14 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I love Morgan Fairchild but I was never sure why ABC worked so hard to court her as she was not a big name by 1995. I guess they didn't get what they expected, based on the crass and needless way they killed Sydney in the finale.

Morgan Fairchild would still be a recognizable face (no jokes intended) to the televeision audience from her appearances on Roseanne as well as the Old Navy ads that wiki says started up in 1994. I think she was still considered a get who also had daytime experience.

@CrazySexyQ I think Sydney's story picks up around March, 1996, when Jared comes back from the dead. Her stories remain very disjointed. There was something about a comatose daughter of her chauffeur and her brief martial rape plot. It seems to have more purpose even if it remains mostly underdeveloped or incomplete.

8 hours 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).

Whitesell, in turn, was most likely responding to Joanna Lee's comment a few years earlier talking about how Search for Tomorrow needed to be an hour soap in order to survive and was building the show to be that size and scope.

8 hours ago, 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.)

As @DRW50 mentioned, they are available. I know Marcantel edited the original interviews so there may be comments that weren't included. I remember Christopher Cass referring to Haidee Granger as "the South African" and that conversation seems to be truncated.

8 hours ago, DRW50 said:

@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.

I've liked what I've read about and seen of late 1984-early 1986. The arrival of Trisha and Gwyn through the double wedding /1986 AE board meeting seems pretty enjoyable.

I like what I've read about and seen of late 1984-early 1986, for the most part. The arrival of Trisha, Steve, and Gwyn through the AE board meeting / the double wedding in Februray, 1986 seems enjoyable. Things go off the rails by the time we get to Zona's murder.

12 hours ago, Khan said:

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.

I agree, Morgan Fairchild was antithetical to how were trying to market the show at the time: modern & multicultural. At the time she was too perceived as an 80's diva.

12 hours 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 )

If The City launched in '93 or '94 that could have been brilliant. But by the second half of '95 ABCD was in terrible shape in the W18-49 demo. Y&R & Days were consistently beating AMC in that demo when for (at least) 2 years before that AMC won handily save for a week or two here or there. No way would ABC weaken AMC when there was still hope for a rebound.

The Mia Farrow suggestion by you both is fascinating. She had cachet and is a quintessential New Yorker. Pam Grier might have been game at that point in her career as well, but since Jackie Brown is one of my favorite movies I'm glad it never happened!

The whole City experiment seemed to be thrown together very quickly. I believe they announced in June that Fairchild would be joining the show still titled LOVNYC. I don't think it's a coincidence that the revamp got the greenlight in the period between Central Park West getting massive buzz in the press and it debuting to a thud.

9 minutes ago, bongobong said:

The whole City experiment seemed to be thrown together very quickly. I believe they announced in June that Fairchild would be joining the show still titled LOVNYC. I don't think it's a coincidence that the revamp got the greenlight in the period between Central Park West getting massive buzz in the press and it debuting to a thud.

IIRC, Rudy Giuliani was mayor back then, and he was getting good press for revitalizing Times Square after decades of neglect, so I think that played a part in those shows' development as well. Suddenly, NYC was a tourist destination again, and I guess the networks wanted to capitalize on that any way they could.

2 hours ago, EricMontreal22 said:

Agreed about the off camera repercussions to Charles, but I really did love Nick and Lorraine. (And Roscoe was great in that role I think--I assume when he broke his contract with AMC it was partly being upset because he assumed he would be playing another potential romantic lead--and not another out and out villain. Not that that sopped him from reprising Mitch on OLTL.)

I think by the time he returned to playing Mitch, he accepted he was always going to be typecast as the villain. His character on The City was his best attempt at breaking from that trope by playing a strong anti-hero.

The show was able to pivot with Nick when the planned pairing between him and Syndey didn't seem to work by pairing him with Lorraine. I don't recall if the show carried over the tensions that had developed between Lorraine and Angie on Loving or not.

I was also trying to figure out what decent sized name in 1995 could have hidelined a new soap.. but the only names in soaps by then that could have affected ratings in a significant way would have been a Susan Lucci or a Diedre hall type. Having Morgan Fairchild was an interesting choice because she had gotten her start in daytime in the 30 minute format and while she wasn't a huge name.. she had a name that people knew that could drive some eyeballs to the show.

I think the biggest problem with the Sydney character wasn't MF, but the fact that the writers kept her character isolated from the majority of the cast. She only had consistent interactions with Tess and Danny with occasional interactions with Angie, Alex, and Jocelyn (who was the wrong character to bring over from Loving since people hated that she was a replacement for Ava).

Elise Neal's character (Janey) was a great character, her constantly stirring up trouble. It made no sense that after the writers set it up that she was Buck's daughter, only to kill her off!

