GL: Lights Out?-TV Guide Article

[Ann_SS]

I have heard this version of the whole Zimmer/Weary story before and I still don't buy it. The role of Luke was a plum role for Jake Weary who did not have a long resume. He and his mother had to know that Luke would have many frontburner stories that would have taken up his time. It is pretty obvious that either both of them or the son didn't like the gay Luke story so they put an end to his playing the role. It was disappointing because Weary was a much better actor than Van Hansis and would have done a better job in the Luke coming out story. C'est la vie.

[DRW50]

I never thought very highly of Jake Weary as an actor, but even if he did want to leave the role because of the storyline, I wouldn't necessarily see him as homophobic if he was wary of playing a gay storyline. He was still in school and kids are awful about anything involving homosexuality. This is one instance where I think it was a good idea to cast an actor who was already out of high school. If the reasons were some deep-seated problem with homosexuality, that's another matter, but we have no way of knowing.

I've gone back and forth with GL and cancellation. This isn't the Guiding Light I grew up watching. There was a long, slow process of decay, but I think the line was crossed for me during the Conboy years. There were instances I hated earlier on (most of the show from 1994-1997, anything with Wendy Moniz, Nadine's murder, Maureen's death), but what they did to Ben Reade horrified me and sort of crushed my last few positive memories of the GL I'd loved. I finally tuned out for good around the time they brought sleazo Jeffrey in, started the cousin sex storyline, and fired Jerry ver Dorn. I tuned back in recently, I guess last year. The show has changed so much, not for the better, but there are some glimmers. GL isn't the only soap which is unrecognizable, and as long as it makes a profit, then I would rather CBS keep it and maybe the show can continue to improve.

I don't want to see another court show, or Dr. Phil knockoff, in place of the longest running broadcast program.

[marceline]

Here's the question for me: for how long should this show be allowed to last?

Most of the arguments I see for "keeping the light on" are more about the fact that people don't want to say goodbye to a piece of the genre than a belief that the show itself deserves to continue and IMO that's not a good enough reason. I too hate the idea of another judge show or talk show but I equally hate the idea of these played out, washed up soaps being allowed to continue passing off hackneyed, second-class drama just because "that's the way its always been." GL has sucked for a very long time now. It's time to let it go.

[DRW50]

I think GL should be given another year. If nothing changes within the year, then they should cancel.

I'm at the point where I think almost every soap is in bad shape, both in quality and in ratings, even the soaps which have had more advantages than GL has in recent years. GL has had an awful string of producers and bad choices and neglect for so long now, and yet has still hung on. If daytime were healthier, and GL was in their current state, I'd cancel without any hesitation. When so much of daytime is decaying, I think there's room to give GL more time.

[All My Shadows]

Actually, not really. Luke was nowhere near a frontburner character throughout most of 2005. He had a supporting role throughout the Julia Larrabee murder stuff (and this is also where his kidney started acting up), but other than that, he didn't really do anything. There was a major difference between what Luke was doing in 2005 and what he was doing in 2006, and I think for a young kid (15 at the time) who was into doing other things, like sports and music, headlining a major story on a daily TV show probably didn't look all that great.

[DeliaIrisFan]

Wow, statements like these make me really sad. For a second, I was feeling badly about all the times I thought Passions was an embarrassment to the genre and should be canceled, because just as I've watched GL on and off since I was a pre-teen and would be really sad to see it go, there are no doubt those who had as much of a connection to Passions. But, you know what, my beef with Passions was that it was chosen to replace Another World, which had been around for decades and created many of the soap standbys that Passions traded on, and which even at the end had more viewers than Passions ever got. But there is truly no soap on the air that does not owe a lot to GL, in fact it's quite possible that none of these shows would be on the air today without GL. Plus, Passions was an embarrassment in my view because of its acting, dialogue, and stories; the production values, poor as they were, could have been easily overlooked in my book if the other elements had been there. When soaps were at their peak, creatively and in terms of number of viewers, they were more cheaply produced (and visibly so) than GL is today. They survived and thrived.

