Jump to content

Guiding Light Discussion Thread


Paul Raven

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

I would have loved to have Rita back on GL. She was the reason I got hooked on this show! I always wondered why/how they never could get Lenore back for the role. She did other soaps after leaving GL.

With the passage of time, I'm on the fence with Maureen's death. I always looked at her as more of a Cooper than a Bauer, and thought that Holly should have been the matriarch of the Bauer clan. Or better yet, a recast Leslie with Mike. They could have recovered from her death more easily had one of those two things happened IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

GASP!!! Cooper???? Surely you meant Reardon..Mo was in no way related to that scenery chewing waste of space Buzz and his historically revised "good core family," of self righteous twits!

Yea, I thought they were on a roll with Rick and Abbey being a nice core couple but then they never wrote for them and the actress left and O'leary started mugging non stop for the attention and well..it all went to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wouldn't have wanted Mo with Fletcher. For some reason, I just didn't like Mo and Fletcher together at that point. I suppose I'm with Mitch on this one, but Fletcher started to wear on me as a character - I never could figure out why they ever paired Holly with Fletcher! But back to Mo - I really wish Mike Bauer had been in Springfield as a source of comfort for Mo. Ed was always the weaker of the two brothers, and I could see Mo being drawn towards Mike and vice versa.

Yep, they had another shot with Rick and Abby as the core couple (and Bauers, too), but they blew it.

Edited by zanereed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I had such a long history with The Guiding Light, and loved its storylines and core characters from 1950 to about 1983, and then watched in agony as incompetent, clueless powers that be started dismantling the core and turning the show into a low-brow campfest.

I kept hanging on, but nail by nail, they cemented that coffin shut.

I loathed:

--The 1983/4 cast massacre

--The start of the campy, stupid stories: The Dreaming Death, The Ghost in the Attic, Jonathan Brooks' Talking Computer

--The Grating Reva Show of the 1980s

--The Killing of Maureen Bauer

--The Firing of Michael Zaslow

--History Denied: Brandon Spaulding is Alive! Amanda Wexler is Alan's Sister! Springfield Patriarchs Went Fishing Together!

--The Replacement Beth Raines and her Ill-Defined Characterization

--Cartoon Harley

--The Santos Boobs...er, Mob

--San Cristocrap

--Meva and Crassie, the Shayme Sisters

--Goopy Richard Winslow

--Reva the Ghost

--Reva the Amish Amnesiac

--Reva the San Cristocrapian Queen

--Reva the Clone

--Reva the Illegal-Immigrant Savior

--Reva the Blind

--Reva the Time Traveller

--Reva the Saggy & Bedraggled Object of Every Man's Desire

--Releasing ESSENTIAL Vets like ver Dorn and Garrett

--Peapack

((Sigh))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'd say 1997 was one of the last good years they had.

To me the show stuck a pin in itself during JFP's ego trips years (93-94). The show was increasingly about nothing but a vanity project for JFP's pets, with interchangeable, chemistry-free pairings, no heart or foundation, and aimless storylines. I could barely sit through the show in 1993, and in 1994 I held on solely for two storylines - Julie scheming to get Frank, and the Bridget/Vanessa custody battle over Peter. She even managed to make a boring muddle of Holly/Roger, the most dynamic and complex relationship GL ever had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ed wasn't a patriarch and never would be. They should have brought Mike back for that role.

I think Ed and Maureen should have divorced and then we would have seen Michelle struggle with the reality of being a child of divorce. It would have produced more drama than her death, which was mostly over after a month or two of scenes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

He was weak, yes. Simon more than Hulswit, but Hulswit also seemed to play Ed as somewhat of a pushover. Gentry, I can't judge. Van der Vleet - no.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, it's just how some characters are. Mike was never really a patriarch either, as the family wasn't structured that way, but I think Don Stewart had the strength or heft to play that type of role if they had let Mike become the head of the family. Mike was more of a noble, long-suffering man. Ed wasn't. Ed let it all hang out (in some cases literally). Ed was more like his father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ed...when I watched, I never saw Ed as a patriarch. He was troubled, angry, betrayed, philandering, ashamed. He never had what Ver Dorn had, that fatherly character that people looked up to. Sure a few did, but Ed always disappointed them. His alcoholism caused him to let Michelle and Rick down, and he would always leave when they needed him. He chose to help others rather than his family.

I haven't seen much of Hulswit, but Simon always seemed to have one foot out the door.When Gentry returned, I had hoped he would stay. Van Vleet was simply Chuck Tyler on a different show. I wish there had been a strong Bauer presence, but after they destroyed Rick/Abby, O'Leary struggled to have a strong story. Dropping him to recurring was the final nail in the coffin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh OK. See Simon was my Ed [along with the short return stint of Gentry in '97] and while he was weak, I did somewhat look to him as a patriarchal one. A weak one but one nonetheless. From watching clips and episode with Mike, I could see him being the patriarch as he was more stronger and stoic than Ed. But I actually could see Hulswit's Ed being a patriarch. From what I've seen of him, I didn't see him as spineless as Simon's Ed. He actually had backbone. At least with Rita he did. But then again he would become mush with Holly at the quickness. :P

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

    • Yes, I think that is the most likely situation.  TPTB were unhappy with the offer(s) they got from the tourism board in Finland, and decided the trip was going to be too expensive for P&G/NBC to finance alone.   I would also speculate a similar situation occurred a few years later with the planned location shoot in Egypt, which was also cancelled after the storyline had already started, and changed to Arizona.  
    • What else? #May4th

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • In my usual account on my most used video hosting site with the video title  DAYS 1-8-15 Will & Paul Sex This is an edit I began when I was first teaching myself to edit & at that time I couldn't make it do what I wanted it to do. I pulled it up & finished it this morning. 
    • Or Megan is shot as retaliation for Dave's unpaid gambling debts...while Julie confesses she's the biological mother of Special Guest Star Barry Bostwick's little boy.
    • Finland seemed such an odd choice for a location shoot. ATWT went to Greece and later Spain while GL had Tenerife and there were others in that timeframe. But Finland not being a known tourist destination or offering the tropical/sunny atmosphere usually associated with location shoots seems off brand. Maybe they were negotiating a deal with a tourist association and it fell through.
    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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