11 minutes ago, MLH said:

Yes.  But, to defend the writers, they had lost a big character in Alan.

Well, it was a strange situation. Since they initially asked Zaslow to take over the role of Alan, it's obvious they were planning to keep Alan on the canvas. 

When he asked to come back as Roger, that must be when they decided to write Alan out.

We've discussed many times the challenges involved in recasting Alan, but IMO, it was insane to bring back Roger and  write out Alan, since their enmity drove so much story back in the day. ESPECIALLY  since Roger marries Alex, but that's all over by the time they bring Alan back.

 

Edited July 14Jul 14 by DeeVee

10 minutes ago, DeeVee said:

Well, it was a strange situation. Since they initially asked Zaslow to take over the role of Alan, it's obvious they were planning to keep Alan on the canvas. 

When he asked to come back as Roger, that must be when they decided to write Alan out.

We've discussed many times the challenges involved in recasting Alan, but IMO, it was insane to bring back Roger and  write out Alan, since their enmity drove so much story back in the day. ESPECIALLY  since Roger marries Alex, but that's all over by the time they bring Alan back.

 

They didn't write him out right away though and he was part of the Beth is Alive storyline. I think that had more to do with people not liking the replacement and it did make it possible for Roger and Alexandra's relationship.  There would be no way Alan would allow that. 

Edited July 14Jul 14 by MLH

20 minutes ago, DeeVee said:

I forgot about the comment that he wasn't completely unprovoked! Ugh.

Sigh. Unfortunately, these kinds of mealy-mouthed excuses by TPTB were pretty common when dealing with rape stories on soaps. I remember Genie Francis saying Laura's rape was an "acquaintance rape" in interviews (like she was reading off of a script) as if that made it a less bad thing.

 

Are you referring to what Robert Calhoun said in a meeting? He strongly implied that Holly bore part of the blame for her rape. That to me, was horrifying, and he was a seeming evolved gay man in a long-term relationship. Besides being an excellent EP.

3 minutes ago, MLH said:

They didn't write him out right away though and he was part of the Beth is Alive storyline. I think that had more to do with people not liking the replacement

Pilon was never meant to be a permanent replacement. They were probably looking for a permanent replacement soon after Bernau left. They likely kept it very quiet because they didn't want people to know why he left.

Which may explain in part why they got the idea to offer it directly to Zaslow, so they wouldn't have to send out a casting call.

Pilon probably got a longer gig than intended because they decided to bring back Roger and wrap up the Alan story.

8 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

Are you referring to what Robert Calhoun said in a meeting?

It's in the SOD article linked a few posts back.

After revisiting the Roger and Holly storyline, especially how its framing changed over time, I was reminded how important it is to consider the cultural context of each episode. What aired in 1979, what was revisited in the 2000s, and what still feels unresolved is worth unpacking.

In the original arc, Holly’s assault by Roger was followed by a quiet moment in the ER at Cedars. Ed asks if she wants Roger arrested, and she says yes. But the camera holds on her face, and the silence introduces a different kind of ambiguity. It seems to suggest she either wants justice, wants to get Roger in trouble, or wants sympathy from Ed to pull him closer. That framing doesn’t question the fact of the assault, but it shifts attention to Holly’s motives in a way that complicates how the audience is meant to see her. At the time, that kind of ambiguity was common in soaps. Watching now, it feels like the show was avoiding moral clarity.

By the early 2000s, when the show revisited the story, the cultural conversation around consent had changed, but not always in helpful ways. Popular shows like Sex and the City and Dawson’s Creek leaned into "complicated" relationships but skipped over questions of power. Pacey’s affair with Tamara was treated as edgy, not abusive. In Disclosure, the focus was on whether the victim resisted enough, not on what was done to them.

So when Holly and Roger talked years later, the show fell back on the same kind of ambiguity. The scene kept their emotional bond in play but let Roger move forward without fully owning what happened. According to Maureen Garrett, she was told the story would focus on Holly’s voice. What aired didn’t do that. It seemed more interested in keeping Roger sympathetic.

