostage, wow! 
    • And maybe Hotel could have been placed at 9pm Tues instead of Paper Dolls. Not that I thing it was a surefire thing but at least viewers were familiar with the show and it might have done better than PD. ABC's line up was pretty threadbare at that point. And with a big guest star to launch the season - Elizabeth Taylor- the numbers would have been there initially.
    • Any fan of RuPaul would dispute calling any of these examples “drag”. A costume?, A disguise?, A lame attempt at humor? -- yes -- Drag? -- nope
    • No asterisk. I meant that the circumstances during the first year were in her favor.
    • Maybe I am misunderstanding you? Are you suggesting that her success at GL should have an asterisk next to it because she was smart enough to exploit a weakness in the marketplace to gain ratings?  Note: Try not to take this personally—I’m not accusing anyone of being consciously misogynistic. I’m simply proposing that the origins of certain ideas about Ms. Phelps—such as claims that she was unprepared or a poor manager of her writing staff—may be rooted in misogyny. Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, it's worth reconsidering those opinions. At the very least, imagine being one of the few women in the room while a male network executive tries to decide what women want to watch during the day. That context has certainly led me to reassess many of my own long-held views.
    • Through 78 and 79 under Marland and Pat Falken smith GH was still heavily hospital based with a mix of storylines. The Doctors would have been fine had they followed that template. Once GH went with Ice Princess all bets were off.Who knows how much TD would have copied that direction? And OLTL, DOOL went in that direction quite heavily while other shows dabbled in far out stories. The thing is that TD was well set up for an expansion.
    • Thank you

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Aaron Spelling still had clout with ABC in Fall 1984, as I think they knew he was going to pull out all the stops for Dynasty to get to #1, which he did. That's probably why ABC kept Hotel as Dynasty lead out. Fall 1985 with the sale to Capital Cities and Brandon Stoddard arrival, Aaron Spelling would lose his clout with ABC.
    • Correction, July 1991 to May 1995. JFP got the ratings up during her first year, but it also helped that ABC big three were tanking at various times during that year and Days was in their post-supercouple/pre-Reilly mess era. It will always disappoint me that the ratings during the Calhoun/Long/Curlee era did not reflect the quality of the show.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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