I know! Lucky & Emily were smarter than the adults. Then Guza happened! Argh...

Maybe if Lucky is a male Laura, then he needs a female Luke. A young psycho mob chick? I do like the Lucky/Liz dynamic but it's hard not to feel that Lucky will always be second in Liz's heart after the Brain Dead One.

As far as I'm concerned, Luke and Laura are dead, and so are the Spencers.

:(

When Bill Bell felt he'd played out the Brooks-Fosters, he QUICKLY wrote them out. Really, if you think about it, that's not so different from what Days did.

From my understanding, Bill Bell wrote out the Brooks and the Fosters because he couldn't handle another recast. If he decided to recast them, he would have had to introduce Snapper Foster #3 and Lorie Brooks #2, not to mention all of the Brooks sister's had been recast multiple times and Greg Foster was recast 3 times after Jim Houghton. Also, I think he kept the Brooks and the Fosters in two different orbits, and Y&R has always been known for having several important characters that never integrated with one another. Lorie/Lance/Leslie/Lucas were all in one orbit. Snapper/Chris, in another. Bell could have integrated them with the new families, but he didn't. Fortunately, it wasn't a bad thing, but it would have been nice if Y&R had 4 strong female leads consisting of Lorie, Jill, Nikki and Ashley. And 4 strong male leads consisting of Greg, Snapper, Victor and Jack. Plus, having Brooks and Jennifer grow up on Y&R would have been a good addition to the teen scene in the 90s.

BTW Mark, I miss your Deborah Adair as Jill circa 1986 avatar!

If B&B were to forge ahead and kind of "re-invent" itself, Brad would need a strong co-HW or Executive Producer with some sort of creative control that would strike out all of his bad ideas, work on the ones that have potential, and greenlight the ones that they can play all the story beats to. Not so much someone who is a total bitch about it, but someone who could be a great influence.

Actually, for the first time ever, I actually agree with you. I think B&B is horrid today (my opinion, not yours), but since B&B's roots are in fashion, using some (not all) Forrester's, the show has a great deal of potential to reinvent itself and become something great. I agree with you about a strong co- head writer and EP who can assist in that process.

Have they ever tried to write Greg's Lucky like Jonathan's or not. Did Lucky get destroyed to prop Jason Morgan?

There was a rumor -- I don't know credible it is -- that Michael Conforti revealed to some fans that the writers were basically told by Guza to take Lucky's balls off. I am prone to believe it due to how horrible Lucky's been written ever since Greg took over.

Losing Marlena, John, Patch, Kayla, and Tony really wasnt anything big as none had been major players for a very long time. They also had Sami Brady, a main character who had been on the show for over 15 years played by the same actress the entire time whom fans loved to take over, and in fact already had. Furthermore they had other people who had been with the show for about or more than 10 years like Nicole, Philip, Brady, Lucas, Chloe. It also made the show feature long wasted vets like Maggie, Caroline, and Victor as well as push Stefano into a lead story. I honestly feel that this is why days is holding on/doing OK in the ratings. Yes they let go 6 or so core characters whom fans loved, but they also then used the characters that had been on the show for years and featured them as well as slowly weave in new characters.

As for if the show is better without them? I am going to say yes. I am not saying having Marlena, John, Patch & Kayla wouldnt add more to the show, but i honestly dont feel we would see them as anything more than Sami & Bradys parents and Stephanies parents. However, both have Caroline and Roman, even Bo & Hope, to fill a void.

OK, I kind of get where your sentiment is coming from and I'm actually somebody who generally is enjoying a lot of the show right now, but I hardly think these characters leaving weren't "anything big" and that "none had been major players for a very long time." Those episodes that recently got Days of our Lives its first Emmy nomination in forever? The major players were people like Marlena, John, Patch and Kayla. And Sami wasn't in them... AT ALL.

The idea that there was absolutely nothing to do with their characters and that their portrayers' firings would have made sense even if money was not such a big issue for the soap right now is just kind of ludicrous, IMO.

Tony, I suppose, was the least big loss since he has no children on the canvas nor any current or past loves in Salem save the heartbreakingly wasted Anna and Kate, sort of, in his Andre pretending to be Tony incarnation. In an ideal world there could have been something done with a Tony-Anna-Roman-Kate quad that was hinted at a couple times under Hogan but that wasn't meant to be and I accept that.

