13 minutes ago, FrenchBug82 said:

That 92-93 time period is a more common date for "When did GL start to decline" than 1983 indeed.

I choose Summer of 1992 because, as discussed a few weeks ago, I think Maureen's death has taken a mythical place as the death knell when it would have been survivable had there not been all the other blows while I don't think the reverse would have been true. But either way it is a date that I feel more comfortable with.
 

Totally. And 1992 was deeply flawed and coasting on previous successes, but those actresses (Kimberley, Sherry, and of course Bev) sold their stories, had irreplaceable chemistry with co-stars, and we were invested in them. Barbara Crampton, Liz Kiefer, and Marj Dusay were all solid-to-great actresses but hopelessly miscast in their roles. They magnified the flaws in the writing too. The Nick/Mindy/Alex stuff was becoming dreadful even with KS and Bev in the roles.
 

He was only on the show for a brief time in ‘93, but I think Leonard Staab’s tragic accident and departure as Hart was a huge blow as well. GL really went through the ringer in those years. Just a demonstration that near-perfection is short-lived.

30 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

 

He was only on the show for a brief time in ‘93, but I think Leonard Staab’s tragic accident and departure as Hart was a huge blow as well. GL really went through the ringer in those years. Just a demonstration that near-perfection is short-lived.

 

Thank you for your that, Staab was my favorite Hart and what had been such a hot story suddenly screeched to a halt. 
 

1993 ended on a high note with Roger creeping around trying to figure out who shot him but 1994 was the moment the show spiraled for sure....I usually start with the Frank & Julie mess 🙈

20 hours ago, Faulkner said:

1989-93 GL is my idea of soap perfection in the modern era. The community felt so textured and (somewhat) diverse, with Af-Am actors put forth in stories that didn’t tokenize or marginalize them. Not that representation is the *only* thing that makes a soap good, as we’ve all begrudgingly watched series that have erased POCs, but when I watch older classic eras of GL (like the Dobsons), the whiteness is glaring. But so were the times. Can’t always project backwards.

 

I agree 100%. Diversity was always lacking on TGL (as well as most soaps), and the Dobson era was certainly guilty of it. I also agree with comments other have stated above - the era closest to any of us is likely the time we started watching and it "hooked" us in. In my case, it was generational. My grandparents initially watched it, and then so did my mother, and then my sister and I. The Dobson era is so clear to me because I remember those storylines and characters so well.

 

I did watch during 1989 to 1993, and I would consider that the last, good, semi-consistent era of TGL. I stopped watching TGL again in 1993 as soon as Maureen Bauer was killed off, as I could not see the show recover from that. I don't think that it ever did.

 

10 hours ago, soapfan770 said:

The one thing I feel that set Bauer’s fates were the needless miscarriages over the years...Mike & Charlotte’s, Ed & Rita’s, and Ed & Maureen etc. While I can see that Ed & Rita’s played up into the heightening drama & tension at the time the other two don’t make sense. It’s as tawdry as Dan & Susan’s first miscarriage over on ATWT.

 

The lost Bauer cousins went over as well as the lost Cory cousins on AW at the time or lost Jett Carver on Days lol. ATWT did the same thing a decade later but found success with Jack Snyder at least. 

 

I also agree with this 100%. Unlike Bill and Bert, who had two sons in Mike and Ed (and eventually Hillary) to foster family legacy on the show, both sons surprisingly had few children. Mike had one daughter! I really wish that either Mike and Charlotte would have had a son or Mike and Leslie. I suppose the latter would have been odd - Leslie had a son with Ed and then a son with Mike. Maybe that's why Mike and Leslie never had children...?

10 hours ago, soapfan770 said:

I usually start with the Frank & Julie mess 🙈

God, I remember that like it was yesterday … so bad. Julie really lost her usefulness without Hart or being in the mix with Dylan and Bridget. Whatever happened to Jocelyn Seagrave?

7 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

God, I remember that like it was yesterday … so bad. Julie really lost her usefulness without Hart or being in the mix with Dylan and Bridget. Whatever happened to Jocelyn Seagrave?

GL making bland sweet Julie into a bad girl wasn't a bad idea. But bad girl Julie was so unlikable. Plus her obsession story with Frank was dreadful. JS played it very well. But the writing failed her.

4 minutes ago, victoria foxton said:

GL making bland sweet Julie into a bad girl wasn't a bad idea. But bad girl Julie was so unlikable. Plus her obsession story with Frank was dreadful. JS played it very well. But the writing failed her.

She was a very good actress. But wrong story definitely. The show at that time was hitting so many off notes if I recall. So disappointing.

30 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

God, I remember that like it was yesterday … so bad. Julie really lost her usefulness without Hart or being in the mix with Dylan and Bridget. Whatever happened to Jocelyn Seagrave?

She was in one of the reunions with Melissa and Morgan. She looks great and seems to have given up acting and was talking about kids, etc...(sad to think little boring Julie has teenagers now..
I'm old!) Agree the story was obviously a redirect with Hart gone and to give Frank and Eleni story. Problem was.. Frankie D is not an actor (he is basically playing himself) and didn't have the chops to pull it off and Julie's obsession came out of nowhere. They should have just written her off and for that matter, Frank and Eleni when the original actress left.

