Guiding Light discussion thread

[JarrodMFiresofLove]

 

I would have killed Bill Bauer off too, if I was in charge. He had been so infrequently seen since the late 60s that the heart of the family no longer included him. At least Long and Kobe got some drama and real mileage out of his death.

 

As I said previously I think axing Mike was the right move. However, I did not think Hope should have been written off...or if she was, why she couldn't have returned later, especially when Alan-Michael was aged and reintroduced. The worst part of Hope's exit was she had become a drunk and we were supposed to want Alan to divorce her. But I can also see how being married to a man like Alan might have turned anyone into a drunk. So part of it made sense. Still she could have come back later on after she'd sobered up.

 

I also wasn't crazy about Hilary being killed off. But I think she was kind of played out. She should have just left town like Mike and Hope did, with a possible return later. I found actress Marsha Clark to be almost too masculine in the role so I never bought her as a romantic leading lady in any of the character's possible romances. She was best as a pal of Katie's at Cedars. And her friendship with Kelly and Floyd was good. But in terms of soapy drama, she was never going to be a center stage leading lady.

 

I think refocusing the Bauers on Ed and Maureen was the right move. And giving Ed another child (Michelle) kept the Bauers going until Rick was old enough to take over as the Bauer patriarch. Subsequent head writers continued to make sure more Bauers were born. Rick had several kids. And technically the Bauer line continued through Alan-Michael and the Spauldings too.

[vetsoapfan]

 

Yes, I remember that obituary notice, but it just infuriated me because it was like the current writers simply put a sloppy band-aid on the problem of Elizabeth's inexplicable disappearance, and the fact that she had gone unmentioned for more than a decade, even when her son desperately needed her presence. "Oh, our show never explained what could have happened to Elizabeth, and no one ever refers to her at all, so let's just say she died ages ago, and then ignore her again!"

 

I hate sloppy writing like that. Bobby Martin on AMC, Sam and Kirk on ATWT, Stuart Brooks on Y&R, Tommy Horton on DAYS...the daytime landscape is like the Bermuda Triangle. Characters cease to exist without explanation.

[dc11786]

I apologize. I don't think I was clear. I think it was addressed onscreen in the early 1990s or so I was told. I think Beth and Phillip talked about it. I don't know if it was just in passing or if it was a more meaningful conversation about what happened to Elizabeth. Either way, I do get your bigger point; Elizabeth Spaulding wasn't a character who should have been written off so carelessly. 

 

When the show managed to get Felicia Dano in 2005, I remember TPTB were intially quiet about what role she was playing. I was hoping she was going to play Elizabeth Spaulding, who would reveal she had taken Phillip away to save him from the Spaulding influence. At that point, why not bring two characters back from the dead in one shot. 

[vetsoapfan]

 

I think your opinions are shaped from your point of view as someone who had no extensive, long-term experience of watching these legacy characters, so they therefore meant less to you than they did to veteran viewers. This is not meant to be a criticism in any way. Your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's, of course. But longtime viewers of any series are wont to be protective of the legacy characters and the essential components that had made their shows popular and enduring in the first place.  Gail Kobe did not understand this as a producer. She felt that flashy plots were more important than the characters whom the audience regarded as friends and family, and she acted on that premise by gratuitously firing 2/3 of the cast.

 

I would say that Bill Bauer's death was pointlessly cruel, and the idiotic, history-butchering, factually-impossible story it lead to held no merit and only hurt the show. 

 

With all the other Bauer's gone, we were left with Peter Simon's morose, listless Ed to carry on the torch. If Mart Hulswit had remained as the warm, affable and FAMILIAR patriarch, Ed Bauer might have been relevant in the 1980s, but with Simon and Van Fleet in the role, the new and unimproved Ed was merely another stranger in a sea of newbies. TGL was no longer TGL.

 

 

Unless I TOTALLY missed it (and no viewer can watch every single episode of any show), I do not remember Phillip referencing Elizabeth's death in the early 1990s. (If anyone knows for sure, and actually saw this on-screen, please correct me.) As far as I know, Elizabeth remained unmentioned and in the Twilight Zone (LOL) until we saw her mentioned as deceased in Phillip's obituary.

