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

 

With other actors in the roles, both Tom and Margo were engaging, appealing characters. But as the writing got increasingly worse, both Holmes and Dolan seemed to settle into giving harsh, or at least cold, interpretations to T&M. Maybe they were bored or frustrated with the wretched material, but the actors' lack of warmth greatly diminished my interest in the characters..

Edited by vetsoapfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

She said no such thing. During her Emmy acceptance speech, she said that fans come up to her on the street calling her "Maureen, Maureen," and that she responds, "I'm dead, I'm dead." She then went on to say she missed her friends at Guiding Light and thanked fans for their support.

 

I remember the discussions on the bulletin boards when Maureen was killed off (pre-Internet, pre-social media). Viewers -- myself included -- were upset that they lost Maureen, not that Ellen Parker had been fired. We had lost an iconic, warm, loving maternal figure. In so many ways, it was akin to losing Bert Bauer again.

 

 

Edited by robbwolff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Right. No one could help the show losing Bert Bauer, but killing off Maureen, Bert's successor as the show's matriarch and light was a foolish  and conscious decision made by TIIC, which was done for no valid reason (I do not consider freeing up cash to pay for Justin Deas a valid reason, if that rumor is true). It pissed off the fans AND damaged the core of TGL, a lose-lose situation.

Edited by vetsoapfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Well at any rate, it was one character I wanted gone and was glad Phelps had the guts to swing the axe. I'm sure Phelps used the focus groups to justify it, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was probably something she wanted to do when she first arrived and waited for the right moment to do it. Phelps actually used the viewers (the ones in the focus group) to help her fire this actress which I thought was very clever. So she was carrying out what the viewers supposedly wanted. The character had been quite dull and repetitive for the last year or two she was on the air. She was definitely not up in the ranks of the Revas, Rogers, Harleys, Vanessas, Hollys and Nadines. She was basically a supporting character that was assigned "B" and sometimes "C" plots. Ed's affair with Lillian was a B+ plot that was more Lillian's story than it was Maureen's story, until the end when it was used as the excuse to kill Maureen off.

 

As for Maureen being the show's light, she wasn't on the canvas long enough to be that. Plus there were other lights.

 

The real problem with assigning Maureen the status of a "light" is that she was designed not to be this. If you look at the history of the Bauers, all the Bauer men had multiple failed marriages. This includes Mike, Ed and Rick. It started with Bill's failed marriage to Bert. That was the pattern for this family. None of them ever kept their wives. So any woman Ed married could not be a light, his light, or his family's light, because the very parameters of the drama meant she had to leave at some point, either by divorce or death.

 

The only way Maureen could have had any real longevity, regardless of who played her, would have been if the Bauers had been totally phased out and Ed had been assimilated into the Reardons with Maureen taking over her mother Bea's role. Maureen was not meant to take over Bert's role. Bert was irreplaceable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Despite your distaste for the actress, Maureen did become the light and heart of the the show for many fans. She filled the void left by Charita Bauer's passing. Of course, she wasn't in the ranks of Reva, Roger, etc. Maureen was a totally different character -- a supporting character, driven by family, not a career, just like Bert was. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

First of all, JFP is the dismantler of shows.  I can't get behind any defense of her years in soaps as I watched her gut one show after another of their vets. Her opinion that "No one watches for 'old people' " is her opinion,not the fans. One can bring up focus groups, but if she hand-picked those involved, of course her decisions reflected theirs. She only got worse as she progressed to AW. Her "kill a vet every time we have sweeps" tenure at GH was especially egregious. Under her Tony Jones, Georgie, Emily, Justus,  and Alan Quartermaine were all lost forever.  