There are many things soaps do today that embarrass me - including the one I watch most regularly, OLTL, because I loved this genre once and for me OLTL comes the closest to embodying what I loved about it. The fact that stories about amnesia and multiple personality disorder still take place, the hiring of models instead of actors, ludicrous sci-fi/fantasy plots, lack of diversity, narrow and watered-down depictions of sexuality, the overly dramatic pseudo-cliffhangers that happen with increasing frequency throughout every episode to punctuate increasingly shorter and shorter scenes, the fact that every character on every soap has a lot of money but never works... I could go on. Production values are not on my top 10 list, or my top 100 list.

I'm sorry, when has this ever happened? The last time I saw some of Y&R (a few weeks ago) it still had a curiously dated use of videotape, like every other soap; it still had characters having extremely private discussions in public sets, with the extras pretending not to overhear what they were saying, and it still had reaction shot close-ups at the end of nearly every scene that most non-soap viewers would make fun of. Even in the '70s, when most soaps were only a half hour long and writers could plan stories years in advance with no network meddling, there was never time to give the day-to-day writing the attention movies or primetime shows got, or for directors to work on scenes with actors to the extent that they do on nighttime shows, in feature films, or in stage productions. When that hasn't happened in years in terms of writing or acting or directing, I am certainly not looking for flawless technical production values. The thing I always loved about soaps was that the sum is (or was, when stories and character development was actually going somewhere) greater than the parts, and the weak story that I would be inclined to fast-forward might eventually lead to a better one; that so-so scene that an actor gave early on in a story might eventually lead to a breakthrough scene at the climax. And the examples of increased production values when it was affordable (like location sequences at the pay-off of big stories, music montages that actually had a purpose like a character was leaving and they showed flashbacks, etc.) was the icing on the cake. Now it's questionable if these luxuries were ever really affordable, or if they were misguided distractions that upped production costs while total viewership was steeply declining. My theory now is that they were foisted on the industry by producers like Gloria Monty and John Conboy who were ashamed of soaps (for all the wrong reasons, while they made more than their share of casting and story decisions that only reinforced negative stereotypes of soaps) and other producers had to follow suit to "keep up with the Joneses" like derivatives traders buying up McMansions with subprime mortgages a few years ago, and soaps would be better off if they had continued trying to be like theatre instead of movies.

But good or bad, even when soaps had the most freedom to spend money on production values, probably the '80s or '90s, they never had the luxury to look like primetime or movies. Meanwhile, budgets have been slashed across the board while extremely costly aspects of production that are fairly recent additions (post-production editing, not-so-special effects, etc.) are still being clung to. Y&R may now have daytime's best sets/wardrobes/lighting/music - I don't know off-hand - but that ain't saying much. I would say that of all the soaps, GL may have come to closest to being a "visual masterpiece," once upon a time, when Jill Farren Phelps of all people was producing it (around the time Nick and Mindy went on location in San Francisco, Mallet and Harley at the Vietnam Memorial, when the background music was spot-on and all the actors were dressed and filmed in a stylish and flattering way). That's a nice memory of when soaps had more money to spend, but I would miss the stories and the characters that this show has brought us over 70 years so much more than anything like that. If the story were there in this bizarre production model in NJ, I would not hesitate to watch it, even if the traffic from outside the studio (in the scenes still filmed in the studio) was audible in scenes, even if actors flubbed entire paragraphs worth of script and they kept taping and never edited after the fact, even if characters were seen "driving" while a crew member moved a big picture of a landscape behind them. (All of which, BTW, were once the norm in soaps.)

And from the buzz I am reading, GL's story may actually be improving. I'm tempted check it out for a few upcoming events that have generated some buzz. If GL's biggest weakness were that it wasn't living up to antiquated production standards of the other remaining soaps, that would be a big accomplishment.

[marceline]

I love this list so much I want to take it out behind the middle school and get it pregnant!

These are the things that have killed soaps. People always say "the writing, the writing, the writing" but if you choose to only tell the stories of young, skinny, rich, straight white people, you run out of options pretty fast.

[bellcurve]

Production values aren't #1, but they should definitely be on a top ten list.

And even IF we weren't judging GL by the fact that they shoot with "less expensive" equipment, what explains all the technical gaffes? Sometimes, stuff like that just cannot be overlooked.

