Jump to content

Search For Tomorrow Discussion Thread


Paul Raven

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

I found out something interesting about Mary-Ellis Bunim when she was at SFT. Well, more than one interesting thing, actually. Apparently a lot was said about her & she was trying to make changes & they weren't popular & so a lot of stuff was said about her. And she refused to take up for herself. She just wouldn't address it & let it pass on by. Of course one of the things she wanted to do was to get rid of Joanne & Stu. And she didn't like Pete, thought Pete was an ineffective writer. And specifically told him to make the show sexier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Did she?  Mary Stuart writes in BOTH OF ME that Mary Ellis cried when she had to take Carl Low off contract.  (He did recur for years though.) 

I don’t think she wanted Jo and Stu gone. Backburnered for Liza and her adventure stories, but not GONE. 
 

We can go after the execs (possibly MEB included) who wrote out Patti, Bruce, Eunice, Suzi, and Sarah (and never brought back Chris or Tracey) though.  Matriarchs need families. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You could be right. She'd made changes & she might've settled for as much as she'd done. Part of it at the time could've been people just being afraid of how far the "new" would go. But, yes, backburnered as you say, at a minimum. And, there's no way of knowing what kind of marching orders she was under! They bring their choice in & then they present them with their mandates. At any rate I got a real kick out of this SFT "team member" marshaling a spirited defense of her when I had personally always been pretty dadgummed impressed with her. We ended up laughing. And she & Pete didn't get much time to work together because the Writer's Strike "struck"!

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

100% agree. it is a pet peeve of mine that happens in every show. Viable characters are dropped never to return which then isolates onscreen characters and we are left wondering why so and so never mentions a(previously) much loved family member.

In the case if SFT, I get that say Joel Higgins wanted to leave and Bruce was played out (for now) so yes send him and Amy out of town but don't just forget about them!!

Bruce could return a few years later recast , either widowed or divorced with new characters to interact with and straight away Jo has more to do. The continuity is not lost. And in the meantime, Jo mentions him so viewers are still connected to him.

Patti took too long to come back and should have been a little older. As much as I hate SORAS enough time would have passed for Chris and Tracey to be teens.

As for Eunice, they were trying to make the show younger and Ann Williams was probably expensive after 10 years but why not play the whole Jennifer shooting scenario but have Eunice injured but not dead. After all that trauma, she could divorce John and leave town to recover, leaving the door open for her return.

Same goes for Gary Walton. Left town and never returned while a slew of new characters came and went.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My apologies regarding Patricia Estrin. I was confusing her with Englund as they both appeared together on "Lovers and Friends."

Regarding Ellie Bergman, was she Scott's cousin or aunt?

Wasn't Gary Walton set to return in summer 1986, but Addie Walsh scrapped it? Gary and Laine's son Craig spent the summer with his Aunt Sunny, but wasn't that suppose to be the lead in to Gary's return. 

Erwin Nicholson and Paul Avila Mayer/Stephanie Braxton brought back Danny Walton and introduced Sarah Whiting in the same month. It was clearly a choice to give more weight to the characters. If the show was going to keep Tracey and Chris Whiting young, Sarah made sense, but the scripts sugggested they were both older. 

Patti's return in the form of Jackie Schultz is typical of that era where early 30 somethings were parenting characters in their 20s. It was such an odd choice. So much of Patti's actual generation was long gone though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This reminds me of earlier when Millee Taggart arrived as Janet. In the 5 or so years she'd been absent she now had 2 children in their early teens.

Previously Janet had been roughly the same age as Patti but now was older. Patti was still a young married trying to conceive her first child.

Was the Patti/Janet connection played down to cover that?

I don't know why they created Sarah Whiting instead of just making her Tracey.

Did Patti refer to her children when she returned .How was their absence explained?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It was in the Sept 20th 1972 issue in the News from New York section

'Joanne Tate, a role played for 21 years by Mary Stuart on Search for Tomorrow, will wed her third husband on Fri (22) show. The ceremony will be performed by cast member Bruce Minnix, who is officially empowered to do the same in Cape May,NJ where he is the real life mayor'

They listed Minnix incorrectly as a cast member and stated he performed the ceremony so wires were crossed along the way.

What puzzles me is why Minnix would have to write the ceremony. Wouldn't the official writers be able to whip up that scene? It's not as though it was the first wedding on the soaps.

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

    • That era is so weird...they made a big deal out of all three of those characters and then they just..disappeared! Not that I am complaining. We talk about the bad out of character writing for Alex under JFP..but this was one example that may have led them to write her being so obsessive with Nick.  WHY would Alex accept Flock of Seagulls guy as her brother? They had her in one scene (setting up the Alan return) complain that Alan abandoned her...she blackmailed him into leaving town and she had been angry at him for helping Brandon with Lujack and also using Spaulding for that dumb dreaming death thing. Endless scenes of her with Simon, I can't believe Bev wasn't bored to death! I would also add Pam writing the scene where she lets Ms. Sally die in front of her to protect Alan and  the writing for Alex could be screwy even before JFP.
    • On this day 34 years ago the final episode of Dallas and came in at an astonishing #2 in the ratings after two straight seasons of weak ratings. Interesting Knots was #27 for that week as well:  

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Thank you for clearing that up. I wasn't watching GL regularly yet at that point, but seems to me I should have remembered the big wedding after Leslie's death (which I do remember) described in the profile. Is there a web archive of SOD summaries, or are referring to your own personal collection?
    • I was bummed that 2.0 ended because Mcpherson (headwriter) had really set up some interesting stories and we never got to find out where the stories would go once they resumed production on 'season 2'. I remembered the EP (Ginger Smith) and a lot of the stars gave a lot of credit to McPherson being able to come in on very short notice and come up with stories/plots (I think it was a very short turnaround time of a few weeks).  It was nice that she got to redeem herself after her year long Days stint was not well reviewed/liked.
    • Enters                                 Speaks

      Please register in order to view this content

           
    • It seems like a setup for failure to review a single episode of a soap, but Cleveland Amory was a foolish man.  His taste was so predictable, that one wondered why bother reviewing a medium he so clearly disliked. (found on Facebook retro TV group) Another case in point of his misogyny from his review of Dark Shadows (Can you imagine the magazine with the widest circulation in the country insulting its customer in this way today?)

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • They could easily be re-created, or even re-shot in different ways, especially if they were re-shooting scenes at some point, as well.
    • The Ted recast really is a shame because now they won't be able to do flashbacks to the best scenes the show has done to date.
    • That would be an AMAZING twist. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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