Jump to content
Paul Raven

Guiding Light discussion thread

Recommended Posts

On 6/8/2019 at 9:48 AM, kalbir said:

Over the last few months I've been watching Fall 1992 through to Summer 1993 that have been uploaded on YT. Fall/Winter 1992 was alright but after Maureen's death it's been a chore to get through the episodes. I'm planning to watch through the end of Summer 1993 as I want to see the storyline surrounding the episode that got Michael Zaslow (RIP) his long awaited for Lead Actor Daytime Emmy.

 

Does anyone know what Michael Zaslow's second episode for his 1994 submission was? I know the episode who's clips were shown on the 1994 Daytime Emmys was rebroadcast in December 1998. I think the second episode might have been when Roger visited Maureen's grave but I could be wrong.

 

I've been watching, too, and while I am enjoying 1993 more than you are, I agree that the show lost something between 1992 and '93. Everyone likes to point the finger at JFP and her decision to kill Maureen in January '93. But I will argue that it had more to do with the loss of James E. Reilly as co-head writer (to DAYS) in December 1992. When he was with the show, all of the plots interlocked like gears in a clock, and the stories twisted and turned in all sorts of surprising ways. After his departure, the show was plenty smart (thank you, Patrick Mulcahey and Courtney Simon) and warm and quite watchable, but it drifted at times for several episodes before getting back on track. That just didn't happen when Reilly was there.

 

After the first two notorious (and brilliant) weeks of January 1993, the show slumped pretty badly until late February or March. The stories slowed to a glacial pace for a few weeks while Nancy Curlee reset the show's course. That was her prerogative as new (well, returning) head writer, but it cost the show, which was peerless in the second half of 1992, a lot of momentum.

 

Still, there's a lot to enjoy in 1993: Ed and Michelle's strained relationship, Eve Guthrie's descent into mental illness, the Roger/Holly tango, David's violent confrontation with Vinny, Bridget's regrets after giving up Peter, some of Buzz's reunion with his family, and, of course, the fantastic who-shot-Roger story in December. 

 

Another observation: Watching the 1993 episodes, I am struck by two actors who did outstanding work and got the Emmy nominations to prove it but who are still undersung, IMO. Jean Carol is wonderful as Nadine, funny and heartbreaking and sweet and rueful and sympathetic no matter what she does. That she was totally repositioned on the canvas in 1993--from the Lewis clan to the Cooper clan--and required to work with an almost totally new subset of the cast and did it so effortlessly is a testament to her talent. And Hilary Edson, who was stuck in a dull triangle with wet rag Nick and a badly recast Mindy, is devastating as her character, Eve Guthrie, loses her marbles over many months. Such moving, chilling performances aided by meticulous plotting by the writers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few months ago we discussed the origins of Blake and how she may not have been originally slated to be Christina Thorpe.

 

It made me wonder if there was ever a concern that people might not remember Roger?  He left more than a decade before Blake arrived.  Holly was not around to provide exposition on his past.  There were few opportunities for flashbacks to the character, given the recastings of other characters.  And he wasn't like Alan where his namesake Spaulding Industries continued even if he was off-screen.  

 

There has to be some threshold of time when writers figure that the audience will remember a past character and those that could not be resurrected because too much time had passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, j swift said:

A few months ago we discussed the origins of Blake and how she may not have been originally slated to be Christina Thorpe.

 

It made me wonder if there was ever a concern that people might not remember Roger?  He left more than a decade before Blake arrived.  Holly was not around to provide exposition on his past.  There were few opportunities for flashbacks to the character, given the recastings of other characters.  And he wasn't like Alan where his namesake Spaulding Industries continued even if he was off-screen.  

 

There has to be some threshold of time when writers figure that the audience will remember a past character and those that could not be resurrected because too much time had passed.

 

Before Roger returned to Springfield during the infamous wedding , there were scenes of Blake talking about Bert Bauer as if she had known her personally, and how some of Bert's recipes were so memorable. When questioned about her comments, Blake stumbled and stated that she had "heard" a lot of good things about Bert from the Bauers, but her explanation was not convincing. Later, while folks were going through a scrapbook in Ed's house, they asked who "the little red-haired girl" in some pictures was. Ross said, "I know who that is!" and proceeded to give a recap of Christina's history and her place in Ed's life.