What you are talking about, aside from the videotape, are soap staples, NOT the production values. And I never talked about soap stereotypes in regards to GL, just the standard way of producing a daily serial. And I am sorry, but of everything else in daytime, Y&R does this to maximum effect and makes it look effortless.

Soaps don't need to look like a primetime drama, a film, or a reality show. They just need to be who and what they are. Wheeler's misguided attempt to make this show look like "The Hills" isn't much better. Give me characters not whispering their private conversations in Crimson Lights, tight closeups of Peter Bergman's face as he squeezes out a tear or turd, and videotape in HD anyday over the slapstick, unorganized, emotionally disconnected mess that is GL.

[UKBoi]

I think the real problem with GL isn't the production model itself, but instead the fact that it's taken them a year to work out the kinks. It's taped in basically the same was as "The Hills" but looks like a million times cheaper, which is something I dont quite understand. Still, it's getting better. It doesn't look like a college production anymore and if they learned to stop the occasional wobble of the camera and the rapid zoom ins then it would be perfect...well if CBS would have ponied up a little investment in some better cameras, that wouldnt have hurt either.

I've said it before about how Wheeler picked the wrong sets to build in offices and to build in the studio space. A corridor in the GL production offices could have easily been done up to look like Cedars; ditto the Police Station. The idea of having a nail salon where female characters could cross paths would have been great if it hadn't been done in such a small office. They should have used Wheeler's more spacious office to be a salon and, you know, USED AN ACTUAL CHURCH whenever they needed to do scenes in the church.

I hope GL survives this year, because the show is on a creative upswing and it does seem that this new format is actually generating a profit. I strongly think that if Guiding Light goes, Days and All My Children won't be far behind. Then ABC will buy Days...it will last another year, two years max and whimper out. Then ATWT and later One Life To Live will follow, leaving us with Y&R, B&B and GH. Three soaps being left on the air is never a good thing.

[juppiter]

Damn it, I just wrote a whole long reply and pressed backspace which deleted the whole thing. I hate when that happens.

Anyway, I don't feel like typing it all again. Just that if GL is canceled, some other show becomes the lowest rated, and it'd be either DAYS or ATWT. I no longer watch either, but they have enough familiar actors and sets where I'm still emotionally connected to them. GL is too different now from when I last watched (around 2002), and while I wouldn't mind seeing it go, it being at the bottom kinda keeps DAYS and ATWT safe.

Yeah, the first time I wrote it was better.

[UKBoi]

I hate when that happens. I've written many an essay-length post on here only for it to all delete itself because I accidentally push a button.

I think the thing is, if it's not GL that's the lowest rated, it will be something else, and then that will get all the cancellation rumours. I think if the rumours are true about Jill Lorie Hurst basically being Head Writer now and that's rubbing off on what we're seeing on screen right now, and if GL can maintain this creative upswing and reintroduce that feeling of community that's missing, then it will be alright. That, of course, depends on CBS having faith in the show. I do think that they promoted the hell out of Philip's return WAY TOO EARLY, but if it can see the ratings go up then I'm all for it.

[juppiter]

But when you look at the pattern... lowest rated Sunset Beach is canceled, PC becomes lowest rated. Lowest rated PC is canceled, Passions becomes lowest rated. Lowest rated Passions is canceled, GL becomes lowest rated.

I know that something's gotta be there, but it is a disturbing pattern.

I think that Grant Aleksander coming back is great for the show. I can see why they're promoting Phillip so much. Part of the problem with GL these days is that I just don't recognize it.... they literally allowed all of their talent to leave. Reva has let herself go and isn't the sexy spitfire she used to be. Cassie's on GH now. Harley is on an ABC soap I think. Edmund is gone, yet they keep Bradley Cole?! I hated Nancy St. Alban as Michelle, but I guess some considered that a blow to the show too. The "film" look and set changes happened all at once. It's such a different show now that I can't relate to it. Grant Aleksander is a really good actor and Phillip was one of their best characters.

