Jump to content

Search For Tomorrow Discussion Thread


Paul Raven

Recommended Posts

  • Members

In my opinion, the problem with the Suzi was not just the actress. Cynthia Gibb was my favorite, but she too could be whiny and shrill at times. It was the manner in which the character was written. Suzi was the long suffering ingenue, and she was so sugary sweet at times, one almost enjoyed seeing her get it. I felt that way during the Suzi/Warren/Wendy triangle. Wendy had more chemistry with Warren and was more fun that Suzi, so that I tended to side with Wendy. Terri Eoff was fine as Suzi so long as she was not required to whine. I thought Eoff had good chemistry with Matt Ashford, and I really cannot see Gibb playing opposite him.

The truly bad Suzi was the one in between Gibb and Eoff. Elizabeth Swackhammer. As I recall, she had the warmth of a rattlesnake and could not act to save her life.

I totally agree about Louann Gideon. Gideon was terribly miscast in that role. Sherry Mathis demonstrated a very natural warmth and grace, which seemed phony on Gideon. Sherry was a true talent and could have gone on for years in that role. I wish that she had remained until the end rather than leaving a year earlier. With all of the changes near the end, it would have been a comfort to have her there along side Mary Stuart and Larry Haines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

I don't recall Sunny being with Quinn but may be forgetting something. I remember Avila Mayer and Braxton totally destroyed Sunny in 1985 when Hogan and Liza hooked up. I was very disappointed that the show abandoned Sunny and Hogan in favor of Hogan and Liza. Hogan and Liza totally fell apart when Gideon was cast. Quinn was linked with Wendy, Sarah, and then Evie before the show teamed him up with Kat at the end of the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A March 1986 Digest interview with John Whitesell. The interview is by Robert Rorke.

RR: What kind of difference do you think you'll make when so many other producers have failed?

JW: I believe that the show's not dead. I think that what's happening in half hour shows across the board is that no one's having much success. LOVING's not doing that great. RYAN'S HOPE certainly isn't doing very well. CAPITOL's doing the best, but it's also in a nice position between AS THE WORLD TURNS and GUIDING LIGHT, which are two very old, strong shows that have their own audience. But I think what has been done in the half hour n the past that doesn't work is that we're competing with the hour. We're trying to give the viewer the same thing that the hour gives them, which is a lot of action. You don't have to do that in a half hour; you've got less time.

I intend to have fewer scenes. I'm hoping that by March we'll be doing eight scenes a day as opposed to 14 and 15. I'm looking forward to the possibility of doing a whole act, commercial to commercial, on one scene. I'm looking forward to telling stories with fewer people in one day, instead of twelve to thirteen actors on a day, which is what we have now.

Part of the new wave, I hope, will be to do a long arcing love story in March and also a series of short stories, 4 to 8 weeks long, and they will be finite, small stories that will have a beginning, middle, and end, and we'll get out of them and go on. If we find a character in one of those stories that we think is interesting, they'll move on to another story, as opposed to dragging that story out.

What we'll try to do is identify a core of characters that the audience can identify with, can grow to love. Also tell a story that's less action/adventure oriented and more character oriented.

RR: What do you think is the show's biggest problem?

JW: Right now I think we don't have any love couples. You know, we don't have anybody embarking on new love or anybody in the midst of a real strong love relationship. We have the Liza, Hogan, Lloyd story which is not enough about love but something that we're trying to refocus. That is a relationship we're trying to tie up. That relationship is so screwed up and twisted around that I don't think the audience really has invested in Liza and Hogan as a love couple.

Our emphasis is really on trying to create some new love couples and new relationships and that's where you're going to see us focusing our energy in the first part of this year.

RR: Do you plan to play a big role in casting?

JW: Absolutely. You know, I think there's so much that is determined by the way you cast a role. We just cast Jackie Schultz as Patty. We spent a month and a half looking for this role and saw a ton of people and Jackie is someone whose work I know and I think other actors will be able to play with and making sure the chemistry between those actors is there.

RR: Will you bring over some people from GL if you can?

