Re Vigard: it's not hard to see the parallels between Kelly/Morgan and GH's Scotty/Laura. Was Kristin the world's greatest actress? No. But she did project all the virtues of a young heroine, the same way Genie Francis did. Kelly and Morgan were popular, even if it's harder to see why now.

3 hours ago, DeeVee said:

That's probably why I don't remember the Brandon connection. The minute Raines and Chappell showed up in Nazi uniforms, I was out.

Me, neither. Look, I get why they wanted Gus to have a connection to a core family. Why not make him a Bauer? Mike's long-lost progeny would have made way more sense. 

And then they killed him off? So what was the point?

(My personal soap opera rule: NEVER permanently write out or permanently kill off legacy characters. EVER. It always ends up being a disastrous mistake. GL broke this rule SO many times).

I recently watched a scene where Harley somehow got a hold of Alex's wedding dress and was trying it on. Alex had a total meltdown. She explained that the last time she tried on the dress, just before she was supposed to marry Eric, was the last time she was truly happy. Eric took Lujack and left right after that. So, no, they were not married. Which I suppose it why Alex was able to get Lujack to use the Spaulding name. It would have been his legal name.

Nope, I never bought that for a minute, not even when Marland was "rehabilitating" Alan. 

In my head canon, Alan knew Brandon would settle a trust, probably including a generous chunk of Spaulding stock, on his first legitimate grandson. As Phillip's father, he would have been in charge of the trust and could have used it eventually as one of the weapons to bring down Brandon.

If you think about it, there is a huge plot hole here. After finding out Elizabeth would never give him children, why not divorce her and get married again to someone who could give him biological heirs? According to Elizabeth herself, their marriage went south almost immediately. Get divorced, have kids with someone else. Problem solved.

My solution to filling in this hole: he HAD to be married specifically to Elizabeth because his father insisted on it. I think she was her uncle's sole heir. I seem to remember he had mills all over New England or something, so Brandon probably wanted them to become absorbed into Spaulding. That's why he had to do the baby switch. He couldn't divorce Elizabeth without risking losing the mills, or whatever else it is she brought into the marriage, and Brandon probably would not have settled anything significant on adopted grandchildren.

This ties into the Barbados storyline, which revealed Brandon married Penelope because she was a rich heiress and came from a good family, which raised the Spaulding fortunes. It would makes sense that he would have insisted the same from Alan, ESPECIALLY after his sister ran off with someone "unsuitable."

God, I loathed Gus. 

OMG, I never knew that about Alex. It makes it even more chilling that she confronted Mindy in her wedding dress before the wedding to Nick.

Well, the idea of Alan needing to marry someone "appropriate" would've made sense. But at some point,  Brandon stopped controlling Alan's life. Why stay married to that limp dishrag?  Although I guess it's easy to presume that Alan had affairs all along, and that the fiction of his "happy family" projected the image he wanted. 

20 minutes ago, P.J. said:

But at some point,  Brandon stopped controlling Alan's life. Why stay married to that limp dishrag?  Although I guess it's easy to presume that Alan had affairs all along, and that the fiction of his "happy family" projected the image he wanted. 

I think that's one thing that's not hard to explain. Alan is the type who thinks he's the only one who can leave; no one can leave HIM.

He didn't want Elizabeth, but he was furious that someone else did.

They repeated that motif when Hope was divorcing him. Even though he wanted the divorce, he threatened Warren when he found out they had been dating.

Also, if you take into consideration Phillip's trust fund--he did have one, and Alan and Elizabeth did argue over it--he would not have wanted her to be in control of it it they were divorced.

With Alan, it's always about power and control over people in his personal sphere. He obviously picked it up from Brandon: i.e. Alex had to be punished severely for breaking away from his control.

I agree that major legacy characters shouldn't be killed unless the actor is dead. 

IDK if this means anything, but from when Amanda showed up again, they said that only his daughters got the stocks (Victoria didn't want it), because Alan was thought to be dead. Would he even consider Phillip family, since he is adopted?

Is there an English YouTube post of this episode where Dylan and Samantha dance?  It was very well-done dream sequence. It's 22, 23 minutes in.  It's the only 'dream sequence' I really like.  