Obviously that was the long-term storyline, but it was such a waste to build up such a great character like this, only to kill her off! Then replace her with another love-interest for Frankie, Brianna Hawkins.

Why not just continue with the Janey character, instead of introducing a new character Brianna

Janie was so defined and played by a charismatic actress who had chemistry with almost every scene partner. She made Frankie come alive and not just be a generic prototype. But the writers thought she was expendable if it meant sparing Dinah Lee at the last minute (who just ended up being a complete bore once recast.)

Brianna was an absolute bore, and she annoyed me so much after learning Charles was her biological father. She gave him hell, as if he had chosen to abandon her. He didn't know you existed. The writers were grasping when Janie was more organically woven onto the canvas.

Janie had so much more of a story, especially since they had set it up for her to be Buck's daughter. She was tailor-made for The City. Not to mention, I don't remember Buck even having a purpose on the new show.

Speaking of which, Josselyn should never have been an anchor character. Her backstory could've been intriguing, but the writers positioned her as an Ava replacement. Ava could've worked on the show. She and Tony could've clicked after her split from Alex. But the show was also intentional about not having the female characters be mothers. Ally sent Tyler to Paris to live with Cooper, and Angie only got a baby to keep once the show ended.

Loving was never one of the cool kids who got a lot of press (mainstream or otherwise), but this thread shows that fans' passion is still there. I've learned so much about the show, after all these years, from this thread and the discussions. The recent replies have tempered my phantom Trisha criticism and understand better that the show was almost backed into a corner.

It would be nice if there were more look-backs or reunions.

18 hours ago, DRW50 said:

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

OK how embarrassing--I'm on at least one of them with a question lol But thanks--good to have links to them!

34 minutes ago, CrazySexyQ said:

Janie was so defined and played by a charismatic actress who had chemistry with almost every scene partner. She made Frankie come alive and not just be a generic prototype. But the writers thought she was expendable if it meant sparing Dinah Lee at the last minute (who just ended up being a complete bore once recast.)

Brianna was an absolute bore, and she annoyed me so much after learning Charles was her biological father. She gave him hell, as if he had chosen to abandon her. He didn't know you existed. The writers were grasping when Janie was more organically woven onto the canvas.

Janie had so much more of a story, especially since they had set it up for her to be Buck's daughter. She was tailor-made for The City. Not to mention, I don't remember Buck even having a purpose on the new show.

Speaking of which, Josselyn should never have been an anchor character. Her backstory could've been intriguing, but the writers positioned her as an Ava replacement. Ava could've worked on the show. She and Tony could've clicked after her split from Alex. But the show was also intentional about not having the female characters be mothers. Ally sent Tyler to Paris to live with Cooper, and Angie only got a baby to keep once the show ended.

Loving was never one of the cool kids who got a lot of press (mainstream or otherwise), but this thread shows that fans' passion is still there. I've learned so much about the show, after all these years, from this thread and the discussions. The recent replies have tempered my phantom Trisha criticism and understand better that the show was almost backed into a corner.

It would be nice if there were more look-backs or reunions.

I agree with everyone else that Dinah Lee was the one who was meant to be killed off, and SHOULD have been (too bad if it meant another tragedy for Trucker :P Also I think it could have been interesting, maybe having Curtis and Trucker reconcile over their shared tragedy.) I am gonna assume Janie was the one killed off instead simply because she WAS so instantly appealing (character and actress) and had a connection to Buck so despite only being on the show for what, three, four months, there would still be some consequence. But yeah, then bringing in Brianna (this is cynical of me but I'm pretty sure it was because they now had a void of a younger black woman--which was part of the reason to bring on Janie) was sooo ugh. C'mon Agnes (if she was still writing--she certainly was still involved) remember when people were so upset that Kelly was killed on AMC and you brought back her double, Kitty? Couldn't you do a double here?? :P

I really liked Jocelyn but I agree with you. It's funny Loving and The City was my first exposure to so many soap actors--both newbies and ones (like Roscoe Born) that longer soap fans would have known well, and I have such nostalgic good will for their characters that I still think with a lot of those actors I liked them best as their Loving/City character (add Jocelyn to the list.)

