It could be that the stylistic changes of late 1993 onward happened as a result of the late 1992 P&G focus groups that resulted in Maureen's death.

6 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

It could be that the stylistic changes of late 1993 onward happened as a result of the late 1992 P&G focus groups that resulted in Maureen's death.

That and JFP getting total control. She was always bad for a show when she ran everything.

3 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

It could be that the stylistic changes of late 1993 onward happened as a result of the late 1992 P&G focus groups that resulted in Maureen's death.

Take into consideration why they were doing things like focus groups. For a long time, soaps had been the networks' cash cow. They literally paid for primetime shows. When they burst into the mainstream during the last 70s - mid 80s, networks started paying the big stars really high salaries, and soaps doing foreign location shoots became routine.

It wasn't just big ticket stuff like star salaries. When you watch the episodes from the 80s, it's STUNNING how many extras and "under fives" (people who speak less than 5 lines of dialogue) are in the scenes! Company, The Blue Orchid, and the country club were routinely packed with people (this was also true of other soaps). Not to mention there was a period when it seemed like they had a huge party with everyone dressed like they were going to the Met Gala at least once a month.

By the end of the 80s, more and more people had cable TV, more women than ever were working full-time, by the early 90s having a home computer became more prevalent, and many people who started watching soaps while they were in college because it was "in" during the 80s didn't keep up with them.

So before OJ ever happened, networks were already panicking.

It's not odd that they started doing things like focus groups, or bringing back actors who had been popular during the days when they had high ratings. There was always stunt casting, but by the 90s it became almost an art form--some soap stars were bouncing around different soaps like crazy.

So of course they wanted Zimmer back--she was a big deal during the 80s.

I would even suggest that the reason the show got hammier (and that was not isolated to GL) is because they were, again, panicking. It was thought younger people liked that. There was this belief that the way to save soaps was to appeal to young people who would then become life-long viewers. While soaps always were high melodrama, they were a lot quieter, and that was seen as old-fashioned.

(Remember Passions? Boy-howdy, that show was over-the-top. Though it still doesn't beat Brazilian telenovelas, LOL).

@DeeVee As we saw in the 1980s ratings thread, the real issues began in the late 1980s with Iran-Contra, Nielsen people meters, and the 1988 writer's strike, and everything culminated in the aftermath of OJ.

5 minutes ago, kalbir said:

As we saw in the 1980s ratings thread, the real issues began in the late 1980s with Iran-Contra, Nielsen people meters, and the 1988 writer's strike, and everything culminated in the aftermath of OJ.

Yes,, all of that, too. It was like a perfect storm.

1 hour ago, P.J. said:

You could also argue that Dinah stomped all over and devalued Bridget, who was poised to be the relatable young heroine at the time.

I’d also add that while his motivations were fairly well drawn, they let Ross look like an idiot for far too long where Dinah was concerned. (Though at least that time with Blake/Ross they actually had Blake eventually put her foot down about the strain it was causing their marriage without jumping into anyone’s bed, or even acting questionably like trying to crash with AM on the yacht. I wish they’d let that Blake stick around.)

50 minutes ago, DeeVee said:

It wasn't just big ticket stuff like star salaries. When you watch the episodes from the 80s, it's STUNNING how many extras and "under fives" (people who speak less than 5 lines of dialogue) are in the scenes! Company, The Blue Orchid, and the country club were routinely packed with people (this was also true of other soaps). Not to mention there was a period when it seemed like they had a huge party with everyone dressed like they were going to the Met Gala at least once a month.

I would even suggest that the reason the show got hammier (and that was not isolated to GL) is because they were, again, panicking. It was thought younger people liked that. There was this belief that the way to save soaps was to appeal to young people who would then become life-long viewers. While soaps always were high melodrama, they were a lot quieter, and that was seen as old-fashioned.

(Remember Passions? Boy-howdy, that show was over-the-top. Though it still doesn't beat Brazilian telenovelas, LOL).

That is NO LIE. You can watch a hospital scene from the late '70's/early'80's, and there are probably 10 extras just milling around the hospital in addition to underfives that are nurses, orderlies, and residents in a scene. Courtrooms? PACKED. Judges, lawyers, stenographers, baliffs, journalists. Restaurants? Paying customers. Parties? SWAMPED. (go watch the build up to the Slut of Springfield scenes. that bleepin' set is HUGE. There's food, extras, flowers, half the cast is there, and I swear there are TWO fountains, the one that Reva jumped into and then one that Rick dumps Mindy in, but it's been a while since I watched, so that might be wrong.) Guiding Light especially was party driven for a stretch. There were costume extravganzas (before Mindy's wedding Van threw a costume engagement party, which is hilarious for two reasons: Reva looking like a smashed version of the Good Fairy and Rick and Phillip singing in drag.) weddings, and people constantly showing up at the club in tuxes.

Hammier...less character driven. "Louder", less nuanced, shock-bait stories (hey, Blake has twins with different fathers! because sluttin' up and being unsure of the father isn't quite enough.) and imo, the worst---the hareliquin/hallmark-ization romances like Vanessa/**** that couldn't just be torpedoed due to fanbases. (see also Manny, Rassie, Jammy)

Rant over.

