9 minutes ago, dc11786 said:

I think the fluidity of the show helped the younger set of "Loving" as the show was quite willing to change actors, characters, and personalities at the drop of the hat until they found what worked. In hindsight, the college revamp of 1992 only provides us two long standing characters (Cooper and Casey) surrounded by a string of duds (Hannah, Staige, and Kent) and one holdover (Ally). Things don't really pull themselves together until Millee Taggert and Robert Guza introduce Steffi, who is strong out of the gate but morphs when Nixon decides she wants to redo Claudette/Margo with Steffi/Deborah. The fact that both actresses are still in daytime (Laura Wright and Amelia Heinle) speaks to this go with the flow nature. 

That's very true. And the rapid shifts then allow them to have more inner lives than a lot of the younger characters in the show's first decade - I like Steve, Stacey and Trisha well enough, but they are much more basic.

I just realized that both Johnny Mathis and Jeffrey Osborne sung versions of the Loving theme.

That's a large expenditure for such a mall return.  I cannot even imagine a modern soap getting such legendary performers to make an opening song.

Those intros with gauzy curtains, champagne bottles etc don't seem to fit the show.

They give of an 80's miniseries vibe or 'erotic' romance novel cover and that's not what Loving delivered.

Like the title, they were too generic. They stayed away from cast photos, but unless you can come up with an identifiable icon like the hourglass (DOOL) the bible (AMC) the globe (ATWT) cast pics are probably the way to go,don't you think?

I don't think Loving ever had a good intro, although I do like the songs. 

The City's has a unique feel, at least, but is one of the most harshly dated soap openings of all time, along with the last AW opening and the final EON and Search openings. 

Edited June 23, 20241 yr by DRW50

54 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

Those intros with gauzy curtains, champagne bottles etc don't seem to fit the show.

I would add that even the style of music didn't fit the show.  R&B/soul/easy-listening hardly intoned the introduction for a soap about a small preppy college town.  I don't recall Loving being that sexy.

And once again we get the title forced into the lyric in a way that makes no sense (as long as winds will blow, my loving will protect you?)

I just find it remarkable that two music legends sung the theme.  I mean, beyond a trivia expert, (or someone who googled it), tell me anyone who could name that lady who sang the Passions theme.

Edited June 23, 20241 yr by j swift

2 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

Those intros with gauzy curtains, champagne bottles etc don't seem to fit the show.

They give of an 80's miniseries vibe or 'erotic' romance novel cover and that's not what Loving delivered.

Like the title, they were too generic. They stayed away from cast photos, but unless you can come up with an identifiable icon like the hourglass (DOOL) the bible (AMC) the globe (ATWT) cast pics are probably the way to go,don't you think?

 

2 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I don't think Loving ever had a good intro, although I do like the songs. 

The City's has a unique feel, at least, but is one of the most harshly dated soap openings of all time, along with the last AW opening and the final EON and Search openings. 

I think it all goes back to one, sad truth: no one - not the network, not the people who worked on the show BTS, not even the ones who created it in the first place - ever, truly knew what their show was about.  In fact, there are times when I suspect LOVING actually was two, separate shows welded together - with Agnes Nixon's show being the one centered around a university, and Douglas Marland's being about economically diverse families struggling to co-exist in the same, small town - to give us one show with two halves that never quite gelled.

And I agree about TC's intro not aging well, despite it giving their show a sense of identity or purpose that LOVING had lacked.

3 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

Those intros with gauzy curtains, champagne bottles etc don't seem to fit the show.

They give of an 80's miniseries vibe or 'erotic' romance novel cover and that's not what Loving delivered.

Like the title, they were too generic. They stayed away from cast photos, but unless you can come up with an identifiable icon like the hourglass (DOOL) the bible (AMC) the globe (ATWT) cast pics are probably the way to go,don't you think?

I think the Harlequin style late 80s opening with Mathis fits what they were trying to do in the era of Trisha and Trucker, Stacey and Jack, and Ava and Alex, but I agree that it never got to the point that it was that lush.

I like the short-lived champagne bottle opening but I'm not sure if that was really the mood of either Millee Taggart & Tom King or Mary Ryan Munisteri's work. 

The cast turnover would have made photos very difficult for "Loving."

2 hours ago, j swift said:

I would add that even the style of music didn't fit the show.  R&B/soul/easy-listening hardly intoned the introduction for a soap about a small preppy college town.  I don't recall Loving being that sexy.

And once again we get the title forced into the lyric in a way that makes no sense (as long as winds will blow, my loving will protect you?)

I just find it remarkable that two music legends sung the theme.  I mean, beyond a trivia expert, (or someone who googled it), tell me anyone who could name that lady who sang the Passions theme.

In watching early 90s General Hospital, I think the R&B style instrumentals is more evoking the musical choices of Wendy Riche's show as I know some of the music cues were also shared. 

Millee Taggert & Robert Guza's Loving was sexually provocative at times and probably the raciest the show gets. 

