12 minutes ago, Khan said:

I see what you mean, lol.

Yeah, in retrospect, courting MF like that doesn't make too much sense. (Maybe they were going after people who still remembered FLAMINGO ROAD and PAPER DOLLS fondly?)

On the other hand, I'm at a loss as to naming someone who still was a big name in '95 AND who would've been willing to (relocate to NYC and) headline a brand-new soap. Susan Lucci might've gotten people at least to sample the show, but no way was ABCD gonna let her leave AMC, lol.

Neither can I. Maybe Shannen Doherty...she wasn't doing a lot at the time...

4 minutes ago, EricMontreal22 said:

2 minutes ago, EricMontreal22 said:

This part of the Schemering review stands out to me:

"We are living in the world of the one-hour soap opera. RYAN'S HOPE and THE BOLD AND THE BEAUTIFUL have recognized this by adapting themselves to the hour format within the limitations of the half-hour soap. They might open with a few teasers, but then wisely juxtapose quick scenes with long scenes, which allows for depth and resonance. Both shows often present very effective commercial-to-commercial scenes. LOVING would be wise to adapt this technique. The show is too choppy and the audience has little to savor. The constant interruptions when Ava spoke movingly about her miscarriage and the guilt she felt killed the flow of Roya Megnot's beautifully delivered performance."

Because rewatching 1994 Loving while watching the AMC episodes from 1995 that are airing here, one thing I've been sooo loving about AMC is just how long so many of the scenes still in 1995 were. And honestly usually very well written, so you have emotional if not story (but often that too) progress in every single scene. And Loving, though I think over all the writing holds up from 1994, seems keen to make up for being only 22 minutes by just having shorter scenes.

I'm a big defender of The City but it's true that when it launched, they didn't really have compelling stories to launch it with, so pretty quickly (I can't remember HOW quickly) they jumped to the Masquerade (I think it was called?) serial storyline which was SOOO misguided on so many levels. Was this the network interfering saying "well we got SOME traction and attention from a serial killer storyline on Loving, so..." Was it just Brown/Esensten scrambling? (I would definitely ask Brown about this if I had the chance.) Because it was doomed to failure. The entire reason the Loving Murders were so unique was that anyone could die and we had some sort of history with these characters. By design, this is lost when you use it to really launch a new show (and did we think they were going to kill off Angie or Ally or someone else they had brought over from Corinth??)

And, like I have said way too often, it actually played better as a late night soap as KOMO in Seattle aired it in the end of its run--and maybe could have captured the new audience they wanted?

Now here's a weird theory I have. Loving was always owned by Agnes Nixon's Dramatic Creations company (her second--I believe OLTL and AMC were owned until 77 or so by Creative Horizons but I may have the company names mixed up.) What if ABC had some weird contract with them that made it make sense for ABC (despite the reported cost of The City) to play out that contract with a show--essentially a rebrand of Loving but maybe under the end of the same or a similar contract?? And then of course they pretty quickly just replaced it with their own show, PC. I have NO idea how any of this stuff works, but is there any chance that could be a factor?

That could make sense as a reason.

I haven't watched that period in great detail, the early period, but IIRC the only actual stories were Jocelyn being a hooker because she had been sexually abused, the transgender story with a dud actress, Jared being a horror, Angie and Jacob with a foster child, and Frankie being drawn into some kind of race war which led to the bar being bombed (I still don't know how that story was approved and I don't think it was ever mentioned again even as some elements like Jacob and Cassandra carried over to Angie's AMC return). At the time, Marlena de Lacroix said the show had baked a cake with no proper ingredients. (the opposite of an Agnes show, really).

The Masquerade story did seem to be their way of trying to reset and have greatest hits. The story got some buzz, along with Tracy's arrival, but I guess that wasn't enough.

Thanks for sharing the review. I see what Schemering means about longer scenes. I think they did get better at this (the whole Carly/Paul/Ava triangle is not a favorite of mine but there are some longer, beautifully acted scenes), but it was an issue. In some of the '80s episodes there isn't enough plot while by the early '90s there is a little bit too much.

6 minutes ago, EricMontreal22 said:

I actually don't agree there. I think they would have had no loss and only gained to bring over a couple of Loving characters but not make it a true spin off. Hell, maybe just Angie and Jacob--that way you still in theory would have still had some interest from what ever Loving loyalists there were... (I was still a weird teen and one reason I didn't watch PC, and not just because I wasn't a big GH viewer, was I didn't want to see Debbi Morgan as much as I loved her in a new role straight away--I wanted more Angie. I don't think she even lasted long on PC?)

