59 minutes ago, GL95 said:

I recently watched the episode where Blake tells Holly that she called immigration on Eleni, and Holly immediately knows this will blow up in Blake’s face in addition to being a terrible thing to do, but Blake just instantly accuses Holly of not supporting her. It’s an interesting dynamic because Blake will claim Holly has never been a reliable mother to her but also hates it Holly acts like a parent.

That's Blake's go defense when Holly calls her out on her [!@#$%^&*], "you're not supporting me." Aside from the way Holly tore into her over Ross (which, again, I don't care if Ross is "publicly" dating her---Holly knew they weren't a couple. After the Jack Kiley trial ended, Vanessa tries returning the support Holly gave her and wishes her well with Ross....and Holly basically says that they're not together.), which really got ugly, Holly was just endlessly talking to a brick wall when it came to Blake.

At least it makes sense at the time. Later writers tried recreating the dynamic in the Vanessa/Dinah story, and it boiled down to (mostly) Dinah walking all over Vanessa.

I remember there was talk on the old WoST boards about Stuart Damon (ex-Alan, GH) as an Ed Bauer recast, he ended up playing Juicy Janet's mobster "uncle" on ATWT instead.

7 minutes ago, Spoon said:

I remember there was talk on the old WoST boards about Stuart Damon (ex-Alan, GH) as an Ed Bauer recast, he ended up playing Juicy Janet's mobster "uncle" on ATWT instead.

I can't see Stuart Damon as Ed. Mike? Maybe. But not Ed.

7 minutes ago, P.J. said:

That's Blake's go defense when Holly calls her out on her [!@#$%^&*], "you're not supporting me." Aside from the way Holly tore into her over Ross (which, again, I don't care if Ross is "publicly" dating her---Holly knew they weren't a couple. After the Jack Kiley trial ended, Vanessa tries returning the support Holly gave her and wishes her well with Ross....and Holly basically says that they're not together.), which really got ugly, Holly was just endlessly talking to a brick wall when it came to Blake.

At least it makes sense at the time. Later writers tried recreating the dynamic in the Vanessa/Dinah story, and it boiled down to (mostly) Dinah walking all over Vanessa.

I feel like Holly’s anger towards Blake was justified-not as a cheating scenario but that the intent was always to humiliate Holly on Blake’s end. Blake was encouraging Holly to throw herself at Ross, etc. When Ross/Blake were caught in bed, Blake made a point of lashing out. I feel like that’s why Holly was able to forgive when she realized Blake/Ross were in love was that it wasn’t really about “losing” Ross, or at least not mostly about that.

1 hour ago, GL95 said:

I feel like Holly’s anger towards Blake was justified-not as a cheating scenario but that the intent was always to humiliate Holly on Blake’s end.

That lead to Holly not reacting at all when she witnessed Roger slapping Blake.

From what I recall, I think the years that Holly was married to the elusive Dietrich was when the divide between Holly and Blake started. Blake felt neglected and I think mentioned that Dietrich was cold/uncaring.. and I think she did feel resentful toward her mother for taking her away from Springfield and cutting off contact with the people she remembered from child-hood (The Bauers).

I know that Blake was meant to be a different character pre 1988 writer strike, but I always wondered if she had mentioned why she wanted to come back to Springfield once it was revealed she was Holly's daughter? And I know the scabs didn't know who she was talking to on those mysterious phone calls or why she was wondering around a playground alot... but did Pam Long decide on a reason or was that all dropped?

9 hours ago, kalbir said:

That lead to Holly not reacting at all when she witnessed Roger slapping Blake.

I don’t think Holly was in the right especially as a mother throughout that phase, but I do think It’s much more complex than Holly being angry at Blake for “stealing” Ross. Like if Blake had helped Ross with his campaign and they just organically connected and came clean about it, I don’t think there would be near the same level of anger. (Also Ross made things much worse by having the most public appearance with Holly occur after he’s already with Blake-he knew perfectly well that while Holly knew they weren’t together that she was hoping it would lead there.)

