Thank you very much! I've never seen this article. I am very surprised by Calhoun's remarks. Both rapes happened and there should have been no running away from it. Dealing fully with who he was would have better shown the redeemed man he was becoming. Thanks! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, j swift said:

I was shocked reading GL's producer Robert Calhoun response was that Holly and Roger remembered things differently, but Roger was not "unprovoked."

I was shocked & appalled when I learned that Calhoun had said that. I thought he said, "not entirely unprovoked" though, which is a wee bit different but just as bad. I can only imagine how furious MG must have been. 

I'm not shocked by anything producers or writers say about rape on soaps.  The soaps are full of rationales for rapists--icky considering that women were the target demographic. However, I was shocked it came from Calhoun and not Farren Phelps who seemed to thrive on violence against women. 

25 minutes ago, chrisml said:

I'm not shocked by anything producers or writers say about rape on soaps.  The soaps are full of rationales for rapists--icky considering that women were the target demographic. However, I was shocked it came from Calhoun and not Farren Phelps who seemed to thrive on violence against women. 

Sometimes writers get "tarred with the brush" when they're not really in favor of violence against women. The Dobsons certainly weren't either in favor of it or irresponsibly using it when they did the marital rape story on GL. They closely studied the Gloria Rideout rape & trial in Oregon. Pat Falken Smith is an example but not on GL. And, Donna Swajeski is another example, also not on GL. 

Farren Phelps was there for Vanessa's horrendous date rape story. I believe it was a hung jury and Billy I think beat a confession out of him and videotaped the confession, which should've been duress. Prior to the rape, Jack Kiley, the rapist, showed up at Vanessa's to tell her that he was giving his account to the Lewis' and not Spaulding, and Vanessa invited him in. I didn't see the next episode but I got the feeling they were having Vanessa attempt to change his mind with sex. I was digusted thinking they might do this. Does anyone remember this, and can tell me if she did have sex with him that night? It's hard to believe 30 yrs have past already and trying to remember details.

Speaking of which, does anyone remember Beverlee McKinsey telling SOD that she was against Alex marrying a rapist, and Long told her that he wasn't a rapist because he only raped once? I'm trying to find it but I know it's not something I misremember 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I recall when Roger first came back, he was paired with Sonni...and the actors worked well together.  Two outcasts finding one another...while it wisely moved her out of the Josh/Reva orbit.

I often wonder what would have happened if Michelle Forbes hadn't quit..would the Holly/Roger 1990 talk been less a way to make them viable as a future couple...and more of a form of closure 

And it’s not like Roger ever became any sort of stereotypical romantic hero (in fact he knew he wasn’t worthy to be one). Roger being branded a rapist always followed him in some way, regardless of reckless producer comments that tried to downplay it. 

I can overlook a lot of Roger’s return because it brought so much richness back to the show. GL needed that character (and Zaslow) and was all the better for it. 

On 2/19/2023 at 4:28 PM, kalbir said:

Any episodes of Roger/Holly storylines from 1979 and 1980 that surface are such a treat, because those storylines set in motion so much of what we saw a decade later. Not much of their 1976-1978 storylines have surfaced AFAIK.

Earlier in the thread I posted an article where GL cast members remembered MZ on the 20th anniversary of his death. Going back to it, Kimberley Simms credits the Roger/Mindy storyline for her growing as an actress and Mindy growing as a character, plus she mentions that the Roger/Mindy storyline allowed the audience to see MZ as a romantic leading man and not just a villain.

Despite the initial torridness of their pairing (affair with business rival's daughter), I think Roger did love Mindy. I remember a scene where Roger told Blake he loved Mindy and wanted to marry her. They wouldn't have worked as a long-term couple though as the specter of Roger's feelings for Holly would be lingering in the background.

