Guiding Light discussion thread

[JarrodMFiresofLove]

 

I don't think I agree with the point that recycling a name means a writer is not respecting the canon of the show. Bill Bell who created and head wrote The Young & the Restless had John Abbott and John Silva both as regular characters on the show in the late 80s and early 90s. Silva was sometimes called by his last name but when they gave him a love story his girlfriend called him John. So there were two Johns on the show at the same time and nobody seemed to have a problem with it.

 

In fact it is unbelievable that on soaps there are not more repeated names, since some names are very common in real life. On GL, Long reused other names. Besides Bill Bauer there was Billy Lewis and Bill Lewis. Michelle was originally named Bert Bauer Ramsey by another head writer but was renamed by Long as Michelle Bauer, after her uncle Mike. Estensten & Brown gave Danny Santos a brother named Mick that Michelle killed. Estensten & Brown also introduced a brother for Ross named Ben Warren when there was already a character named Ben Reade. I don't remember anyone complaining about the name Ben being reused.

[vetsoapfan]

 

Yes, certainly. The natural aging process of any character/actor needs to be part of the equation. In the 1950s, TEON's Mike Karr was more of an action hero, getting involved in all sorts of crime busting, but as the decades went on, it would have been inappropriate, if not improbable, for him to be involved in physically strenuous and combative behavior. ATWT's Lisa Miller was a sexy vixen when she first appeared, but 50 years later, the exact same vixenish antics would appear ridiculous in a senior citizen. This does not mean that older characters are "played out" or should be dropped from their shows. It just means that TPTB should use them differently, according to their changing age and status. 

 

 

Right. There are as many different ideas and story possibilities out there as there are viewers and professional writers. No scribe who takes over a long-running series should be accused of lacking creativity ONLY because he does not acquiesce to the wishes of every fan, but a writer who cannot find ANY use for a show's established, extremely popular characters and history is not a good fit for that series. If he looks at a soap's canvas and truly believes that 2/3 of the core characters are "worn out" and have no remaining possible story potential, TPTB should not allow him to take a chainsaw to the cast. They should look for another writer who DOES have the creativity to invent new material for the beloved characters whom the audience wants to see. When Harding Lemay took over AW in 1971, there were characters whom he felt were bland and storylines which he felt were already played out, but with enough hard work and creativity, he BRILLIANTLY penned new and vibrant stories for them and helped the ratings rise in the process. Ditto Douglas Marland when he took over GH and Claire Labine when she became head writer of Love of Life. Soap scribes don't have to agree with the fans in order to be creative, but they do have to be able to create on their own.

 

 

Who is to say that none of Mike Bauer's theoretical 12 kids could add diversity to the show in later years? Again, if a writer cannot make characters interesting, he's not right for the job. P&G kept introducing  newbies during their  shows' final years, many of whom did not find favor with the audience. Why not at least tie some of these otherwise irrelevant new characters into the shows' core by relating them to longtime beloved families? If the characters ended up boring, they would be boring whether they were Bauers, Hugheses, Matthewses or not, but at least longtime viewers might be somewhat mollified at the attempt to respect history.

Edited August 23, 2018 by vetsoapfan

[JarrodMFiresofLove]

 

You are borrowing my phrase 'played out' and I think you are misappropriating it. Played out does not mean a character has grown old. Technically a young character could be played out too. Played out means they have outlived their usefulness having gone beyond the point where they can be logically used in the framework of existing storylines. Villains tend to be played out the fastest. When a character ends up doing the same thing again and again, or recedes into the background because there aren't any new ways to present the character, then he or she is played out.

 

Sometimes if a writer and producer temporarily rest a character, by putting them into a coma or sending them to jail or out of town for awhile, they can come back later with renewed purpose and storyline. Then they have something to play again. As for Lisa, she was a beloved presence on As the World Turns for a long time, but Hogan Sheffer probably felt she was played out and that's why he didn't use her. He couldn't fire Eileen Fulton so she just became a glorified extra during those years.

 

This happened to Jeanne Cooper on The Young and the Restless. They reached a point where Katherine Chancellor was played out (around 2008). So they gave her a new storyline where an impostor named Marge came into the picture and took over Katherine's identity for awhile. Now Cooper was playing a new character with all these new story avenues. And while Katherine was kidnapped and kept off screen it created all these new problems so that when Katherine returned and exposed the impostor as a fraud, there were all these messes she had to clean up, which gave Katherine a renewed purpose.

