One can repeat the same things over and over and over and over. It doesn’t make them true. 

1 hour ago, DeeVee said:

It's so interesting to look at these old soap magazine columns. Thank you for posting them.

Michael Logan complaining about the GL 50th anniversary show leaving out Nola's fantasies is a head-scratcher for me.

I do recall soap columnists adoring those scenes and never could understand it back then, either. I LOATHED them, and I adore old movies more than most people do. On rewatch I like Nola much more now than I did back in the day, probably because very few of the episodes available now have those fantasy scenes bringing everything to a screeching halt.

Obviously, there are people who liked them and that's O.K. But soapdom's creative pinnacle? I don't think so.

I think a few of them are strong (Casablanca and Now Voyager), but there was no need to include them in the special. The short clip of Nola during the Kelly reveal was extremely powerful in its own right. Looking back, I know many didn't care for the special, especially the part where various actors from other soaps would say silly lines, but for me, who still knew so little about GL at the time, I learned and there were many moments I appreciated. And all these years later I'm still not sure I've ever seen the episode where Bert gave Gentry's Ed the speech show up (or was it one of those summer 66 episodes?), so that was an important historical document.

I remember reading that TV Guide article at the time about the Fifth Street Fire. I don't think it ever lived up to the hype in the article, especially all the major destruction it was meant to cause or how it was going to revamp the show. 

I am reminded of just how close GL was to cancelation, even closer than many seem to know now. Just flat out said, repeatedly, in those articles. The Brent/Marian story really was what kept the show on the air, with the ratings boost. The show did not have any of those moments by the end of 1996, when the rumors crept up again. By that point the decision must have rested solely on the Bells not wanting to expand to an hour (which was very wise). 

The more I read of some of Logan's articles the more I'm reminded why I found him tiresome...trying to slam Patsy Pease as some kind of hypocrite or downplaying her sexual abuse because she wore a Playboy Bunny outfit on a magazine cover is disgusting. 

Thanks @chrisml

3 hours ago, P.J. said:

Ed and Lillian kissed during the blackout. They didn't have sex until September. I think it's the same episodes where Vanessa gets into a car accident on her way to marry Fletcher.

Oh that's right. Shows how into that story I was. Thanks.

1 hour ago, Contessa Donatella said:

I'm still angry that talented as she was Paul Rauch shot down every single idea Labine pitched including a romance between Holly & Olivia. Imagine them telling that story back then. 

Wasn't that meant to be a Children's Hour story (one-sided and about gossip, I suppose) rather than a romance?

4 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Wasn't that meant to be a Children's Hour story (one-sided and about gossip, I suppose) rather than a romance?

Honestly, I don't think anyone knows for sure how it would have played out.

4 hours ago, chrisml said:

And Michael Logan said GL was so bad in 1994 that it needed an intervention. Perhaps, that's why JFP gave the interview in 1995 to do damage control:

LOL at his 1995 New Year's wishes - GL didn't really listen to him - they had Reva with amnesia and Brent as a heartthrob rapist 😂

11 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Wasn't that meant to be a Children's Hour story (one-sided and about gossip, I suppose) rather than a romance?

IIRC, according to Labine it was supposed to be about Holly (I think) having it bad for Olivia and Olivia not being into it. I'll pass.

11 hours ago, Spoon said:

In a time before YT, I was so excited to see Nola return to the show.  Quint/Nola were among my earliest soap memories, watching alongside mom.  Such a mishandled opportunity with her return.  We do get some solid scenes between Nola and Roger in 1996 for our AlwaysAMC to look forward to if they keep watching.

At this rate, I plan to keep watching at least through a part of '96. I started this journey with the goal that I would at least watch through Frank Beatty's official exit from the show, because realistically I can't do this until 2009. If there is a point in '96 where it just isn't keeping my interest anymore, I may consider going back to late 80s/early 90s for a bit.  We'll see!    

25 minutes ago, Vee said:

IIRC, according to Labine it was supposed to be about Holly (I think) having it bad for Olivia and Olivia not being into it. I'll pass.