And you're right, it's obvious there's a passionate Loving fanbase there (and I mean the show was MASSIVE in Italy and my South African boyfriend told me was so popular that a character from it was actually legally imported to a South African soap? Now I can't remember the details but I did look it up one time and it seemed he was right?) It's too bad that the guy who released oral histories about Ryan's Hope and the short lived Texas and now has one about when AW went to 90 mins (which includes mini oral histories of Lovers and Friends and From Richer and Poorer) wouldn't do a Loving/The City book... But I know him from FB and he's one of those Ryan's Hop fans who blames Loving for the destruction of his show lol And I know this is no big revelation but it's interesting to look at the ratings--when 2, 3 million people watched. Which was a drop in the pan then but of course now would be a big deal for any soap, so... people were watching. (Even if like I said, despite becoming soap obsessed after getting hooked on AMC and immediately reading books on the history, and at least checking out the other soaps, I had no idea a show called Loving existed until I saw the adverts for the AMC/Loving crossover. I grew up in Victoria, BC and like most Canadians we got the big US networks via their closest affiliate--Seattle for me--but all of the major soaps were also simulcast on Canadian networks, CBC carrying AMC for ages, going back to the 70s when it wasn't as common to get american affiliates apparently. But, you guessed it, the only soap that no Canadian station simulcast at all was Loving/The City. I can't remember if anyone picked up PC or not.)e), but this thread shows that fans' passion is still there. I've learned so much about the show, after all these years, from this thread and the discussions. The recent replies have tempered my phantom Trisha criticism and understand better that the show was almost backed into a corner.

11 hours ago, dc11786 said:

Didn't they try Angie and Cliff briefly on All My Children? Or was Cliff no longer a lead by that point?

All of this is a million times more compelling than anything I saw on The City. My main problem with The City is the lack of humanity. So many of the characters are so harsh constantly fighting with one another with few moments of quiet intimacy. I know there were friendships among the characters, but everything surrounding the story was so bleak, even in the final months where the show was stronger.

Angie and Cliff were a disaster--at least in terms of reception. Cliff was arguably no longer a leading man but that was only because Nina wasn't on the canvas and they didn't know what to do with him. But the issue seemed to be not just the interracial element, but fans of TWO supercouples not wanting to see them with others (which is why I wondered if it was Agnes who stopped any Angie/Trucker plans Taggertt/Guza may have had remembering how not all that long ago when she had tried an interracial pairing up of two former supercouple members into a new couple and it not working. Of course Jesse/Jacob wasn't on the scene yet, but Trucker and Tricia were certainly Loving's supercouple and Angie was still associated for anyone who started watching Loving when she joined, with Jesse.)

See in the final months of The City I felt there were a LOT of moments of fun and, yes, intimacy and god I hate this word, the characters felt kinda relatable to me in a way that I didn't usually find in soaps (keep in mind I was 15-16 at the time lol.) I think it took almost a year to get there, mind you--which may not be a lot of time for a soap to gel, but in this case was a year they couldn't afford (though, as I think everyone here feels, I don't think anyone thought The City would last long term.) I've mentioned before how well it played on the Seattle affiliate as a late night soap which makes me think that wouldn't this have been around the same time that Fox had plans for 13 Bourbon Street as a late night soap?

11 hours ago, dc11786 said:

I like what I've read about and seen of late 1984-early 1986, for the most part. The arrival of Trisha, Steve, and Gwyn through the AE board meeting / the double wedding in Februray, 1986 seems enjoyable. Things go off the rails by the time we get to Zona's murder.

I agree. I do have to wonder if it was a conscious decision though to not only replace so much of the cast (some of this was unavoidable) but to replace so many of the core families so early in the show's run? It just seems, odd... By this point Agnes Nixon shows had I gather built a reputation for often doing recasts early on until they got the right mix of character and actor--I've seen this alluded to in the soap press and certainly it seems to be true, especially with AMC. But she still held on to her core family structure and didn't give up on them so soon...

7 hours ago, bongobong said:

I agree, Morgan Fairchild was antithetical to how were trying to market the show at the time: modern & multicultural. At the time she was too perceived as an 80's diva.

If The City launched in '93 or '94 that could have been brilliant. But by the second half of '95 ABCD was in terrible shape in the W18-49 demo. Y&R & Days were consistently beating AMC in that demo when for (at least) 2 years before that AMC won handily save for a week or two here or there. No way would ABC weaken AMC when there was still hope for a rebound.

The Mia Farrow suggestion by you both is fascinating. She had cachet and is a quintessential New Yorker. Pam Grier might have been game at that point in her career as well, but since Jackie Brown is one of my favorite movies I'm glad it never happened!

The whole City experiment seemed to be thrown together very quickly. I believe they announced in June that Fairchild would be joining the show still titled LOVNYC. I don't think it's a coincidence that the revamp got the greenlight in the period between Central Park West getting massive buzz in the press and it debuting to a thud.

Brilliant, spot on points. And you're right, this was when suddenly AMC was on shaky ground (from which it never really recovered) and so I doubt it would be seen as the right time, also of course Susan Lucci as Erica on AMC was in the midst of one of her biggest, longest story arcs with the pill addiction--I don't suppose they could have opened up a Betty Ford centre in a loft in NYC?

