Much obliged, @te.

Thank you.

Thanks so much for the tag, @te. . If that's the episode I think it is, then the ending is very unique and moving.

9 hours ago, te. said:

1952 Christmas episode premiering 7/13 on the Moviecraft Inc channel (12-13-52):

@vetsoapfan @FrenchFan @Paul Raven @dc11786 @DRW50 @Matt @Khan

Whoever is running that channel is Doing The Lord's Work!

6 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Thanks so much for the tag, @te. . If that's the episode I think it is, then the ending is very unique and moving.

SFT was an excellent soap for many, many years. Gems like this remind me of that fact.

I had no idea if it's an episode that's been available or not already, but regardless, MovieCraft's transfers tend to hold an excellent quality so it's always worth watching again since most soap episodes out there are so low-quality.

16 hours ago, te. said:

1952 Christmas episode premiering 7/13 on the Moviecraft Inc channel (12-13-52):

@vetsoapfan @FrenchFan @Paul Raven @dc11786 @DRW50 @Matt @Khan

Premiering now! It's a decent quality transfer. 

Maybe one to watch on Christmas Eve though.

Not the see through hair due to the green screen...

Lovely, sentimental episode. You just can't get them like this these days!

8 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

SFT was an excellent soap for many, many years. Gems like this remind me of that fact.

Yes. I wish more were available because a number of episodes I've seen from the early '50s feel more creative production-wise than I would have expected. I feel like the show plays more interestingly than the synopses tend to suggest, helped in part by the strong core cast. 

Did Jimmy cease to exist as a character? I know Stu and Marge had a son later on. I know we've all talked about this before, but someone was asking on the video...

I love the ending of the episode. Mary talking to us about the problems of the world (I imagine if Irna Philips saw this, she would have done a double take given her stance on that type of thing). It comforts me now in dark times. I can't imagine how people felt in that moment.

And the CSO they used isn't any worse than what you see in movies these days. 

Given that Lynn Loring passed around Christmas last year I'm so glad we have a Christmas episode of her work.

Thanks again @te.

@te. thanks for posting.

re Jimmy - I think he was mentioned more than seen and maybe when Irving Vendig left he was forgotten about until the Hursleys rewrote him as a nephew in the early 60's and wrote him out.

Odd that such a loving couple as Stu and Marge would never mention him again. Jimmy could have come back older and given the Bergmans some story options. It's annoying when the writers don't follow up on things viewers remember.

All of that was done live-quite an achievement to have the set changes, chroma key etc .

Love when Jo was driving and the steering wheel position would have had her and Patty off the road in seconds.

Little Janet was giving me The Bad Seed vibes in that get up.

40 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

re Jimmy - I think he was mentioned more than seen and maybe when Irving Vendig left he was forgotten about until the Hursleys rewrote him as a nephew in the early 60's and wrote him out.

Odd that such a loving couple as Stu and Marge would never mention him again. Jimmy could have come back older and given the Bergmans some story options. It's annoying when the writers don't follow up on things viewers remember.

Thanks. It really does boggle the mind they never did more with him, especially since Stu remained to the end and he could have been a leading man. 

At least they didn't kill him off like they did with Jo's son.

4 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Yes. I wish more were available because a number of episodes I've seen from the early '50s feel more creative production-wise than I would have expected. I feel like the show plays more interestingly than the synopses tend to suggest, helped in part by the strong core cast. 

That was true for a lot of soaps back then.

4 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Did Jimmy cease to exist as a character? I know Stu and Marge had a son later on. I know we've all talked about this before, but someone was asking on the video...

After being seen and acknowledged as the Bergmans' son, Jimmy faded into oblivion for a while, and then when he resurfaced, he was inexplicably referred to as Stu's and Marge's nephew. The cast noted the absurd error, but the new writers left Jimmy as a nephew instead of the Bergmans' child, until he faded into oblivion again. Piss-poor and careless writing: I hate idiocy like that. I'll never get over TGL's painfully stupid revisionist history, making Amanda Alan's sister (which was completely impossible after we had seen her original story play out).

4 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I love the ending of the episode. Mary talking to us about the problems of the world (I imagine if Irna Philips saw this, she would have done a double take given her stance on that type of thing). It comforts me now in dark times. I can't imagine how people felt in that moment.

ITA.

4 hours ago, DRW50 said:

And the CSO they used isn't any worse than what you see in movies these days. 

Given that Lynn Loring passed around Christmas last year I'm so glad we have a Christmas episode of her work.

While it felt to me like there were 9,876,543 Patti recasts, Loring was the real Patti to me. She and Stuart were divine on screen together.

 

Thanks @vetsoapfan for the details. It really is bizarre they made such a huge mistake back then. It shows you the kind of rotting away in that period which helps to explain why Mary Stuart was so protective of the show and her character.

Sometimes I'm surprised they did finally bring back Patti at the end. In many ways she just feels like a more natural part of the show's past than the hybrid it was in those last years. But maybe fans at the time appreciated the return.

Edited July 13, 20241 yr by DRW50

1 minute ago, DRW50 said:

Thanks @vetsoapfan for the details. It really is bizarre they made such a huge mistake back then. It shows you the kind of rotting away in that period which helps to explain why Mary Stuart was so protective of the show and her character.

Stuart was sarcastic in her book, describing the Jimmy situation. It was clear she thought it was careless and idiotic.

There were headwriters who were derogatory about Stuart and her place on the show, and I understand her bitterness towards them, but she was also publicly negative about Ann Marcus' tenure, which I disagreed with, since Marcus did keep Jo involved in the action, and since the ratings rose noticeably under her reign. (I thought SFT and Mary Hartman represented Marcus' best soap work; certainly better than her awful turn on DAYS.)

Yes, Jimmy could’ve been useful in later years, but even Tom Bergman didn’t make it until the end, nor did Janet or Liza’s brothers. 
 

i have such mixed feelings about SFT and its constant make-up of remnants of families. 
 

The Adamsons and Sentells came and went except for Sunny. The McClearys were missing a daughter at show’s end. All of the Kendalls were never onscreen together. Stu’s family was scattered to the winds.  Jo’s family took its biggest hits with the death of Eunice, write-outs of Bruce, Patti, Len and the kids, and eventually the death of Suzi. Even the adopted granddaughter Sarah only lasted a year.  We never got to experience Chris or Tracey as teens or adults. 
 

If only SFT had stuck with Jo’s family, the Bergmans, and essential outliers like Stephanie, Kathy, Scott and Sunny, it would’ve had a tight, cohesive cast. Introducing new love interests for the characters to be involved with (so that the two families weren’t constantly intermarrying) would’ve been required, of course, which justifies either the Kendall boys or the McCleary boys. 

21 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

While it felt to me like there were 9,876,543 Patti recasts

Like I said a long time ago, I think even yours truly had played Patti for awhile in the late '60's, lol!