 

I started watching GL in 1983, and I remember Dolan in the role. Her Maureen was very much a Reardon, and you could see it in her interactions with Nola, Tony, Bea and Jim. I remember Fletch and Maureen dying in Israel (only to be alive, after the Claire/Ed ONS). I was really a Dolan  fan and was disappointed when Ellen Parker replaced her.  It took a little time, but Parker won me over.  I'll never forget the quiet scenes with Roger and the friendship they had cultivated. Dolan's Maureen would never have had that relationship.  There was plenty more fallout to be shown from Ed's affair with Lillian, but we'll never know thanks to JFP's interference.  Parker had a motherly rapport with most of the actors and actresses in scenes. Maureen's patience with everyone, while also telling them like it was, made Parker the source of "light" the show just didn't have since Bert had passed.

 

Sad as it is, as long as Tina Sloan's Lillian was around, she never could have filled the role Maureen provided on GL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Again, you are making assertions (like Phelps was lying in wait to kill off Maureen) that are not supported by any documented fact.

 

Your personal disdain for the character does not mean she  was "definitely" inferior to characters Reva, Harley, Nadine, etc. Bert and Papa Bauer were not flashy romantic leads either. They, like Maureen, came to serve a different purpose on the show, one which could be argued was just as valuable to the canvas. If not more so.

 

You cannot use the argument of what "Maureen was meant to be" to diminish her ultimate place as the TGLs new matriarch. Soap opera characters, like real human beings, are allowed to grow, evolve and change over time. Indeed, with good writing, they should. Originally, Bert Bauer was "not meant to be" the show's guiding light, either.  She was introduced to viewers as a selfish and materialistic young woman who could not make her marriage work. But lo and behold, as the years went on (thanks to good writing and acting by the beloved Charita Bauer), Bert naturally evolved into the show's light. The same thing happened to Maureen. It may not have been the original conception of the character, but as Mo took over as the Bauer matriarch and moral compass, she became an important touchstone character, different than Bert but carrying on her legacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I appreciate how others might have been fans of Ellen Parker and who/what Maureen had become at the end of her run. The character was finite and not meant to last to the end of the series the way other legacy characters would. She did reappear as a ghost in the late 90s, visiting Michelle. But her death was never undone the way some soap deaths are undone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I like this post. I don't think Lillian was ever considered as a replacement. The character actually had more connection to the Spauldings because of Beth than to the Bauers. She and Ed were coworkers who crossed the line. Lillian had enjoyed Mike's company several years earlier. But she was never going to become a Bauer wife.

 

We don't know if JFP didn't design the Ed-Lillian affair with Maureen's demise in mind. Where else could the plot have gone? Even if Maureen had lived, chances are she and Ed would have reconciled until the next crisis drove them apart. And Ed would have gone back to being platonic with Lillian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I think you can stop using the word assertion. It's clear you don't respect a differing opinion. A message board is not meant to be a place where everyone sees things the same way. And this is not a thread created to necessarily appreciate certain performers or characters. This one didn't work for me and I was glad she didn't last. We can share different opinions on this and we can also stop a discussion where you seem to be cross-examining a person whose opinion you don't like. I won't be replying directly to you anymore. Take care.

Thanks. I love the Esensten-Harmon Brown years. This was all must-see for me.

Edited by JarrodMFiresofLove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

An "assertion" is not the same thing as a personal opinion, so it was the best word for me to use under the circumstances. 

 

And of course, inquiring about the source of an assertion in no way, shape, or form equates to disrespecting a personal opinion.

 

"The character was finite and not meant to last to the end of the series...." is not just a personal opinion, because it suggests what you wrote is an actual, verifiable fact.

 

An opinion would be, "I did not find the character of Maureen interesting and was happy she was killed off."

 

I was trying to clarify why you had made such an assertion, and where the idea of Maureen's only being a "finite" character had come from. I had never see or heard any writer or producer claim that Maureen was created to be temporary. You are the only one to say so, hence my question to you. It should not engender any drama on the board.