 

Anyway, even if the show did finally address her whereabouts in the early 1990s, it was sloppy writing to have let her absence go unaddressed for TEN YEARS. Viewers questioned this for a long time, all over the internet. Why was Elizabeth never there for the son she loved so fiercely?

Edited August 22, 2018 by vetsoapfan

[Soaplovers]

I thought Elizabeth was at least mentioned when Lizzie was born when Philip/Beth explained why they choose the name of Lizzie.  I will say I liked that the show didn't take the standard route of having Philip disown the Spauldings and adopt the Marler's as his family.  He was close to Ross, and I liked that he was super close to Dinah (both sharing a common bond of discovering their true families as teens... it was a shame that by the time Drew was around by the late 90s, Dinah had left town and Philip was ignoring the Marlers).

 

I was a small child in the mid 80s and my first memories were of the 4 Musketeers, Reva, etc.. so the mid 80s to the mid 90s are more what I'm attached to.  With that said, I have seen episodes from the late 70s and early 80s as an adult, so I can understand why long term viewers would have had a hard time with the drastic change in the show by 1984/5.  I think Long and Calhoun were able to correct a lot of stuff starting in 1988 (I think the writers strike in 1988 derailed Long's previous efforts  when she returned in mid 1987) so that by 1989 through 1993, the show had a second rebirth.

 

@JarrodMFiresofLove  I can understand why Hilary didn't mesh well romantically with people.. but I think the reason I liked her was because she wasn't the typical soap opera actress.  She and Jim Reardon had a good connection, and on the Slut of Springfield episode.. both she and Jim had a long talk about their relationship, their goals and dreams.. it just gets overshadowed by the Reva/Josh scene.  And I think Hilary could have left town and returned in 1988/9 when Roger/Holly came back because she was heavily involved in that story in the late 70s.  She was Roger's mistress when he and Holly were married.. and she felt so much guilt and self-loathing for putting herself in that position that she broke things off.. and than Roger went to Holly.. and the two were having an argument cause the two seemed to have had an understanding by that time where Holly married Roger to give Chrissy a family (since Ed was with Rita).. and Roger realized Holly didn't love him so turned to Hilary... while Holly assumed Roger was fooling around with Diane Ballard.

[vetsoapfan]

 

Yes, Phillip mentioned that Lizzie was named after Elizabeth, but again, I don't think (or remember) that he or anyone else explained where she was, what had happened to her, why she was never around, and whether she was alive or dead.

 

Most soap fans tell me that the characters who were central when they first started watching are the characters who mean the most to them. Viewers who began watching TGL during the Reva-centric 1980s care for her more than those of us who had been following the show for decades, and whose longtime favorites were unceremoniously dumped in the early 1980s. I loathed Reva and her entire family  and hated that clan taking up so much screen time. I also loathed all things Winslow, Santos, and most of the Coopers.

 

I agree with your assessment of Hillary. She was a different sort of heroine, and refreshing, and inventive writers could have woven her into future storylines.

 

I have often thought that many fans could run these shows better and more satisfactorily than the actual PTB.

[Soaplovers]

 

From rewatching the late 80s through early 90s episodes, Pam Long's departure along with Jim Reilly's joining GL around the same really changed the show's tone somewhat.

 

I noticed that the writing for Nadine, Holly, Maureen, Harley, and Alexandra really suffered when Long left.  I'll even wager that focus groups would have rated Maureen better if they were asked about her before 1991 because her big stories in 1991/2 was trying to have a baby, being jealous of Holly, blind defending of Roger, and there were even a few instances where she victim blamed Holly.  That's why I liked that once Vanessa/Holly bonded eventually Maureen had to come around (Black out episodes solidified that).  I still think killing Maureen off was a big mistake because the Ed/Lillian/Maureen situation had so many avenues to explore... I would have had Maureen vanish.. and once backlash over her leaving was known to the powers that be, they could have bought her back.. and played out the fall out.

 

During Holly's first two years back, she was an ace at her job yet would be her own worst enemy in regards to her personal life.. when Long left, Holly became more neurotic and needy even when she was dating Daniel St. John.

 

During Nadine's first few years, she was wacky, shallow, ambitious and wasn't a quitter.  When Long left.. she got jealous over losing Billy,  and than being ruined by her loving Buzz never made sense.  I'm still upset the show killed her off as well.