I can see why they didn't want to lose Catherine Hickland, Philip Brown, Randolph Mantooth and Laura Wright, but I also would have been more likely to just go with Angie and Jacob if they were going to be drastic. If they were going to bring as many as they did I would have brought Ava over too - clearly they wanted Alex to get to have romance and so on, but Lisa Peluso could light up any scene.

Debbi was on PC for about a year and a half I think. She joined because she wanted to play a character who was harder-edged (I'm not sure if that's why she left but by the time she left the character had lost all edge). I remember a letter in SPW at the time from someone complaining that Debbi had been talking about wanting to play the first black bitch in soaps since she was on Generations, telling her that Diahann Carroll had already done that on Dynasty.

2 hours ago, CrazySexyQ said:

Laura has such a vibrant energy and a genuine love and enthusiasm when she talks about her time on soaps. It's really nice that so many lasting friendships were formed from her time on Loving. I wouldn't mind if PAS ever joined GH and Carly meets her latest soulmate.

I'm not surprised at all that MW was cutting up on set. It's a trait he has carried throughout his career.

Laura was perfectly cast as Ally, and Jessica Collins as Dinah Lee. The casting director got it perfect.

The Loving casting director at that time was really pretty great, I think. That's one thing Loving had going for it for most of the 90s IMHO. This was great to see--I wondered why I loved Laura as Ally so much on Loving and The City even when I didn't love the writing... When I'd check her out on other soap roles (GL and GH) I seemed to like her less and less. I mean this is true of other actors who have just been in the industry a long time (in fact Heinle is one example... I've NEVER liked Benard on GH but find him charming as Nico on AMC...) but it really stands out to me for Ally/Laura.

And I'd agree with others that Jessica Collins made Dinah Lee, a character who as written often shouldn't have worked.

2 minutes ago, EricMontreal22 said:

This part of the Schemering review stands out to me:

"We are living in the world of the one-hour soap opera. RYAN'S HOPE and THE BOLD AND THE BEAUTIFUL have recognized this by adapting themselves to the hour format within the limitations of the half-hour soap. They might open with a few teasers, but then wisely juxtapose quick scenes with long scenes, which allows for depth and resonance. Both shows often present very effective commercial-to-commercial scenes. LOVING would be wise to adapt this technique. The show is too choppy and the audience has little to savor. The constant interruptions when Ava spoke movingly about her miscarriage and the guilt she felt killed the flow of Roya Megnot's beautifully delivered performance."

Because rewatching 1994 Loving while watching the AMC episodes from 1995 that are airing here, one thing I've been sooo loving about AMC is just how long so many of the scenes still in 1995 were. And honestly usually very well written, so you have emotional if not story (but often that too) progress in every single scene. And Loving, though I think over all the writing holds up from 1994, seems keen to make up for being only 22 minutes by just having shorter scenes.

That all reminds me of what John Whitesell told the press when he was named EP at SFT in '85 (or so). Specifically, he said that half-hour shows like SFT shouldn't try to compete with the hour-long ones by breaking up each act into a bunch of shorter scenes. Instead, he said, he wanted fewer scenes per episode, with maybe one long scene per act. (Unfortunately, Whitesell, who did some marvelous directing at GL, wouldn't last long at SFT. P&G promptly moved him to the hour-long AW).

Hrmm, if Morgan Fairchild was only gonna stay for six months (I think?) anyway, why NOT have Susan Lucci as Erica launch the show as was half suggested above? I mean... it's not a terrible idea? (I'm still not sure why JACK from AMC helped Sydney's exit, if I recall correctly? :P )

I know I've asked before but when was the OLTL/The City cross over (with Alex I think?) Am I wrong in thinking by the time it happened The City was already done or was it just that we already knew The City was almost done?

2 minutes ago, Khan said:

That all reminds me of what John Whitesell told the press when he was named EP at SFT in '85 (or so). Specifically, he said that half-hour shows like SFT shouldn't try to compete with the hour-long ones by breaking up each act into a bunch of shorter scenes. Instead, he said, he wanted fewer scenes per episode, with maybe one long scene per act. (Unfortunately, Whitesell, who did some marvelous directing at GL, wouldn't last long at SFT. P&G promptly moved him to the hour-long AW).

Fascinating! It does sound like Agnes Nixon was less hands on when she wrote the 93-94 Loving than she had been in the past, but you'd think she might have some say about how to take advantage best of the 30 minute format, since that was what she preferred.

