Jump to content

Guiding Light Discussion Thread


Paul Raven

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

GL being a community-based show needed to have an anchor/tentpole character to keep things grounded, and JFP didn't realize that.

Aftermath of Maureen death until Nancy Curlee departure was a chore for me to get through. GL was not in a very good place creatively at the start of OJ and I'd go as far as to say it was effectively over in the aftermath of OJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Of course he would. He let Blake think he was dead for 15 years or so, didn't he?  Mo would've had to have amnesia, of course...but Roger would've done it in a heartbeat for any number of motives. 

Random thought---imagine Vanessa being the first to find an amnesiac Mo and having to work with Roger to help Mo get her memory back. *sniff* Hence, the "I'd do anything for you," line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's sad that Tina Sloan knew immediately (as did Nancy Curlee) that getting rid of Ellen Parker was a colossal mistake. That JFP didn't and then has spent decades changing her stories about it says everything about her and her role in daytime (and has also sidestepped McKinsey's accusations of unfair workplace conditions as well in the process). JFP always talks about "drama" but I notice she never talks about heart or emotion. That's what these producers removed from the soaps as they went from soap to soap. They took away the heart; they removed the tentpole characters who meant something from the audiences. They don't think long-term because they are too busy going after short-term fixes. I get it's about all short-term rating increases, but they did not nothing but create damage. I can't speak to GL after Maureen's death because I did not watch daily after that for a long while. I never saw her death. As a child, I saw her walk out the door, and I stopped watching. I kept up with SOD summaries, but it never looked interesting. GL felt like a shell of itself. Perhaps, I'm wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You're right. I believed then and I believe now that JFP had no interest in soaps, and may have been outright ashamed of them, similar to Guza, Pratt, etc. She compared AW to ER, Cheers, and NYPD Blue. 

No show rests on one character. GL could have survived without Maureen if the show had been in a better place. Unfortunately, what Maureen represented is what JFP, and many others, saw as meaningless and boring. I remember when JFP used to say she had actually built up Maureen's role on the canvas in order to kill her off, and that's the only reason viewers were upset. So essentially, the only reason JFP had any sense of heart, community, or family on GL was to snuff it out for viewers to get upset. And this was something to brag about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

there are so many examples, but this one really illustrates that point. 

in her locher room interview, she had the audacity to compare herself to steven bochco. she was address the ‘friends of jlll’ issue and said something along the lines that ‘well, bochco had his stable of actors, so why shouldn’t she.’ 

well, jill, yes, bochco often brought to people into his shows — BUT THEY WERE NEW SHOWS! — not soaps that had been on the air for decades, where viewers were emotionally invested in characters and who resented when those characters were pushed aside for jll’s favorites. 

while this is a rather blatant example, it perfectly illustrates how the people in charge of making — and fixing — soaps have absolutely no understanding of why viewers watch soaps.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Even worse, she did not bother to properly introduce these actors beyond assuming people would love them because she loved them. She did such a bad job that even Vincent Irizarry, who had been popular with GL fans almost a decade before JFP's arrival, got a mediocre/poor response. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This always bothered me. There are tons of people at the height of daytime, who would've loved to have written for the genre (many of us on this forum included). However, you had people who looked down on the genre and only did it for a "job." If she (along with Pratt, Guza, etc.) felt they belonged in primetime, they should've went for those jobs and made connections. I never understood why Pratt and Guza returned to daytime when they wrote for many of Aaron Spelling's primetime shows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There  are certain things you just don't hear said except in soap circles. Here is one example. The question  being pondered is whether Mo would go along with her daughter thinking she was dead. AND ONLY ON A SOAP would the answer be of course she would but Mo would have to have amnesia.!

A few things. Tina is such a fine wonderful person BUT she is also one very quick, perceptive person with a great deal of insight generally speaking. Now I'm going to switch from real to reel. I always felt so bad for Lillian in this & she suffered real remorse & paid dearly. Contrast that to Ed who I've always thought was pretty untouched by guilt & who definitely skated on the affair!! Unfair!! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ed's marriage to Maureen was his 4th. It was time he settled with into married life and have Ed and Maureen function as the matriach/patriach to  family and friends. There could still be stories for them and plenty of airtime. Killing off Maureen left him in limbo. 

Better that Bea be killed off and Maureen move into the senior role for the Reardons.

Bring back Nola,Tony etc and restore the Reardons as a core family as Marland intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

DRW50, I think you're right that JFP wanted to be in the nighttime realm. She gutted AW so it could be the next ER. She even turned its opening into a ridiculous copy of ER.  JFP will never take responsibility for anything in any of the retrospective interviews, and at this point, it doesn't matter, but my word, the amount of sexism and misogyny that followed her from soap to soap. I also didn't expect Locher or anyone else for that matter to really address what McKinsey has claimed in her interview witj Logan after her departure.

I do wonder what the "friends of Jill" thought of the label especially the ones that suffered because of it. I know Marcy Walker loathed JFP after the GL experience as she felt used to keep JFP's job on the show. 

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

    • I'm not sure it's as unpopular as you think.  I just think the show knew they were in a bind, and needed a proven couple for the viewers to invest in. Trying to reunite Vanessa and Ross had just failed in 87. I don't think Ed and Holly's affair was well received, as Simon and Garrett had a brother/sister chemistry. Enter Billy and Vanessa, who give you history and an out not to try and do a Josh/Reva/Billy triangle, which would've really wrecked the relationship between Josh and Billy. I'd have been ok with trying Vanessa/Ross again, and doing a Vanessa/Ross/Holly/Billy quad for a while. I hated Nadine. HATED. She had to be the most insufferable also-ran before ATWT's Julia Lindsay. This is where I wish I knew Roger's history better.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • GROSS. Michael Swan was hot back in his ATWT days. Now he's 76 and WAY past his hot years.    
    • Since she kidnapped, locked up and tried to kill her father's wife I'd say that is still a pretty big deal
    • I'm good with the gushing, too. There aren't many soap icons like John Black, and that's important to celebrate and remember. And yes, life does go on for other characters, but as they say, timing is everything. Going sky diving the day before the funeral? And during a week of shows that were so powerful emotionally? No.    
    • No. There might have been a slight pause for dramatic effect after his "death," but pretty soon after they showed him in France getting plastic surgery and getting involved with his doctor, then planning with her to bring Christina to France. (She thought he had good reason to do it; she wasn't a bad person or anything). Now that I think of it, there must have been some kind of pause before that, during the 70s. Rita was accused of killing a private patient for an inheritance when she lived in Texas. Part of the backstory was that Roger had been there, too. Not sure exactly when or how long that was.
    • I've already stated that I don't like Doug being written as this meek and submissive. It was so lame watching him leave her like that. Vanessa can divorce him, but she then needs to get her thot ass into therapy. She's not only having sex with every guy she runs into, but is now having  sex with a skeevy perv on a poker table. I'm going to give the BTG some credit here. For months, many on this board were delighting in the Vanessa/Joey flirting and what they saw as chemistry. I think we're now seeing what the writers always intended -- that Joey is a disgusting POS wannabe mobster.
    • John Black actually was the ultimate good guy soap hero. So I don’t mind the town gushing over him. It’s deserved.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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