 

Holly also had extensive flashbacks to her time with Roger, leading up to his "death" many years earlier.

 

When the truth about Blake came out, she and Ed had a very poignant scene together. He said quietly, "There was a time when I called you Christina. And...you called me Daddy," which led to a discussion of the past.

 

Holly even brought up the fact that it was hard to believe that Roger would use the pseudonym "Adam," considering the bad blood between Roger and his father...which resulted in more exposition.

 

So even newer viewers would have been brought up to speed on the principle relationships and conflicts from a decade earlier.

 

I don't think soap fans, particularly veteran viewers, mind how long a character has been gone, as long as the story surrounding his return is well-written and his former ties to the other characters on canvas are explained.

 

One of the best-received decisions TGL made in 1996 was to bring back Aunt Meta, who by that point had been off-screen (and largely unmentioned, except for twice) for a whopping 22 years. Soap fans love history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only Mary stuart had gone straight to GL following SFT's demise.

It would be natural for Meta to return at that time following Bert's passing and Mary would have been in better health.

Maybe Meta returns with a long lost Bauer (Trudy's son?) rather than the ill advised Jack & Lainie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

If only Mary stuart had gone straight to GL following SFT's demise.

It would be natural for Meta to return at that time following Bert's passing and Mary would have been in better health.

Maybe Meta returns with a long lost Bauer (Trudy's son?) rather than the ill advised Jack & Lainie

 

Jack and Lainie and all those "fake" Bauers alienated me. I was furious that TPTB did not mine the show's rich history for REAL Bauer family members. They could have had Paul Kinkaid reappear and prove to be Bill Bauer's offspring. After leaving Springfield in 1974, Meta could have adopted an orphaned teen and later had grandchildren. Rita Stapleton could have turned up with Ed's son. Mike, Hope, or Trudy could have had additional children. Sloppy and indifferent writing and producing, all around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

Holly even brought up the fact that it was hard to believe that Roger would use the pseudonym "Adam," considering the bad blood between Roger and his father...which resulted in more exposition.

I was just reading Roger's wiki bio and I thought the same thing about his choice to masquerade as Adam Malik, given that his father was one of only two people in attendance for two of his weddings.  It is always good to hear when writers try to tie up loose ends like those mentioned.  I am a sucker for any scene when a vet character sits down with a newbie to discuss the history of the town.

 

 
 
 
5 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

I don't think soap fans, particularly veteran viewers, mind how long a character has been gone, as long as the story surrounding his return is well-written and his former ties to the other characters on canvas are explained.

 

One of the best-received decisions TGL made in 1996 was to bring back Aunt Meta, who by that point had been off-screen (and largely unmentioned, except for twice) for a whopping 22 years. Soap fans love history.

It's an excellent point, however, Meta had ties to Rick and Ed, I don't think they could have brought back the long lost child of Dr Sarah McIntyre in 1996 and expect most of the audience to remember her.

 

The erratic quality of young Holly (Maureen Garrett's not the other one) was really captivating to watch.  Her despair at being a housewife and her difficulties controlling her sexual desires were such 1970's stories.  Today's young female characters want to have a baby as soon as they are married, and nobody ever plays with the ambivalence.  That was a much more sophisticated time of storytelling, when writers appreciated that the audience could understand and relate to a character with more than one motivation

 

It was also remarkably sexier.  Not only was there more skin being shown than we see today, but also everyone was talking about sex and the quality and quantity of sex they were having.  I don't think I've heard DAYS Hope and Jennifer discuss the quality of their orgasms, despite a plethora of ads about erectile dysfunction and vaginal mesh that play between the shows every hour. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

Jack and Lainie and all those "fake" Bauers alienated me. I was furious that TPTB did not mine the show's rich history for REAL Bauer family members. They could have had Paul Kinkaid reappear and prove to be Bill Bauer's offspring. After leaving Springfield in 1974, Meta could have adopted an orphaned teen and later had grandchildren. Rita Stapleton could have turned up with Ed's son. Mike, Hope, or Trudy could have had additional children. Sloppy and indifferent writing and producing, all around.

