GL now joins some illustrious company in the cancelled soap thread.

Let's share memories and ask questions here.

20 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

I believe you are correct both specifically and in a more general sense.  One of the biggest (perhaps THE biggest) mistakes soap operas made in the 1980s through 2000s was to ask the audience what they wanted, and then tried to give it to them.  The problem was/is, what the audience wants does not often make for compelling drama or convincing acting.  For example, the audience always wants the long-suffering romantic couple to find happiness.  Well, happiness on soap operas gets boring really fast.  The younger audience often says they want young beautiful characters, but that does not always lead to strong acting -- again, bad in the long-term.  So rather than asking the audience what they wanted to see, the genre should have found a way to measure what the audience will watch -- what they will find compelling.  

For example, when I was a teenager (in the mid-1970s) I was hooked on Another World.  I almost never missed an episode.  I was certainly addicted.  But on the other hand, I complained that the show was rather boring and nothing ever happened. I wanted AW to have normal soap opera plots like ATWT or AMC.  But, I was not hooked on ATWT or AMC, I was hooked on Another World -- a show that I thought was boring.  LOL.   So, I did not know what I would watch (or find compelling), I only knew what I thought I wanted.  Not sure I'm making sense.  

But my point is, asking the audience what they like or what they want is a very poor way to make decisions about a soap opera (or any form of art), in my opinion.  Successful soaps give the audience what they will watch, not what they want.  

This also led to the focus group path with JFP claiming she got rid of Maureen because they said she was boring. 

I don't think GL got as heavily into the mode you're describing until the '00s when they started pandering so much to Gus/Harley, Tammy/Jonathan and Danny/Michelle fans and Bradley Cole fans.

3 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Cooke did get better toward the end, but for the time she was at the center of story, she was bland and forgettable. Even many of the young women cast in horror movies or T&A comedies of the era had more personality.

The irony is Jennifer Cooke ended up being one of the most well-loved heroines of the Friday the 13th franchise a few years later, where she played a wisecracking spitfire in the more comic Part 6 (Jason Lives, naturally). I assume they just didn't write anything terribly good for her, plus she did not have the peculiar vibe Vigard did.

7 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

This also led to the focus group path with JFP claiming she got rid of Maureen because they said she was boring. 

I don't think GL got as heavily into the mode you're describing until the '00s when they started pandering so much to Gus/Harley, Tammy/Jonathan and Danny/Michelle fans and Bradley Cole fans.

Add the Kim Zimmer fans to the list and there is no longer a show to run creatively. 

17 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

This also led to the focus group path with JFP claiming she got rid of Maureen because they said she was boring.

or as eileen fulton liked to call them — “fuckus groups.”

I just watched an older Locher room interview with Rebecca Hollen/Robert Newman/Krista T  where Rebecca says she thinks DM wanted Jane Elliot for the role of Trish.

The mind boggles. Jane would be completely wrong for the role as written. I can't see her fitting into the Lewises at all. 

4 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Considering Kirsten was only on for a year, they could have managed (Y&R did with Lily, and ATWT managed to successfully replace Lucy Deakins), but they just went with a route that had nothing to do with what made the character work or what would impress viewers. I think they decided that Morgan was just the goody goody to Nola's baddie, when it hadn't been so simple.

And as was often the case with soaps, they didn't even know what the young demo would want to see. Cooke did get better toward the end, but for the time she was at the center of story, she was bland and forgettable. Even many of the young women cast in horror movies or T&A comedies of the era had more personality.

She was the final girl in Friday the 13th: Jason Lives in the mid 80s.   A few reaction channels have remarked that her performance was very showy and almost hyper.. compared with the acting of some of the other people in the movie.

Problem was that Kelly/Morgan weren't an interesting couple.. no matter who was playing Morgan.  I didn't think the two had chemistry at all.

And Geraldine Court... she was very lackluster on GL.  Although I guess she would have been a decent Ann.. one that was blind to her husband's infidelity with the newscaster.

Also.. Marland seemed super toxic and controlling.  He should have just came up with the overall story/outlines.. and let his writer write the scripts.  

4 hours ago, Contessa Donatella said:

Somehow I don't think he'd agree with her about that. But, probably he just smiled & went on with dinner. They say he was incredibly charming in his off-hours.Oh, the rifle is news to me, too. 

