The Brett/Marian storyline did get a lot of positive attention from viewers and the soap press. Frank Beaty was fantastic and I doubt most people could have named storylines that were going on at the same time if they had not already been named. That was the storyline everyone was talking about. That was the storyline the show only cared about.

As for Khan's comment about it being transphobic, I understand that concern. It's not something I thought at the time. I just thought it was another violent and sexist storyline from McTavish. I was riveted by Beaty. He sold it whereas I was horrified by a similar story on AW with the Fax newman/Courtney/rape/Frankie's murder storyline that was told soon after. I remember a lot of people seemed to enjoy Lucy being terrorised because they did not like the character and that there was glee in the press that Brent was dressing up as JFP. It reminds me of when Turner Classic Movies looked back at Psycho and talked about the film in terms of transphobia and that's also something that never occurred to a lot of viewers because their focus was elsewhere. 

16 minutes ago, chrisml said:

The Brett/Marian storyline did get a lot of positive attention from viewers and the soap press. Frank Beaty was fantastic and I doubt most people could have named storylines that were going on at the same time if they had not already been named. That was the storyline everyone was talking about. That was the storyline the show only cared about.

As for Khan's comment about it being transphobic, I understand that concern. It's not something I thought at the time. I just thought it was another violent and sexist storyline from McTavish. I was riveted by Beaty. He sold it whereas I was horrified by a similar story on AW with the Fax newman/Courtney/rape/Frankie's murder storyline that was told soon after. I remember a lot of people seemed to enjoy Lucy being terrorised because they did not like the character and that there was glee in the press that Brent was dressing up as JFP. It reminds me of when Turner Classic Movies looked back at Psycho and talked about the film in terms of transphobia and that's also something that never occurred to a lot of viewers because their focus was elsewhere. 

I tend to agree. Looking back now, I can see that reading. I didn't at the time. This was also a time where very transphobic material was at center stage - the same year the story took place, one of the highest grossing comedies had the lead character vomiting after realizing he'd slept with a transwoman. I don't say that to excuse the story. If people see it as transphobic, especially given the current climate, I understand why.

1 hour ago, DRW50 said:

Her comments about Michael Zaslow.

I just checked dates & was surprised how early in her tenure it was, which just makes me mad all over again. She was there 1996-2005. Zas became symptomatic in 1997 & died in Dec. 1998. Cross out mad & insert furious. What was P&G thinking!!! Answer: Clearly they were not. 

10 hours ago, Mitch64 said:

I always thought MG's Holly was a hell of a lot sexier then Kimmer's post resurrection Reva

When I watched GL in real time (Spring 1989-Summer 1992) I thought Maureen Garrett was one of the most beautiful women on daytime and she was in her 40s then.

Thank you all for the info and your thoughts - very interesting indeed!  I'm curious - I looked at the Daytime Emmy award winners/noms from that year when Frank was nominated for Best Supporting, and the winner was actually Jerry (Ross).  Was Ross part of the same storyline or a different storyline?  And if different, was that just an example of amazing performance in a crappy or boring storyline?  Or was the timing off there?

Edited March 19Mar 19 by alwaysAMC

6 minutes ago, alwaysAMC said:

Thank you all for the info and your thoughts - very interesting indeed!  I'm curious - I looked at the Daytime Emmy award winners/noms from that year when Frank was nominated for Best Supporting, and the winner was actually Jerry who played Ross.  Was he part of the same storyline or a different storyline?  And if different, was that just an example of amazing performance in a crappy or boring storyline?  Or was the timing off there?

From what I remember the big favorite for 1996 Supporting Actor was Michael Sutton. The rest of the race was Ian Buchanan, Stuart Damon, David Forsyth.

13 minutes ago, alwaysAMC said:

Thank you all for the info and your thoughts - very interesting indeed!  I'm curious - I looked at the Daytime Emmy award winners/noms from that year when Frank was nominated for Best Supporting, and the winner was actually Jerry (Ross).  Was Ross part of the same storyline or a different storyline?  And if different, was that just an example of amazing performance in a crappy or boring storyline?  Or was the timing off there?

Ross wasn't involved in that story. His main story was based on the return of his wayward daughter, Dinah, who had a lot of conflict with his new wife, Blake. And his ex, Amanda Spaulding, returning to win him back.

You can see the reel that won him that Emmy here:

5 minutes ago, kalbir said:

From what I remember the big favorite for 1996 Supporting Actor was Michael Sutton. The rest of the race was Ian Buchanan, Stuart Damon, David Forsyth.

Yes. There was an uproar when Jerry beat Michael. To me Michael was not a supporting actor, although that rarely matters with awards shows (as shown with the Oscars yet again this year). I assume Jerry won because he was so respected in the industry, had won the year before, and also just beaten cancer in those few years. Either way, I was glad he won. He could have won ten Emmies and I would have been happy for him.

24 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

I just checked dates & was surprised how early in her tenure it was, which just makes me mad all over again. She was there 1996-2005. Zas became symptomatic in 1997 & died in Dec. 1998. Cross out mad & insert furious. What was P&G thinking!!! Answer: Clearly they were not. 

They burned through good will ASAP with that hideous mess and Allyson Rice-Taylor's firing at ATWT (I am not comparing the two in severity). A shame because many were initially very glad for the changes. And that was the last time P&G even tried.