Thanks.

This is what I was thinking of:

We Love Soaps: Claire Labine Answers YOUR Questions, Part Six

PJ asks: Is there any truth to the rumors that on GL, around the time you were writing, Olivia and Holly were going to get involved?
Claire Labine: That wasn’t the original plan, but it was a later plan.  I wanted to do a “Children’s Hour” story. I was very serious about wanting to do that, but the network shied away from it.  We really wanted to try it to see if it would go with those two consummately gifted actresses.  I would have loved to do that.

We Love Soaps: But "Children’s Hour" is a very tragic story [in which a lesbian commits suicide].
Claire Labine: It sure is.

We Love Soaps: Did you mean for it to end that way?
Claire Labine: No. I don’t think anyone needed to have committed suicide.  But the realization of one or the other, that she really was in love with the other.  I think how she managed that, and how the other character managed it in a loving way.  In a sympathetic and loving way ask, “How the hell do we stay friends and how the hell do I not torment you?  At the same time how do we do this?” That’s the stuff you get can get a lot of emotional scenes out of.  It moved me. I was really interested.

3 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Thanks.

This is what I was thinking of:

We Love Soaps: Claire Labine Answers YOUR Questions, Part Six

PJ asks: Is there any truth to the rumors that on GL, around the time you were writing, Olivia and Holly were going to get involved?
Claire Labine: That wasn’t the original plan, but it was a later plan.  I wanted to do a “Children’s Hour” story. I was very serious about wanting to do that, but the network shied away from it.  We really wanted to try it to see if it would go with those two consummately gifted actresses.  I would have loved to do that.

We Love Soaps: But "Children’s Hour" is a very tragic story [in which a lesbian commits suicide].
Claire Labine: It sure is.

We Love Soaps: Did you mean for it to end that way?
Claire Labine: No. I don’t think anyone needed to have committed suicide.  But the realization of one or the other, that she really was in love with the other.  I think how she managed that, and how the other character managed it in a loving way.  In a sympathetic and loving way ask, “How the hell do we stay friends and how the hell do I not torment you?  At the same time how do we do this?” That’s the stuff you get can get a lot of emotional scenes out of.  It moved me. I was really interested.

So, not exactly either one. Not a romance at least not completely, or not reciprocated but also not the tragedy that THE CHILDREN'S HOUR was.

2 hours ago, Spoon said:

Rauch, or Raunch as we called him then did way more harm than good.  The focus shifted further away from the legacy families and more onto a revolving door of aimless random.  Island Sean?  Sam the cowboy? Dr. Noah?

This is from Tom's new book on TEXAS. It's Paul talking about actors ... to Jon-Michael Reed

Quote

All actors are basically selfish/ But performers who were nurtured on serials, who haven't done anything else, are generally more spoiled than others. The kind of fan adulation that soap actors receive tend to inflate the egos of undisciplined performers. They resist the idea of an ensemble effort and they usually only enjoy playing the climaxes of the story. An actor trained in the theater, on the other hand, not only knows how to hit the peaks, but how to ride the valleys. They usually have impeccable vocal skills and they're able to retain dialogue.

 

I feel out of it. I never watched Ross's election episode or Nola's film scenes from the 80's.

Considering how Labine's writing turned out on GL, I'm glad she didn't get to tell the story. The world then and now does not need another depressing story about a lesbian/bisexual falling in love with a straight woman. I can't even imagine how it would have played out under Paul Rauch considering what he did with the "gay" storyline on YR.

I agree DRW50. Michael Logan's comments on Patsy Pease were icky. Is she supposed to dress like a missionary the rest of her life? Jeez. It's one thing to be snarky (as in his dismissal of Pamela Long's work on SB) but this was beyond the pale. 