Patch and Kayla were a bigger loss IMO even though I'm way more of a Tony fan than a Payla fan having only had exposure to Payla through their recent return and Thaao being a fave of mine for years. Payla had a ton of story to tell if a writer wanted to take the time to explore it. They could have done a lot regarding Steve's past and explaining exactly how he came into the possession of the DiMeras and what he did for them as their goon and how EJ was involved in it. They could have gone more into what Kayla was up to while Steve was gone. But most of all there's a huge gaping hole in this Stephanie-Phillip story without Payla there and their absence so incompetently explained. Even if Steve and Kayla were only kept as parents and even if they were only kept on as recurring they would have a ton more to offer to this story than what Roman and even Caroline have now given the complicated run-ins Steve and Kayla have with the Kiriakii over the years. The idea that all we would see Marlena/John/Steve/Kayla as is be parents so that means it makes no sense to keep them is just crap IMO.

John and Marlena being gone though is the one that breaks my heart. Their absence from Grace's funeral next week is going to be soooooooo glaring I don't know if I'm even going to be able to stand it. Maybe the show could have made it work was Sami still at odds with those two, but I simply can't buy under current circumstances that a Marlena that isn't possessed by the devil, trapped in a pit, chilling on Melaswen or being held captive in a gilded cage (and maybe even then) would not have moved heaven and earth to be with her girl Sami in this time of sorrow and suffering. I could deal with her not being their for the death scenes in the hospital given how quickly everything went down but this funeral is just going to drive me nuts that as a viewer I know I'm going to be cheated out of really moving scenes between Marlena and Sami. Marlena was there as a parent in really moving scenes when Sami was on death row and she should be there as a parent now, even if all they were giving Marlena to do right now is be a parent. Especially given that Sami thinks the father of this dead baby is the spawn of her biggest rival yet the one who helped set her on the path to reunite with John following his "death." And John... John could have so much fun stuff to play right now outside of just being a parent to Brady and step-kid Sami. Nu-John was one of the funnest things on this soap in YEARS, and even if he was in Salem as real John it'd be super interesting to see him have to reconcile being real John with his recent DiMera diversion and how his relationship with Stefano and Brady would be changed because of what he went through and what he found out about himself.

OK, I kind of get where your sentiment is coming from and I'm actually somebody who generally is enjoying a lot of the show right now, but I hardly think these characters leaving weren't "anything big" and that "none had been major players for a very long time." Those episodes that recently got Days of our Lives its first Emmy nomination in forever? The major players were people like Marlena, John, Patch and Kayla. And Sami wasn't in them... AT ALL.

The idea that there was absolutely nothing to do with their characters and that their portrayers' firings would have made sense even if money was not such a big issue for the soap right now is just kind of ludicrous, IMO.

Tony, I suppose, was the least big loss since he has no children on the canvas nor any current or past loves in Salem save the heartbreakingly wasted Anna and Kate, sort of, in his Andre pretending to be Tony incarnation. In an ideal world there could have been something done with a Tony-Anna-Roman-Kate quad that was hinted at a couple times under Hogan but that wasn't meant to be and I accept that.

Patch and Kayla were a bigger loss IMO even though I'm way more of a Tony fan than a Payla fan having only had exposure to Payla through their recent return and Thaao being a fave of mine for years. Payla had a ton of story to tell if a writer wanted to take the time to explore it. They could have done a lot regarding Steve's past and explaining exactly how he came into the possession of the DiMeras and what he did for them as their goon and how EJ was involved in it. They could have gone more into what Kayla was up to while Steve was gone. But most of all there's a huge gaping hole in this Stephanie-Phillip story without Payla there and their absence so incompetently explained. Even if Steve and Kayla were only kept as parents and even if they were only kept on as recurring they would have a ton more to offer to this story than what Roman and even Caroline have now given the complicated run-ins Steve and Kayla have with the Kiriakii over the years. The idea that all we would see Marlena/John/Steve/Kayla as is be parents so that means it makes no sense to keep them is just crap IMO.

