Jump to content

Ryan's Hope Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Members

My guess is that they didn’t want John Blazo for another long term deal, and they brought in Robert Finoccoli as a temp to finish things up until they could write out Pat.

Mary Carney was the best of a bad bunch. But she didn’t have Kate Mulgrew’s big presence/attitude, so I think she would have been fighting an uphill battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

In the book I believe it was Ilene Kristen who said Mary Carney was totally wrong for the role. So, what works in recasting is definitely subjective. The network definitely should have let the character go when Kate skipped. There was no replacing her. What stood out to me was that it sounds like Michael Levin made people miserable because he was so unhappy about the recasts. That seems a tad bit unprofessional, and I say that as a big fan of the guy. There were some mentions of him being very, very grumpy about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm about half way through the book...a great read !

Curious the consensus on the rounds and rounds of re-casting of the Ryans.  Of course, actors leave...but for so many others, were Claire and Paul making bad choices, or was it network interference, or what was causing such churn ?

I'm at the point where Anne Gillespie was pushed out.  Was her negative attitude so disruptive that it was worth ANOTHER recast of a Ryan ?!  Yes - we got Marg who was the definitive Siobhan, but did Ellen Barrett and ABC not realize how disruptive all the re-casting was to story, audience and cast harmony ?

On a show that made so many brilliant casting choices (Helen,  Bernie, Nancy, Michael Levin, Ron Hale, etc.)...I don't understand why the casting of the Ryan children was always so difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 

Another issue the Mary recasts had to deal with was that Claire Labine said she didn't know how to write for a married couple.

I expected to hear John Blazo something  about the the viewer reaction of the Pat/Nancy interfaith relationship. 

All those reasons, I suspect.

It looks like the show was more willing to put up with poor behavior from the men (Michael Hawkins, Michael Levin, Roscoe Born) than the women. I can't picture those men being taken by the hand and led off the set like they did with Ann.

Edited by safe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

None of the Mary recasts had much chemistry with Jack. Mary Carney was believable as a Ryan daughter, but not fiery enough for Mary. Nikki Goulet was blah and too green. And Kathleen Tolan seemed like she was on a completely different planet than the other actors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the problem with the Ryan kids was most of why they worked was down to the original actors and their appeal. The characters themselves were not special. The character who was the sturdiest was Frank, at least after Michael Hawkins was fired, which is probably why Frank had the most well-received recasts of any of the kids. 

As for Ann Gillespie, she never should have been hired in the first place. She was a bad fit for the part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I just got through reading about the "Midnight Murder" storyline in the Ryan's Hope book and Michael Corbett's firing. I like Corbett, don't get me wrong, but is the writer exaggerating when he says Pavel was the most popular and well-known character the show ever had at the time of Pavel's death? He says not even Mulgrew had received the amount of mainstream press & acclaim Corbett did (he *was* on the cover of People). Now, I am a second-generation RH fan (by that I mean, I only discovered the show when it came to SoapNet), but do you agree with this assessment? Pavel always kind of seemed like a throwaway character to me, not one who was built to last, even though the book writer intimated he could have become like the next Luke Spencer if Labine and Mayer had only invested in him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't even think it was Labine and Mayer who killed him off - Labine gave an interview about watching during the strike and seeing him die, which did not make her very happy.

I wasn't there either, so I can't begin to guess, but if he had been that beloved, I don't think ABC would have let him go. Not that long after he was hired by Search for Tomorrow.

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 know some of y'all really like Brooke Kerr, and so I've tried to give her a shot, despite her frequent flat line readings and distracted "did I leave the front door unlocked?" facial expressions. But lord, she is so bad at playing a tough-talking badass that I was actually rooting for Brad today to spill the beans to Drew. 
    • Googling does tend to ruin it.  For those of us who were teens in the late 1970s and early 1980s, you can't imagine how much fun it was to watch the show in the afternoons.  (It came on right after school.)  There weren't any "spoilers" at the time.  We would always try to anticipate how each crime and each mystery would be resolved, and we were ALWAYS wrong, because the stories are filled with so many weird twists and turns.   The head writer (Henry Slesar) and his dialogue writer (Steve Lehrman) invariably toss genuine clues directly into your face in the most unlikely ways, but then they provide a host of "red herrings" to completely confuse you and send you off on the wrong path.  Once the story reaches its conclusion, all you can think is Why didn't I figure that out weeks ago?  lol
    • Does the vault have the original scene and not the short flashback?
    • I appreciate that you are using AI with the knowledge of it's limitations. Some posters take everything it produces as fact.
    • And of course Mama Ru herself appeared on All My Children.
    • The Saturday 8pm slot usually had the lowest rating of the NBC 4 sitcom lineup for some reason. NBC let Saturday night fizzle, They used 9.30 pm to launch 227 and Amen, both of which moved to earlier in the evening but they  kept Empty Nest following GG for several seasons.  Empty Nest should have moved to 8pm with their strongest new sitcom at 9.30, anticipating that GG would eventually falter. Instead they left them there and stretching the sitcom pool too thinly on other nights. When Grand talk over at 9.30 Thurs maybe Night Court and Wings could have been used on Saturday.
    • @Maxim Great to see your mini-reviews again. There are a number of clips on Youtube of Janice's slow mental breakdown, especially as we go into January 1980. Christine Jones is just superb. She played the hell out of that role. Something which isn't referenced as much later on is how Mitch pushed Janice's doubts and mental instability for his own ends...until suddenly he didn't want to anymore (I guess he caught on with the audience and the show became wary). I don't want to post a bunch of clips, but this one has a very good confrontation between Rachel and Janice.

      Please register in order to view this content

      This has a good scene around 7 minutes in where you can see Janice struggling internally with her need to identify herself so much by the men around her, all of which helps lead to her crackup.  
    • It really made Oscar the Doorman seem like an imbecile.   I think the show's unusual format & subject manner is what makes EON often seem less "dated" and "old-fashioned" than other shows from that time period.  It never attempted to be especially "trendy" or "modern" -- and its film noir style is pretty timeless.  
    • Dallas, Dynasty, Knots and Falcon Crest all had good runs but by 85 they had seen better days. I think they were a victim of the format. After several seasons seeing the same characters front and center viewers were bored. What was once fascinating grew predictable. JR, Alexis etc had to be front and center and after a while their schemes and shtick grew repetitive. JR remarrying Sue Ellen, Alexis constantly trying to get he better of Blake etc Unlike daytime, there wasn't the flexibility to bring in other stories and characters and maybe let the likes JR go backburner. That same mentality also invaded daytime with characters like  Sonny and Victor still peddling the same stuff after decades. I guess the same could be said for MSW eg every week Jessica encounters a crime and solves it,but I think viewers come to that format with a different mindset.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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