On 5/3/2021 at 9:12 PM, ironlion said:

Great feed back and wow, the mid 80s is very early compared to other soaps! From what I've read across SON, a lot of users post somewhere between the mid 90s and early 00s as the quality decline mark on other soaps. Overall the 2000s were not kind to Guiding Light (and All My Children) especially. Once the new production model came, that was it! I didn't like that Guiding Light was cancelled, but I can't say the show wasn't asking for it in the latter years. 

 

I think it depends on, like others said, when you started the show, etc. A few posters have clear and fond memories of the real early years lol and I can see why it was better. I have to admit watching what I could on YouTube and my interest wanes when it hits 1983/1984 and Kobe starts. I like Long more than some on here lol but it did suck to lose so many characters and it felt like a different show. Not *bad* just not the same (YMMV).

 

Just my perspective on someone who started in the 90s and has tried to see what I could (I hate so much has been removed from YouTube).

 

If I was looking at it from an unbiased view, I'd say you can see the decline in almost all the soaps now cancelled starting around 95/96/97. The soaps changed and not for the better. Ironically, the four soaps left on the air now were probably at their 90s peak and still doing well.

 

You could probably break down most of the soaps from their beginning, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s and the rest. I'd say the decline in daytime started around 1996-1998 were horrid years for most of the soaps. 

 

Rambling post but I think it depends on whether you still liked the show after 1984. Many just didn't care for it and I can see why. Now that I've seen earlier years, I get it.

35 minutes ago, victoria foxton said:

GL making bland sweet Julie into a bad girl wasn't a bad idea. But bad girl Julie was so unlikable. Plus her obsession story with Frank was dreadful. JS played it very well. But the writing failed her.

 

All of this. It was painful, but I did like the idea of making her a bad girl and JS did her best. The writing definitely failed her. Reminded me of a bland Reilly quad.

1994 was a tough year with so much chaos going on behind the scenes at the show. Patrick Mulcahey has spoken about it on Twitter a few times - about how amazing the experience with Curlee was, and then when a series of external factors made it too complicated to work there for her (and ultimately him), his own HW-ing tenure after Curlee left being heartbreaking, and why he needed to go. 

7 minutes ago, BetterForgotten said:

1994 was a tough year with so much chaos going on behind the scenes at the show. Patrick Mulcahey has spoken about it on Twitter a few times - about how amazing the experience with Curlee was, and then when a series of external factors made it too complicated to work there for her (and ultimately him), his own HW-ing tenure after Curlee left being heartbreaking, and why he needed to go. 

It really showed on screen. Such a depressing watch at the time.

1 hour ago, KMan101 said:

I'd say the decline in daytime started around 1996-1998 were horrid years for most of the soaps. 

It is absolutely true and the next question for me is why and is it a coincidence that the mid-90s were such a rough period creatively for so many soaps at the same time?
The fact other shows - Days in particular - were doing spectacularly well around the same time (Days crashed and burned not long after however) means there are no easy answers.
But is it a coincidence? Is it because there were changes in the suits departments/network that led to consequences on the lower creative level? That would possibly explain why it happened in parallel on almost all the ABC shows and the PG shows but shows that were controlled separately like the Bell shows were doing fine.
Is it because the immediate reaction to the OJ trial ratings decline led EPs to make bad short-term choices that ended up snowballing? 
What's the theory for why it happened almost at the same time?

20 hours ago, FrenchBug82 said:

What's the theory for why it happened almost at the same time?

I remember Disney acquired ABC around that time.

On 5/4/2021 at 11:49 PM, FrenchBug82 said:

That 92-93 time period is a more common date for "When did GL start to decline" than 1983 indeed.

I choose Summer of 1992 because, as discussed a few weeks ago, I think Maureen's death has taken a mythical place as the death knell when it would have been survivable had there not been all the other blows while I don't think the reverse would have been true. But either way it is a date that I feel more comfortable with.
 

 

Summer of 1992 is when my interest started to wane. No Alex, recasting Blake, Mindy leaving, the woeful, dull as hell Nick mushmouthing "Melinda" 50000 times a week, tedious Mallet/Harley and Harley losing her spark, etc. 

 

On 5/5/2021 at 12:54 AM, soapfan770 said:

 

Thank you for your that, Staab was my favorite Hart and what had been such a hot story suddenly screeched to a halt. 
 

1993 ended on a high note with Roger creeping around trying to figure out who shot him but 1994 was the moment the show spiraled for sure....I usually start with the Frank & Julie mess 🙈

 

At the time the Frank and Julie story was one of the few that interested me, along with the custody battle for Peter. I enjoyed seeing her scheme. It helped that I hated Lucy and she did too.

Edited May 6, 20214 yr by DRW50

Leonard Stabb and Jeff Phillips were my favorite Harts. I hated the rest who played him.

 

For me GL lost its luster in 92. The final coffin was Maureen death. The show was so dull and boring.