This isn’t about the actors. They gave strong work. But the writing reflected its time. Soaps don’t lead these conversations—they mirror the culture around them. If a movie like Disclosure was shaping how people talked about consent, the show was going to echo that. This was a chance to push back against those patterns, and it didn’t.

 

Edited July 14Jul 14 by j swift

35 minutes ago, DeeVee said:

It's in the SOD article linked a few posts back.

Well, you see, I'd have preferred a reply. You're now referring to something I did not see.

But, it's okay. 

1 hour ago, MLH said:

@alwaysAMC Don't you wish that they started the Amanda/Roger teaming up in early 1996?  It would have caused even more drama with the whole Blake pregnant by two fathers and Amanda's background with Ross. 

Amanda and Roger had a lot in common too.  Both even sang for a living and played the piano.

Although, it was hard to watch...I still cherish every episode Michael was in. I think he was finally getting happier with his storyline, but was personally depressed because he's a perfectionist. 

Oh yes! I meant to reply to your original thought on this, but I totally agree. That would have been a great idea, and prevented Lonatrat completely haha.

Wow! During lunch today, I started watching the storyline Michael Zaslow had on One Life to Live and who do I see with Dorian, but Kim Zimmer! LOL 

I also listened to an interview with Mark Derwin who played A.C. Mallet and how he and Michael were good friends and he had a blast playing that A.C. Mallet vs Roger Thorpe with zingers they would make up. He was just about to join One Life to Live when right when Michael died in December of 98. 

2 hours ago, j swift said:

After revisiting the Roger and Holly storyline, especially how its framing changed over time, I was reminded how important it is to consider the cultural context of each episode. What aired in 1979, what was revisited in the 2000s, and what still feels unresolved is worth unpacking.

In the original arc, Holly’s assault by Roger was followed by a quiet moment in the ER at Cedars. Ed asks if she wants Roger arrested, and she says yes. But the camera holds on her face, and the silence introduces a different kind of ambiguity. It seems to suggest she either wants justice, wants to get Roger in trouble, or wants sympathy from Ed to pull him closer. That framing doesn’t question the fact of the assault, but it shifts attention to Holly’s motives in a way that complicates how the audience is meant to see her. At the time, that kind of ambiguity was common in soaps. Watching now, it feels like the show was avoiding moral clarity.

By the early 2000s, when the show revisited the story, the cultural conversation around consent had changed, but not always in helpful ways. Popular shows like Sex and the City and Dawson’s Creek leaned into "complicated" relationships but skipped over questions of power. Pacey’s affair with Tamara was treated as edgy, not abusive. In Disclosure, the focus was on whether the victim resisted enough, not on what was done to them.

So when Holly and Roger talked years later, the show fell back on the same kind of ambiguity. The scene kept their emotional bond in play but let Roger move forward without fully owning what happened. According to Maureen Garrett, she was told the story would focus on Holly’s voice. What aired didn’t do that. It seemed more interested in keeping Roger sympathetic.

This isn’t about the actors. They gave strong work. But the writing reflected its time. Soaps don’t lead these conversations—they mirror the culture around them. If a movie like Disclosure was shaping how people talked about consent, the show was going to echo that. This was a chance to push back against those patterns, and it didn’t.

 

I can't see in any way it was suggested that she was trying to pull Ed closer, she was traumatized 

51 minutes ago, bboy875 said:

I can't see in any way it was suggested that she was trying to pull Ed closer, she was traumatized 

The clear intension of the ER scene was to demonstrate Holly's trauma through ambiguously coded responses to imply that she was overwhelmed by emotions.  If you interpret it differently once you've viewed it again, please let me know your thoughts.  I watched it on TikTok, so I don't have a link, but it is available.

Edited July 14Jul 14 by j swift

1 hour ago, MLH said:

Wow! During lunch today, I started watching the storyline Michael Zaslow had on One Life to Live and who do I see with Dorian, but Kim Zimmer! LOL 

I also listened to an interview with Mark Derwin who played A.C. Mallet and how he and Michael were good friends and he had a blast playing that A.C. Mallet vs Roger Thorpe with zingers they would make up. He was just about to join One Life to Live when right when Michael died in December of 98. 