John and Marlena being gone though is the one that breaks my heart. Their absence from Grace's funeral next week is going to be soooooooo glaring I don't know if I'm even going to be able to stand it. Maybe the show could have made it work was Sami still at odds with those two, but I simply can't buy under current circumstances that a Marlena that isn't possessed by the devil, trapped in a pit, chilling on Melaswen or being held captive in a gilded cage (and maybe even then) would not have moved heaven and earth to be with her girl Sami in this time of sorrow and suffering. I could deal with her not being their for the death scenes in the hospital given how quickly everything went down but this funeral is just going to drive me nuts that as a viewer I know I'm going to be cheated out of really moving scenes between Marlena and Sami. Marlena was there as a parent in really moving scenes when Sami was on death row and she should be there as a parent now, even if all they were giving Marlena to do right now is be a parent. Especially given that Sami thinks the father of this dead baby is the spawn of her biggest rival yet the one who helped set her on the path to reunite with John following his "death." And John... John could have so much fun stuff to play right now outside of just being a parent to Brady and step-kid Sami. Nu-John was one of the funnest things on this soap in YEARS, and even if he was in Salem as real John it'd be super interesting to see him have to reconcile being real John with his recent DiMera diversion and how his relationship with Stefano and Brady would be changed because of what he went through and what he found out about himself.

I fully get where you are coming from, however had the show kept J&M and P&K, they would *only* be used in a parent supporting role. I do think that even without money issues losing J/M and P/K and without a doubt T wouldnt have been a big issue. At all. Furthermore, id say ratings somewhat go to prove it wasnt a loss to the show.

Yes, having Marlena there would be great use of history given her relationship with stefano and sami's connection to EJ, but i honestly dont think it would be played as a very big beat. And yes that is bad, lazy writing. Her not being there for the funeral is unexplainable, however.... Marlenas fate was sealed when fans refused to let the character move on from John after his death and the show brought Drake/John back. They pretty much came as a package deal to fans, and with soaps current state, it wasnt worth it. That said, i wish Marlena was still on the show. And i wish days had at least tried to work something out with Dee. What whould be an epic battle between Marlena/Sami and Stefano/EJ will never play out now... But nuJohn? TYhank gosh he is gone. He was fun for a bit, but it got old real fast.

similarly, i have to wonder that if they brought Kayla back but never brought Patch back from the dead if she would still be around?

I also think not having them there is the reason we get to see so much of Maggie, Caroline, and Victor. And i would take those three over almost anyone, anyday.

I definitely think B&B could do what Days has done AT NO COST. Your quote, "their story had been told, backwards and forwards, at least a dozen times. There was no more there there" applies perfectly to that show.

Irna Phillips would agree with you. SteveFrame keeps quoting that line from her, about happily canceling a (radio) soap at the top of its ratings because it had "saturated logic". In other words, everything that could be done had been done, and any more would plunge the soap into ridiculousness.

I also agree with you about Y&R being far from the saturated logic stage. That said, a few things (like back-from-the-dead and surgically altered faces so that characters can come back psycho) do suggest that some "saturated logic" might be coming to the fore.

When Bill Bell felt he'd played out the Brooks-Fosters, he QUICKLY wrote them out. Really, if you think about it, that's not so different from what Days did.

And Y&R, like Days, benefited from a certain freshness in doing so. Other soaps have tried this without the same positive effect. So I guess it really depends on how skillfully the housecleaning is accomplished, and how much of the legacy-canvas is retained. Bill Bell kept Jill and Kay, for example. He knew there was plenty more gold in that set of hills.

Right now, Y&R has vast, vast collections of long (1+ year) neglected characters. Winters and hangers on, Fisher-Baldwins, Victoria-JT. There are tons of potential there, but that alone doesn't mean it isn't time for housecleaning. If they're going to keep these prized players and characters locked up forever, that just frustrates everyone. From what I can tell on Days right now, the trimmed cast gets PLAYED. That's a lot better than a gargantuan cast treated as dayplayers.

AND, if the logic is so saturated that we have to bring people back from the dead or with new faces....it may be time to step back and ask yourself "why can't you wring enough drama out of the assets you are already neglecting?" If the answer is, as a creative person, "because they no longer inspire me"...THEN CUT THEM LOOSE and play old characters/create new characters that inspire you.

I definitely think B&B could do what Days has done AT NO COST. Your quote, "their story had been told, backwards and forwards, at least a dozen times. There was no more there there" applies perfectly to that show.

