8 hours ago, chrisml said:

If Lumina had been written properly, and one of the results was that Alice Barrett returned as Frankie I think a lot of people would have forgiven it. Wasn't that the original intention?

People were speculating that Anne was gonna turn out to be Frankie, but the show was cancelled before the storyline really got off the ground

9 hours ago, chrisml said:

I often felt that AW regimes and writers treated longtime viewers with contempt. I often felt like decisions were purposely made to push viewers away

Although I won't try to change your mind, there's more evidence that some writers and producers were hacks than that they deliberately tried to sink the ship.  I believe the production had too many fiduciary responsibilities to ever conspire against the audience.  Because if they were caught, then every advertiser would abandon the network.  It was far simpler to try to maintain a show with loyal viewers than take a risk on a new soap.  They just weren't great at their jobs.

Edited November 25, 20232 yr by j swift

14 hours ago, Efulton said:

It is absolutely ridiculous that Ellen was not brought back.  TPTB really acted like they hated the show's history and the previous actors who were popular.

Totally agree 1000%

9 hours ago, chrisml said:

I often felt that AW regimes and writers treated longtime viewers with contempt. I often felt like decisions were purposely made to push viewers away, ... 

Well, we know that NBC wanted AW off the air. They wanted the timeslot to use for some other soap. So, logically, it does follow that NBC may have done things to sabotage the show. They would have been things that they could have said were for good reasons, etc. so they could get away with it, etc. 

It does not stand to reason that any network would purposefully try to dismantle a show's viewership.

1. They have contractual agreements with advertisers to meet audience minimums, or they would need to return money, which is a horrible position for any company
2. If an executive didn't prefer a show, they could cancel it at any time, (see Capitol)
3. If an advertiser found out that a network conspired to reduce ratings, they would pull all of their ads from the network and inform the media of the fraud being perpetrated
4. There has never been any evidence to support this claim

Moral of my thesis - don't take it personally when a show doesn't succeed, and the plural of anecdote is not data.

Edited November 25, 20232 yr by j swift

14 hours ago, j swift said:

It was coo coo for coconuts, and that's what is funny to me.  So, it made AW thrilling to watch, and yell at the screen, and joke about with my friends.  Which are some of our favorite memories.

At the risk of being potentially offensive (and I apologize for that) -- Your statement reminds me of the people who counter any complaint against whacky writing with the reply, "It's just a soap."  Implying that -- well, implying all kinds of things about a genre that many "old fashioned" fans tend to take seriously.  I realize you did not use that phrase (...just a soap), but your comments simply reminded me of those who so.   I've come to believe those who take soaps seriously will never understand those who enjoy whacky, supernatural, or sci-fi plots on an otherwise believable soap opera. And visa-versa. This is not to say one group is right and the other is wrong, but I do believe the soap audience is split into two different "tribes" who watch for different reasons and have very different expectations.  

 

14 hours ago, j swift said:

And, honestly, I don't get why anyone would continue to watch if they felt disrespected. 

I believe many long-term fans continue to watch poorly written soap operas because most of them watch for the characters, and not the plots.  Over the last 50 years, I have tolerated many many terrible, unbelievable, even insulting plots, because I simply loved the characters too much to give up.   For example, I believe Another World was the worst soap opera on the air for its final 20-years.  But I kept watching -- always hoping it would improve and return to its former glory. Which it never did.  But I loved the characters, so I continued to watch and to hope.  I'm confident I'm not alone.  

Edited November 25, 20232 yr by Mona Kane Croft

Many morals to many stories. In asking the question if NBC wanted AW off the air, then why didn't they just cancel it? Answer: Because NBC had a very complicated relationship with P&G. The advertisers have been brought up. P&G was the single biggest advertiser on all US daytime soap operas. So, a soap like AW on NBC. P&G was the owner/producer of the soap and also P&G was the single biggest advertiser. Both are true. The example of CBS canceling CAPITOL was raised. CAPITOL was owned/produced by John Conboy Productions, Inc. No part of the advertising came from him. So, as you can see that is not an apt comparison by any means. 

It is acknowledged by so many people in so many places that as far back as the late 80s NBC wanted AW off the air & also that they wanted the timeslot & that over the years NBC & P&G were at war with each other over the show, behind the scenes. It is hard to imagine someone dismissing this but that is fandom. Anyone is entitled to their opinion. 

