1 hour ago, TheyStartedOnSoaps said:

Guiding Light really missed the boat - the storylines possiblities were endless. Think of all the great PR Guiding Light could have gotten by incorporating an ALS storyline on the show

Holly being torn between an ailing Roger and her husband Fletcher with a new baby, Roger using his illness to manipulate those around him, exploring Blake being caught in the "sandwhich" generation, maybe throwing Lillian in the mix as Roger's new care-giver and clashing with Holly or Blake, and Roger sitting back stirring the pot. 

They threw that all out the window. 

Such a good point. Not only were they uncaring, mean-spirited, ugly, cruel, it was stupid!!!! It was anti-soap. It's like, gee, what would Irna have done?  

And, just because ... 

https://www.instagram.com/p/DMJBSBGJdPw/
1994 Daytime Emmys
Michael Zaslow who plays Roger Thorpe on Guiding Light won Best Actor!

Edited July 15Jul 15 by Contessa Donatella

1 hour ago, TheyStartedOnSoaps said:

In Michael's book he makes it very clear P&G used every legal means to STOP him from appearing on OLTL.

In the book the family writes that it wasn't Zas that pulled the plug on him appearing on OLTL, it was P&G who held him to his contract.

Thanks for the additional information, but do you have any sources to affirm it?  Because that contradicts the reporting on the settlement agreement.

As noted, given the evidence we have from the reporting about the settlement, the only logical conclusion is: appearing on another soap immediately could weaken claims of financial harm in the lawsuit against P&G.  So, he wasn't kept from working by P&G, it was a smart move by his lawyers to protect his lawsuit until a settlement was reached. 

Logically, P&G would've loved MZ to take a OLTL role for 5 weeks in August 1997.  Because it would mitigate the damage from Dwyer-Dobbins's “wizen” quote if he was free to work and be hired by any other soap (which is her quote from 1997) Says Dwyer-Dobbin: “We're not going to stop him if he wants to do this .”  

As I understand the timeline, the only reasonable response is that Dwyer-Dobbin was “not going to stop him” in August 1997, because he had already been fired, (as was later proven in the lawsuit).  So, I would ask you to review the source material, just to make sure your recall fits with the known timeline.

Edited July 15Jul 15 by j swift

https://www.goldderby.com/article/2024/daytime-emmys-michael-zaslow-guiding-light-1994/

@TheyStartedOnSoaps One other note, Michael Zaslow's representation would not have allowed a meeting with the executive producer and head writer of OLTL after he filed his complaint with AFTRA, unless they assumed he had been fired and was off contract.  It is an implicit understanding of any employment contract, that you can't seek a new job while under your current contract.

Although there is a chance that the memoir is referencing a period prior to his complaint, it doesn't align with the timeline in the Logan story that had them meet on a specific date after the compliant. But before the lawsuit.

I sympathize with your sticking to the remembrances from the memoir, and I certainly don't want to change your mind just to prove a point.  But, I think if you look at it paratextually, including using common logic and legal knowledge, you will see it doesn't quite add up that GL would've stopped MZ from seeking a five-week contract from OLTL.

Edited July 15Jul 15 by j swift

37 minutes ago, j swift said:

Thanks for the additional information, but do you have any sources to affirm it?  Because that contradicts the reporting on the settlement agreement.

As noted, given the evidence we have from the reporting about the settlement, the only logical conclusion is: appearing on another soap immediately could weaken claims of financial harm in the lawsuit against P&G.  So, he wasn't kept from working by P&G, it was a smart move by his lawyers to protect his lawsuit. One could assume that P&G would've loved MZ to take a OLTL role for 5 weeks in August 1997.  So, they could prove despite MADD's claim, that he was free to work and be hired by any other soap (which is her quote from 1997) Says Dwyer-Dobbin: "We're not going to stop him if he wants to do this ."

From Michael Zaslow book

Head writer Claire Labine was very excited about the prspect of returning me to One Life To Live in my former role. A few days later, however, things began to fall to pieces. One Life To Live wanted me, but they weren't sure for how many shows. Unfortunately my former employer placed a RESTRICTION on me, which would have affected my arbitration against them. My lawyers have forbidden me to discuss this in any detail, but I can say Proctor & Gamble has not honored our contract, forcing us to seek legal redress.

AGAIN Zaslow says "my former employer (P&G) placed a RESTRICTION on me" - which means P&G stopped him from appearing on OLTL, as he was still contract. That led Zaslow with no choice but to file suit to get out of that contract. 

Edited July 15Jul 15 by TheyStartedOnSoaps

1 hour ago, TheyStartedOnSoaps said:

Guiding Light really missed the boat - the storylines possiblities were endless. Think of all the great PR Guiding Light could have gotten by incorporating an ALS storyline on the show

Holly being torn between an ailing Roger and her husband Fletcher with a new baby, Roger using his illness to manipulate those around him, exploring Blake being caught in the "sandwhich" generation, maybe throwing Lillian in the mix as Roger's new care-giver and clashing with Holly or Blake, and Roger sitting back stirring the pot. 