I can understand why CBS wouldn't have faith in the show. They've had so many "second chances" to turn the show around and every single one has failed. If Phillip coming back is their last last chance, I'd totally understand that. But it is a great idea. I don't see GL (or any soap) making huge rating gains, but Phillip coming back was the main thing that needed to happen to at least get some momentum back and stay steady. Honestly, I would even be willing to sacrifice Reva if they could get back some of the folks I mentioned above. Zimmer isn't what she used to be, in many ways.

[DRW50]

I never liked Nancy St. Alban. I thought she made Michelle a boring, prissy person. I think GL was right to get rid of Michelle and Danny. Where they went wrong was in not having any other Bauers show up. GL went wild in the 80s killing off Bauers, and with the exception of a few kids for Rick and Michelle and a brief stint for the late Mary Stuart as Meta, they never brought any new Bauers in. They let GL's core family die. The Bauers would be the perfect fit for this current on the cheap version of GL. A normal, everyday family. Not oil magnates or moguls.

I think Cassie had already become about the men in her life, not any of her own strength, by the time Laura Wright left. The mistake was in not writing Cassie out with Laura. Nicole Forrester had some good moments with Tammy's death but nothing else which justified her 4 years in the role. I think they should have killed Cassie off when Laura left. This would have pushed Tammy closer to Reva and if they still wanted to do the love story with Tammy and Jonathan, then they could have, with even more added drama.

I also don't think they have lost much in Harley, not the Harley of the past few years.

Kim Zimmer's done her best with what they've given her. Reva stopped being a vixen a long time ago. Kim plays her as a woman trying to go into middle age while not being sure of how to reconcile the fun/self-destructive Reva with a more mature version. This was best shown in her relationship with Jonathan. The show has failed Reva by putting her in storylines which make her look bad, like the way they handled her cancer, or the last pregnancy.

What I find most hard to forgive from this current production team is the contempt they had for the Marler/Thorpe clan. Ross, killed. Holly, gone. Blake, made into a silly joke and most recently some dumb parody of a cougar. If they'd given even a tenth of the time to them that they've given to the Spauldings, who ceased to be interesting years ago, what could have happened?

Where they've really failed is in not bringing in a proper younger generation. Bad writing and iffy recasts hurt Marah, Daisy and Marina. I still don't know what they had in mind when they brought Dylan back. I'm not sure they did either. They made Tammy into blandness and then killed her. They invested so much into Jonathan even though he's not best served as a leading man, even if Tom Pelphrey wanted to stay on the show. They wasted Coop and they seem determined to mess up what they had in Bill and Lizzie. I don't know why Ashlee is even on the show now. Many other members of the younger generation, like Harley's kids, Blake's kids, Rick's kids, are MIA.

I think GL has started improving lately thanks to some hints of a stronger young generation on the scene, like Shane. That's why I'd like to see where GL can go if they have more time.

[Dan]

Great post CarlD! I agree with a great deal of it. I understand that, after the last stint, Peter Simon will probably never agree to be on the show again. But why not bring on Hope or even attempt to reestablish Trudy's part of the family line. That is a completely untapped vein in the show's history that could reenergize the show.

Amen! I never liked Victim Harley nor did I like Sanctimoniously Perfect Harley like in the last few years.

[DRW50]

I loved Harley, loved her, for a long time. She was so much fun. When she got together with Phillip, that personality slowly started being drained out of her, and then she became more and more of this dour person as the years went on. If she'd stayed with Gus, if Natalia had never happened, then she and Gus could have been a strong solid couple GL needed, but Beth Ehlers seemed tired of the show long before this happened. Some characters desperately need a break, but GL didn't know which ones. I can't think of one story I have enjoyed with Beth Raines since somewhere around the time she stopped being Lorelei. Yet there she is, a constant presence year after year.

The characters who still had such mileage left in them, like Holly, were pushed out. It's such a waste, especially since Maureen Garrett was still looking fine and acting as good as ever.

Even if Ed can't come back, there are other Bauers to bring in. As you brought up, Hope, or some of Trudy's relations.

If it were me, I would use Grant Aleksander's return, if he's only returning for a limited amount of time, to move away from the Spaulding family, keep only Lizzie, and focus on some more middle or lower class characters.