It is thought that it was Mark who recommended Jerry verDorn to OLTL as a recast Clint. 

19 hours ago, DeeVee said:

EXACTLY what I was thinking Ed would say! In fact, I remember Jackie once saying to Alan that his problem was he fell in love ALL THE TIME, then he got bored and moved on to the next woman.

That's why the Vanessa/marriage of convenience thing never made sense to me (as well as the maid who is obviously not the maid, but a sex worker who lives in for his convenience).

O.K., I'm back to blaming Pam Long for some of it. 😁

The only way I can make sense of it is to think of it more like a business merger. Alan would increase his control at Spaulding, and probably thought he'd be free to have discreet affairs. Vanessa would gain security and a partner who wouldn't interfere (or restrict) with her work. Not that Vanessa was asset poor, but she'd been through several boom/bust cycles with Billy, and Henry's health was a perpetual worry for her.  

And had not the object of Alan's lust been Reva, who had stuck in Vanessa's craw more than once, maybe Vanessa could've talked herself into marrying Alan.

9 hours ago, alwaysAMC said:

Oh yes! I meant to reply to your original thought on this, but I totally agree. That would have been a great idea, and prevented Lonatrat completely haha.

Yeah. That whole storyline is so stupid. That Detective Cutter and Nadine being murdered and people acting like nothing happened after a few months.

6 hours ago, j swift said:

The clear intension of the ER scene was to demonstrate Holly's trauma through ambiguously coded responses to imply that she was overwhelmed by emotions.  If you interpret it differently once you've viewed it again, please let me know your thoughts.  I watched it on TikTok, so I don't have a link, but it is available.

I found a partial clip of that scene. It doesn't include what you described. It's clear that the scene was cut off, so I'm not in any way implying that what you described didn't happen.

However, I don't recall anything else during that storyline that suggested Holly was accusing Roger to bring Ed closer to her. Definitely, Rita believed that, and definitely, Holly was in love with Ed. Holly was in some sense in love with Ed pretty much until the show ended.

But her motivation for going to trial was because she was seeking justice and because she wanted to keep Roger away from Christina, since it was clear by then he was obsessed with her.

There's also the way she turned to Peter Chapman and planned to marry him in the aftermath of the rape and her trial for shooting Roger. Again, I'm not disagreeing that she loved Ed, but this shows she was trying to distance herself from him.

I wish we had the entire storyline available to view, then it would be much easier to judge the intentions of the writers.

2 hours ago, P.J. said:

The only way I can make sense of it is to think of it more like a business merger. Alan would increase his control at Spaulding, and probably thought he'd be free to have discreet affairs.

I think his marriage to Elizabeth was like that in a sense. My memory is kind of foggy here, but I seem to recall that Elizabeth was raised by a rich uncle who had mills or factories in New England, and that's part of the reason he married her. So you might be right about that.

(Come on, he always thought he was free to have affairs, even when he was married to Hope. 😁 He cheated on Reva, his "great love," with Blake and Sonni.)

Edited July 15Jul 15 by DeeVee

First, thank you to the posters that answered by question about how the show handled Holly's absence in the mid-2000s. 

Second, I have a question about Michael Zaslow. When exactly was he fired from Guiding Light? The way that I understand things is that he left before he had a diagnosis of what was wrong with him. I was always under the assumption that his departure was only going to be temporary. I'm assuming that he took some sort of medical leave with the hopes of getting better and returning. Am I right to assume that is what happened initially - he was initially not fired but went on a medical leave?

I'm guessing that he was then fired at some point when he was on leave. Did he have a diagnosis yet when Guiding Light fired him? 

Decades later, the whole thing still makes me so angry and sad. I can't imagine what it was like for Michael and his family. I just remember feeling such a void when he left Guiding Light. I pretty much stopped watching the show after that. It was never the same for me.

Annette