 

Edited August 16Aug 16 by MLH

41 minutes ago, MLH said:

IDK if this means anything, but from when Amanda showed up again, they said that only his daughters got the stocks (Victoria didn't want it), because Alan was thought to be dead. Would he even consider Phillip family, since he is adopted?

Two things:

What about Alan Michael? He was born in 1981; Brandon should have found out about his existence while he was in Barbados. 

Did Brandon find out that Phillip was adopted before he re-died in 1984? Maybe. The reveal about his paternity happened in 1983. So that could explain his exclusion.

But if he was keeping track of his family from Barbados, why was AM left out?

Probably a continuity goof. Anyone remember if this was discussed?

44 minutes ago, MLH said:

I agree that major legacy characters shouldn't be killed unless the actor is dead. 

For what it's worth, I have a different opinion. And it's not worth much because it's just one person's opinion. LOL. But I don't have a problem with legacy characters dying on soaps because I want my soaps to be as close to real life as possible and, in real life, "legacy people" die. As long as it's written well. That's my only request. I'm even of the very small minority that didn't mind Maureen Bauer being killed off. My objection is that it was all for naught. It was not written well after the initial storyline ended. And that was almost immediately after her death. Ed became a non-entity. The Eve romance went nowhere. The Bauers were diminished. There have been many spouses of core family members who have died but it just created more story (I'm thinking Jennifer Hughes, for example). The Maureen death just seemed kind of pointless in retrospect. But the death of a legacy character can be good story and is true to life. I didn't even have a problem when they killed off two of my favorite legacy characters (Bill Bauer and Claire Lowell). It was good story and they were able to move on from it with more good stories and more good characters. When I refer to Bill Bauer's death, I'm referring to his first death. As much as I loved the character, I wish they would have kept him dead and not bring him back. It really served no purpose to do so and his ultimate death was such an insult to the character and the history of the show. Anyway, I would much rather a legacy character die then fade away like they never existed (which is what happens to so many legacy characters). That seems more offensive to me. 

7 hours ago, DeeVee said:

Two things:

What about Alan Michael? He was born in 1981; Brandon should have found out about his existence while he was in Barbados. 

Did Brandon find out that Phillip was adopted before he re-died in 1984? Maybe. The reveal about his paternity happened in 1983. So that could explain his exclusion.

But if he was keeping track of his family from Barbados, why was AM left out?

Probably a continuity goof. Anyone remember if this was discussed?

From what I recall, Alan would have been the beneficiary, if he were alive? I don't think the Grandchildren got anything. 

@Reverend Ruthledge I get what you mean, it's just that it seemed like at a certain point they need to think things out if they are going to kill off a major character.  If the character is bringing nothing to the storylines, then I don't fault them for doing so. 

It just seems like they write themselves in a corner with certain legacy characters and the easiest way out is death.  IMO, GL didn't do a good job with this. 

Edited August 17Aug 17 by MLH

These stock situations never add up. Brandon wouldn't have had any Spaulding stock in 1984, Alexandra had just forced Quint and Henry to sell the Chamberlain stock to her. She became the majority stockholder. Phillip and Alan-Michael should've been the only other shareholders (Amanda had sold her stock to Quint to start LTA.)

When Kyle comes on, at some point (I believe it's after Lujack's death) Kyle went to NY to talk to Hope and try and buy Alan Michael's shares. I believe he said that Hope had gotten the Spaulding Foundation in the divorce.

As a loose rule, I don't think legacy characters should be killed off because too often it's done poorly, and the effects can be devastating for the show and for viewer loyalty.  I think it's better just to send them off so that they are still alive in the viewers' minds.  It's bad enough when they kill off long-term characters. With the GL producers I've seen, I would not trust most of them to do it in a way that honors the character and doesn't alienate the viewer.

I don't know how I feel about soaps being true to life.  I watched soaps to escape from life. Life can be miserable enough without soaps reflecting it all the time. On the other hand, I don't want complete fantasy so I don't know what I want the balance to be. Are there other examples of legacy characters being killed off in a respectful way that worked? I can only think of bad examples. @Reverend Ruthledge

17 minutes ago, chrisml said:

As a loose rule, I don't think legacy characters should be killed off because too often it's done poorly, and the effects can be devastating for the show and for viewer loyalty.  I think it's better just to send them off so that they are still alive in the viewers' minds.  It's bad enough when they kill off long-term characters. With the GL producers I've seen, I would not trust most of them to do it in a way that honors the character and doesn't alienate the viewer.