I wanted to send those columns because I think it's important to get a picture of what was really going on from 1992 to 1995 at GL. The troubles in front of and behind the scenes were openly discussed in the soap press. JFP's comments in the 1995 column amuse me. Ma'am, you were the executive producer in 1994, if the show needs a fresh start and new energy because it was a difficult year, maybe you're the problem? I wish snarky Logan had commented on that. It's a bit of dark humor that a rapist made up to look like Jill Farren Phelps helped save the show.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, chrisml said:

 

 

Everyone & their brother wants to take a swipe at Labine's infamous animal stories! I happen to like them. so take that, Michael Logan. 

7 hours ago, chrisml said:

I feel out of it. I never watched Ross's election episode or Nola's film scenes from the 80's.

Considering how Labine's writing turned out on GL, I'm glad she didn't get to tell the story. The world then and now does not need another depressing story about a lesbian/bisexual falling in love with a straight woman. I can't even imagine how it would have played out under Paul Rauch considering what he did with the "gay" storyline on YR.

I agree DRW50. Michael Logan's comments on Patsy Pease were icky. Is she supposed to dress like a missionary the rest of her life? Jeez. It's one thing to be snarky (as in his dismissal of Pamela Long's work on SB) but this was beyond the pale. 

I wanted to send those columns because I think it's important to get a picture of what was really going on from 1992 to 1995 at GL. The troubles in front of and behind the scenes were openly discussed in the soap press. JFP's comments in the 1995 column amuse me. Ma'am, you were the executive producer in 1994, if the show needs a fresh start and new energy because it was a difficult year, maybe you're the problem? I wish snarky Logan had commented on that. It's a bit of dark humor that a rapist made up to look like Jill Farren Phelps helped save the show.

 

The thing is that it wasn't just GL. If we look, which we should, it was all of P&G with CBS and NBC all mucking things up. AW & ATWT, too, faced so much trouble. I mean do the names Black & Stern ring any bells? Les Moonves recommended them to HW AW knowing full well they had zero daytime experience. I could go on but I won't because it is all very old news.

Mitch said:

 

"I think that having Mo leave Ed, move in and take over the BH and take in Bridget when she is preggers...maybe she wouldn't know who the father is and either not hide Bridget of actually do so for a bit, and then adopt Peter herself so Bridget can have a life but always be close to Peter.  Ed has to suffer everyone knowing and actually telling him this time he is sh*t, even Ross and Rick ("Grandma would be so angry right now" ) and then he does all he can to try to get back with her.. and adopts Peter himself then not knowing its Roger's grandson. The the custody can be between Ed, Mo vs. Roger..with Mo seeing Roger's side also, but know he can't raise a kid. "

This is wonderful!  I really like this. 

I would still have the beginnings of an Ed/Eve relationship in there.  Those two together could become the new pariahs of Springfield, what with the whole town knowing of Ed's wanton ways and Eve's mental issues.   Ed loses the custody battle to Maureen, and while he also lost, Roger loves that Ed now is town pariah.

Add to that, the effects of it all upon Michelle.  She is basically ignored throughout the custody battle (too much pain all around)....but not by Holly.  Gotta keep that Michelle/Holly angle; it was too good.  Hmmm....a Michelle/Holly/Maureen triangle perhaps, sparked by Michelle?  Maureen gains Peter but it shunned by Michelle in preference to Holly.  Holy bonanza!  And where is Bridget in all this?

I'd follow all this up in 1995 with my Eve dies in the sanitarium and Ed marries Amanda concept.  Imagine Amanda healing the Bauers through kindness, toughness and social acumen (remarkably, the kind-hearted Spaulding opts to marry a Bauer after all that - therefore, the Bauers MUST be somewhat redeemable).  And, watching Cullen and Parker spar with one another - the two kind-hearted Springfield souls - could be interesting to watch.

Between us, there's easily five years of legitimate front-burner story for the Bauers.

Cool.

 

 

 

 

 

9 hours ago, chrisml said:

JFP's comments in the 1995 column amuse me. Ma'am, you were the executive producer in 1994, if the show needs a fresh start and new energy because it was a difficult year, maybe you're the problem? I wish snarky Logan had commented on that. It's a bit of dark humor that a rapist made up to look like Jill Farren Phelps helped save the show.