Irna Phillips would agree with you. SteveFrame keeps quoting that line from her, about happily canceling a (radio) soap at the top of its ratings because it had "saturated logic". In other words, everything that could be done had been done, and any more would plunge the soap into ridiculousness.

I also agree with you about Y&R being far from the saturated logic stage. That said, a few things (like back-from-the-dead and surgically altered faces so that characters can come back psycho) do suggest that some "saturated logic" might be coming to the fore.

When Bill Bell felt he'd played out the Brooks-Fosters, he QUICKLY wrote them out. Really, if you think about it, that's not so different from what Days did.

And Y&R, like Days, benefited from a certain freshness in doing so. Other soaps have tried this without the same positive effect. So I guess it really depends on how skillfully the housecleaning is accomplished, and how much of the legacy-canvas is retained. Bill Bell kept Jill and Kay, for example. He knew there was plenty more gold in that set of hills.

Right now, Y&R has vast, vast collections of long (1+ year) neglected characters. Winters and hangers on, Fisher-Baldwins, Victoria-JT. There are tons of potential there, but that alone doesn't mean it isn't time for housecleaning. If they're going to keep these prized players and characters locked up forever, that just frustrates everyone. From what I can tell on Days right now, the trimmed cast gets PLAYED. That's a lot better than a gargantuan cast treated as dayplayers.

AND, if the logic is so saturated that we have to bring people back from the dead or with new faces....it may be time to step back and ask yourself "why can't you wring enough drama out of the assets you are already neglecting?" If the answer is, as a creative person, "because they no longer inspire me"...THEN CUT THEM LOOSE and play old characters/create new characters that inspire you.

Bill Bell didn't feel hehad played out the Brooks-Fosters per se. The problem was that many of the very popular young actors playing the original roles were leaving, and he had to recast. After it happened a number of times, the opted to shift focus. Also, this was around the time the show was expanding to an hour. A few family was needed, so Jack Abbott's family was brought in. It was careful shift, though, not something that just happened overnight.

Bill Bell didn't feel hehad played out the Brooks-Fosters per se. The problem was that many of the very popular young actors playing the original roles were leaving, and he had to recast. After it happened a number of times, the opted to shift focus. Also, this was around the time the show was expanding to an hour. A few family was needed, so Jack Abbott's family was brought in. It was careful shift, though, not something that just happened overnight.

It happened pretty quickly...wouldn't you say over the course of a year? Oh, I do not find any fault with how it happened. I think it was masterful and brought new life to the show. Whether it was recasts OR the families being "played out" (honestly, I feel there was a little of both), it didn't really harm the show at all...

I really feel that of all the soaps, B&B in particular could really do with some refocusing like this. I even have a plan for doing so .

Pamela Long changed the focus of GL for no reason at all.

I remember watching Douglas Marland's GL (in German, things I had to do for my soaps ) for about a year, then the german network RTL was npo longer available in Greece and for about a year I had no idea what had happened to my beloved Springfield citizens. Then a greek channel buys 1985 GL episodes and I see another soap opera !!! Alan, Hope, Mike, Sarah, Adam, Carrie, Amanda, Kelly, Morgan, Mark, Jennifer, Hilary, Lesley Ann, Katie, Justin, Floyd, Tonyy were gone among others and Reva & the Lewis clan had taken over the show.

I do see what you're saying about Tom Pelphrey and the edge he brings to a role. I think, if any soap hires him, he might be better off on a show which doesn't have a lot of actors like him. I think he could be a good Rick or Thomas recast on B&B.

I agree, I think he wouldn't exactly stand out on GH. GH is a populated with actors like him.

Interesting topic we have here.

When I think about Guiding Light, I could possibly think of a few times in the show's history when it changed focus. The first perhaps being when the show shifted focus from Rev. Rutledge and his family to the Bauer family and that was in the late 30s/early 1940s. I think we can all say that was pretty much a success because of its transfer to television. The next I'm not quite so sure about, but would Douglas Marland's tenure on GL qualify as a shift in focus? Sure the Bauers weren't replaced as a core family, but we did see the Reardon and Richards family written in, the Norris family finally bid farewell, and the introduction of some larger than life characters (Carrie Todd). Of course the third would be Pamela Long's tenure, which included the exodus or killing of the Bauer family, the arrival of Lewis family, and even a shift in the stories the show told, from stories mostly grounded in reality to stories such as the Dreaming Death and the one about a psycho realtor. I think one can say that this in a way did prove to be a success, under Long GL beat GH as the number one watched soap opera for one brief moment, but in the end it caused long term damage.