I don't know how I feel about soaps being true to life.  I watched soaps to escape from life. Life can be miserable enough without soaps reflecting it all the time. On the other hand, I don't want complete fantasy so I don't know what I want the balance to be. Are there other examples of legacy characters being killed off in a respectful way that worked? I can only think of bad examples. @Reverend Ruthledge

Yeah, everybody's different. I like more realism than fantasy when it comes to soaps but that's just me. Addie Horton, Bill Bauer and Claire Lowell are just a few of the examples of legacy characters whose deaths were respectable and worked. If I thought about it, I would probably think of a lot more. I'm also thinking Lee Randolph although I know I differ with a lot of people on that as well. 

28 minutes ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

Yeah, everybody's different. I like more realism than fantasy when it comes to soaps but that's just me. Addie Horton, Bill Bauer and Claire Lowell are just a few of the examples of legacy characters whose deaths were respectable and worked. If I thought about it, I would probably think of a lot more. I'm also thinking Lee Randolph although I know I differ with a lot of people on that as well. 

You raise such an interesting question. It's fascinating. I think the problem for me is that my viewing is 1986 onwards for all the shows I've watched so  all the examples are negative unless I'm forgetting some positive ones--which I probably am. Too often, it's done for insulting reasons. I have never seen much long-term thought put into these decisions. If any thought had been put into the Maureen debacle, they might have considered the ramifications, and that killing Ed would have been the better option if someone had to be killed off. Not that I'm advocating for either character to be killed off. 

 

3 hours ago, P.J. said:

These stock situations never add up. Brandon wouldn't have had any Spaulding stock in 1984, Alexandra had just forced Quint and Henry to sell the Chamberlain stock to her. She became the majority stockholder. Phillip and Alan-Michael should've been the only other shareholders (Amanda had sold her stock to Quint to start LTA.)

The writers clearly did not bother spending a little time looking up inheritance laws. Diane made such a fuss about getting Alan to disinherit Phillip because he wasn't a "real" Spaulding. How would that have benefited her? To this day I have no idea. Alan could have left his money to a homeless bum if he wanted to, being a "real" anything has nothing to do with it. Also, no one kept track of any of these sales, because when Amanda visited Christmas 1987, she gave Phillip her proxy to vote her stocks. 

4 hours ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

But I don't have a problem with legacy characters dying on soaps because I want my soaps to be as close to real life as possible and, in real life, "legacy people" die.

Maybe if they hadn't done it as often, it wouldn't seem like a problem. They also did it to characters who they made a big deal of connecting to core families, and then, boom, they killed them off--like Lujack and Gus. Again, what is the point of doing that? And look at how they end up bringing some back as ghosts, or fantasies, or twins...it's just silly.

It's not just killing people off, it's wiping legacy characters off the board by writing them out permanently. I'm sure when they first wrote out some of those characters, a lot of us didn't expect them to disappear for good. There are lots of instances over the years where their absences seemed wrong. Like Mike and Hope not being at Alan Michael's wedding. There is a Christmas (I think 1988) where Phillip, Harley, and Alan Michael are in NYC. Phillip even tells Harley about Hope. Do any of them go to see her? No, not even a mention of an off-screen meeting. You're right there, go see your mother, Alan Michael, you bum.

Edited August 17Aug 17 by DeeVee

1 hour ago, DeeVee said:

The writers clearly did not bother spending a little time looking up inheritance laws. Diane made such a fuss about getting Alan to disinherit Phillip because he wasn't a "real" Spaulding. How would that have benefited her? To this day I have no idea. Alan could have left his money to a homeless bum if he wanted to, being a "real" anything has nothing to do with it. Also, no one kept track of any of these sales, because when Amanda visited Christmas 1987, she gave Phillip her proxy to vote her stocks. 

Maybe if they hadn't done it as often, it wouldn't seem like a problem. They also did it to characters who they made a big deal of connecting to core families, and then, boom, they killed them off--like Lujack and Gus. Again, what is the point of doing that? And look at how they end up bringing some back as ghosts, or fantasies, or twins...it's just silly.