 

Harley was an underdog and was called out by people for having a chip on her shoulder.. by 1991/2.. she became this beloved figure.. that grew worse after she returned in 1997.

 

And I've discussed my feelings on what was done to Alexandra.  Personally, I don't blame her for trying to break up Mindy and Nick.. Mindy did sleep with her husband and tried to break up her marriage than changed the paternity results.. so I never was on Mindy's side.  With that said, when the original Mindy would come back to visit, I could like her again because it wasn't her that did the affair with Roger/Nick paternity test, etc.. if that makes sense.

 

 

[Paul Raven]

In some part, previous writers need to shoulder the blame for the ultimate demise of Mike.

He should have been given a son by Charlotte or Leslie, thus continuing the legacy of the Bauer family and name.

[JarrodMFiresofLove]

 

Your post makes me chuckle because it seems full of (false) assumptions. I was a long-time viewer of Guiding Light. I watched from 1978 until 2009. As I said in previous posts I was initially unhappy with Mike being written out but in hindsight I can see that Ed was the better choice as a long-term way to continue the Bauers and basically Mike (and Hope) became expendable. The producers and writers chose to follow one branch of the Bauer family tree and it feels to me like they made the right choice. Just like in the mid-2000s, Wheeler and Kreizman wrote Michelle and Danny out and chose to focus on Rick's branch as the continuing Bauers. Some of it is down to budget, some of it is actors leaving on their own or being fired because they've reached the end of a storyline, whatever. But if someone has to go, it makes sense that the most expendable ones go.

 

I think it is wrong to assume that all long time viewers have the same ideas and the same kind of loyalty. There are probably others who agree with me that Ed's family kept the Bauers a central focus in the 80s and 90s. It's really not worth arguing about. From my vantage point I try to understand why some key creative decisions get made and to accept them where I can. Obviously I don't agree with every axing but I tend to agree with most of Kobe/Long's decisions. A lot of characters they got rid of had run their course and there were no new stories that could be had with them. Ben and Eve, as much as I loved them, were played out. Floyd was played out. I think Jennifer and Amanda were played out. All of those are ones I would have gotten rid of too.

 

As for Bill Bauer he was never going to become a regular character again under any headwriter. So keeping him alive did not generate any story. But killing him did. The Bauers were not above being axed. But actually, there was never a time in the 80s, 90s or 2000s when there wasn't a Bauer on contract. The family continued to be represented the whole time the show was on the air.

[slick jones]

Rather than introduce the Jack/Lanie /Johnny'Lacey Bauers, there should have been an effort to bring Mike/ Hope/ A-M. I never cared for Johnny Bauer and that gymnast girl was snoozeville. I've read that Frank DiCopolous was originally cast as Jack's son (Lanie's stepson) Todd Bauer. Lucky for DiCopolous they changed lanes there. I doubt "Todd" would have lasted much past Johnny.......

[j swift]

I watching the Fletcher Reid character bio on YouTube and it reminded me of what a perfect male soap actor Jay Hammer was.  He easily matured from speedo-wearing hunk to avuncular B-story hero.  His acting may have been not ready for primetime (i.e. The Jeffersons) but he was a ball of charm on soaps. 

 

It goes without saying that we don't allow female characters to age in this way.  For example, with all of this talk of Melinda Sue, I was thinking that a woman like Alexandra Spaulding didn't come out of the womb as a diva, she developed,  While it would have been interesting to see Mindy go from scheming teen to mid-20's damsel-in-distress to 50's aristocrat; we rarely see women evolve.  Fletch evolved (I'm guessing) because male actors are allowed to age on screen.  Jay Hammer, David Forsyth, and Robert Newman are all excellent examples of the male actors who were very hunky in their youths and aged respectfully. 

 

Perhaps, when we talk about other "legacy characters" we should look at their potential to age well?  Many of those action hero type characters began to look silly when their overly dyed hair and leisure suits were in scenes with younger men.

[vetsoapfan]

 

I apologize. I confused you with another poster who was born in the 1980s, but who had read about the show's past and liked to discuss it. Everyone's opinion is 100% valid, regardless of when s/he started watching a soap, but my point was that viewers who "lived" with certain characters for years were more likely to be invested in them and understand their importance than newer viewers who had only heard about them, second-hand. If you began watching in 1978, then you certainly did experience several of the show's golden years. Again, I am sorry for confusing you with someone else.

