21 hours ago, Wendy said:

I think the intense over reliance on Cruz and Eden hurt this show in the long run.

Before the C/E fans come after me with pitchforks, I'm not saying I hate them or they should not have gotten focus. But they became the one pairing that everyone and everything sort of rotated around. And when Marcy Walker left, there was nothing left to cushion that blow and fill that huge hole.

(Mason and Julia did help. Even Michael Logan did acknowledge that pairing did provide some salve, but even they weren't enough in the end. (Says I, a big M/J fan!))

Another misstep was jettisoning Carrington Garland - who had chemistry with everybody as Kelly - for a name in Eileen Davidson. I don't hate Davidson, but she was miscast in that role. I think, had the Dobsons not been so knee jerk in wanting to put their stamp on everything post return and kept Garland, that she and Roscoe Born could have helped to better cushion the show post C/E. Preferably as Robert and not Quinn, but it's clear that pairing did seem to interest the audience. But even if Born still exited the show, as I said, Garland could generate chemistry with anyone. Actually, I would have been interested two see the two CGs together: Carrington Garland and Charles Grant's Connor. He still could have come on to investigate BJ's molester's murder somehow - minus the Cruz/Kelly aborted ickfest [as in, it never happened!] and go from there.

But by the time TPTB realized they had to plan beyond C/E, it was clear they were already too late and never knew how. There should have always been a plan B in case either or both [which ended up occurring!] A Martinez and Marcy Walker would leave.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. (Okay, commence the throwing of tomatoes!)

 

Hahaha....no Tomatoes here ((-; Agree on the over reliance part and to think that SB had such great Actors at their disposal.

It may also be a Chicken and Egg situation, the initial ratings for the show was not great, so the writers tried to stick to the few "success points" from the show to which the audience responded to and probably overdid it. I mean they did have Julia/ Mason/Mary, CC/Sophia, Lionel/ Augusta, Ted/Hayley not to forget the many love interests of Kelly over the years...but for some reason always kept coming back to C & E.

10 hours ago, dc11786 said:

I'm by no means an expert, but I have noticed in the sporadic viewing of (random) episodes from the early years how powerful the characterization is for both Cruz and Eden and the resulting conflict between their two very different personalities. I find something is lost later on when Eden mellows as they seem to end up in the heat of a lot of action and adventure material, which is a shame because it doesn't really highlight their strengths as performers though A Martinez does a bang up job selling the day to day insanity they throw at Cruz. 

Part of the issue in Eden's early characterization is the Daddy's Girl issues that also seem to mellow. Her hatred for Sophia isn't solely based on her own abandonment issues, but rather the pain that it has caused her father. I think Eden's involvement with older man Jack Lee, which I don't think went anywhere due to Joel Crothers death, would have emphasized that. I often wonder what would have happened if they had maintained Eden's involvement with a rich older father figure type who would have been that source of conflict especially since Jack was involved in law and could have easily had professional conflict with Cruz. 

I also wish that a more vibrant characterization for Santana had been maintained throughout performers. I actually find Wanda DeJesus compelling in 1991 and wish that they had tried to revisit Santana and Cruz at that juncture. 

Carrington Garland definitely shouldn't have been dumped. I'm one of the few that enjoys what I've seen of 1991, and I still think that was a huge mistake. I do see where the Dobsons could have struggled with some of Garland's performances (I find her Kelly, on some occasions, more flighty than I imagine they saw her). I think the Dobsons wanted a more neurotic Kelly, which I think they thought Davidson could give them. I think they should have let Garland play that out because I think she would have been fine.  

I am curious if the international sales had anything to do with the nature of the show. If the hour long show was sold overseas and aired in 2 half-hour segments, I could see why you would want to keep the show's cast a little tighter and the pacing a little bit quicker. I notice in the "New Day in Eden" scripts I have characters/plots can go missing for long stretches when they are broken up. 

With that said, the original multiple family structure should have been maintained. The biggest issue was casting in those early episodes with some of those family units. The Perkins are wildly miscast. The Andrades less so but once Ismael Carlo pissed off the Dobsons, Ruben was crucified and set in motion the unravelling of that family. I would love to see an alternate reality of SB where Santana was the central figure instead of Cruz and Eden. 

Agree wholeheartedly on the makers doing a complete 360 from this very ambitious, highly opinionated and feisty woman that Eden was to a damsel in distress. The show starts of with Eden trying to prove to CC that she is capable of handling Executive position in Capwell enterprises to her becoming a detective/ TV journalist/ Jewel thief (Split personality I am looking at you!).. 

It would have been nice if A & Marcy would have been given individual storylines more often rather than just clubbing them as a "Supercouple", which eventually was the undoing of the show.

11 hours ago, NothinButAttitude said:

And what did Ismael Carlo do to piss off the Dobsons? Regardless of what he did, I don't think it should've resulted in the marginalizing of the Andrades even more. They could've recast him or phased him out. I always felt that Ted floundered unlike the rest of the Capwells b/c he didn't have a steady set of peers to act off of. All of his leading ladies either left (Laken & Christie) or killed off (Hayley). And I liked the friendship of Ted/Danny. That's one thing I would love to pick the brain of Jerome Dobson or any writer of SB throughout the duration--why was Ted always cast aside? You'd think he would've drove story more than anyone during that time as soaps were pushing young adult stories out like  crack at that time. 

I think Santana should've remained a mainstay throughout the entire run. But from what I've read and seen, she became a casualty to the Capwells. They should've kept her as a foil to Gina over Keith. Or this is where I feel like they should've focused more on expanding the canvas past the Capwells as we could've seen Santana with other men on the canvas. 

From an Ismael Carlo interview on the Santa Barbara Le Site Francais. Carlo seems innocent, but the treatment of Ruben is pretty wild. In the Bible, he is described as being at the same level of C.C. with having dreams for his children and then he is later ignored and said to have abandoned Rosa and the kids without even a real exit plot. 

Quote

 

How did you start in Santa Barbara ?

My recollection is that I auditioned for the role. After a couple of weeks of contract negotiations I was told that all was in order and that I would start work in a couple of weeks or so. But that's when the sh*t hit the fan. In her high petulant way she (Bridget Dobson) commenced to tell me how all her South American workers were beholding to her. How she treated them, "like children". I said to her, "I'm not a child". She got upset and started to cry. I told her that if she did not want me on the show, all she had to do was break the contract and pay me. It never happened. The Dobsons, who were the producers, where a pair of what you would call in your country aristocrats in their minds. I almost quit just before I started. But like any actor at the time I stuck it out all because of the work. I don't think I will ever sell my soul again. I was also able to perform with the lead actor and director in a production of his: Romeo & Juliet. I played Papa Capulet.

 

I like the idea of Santana and Brick because Santana was so obsessed with her childhood fascination with Channing Jr. that her connection with Brick made psychological sense. I also though having her raise Johnny would give her the chance she never had with Brandon. 

Santana easily could have become involved with others. I'd be curious to see how she would have done in a triangle with Kelly and Ric Castillo and/or Kelly and Robert Barr. I really liked the suggestion in 1991 that the Andrades had their land which became the Oasis Hotel swindled by C.C. Santana becoming a major player in the business world was some equivalent to Brooke Logan and the BeLieF Formula in terms of potential to rock the show's core. 

Keith to me is a successor to Kirk, who himself was a successor to Jack Lee. I also prefer Linda Gibboney / Ava Lazar Gina/Santana dynamics so its hard to enjoy what Gina Gallego's Santana becomes even though I think she is more than capable of playing a stronger Santana. I know Mattson's Gina is more memorable to most (and certainly there longer) but I like the more neurotic Gina who is present in 1984-1985. 

11 hours ago, Wendy said:

Funny you write/say that, considering the angle the show was hinting at before it got the axe. (Inferring that when Sophia/Lionel were getting it on, so had Augusta/CC. I think you can guess where this was heading, especially considering Mason and Warren's disdain for each other.)

Although Warren did discover Lionel was NOT his birth father before the show ended - and proceeded to treat Lionel like crap. Which was a crime. Not to mention John Allen Nelson's Warren looked AND SOUNDED like Nicolas Coster, so the rewrite REALLY sucked!

I'm not sure how invested the Dobsons were in Warren as a character. He was originally set to be killed off after being revealed as Channing, Jr.'s murderer. I don't think the change occurred because of an intense desire to save John Allen Nelson, but rather because of the dramatic potential of revealing that a mother shot and killed her own (presumed) son.

I haven't seen the bits that suggest that Warren might be C.C.'s son, but I don't doubt it. At times, I suspect they were also considering John Beck's David Raymond as Warren's biological father. Years ago, I suggested the less convoluted (or maybe more convoluted) rewrite would have been to have Eden as "Channing Jr." kidnap Minx before Eden fled Santa Barbara and have him deviously reveal to Minx that just as Minx had switched him at birth, "Channing Jr." had manufactured the evidence that Cassandra was her daughter.   

Interesting post that I've read on facebook.

August 2, 2024 Santa Barbara 40th Anniversary Reunion

These are the Santa Barbara Stars that are expected on the Reunion:

Co-Creator/Head Writer: Jerry Dobson

STARS: Lane Davies (Mason), Nancy Lee Grahn (Julia), A. Martinez (Cruz), Judith McConnell (Sophia), Louise Sorel (Augusta), Harley Jane Kozak (Mary), Robert Thaler (Pearl), Robin Mattson (Gina #2), Joseph Bottoms (Kirk #1), Steve Meadows (Peter Flint aka the Carnation Killer), Richard Eden (Brick Wallace), John Nelson (Warren Lockridge #1), Sherilyn Wolter (Elena Nikolas aka Eleonor Norris), Terri Garber (Suzanne Collier), Ally Walker (Andrea Bedford), Michael Brainard (Ted #2), Robert Brian Wilson (Channing jr), Ava Lazar (Santana #1), Peter Love (Ric Castillo), Joel Bailey (Lindsay Smith)

WRITERS/PRODUCERS: Mary. Dobson, Patrick Mulcahey, Cortney Simon, Michele Val Jean Chris Dunn

DIRECTORS: Rob Schiller and Peter Brinckerhoff AND MORE!!!

 

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/santa-barbara-40th-anniversary-reunion-tickets-927696724877?aff=oddtdtcreator&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1k9lCEQc9fE7RNVnHV4VxOKi6ILam2b-fI_fd1W_obMGlYwZlBQLHEbro_aem_ZmFrZWR1bW15MTZieXRlcw

 

 

 

12 hours ago, dc11786 said:

At times, I suspect they were also considering John Beck's David Raymond as Warren's biological father.

This, I sort of doubt. Most of Beck's story involved his crumbling marriage to Angela [as the show tried to hype up some mystery in how Angela's sister Marilyn - who the viewer never even met! - died, and David's involvement]. That, and his obvious mooning over Julia, who still was in love with Mason.

I don't recall anything about David being mixed up with Warren as a possible father. Although Angela was the connection between the two men and their stories.

I always thought Warren/Angela did have chemistry. A shame the show sacrificed that for drippy BJ. I know Cassie also loved Warren, but because of the family connection [or what was thought to be!], it was forbidden and eventually drove Cassie insane. But if not Angela? The revelation - even if I hated it - could have let them reunite. They did seem to spark, too. (And I say this as one that resented that Cassandra never really paid for manipulating Mason and Julia when she first started. That was never brought up!)

For whatever reason, the show put JW/Warren with the woman he least connected with. (No slight to Sydney Penny, who was awesome even as a little girl as Young Meggie in The Thorn Birds and as Julia Santos on All My Children. The role of BJ Walker was just a drain.)

Edited June 21, 20241 yr by Wendy

 

Jerome Dobson just confirmed there is "legal footwork" being done to get Santa Barbara on streaming.

Just how can a SANTA BARBARA fan read the show's original bible?   

2 hours ago, Liberty City said:

Jerome Dobson just confirmed there is "legal footwork" being done to get Santa Barbara on streaming.

Oh, I'd love to see SB again!

Re The Dobsons and SB. It's not like w the show had been running for decades and the original theme was lost.

They had created the show only a few years before but chose to jettison a lot they had established.

I get that once the show gets underway certain things don't work as well as anticipated but to write out entire families seems a bit drastic.

It feels like at times, they were more interested in showing how out there they could be instead of relying on good solid storytelling.

I don't doubt him.  Nor will I bore you with my opinion about repeating classic soaps.  But, given that the Dobsons famously sold their interest in Santa Barbara, I wonder why he would be involved in the discussion to have it offered to a streaming service? 

 

Edited June 22, 20241 yr by j swift

The Dobsons pretty much jettisoned the 4 family structure that they started the show with by January 1985, a little over 5 months after the premiere. They came up with a serial killer storyline to revamp the show into something different, the white carnation killer. The story came out of nowhere; it was set up in one day, and then dominated the show for 2 months.

The Perkins family was pretty much destroyed when Dane left; the same with the Andrade family when Ava Lazar was dropped. I guess the Lockridges were kept around a bit since the characters of Lionel and Augusta were so strong; and the Capwells, since the Capwell children were strong in spite of the recast CCs. In any event, the show had a very limited foundation after the revamp. Dane and Ava really were the heart of the show starting out, and it felt a little hollow with them gone.

Edited June 22, 20241 yr by Jdee43

11 hours ago, Jdee43 said:

The Dobsons pretty much jettisoned the 4 family structure that they started the show with by January 1985, a little over 5 months after the premiere. They came up with a serial killer storyline to revamp the show into something different, the white carnation killer. The story came out of nowhere; it was set up in one day, and then dominated the show for 2 months.

The Perkins family was pretty much destroyed when Dane left; the same with the Andrade family when Ava Lazar was dropped. I guess the Lockridges were kept around a bit since the characters of Lionel and Augusta were so strong; and the Capwells, since the Capwell children were strong in spite of the recast CCs. In any event, the show had a very limited foundation after the revamp. Dane and Ava really were the heart of the show starting out, and it felt a little hollow with them gone.

Dane and Ava should have ended up being the two biggest stars of the show.

Edited June 22, 20241 yr by Efulton

When we reviewed the contemporary reporting by Jon Michael Reed and Linda Hirsch from the Tumblr that posted their articles, they seemed to feel that New World and NBC, not the Dobsons, were pushing to get rid of the Perkins and Andrades.  The same geniuses that decided to premiere the show against the 1984 Summer Olympics, panicked when the ratings didn't improve over the first five months.  Unfortunately, their solution was to get rid of any traces of ethnic or economic diversity and focus on upward mobility. 

Edited June 22, 20241 yr by j swift

25 minutes ago, j swift said:

When we reviewed the contemporary reporting by Jon Michael Reed and Linda Hirsch from the Tumblr that posted their articles, they seemed to feel that New World and NBC, not the Dobsons, were pushing to get rid of the Perkins and Andrades.  The same geniuses that decided to premiere the show against the 1984 Summer Olympics, panicked when the ratings didn't improve over the first five months.  Unfortunately, their solution was to get rid of any traces of ethnic or economic diversity and focus on upward mobility. 

That sounds about right for what a network would do. SB seems to have been interfered with constantly so it's hard to know who's responsible for what because the Dobsons haven't always been reliable in their versions either.