They threw that all out the window. 

Agreed...they would have definately needed to bring back Ed for this...I think, if he was available Hulwist may have been able to come back...at least short term to play this out...(and feature a ton of vintage Ed/Holly/Roger flashbacks.) Ed his original nemesis and Holly, his obsession are ironically brought together in caring for Roger....(since its a soap they would keep it a secret so Fletch thinks Ed/Holly are a thing again...) And all the characters that it would involve besides them...Ross/Blake (both on fragile ground because of the twins thing..and Ross and Ed butting heads because of the twins and now Roger...Vanessa, Bridget, Peter,Hart,Dinah the Spauldings (notice the two left out...airhogs Jeva so that might be a reason they thought Roger wasnt important...) All this could be going on and a mysterious care taker claims to be Roger's son...(as I wrote before, it would be the son of Ed/Rita, though Roger found him, convinced him he was Alan's son and made him vengeful against him...so Roger wins, he prevented Ed from knowing his son..as he blames Ed of doing with Blake, and he has weaponized that son against Alan..and he managed to make a "Bad Bauer")

A good producer would have at least tried to convince MADD and the net how much publicity and emmy wins this would get the show.

5 minutes ago, j swift said:

it doesn't quite add up that GL would've stopped MZ from seeking a five-week contract from OLTL.

It just makes Guiding Light look BAD to have Michael Zaslow on OLTL - and they have never recovered from it. Do you hear anyone saying "Paul Rauch & MADD did the right thing?"

Edited July 15Jul 15 by TheyStartedOnSoaps

9 minutes ago, TheyStartedOnSoaps said:

It just makes Guiding Light look BAD to have Michael Zaslow on OLTL - and they have never recovered from it. Do you hear anyone saying "Paul Rauch & MADD was right?"

I don't understand what you mean?

The quote from the memoir supports the logical timeline I presented, and aligns with Michael Logan's reporting.

AFTER, Michael Zaslow had filed a complaint against GL with AFTRA, and pending a lawsuit, he could not take sign a contract with OLTL because it would have affected [his] arbitration against P&G.

It not about public perception, or P&G would've fired Dwyer-Dobbins for saying such a stupid thing in TV Guide (and paid out their toxic-shock lawsuits that actually crippled them financially and kept them from producing soaps).  It was about showing that Michael Zaslow was terminated at GL for his illness (which is against his civil rights).  And if he accepted a job at OLTL in August 1997 it would've undercut his claim.

Edited July 15Jul 15 by j swift

2 minutes ago, j swift said:

I don't understand what you mean?

Paul Rauch & MADD reputations are in the toilet. Is that clear enough for you?

So much food for thought in this topic. So many strange details.

May he rest in peace... He deserved better.

36 minutes ago, TheyStartedOnSoaps said:

It just makes Guiding Light look BAD to have Michael Zaslow on OLTL - and they have never recovered from it. Do you hear anyone saying "Paul Rauch & MADD did the right thing?"

And, atp they never will. Literally, for P&G and also for CBS their lasting legacy is not going to change. I do not see any way except them being stuck. Couldn't happen to more deserving execs. 

16 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Breen was at ATWT at that time.

Thank you for the clarification. It was my mistake in writing GL. I meant to write P&G instead of GL. I was just thinking of all the drama that happened with McKinsey's departure and how P&G and JFP were livid that McKinsey had abided by her contract in getting one over on them.

1 hour ago, Mitch64 said:

A good producer would have at least tried to convince MADD and the net how much publicity and emmy wins this would get the show.

And good will. 

P&G and CBS were not going to listen to any producer about Michael Zaslow. They wanted him gone. The best producer in the world could have been on GL at the time and it would not have mattered. As I said weeks ago when this was brought up, if MADD was saying these things in public, you can imagine what she, P&G, CBS and Rauch were saying behind closed doors. And I brought up McKinsey's departure because she made it clear she felt the execs wanted to retaliate against her for leaving so you can imagine how they were handling Zaslow's case.

Edited July 15Jul 15 by chrisml

I agree with @chrisml

The claim that Paul Rauch and Dwyer-Dobbins’ reputations are “in the toilet” isn’t just irrelevant to the argument, it’s factually wrong and historically inaccurate. Rauch went on to executive produce One Life to Live for another five years after Guiding Light. Dwyer-Dobbins remained a key executive at P&G, with increasing authority during the final years of As the World Turns. These were not disgraced figures shuffled offstage—they were entrenched, salaried decision-makers whose careers extended well beyond the moment in question (unfortunately).

There is no justice in this case, and that fact that a message board (or general public opinion) disapproves of their behavior, obviously meant nothing to them when they made their choices, or upon reflection.

 

Edited July 15Jul 15 by j swift