 

Besides impostors and twins, another trick soap writers use to give played out characters a renewed purpose is they bring in a long-lost child or long-lost parent, so there's something else to play. Marland did this with Lisa in the 90s when he revealed to viewers she had another son named Scott Eldridge. However subsequent writers botched that story. If they hadn't, then Eileen Fulton would have had a lot more to play in the 2000s with Lisa involved in her second son's life.

 

Anyway played out has nothing to do with a character's age. It has to do with whether or not they remain relevant in the show's ongoing storylines, and that can happen to a character of any age.

Edited August 23, 2018 by JarrodMFiresofLove

[Khan]

 

IA.  I believe there was room enough on GL for the Bauers AND the Spauldings AND the Marlers AND the Norrises AND the Thorpes AND the Reardons AND the Chamberlains AND the Lewises AND the Shaynes.

[zanereed]

 

The problem I had with the death of Bill Bauer is that it really didn't have much drama, and certainly no long term mileage. It was a problem I had with other soaps at that time - sacrifice a long-term character or historical character for a short-term storyline (Eli Simms, in this case). Plus, as you correctly stated, Bill hadn't been seen since 1978, so what true impact did his death have on that storyline? Not much. If Bill had been around a bit more leading up to his death, giving a chance for viewers to get acquainted/re-acquainted with the character, then I might have been more accepting of it. The more compelling story to kill off Bill would be to bring the character back to Springfield to try to finally make amends with his family. Give the storyline a year to play out (which would NEVER happen today), where Bill tries to make amends to Mike, Ed, and Hillary, and to seek forgiveness from Bert for everything he's done in the past. Bill tries to take an active involvement in both his kids' and grandkids' (and great-grandkid with Alan-Michael) lives. The catch would be that Bill is actually dying, or is very sick. An interesting cause would be liver failure (due to drinking) or lung cancer (due to smoking, which was very frequent on soaps during the 1950's and 1960's).

 

I will still disagree with the writing out of Mike Bauer. I would have been more accepting of even a recast at that point. There's no doubt that Long was going to use Mike not only in the love triangle with Lilian and Alex, but also with the whole "Susan Piper/Brandon Spaulding ain't dead" storyline (don't even get me started on that one). The problem was that during the reveal in November, there wasn't anyone still on the show with who had any history or experience with Brandon, only Alex. Fletcher, Tony, Annabelle, Jim, had no involvement or relation to it. Alan was gone, Amanda was gone, and any other Spaulding that would have been impacted by Brandon's reveal was nowhere to be found. Mike would have probably been there along with Alex, to show what a shock it was having Brandon fake his death. Why? Because Mike had history with the Spauldings.

 

Again, if the end game for Long was Mike and Alex, that would have been fascinating to see play out. Have Hope come back with a slightly older (but not 18 years old!) Alan-Michael, and you could have some very interesting family dynamics going on, not the least of which would be Alan Spaulding returning from the "dead" to see his arch nemesis married to his sister.

 

Hillary Bauer...Hillary was a great character, full of spunk. She was fun! While she was never going to be over-the-top like a Reva, she was still a breath of fresh air in Springfield. Hillary was a nice contrast to her two brothers. In Marland's term, it seemed like he would occasionally forget she was a Bauer. I liked Clark, because she didn't look like traditional leading lady. I think in the right hands and with the right story, she could have been - especially once Roger reappeared in 1989.

Edited August 23, 2018 by zanereed

[vetsoapfan]

 

No, I never equated being "played out" ONLY to characters who were getting older. I meant that just because a writer could no longer use a character in the exact same way as when s/he was first introduced, or just because an actor/character was advancing in years,  does not mean that s/he is no longer useful and therefore should be written out. TPTB can use the "played out" justification for eliminating anyone, regardless of age.

 

The characters eliminated by TGL at the time were of various ages, younger and older, and the majority of them (IMHO) were still viable and had stories to tell. Long and Kobe's announcing those characters were "played out" seemed to be a catch phrase used as an excuse when the actors balked at the new direction the show was taking, or when the new PTB simply did not care to write for them anymore.

Edited August 23, 2018 by vetsoapfan

[vetsoapfan]

 

Right, and if there had NOT been enough room (or budget) for all those families, stop introducing so many new ones. This is not to say that TGL could not phase out characters and families as time went on, of course, but it's never a wise move to annihilate a huge number of cast members in such a relatively short period of time, while simultaneously introducing a bunch of new ones. Maybe, say, the Norris and Thorpe families could have been phased out  since Roger and Holly were not there at the time, but writing out almost all of the Bauers was egregious. Personally, I could have lived without every single one of the Shayne family.