Well as JFP said, the whole fire story was to give Deas a one man show...(he was supposed to be the only actor on for one episode...that would attract ratings..people tuning into to see a sloppy middle aged loud mouth chewing the scenery and crying about his past..)

I loved Nola but hated her fantasies too. I hate very special episodes geared to win Emmys but bringing the stories to a hault.

15 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

Mitch said:

 

"I think that having Mo leave Ed, move in and take over the BH and take in Bridget when she is preggers...maybe she wouldn't know who the father is and either not hide Bridget of actually do so for a bit, and then adopt Peter herself so Bridget can have a life but always be close to Peter.  Ed has to suffer everyone knowing and actually telling him this time he is sh*t, even Ross and Rick ("Grandma would be so angry right now" ) and then he does all he can to try to get back with her.. and adopts Peter himself then not knowing its Roger's grandson. The the custody can be between Ed, Mo vs. Roger..with Mo seeing Roger's side also, but know he can't raise a kid. "

This is wonderful!  I really like this. 

I would still have the beginnings of an Ed/Eve relationship in there.  Those two together could become the new pariahs of Springfield, what with the whole town knowing of Ed's wanton ways and Eve's mental issues.   Ed loses the custody battle to Maureen, and while he also lost, Roger loves that Ed now is town pariah.

Add to that, the effects of it all upon Michelle.  She is basically ignored throughout the custody battle (too much pain all around)....but not by Holly.  Gotta keep that Michelle/Holly angle; it was too good.  Hmmm....a Michelle/Holly/Maureen triangle perhaps, sparked by Michelle?  Maureen gains Peter but it shunned by Michelle in preference to Holly.  Holy bonanza!  And where is Bridget in all this?

I'd follow all this up in 1995 with my Eve dies in the sanitarium and Ed marries Amanda concept.  Imagine Amanda healing the Bauers through kindness, toughness and social acumen (remarkably, the kind-hearted Spaulding opts to marry a Bauer after all that - therefore, the Bauers MUST be somewhat redeemable).  And, watching Cullen and Parker spar with one another - the two kind-hearted Springfield souls - could be interesting to watch.

Between us, there's easily five years of legitimate front-burner story for the Bauers.

Cool.

Yabbut, not to forget the Reardonness of it when you come to Mo & her daughter Michelle. Everyone wants to look out for the Bauers & I get it, but they're only one family. There are others.

Kalbir said:

"I am intrigued by the thought of Roger and Annie in each other's orbits. I haven't deep dived into November 1994-April 1997 to see if Michael Zaslow and Cynthia Watros interacted with each other."

I am, too.  Lots of ramifications here, with possible threads in all directions.  For the Rick versus Josh court battle over Rick's dealing illegal drugs to then-wife Annie, for example, you could pull in the Josh-Ross-Amanda relationship from long ago (Los Tres Amigos, or LTA).  Especially if Amanda now is a Bauer, and you have Ross acting as either prosecuting or defending attorney.  Could get very interesting very fast.  Mixing Roger into that scenario would be aces.

I'll tell you what.  Guiding Light never needed to bring Reva back, that's for sure.

Oh- to add to my 1994 redo - just this second I thought of something Fiona Huchinson (Jenna) once said years ago...that she would have liked a May-December Jenna/Henry romance.  Not a sexual one, but a romantic one.

Intriguing idea.  With Buzz carted off to wherever, forever, following his accidental shooting of his daughter in a PTSD fit, Jenna would need something to do with no Buzz around.  It could be that Henry helps Jenna make a successful run of Lester Square lotion, and from there, the six-month romance begins.  Vanessa is charmed by it, and is in la-la land herself with her new paramour (who is not Matt).  Jenna and Vanessa could compare notes and be doubly charmed.

With Huchison leaving GL in late 1994, there's time for a story like that to play itself out over the course of a year.  

And all scenes with William Roerick are welcomed by this viewer.  Tremendous actor and character.  Really liked him.