OMG!  I'd love to be at dinner with Marland and Long.  LOL.  I wonder if she respected him enough to learn anything from him.  Hmmm.   

2 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

She was the final girl in Friday the 13th: Jason Lives in the mid 80s.   A few reaction channels have remarked that her performance was very showy and almost hyper.. compared with the acting of some of the other people in the movie.

Problem was that Kelly/Morgan weren't an interesting couple.. no matter who was playing Morgan.  I didn't think the two had chemistry at all.

And Geraldine Court... she was very lackluster on GL.  Although I guess she would have been a decent Ann.. one that was blind to her husband's infidelity with the newscaster.

Also.. Marland seemed super toxic and controlling.  He should have just came up with the overall story/outlines.. and let his writer write the scripts.  

That is my favorite Fridays...it knows it is cheesy and goes with it...I never thought about her being Morgan! Kelly/Morgan was a fantasy for young girls, no matter how plain you are, you can snag the handsome older guy..and its all "romance," but no sexual heat...but after the wedding there is no place to go with them. I thought it was a weird pairing...this palid, boring girl (did she even a personality) paired with an obviously gay muscle boy...it looked like a marriage of convenience.

I always wanted Nola on her second round to ask Amanda "Hows...Moorgaaan" to hear her spit that name out one more time. Amanda....."Well, she has gained weight and lives in  a trailer...." as Nola has a satisfied grin on her face.

2 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

She was the final girl in Friday the 13th: Jason Lives in the mid 80s.   A few reaction channels have remarked that her performance was very showy and almost hyper.. compared with the acting of some of the other people in the movie.

A few random reaction channels don't count for much. The fact remains she's been one of the few longtime fan favorites for decades in a franchise not exactly known for compelling characters. I'm not going to pretend her work on GL was compelling, but it's a different medium and a different type of role. Nobody was exactly checking for Scott Reeves, Kevin Spirtas or Lar Park Lincoln (among others) in their slasher roles either.

Edited August 17, 20241 yr by Vee

1 minute ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

OMG!  I'd love to be at dinner with Marland and Long.  LOL.  I wonder if she respected him enough to learn anything from him.  Hmmm.   

I know..they just seem to be such odd fish together...this woman who writes off the cuff of her sleave and this tightly controlled closet case...(was he out to the industry?)

2 hours ago, P.J. said:

I just watched an older Locher room interview with Rebecca Hollen/Robert Newman/Krista T  where Rebecca says she thinks DM wanted Jane Elliot for the role of Trish.

Yikes!

4 minutes ago, Mitch64 said:

I know..they just seem to be such odd fish together...this woman who writes off the cuff of her sleave and this tightly controlled closet case...(was he out to the industry?)

The whole industry? Doubtful. But like most gayfolk in soaps at the time he was known to the people at his own shows. 

2 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

Problem was that Kelly/Morgan weren't an interesting couple.. no matter who was playing Morgan.  I didn't think the two had chemistry at all.

Well, if Vigard was only on the show for one-year (as suggested in an earlier post), then I'm not surprised Kelly and Morgan didn't have much chemistry.  If it only took them one-year to get together, despite Nola's meddling, that is really not enough time or enough heartache to become a long-suffering romantic super-couple.  It should have taken them two or three years to get to the alter the first time.  And then something should have split them up again for more heartache, before reuniting.   Does anyone have any idea why Marland married them so damned quickly?   Why didn't he drag it out like Nixon and Lemay did with their romantic stories?   

And another somewhat related question -- why was Nola mellowed so quickly?  While she was a bad-girl, Nola was a selfish spit-fire and should have become the Rachel Davis of Springfield, causing trouble for years and years.  Why waste such a wonderfully drawn antagonist by mellowing her so quickly?  Wow, dumb decision, in my opinion.  

 

Edited August 17, 20241 yr by Mona Kane Croft

19 minutes ago, Mitch64 said:

I know..they just seem to be such odd fish together...this woman who writes off the cuff of her sleave and this tightly controlled closet case...(was he out to the industry?)

He was out to Allen Potter, wasn't he? Didn't he call him a nasty word during one of their fights?