 

While I personally disagree with most of your opinions, you are right that arguing about such things is pointless. It's like looking at a prism from different angles as it reflects the light. Everyone might have a different perception from their own vantage point, but that does not mean anyone is "wrong". 

 

 

Absolutely true. After Mike was written out, I was hoping that we would have later discovered he had hooked up with Elizabeth and fathered twin boys. That would have explained her disappearance, assured the continuation of the Bauer family name by blood, AND provided storyline conflict (considering how much Phillip hated Mike but wanted a relationship with his mom). Alas.

 

 

Yes, as the years went on, many once-promising characters were butchered thanks to bad writing. Long was the writer who understood Reva best, and that character became cartoonish later on, thanks to scribes who did not write her well. Long also understand the Rick/Phillip relationship better than any other writer, and their interaction was never as mesmerizing or poignant as when she was in charge of telling their story. It was sad watching female characters who had been three-dimensional and fascinating lose their luster. But the WORST was actually killing off Maureen, when she was the heart of the Bauer family and had so much potential left in her. Focus groups suck.

 

 

OMFG! Those fake Bauers were blasphemy, LOL! The viewers had been bombarding the show for YEARS to get the family back in focus on TGL, and this was the best TPTB could do?

 

Why create a bunch of characters who could not realistically exist within the established canon of the show's history, when so many better options were available? Mike could have returned, with twin sons in tow. Hope could have returned, also with another offspring or two if necessary. Meta's stepson Joey and his children (as Meta's grandkids) could have been introduced. Trudy Bauer's history was basically a clean slate and the writers could have created various descendants of hers to carry on the family legacy. Heck, Hillary Bauer had a brother, Paul Kinkaid, who could have been confirmed as Bill Bauer's son, thereby bringing in another blood Bauer to provide conflict within the family and Springfield. Rita Stapleton could have had Ed Bauer's child after she left town. 

 

There were sooooooooo many logical possibilities, to anyone who actually knew the show's history, and yet we got presented with the likes of...Lacey! Egads!

Edited August 23, 2018 by vetsoapfan

[j swift]

I just chuckled to think about the shift of GL from the 70's to the 80's because while there were no other Mikes, only 4 years after the departure of Dr. Sara Mcintyre we got Sarah Shayne.  Once a new set of writers repeats a first name for their new character as a heritage character, I believe, it indicates a lack of concern about the cannon of that story.  

 

Also, although every fan likes to indulge in a little fantasy fiction, I don't think it is a valid criticism to suggest a writer who did not imagine the same possibility, out of an infinite number of possibilities, lacks creativity.

Edited August 23, 2018 by j swift

[JarrodMFiresofLove]

 

As your post indicates there was a slightly different spelling. Sara McIntyre was another character that was played out. Kobe/Long came in at a unique point in the show's history when some of those holdovers from the 70s had run their course and in order to refresh/reset Guiding Light those people who had basically run out of storyline had to be let go.

 

Reusing a name might have occurred because Long had a relative or friend named Sarah she was basing Sarah Shayne on...or else the meaning of the name corresponded to Long's idea and conception of the character and what she was supposed to represent. There could have been a number of reasons this happened. The name Michael was reused...I believe the doctor in the clone Reva story was named Michael. Also Edmond was a variation of Ed. During the Conboy-Weston era, Ed Bauer and Edmond Winslow were both regularly featured characters.

[j swift]

True, but at time when the soap press was filed with complaints about Reva taking over the show, it may not have been a respectful move to recycle that name for the character of her mother.

 

Also, while I demur to your Edmond Winslow/Ed Bauer point, it did lead to the clumsy writing of everyone saying their full names, if they were in the same script; which was rare.  Also, one would hardly refer to either Edmond Winslow or Michael the Clone Doctor as well written characters created by people who valued the cannon of a long running show.

 

I think there was always going to be a tension for such a long running show as to how much to respect history versus how much to allow new writers to create contemporary stories with new characters and families.  For example, Mike could have had twelve kids, but I doubt any of them would have added to the diversity of the show in later years; so there has to be some balance between nostalgia and progress.

Edited August 23, 2018 by j swift