JW: I would bring over some of the actors that I thought were good, people I thought were solid actors. I'm really not a big believer in taking a star from another show will help your audience. I was on TEXAS when we brought Kin Shriner over from GENERAL HOSPITAL. That was before Luke hit. Kin was the number one male star in daytime and he came over to TEXAS and all the fan letters said, "Come back, Scotty, come back to GH." Which is not the kind of mail you want, and it didn't bring an audience over at all to TEXAS. I think you hire good actors. But if Kim Zimmer were to become available, everybody would be a fool not to try to grab someone like that. If Robert Newman had decided he was really ready to come back to New York and do daytime, that's another guy out there that you go out and you try to get.

RR: What's the incentive for leaving a show with good ratings for a show with the worst ratings?

JW: I had a lot of responsibilities and felt a big part of GUIDING LIGHT. Gail Kobe was the executive producer and here, I'm the executive producer. Having total autonomy is really nice because you can do what you want. It really becomes the way you want to see it happen. I haven't been involved in daytime all that long - four years - but in those four years I developed a lot of ideas about what I think makes it work and what I don't think works. Now I'm going to find out if all those ideas that I've formulated really work or not.

RR: Besides the romantic couple, what else do you think makes daytime work?

JW: I think the audience wants to laugh. I really want to incorporate more humor into the show. I have Larry Haines on the show, who is very funny, an extraordinary comedian. I'm really looking forward to letting Stu be someone who is fun and interesting. We're going to do a major story with Stu in February and March. We're going to kick off this whole story with him because I think he's very likeable and giving and he could bring an element to the show that's sadly missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There was a Leigh Lassen interview in a July 1974 Daytime TV Stars. They talked about how the show had fired Leigh in mid-1973, due to lack of story, but brought her back. The editor puts this down to the show's writer at the time, Ralph Ellis, not feeling Patti was strong enough compared to women like Kathy or Eunice, and they criticize Ellis for wanting to turn Search into a "Women's Lib mouthpiece." By this time Ellis was replaced by Ted Apstein. An earlier part of the magazine says Apstein was a West Coast writer and he and his family were doing the show.

Edited by CarlD2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Many thanks for all these articles as they give info that is otherwise unknown(at least by me!) eg that Lassen was off 73-74. It seems hard to believe that they had no story for Patti,but I guess juggling a small cast meant it was hard to fit everything in.I assume Len was written off as well. I guess their return was the time that Len was recast with Jeff Pomerantz as Dino did not want to return.

Ralph Ellis I think was responsible for the return of Janet and bringing on Liza and Gary and Bruce (Jo's ward). Maybe also Kathy. He really revitalised and freshened up the show and layed the groundwork for years of story.I think he was headwriter from 71-73.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, Len was also written out.

I should say there is nothing but speculation from the magazine on why Patti was written out. The only official reason given was lack of story. For whatever reason the people at the magazine really disliked this era of Search (last year I posted a review they gave in 1976 where they again trashed the Ellis era, retroactively, although I don't think they named him).

I do wish we could see it as I would like to see Kathy and also see the abortion story, as it sounds different from most abortion stories on soaps (no "scheming" woman, no "punishment").

Thanks for reading and responding. When I saw this stuff I thought you'd be interested!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The picture of Hazel/Sue is fascinating. She has such a distinct look. I believe her surname was Knowles. I recall reading the name in a newspaper article on soaps in prison from the 1950s, but I cannot locate the article at the moment.

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.