I forget who it was, but someone on Soapy briefly brought up their time on The City and was talking about how it was SO thrown together that when they started they had ordered the wrong kinds of lights for all the hand held camera work they would be doing--the desire to film it unlike any other soap was bold but there hadn't been enough planning/training (I did think they got pretty good at this by the final months as well although I wasn't a fan when Burke brought some of that, as well as briefly the "film" look that Sunset Beach had tried too, to AMC when she became its EP)

6 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

I think by the time he returned to playing Mitch, he accepted he was always going to be typecast as the villain. His character on The City was his best attempt at breaking from that trope by playing a strong anti-hero.

That makes a lot of sense. It's too bad, I was really drawn to his portrayal of Nick, though as I said I wasn't familiar with his previous soap roles. It's sad to think if he had trouble living with playing psychopaths that he wasn't given more time to play more nuanced characters.

"I was also trying to figure out what decent sized name in 1995 could have hidelined a new soap.. " It's too bad that Debbie Morgan wasn't yet (maybe ever) that kind of name, because that would have made a lot of sense, and I still think one of the strengths of the Hulu AMC reboot was that essentially Angie and Jesse became the anchor of the show.

But thinking of non-white, soapy divas, howabout Diahann Carroll? Of course 1995 was when I felt I was stalking her because I saw her so many times in Vancouver in the Canadian production of Sunset Blvd (I still think she was the best Norma, opposite a great Joe in Rex Smith and it's amazing to read in her bio that Andrew Lloyd Webber wouldn't let her audition for the role in the US because she was black, but she got to do the Canadian production because it was licensed by Livent/Garth Drabinsky's company away from ALW's.) In 1995 she seems like she still would be as relevant as Morgan Fairchild--although she didn't have a history of doing daytime, she did have a big theatre background.

"I think the biggest problem with the Sydney character wasn't MF, but the fact that the writers kept her character isolated from the majority of the cast. She only had consistent interactions with Tess and Danny with occasional interactions with Angie, Alex, and Jocelyn (who was the wrong character to bring over from Loving since people hated that she was a replacement for Ava)."

Absolutely. Well and she had her son Richard (who was played by a former Heartbreak High Aussie actor which I thought was funny because AMC hired a former Heartbreak High actor around the same time with the guy who played Tanner.) But she always felt very isolated to me, in a way Tracy didn't.

2 hours ago, CrazySexyQ said:

Janie was so defined and played by a charismatic actress who had chemistry with almost every scene partner. She made Frankie come alive and not just be a generic prototype. But the writers thought she was expendable if it meant sparing Dinah Lee at the last minute (who just ended up being a complete bore once recast.)

1 hour ago, EricMontreal22 said:

I am gonna assume Janie was the one killed off instead simply because she WAS so instantly appealing (character and actress) and had a connection to Buck so despite only being on the show for what, three, four months, there would still be some consequence.

Killing off Janie was such a shame because there were so many possible avenues to take her as a character. If they had to kill someone off (which I guess they did in order to fulfill the three "predictions" that Ava was given during her trip to heaven) and had to swerve away from it being Dinah Lee, I feel like the obvious character to sacrifice was Gilbert at the end of his storyline. When Ava was given her visions I believe it was said that she was seeing things that would happen over the next year, so there was no urgency to killing someone off, plus it being Gilbert would fit with her briefly being convinced that it was Jeremy who was going to die. The answers to her three predictions were revealed while she was being held captive by Gilbert (and her response to finding out that the person who died was Janie was basically ".... Who?"), which I think also makes Gilbert the more natural character to fulfill that prophesy.

1 hour ago, EricMontreal22 said:

I grew up in Victoria, BC and like most Canadians we got the big US networks via their closest affiliate--Seattle for me

That's funny, I grew up in Duncan! Were you also a dedicated watcher of Cindi Reinhart on Northwest Afternoon? She appeared on an episode of Loving in 1992, which is ironic since I don't think she ever talked about Loving on her own show (although she probably did that day).

2 minutes ago, Kane said:

That's funny, I grew up in Duncan! Were you also a dedicated watcher of Cindi Reinhart on Northwest Afternoon? She appeared on an episode of Loving in 1992, which is ironic since I don't think she ever talked about Loving on her own show (although she probably did that day).

Hey Kane (I think we may be talking on FB?) But yes I was!! My mom called her the "soap lady" and would hope I'd run home from school enough to watch her. I had no idea that she was on Loving--which is ironic because I don't ever remember her discussing it on her show as you say ;)