29 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

At the risk of being potentially offensive (and I apologize for that) -- Your statement reminds me of the people who counter any complaint against whacky writing with the reply, "It's just a soap."  Implying that -- well, implying all kinds of things about a genre that many "old fashioned" fans tend to take seriously.  I realize you did not use that phrase (...just a soap), but your comments simply reminded me of those who so.   I've come to believe those who take soaps seriously will never understand those who enjoy whacky, supernatural, or sci-fi plots on an otherwise believable soap opera. And visa-versa. This is not to say one group is right and the other is wrong, but I do believe the soap audience is split into two different "tribes" who watch for different reasons and have very different expectations.  

 

I believe many long-term fans continue watch poorly written soap operas is because most of them, watch for the characters, and not the plots.  Over the last 50 years, I have tolerated many many terrible, unbelievable, even insulting plots, because I simply loved the characters too much to give up.   For example, I believe Another World was the worst soap opera on the air for its final 20-years.  But I kept watching -- always hoping it would improve and return to its former glory. Which it never did.  But I loved the characters, so I continued to watch and to hope.  I'm confident I'm not alone.  

Brava! Well said! 👏👏👏👏👏👍✌️👌🤏☝️🤙 Not alone. 

7 hours ago, Xanthe said:

I don't remember Marley's  haemosynthosis (according to the AWHP that was what it was called; as far as I can tell it is not a real disease) ever coming up again after the bone marrow transplant. When Vicky got pregnant with Steven I seem to recall that she didn't believe Jake could be his father because the theory was it was Jake who was sterile. Then late in her pregnancy she learned that Jake wasn't sterile after all, panicked, and begged her OBGYN for a prenatal paternity test that the OBGYN refused to do because it was too dangerous. 

I don't remember the order that everything shook out in. Vicky realized before Steven was born that Jake might be the father. I believe Marley offered to adopt Steven also before the baby was born. Jake didn't suspect he was Steven's father until after Steven was born and he discovered they shared the same blood type. IMO, Marley's attachment to Steven works regardless of who the father is and keeping Jamie as Steven's father is more effective because it continues to involve the Frames and Corys whereas making Jake the father seems to close the loop so that only Loves are involved. (Although I suppose that could have been mitigated if Vicky and Jamie had stayed together. And after Jamie left did Steven interact with the Corys much anyway?) 

The problem was that Marley always played second fiddle to Vicky.. because a character like Marley needed a writer that could make a character like Marley more naunced.  Vicky was easy to write so writers like Swajeski, Sloane, etc tended to write for her and use Marley as a talk to for Vicky (except for the 1991/2 period where Marley had a story arc that didn't involve Vicky so much).

Reading @Soaplovers interesting analysis of the Love twins, I was struck by the missed opportunity to explore the arbitrary nature of their circumstance.  By a flip of a coin, Vicky could have been raised in the mansion and Marley would have been playing on that swing set in Lassiter.  The diversity in their upbringing is emblematic of the random nature of the universe.  Just as I believe that Vicky's acceptance that it wasn't personal was the key to her developing successful relationships as an adult. 

1 hour ago, Soaplovers said:

The problem was that Marley always played second fiddle to Vicky.. because a character like Marley needed a writer that could make a character like Marley more naunced.  Vicky was easy to write so writers like Swajeski, Sloane, etc tended to write for her and use Marley as a talk to for Vicky (except for the 1991/2 period where Marley had a story arc that didn't involve Vicky so much).

We also need to remember that Marley was a traditional soap opera ingenue, at a time when the traditional ingenue had, for the most part, fallen out of fashion -- at least in the eyes of soap opera writers. By 1985-ish, the tables had turned between ingenues and bad-girls.  Meaning that by 1985, in most cases, the bad-girl won and the ingenue was either written off or went crazy.  In Marley's case, she was written off, and then years later went crazy.   

By the mid-1980s, even the queen of writing and/or creating successful ingenues, Agnes Nixon, could not get a new ingenue to succeed on AMC.  Nixon had been highly successful writing long romances for Missy Matthews and Alice Matthews on Another World, and on AMC had created popular ingenues, Tara Martin, Nina Courtlandt, and Jenny Gardner.  But Jenny was Nixon's final successful ingenue. Even though she tried several times during and after the mid-80s to introduce such characters, the new ingenues each lost the boy to her competition (bad-girl) and were written off.   

