47 minutes ago, GH_Girl said:

 

In addition to not pandering to racists or backwards thinking people, relevant, timely stories like that could bring in NEW viewers. 

 

Soaps were doing socially-relevant and important, educational stories way back in the 1960s, for heaven's sake. All that changed in the 1980s, when low-brow camp and pandering to the lowest-common denominator became the rule of thumb.

1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

Soaps were doing socially-relevant and important, educational stories way back in the 1960s, for heaven's sake. All that changed in the 1980s, when low-brow camp and pandering to the lowest-common denominator became the rule of thumb.

 

But even then soaps still told socially relevant stories. All of that seems to cease about the mid 2000s when soaps totally strayed from their roots. 

2 hours ago, Nothin'ButAttitude said:

 

But even then soaps still told socially relevant stories. All of that seems to cease about the mid 2000s when soaps totally strayed from their roots. 

 

I'd say it was closer to 1994 and 1995, when the OJ trial caused panic and they began noticeably pulling back, especially on minority characters and stories. 

 

Orlagh Cassidy:

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 20178 yr by DRW50

2 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I'd say it was closer to 1994 and 1995, when the OJ trial caused panic and they began noticeably pulling back, especially on minority characters and stories. 

 

But they still somewhat touched social stories every now and then. Not as much as before but they did. Regardless, they do need to venture back to their roots b/c it is criminal that all other forms of media are making a hefty profit off a model that daytime soaps built. 

11 minutes ago, Nothin'ButAttitude said:

 

But they still somewhat touched social stories every now and then. Not as much as before but they did. Regardless, they do need to venture back to their roots b/c it is criminal that all other forms of media are making a hefty profit off a model that daytime soaps built. 

I agree, but these executives have it in their minds that soaps aren't worth it as much anymore. 

Man, watching the June 1991 part 12 episode is just breaking my heart. Maureen's infertility story is so realistic and touching (went through infertility myself, though I ended up with twins, so happy ending). I love Dr Sedgwick saying women are taught from childhood that their sole purpose is to find a husband and have a child and there's more than that to life. I can definitely relate to the sort of desperation Maureen feels, that "this may never happen" fear. Sad that she's only got 1.5 years to live and that it never did happen. I'm hoping they deal with the fact that she does have Michelle and has raised her since infancy though, a lot of the time she sounds like she doesn't even consider herself a mother when she clearly is one.

4 hours ago, GH_Girl said:

Man, watching the June 1991 part 12 episode is just breaking my heart. Maureen's infertility story is so realistic and touching (went through infertility myself, though I ended up with twins, so happy ending). I love Dr Sedgwick saying women are taught from childhood that their sole purpose is to find a husband and have a child and there's more than that to life. I can definitely relate to the sort of desperation Maureen feels, that "this may never happen" fear. Sad that she's only got 1.5 years to live and that it never did happen. I'm hoping they deal with the fact that she does have Michelle and has raised her since infancy though, a lot of the time she sounds like she doesn't even consider herself a mother when she clearly is one.

Didn't Maureen adopt Michelle? 

On 6/15/2017 at 6:18 PM, vetsoapfan said:

 

I always had the feeling that Van Fleet was trying too hard to be sensitive, and it seemed forced, whereas Hulswit projected a natural warmth and vulnerability which drew the audience to him. It did not help Van Fleet, that the writing during the 1980s was generally in the toilet.

 

Yes, Gentry was used on a recurring basis upon his return, which suggested TPTB were not really sure of him or whether or not they wanted to commit to the character. Gentry might have grown on the audience if the show had used him more, or more effectively, but it did not. No one in charge understood the importance of Ed Bauer to the show's core and legacy.

 

This is a great point. It does look like Van Fleet is trying too hard to be sensitive, doesn't it? I always thought he looked so awkward as Ed, even though I really had no problems with him on AMC.

Edited June 19, 20178 yr by zanereed

1 hour ago, zanereed said:

 

This is a great point. It does look like Van Fleet is trying too hard to be sensitive, doesn't it? I always thought he looked so awkward as Ed, even though I really had no problems with him on AMC.

 

I was also fine with RVF's portrayal of Chuck Tyler on AMC, but his Ed Bauer left me cold. To be fair, with Hulswit the definitive Ed, I still cannot think of any other actor whom I would have readily accepted in the part.

 

It's weird: I readily accepted all the different Taras on AMC, along with RVF as Chuck, but I never accepted Nicholas Benedict as Phil Brent (even though I appreciated how he looked in 1970s' jeans, LOL). After mary Fickett left, I never really accepted Cat Ruth, either. On TGL, I preferred replacement Ellen Parker over Ellen Dolan as Maureen, but I never accepted anyone other than Jacqueline Courtney as Alice Frame on ANOTHER WORLD. I guess it's a gut-level reaction viewers have. Certain actors simply click with us and we don't ever want to see them replaced.

 

On 6/18/2017 at 3:37 PM, DRW50 said:

I'd say it was closer to 1994 and 1995, when the OJ trial caused panic and they began noticeably pulling back, especially on minority characters and stories.

 

Agree.

Wish another soap hired Ellen Parker after GL

12 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

I was also fine with RVF's portrayal of Chuck Tyler on AMC, but his Ed Bauer left me cold. To be fair, with Hulswit the definitive Ed, I still cannot think of any other actor whom I would have readily accepted in the part.

 

It's weird: I readily accepted all the different Taras on AMC, along with RVF as Chuck, but I never accepted Nicholas Benedict as Phil Brent (even though I appreciated how he looked in 1970s' jeans, LOL). After mary Fickett left, I never really accepted Cat Ruth, either. On TGL, I preferred replacement Ellen Parker over Ellen Dolan as Maureen, but I never accepted anyone other than Jacqueline Courtney as Alice Frame on ANOTHER WORLD. I guess it's a gut-level reaction viewers have. Certain actors simply click with us and we don't ever want to see them replaced.

 

You are so right. RVF never felt like Ed, especially at a time when everything was changing on the show. 

 

It is a very funny thing with recasts. And sometimes we like the new actor so much that we don't mind that they were a rather odd choice. 

2 hours ago, Elsa said:

 

You are so right. RVF never felt like Ed, especially at a time when everything was changing on the show. 

 

It is a very funny thing with recasts. And sometimes we like the new actor so much that we don't mind that they were a rather odd choice. 

 

Whether we accept a recast or not has no logical, rational component. It's all a gut-level reaction. Judith Light was a recast as Karen Wolek on OLTL, but I accepted her (and preferred her) instantly. I also accepted all the various Dorian Lords, although Robin Strasser was my favorite. But after George Reinhot left, I never accepted any of the three later actors cast in the role. On TGL, I accepted and loved recast Maureen Garrett as Holly, but hated the recast Rogers.

I'm curious how the switch from Sherry Stringfield to Liz Keifer went with Blake. I started watching in the late 90s, so LK was the only Blake I knew and I liked her a lot. But having now watched a ton of SS's Blake, I LOVE her. I imagine the shift, and especially at that point in the Ross/Holly/Blake story, would have been so hard to accept.