 

 

Great commentary and analysis, Zanereed.

 

You are so right. The death of Bill Bauer seemed gratuitously cruel to me because it was so pointless. Without his presence beforehand in Springfield, without his renewed involvement with his family, there was no emotional resonance there, no reason to throw in the death of an original character except for momentary shock value. If Bill had first returned to Springfield suffering from a failing heart (after his transplants) and we had gotten to "live with" him again for awhile, his death would have mattered. As it played out, it was just gratuitous.

 

The Brandon-Spaulding-is-alive nightmare was a terrible story and historically impossible, since we had seen him die on screen. Worse, with so many potentially-affected characters offscreen, it too lacked real emotional resonance. Mike should have been involved, with Alex, as someone with extensive dealings with the Spauldings and their nefarious behavior. And as you say, a Mike/Alex pairing would provide a lot of potential storyline fodder and sparks between the families.

 

TGL in the 1980s was a study in bad decisions and missed opportunities. It reminded me of DAYS under Nina Laemmle's reign of terror, when she assumed the reigns as headwriter. The scribe announced that the show was "dull and repetitious" and that Salem was saddled a plethora of denizens who had supposedly run their course, so she very swiftly and unceremoniously axed 14 characters and brought in nine (I think) of her own. It was an abysmal failure which left fans alienated and howling. New writers who do not understand or have an interest in the heart and foundation of any long-running franchise must not be given carte blanche to do ANYTHING they want.

[JarrodMFiresofLove]

 

I don't think you're seeing the whole picture. In another post you go on about how much you like Reva. But if Kobe/Long didn't get rid of some people there would not have been room to bring Reva and her family in, expand Josh's family, expand the Spauldings and add the Raines family, or the Cooper family later. It's unrealistic to expect a new producer and new head writer to continue using all the previous regime's characters. It just does not happen in soap land. They have been hired to bring a new vision to the show and that means cutting the deadwood and introducing vibrant new characters to carry the drama forward.

 

And I don't think you were really paying attention to the storyline where Bill Bauer was killed off. The point of that story was there was someone (Eli Sims) who wanted revenge against the patriarchs because of what had happened to his wife years ago. Someone had to die as he carried out his vengeance, otherwise the story would have had no gravitas. And having Eli kill someone important like Bill Bauer gave it a long-term lasting effect. You are still affected by Eli's murder spree years later, almost a decade after the show went off the air. So that tells me Kobe & Long crafted a very strong story and it made a huge impact if we're still discussing it in 2018. Other writers would have just forgotten about Bill Bauer and never mentioned him again. But Kobe & Long gave us so much more than that.

[Mitch]

LOL...God I hate Fletcher and Hammer!!! They paired him with every diva on the show and no sparks were found! When they put him with Holly Hammer spent his whole time walking over Garrets lines..sorry...Fletch was right there with Buzzard on my Hate-O-Meter! I would have had Brent/Marion knife that nosey ****er instead of that boring cop guy, or poor dim Nadine.  A two-fer...Buzz instead on Nadine (I would love to see Deas scenery chewing death scenes...Marion..."Its not that I hate you..its just that I am helping to stomp out noise pollution.")  and Fletch for whatsisface the cop.  Remember when they had that dumb.."Tell us what you think!" number at the end of the show... I MAY have had a wee bit too much to drink one night and after watching my "tape" of an episode where Hammer was trying to outdo Deas in scenery chewing... left a drunken rant about Fletch on the line. I can only imagine they must have kept that to replay for months for shits and giggles listening to me slur out my annoyance. (edited to change slut to slur..Freudian slip as the usual activity that happened after drinking back in the day..)

 

As for Mike, yes, I would have fired the actor too,  but I would have just recast..there were a ton of guys that age who could have played him.  I actually would have brought Mike back when Simon left under McTrash..during the Alan tearing down 5th Street garbage.  A could actor who could have contolled Marj during scenes would have been great for a Mike/Alex pairing.  I know they were thining of making Jeffery a Bauer (God forbid) and Ashley Ricks kid from a sperm donation until the online furor stopped that. I could see big,clumsy , funny Ashley being Rick's kid and she was all Bauer, always sticking her nose into other people;s lives and giving them advice!