It's not just killing people off, it's wiping legacy characters off the board by writing them out permanently. I'm sure when they first wrote out some of those characters, a lot of us didn't expect them to disappear for good. There are lots of instances over the years where their absences seemed wrong. Like Mike and Hope not being at Alan Michael's wedding. There is a Christmas (I think 1988) where Phillip, Harley, and Alan Michael are in NYC. Phillip even tells Harley about Hope. Do any of them go to see her? No, not even a mention of an off-screen meeting. You're right there, go see your mother, Alan Michael, you bum.

Amanda admitted that she gave up everything the first time. Still, it doesn't make any sense why they made Amanda Alan's daughter in the first place, IMO.

Same with Hart and Ben Reade.  

I still don't get the point of even creating the character of Hart. 

Roger would NEVER ignore his son being murdered by Dinah, Holly's daughter being kidnapped, his Grandson living in Minnesota while he lives in California, etc.  He just wouldn't. How they treated his death was a slap in the face and I am watching this 21 years later (when Roger's character was killed).

@DeeVee So many off screen characters were treated that way. So many missed opportunities for better storylines. 

Edited August 17Aug 17 by MLH

41 minutes ago, DeeVee said:

The writers clearly did not bother spending a little time looking up inheritance laws. Diane made such a fuss about getting Alan to disinherit Phillip because he wasn't a "real" Spaulding. How would that have benefited her? To this day I have no idea. Alan could have left his money to a homeless bum if he wanted to, being a "real" anything has nothing to do with it. Also, no one kept track of any of these sales, because when Amanda visited Christmas 1987, she gave Phillip her proxy to vote her stocks. 

Maybe if they hadn't done it as often, it wouldn't seem like a problem. They also did it to characters who they made a big deal of connecting to core families, and then, boom, they killed them off--like Lujack and Gus. Again, what is the point of doing that? And look at how they end up bringing some back as ghosts, or fantasies, or twins...it's just silly.

It's not just killing people off, it's wiping legacy characters off the board by writing them out permanently. I'm sure when they first wrote out some of those characters, a lot of us didn't expect them to disappear for good. There are lots of instances over the years where their absences seemed wrong. Like Mike and Hope not being at Alan Michael's wedding. There is a Christmas (I think 1988) where Phillip, Harley, and Alan Michael are in NYC. Phillip even tells Harley about Hope. Do any of them go to see her? No, not even a mention of an off-screen meeting. You're right there, go see your mother, Alan Michael, you bum.

I'm wrong--Quint must have bought the shares Diane amassed before her death, and not Amanda's. Diane died in '81, and Amanda still had her shares while she ran Spaulding in '82. Vanessa tried blackmailing Quint for his proxy in December of '82. So I guess I'm not exactly sure what happened to Amanda's shares.

Whether Diane's scheme to have Phillip disinherited was just her jealousy lashing out at someone Alan loved or she thought she could somehow get those shares, I don't know. I wish more of that era was up, because it would be fascinating watching Sophia Landon Geier weave Diane's web.  

The loose ends in general drive me crazy. Granted, some of them might be tied up in episodes not available (or that I just haven't watched for whatever reason.) But mostly I think writers just decide the fallout from "tidbit A" isn't juicy enough to explore. And when "story X" needs to affect more of the canvas, then characters D, E, and F are just thrown back in regardless. 

6 hours ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

For what it's worth, I have a different opinion. And it's not worth much because it's just one person's opinion. LOL. But I don't have a problem with legacy characters dying on soaps because I want my soaps to be as close to real life as possible and, in real life, "legacy people" die.  

Well here is the problem Reverend...the producers need to be smart about it. As you can see my  screen name Lujack was my all time favorite character. When VI left the show the writers said killing him instead of sending him on a world wide tour for his video would catapult those around them into the next chapter of their lives. They could have accomplished the same thing at the very least with a presumed dead no body instead of dying on screen. He could have been lost in the river instead of dying from injuries from the explosion (someday I will do a post about the tinest of wiggle room how to get past that).  So anyway flash forward when VI and the producers came together to bring him back they had to do all kind of gyrations to create the Nick character. As much as I love VI...I will be the first to admit...Nick didn't even come close to being as good as Lujack and some of the choices they made like his romantic activities with three different Mindys and dull as dishwater Eve...compare that to a presumed dead Lujack resurfacing and maybe bringing Beth back from Arizona. It could have been glorious but no since they killed of a legacy character it robbed so much great story potential.