I do think as @P.J. said, Holly having a backbone during Blake’s lashing out sessions ultimately led to them having a solid relationship and not being in a Vanessa/Dinah loop. It also played a part in Blake maturing-while she continued to make mistakes by being impulsive/covering up, she at least felt bad about it and her first instinct for everything wasn’t to manipulate. When Holly got mad at her when she found out Blake called immigration on Eleni, Blake’s complete lack of realization of why that was a bad thing to do was almost comical (to Blake she wanted AM at the time, so how could Holly not understand?) She at least grew past that stage, and I think some of it was allowing some of Holly’s messaging in rather than let Roger help her manipulate people.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by GL95

All of Maureen Garrett/Elizabeth Kiefer scenes from the Holly/Ross/Blake triangle

As Guiding Light "Ripped from the headlines" the Woody/Soon-Yi/Mia farrow scandal

9 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

From what I recall, I think the years that Holly was married to the elusive Dietrich was when the divide between Holly and Blake started. Blake felt neglected and I think mentioned that Dietrich was cold/uncaring.. and I think she did feel resentful toward her mother for taking her away from Springfield and cutting off contact with the people she remembered from child-hood (The Bauers).

I know that Blake was meant to be a different character pre 1988 writer strike, but I always wondered if she had mentioned why she wanted to come back to Springfield once it was revealed she was Holly's daughter? And I know the scabs didn't know who she was talking to on those mysterious phone calls or why she was wondering around a playground alot... but did Pam Long decide on a reason or was that all dropped?

I don't know if they addressed it after Holly came back, but I thought part of the explanation was that Blake wanted the same position at Spaulding that Roger had--Executive Vice President.

1 hour ago, P.J. said:

I don't know if they addressed it after Holly came back, but I thought part of the explanation was that Blake wanted the same position at Spaulding that Roger had--Executive Vice President.

Yes, I think that is correct. After the strike ended and Long asked who Blake was talking to on the phone, no one could answer. So she wrote the reveal that Blake was spying for Alan at Spaulding, and they had the flashback (barf) where she seduced him when he was exiled in Mexico after Phillip took over Spaulding.

This was around October 1988, so I'm not sure if they had already decided she would be Christina. Based on when Zaslow started appearing on screen, it had to be sometime during the autumn of 1988 when they asked him to return as Alan and he countered by offering to come back as Roger. Then Long had retcon some stuff. It's obvious Blake didn't know her father was still alive, so the motive became that she wanted his place at Spaulding, while at first it seemed the motive was simply that she was ambitious. Or, they HAD decided it, but held back the reveal a little, just making Blake seem like Alan's little minion.

As usual, it's difficult to completely piece it together because of missing episodes.

*****

CORRECTION

I just remembered something: after the reveal that Alan and Blake were in cahoots, Alex confronted Blake and told her she knew about her past and who her father was. I don't think they had mentioned Roger's name yet, but that indicates that they HAD made the decision to make her Christina already.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by DeeVee

YouTube pushed the episodes on me where Amanda finds out she’s Brandon’s daughter and if you really want to get a migraine on timelines, they do a close up on the birth certificate and say she was born in 1969 (making her 28 in 1997 at the time of the reveal/Toby Poser’s actual age.) I can’t even begin to figure out how she fits in with Phillip/AM age wise with that haha

1 hour ago, DeeVee said:

As usual, it's difficult to completely piece it together because of missing episodes.

*****

CORRECTION

I just remembered something: after the reveal that Alan and Blake were in cahoots, Alex confronted Blake and told her she knew about her past and who her father was. I don't think they had mentioned Roger's name yet, but that indicates that they HAD made the decision to make her Christina already.

I think it also has something to do with Blake trying to, if not avenge exactly, reclaim Roger's reputation. As if the town of Springfield had reduced and vilified the double rapist unfairly or something.

But then she fell for Phillip. And it became some Romeo/Juliet twist.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by P.J.

I think I remember that Blake was in the hospital and Ed found out that she was Christina and was surprised that she'd returned.... and that eventually led to Holly appearing at Ed's doorstep in the Christmas 1988 episode (it was a cliffhanger).

Somewhere in this discussion forum, there was an article discussing the process of bringing Roger back where Long and Calhoun (I believe) were watching the April 1 1980 episode to see if there was a sound indicating that he hit the ground.. and they determined there wasn't anything to indicate he hit the ground so they concluded he was really alive.

I also recall Rita being bought back up during this period where Ed and Alan talked about her.. and I think Long had wanted to bring her back to resolve that story thread but Lenore didn't want to come back.

Edited 5 minutes ago5 min by Soaplovers