 

 

 

 

Edited by vetsoapfan
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 also wonder if it was considered controversial at the time to show a morally corrupt doctor?(another character troupe for Agnes Nixon, the upstanding male citizen who is hiding secrets back at home) Up until the early 1970s, prime-time would very rarely tell stories about the private lives of doctors, because advertisers tended to shy away from such content. @robbwolff -- so is this wrong that Ruth dated David before marrying Joe?  Dr. David Thornton is a fictional character from the ABC daytime soap opera All My Children, portrayed by Paul Gleason from 1976 to 1978.  He was introduced as a respected physician in Pine Valley, presenting himself as a widower to his colleagues at the hospital. This facade, however, concealed a darker truth: his wife, Edna Thornton, was alive, and he was leading a double life. David’s character is defined by manipulation and secrecy, as he maintained a carefully curated public image while engaging in deceitful and criminal behavior in his personal life. His relationships were marked by control and betrayal, particularly in his marriage to Edna and his romantic entanglements with other women. David’s charm and professional status allowed him to navigate Pine Valley’s social circles, but his actions revealed a calculating and ruthless nature. Career David was a doctor at Pine Valley Hospital, where he was well-regarded by his peers for his medical expertise. His professional life provided him with a veneer of respectability, which he exploited to mask his personal misdeeds. However, his career was not a central focus of his storyline; instead, it served as a backdrop to his personal schemes. His position at the hospital gave him access to resources, such as the drug digitalis, which he later used in his attempt to murder his wife. David’s professional life unraveled as his criminal actions came to light, tarnishing his reputation in the medical community. Personal Relationships and Family David’s family and romantic relationships were fraught with tension and deception, shaping much of his narrative arc: Edna Thornton (Wife): David was married to Edna Thornton, with whom he had a daughter, Dottie. To his colleagues, he claimed Edna was deceased, allowing him to pursue other relationships without suspicion. In reality, David was plotting to kill Edna, motivated by his desire to be free of her and possibly to gain financial or personal freedom. He began poisoning her with digitalis, a heart medication, which caused her to experience heart pains. Edna was unaware of David’s true intentions until after his death, when the truth about his poisoning scheme was revealed. Dottie Thornton (Daughter): David and Edna’s daughter, Dottie Thornton, was a significant character in All My Children. Portrayed by Dawn Marie Boyle (1977–1980) and later Tasia Valenza (1982–1986), Dottie was raised primarily by Edna. David’s neglectful and manipulative behavior extended to his daughter, as he showed little genuine care for her well-being. Dottie’s life was impacted by her father’s actions, particularly after his death, when Edna became a wealthy widow. Dottie later married Thaddeus “Tad” Martin in 1985, though their marriage ended in divorce in 1986, and she suffered the loss of an unborn child with Tad. Ruth Parker (Fiancée, 1976): David was engaged to Ruth Parker in 1976, furthering his pattern of deceit since he was still married to Edna. His engagement to Ruth, who was also involved with Jeff Martin, highlighted David’s willingness to manipulate romantic partners for his own gain. The engagement did not lead to marriage, as David’s true intentions and double life began to surface. Christina “Chris” Karras (Lover, 1978): In 1978, David began a romantic relationship with Dr. Christina “Chris” Karras, a fellow physician. This affair added another layer of complexity to his web of lies, as Chris was unaware of his marriage to Edna and his poisoning scheme. After David’s death, Chris was initially accused of his murder due to their relationship and her access to medical resources. However, Jeff Martin’s investigation cleared her name by proving David’s death was caused by his own actions. Parents: David’s parents are unnamed in the source material, and both are noted as deceased. No further details are provided about their influence on his life or their role in his backstory. Death David Thornton’s death in 1978 was a dramatic and fitting conclusion to his villainous arc, brought about by his own treachery. Intent on killing Edna to escape their marriage, David had been secretly administering digitalis to her, causing her heart issues. In a twist of fate, their daughter, Dottie, innocently switched Edna’s drink with David’s during one of his poisoning attempts. Unaware that the drink was laced with a lethal dose of digitalis, David consumed it and suffered a fatal heart attack. His death was initially investigated as a possible murder, with Chris Karras as the prime suspect due to her relationship with David and her medical knowledge. However, Dr. Jeff Martin conducted a toxicology screen on David’s body, which revealed that the digitalis poisoning was the cause of both Edna’s heart pains and David’s death. This evidence exonerated Chris and exposed David’s plan to kill his wife, cementing his legacy as a tragic and self-destructive figure. Impact and Legacy David Thornton’s storyline, though relatively short-lived (1976–1978), was impactful due to its intensity and the ripple effects on other characters. His death left Edna a wealthy widow, altering her and Dottie’s circumstances and setting the stage for further drama, including Edna’s manipulation by conman Ray Gardner. David’s actions also strained relationships among other Pine Valley residents, particularly through his engagement to Ruth Parker and affair with Chris Karras, which intersected with Jeff Martin’s storyline. His character exemplified the classic soap opera archetype of a charming yet duplicitous villain whose downfall is precipitated by his own hubris. Additional Notes Portrayal: Paul Gleason’s performance as David Thornton brought a compelling intensity to the role, making the character memorable despite his brief tenure. Gleason’s ability to portray both charm and menace suited David’s dual nature as a respected doctor and a scheming husband. Storyline Context: David’s arc occurred during the early years of All My Children, a period when the show focused on intricate personal dramas and moral dilemmas. His poisoning plot and double life were emblematic of the show’s penchant for high-stakes interpersonal conflict. Lack of Additional Family Details: Beyond Edna and Dottie, no other family members (such as siblings or extended relatives) are mentioned in the source material, limiting the scope of his familial connections. Conclusion Dr. David Thornton was a multifaceted antagonist in All My Children, whose life was marked by professional success, personal deception, and a fatal miscalculation. As a doctor, he wielded authority and respect, but his secret plan to murder his wife, Edna, revealed a cold and calculating core. His relationships with Edna, Dottie, Ruth Parker, and Chris Karras were defined by manipulation, and his death by accidental self-poisoning was a poetic end to his schemes. David’s legacy in Pine Valley lived on through Edna’s newfound wealth and Dottie’s subsequent storylines, making him a pivotal figure in the show’s early narrative. His story remains a classic example of soap opera drama, blending betrayal, tragedy, and retribution.
    • The only blonde I see is one of the actual women staring at first & then screaming & running later.  DAYS: Vivian's manservant Ivan is in a long curly red wig. 

