@slick jones Thanks. I was barely watching by then, but I did remember hearing of this and liking the idea (I wonder if they did it because of the very positive response the 70th episode received).

@Mona Kane Croft The reason I mentioned it is because I was trying to figure out if the 2000 Meta speech was establishing Reverend Ruthledge as a fictional character she listened to (a wink at GL itself being a soap), or if he was a real person she listened to on the radio, or someone she knew, etc. So the later mention would lean more toward establishing Ruthledge as a canonical character.

18 minutes ago, P.J. said:

I'll never understand why Mike and Ed weren't given more children. You can't keep a core family going with one kid. 

Ed did have two kids, and if Christina had stayed on the show I think the show likely would have treated her as Ed's daughter, but they did seem to avoid giving Mike another child for a long time. Maybe they thought of him as a hunky leading man and didn't want him to be tied down with kids. 

This seemed to be more of a mindset with soaps until later years where characters started having 3-4-5 children. 

Ed also only had one child until Michelle...around the same time Mike had been pushed off the canvas.

Edited August 9, 20241 yr by DRW50

33 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Ed did have two kids, and if Christina had stayed on the show I think the show likely would have treated her as Ed's daughter, but they did seem to avoid giving Mike another child for a long time. Maybe they thought of him as a hunky leading man and didn't want him to be tied down with kids. 

This seemed to be more of a mindset with soaps until later years where characters started having 3-4-5 children. 

Ed also only had one child until Michelle...around the same time Mike had been pushed off the canvas.

At least they tried with Ed before Michelle (between Chrissie and the child Rita miscarried). I'm unaware of any other child Mike even potentially fathered. It's probably a product of the times, when there wasn't as much time or story to fill. And, tbf, even having siblings doesn't guarantee anything---the Stewarts pretty much died out on ATWT because both Dan and Paul were killed off.

I'd grudgingly admit that MOL always hit some kind of wall in "serious" scenes, the writing didn't often give him the ability to stretch either. He was always in GA's shadow. 

Edited August 9, 20241 yr by P.J.

Just now, P.J. said:

At least they tried with Ed (between Chrissie and the child Rita miscarried). I'm unaware of any other child Mike even potentially fathered. It's probably a product of the times, when there wasn't as much time or story to fill. And, tbf, even having siblings doesn't guarantee anything---the Stewarts pretty much died out on ATWT because both Dan and Paul were killed off.

I'd grudgingly admit that MOL always hit some kind of wall in "serious" scenes, the writing didn't often give him the ability to stretch either. He was always in GA's shadow. 

I know I already said this earlier but I do think he did a good job with Abby's exit, even if there were some odd choices made (didn't they have him do the entire thing shirtless...and did he sink to his knees or am I just making that up). And maybe when he found out Blake's son wasn't his, although I may just be thinking of Jerry.

I wonder if Don Stewart also didn't want Mike to have any other kids.

1 minute ago, DRW50 said:

I know I already said this earlier but I do think he did a good job with Abby's exit, even if there were some odd choices made (didn't they have him do the entire thing shirtless...and did he sink to his knees or am I just making that up). And maybe when he found out Blake's son wasn't his, although I may just be thinking of Jerry.

I wonder if Don Stewart also didn't want Mike to have any other kids.

I haven't rewatched the stuff with Abby. Eh, tbh, I wasn't a fan of the character. I do vaguely recall some intensity with Cynthia Watros, but then they moved her on to Josh. 

8 minutes ago, P.J. said:

I haven't rewatched the stuff with Abby. Eh, tbh, I wasn't a fan of the character. I do vaguely recall some intensity with Cynthia Watros, but then they moved her on to Josh. 

Rick was generally a character I liked but didn't have any real attachment to. I think he was hurt so much by a lack of family, but then if the Bauers had been in a stronger position they may have recast him anyway instead of bringing MOL back in 1995. 

I thought he worked well with Barbara Crampton, but she was on the way out the door.

2 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I have to admit I also take the "listen to" as her hearing him on the radio, but we are probably putting more thought into it than warranted.

Didn't Josh meet a relative of his when he was briefly a minister? Or am I fancrufting?

Yes, it was supposed to be, I think the grandson of John Ruthledge but that was yet another bit of revisionist history. John only had a daughter and, after she married, she became a Holden and so were her kids. It couldn't have even been a nephew or grand-nephew. John only had one sister. There's no way the Ruthledge name could have been passed on with this new Reverend Ruthledge that Josh met. I wasn't watching at the time so I'm not sure who he claimed to be but I do think he claimed to be Reverend John Ruthledge's grandson. Sure, you could say (and rightfully so) that nobody would know or care about that but I doubt anybody watching at the time even knew or cared about who the original Rev. Ruthledge was so what was the point of the reference? Again, I guess it's nice for them to give a nod to history but the inaccuracies tended to negate any joy I found in the references. 

