Jump to content

Guiding Light Discussion Thread


Paul Raven

Recommended Posts

  • Members

ITA about the modern era, absolutely, but the early 1950s under Irna Phillips and the later 1950s and 1960s under Agnes Nixon were also halcyon years. I was shocked when the show fell into disrepair in towards the middle of the 1980s. It had been so good for decades, and I had just taken its quality for granted. 1985-88 were unwatchable years, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

Wow...I'd forgotten GL had such a mass exodus. In a little less than a year, they lost Reva, Josh, Philip, Beth, Rick, Johnny, Chelsea, and recast Alan-Michael with Rick Hearst. While Johnny and Chelsea are negligible, there's a lot of history tied up in the other characters. Major upheavals like that usually leave shows floundering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Granted, my memories of GL only go back as far as 1981 or so, but I definitely agree with your assessment of the Irna/Agnes years, @vetsoapfan.  At the same time, though, I'm not sure I agree with you that 1985-88 were unwatchable - at least, not for me.  There's still much about that period that I love and love as much as I love everything that came before and after it, too.  In general, I love anything and everything GL-related* from its' earliest days on radio to, at least, 1998-99, which was/is the point I stopped being a regular viewer of the show.

 

(*Although Megan McTavish's crap really tried my patience, lol.)

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

After the incomprehensible cast slaughter of 1983-84, and with a noticeable shift in tone and (IMHO) quality, I found the "new," unnecessarily (again IMHO) rebooted version of the show to be painful to watch. To me, Springfield felt like a foreign landscape in the 1980s. I realize that losing Bert Bauer was unavoidable, but in a few years, we had a new, miscast Ed, and saw Bill Bauer, Mike Bauer, Hillary Bauer and Hope Bauer killed off or written out. We also lost stalwarts like Sara McIntyre, Justin Marler, Kelly Nelson, Amanda Spaulding, Nola Reardon and others. I don't think any soap should gut its core family, a huge portion of its cast, and historical foundation so quickly.

That being said, I think all the changes on the show resonated differently for viewers who had watched it in the earlier decades (1950s-1970s). Those who came aboard in the 1980s more readily accepted all the new people on the canvas. For those viewers, that's just how the show was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't remember Johnny departure, was it sometime in Spring 1990 after the Chelsea stalker storyline wrapped up?

The timeline for the characters you listed were July 1990 Reva car accident and Alan-Michael recast; January 1991 Josh, Rick, Chelsea departures; February 1991 Phillip and Beth departures. Also January 1991 was the HW change from Pamela Long to Nancy Curlee.

The Calhoun/Curlee era was January-July 1991 and while I enjoyed that era, the ratings didn't reflect the quality of the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Don't get me wrong, @vetsoapfan, I can understand (in retrospect) how viewers who'd been watching the show for decades felt or might've felt about all the changes that took place on-screen and off- throughout the '80's.  I also wouldn't suggest that the quality during that time was as good as or better than the previous decades.  Whenever I re-watch stuff from that period, however, I feel about as much nostalgia for back then as I do whenever I re-watch anything from Marland's period, or even the Dobsons', if that makes any sense.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I loved GL - the good, the bad, the ugly, the HIDEOUS - because, in the end, GL, like AMC, feels the most like home to me, regardless of who might have been the HW, EP or principal cast members at any given time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That’s correct about Johnny’s exit. After the whole Looney Rae Rooney story wrapped up Johnny found out Roxie had recovered and dumped Chelsea to go be with her, with Johnny leaving in May 1990.

1991 GL was fantastic but I do think the high number of fan favorites that departed put a damper in the ratings. At least the show did stabilize in ratings for a few years there. 

Edited by soapfan770
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The 1991 improvement in ratings came not long after JFP arrived. While JFP first year was still good, I feel that it coasted off the groundwork laid during the Calhoun era and the ratings improvement was helped by ABC's big three tanking at various times during that year and Days being in their post-supercouple/pre-Reilly mess era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Granted, it's not a calendar year. I was a little iffy on when Johnny departed, because what I'm catching some eppys aren't around (sigh--huge bummer when you're into a story).  

Watching May '91, and in literally ONE episode, Alex is hit with three revelations--that Mindy miscarried Roger's child, that Alan-Michael and Henry have uncovered Roger's embezzling, and that Roger has another son. People rave about her blitzkrieg at the Country Club, but hearing Bev McKinsey growl "I want to rip out his lungs..." is FABULOUS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think soap fans are experienced with sudden cast purges and tone shifts on our favorite shows, regardless of what decade we began watching. All of us have been frustrated about losing the characters whom we "met" when initially tuning in. I may not have liked the Shaynes, the Coopers, the Santoses and the Winslows, and their loss would not have difficult for me (it would have been a relief, TBH), but other viewers, who first found TGL in, say, 1985, wouldn't have cared much about the legacy of the Bauers and their friends, either. We all want to keep our familiar version of the shows at least semi-intact.

It makes perfect sense. That was "your" period and incarnation of TGL, just as 1950-1982 represented mine. 

Actually, although I could no longer watch TGL and ATWT on a regular basis after a certain point (what I saw as destructive changes were too painful), I continued to record them from time to time, scan through eps to catch my remaining favorite characters, and keep up with current storylines in hope of dramatic rejuvenations. I stuck with "y stories" through the good, the bad, the ugly and the atrocious, until the bitter end, LOL!

