19 minutes ago, Wendy said:

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.

They really should have, but I feel like, for the most part, Santa Barbara was not a soap on the radar of the others in daytime. And I don't understand why, because they had some awesomely talented actors in their repertoire.

14 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

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

I would assume it's either Ann Hamilton or Barbara Crampton who she was not chosen for; Crampton is good at what she does, but Mindy was not the role for her, especially following the brilliant work that Kimberley Simms provided in the role.

14 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

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. 

They both absolutely did what they needed to do. Absolutely. Garland's Kelly is just more my speed and for my liking. The "long-suffering princess" is something I'm not in love with as a character trait, and they harped it on for the longest of long times, and I am sure had Kimberly McArthur stayed in the role, they would have continued that, along with a "wounded dove" type of persona, which would've been worse.

Edited March 23Mar 23 by Liberty City

7 minutes ago, Liberty City said:

I would assume it's either Ann Hamilton or Barbara Crampton who she was not chosen for; Crampton is good at what she does, but Mindy was not the role for her, especially following the brilliant work that Kimberley Simms provided in the role.

They both absolutely did what they needed to do. Absolutely. Garland's Kelly is just more my speed and for my liking. The "long-suffering princess" is something I'm not in love with as a character trait, and they harped it on for the longest of long times, and I am sure had Kimberly McArthur stayed in the role, they would have continued that, along with a "wounded dove" type of persona, which would've been worse.

That was the Mindy, yes (I think).

I do wonder what the Dobsons wanted for Kelly with Eileen in the role. They kept trying to reset characters back to factory settings, and Eileen was never going to be able to do great as a victim.

2 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I do wonder what the Dobsons wanted for Kelly with Eileen in the role. They kept trying to reset characters back to factory settings, and Eileen was never going to be able to do great as a victim.

This is what Garland told Soap Opera Digest in 2020 regarding her exit:

❝ Well, I did my first contract and I renegotiated for a second contract and then the Dobsons [Bridget and Jerome, the show's creators] came back to the show after a period of time not being involved with the show for all kinds of legal reasons, and when they came back, they really wanted to restructure the show and what I learned was that they wanted Kelly to be a little older, a little more mature. Kelly [who was ultimately recast with Eileen Davidson, now Y&R's Ashley] ended up having a relationship with Cruz and that was part of that, and me as Kelly, I guess, they didn't see that. ❞

In 2011 she had this to say with a Santa Barbara fan blog:

❝ In 1991 the producers decided to replace you with an older actress (Eileen Davidson). They thought so to attract the Davidson’s audience. It was a dramatic mistake. Eileen Davidson, although a great actress, had nothing to do with Kelly. In addition, the fans loved you a lot. Can you tell who announced the replacement to you and how the audience reacted?

I actually had a dream the producer called and told me I was leaving. That next day it happened. They pulled me out of my scenes and I only had one day to say goodbye to everyone. I was heartbroken!

A true fan is very curious about all the background. it is true that this adds nothing, but this is fun. Can you Tell us now something more spicy: a few secrets on SB? There was some antipathy between the actors? some tension?

I'll tell you this.. There was as much going on behind the scenes as there was going on in front of the camera! ❞

30 minutes ago, Liberty City said:

This is what Garland told Soap Opera Digest in 2020 regarding her exit:

❝ Well, I did my first contract and I renegotiated for a second contract and then the Dobsons [Bridget and Jerome, the show's creators] came back to the show after a period of time not being involved with the show for all kinds of legal reasons, and when they came back, they really wanted to restructure the show and what I learned was that they wanted Kelly to be a little older, a little more mature. Kelly [who was ultimately recast with Eileen Davidson, now Y&R's Ashley] ended up having a relationship with Cruz and that was part of that, and me as Kelly, I guess, they didn't see that. ❞

Thanks. 

A shame.

Eileen was just too cold for that part, mature or not.

9 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Thanks. 

A shame.

Eileen was just too cold for that part, mature or not.

Knowing how Davidson can be in other roles, I'd wager it's the writing that made her that way.

Getting rid of Carrington Garland was just ridiculous. It was emblematic of so much of their return. They did not care about their viewers. They were too busy trying to recreate the past that they alienated the viewers that had stayed with the show: getting rid of Gocke, recasting Santana and doing little with her, recasting Pamela and doing little with it beyond those great episodes, ruining Eden/Cruz with that storyline, the rape dreams/comedy, writing off Augusta (which is more Rauch but still..), etc. It also didn't help they were paired with Paul Rauch who had no feel for the show. It's interesting to me that one of their few successes was the Michael/Flame storyline but that was scuppered because of Born's fights with Rauch. They gave Bizeau Weiss some good material, but then everything went awry bts. 

Yeah, I think the Dobsons allowed their bitterness to overshadow the show.

Like it or not, things moved on without them for years. And then for them to return and wanting to "reset" the characters did no one any favors.

I recall - in one of the preview things for the soaps - they were prattling on about Mason being captivated by Katrina [Maria Ellingsen], the Capwell German houseguest (who seemed to be shoved into the younger blonde role that was once Kelly's but with Eileen Davidson cast, Kelly was shoved into the Eden slot!), saying that she would remind Mason of Mary.

I know Mason and Mary were popular, but 1. Lane Davies' Mason was gone, 2. the spectre of Mary was given closure in 1989 when LD's Mason went to heaven, and 3. Maria Ellingsen looked waaaay too young next to Gordon Thomson. Oh, and with Cruz/Eden no more, dismantling Mason/Julia would have been catastrophic, IMO.

Apparently, someone agreed, because despite that preview, Katrina was thrown at Dash Nichols (which wasn't a good look for her since she was ostensibly championing a rapist to the whole town! But better her than Augusta, I guess!) and Mason and Julia did end up making their way back to each other following the Alcatraz remote with Warren and Cassie.

Again, had Carrington Garland been allowed to remain, with the actress basically a chemistry magnet, had Kelly remained with Robert (or Quinn) or, if that was not possible with Roscoe Born's war with the EP, Connor McCabe by way of Charles Grant still could have appeared and done the story, and I bet it would have worked with the audience - MINUS the Cruz/Kelly ickfest beforehand, thank you! The conflict could have worked just as well with Cruz still being family to Kelly, being his sister-in-law! - and could have helped the show keep familiar faces and soften the loss of Cruz and Eden (and A and Marcy). People liked CG as Kelly and rooted for her. That could have helped with whomever Kelly romanced.

But by recasting Kelly and other dumb decisions, the show was basically doomed, a victim of way too many cooks in the kitchen with no clear vision.

And I also agree that axing Justin Gocke's Brandon, and basically doing the insulting CC sperm crap with Gina giving birth to a replacement - and that's what that kid was - was a mess and sort of offensive, sending a message that, hey, an adopted kid is nice, but a "real" kid is better! No way. Especially not after the YEARS of everyone fighting over Brandon. (But that fight did lead to the nice interlude of Brandon moving in with Mason and Julia, since Mason knew what it was like to be pulled in different directions as a kid, and wanting Brandon to have a safe place to decide what he wanted!)

And hey, don't forget de-Lockridge-ing Warren, so he could treat Lionel like crap. (Or was that Pam Long? Either way, more garbage.)

The Dobsons just couldn't seem to work with what was, rather than what used to be and, worse, didn't seem to want to adapt.

 

It seems to me there are basically 2 lines of reasoning as to why the show ultimately was cancelled. 

1. What I think: That the blame rests on NBC for causing the lock-out & change of personnel away from the original Dream Team. 

2. What some of you think: That the blame rests on the Dobsons for not making the better choices when they finally got their soap back. 

14 hours ago, chrisml said:

Getting rid of Carrington Garland was just ridiculous. It was emblematic of so much of their return. They did not care about their viewers. They were too busy trying to recreate the past that they alienated the viewers that had stayed with the show: getting rid of Gocke, recasting Santana and doing little with her, recasting Pamela and doing little with it beyond those great episodes, ruining Eden/Cruz with that storyline, the rape dreams/comedy, writing off Augusta (which is more Rauch but still..), etc. It also didn't help they were paired with Paul Rauch who had no feel for the show. It's interesting to me that one of their few successes was the Michael/Flame storyline but that was scuppered because of Born's fights with Rauch. They gave Bizeau Weiss some good material, but then everything went awry bts. 

The Dobsons' return in 1991 screamed what Sally Sussman's return to The Young and the Restless in 2016 did: "You shut me out. I hate what you've done, so I'm going back to when I was last here and going from there," and it backfired.

The Pamela Pepperidge Capwell Conrad recast from Shirley Anne Field to Marj Dusay was very much the Dobsons, who admitted they wanted Dusay over Field, and given Field's later admitting she wasn't a fan of the material she had to play as Pamela, I'm not surprised at the swap. However, from my perspective, Field held more depth.

Not to mention the recast of Gina DeMott Capwell from Linda Gibboney to Robin Mattson; Mattson may have been a popular recast, but it completely changed the character of Gina.

12 hours ago, Wendy said:

Like it or not, things moved on without them for years. And then for them to return and wanting to "reset" the characters did no one any favors.

You're right: it did not to do them favours. If anything, it backfired on them.

If the Dobsons had worked with what they were given and not wanted to reset, I think the show could have righted itself. Instead, they were so intent on working out their grievances through their writing. It was not fun to watch. When they did work with  what was there (Flame/Michael), it was great. It also felt that they were punishing A. Martinez for supporting Phelps because they gave him one insulting story after another. I don't know if that's the case (or if it was just bad writing), but it felt that Martinez was being punished the same way Sorel was punished for her previous relationship with Rauch. 

12 minutes ago, chrisml said:

If the Dobsons had worked with what they were given and not wanted to reset, I think the show could have righted itself. Instead, they were so intent on working out their grievances through their writing. It was not fun to watch. When they did work with  what was there (Flame/Michael), it was great. It also felt that they were punishing A. Martinez for supporting Phelps because they gave him one insulting story after another. I don't know if that's the case (or if it was just bad writing), but it felt that Martinez was being punished the same way Sorel was punished for her previous relationship with Rauch. 

I have no idea if there is merit to what you're describing or not but I am under the impression that A is a huge FOJ so if they were unhappy with him obviously there might have been a reason. I know we'd probably all prefer there not to be pettiness but the people are only human.  I try to think about what they went through & it totally boggles my mind. With New World the time period was relatively short. NBC, not at all short. 

Six hours of December 1987 episodes. Picture and sound quality not great.

NBC WCHS Portland Maine ( Mid December 1987) Santa Barbra Soap Six Straight Episodes Woc : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

15 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Six hours of December 1987 episodes. Picture and sound quality not great.

NBC WCHS Portland Maine ( Mid December 1987) Santa Barbra Soap Six Straight Episodes Woc : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Cool, thanks!

On 3/24/2025 at 1:09 PM, Liberty City said:

The Dobsons' return in 1991 screamed what Sally Sussman's return to The Young and the Restless in 2016 did: "You shut me out. I hate what you've done, so I'm going back to when I was last here and going from there," and it backfired.

The Pamela Pepperidge Capwell Conrad recast from Shirley Anne Field to Marj Dusay was very much the Dobsons, who admitted they wanted Dusay over Field, and given Field's later admitting she wasn't a fan of the material she had to play as Pamela, I'm not surprised at the swap. However, from my perspective, Field held more depth.

Shirley Anne Field had this Gothic subtle aura around her when playing Pamela where we didn't know if she was going to be a protagonist or an antagonist.  Just the way she would get Sophia worked up anytime her Pamela would remind CC of their past as a couple was gold because she had a way of making it seem as though riling Sophia was a bonus and not her goal.   

And her chemistry with Robin Wright as her interfering mother in law also had potential because how she approached those scenes could be taken as a mother wanting to make up for lost time with her son and/or also a way to get control over Kelly as revenge against CC/Sophia for keeping Mason away from her.   

As you said, she did play Pamela with a lot of layers and subtext that read more of a tragic Gothic British character that you didn't know what side she would stand on issues.

 

Unpopular opinion:  I didn't think MacArthur was a bad Kelly.  She just came in during the middle of a storyline Kelly was involved in with her creepy mother in law, marital issues with Jeffery, and a start of something with TJ.  She did as well as she could under those circumstances and I agree she would have continued to play a more wounded/tortured Kelly had she stayed on beyond her several month stint.   She was a good transition Kelly between Wright and Garland.

16 minutes ago, Soaplovers said:

Shirley Anne Field had this Gothic subtle aura around her when playing Pamela where we didn't know if she was going to be a protagonist or an antagonist.  Just the way she would get Sophia worked up anytime her Pamela would remind CC of their past as a couple was gold because she had a way of making it seem as though riling Sophia was a bonus and not her goal.   

And her chemistry with Robin Wright as her interfering mother in law also had potential because how she approached those scenes could be taken as a mother wanting to make up for lost time with her son and/or also a way to get control over Kelly as revenge against CC/Sophia for keeping Mason away from her.   

As you said, she did play Pamela with a lot of layers and subtext that read more of a tragic Gothic British character that you didn't know what side she would stand on issues.

 

Unpopular opinion:  I didn't think MacArthur was a bad Kelly.  She just came in during the middle of a storyline Kelly was involved in with her creepy mother in law, marital issues with Jeffery, and a start of something with TJ.  She did as well as she could under those circumstances and I agree she would have continued to play a more wounded/tortured Kelly had she stayed on beyond her several month stint.   She was a good transition Kelly between Wright and Garland.

I completely agree with you about Field and MacArthur.