Edited March 19Mar 19 by DRW50

39 minutes ago, alwaysAMC said:

Thank you all for the info and your thoughts - very interesting indeed!  I'm curious - I looked at the Daytime Emmy award winners/noms from that year when Frank was nominated for Best Supporting, and the winner was actually Jerry (Ross).  Was Ross part of the same storyline or a different storyline?  And if different, was that just an example of amazing performance in a crappy or boring storyline?  Or was the timing off there?

I tried to convert it. Got video but lost audio. Sorry. Gimme a few & I'll summarize.

 

This is supposedly Jerry's reel. I hope it will play. If it doesn't we'll go to Plan B. I just watched it. Whole scene Moniz & Jerry but boy is he plenty mad at her.

 

Edited March 19Mar 19 by Contessa Donatella

14 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Ross wasn't involved in that story. His main story was based on the return of his wayward daughter, Dinah, who had a lot of conflict with his new wife, Blake. And his ex, Amanda Spaulding, returning to win him back.

You can see the reel that won him that Emmy here:

Yes. There was an uproar when Jerry beat Michael. To me Michael was not a supporting actor, although that rarely matters with awards shows (as shown with the Oscars yet again this year). I assume Jerry won because he was so respected in the industry, had won the year before, and also just beaten cancer in those few years. Either way, I was glad he won. He could have won ten Emmies and I would have been happy for him.

 

Thank you for linking that!!!   

1 minute ago, Contessa Donatella said:

This is supposedly Jerry's reel. I hope it will play. If it doesn't we'll go to Plan B. I just watched it. Whole scene Moniz & Jerry but boy is he plenty mad at her.

 

Thank you too!  It's weird because the video wouldn't play in the original post, but when I started to quote it, the video came up in the reply so I could watch it.  Thank you both!  Jerry is a great actor for sure.

I haven't rewatched it since it aired, but I recall the Brent story being well-received. Sure, it was a rip-off of Psycho, but daytime had never shied away from ripping off the movies. Thinking about it, I wouldn't doubt it was trying to tap into the uptick in horror/slasher movies in the '90's.

It is ironic for someone to diss how crappy the actors writing could be, when she was a dayplayer actress turned writer. I mean, for a writer, she sure played the part of an ex-hooker slinging beers well.

I mean, how can you not write something better for Holly than a dull romance with the duller than dirt Fletcher? I mean, c'mon. Every other vet in that age range got a younger lover to goose their story. The only one it didn't really work for was Ed, and that was part of the fallout from Maureen's death no doubt.

I do want to add that even though I loathed Nadine, and don't think much of Jean Carol's acting, McTavish did her dirty. What's an actor supposed to say? "I'm happy over here playing 4th banana with nothing really to do?"

Edited March 19Mar 19 by P.J.

11 minutes ago, alwaysAMC said:

Thank you for linking that!!!   

Thank you too!  It's weird because the video wouldn't play in the original post, but when I started to quote it, the video came up in the reply so I could watch it.  Thank you both!  Jerry is a great actor for sure.

I'm not able to see videos today either. Maybe it's my adblock. I don't know.

3 hours ago, alwaysAMC said:

Coming over here from the AMC thread as I see the McTavish book is being discussed, and I have to ask GL fans:  Was the Brent/Marion storyline well-received by GL fans?  Did critics like it?  I saw the actor was nominated for an Emmy.  I read about it in her book, and I was intrigued so I then did some quick YouTube searches for videos to see how it played out and it looked extremely interesting and ahead of its time in the 90s (kind of).  I would have totally watched that live if I knew about it, but for some reason it was never on my radar back then

Here it is...I assume this is the one you viewed. I felt so bad for Nadine.

 

4 minutes ago, P.J. said:

I haven't rewatched it since it aired, but I recall the Brent story being well-received. Sure, it was a rip-off of Psycho, but daytime had never shied away from ripping off the movies. Thinking about it, I wouldn't doubt it was trying to tap into the uptick in horror/slasher movies in the '90's.

It is ironic for someone to diss how crappy the actors writing could be, when she was a dayplayer actress turned writer. I mean, for a writer, she sure played the part of an ex-hooker slinging beers well.

I mean, how can you not write something better for Holly than a dull romance with the duller than dirt Fletcher? I mean, c'mon. Every other vet in that age range got a younger lover to goose their story. The only one it didn't really work for was Ed, and that was part of the fallout from Maureen's death no doubt.

She did mention that she had acted for years and always just put up with the writing, no matter what, which is why she thought other actors should do the same. 

(of course those actors were bigger than she ever was)

I think the story with Fletcher and Holly made sense initially, as she was going for the complete opposite of her relationship with Roger, but they never should have had a child. The initial story was powerful, but there was zero future for Holly with Meg.

28 minutes ago, alwaysAMC said:

Thank you for linking that!!!   

Thank you too!  It's weird because the video wouldn't play in the original post, but when I started to quote it, the video came up in the reply so I could watch it.  Thank you both!  Jerry is a great actor for sure.

Jerry sure is.And, as a bonus, I now have it in an mp4 file that also plays.

4 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

She did mention that she had acted for years and always just put up with the writing, 

I think the story with Fletcher and Holly made sense initially, as she was going for the complete opposite of her relationship with Roger, but they never should have had a child. The initial story was powerful, but there was zero future for Holly with Meg.

I do find it curious that she either had nothing to say about Pam Long, or hadn't gotten around to dishing that dirt yet.

Yeah, the Meg story reeked of GL trying to do a social issue story, and not having the guts to commit to it.