Edited August 23, 2018 by Mitch

[j swift]

I think that the Reva era was successful because it felt like an evolution within a known environment.  Reva went to Ceder's Hospital and all of the other landmarks in town.  She also faced the same broader issues of living in Springfield as Trish, Elizabeth or Jackie a decade earlier.  Trying to maintain a relationships with men who have deep societal roots, the consequences of wanting too much, the pain of seeing your true love stay in a relationship out of obligation, the gossiping of student nurses, etc..

 

Furthermore, I would argue that the killing off of Bill allowed Bert to remain a martyr.  If Bill had stuck around or sobered up there would have been an inevitable effort to try to get Bert to forgive him and maybe even a late in life romance.  However, that would really undermine all of the work that Bert had done in raising her sons.  I feel that making a story about Bill's redemption negates Bert's agency.  I get the storyline possibilities but, I don't think that they would be worth the price of Bert's reputation.  I don't think the later Bert and Josh scenes after her amputation would have the same impact if Bert had agreed to forgive and forget Bill. 

 

 @vetsoapfan I agree with not liking the Brandon Spaulding Barbados reveal.  However, I have a few detail questions.  I read that Alan came to Springfield in the 70's from Chicago, so when did we see Brandon Spaulding die on screen before Barbados?  Also, Alan took over Spaulding years earlier and made it into an international company, so why did any of Brandon's other heirs, legitimate or not, deserve a part of the company?

 

Finally, from the realm of fan fic, I would argue that Dr Sara Mcintyre could have still played an essential role if they hadn't written in that she divorced Adam Thorpe when he returned in the early 90's.  She was Roger's step-mother at a time when they tried to expand Roger's family with Hart.  Imagine Dr. Sara as the anti-Alexandra; less haughty more hippy.  She could have judged Roger's ethics and supported Blake's sexual drive.  Dr. Sara had a lot going for her.

Edited August 23, 2018 by j swift

[robbwolff]

Actually Long was still head writer when Michelle was born in 1985. So she named her Bert Bauer Ramsey. If I recall correctly, Fletcher nicknamed her Bibi. Another head writer -- possibly Jeff Ryder -- was the one who changed the child's name to Michelle.

I, unlike others, liked the Annabelle story in 1983. But I honestly did not see long-term lasting effects from Bill Bauer being murdered. He was killed and pretty much forgotten. What were the effects that were shown on screen?

[vetsoapfan]

 

What....? In another post, I went on about how much I liked Reva?!?!

 

Nooooooooooooooooooo. I am notorious for consistently asserting my dislike for the character. I have said that Pamela Long wrote her better than another other writer, but that the character became cartoonish in later years. You are mistaking me for someone else. That is not a criticism. Just recently, I confused you with another poster who was born in 1987 (I think), but who liked to discuss soap plots and characters he had never seen, from long before his time. Confusion happens to all of us at some point when interacting with so many strangers on the internet. No sweat.

 

Right, Long and Kobe made room on the canvas for other families I disliked (the Shaynes, the Raineses, and much later the Coopers and the Santoses and the Winslows) by undermining the historical foundation of TGL, gutting it of its pre-existing families,  and essentially turning into a very different, much weaker show. I have always felt their butchering the cast so drastically was a destructive move. 

 

Also, never once did I demand that a new regime keep and use ALL the characters on the canvas. I have already referred to the Norrises and the Thorpes who could have been diminished in the 1980s, considering that their leads, Roger and Holly, were no longer on the show. Various characters come and go all the time on soaps, that's understood. But gutting The Waltons of the Waltons, Little House on the Prairie of the Ingalls (look how THAT turned out!), Dallas of the Ewings, or TGL of the Bauers is ultimately so destructive because it deprives the series of its very roots. When you chop away a plant's roots, it dwindles and dies.

 

*I* was not paying attention to the Eli Simms story?!? That is absurd, of course. My assessment that it was a painfully-planned and poorly-executed plot that butchered history gratuitously and ultimately meant nothing does not mean Long and Kobe did something right by foisting it on the audience. It means that their bad choices live on in viewers' memories, as the beginning of the end for a once-great serial.

 

 

I never liked Fletcher either, and never saw any chemistry between him and his leading ladies. If I were FORCED to save either him or Buzz, however, I would have killed off Buzz and tolerated Fletcher. But I wanted Fletcher off the show.

 

If Don Stewart's ego kept getting in the way, I would have replaced him with another actor too (Jed Allan!), but for stability's sake, I would have tried to reason with Stewart and keep him on the show. After Simon left, I would have grabbed Mart Hulswit by his slightly-chubby ass and dragged him back to Springfield. Richard Van Fleet was even more miscast than Peter Simon as Ed Bauer!