      Please register in order to view this content

      Y&R: long straight black wig is the actor Peter Barton whose character name I am blanking on.   
    • I very much liked office Cleary and the actress who portrayed her (as you say, Mary Peterson).  A shame her turn didn't evolve into a contract role.   BTW, does anyone know the timeframe/years that Betty Rae served as casting director?  If i understand correctly, she not only led the effort for contract roles, but also for shorter 13- and 26-week roles.  IMO, GL had LOTS of very well-casted, limited roles, too. I'm surprised the actors throughout the soap industry, and especially P&G actors, have not assembled a book or something similar, praising Rae.  Each actor could write a few paragraphs or a page of text describing his or her experience.
    • No. Ruth had an extramarital affair with David while married to Joe.
    • I'm not sure I agree with Bernstein's children on that. Bernstein's life and activism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Bernstein#Social_activism_and_humanitarian_efforts
    • Thursday & Friday's episodes were excellent. The build-up was most definitely worth the wait (2 months). TMG, I can't give her enough accolades. AM, was also absolutely incredible. I think the fallout is going to have a ripple effect. The little clues that have been dropped,  hopefully, will weave seamlessly to reveal even bigger bombshells for the Dupree's and Martin.
    • Thanks, msn drives me nuts on the one hand but on the other hand their headlines appeal to me. And, I just don't do FoxNews.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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