The era of the "good-girl" was over for good.  Writers found the bad-girls more interesting and more exciting, I suppose.  A couple of years ago I was involved in an online discussion trying to determine the last two or three successful long-term ingenues on daytime.  And the only characters anyone could think of were Lily Walsh and Lily Winters.  I tend to agree.   

1 minute ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

 And the only characters anyone could think of were Lily Walsh and

And the love of her life, Holden, slept with her twin Rose & did not know it was Rose & not his Lily. 

Yeah, right, that trope. 

They may not have lasted as long, but Brett, Lisa, Kelsey, and Sofia were all good girl ingénues young adult leads with contemporary stories created after 1985.  

And in terms of long term good girls on modern soaps, B&B's ultimate good girl Bridget has been an adult for 20 years, DAYS Belle just completed a 16-year gig, and GH's Dr. Robin Scorpio Drake is the sweetest gal in Port Charles.

Edited November 26, 20232 yr by j swift

15 minutes ago, j swift said:

They may not have lasted as long, but Brett, Lisa, Kelsey, and Sofia were all good girl ingénues young adult leads with contemporary stories created after 1985.  

And in terms of long term good girls on modern soaps, DAYS Belle just completed a 16-year gig, and butter wouldn't melt in the mouth of GH's Robin.

Re: Brett, Lisa, Kelsey, and Sofia -- Yes, but as you said, they didn't last long.  So not long-term ingenues. The writers were so hip and trendy, they probably considered those four too boring to bother with.  As I said (or maybe implied) there have been many attempts at traditional ingenues since the mid-80s on various soaps, but almost none of them have succeeded long-term.  

Belle -- Yes, but she had spent long long periods off the show. At least I believe that's the case.

Robin -- I probably would agree she is/was a long term ingenue.  She was on GH for many years and never permanently lost a man to a bad-girl (at least not that I recall). And she never turned bad or went crazy.  So let's add Robin to the list.

Edited November 26, 20232 yr by Mona Kane Croft

19 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

We also need to remember that Marley was a traditional soap opera ingenue, at a time when the traditional ingenue had, for the most part, fallen out of fashion -- at least in the eyes of soap opera writers. By 1985-ish, the tables had turned between ingenues and bad-girls.  Meaning that by 1985, in most cases, the bad-girl won and the ingenue was either written off or went crazy.  In Marley's case, she was written off, and then years later went crazy.   

By the mid-1980s, even the queen of writing and/or creating successful ingenues, Agnes Nixon, could not get a new ingenue to succeed on AMC.  Nixon had been highly successful writing long romances for Missy Matthews and Alice Matthews on Another World, and on AMC had created popular ingenues, Tara Martin, Nina Courtlandt, and Jenny Gardner.  But Jenny was Nixon's final successful ingenue. Even though she tried several times during and after the mid-80s to introduce such characters, the new ingenues each lost the boy to her competition (bad-girl) and were written off.   

The era of the "good-girl" was over for good.  Writers found the bad-girls more interesting and more exciting, I suppose.  A couple of years ago I was involved in an online discussion trying to determine the last two or three successful long-term ingenues on daytime.  And the only characters anyone could think of were Lily Walsh and Lily Winters.  I tend to agree.   

Jenna on AW was a fairly successful ingenue... but she had a backbone and wasn't written to be a Mary Sue and she had a fairly popular coupling with Dean in the early 90s 

@Mona Kane Croft I also wonder why Amanda doesn't fit the brief?  Especially because when she was aged in 1987, she filled the gap created by the exit of Marley.  And she was a lead character for a long time who was contrasted by Vicky and Paulina.

Edited November 26, 20232 yr by j swift

3 minutes ago, Soaplovers said:

Jenna on AW was a fairly successful ingenue... but she had a backbone and wasn't written to be a Mary Sue and she had a fairly popular coupling with Dean in the early 90s 

True, but even she didn't last long enough to become what I would call a successful long-term ingenue.   

 

Sorry, I really didn't mean to side-rail the conversation.  My major point was that one of the major reasons Marley became a secondary character to Vicky was that Marley was a traditional ingenue at a time when that type of character was becoming unappealing to the writers, pretty much across the board in the genre.