1 hour ago, DRW50 said:

Rick was generally a character I liked but didn't have any real attachment to. I think he was hurt so much by a lack of family, but then if the Bauers had been in a stronger position they may have recast him anyway instead of bringing MOL back in 1995. 

I thought he worked well with Barbara Crampton, but she was on the way out the door.

The odd thing is, the GL I remember always seemed more invested in Phillip than Rick. While I'm sure there must have been a younger version of Rick, I have never caught a glimpse of him in any of the late 70's stuff online. (and I'm truly amazed there was a teen Rick before MOL. MOL doesn't show up until just before Rick, Beth and Phillip's graduation.) There's plenty of Jarrod Ross' Phillip, and Ed is preoccupied with Chrissie. But Rick could be playing in traffic for all Ed seems to care.

Most of these historical inaccuracies come about because TPTB are not really interested in the history or maintaining continuity.

That really took hold in the 80's when pretty much anything pre that time was seen as irrelevant.

Of course it's impossible to reference every story/character from the past but more care should have been taken

eg Were Meta and Trudy mentioned when Bill reappeared in 77? Was there thought to bringing Ellen Demming back for a few appearances-she only left a few years before.

Mike and Leslie should have been given a child-a boy to carry on the Bauer name.

And have Meta return after Bert's death to be the new Guiding Light for family and friends.

But they thought the adventures of Roxie Shayne were more worthy.

28 minutes ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

Yes, it was supposed to be, I think the grandson of John Ruthledge but that was yet another bit of revisionist history. John only had a daughter and, after she married, she became a Holden and so were her kids. It couldn't have even been a nephew or grand-nephew. John only had one sister. There's no way the Ruthledge name could have been passed on with this new Reverend Ruthledge that Josh met. I wasn't watching at the time so I'm not sure who he claimed to be but I do think he claimed to be Reverend John Ruthledge's grandson. Sure, you could say (and rightfully so) that nobody would know or care about that but I doubt anybody watching at the time even knew or cared about who the original Rev. Ruthledge was so what was the point of the reference? Again, I guess it's nice for them to give a nod to history but the inaccuracies tended to negate any joy I found in the references. 

I can see where the inaccuracies would annoy you, especially as the info was probably available somewhere. You could say that his grandson called himself that to honor his grandfather, if you want to reach, I suppose. 

28 minutes ago, P.J. said:

The odd thing is, the GL I remember always seemed more invested in Phillip than Rick. While I'm sure there must have been a younger version of Rick, I have never caught a glimpse of him in any of the late 70's stuff online. (and I'm truly amazed there was a teen Rick before MOL. MOL doesn't show up until just before Rick, Beth and Phillip's graduation.) There's plenty of Jarrod Ross' Phillip, and Ed is preoccupied with Chrissie. But Rick could be playing in traffic for all Ed seems to care.

I was surprised to finally see a bit of that Rick (Phil McGregor - ? can't remember) when some early 1983 material was uploaded. He wasn't bad. You're right, they had no real interest in Rick. Probably down to Ed mostly having romantic stories with women who had no ties to Rick, while Philip had four parents on the show for a number of years.

That's one of the reasons I didn't care as much about Blake/Rick sleeping together in terms of inappropriateness (I did think it was a very hacky writing choice), because even though they were meant to be raised as close, I don't know if I have ever seen them together in old clips.

Today Jim Muneco uploaded a number of episodes from 1984, 1985, and 1988. Just posting the first. 

 

Another PSA that was new to me or I had forgotten.

 

Edited August 9, 20241 yr by DRW50

On 8/8/2024 at 8:35 PM, DRW50 said:

I have to admit I also take the "listen to" as her hearing him on the radio, but we are probably putting more thought into it than warranted.

Yes, Meta's hearing Reverend Ruthledge via radio broadcasts in her youth is less problematical, canon-wise, than other theories about how she could have "known" him. In a radio episode from 1950, Meta said she was 31 years old, so born in 1919. She would have been old enough in the late 1920s-early 1930s to remember radio sermons from her childhood.

We really ARE putting more thought into this than is warranted, ROTF! Did the writers even care this much? Probably not!

On 8/8/2024 at 8:35 PM, DRW50 said:

Didn't Josh meet a relative of his when he was briefly a minister? Or am I fancrufting?

