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

Yes, that is exactly what I quoted, one paragraph out of an SOD article. Is there some reason you saw requiring a duplication of it? If you think something is lacking, I have all of the paragraphs with the date as well. 

I want to clear something up. I'm amazed that it needs clarification but so be it. When I said I could just imagine Maureen's reaction to putting part of the blame on her character for her being raped, I was using a figure of speech, colorful language, possibly evocative of a cartoon scene. So, enough is enough. 

Edited by Donna L. Bridges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

TPTB on soaps had such icky views on women and sexual assault. In the eighties and nineties, it seemed like rape was happening on all the soaps. I wonder if the writing of Laura's rape on GH was the catalyst for all these rape stories/glorification of the rapist idiocy. I would like to think attitudes have changed, but I'm not sure they have on the soaps, but I don't watch any of the current ones so I'm not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, Bill Bell wrote Bill Horton loves Laura Spencer but hates that she married his brother & got drunk & morose & went & raped her & later she married him & had a child by him in the 70s. There was a belief in a sensitive, highly strung rapist who believed he loved the woman he raped. Luke was that type, too. NBC forced Donna Swajeski to write that Jake raped Marley. The 80s now. He was proving to her that she didn't want to divorce him. And that's 3 - DAYS, GH, AW. I guess it was all shows, all nets. It is surely a sorry part of soap history. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They did...I hate when it's used as a sweeps stunt. I even hated Margo's rape as well done as it was..it took a strong funny character, and she became a morose shell of herself after that. I know the point was strong woman are raped, but old people are abused in real life and I didn't want to see Nancy Hughes being batted around.  The worst is when JFP threw away a promising character like Brent Lawrence, to try to make the audience like Lucy Cooper, by having him raper her. Cynical bullshit. 

However, I think the producer is as inept as his statement is, was trying to say that Roger and Holly were totally dysfunctional and it was both their fault...which is why I loved them over other dysfunctional "super couples" like Jeva that TPTB could never call them out  as.   I don't think he was trying to blame the rape on Holly but that she brought as much crazy as Roger did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Given his overall reputation & given that it seems to me that he was a sensitive gay man who was out when very few people were & part of a committed couple I figure he was much more enlightened than his statement might lead us to believe & that he simply misspoke. Sometimes our words are not our friends. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Please register in order to view this content

These are a little over a year apart, yet the show feels very different. I notice when watching back that GL feels more different from one regime to another than many soaps - maybe because of so much cast turnover. Probably the only interesting thing in the first, beyond the attempt at class warfare and the lovely Janet Jackson montage, is seeing Josh and Reva in an old movie fantasy. I didn't know they gave those to other characters beyond Quint and Nola. 

I had to laugh at Reva and Johnny, in the second episode, having to exclaim surprise at a piano being set up at the rundown bar just so that Reva could pad out a strike episode with a musical performance. I appreciate how in her original run Reva had close relationships with men that were platonic. Other than some of her interaction with Billy, and once or twice with Philip, they didn't bother with those nuances in her second stint. 

The amount of music playing in these episodes remind you why these can't be repeated.

Edited by DRW50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When watching episodes from the main 1980s/1990s eras, GL feels like a different show each time.

Potter/Marland held its own against General Hospital when that show was at it's peak as a pop culture phenomenon. Storylines from that era that impacted GL until the end were Roger's fall off the cliff in Santo Domingo; Alan/Hope marriage; intros of Chamberlain, Lewis, Reardon families.

Kobe/Long Spring 1983-Summer 1984 set in motion characters and storylines that would carry GL through its final 25 years (Lewis family expanded and elevated to a main family, Phillip/Beth, Josh/Reva, Alexandra) but it was too much chasing 1980s trends.

Willmore/Long had the task of cleaning up the mess from the writer turnover of 1986 through first half of 1987, plus that era was also affected by the 1988 writer's strike. Storylines from that era that impacted GL until the end were intro of the Cooper family and returns of Holly and Roger.

Calhoun/Long/Curlee GL thrived despite the ratings not reflecting that.

JFP/Curlee July 1991-August 1992 coasted off the groundwork laid in the Calhoun era and the ratings increased that first year but the momentum didn't last. Then came the events of 1993 that changed the show forever and we know the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanks for posting!

GL had become too fluff for me. It was too campy for me and that's why I believe it was one reason the show tanked. Mindy and Frank? Ewwww ....I guess they were copying Lily and Holden from ATWT.

Dinah Marler and friends were cringe worthy 90210 ripoff.... Lol...and Ian played the part awfully twice.

Please register in order to view this content

Edited by Soapsuds
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