 

Many years ago, when I was videotrading regularly, someone who said he had a huge stash of TGL eps from the 1970s contacted me, offering to sell me the set. He was totally unknown to me, and no one in the usual trading circles knew him either. He claimed to have a few years' worth of eps from 1975 (I think) to 1978, which he had allegedly recorded on videotaped for his mother/grandmother. He wanted (IIRC) two thousand dollars because of the rareness of the collection. I asked if he could send me a sample video, with brief excerpts from various episodes, so I could verify the picture and sound quality (a sample video of, say, 20 minutes for which I would pay). He said no, and claimed to be insulted that I did not just "take his word" for it. Pffft! When I remarked that I would never send thousands of dollars to a total stranger with no  verification about the existence and/or quality of the videotapes, he became aggressive and then disappeared, and I never heard from him again.

Of course I KNOW I was right to decline his "offer," but since then, I have often daydreamed...what if he WASN'T a total scam artist? How wonderful it would be to see vintage Bauers, vintage Roger and Holly, vintage material from the Dobsons again. Sigh. As you say, little or no material from the early Garrett/Zaslow years has even surfaced in the ensuing decades.

I have to say, in regards to Simms' comments, many of us oldtimers had seen Zaslow as a romantic leading man early on and not just a villain. He was originally written as a deeply flawed individual in deep pain and with an enormous capacity for love (some would say obsession). Along with Holly, his chemistry was strong with Peggy too. I definitely saw Roger and Holly as End Game, but I would not have been devastated in he had ended up with Peggy, considering how toxic and violent his past with Holly was.

Edited February 23, 20232 yr by vetsoapfan

On 2/22/2023 at 12:09 PM, BetterForgotten said:

GL needed that character (and Zaslow) and was all the better for it. 

Would you say that Roger's return was the shot in the arm that got GL to rebound from some rough years in 1980s?

6 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

He was originally written as a deeply flawed individual in deep pain and with an enormous capacity for love (some would say obsession). 

So Roger was more of an anti-hero than a full-on villain?

5 minutes ago, kalbir said:

So Roger was more of an anti-hero than a full-on villain?

I believe that Roger was a villain, a villain of the highest calibre. 

1 hour ago, kalbir said:

Would you say that Roger's return was the shot in the arm that got GL to rebound from some rough years in 1980s?

So Roger was more of an anti-hero than a full-on villain?

The return of Roger and Holly, vastly-improved writing, and some threads of continuity from the past, helped TGL rebound significantly from the sludge thrown at viewers throughout most of the 1980s. It didn't last more than a few years, but it was a welcome resurgance of a show that had been decimated for most of the decade.

IMHO, in the early years, Roger was a deeply-flawed and unhappy man who was presented in morally-ambiguous shades of gray. Once he became a rapist, female abuser and kidnapper, however, the character became an out-an-out villain. I was disappointed to see this play out, because I always find complex, three-dimensional and complicated characters to be significantly more mesmerizing than simple "good" or "bad" people. Fortunately for viewers, Michael Zaslow was brilliant enough to bring nuance to any material.

15 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

Fortunately for viewers, Michael Zaslow was brilliant enough to bring nuance to any material.

I personally think he was the singular, distinct best villain in all of soaps. 

15 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

The return of Roger and Holly, vastly-improved writing, and some threads of continuity from the past, helped TGL rebound significantly from the sludge thrown at viewers throughout most of the 1980s. It didn't last more than a few years, but it was a welcome resurgance of a show that had been decimated for most of the decade.

I asked this here before, but was the mess in the 1980s due to chasing the big 1980s trends (Dallas/Dynasty influence, supercouples, action/adventure) but getting them wrong?

Way more of the early, early years from these shows has turned up in recent years post-YouTube than I would have ever expected ten years ago - stuff we all assumed was lost, like a fair portion of '60s and '70s P&G soaps including GL and a surprising amount of pre-Buchanans '70s OLTL, the holy grail. We also know many actors or families of actors kept kinescopes, etc. from their shows or from the affiliates. I would not assume nothing else is out there to be found.

Yes, yes and yes.

The thing with trends is that they are just that they come and go.

Soaps  pursued them but then got locked into that formula as nightime moved on.

Dallas/Dynasty- those shows were cancelled and there was a move away from the exploits of the super rich

Supercouples- they were limiting. By building up such fan loyalty there was an outcry any attempts were made to split them up and attempts to do  so went against their whole reason for being. 

Action/adventure- they were usually imposed plots that could have been given to any characters. And the budgets required for the inevitable location shoots became unsustainable.