 

If they had made that putrid Jeffery (gag me!) a Bauer, I would have gone postal, LOL. Of all the unbearable characters TGL inflicted on us in its final decades, he was one of the ickiest. He made my skin crawl (much like Sonny on General Hospital).

Edited August 24, 2018 by vetsoapfan

[j swift]

 

There is a type of male hysteria acting that seems to be preferred by certain writing and producing teams.  I liked Fletch because of his romantic appeal.  While, I admired that the arc of the character, I agree that the execution left something to be desired.  Buzz and Fletch were constantly crying and screaming.  My mental image of both characters is just mouth agape, yelling nonsense, and trying to be Stanley Kowalski.  The biggest fault that I had with them both from a plot perspective is that strong women like Harley, Alex, and Claire were always seeking their approval; as if Buzz or Fletch was a paragon of virtue.  I never understood why Jenna would allow herself to be judged by Buzz when he abandoned his kids.

 

Also, I adored edginess of Brent/Marion.

Edited August 23, 2018 by j swift

[Soaplovers]

I think what this boils down to is peoples personal preferences.  I do think long/kobe's first 18 months on GL were balanced, well written, and plotted..they took the show to number 1 for three weeks in the summer of 1984 when GH was still at its peak.  I will say I didnt aee rhe point of killing Hilary especially when her on screen love interest him was written off a few months later...I would have had either him or hilary injured in the explosion and once recovered deciding to leave Springfield together (open door for future return).

 

1985 started out recognizable with focus on the Reardons and Bauers along with the Lewis/Spaulding clan...but by the end of 1985, it was a vastly different show...no Reardons (save maureen), Bauers had a reduced presence, and the lewis/spaulding clan were dominant with lots of new characters.

 

Its funny that Long went down hill in her final year of her first stint..yet came back to fix the mess she started and replacements continued.  Long/calhoun were a good team...  Curlee even said that Long was a great writer.

 

To me when watching episodes from the Dobson and Marland era...I liked the Dobson era better...both eras had great stories...but the day to day episodes were better in the Dobson era (Denise Pence who played Katie said that the Dobsons wrote outlines for each episode and their script writers would write the scripts...while Marland micro managed and rewrote a lot of the scripts).  Both teams had characters gossip and interact...but it was more natural under the Dobsons and static/unrealistic under Marland.  Plus Dobsons and Long were more about warmth, emotion and sexual vibes...while Marland's era seemed cold and repressed...I think Marland fit better on ATWT for that reason.

[vetsoapfan]

 

There are indeed many viewers who embraced Reva and while I personally do not get the appeal. I am sure longtime viewers would have felt more charitable towards her in the 1980s, if her family did not seem to explode all over Springfield. I know she was Pam Long's muse, but did she suddenly deserve such a focal spot in the light?

 

I agree with you that Bert never should have forgiven Bill for his past sins. Well, maybe she could technically forgive, but from a distance, and never forget. I did not want her to reconnect with him romantically or remarry him. You are right: it would have weakened her character. She was a strong woman who had put her weak husband behind her. (BTW, weren't those scenes with Bert and Josh just great?)

 

Brandon died in 1979, after arguing with Lucille Wexler, who was wont to try killing anyone who vexed her. Lucille had found out that that the ailing Brandon wanted Amanda to visit him privately, and she was terrified that the old man would reveal to Amanda that Alan and Jennifer Richards were her biological parents, a secret that Lucille wanted to keep hidden. .Lucille confronted Brandon, who had been her lover decades before (eww), and became enraged when he said he wanted to claim Amanda as his grandchild. They argued strenuously and Brandon went into cardiac arrest...which was very convenient for Lucille. She waited as the old man died in front of her and then made sure he was dead. After the authorities confirmed Brandon's passing, Lucille thought her secret was safe. Little did she know.

 

Decades later, under Paul Rauch, the show claimed that Brandon, himself, was Amanda's father, rather than Alan. Nope. Impossible. There were many stupid and careless inconsistencies with the Spaulding family history over the years.

 

God knows why every Spaulding in existence felt they had the legal right to take control of the company Alan had built up. Probably the various writers over the years didn't even think about this logical question.

 

Like you, I think Sara had a lot going for her, and could have been used indefinitely as a humane, sensible sounding board for the citizens of Springfield. Another missed opportunity.