 

My biggest gripe was that Hope never returned to the canvas.  Her absence, especially in the late 80's and 90's, was a little ridiculous.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Emma1420 said:

 

My biggest gripe was that Hope never returned to the canvas.  Her absence, especially in the late 80's and 90's, was a little ridiculous.   

 

After TPTB stupidly killed off Maureen, the Bauer family was left without its matriarch, its heart. At that point, Hope Bauer was desperately needed as the matriarch-in-training. Alas, the show just did not care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

After TPTB stupidly killed off Maureen, the Bauer family was left without its matriarch, its heart. At that point, Hope Bauer was desperately needed as the matriarch-in-training. Alas, the show just did not care.

 


They really didn't.  And I never understood why.  They just didn't seem to care about the Bauers at all.  Alan Michael was only allowed to be a Spaulding, except for the 4th of July.  Michelle eventually turned into a mob appendage, and RIck was only really permitted to be Phillip's BFF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Emma1420 said:

 


They really didn't.  And I never understood why.  They just didn't seem to care about the Bauers at all.  Alan Michael was only allowed to be a Spaulding, except for the 4th of July.  Michelle eventually turned into a mob appendage, and RIck was only really permitted to be Phillip's BFF.

 

The Bauers were never the same after the mid 80s. Bill, Bert and Hilary died and they shipped off Mike and Hope. I’m actually surprised they let Ed, Maureen and Rick stick around (although they were reduced to secondary players). Of course, Charita Bauer’s passing couldn’t be helped but someone during those years really hated the Bauers and nobody after them cared enough to place them back front and center. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I associated Maureen's death with the eradication of the Reardons.  I know they are not as historic, but I think it is a shame that the Reardons didn't survive as a family.  I was just watching Kassie DePaiva's Chelsea Reardon, arguably the least revered Reardon girl, and she was so charming (you can hear her trying to suppress her southern accent in all the early scenes).  Tony, Jim and all of the sisters were adventurous and romantic.  I adore the idea of a boarding house as a soap setting.  Especially with new nurses and doctors at Cedars.  Along with Matt and Bridget Reardon, they were one of those families that could have produced endless cousins and nephews. 

 

We all know that if the internet was around at the time, every jumbo and their sister would be screaming about how this new family overtook the show.  But isn't that the course for every new family on a soap?  Personally, I think that every writer should get a crack at a new family, some stick and some don't, like the Norris family.  They owned an airline, one would think that there would be a stray cousin.  Otherwise, Holly's inheritance must have been huge.  I know she bought WSPR, but how did she wind up in that tiny apartment at the end?  Also, I forget if Ken got anything in Stanley's will, or if he wound up with Janet, or if they had any kids because I never liked Janet.

 

I guess the Bauers were all "good guys" and that is the characteristic feature of the family?  I would also hazard to guess that the Coopers made them redundant (because it is forbidden by the soap gods to have more than one lower-middle-class family at a time).  Also, who names one kid Harley Davidson and the other one Frank?  However, I thought the Reardons were more worthy of regret upon their demise as a unit, so I decided to bring them up again.

Edited by j swift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Reardons were Marland's prototype of the Snyders and he had long term plans for them but subsequent writers were more interested in bringing them on only to use them up and write them off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marland struck gold with the Reardons...and i always felt Long had a better handle on the Reardon's than the Bauers.

 

The Coopers were great in the early years..till Buzz came in..and Nadine was short changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one ever mentions it, but Jean Carol - when she took on the role of Nadine, won the Soap Opera Digest award for best/favorite newcomer.  This was a huge deal given that everyone knew that NBC and ABC's fan clubs for DAYS and GH would send the magazines to members and buy many many copies and mail in the votes.  If CBS did, it certainly was not for ATWT or GL.  So for her to win an SOD award which was nothing more than a popularity contest, it said alot.  The CBS/GL people could not have done it on their own...alot of other people voted for her.  She did get a raw deal - I said in other places...Ellen Parker being let go (Maureen), was not the only nail in the coffin.  They made the mistake of letting really popular actresses go...Jean Carol/Nadine, but I also think Jenna/Fiona Hutchinson.  Her relationship with Henry was really nice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   1 member



×
×
  • Create New...