Jump to content

Could there really be new life for GL?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Posted on GL Central

From: Sherry533 Posted: 9:07 AM

To: All

I just received a response to my e-mail to Lifetime. I wrote them asking if they had any ideas about picking up GL because of its history, longevity and fan base.

They wrote back "at first it wasn't something they would ever consider because they didn't want to become known as a "soap-opera" channel. However, we have received thousands of e-mails suggesting the same thing so now the powers that be are considering it." They added "keep tuning in to Lifetime to watch for ads during the summer showing their fall lineup."

How do people feel about this? In a way it's time to let GL go I think, but I am actually curious what a more mainstream cable station with a decent viewing audience might do with it. And would the changes Lifetime might make be for the better or worse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I say bring it on. Soaps are in toruble and it is not necessarily the fault of the shows. Networks play a huge role as well. I think by having GL go to Lifetime or another cable network, lets see what can happen.

Also can you post the email address for LIFETIME?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wouldn't it be amazing if Lifetime picked up that show AND it actually was not a shadow of its former self, AND was successful?

I would just hate to see it not get the proper sendoff, should it not succeed. As long as CBS gives it a sendoff like it is being cancelled, which it essentially would be- after gazillion years on CBS, I say why the hell not send it to Lifetime.

That was a nice response (it is probably a general one) but it is still cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think it's damn arrogant they "don't want to be known as a soap-opera channel"....WTH are they now??? Army Wives, Desperate Housewives those are "continuing dramas" aka "soaps". They've got another channel dedicated to really trashy, really bad tv movies of the week (filled with ex-soap stars, btw)...what the hell could be so off-putting about GL, in any form?

Idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Dear XXXXX,

Thank you for your suggestion of adding "The Guiding Light" to our lineup! here! network is committed to bringing you the very best in original, uncompromising entertainment which celebrates the LGBT experience, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We appreciate your patronage, and will keep your suggestion in mind as we continue building and expanding our program lineup.

Sincerely,

XXXXXX

Vice-President, Operations

here! network

And that took how long to write? Ten minutes? And I don't even watch here!, let alone, work for them. Therefore, if I can dummy up an e-mail like that, there's nothing that says this person couldn't have done the same w/ Lifetime.

(And don't laugh about pitching GL to here!, because you know someone's thought of it already.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the e-mail is bogus, if only because of the whole "we didn't want to consider being a soap channel" part. That is just not how a form letter response from a competent corporation would read. Clearly if the writer of the letter being responded to inquired about GL, they're a soap fan. And the kind of programming Lifetime runs appeals to many soap fans. If it didn't, they wouldn't feature so many soap stars or ex-soap stars in their films. Why would Lifetime insult those viewers that way especially if they were considering taking GL on? I just don't see that happening. The authentic responses that everyone else has gotten have a totally different tone. They're polite and totally uninformative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Community Posts

    • I think I've heard of this before but I'd definitely like to know more, lol. Probably in the Classic thread if that's preferred by people. I've never been big on Cari Shayne's Karen. But yes, Carrie and Christie Clark have always had me. Like Kimberly as Robin on GH or Erin Torpey on OLTL, there is a core of lived experience with the actor evolving from child to adult and a quiet intelligence in their presence there that makes the character rise above any poor writing IMO.
    • I hear what your saying regarding Carrie Brady's place on the canvas. There is no arguing that. As I think I was saying poorly above, Karen was introduced during a transition period very early in Riche's run (as was Jagger). There were a lot of things that happened during that period that feel very against the soap opera grain. For example, David Langdon, Monica's ex and Dawn's father, arrives in Port Charles in a medical story where Monica inserts herself with the intention of telling David that Dawn was their daughter. David dies suddenly and Monica never reveals this information to David. This feels very untraditional. Similarly, the whole Joseph Adkins arc with Bobbie writing to a murderer and the women of Port Charles all fawning over his book is not something I felt was the type of story soaps in 1992 did. Similarly, introducing a character like Karen without any family ties and anchoring a younger part of the story with another outsider Jagger wasn't how things would typically work (effectively) on the soap.   I think my issue with the idea that Brenda had a direct goal is that is all there was to her. She had nothing to her outside of that in early 1993. Jagger had wanting to find his family. Karen was working to get into medical school. Brenda had Jagger, who only wanted her when he couldn't have Karen. Even Ruby called Jagger out on this. Brenda's point of view was so limited. The fact that she nearly gets bested by Jenny Eckert of all people in a confrontation in March, 1993, is pretty wild given how milquetoast Jenny is.  I can see why you would think Karen was taking a middle of the road approach to things. It might not have been presented well, but her pursuing her career and going to college was going to come first. Working at Kelly's and maintaining her grades was going to come before her romance with Jagger. With Rhonda around, meddling in her life, Karen definitely had more reason to be conflicted. Rhonda saw Karen's relationship with Jason as the key to Karen's success, both by marrying into a wealthy family and by building a network of connections in Karen's career field.  Having watched some of her "General Hospital" run, I would like to at the early years of Karen's run on "Port Charles" to see how that all this continues in terms of her characterization. I think Karen remains very passive romantically deferring to Courtney Kanelos, who was just a much stronger adversary for Karen than Brenda was based on where Brenda was in her journey given that Courtney had Neil which tied her to the entire Scanlon clan. I do remember Karen having some outbursts, but I vaguely think that Shayne's Karen could also be pushed to her limits and she would fire back. This just wasn't her modus operandi as it was for characters like Courtney and early Brenda.  In Brenda's defense, I think part of the issue was the underdevelopment of her character. I think there was an intent on either Levinson's (or Riche's) part to craft Brenda as a "poor little rich girl" type who had no moral compass because her father was a business tycoon who ignored her and had loved Julia's mother more than her mother. If this was true, and the intent to solicit sympathy, or least empathy, for Brenda, it wasn't played enough for this to be effective. Brenda rejected Julia both in terms of her role as a parental figure and any sisterly advice she gave.  I would even go further and say that the issues I have with the Brenda/Karen rivalry were inherit to Bill Levinson's writing. By comparison, if you look at what was being done in the other female rivalries, the issues were mostly consistent. Jenny and Julia, for example, had the potential to be interesting but Julia was so passive and Jenny was sound brash and unfeeling that there was no one to root for. Also, the rivalry between Tiffany and Bobbie took Tiffany into a very narrow view with her solely trying to secure custody of Lucas at the cost of everything else including her friendship with Bobbie and Tony as well as her marriage to Sean. I'd be curious to see if Levinson had similar issues when he was at "Loving," but I'm spacing at the moment.   
    • Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka talk new show, ‘Drag Me to Dinner’ l GMA  
    • Jimbo & Alexis Spill Tea on Heidi's Drama (Unaired)

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Do these tournaments still test for COVID? https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/65794974?xtor=AL-72-[partner]-[bbc.news.twitter]-[headline]-[news]-[bizdev]-[isapi]&at_link_origin=BBCWorld&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_type=web_link&at_format=link&at_link_id=085D161A-01FB-11EE-91C3-39FFD772BE90&at_campaign_type=owned&at_bbc_team=editorial
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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