  • Recent Posts

    • I’ve reached the summer of 1998.  Until now, my impression has been that the show has steadily improved since the great quality dip of 1994, reaching as high as 8/10 in 1997. Sure, I could complain about a few things in 1997 (Claudia got wasted after her initial storyline; Thorne’s feelings for Taylor were a bit too sudden; the storyline where Sheila lived with James and Maggie while pregnant got rather boring; Mike periodically revisiting Sheila despite being on the run from authorities), but overall it was a very strong year.  I liked the Thorne/Taylor/Ridge triangle, the mystery plot about who shot Grant, the sham wedding to trap Sheila, Stephanie/Eric/Lauren, and Clarke manipulating his way back to working at Forrester. I even liked the Greenland storyline with Eric/Lauren/Rush, although I had expected to hate it. Maybe 1996 tops 1997 in raw soapy excitement (especially as Sheila got a chance to interact with a larger canvas of characters), but certain problems with overall storyline cohesion puts it somewhat below 1997 for me. Unfortunately, 1998 has turned out to be a bit of a speedbump, perhaps on par with 1995 levels of quality: - Maggie’s character really got trashed after James left her to be with Sheila, and the early 1998 storylines where she imprisoned Sheila in the house from Psycho, or installed those wires and mikes and such in her house to make her think she’s going crazy, were total GARBAGE. So much so that the latter storyline (and Maggie with it) pretty much disappeared into a limbo.  - I have mixed feelings about the twins plotline with Lauren. No way did Rush survive being shot with a crossbow through the chest, and the romance between Lauren and Rush’s good twin brother Johnny was rather dry to me. I did however enjoy the camp aspect of Rush taking his brother’s place to be with Lauren, and Eric rescuing her. But it doesn’t appear like Bell cared too much about the Johnny/Lauren romance beyond the twin storyline gimmick, and it too disappeared in an unsatisfactory manner (come on, why not hire Johnny’s actor for just 5 more episodes for an arc where he realizes Lauren is not over Eric, or JUST SOMETHING?) - Clarke wormed his way back to FC in late 1997, which had exciting storytelling potential, but then he disappeared almost entirely. Sad to see my favorite character wasted in this manner. Does he get anything interesting to do between now and the Morgan saga of 2000-2001? - The Thomas saga was entertaining in 1997, but it got stretched out too much, and made some of early 1998 tiresome, with Ridge having to decide YET AGAIN which woman he wants to be with. On the plus side, I like the plotline of Thorne being neighbors with Macy and Grant, and we’ve finally been introduced to the SORASed Rick/Amber/CJ crowd. The Stephanie/James/Sheila triangle is also starting, and it makes me excited (I remember seeing some if it in my childhood). I know Sheila, Grant, and James are all leaving soon, which I honestly kind of dread - between them and Clarke’s near-absence, it feels like herd is going to get culled too much in the near future. But I know there’s the familiar 1999-2002 to look forward to.
    • LOL - this is a perfect description, and that's what I loved about it! May be a bit campy, but it immediately caught my attention in a good way.  I'm not familiar with the Fishing Trip storyline, I'll have to look that up. I've noticed that about Josh, which has made him less attractive to me overall. He just yells a lot when he's not happy. Wow, Reva was married to HB!  LOL - "Always... eventually, and again"
    • I love your ideas. I would love to see Jack grown up this confused unhinged individual. He should hold a grudge against both Brooke and Taylor.   
    • @chrisml

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Lois's return has been a bust. So disappointing that the writers have never written for her. As with Tracy, the pool of GH vets is so thin, there's no one to pair her with. Doubtful they would go to the trouble of properly recasting a legacy character and then sticking  him with Lois; they're obviously not that invested. If she wants to be on this show, it'll be as a noisy grandma who stays in the background. 
    • I love me some Anita and TT. They need to give her a good storyline and I know that it's coming. 
    • @Franko Thanks for tagging me. A few days ago I was talking in another thread about the rise of "snarky" critics for TV shows in the '90s online recaps, but this is just more along the lines of a mauling. There's also the unspoken reality that films like Steel Magnolias were seen as movies for women, so therefore they sucked. Pauline Kael also had her share of blunt, at times incredibly nasty remarks, but the vitriol is often balanced by her love for film. I'm not seeing that here.  With that said, the comment about Field's work becoming unbearable describes how I felt when I tried to sit through her and Maura Tierney on ER. 
    • I skipped most of Daniel too. I think it's awful he has kids with Nicole, Csrky5 and Chloe and Brady, Bo and Philip do not. 
    • Please register in order to view this content

         
    • A great day. Feeling happy and accomplished.

      Please register in order to view this content

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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