11 minutes ago, Khan said:

I think it all goes back to one, sad truth: no one - not the network, not the people who worked on the show BTS, not even the ones who created it in the first place - ever, truly knew what their show was about.  In fact, there are times when I suspect LOVING actually was two, separate shows welded together - with Agnes Nixon's show being the one centered around a university, and Douglas Marland's being about economically diverse families struggling to co-exist in the same, small town - to give us one show with two halves that never quite gelled.

And I agree about TC's intro not aging well, despite it giving their show a sense of identity or purpose that LOVING had lacked.

I think "Loving" was suppose to be a return to multi-generational family based storytelling in the era of the Ice Princess, Stefano Dimera, and other over the top stories. The issue was it was too underdeveloped and the parts that were developed were quickly squashed by the network. I wish there was longer stretches of English languages episodes from late 1984-mid 1985 because I think that is the time that show finally started to get somewhere with Ava getting pregnant, Dane taking over Alden Enterprises, the arrival of Trisha, Steve, and Gwyneth, and generally cohesive canvas. I agree thate Marland and Nixon's visions seemed very different.  

17 minutes ago, dc11786 said:

I think "Loving" was suppose to be a return to multi-generational family based storytelling in the era of the Ice Princess, Stefano Dimera, and other over the top stories. 

Ironically, when I think about the stuff that worked for me as a viewer, it tends to be the OTT stuff, like Jeff's obsession with Trisha, or the Loving murders, or even that whacked-out mess that had Dante keeping Curtis in a cage and referring to him as his pussycat or whatever, lol.

I think I've said before that LOVING needed to be ABC's answer to DAYS, with stories centered around high romance and adventure (or, as "high" as a half-hour show with a limited budget could get, lol).

Edited June 24, 20241 yr by Khan

41 minutes ago, Khan said:

Ironically, when I think about the stuff that worked for me as a viewer, it tends to be the OTT stuff, like Jeff's obsession with Trisha, or the Loving murders, or even that whacked-out mess that had Dante keeping Curtis in a cage and referring to him as his pussycat or whatever, lol.

I think I've said before that LOVING needed to be ABC's answer to DAYS, with stories centered around high romance and adventure (or, as "high" as a half-hour show with a limited budget could get, lol).

lol None of that stuff really works for me, but I also love Dinahlee and Trucker's affair when Trisha is pregnant with Christopher so there's no accounting for my personal taste. 

I think the half-hour format is ill suited for that kind of show that you are describing. the only one that I think accomplished the adventure piece well was Edge of Night. Having spent a good amount of time the last few weeks watching Generations try to do that, it is a hard sell. On an hour, you have time to ruminate on some of the character stuff that gets lost in a half-hour of action and adventure. I think Jean Rouverol wrote in her book on soap writing that those action style stories often require a large cast of recurring players (I think specifically she was referring to the mob aspect in the 1980s on Ryan's Hope). 

I agree it had to be different than what it was. Your comments, Khan, made me think of two different things. One, if the show was going to emulate Days of our Lives maybe they should have put Pat Falken Smith at Loving instead of Ryan's Hope in late 1983. I think if Falken Smith was allowed to explore more of the psycho-sexual work she as known for in the 1970s it would have defined Loving a bit better and grounded it in something that was manageable. 

The second thing is that we, on this board at least, ignore the contributions of Joe Stuart. Based on everything that has been said in recent years, Stuart should have been removed fairly early on. More specifically, I am thinking of how Bill Levinson seems to be at the lead of the team post-Marland and the work he did under Wendy Riche's reign nearly a decade later. I'm curious what a strong female EP could have done with a show like Loving in the early years as it seems that Jacqueline Babbin and Fran Sears really define the show in the 1990s. 

10 hours ago, dc11786 said:

One, if the show was going to emulate Days of our Lives maybe they should have put Pat Falken Smith at Loving instead of Ryan's Hope in late 1983. I think if Falken Smith was allowed to explore more of the psycho-sexual work she as known for in the 1970s it would have defined Loving a bit better and grounded it in something that was manageable. 

I think that would have been a smart move on ABC's part.  

I loved the first music theme and I would be fine with the drawing of a a couple in the intro (the last seconds of the second opening).

It might have been too expensive to update whenever needed, but I would have preferred a montage of scenes set to the show's original theme song.

Confession: ever since I posted it I've had the earworm, “the one thing we should treasure, now and forever, is L-O-V-I-N-G”.

Nixon and Marland had two totally different styles and vibes.. which were never going to work together.

The title Loving should have evoked passion in a romantic, sensual, or intense manner.... in positive and negative ways.

   As @Khan mentioned.. Jeff's obsession with Trisha, The Loving Murders, and Dante's keeping Curtis prisoner where the best example of emotion hyped up.   To Jeff, Gwyn, and Dante.. they viewed their actions as 'love'.. but that loving feeling ended up turning dangerous.

The brief 1991/2 intro had an intense score that was dramatic.. and that should have been what the network and writers should have focused on.   

This is another episode that used to be on Youtube but I couldn't find it now so reuploaded my old clips. Normally I would have combined the clips into one but had to do one by one as I put the last under age restriction (it's nothing especially wild, just Casey and Ally making love, but given the climate on Youtube these days I didn't want to take a chance)

Dinah Lee says it's February 2 so I am putting that as the date. If it's wrong I will change the date.