Jump to content

The Doctors Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

That would have cost them Millions more, as I understand it they have liscensed 2 years worth, going through 69. They may need the extra AD Revenue to pay for it. 2 years of the Doctors is like close to 500 episodes compared to maybe 60 for a Night Time show, which they Network gets more run Throughs to pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Not to mention it could be confusing for viewers as well, trying to keep up with two different eras of the show.

Penny, your well-intentioned though unwelcome plans have really come back to bite you this time! I wonder how Nick will come around.

Another sign of the times, but it was disturbing to see Maggie give pregnant Karen a drink - as it was to know that the fellas, who were out tying one on, were driving as well.

Here's a 1977 article about Carolee Campbell and David O'Brien. She had already left the show by then, but the two had reunited to act in a play.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1961&dat=19770319&id=FxYvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=towFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1228,4325520

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Is it true that Retro only licensed 2 years worth of episodes? I am very grateful for what we've gotten, but I really do hope that we can see more.

I'm intrigued by Townsend and Liz. I hope this moves Liz back to the front burner. She is one of my favorites.

Edited by Susan Hunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Some speculate that the episode was pre-empted back in 1968 due to the World Series and that Lakin and Edelstein recapped the plot developments via dialogue in the episode that aired yesterday. That makes sense to me. It doesn't make sense that Lakin and Edelstein would skip such a pivotal point in the story, especially since they're taking the time to show the lead-up to the wedding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The missing episode may have been preempted, but the writers would not have been able to make changes in the next day's script, because that episode had already been taped. I understand TD was taping about one-week ahead of air-date in 1967-68. And if they needed to purposefully skip and episode for some reason, the missing episode was certainly more important than the following one. The episode with the dress and tuxedo fittings should have been the one to skip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If an episode had been pre-empted, it would have been telecast the next day. It would not have been skipped. The production was too expensive to skip a taped episode, not to mention renumeration to the advertisers. Additionally, it makes no sense whatsoever that Lakin and Edelstein would conclude a crucial plot development offscreen. There were too many specific references to the discussion between Penny and Nick, as well as the date between Liz and Jody. More than likely, the episode was accidentally skipped when digitized or it was too degraded for broadcast. That has been the case with Ryan's Hope and the P&G soaps. It would also explain why the same episode was shown twice. Retro might be right, but they have been wrong in the past, so I will adopt a wait-and-see attitude. We should soon know one way or the other, as a skipped episode will throw off the holiday schedule.

Edited by saynotoursoap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The World Series only aired five weekday matchups, October 2, 3, 7, 9, and 10. All of those are known pre-emptions, The episode we are speculating about would have aired Tuesday, October 29th, over two weeks after the World Series ended, so it could not have been bumped for that. I cannot find evidence of any other pre-emption after October 10th, other than the one on Thanksgiving Day (November 28, 1968).

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

    • Everything with Elon and Trump is a stunt. If people, and the sycophantic press, are talking about their "feud," they are not talking about Republican plans to gut Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA. 
    • I can't fully remember, but I don't think they tried to get Beth Chamberlin back. I think Laibson/McTavish likely saw Beth as old news and wanted to move Philip on; either that or have her return only when Philip was closely tied to a new woman. Thanks as always for these recaps. I think I had stopped watching around this time and mostly kept up by reading in the soap magazines. Bridget's degradation was horrible to watch, as the character had grown so much over the years and was clearly regressed just to be a foil for a "hot" couple viewers had zero investment in. 
    • Having the majority of the cast on those low numbers is no way to tell story. And just 2 dayplayers for the month. So sad for the #1 soap.  
    • I believe it was. And this is actually one of the cases where I wouldn’t mind some dumb soap opera bringing back from the dead. They gave Mishael, Amanda, with all of Hilary’s connections but none of the personality except for fleeting moments. Hilary absolutely should’ve just left town. They decided to kill her and the baby. Just baffling,
    • That was Mal Young right? He thought a tragic death was a better option than crafting a story where Hilary leaves town. Was it a case of punishing someone who wants to leave? And then they have to jump through hoops to bring the actress back.
    • Ooo @TaoboiI will say I just watched Amanda give it to Abby and I loved it. Honestly just made me miss Hilary more. I will never understand or get over that decision to kill her off. Also call me crazy but I could definitely see the Damian actor playing NuTed on BTG. Very much still enjoying the Lily attraction.
    • I rewatched these episodes---they broke my heart. Somehow, Nola had seen Vanessa leave the hospital, and follows her home, and Maeve just lets out this primal scream---chills went down my spine. And knowing the history between them---never quite liking the other and always getting on each other's nerves (to put it mildly)---makes it a much richer to have them put it all aside in the moment and be family to each other. I've never seen/heard what Maeve thought of the story itself, but she did want a break, so it's not like she was fired and then brought back. Yes, Vanessa could be this stubborn and unwilling to ask for help. She'd pretty much always been an "I can do this on my own" type of woman, although when she first came to town, she would still run to Henry. But after she met Billy, she stopped relying on her father. It's part of the reason she (briefly) got addicted to pills after Bill's birth---she was determined to take care of him all by herself and became obsessed with the idea she was the only one who could. Of course, nothing before to this extreme. I should say, there's no way (IMO) they could've told this story---Vanessa letting her loved ones thinking she'd died---if her father Henry had still been alive. She never would've been able to do that to him. And it does chafe that she's letting Bill believe it, when her mantra had been all about protecting him since the day he was born. I honestly don't recall what I thought about it at the time. But now I'm thrilled she's free of Matt at least. LOL.
    • I had no idea Peter Reckell was 70. He doesn’t look or feel it and I guess I thought Bo and Hope were closer in age than 9 years. Wow even the new writers had to have Jack praise Leo. Melissa Reeves continues to slip back in effortlessly as Jennifer. I like Ari and Holly being old friends. Holly learning about John’s death reminded me of how John used to call her Nikki if my memory is serving me right. Doug who happily sleeps in high school Holly’s room shirtless and in his underwear is now asking about birth years. How old is he anyway?    The Cat and Chad romance is insulting. 
    • Her husband is Marty Levy. Chocolate Fortunes (her company) was started in 1987.  So that explains the mystery of 'Whatever happened to Pam Peters?' She had been running a successful business for decades.
    • KMH's Emily was a harbinger for the lack of dignity many characters would face in the last decade of ATWT. On paper, many of the stories given to Melanie Smith's Emily could have been extremely sleazy, but she was treated with respect and understanding in the writing. By 1996 the show went from often not knowing how to write for KMH's Emily to giving her outright reprehensible material. There were breaks from this treatment, but not enough, with even those breaks often being poorly written or just used to make her look even worse (like her grotesque rape story turning into her using her rape to destroy Margo's marriage).  By the last years I don't even know what the hell they were doing. Wasn't there some kind of mother-daughter whoring story with Emily and Alison? Wasn't Emily getting beaten up by johns? Whenever I think of how they wrote for KMH's Emily I'm reminded of Pauline Kael's quote about Ann-Margaret's '60s movie persona - calling her "dirty" and saying the people who made the movies "knew what men wanted to do to her."  Even as much as ATWT started hiring softcore actors in the mid/late '90s, the Emily treatment was on a whole other level. I have never known what audience they thought they were going to be attracting.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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