Yes, Josh met a supposed grandson of Rev. Ruthledge's, and told him that his grandfather was "a legend around here." Ouch. Ruthledge could not have had a grandson with that surname, without seriously revising history, and...why would the original John Ruthledge be a legend in Springfield? (Was it through memorable radio sermons from many decades before, which were broadcast throughout the country, from Selby Flats to Illinois?🤨)

Overthinking, part two.😝

On 8/8/2024 at 9:06 PM, P.J. said:

I'll never understand why Mike and Ed weren't given more children. You can't keep a core family going with one kid. 

The show never used the family effectively in TGL's final decades, so even with a few remnants around, the Bauers were no longer considered by TPTB as the soap's core, anyway. They were cast aside for the Shaymes the way Emmerdale's Sugdens were wiped out and replaced by the Dingle-berries.🤮

 

Edited August 10, 20241 yr by vetsoapfan

8 hours ago, P.J. said:

At least they tried with Ed before Michelle (between Chrissie and the child Rita miscarried). I'm unaware of any other child Mike even potentially fathered. It's probably a product of the times, when there wasn't as much time or story to fill. And, tbf, even having siblings doesn't guarantee anything---the Stewarts pretty much died out on ATWT because both Dan and Paul were killed off.

There were so many Stewarts that the show could have used to keep the family front and center over the years (I mean, Annie alone birthed a football team, LOL), but obviously, the interest just wasn't there. So many soaps stopped nurturing their roots in the 1980s or so.

8 hours ago, P.J. said:

I'd grudgingly admit that MOL always hit some kind of wall in "serious" scenes, the writing didn't often give him the ability to stretch either. He was always in GA's shadow. 

He was an adequate (if not great) actor, but could never fully overcome his limitations, and TBH, he did not age well, which worked against him as a leading man.

7 hours ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

Yes, it was supposed to be, I think the grandson of John Ruthledge but that was yet another bit of revisionist history. John only had a daughter and, after she married, she became a Holden and so were her kids. It couldn't have even been a nephew or grand-nephew. John only had one sister. There's no way the Ruthledge name could have been passed on with this new Reverend Ruthledge that Josh met. I wasn't watching at the time so I'm not sure who he claimed to be but I do think he claimed to be Reverend John Ruthledge's grandson. Sure, you could say (and rightfully so) that nobody would know or care about that but I doubt anybody watching at the time even knew or cared about who the original Rev. Ruthledge was so what was the point of the reference? Again, I guess it's nice for them to give a nod to history but the inaccuracies tended to negate any joy I found in the references. 

Perfectly said. Why even give such a lame nod to history, when it was inaccurate AND bound to be irrelevant to most current viewers? The audience members who did know the history would only be annoyed at how much the show screwed it up, so...what was the point?

7 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I can see where the inaccuracies would annoy you, especially as the info was probably available somewhere. You could say that his grandson called himself that to honor his grandfather, if you want to reach, I suppose. 

I came up with the same possible rationalization, but honestly, the audience shouldn't have to do mental gymnastics all the time to justify blatant historical gaffes. TPTB ought to do the research; it's their responsibility when they take over long-running franchises.

7 hours ago, DRW50 said:

That's one of the reasons I didn't care as much about Blake/Rick sleeping together in terms of inappropriateness (I did think it was a very hacky writing choice), because even though they were meant to be raised as close, I don't know if I have ever seen them together in old clips.

I was there when Frederick was born, and still watching when Christina came along and raised as Ed's daughter and Bert's granddaughter. The Rick/Blake hook-up turned my stomach, much like Craig targeting Dani on ATWT. 

My problem with Rick and Phillip was that they were sort of the same person. Rick being more like AMC Tad or Phillip being more like Loving's Curtis would make them more interesting. I never cared for the casting either, although it was Grant Aleksander whom I didn't like very much. 

28 minutes ago, Sapounopera said:

My problem with Rick and Phillip was that they were sort of the same person. Rick being more like AMC Tad or Phillip being more like Loving's Curtis would make them more interesting. I never cared for the casting either, although it was Grant Aleksander whom I didn't like very much. 

To me Philip often had much more of an edge than Rick. I do think Rick suffered from being in Philip's shadow, and it seemed like they had no real idea what to do with the character for most of MOL's first run after they split him from Mindy (which seemed to be a popular pairing - I'm not sure why they went with Kurt instead, unless it was down to Kurt being hunkier).

32 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

I was there when Frederick was born, and still watching when Christina came along and raised as Ed's daughter and Bert's granddaughter. The Rick/Blake hook-up turned my stomach, much like Craig targeting Dani on ATWT. 

I can definitely see where a viewer of the period would have found the material disgusting. 

I think ATWT even had Dani calling Craig "Daddy," which means they weren't unaware (as GL may have been, just as I doubt OLTL's '96 writers knew Cassie used to babysit for Kevin), they just wanted people to get off on the perversion.