10 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

Well, if Vigard was only on the show for one-year (as suggested in an earlier post), then I'm not surprised Kelly and Morgan didn't have much chemistry.  If it only took them one-year to get together, despite Nola's meddling, that is really not enough time or enough heartache to become a long-suffering romantic super-couple.  It should have taken them two or three years to get to the alter the first time.  And then something should have split them up again for more heartache, before reuniting.   Does anyone have any idea why Marland married them so damned quickly?   Why didn't he drag it out like Nixon and Lemay did with their romantic stories?   

And another somewhat related question -- why was Nola mellowed so quickly?  While she was a bad-girl, Nola was a spit-fire and should have become the Rachel Davis of Springfield, causing trouble for years and years.  Why waste such a wonderfully drawn antagonist by mellowing her so quickly?  Wow, dumb decision, in my opinion.  

They probably got married so soon because... Luke and Laura. 
In another universe Kelly would have married Nola and would be raising a baby she bought from her sister, while Morgan would be involved with Tim Werner. Marland told that story on Loving with Jack, Ava, Stacey and Tony.
I agree about Nola. She has years of bad girl drama to play. 

Edited August 17, 20241 yr by Sapounopera

4 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

Problem was that Kelly/Morgan weren't an interesting couple.. no matter who was playing Morgan.  I didn't think the two had chemistry at all.

 

2 hours ago, Mitch64 said:

 Kelly/Morgan was a fantasy for young girls, no matter how plain you are, you can snag the handsome older guy..and its all "romance," but no sexual heat...but after the wedding there is no place to go with them. I thought it was a weird pairing...this palid, boring girl (did she even a personality) paired with an obviously gay muscle boy...it looked like a marriage of convenience.

 

2 hours ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

Well, if Vigard was only on the show for one-year (as suggested in an earlier post), then I'm not surprised Kelly and Morgan didn't have much chemistry.  If it only took them one-year to get together, despite Nola's meddling, that is really not enough time or enough heartache to become a long-suffering romantic super-couple.  It should have taken them two or three years to get to the alter the first time.  And then something should have split them up again for more heartache, before reuniting.   Does anyone have any idea why Marland married them so damned quickly?   Why didn't he drag it out like Nixon and Lemay did with their romantic stories?   

And another somewhat related question -- why was Nola mellowed so quickly?  While she was a bad-girl, Nola was a selfish spit-fire and should have become the Rachel Davis of Springfield, causing trouble for years and years.  Why waste such a wonderfully drawn antagonist by mellowing her so quickly?  Wow, dumb decision, in my opinion.  

I think that Vigard and JWS had some chemistry, although I put their connection partly down to Vigard's strong presence. 

Beyond what @Sapounopera mentioned about Marland wanting to recreate Scotty and Laura, I think they may have also had the wedding early because they knew Shipp probably wasn't going to stay around long-term. 

The whole Kelly and Morgan story was, IIRC, pitched in part as fantasy vs reality - I think Marland talked about the whole image the young heroine has in her head of her first time and the pain of reality. I imagine that was what they would have done with the marriage between Kelly and Morgan too - showing the reality of a marriage compared to the fantasy. They still tried with Cooke but it didn't work because she lacked Vigard's innocence.

I think the original plans for Nola were probably for her to remain as somewhat of a schemer, as initially Quint was more of a mysterious figure, not a leading man, and Nola still had some feelings for Kelly. Maybe after they became popular with viewers the show changed course. Either that or Marland's close friendship with Lisa Brown led him to be more reluctant to keep her as a bitch, given the heavy viewer hate she had to deal with and the likelihood that she wasn't going to be able to stay on the show very long.

5 hours ago, P.J. said:

I just watched an older Locher room interview with Rebecca Hollen/Robert Newman/Krista T  where Rebecca says she thinks DM wanted Jane Elliot for the role of Trish.

The mind boggles. Jane would be completely wrong for the role as written. I can't see her fitting into the Lewises at all. 

Marland's version of Trish I could see her playing. She was a drug addict, I believe, and was a heavily abused wife. There was a lot of darkness. 

After that point Trish became an extremely underwritten character and rested on Rebecca Hollen's inherent warmth and classiness.