6 minutes ago, EricMontreal22 said:

Hrmm, if Morgan Fairchild was only gonna stay for six months (I think?) anyway, why NOT have Susan Lucci as Erica launch the show as was half suggested above? I mean... it's not a terrible idea? (I'm still not sure why JACK from AMC helped Sydney's exit, if I recall correctly? :P )

I know I've asked before but when was the OLTL/The City cross over (with Alex I think?) Am I wrong in thinking by the time it happened The City was already done or was it just that we already knew The City was almost done?

It was when the show had only weeks left, IIRC.

I am not sure why Jack was chosen either. He was barely being used on AMC at the time so maybe they had to pay him anyway and hoped the crossover might help. I wonder if he had any scenes with Angie (although I don't think Angie and Jack knew each other well anyway).

Interesting in Randolph Mantooth's cameo also uploaded there, he calls out Agnes Nixon so I guess she did show up on set? (I mean if she did still own the show...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHRGU9B8Vzc

Well and Lauren Marie Taylor also talks about what Agnes was like in person... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPwZqYUeIn4

In the past, I've suggested Farrah Fawcett and Mia Farrow as ladies that could have been approached to play Sydney. While I doubt that either would have wanted to do a daytime soap -- and even in 1995, neither would have come cheaply -- you can't deny that both would have brought more opening day viewers than Morgan Fairchild. (Plus, Mia does have soap experience.)

1 minute ago, Franko said:

In the past, I've suggested Farrah Fawcett and Mia Farrow as ladies that could have been approached to play Sydney. While I doubt that either would have wanted to do a daytime soap -- and even in 1995, neither would have come cheaply -- you can't deny that both would have brought more opening day viewers than Morgan Fairchild. (Plus, Mia does have soap experience.)

Mia Farrow and Farrah Fawcett are both strong choices, @Franko . Maybe they weren't among the hottest names in '95, but they certainly were hotter than Morgan Fairchild, lol.

I think I would've approached Jaclyn Smith or (if she had not been stuck on the prairie, amputating people's body parts for no good reason) Jane Seymour.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by Khan

1 minute ago, Khan said:

Mia Farrow and Farrah Fawcett are both strong choices, @Franko . Maybe they weren't among the hottest names in '95, but they certainly were hotter than Morgan Fairchild, lol.

I think I would've approached Jaclyn Smith or (if she had not been stuck on the prairie, amputating people's body parts for no good reason) Jane Seymour.

I can already see all the "Will Woody and Soon-Yi stop by Soho?" articles for Mia...

10 minutes ago, Franko said:

In the past, I've suggested Farrah Fawcett and Mia Farrow as ladies that could have been approached to play Sydney. While I doubt that either would have wanted to do a daytime soap -- and even in 1995, neither would have come cheaply -- you can't deny that both would have brought more opening day viewers than Morgan Fairchild. (Plus, Mia does have soap experience.)

Mia Farrow was recently on a podcast talking about her friendship with Stephen Sondheim, and one thing she casually said was in the 90s she wanted to work more but wanted a steady daytime job she could do close to her home (which was in Connecticut) so... maybe she would have been game? She certainly would have had to have had a pretty different role than Sydney I think.

16 hours ago, dc11786 said:

I

While I hear what you are saying about changing perspectives, though I think, especially with what has come out about Joe Stuart and the general work environment in the 1980s in the Loving interviews from several years back, that examining some of the work through the lens of how gender is represented is not unwarranted. I would also agree with you that modern cancel culture does lead to dismissive attitudes towards material that may be less problematic than necessary. I think Leo's point of view is realistic, and I wish they had maintained it because characters with varying viewpoints is the natural source of drama.

Are these interviews still online? I think I must have missed them (maybe they were discussed during my absentee years from this board.)

@EricMontreal22 The mention of Schemering's praise for 1984 makes me even more disappointed so little of the year exists. Someone just put the closing credits for a 1984 episode on Youtube but of course no episode. I can't say I have been blown away by what is available from 1985 but I'd be curious to how different 1984 may or may not feel.

Just now, EricMontreal22 said:

Are these interviews still online? I think I must have missed them (maybe they were discussed during my absentee years from this board.)

I thought they weren't but @Vee (I think) mentioned they still were. I think they're on this channel if you scroll down - there is a video for the women of the cast, one for the men, and one for the fans.

Showrunner Productions NYC (Chris Marcantel) - YouTube