45 minutes ago, GL95 said:

I’d also add that while his motivations were fairly well drawn, they let Ross look like an idiot for far too long where Dinah was concerned. (Though at least that time with Blake/Ross they actually had Blake eventually put her foot down about the strain it was causing their marriage without jumping into anyone’s bed, or even acting questionably like trying to crash with AM on the yacht. I wish they’d let that Blake stick around.)

Dinah's entire relaunch is about making Van and Ross look like idiots. Dinah could've been a troublemaker without them developing amnesia and forgetting how they manipulated people right and left at that age. In fact, it would've been a hella lot more interesting for viewers who remembered that about Ross and Van. (again, leading to them feeling old sparks while Blake was humping Ben or **** massaging Beth's tattered ego.) Instead of making them stick their heads in the ground like ostriches, or in Van's case, continually begging for forgiveness.

Regardless, Reva was played out by 1990 and her driving off a bridge trying to get to her bud was a poetic and tragic ending to a character that was basically her own worst enemy.

Bringing her back in 1995 was a huge mistake and proved that sometimes you can't go back. I also thought bringing Josh back in 1993 was another mistake other than a visit to tie up things with Harley and than going back to Italy.

2 minutes ago, Soaplovers said:

Regardless, Reva was played out by 1990 and her driving off a bridge trying to get to her bud was a poetic and tragic ending to a character that was basically her own worst enemy.

Bringing her back in 1995 was a huge mistake and proved that sometimes you can't go back. I also thought bringing Josh back in 1993 was another mistake other than a visit to tie up things with Harley and than going back to Italy.

I have a hard time going this far because I feel like Cynthia Watros’s Crazy Annie was one of the last great plot arcs the show had. I’m not sure anyone was as uniquely qualified to push someone with preexisting mental health issues completely over the edge as Josh/Reva were. Them all getting a fresh start outside Springfield once they left Annie in their wake would be fine.

Edited February 9Feb 9 by GL95

6 hours ago, DeeVee said:

When you watch the episodes from the 80s, it's STUNNING how many extras and "under fives" (people who speak less than 5 lines of dialogue) are in the scenes!

It was almost overkill in many cases. In hospital scenes, nurses etc were scurrying about, checking charts and having confabs. It was distracting. It was like now they had the money they were gonna spend it!

The soaps had to compete but it was a vicious circle. The more they became popular, the budgets had to go up and so they needed those ratings points more than ever.

Revamps were commonplace and soap actors became 'stars' who could demand more money and hold the shows to ransom in a sense. Soaps ended up costing more than ever to diminishing returns.

And when advertisers began to pull back in the late 80's the whole system started to collapse.

21 hours ago, GL95 said:

I have a hard time going this far because I feel like Cynthia Watros’s Crazy Annie was one of the last great plot arcs the show had. I’m not sure anyone was as uniquely qualified to push someone with preexisting mental health issues completely over the edge as Josh/Reva were. Them all getting a fresh start outside Springfield once they left Annie in their wake would be fine.

Agreed...they reunited them, had the Annie drama, it ends and they leave town, happy (or as happy as those two could be.) The natural story progression for those two. But no...the Zimmer fans needed more of her, to the detriment of the show.

I do wonder if Reva would be viable if they killed Josh off, and for good. She was at her most tolerable when RN left the show.

22 hours ago, GL95 said:

I have a hard time going this far because I feel like Cynthia Watros’s Crazy Annie was one of the last great plot arcs the show had. I’m not sure anyone was as uniquely qualified to push someone with preexisting mental health issues completely over the edge as Josh/Reva were. Them all getting a fresh start outside Springfield once they left Annie in their wake would be fine.

I viewed Annie going crazy as lazy writing because the fans were split between Josh/Reva and Josh/Annie before Annie went crazy. A good head-writing team and a strong EP would have written to that instead of trying to yet again prop up an aging actress that refused to realize that it wasn't 1984 anymore.

Annie already had ties to the show (The Bauers) so no need to ruin her character because of the toxicity of Josh/Reva.

31 minutes ago, Mitch64 said:

I do wonder if Reva would be viable if they killed Josh off, and for good.

Ah, one of the big stories from my long-cherished GL long story document, lol. (And to answer the question: yes, she'd be viable. After a period of mourning, of course.)

42 minutes ago, Soaplovers said:

I viewed Annie going crazy as lazy writing because the fans were split between Josh/Reva and Josh/Annie before Annie went crazy. A good head-writing team and a strong EP would have written to that instead of trying to yet again prop up an aging actress that refused to realize that it wasn't 1984 anymore.

Annie already had ties to the show (The Bauers) so no need to ruin her character because of the toxicity of Josh/Reva.

I never thought Annie had much of a character to ruin, although they did take her too far. The bigger issue for me was their refusing to let Annie go once Watros left. At least they learned that lesson the hard way.

I also never thought of this story as having a proper triangle. I felt like the show just kept coming up with excuses to keep Josh and Reva apart rather than Josh having genuine feelings for Annie.

The only other woman I thought Josh worked with was Harley.