Perhaps someone could possibly clarify as to when was the exact moment GL started declining in the ratings in the 80s, was it before or after Long had departed?

I agree, I think he wouldn't exactly stand out on GH. GH is a populated with actors like him.

Interesting topic we have here.

When I think about Guiding Light, I could possibly think of a few times in the show's history when it changed focus. The first perhaps being when the show shifted focus from Rev. Rutledge and his family to the Bauer family and that was in the late 30s/early 1940s. I think we can all say that was pretty much a success because of its transfer to television. The next I'm not quite so sure about, but would Douglas Marland's tenure on GL qualify as a shift in focus? Sure the Bauers weren't replaced as a core family, but we did see the Reardon and Richards family written in, the Norris family finally bid farewell, and the introduction of some larger than life characters (Carrie Todd). Of course the third would be Pamela Long's tenure, which included the exodus or killing of the Bauer family, the arrival of Lewis family, and even a shift in the stories the show told, from stories mostly grounded in reality to stories such as the Dreaming Death and the one about a psycho realtor. I think one can say that this in a way did prove to be a success, under Long GL beat GH as the number one watched soap opera for one brief moment, but in the end it caused long term damage.

Perhaps someone could possibly clarify as to when was the exact moment GL started declining in the ratings in the 80s, was it before or after Long had departed?

The figure below isn't the greatest, but it shows several things. First, GL (yellow dots/line) was close to the bottom of the ratings from 1980 on. Second, its rate of decline is quite comparable to other soaps. There is nothing remarkable about its rate of decline; thus, it would be difficult to pin that decline on any one writing/producing regime. I'll try to find a clearer picture.

ETA: This is a more historical and slightly less busy (no dots) perspective. What you can see is that the precipitous drop occurred in the 1960s through the early 1970s. It was in that period that GL (again yellow) got to the bottom of the pack (of the current soaps...I didn't plot cancelled shows), and then declined at a rate comparable to all other soaps. In some way, GL was made vulnerable in the 60s/70s, probably by the debut of newer and "more exciting" shows. This is why I repudiate all blame placed on Ellen Wheeler. The fate was written 40 years ago.

Edited June 15, 200916 yr by MarkH

I know! Lucky & Emily were smarter than the adults. Then Guza happened! Argh...

Maybe if Lucky is a male Laura, then he needs a female Luke. A young psycho mob chick? I do like the Lucky/Liz dynamic but it's hard not to feel that Lucky will always be second in Liz's heart after the Brain Dead One.

That's why I was kind of intrigued by the idea of Lucky and Sam. She brought out some of the adventurer in him, he brought some stability to her.

And both actors are pretty and not the best actors so they complemented each other well.

Also, I could fast-forward them much more easily.

But then then turned him back into a controlling jerk and her into "just can't be tied down" girl and everything went to hell.

I think the way the DAYS transition and the YR transition differed greatly was the cause for the transition. On YR, Bell chose to write out the Brooks/Foster b/c the actors were leaving in droves. He did not want to have to recast so many pivotal roles. It was a necessity, he knew that the show had to change.

On DAYS, many of the core actors were written out against there will. It is hard for me to justify this, even with the slight hike in the ratings, because the cast still had storyline potential. Case in point, the time around Ed Scott/Hogan Sheffer pre-Strike Plan Crash. It was wonderful to see the old faces of the Bradys and Dimera's fall into place with the Vendetta sl. Were there plot holes? Yes. But the cast did shine with the material they received. It was a classic umbrella storyline, something we do not see very much today. I still get chills when I remember how Lucas realized they were at the Dimera homestead, or when Lexie was revealed alive, to even Doug and Julie's realization that something was very wrong early on in the SL. So many vets were used, and used well.

Today on DAYS, can we really say anyone is delivering is shinning? Can we say there is a real long term sl anymore? I feel like this can all just be a hiccup, like ATWT in 2002. Quick spike, quick fall.

And DAYS is not winning any praise from critics for their sl, or their sl transition. Y&R had classic characters and sl's come out of the transition. Does anyone really see Mia, Rafe, or even Will sticking around past their three year contracts?