So I totally get where you're coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The news that CBS is considering a new soap and consequent posts about bringing back beloved soaps in some sort of revamp got me to thinking about GL.

How about a reboot that went back to the original 1937 radio show.?

Set in a diverse inner urban area, with the lead character a minister of  a non denominational church (Rev Ruthledge) his daughter (Mary) and Ned a young man with a blank past. 

The Kranskys a migrant family with a daughter out to make a better life for herself. (maybe revamped as an Hispanic family with the parents illegal immigrants) Ellis Smith a mysterious artist with a nihilistic attitude.

All of this sounds as relevant or more so as any modern soap. Mix the inevitable social issues with traditional soapy love affairs and secrets.

Diverse casting-the Rev and Mary could be black. The Jacob Kransky character could be gay etc.

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I can't fully remember, but I don't think they tried to get Beth Chamberlin back. I think Laibson/McTavish likely saw Beth as old news and wanted to move Philip on; either that or have her return only when Philip was closely tied to a new woman. Thanks as always for these recaps. I think I had stopped watching around this time and mostly kept up by reading in the soap magazines. Bridget's degradation was horrible to watch, as the character had grown so much over the years and was clearly regressed just to be a foil for a couple viewers had zero investment in. 
    • Having the majority of the cast on those low numbers is no way to tell story. And just 2 dayplayers for the month. So sad for the #1 soap.  
    • I believe it was. And this is actually one of the cases where I wouldn’t mind some dumb soap opera bringing back from the dead. They gave Mishael, Amanda, with all of Hilary’s connections but none of the personality except for fleeting moments. Hilary absolutely should’ve just left town. They decided to kill her and the baby. Just baffling,
    • That was Mal Young right? He thought a tragic death was a better option than crafting a story where Hilary leaves town. Was it a case of punishing someone who wants to leave? And then they have to jump through hoops to bring the actress back.
    • Ooo @TaoboiI will say I just watched Amanda give it to Abby and I loved it. Honestly just made me miss Hilary more. I will never understand or get over that decision to kill her off. Also call me crazy but I could definitely see the Damian actor playing NuTed on BTG. Very much still enjoying the Lily attraction.
    • I rewatched these episodes---they broke my heart. Somehow, Nola had seen Vanessa leave the hospital, and follows her home, and Maeve just lets out this primal scream---chills went down my spine. And knowing the history between them---never quite liking the other and always getting on each other's nerves (to put it mildly)---makes it a much richer to have them put it all aside in the moment and be family to each other. I've never seen/heard what Maeve thought of the story itself, but she did want a break, so it's not like she was fired and then brought back. Yes, Vanessa could be this stubborn and unwilling to ask for help. She'd pretty much always been an "I can do this on my own" type of woman, although when she first came to town, she would still run to Henry. But after she met Billy, she stopped relying on her father. It's part of the reason she (briefly) got addicted to pills after Bill's birth---she was determined to take care of him all by herself and became obsessed with the idea she was the only one who could. Of course, nothing before to this extreme. I should say, there's no way (IMO) they could've told this story---Vanessa letting her loved ones thinking she'd died---if her father Henry had still been alive. She never would've been able to do that to him. And it does chafe that she's letting Bill believe it, when her mantra had been all about protecting him since the day he was born. I honestly don't recall what I thought about it at the time. But now I'm thrilled she's free of Matt at least. LOL.
    • I had no idea Peter Reckell was 70. He doesn’t look or feel it and I guess I thought Bo and Hope were closer in age than 9 years. Wow even the new writers had to have Jack praise Leo. Melissa Reeves continues to slip back in effortlessly as Jennifer. I like Ari and Holly being old friends. Holly learning about John’s death reminded me of how John used to call her Nikki if my memory is serving me right. Doug who happily sleeps in high school Holly’s room shirtless and in his underwear is now asking about birth years. How old is he anyway?    The Cat and Chad romance is insulting. 
    • Her husband is Marty Levy. Chocolate Fortunes (her company) was started in 1987.  So that explains the mystery of 'Whatever happened to Pam Peters?' She had been running a successful business for decades.
    • KMH's Emily was a harbinger for the lack of dignity many characters would face in the last decade of ATWT. On paper, many of the stories given to Melanie Smith's Emily could have been extremely sleazy, but she was treated with respect and understanding in the writing. By 1996 the show went from often not knowing how to write for KMH's Emily to giving her outright reprehensible material. There were breaks from this treatment, but not enough, with even those breaks often being poorly written or just used to make her look even worse (like her grotesque rape story turning into her using her rape to destroy Margo's marriage).  By the last years I don't even know what the hell they were doing. Wasn't there some kind of mother-daughter whoring story with Emily and Alison? Wasn't Emily getting beaten up by johns? Whenever I think of how they wrote for KMH's Emily I'm reminded of Pauline Kael's quote about Ann-Margaret's '60s movie persona - calling her "dirty" and saying the people who made the movies "knew what men wanted to do to her."  Even as much as ATWT started hiring softcore actors in the mid/late '90s, the Emily treatment was on a whole other level. I have never known what audience they thought they were going to be attracting.
    • At this point the options are 1. Leslie is going to be caught out, arrested and jailed. Hit and run, blackmail etc. 2. She gets off due to lack of evidence. Second option keeps her on the show but how are they going to keep her a viable character? No one should want to have anything to do with her. If they keep her around, won't other characters come off looking stupid for putting up with her? I'm interested to see where they go with this character/story and hope not to be disappointed.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy