13 hours ago, Mitch64 said:

Great scene...John was upset that his old sparring partner wasn't up for it! Who WAS Ralph related to (I love that Lucy said the same thing...God I hate that Marland had to puss out and break up John and Lucy making mischief all over town) Ralph was so damn boring he made Whit the wig look good.

That dialogue was so much better then  Larry's "Well, he finds my wife as attractive as I do.." Okay, Lar..we still think your gay..

 

9 hours ago, Tisy-Lish said:

Wasn't Ralph Mitchell one of Joyce Coleman's ex's?  Or maybe she just had an affair with him.  And he had a son (Teddy?) with someone -- maybe Joyce or possibly the woman Don Hughes ended up with.  And if I'm not mistaken, Teddy returned years later as a young adult, using a different name (Ryder Hughes, maybe??).  And I think he lived for a while with Bob and Kim.  Can anyone explain more about Ralph Mitchell's history on the show, before Marland brought him back??  And if any of my details are incorrect, please correct me.  

 

11 hours ago, MarlandFan said:

I never understood why Marland broke up Lucinda and John.  I get why Marland injected trouble and divorce into their storyline (soaps are all about drama), but he never brought them back together.  After the divorce, there was never even a hint that Marland felt that they eventually belonged together.  They were such a fun, dynamic couple -- was perhaps the permanent break because the actors had difficulties with each other?  And TPTB decided to relieve the stress behind the scenes?

Marland seemed to believe Lucinda always had to be hungry, always had to be punished for her sins. This probably did work for her, because viewers still sympathized with her even as she behaved horribly, but I do think we missed out on much more time with Lucinda and John as a proper couple. 

John was the one who really suffered from the breakup. He was left moribund for years. IIRC, he and Lisa Brown wanted to be paired together, so I can't blame Marland there (other than saying yes), but that was just a pairing all about plot, about the reactions of other people, no chemistry, just kind of depressing. And while I am glad Iva got to raise a child (even if the whole "replacement child" aspect is a little gross), John did not need another child. (and by the time MJ was old enough for story, they were no longer using John). 

Something that most writers loved with John, but Marland seemed hesitant about, was his existence as a finger in the eye to Oakdale establishment. And I think that's what fans enjoyed too. We still got that with Marland, to a point, but there was a certain muzzle on John from about 87/88-93 or so which would have rendered the character a back number without Larry Bryggman. 

Edited September 27Sep 27 by DRW50

4 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I think you have everything right about Ralph. He was the father of Teddy/Ryder, mother Joyce, raised by Mary (who had a very convoluted history for such a dreary character). IIRC, he was Grant's brother. I like Lawrence Keith well enough, but I've never quite been sure why they brought Ralph so many years later, unless there were plans to bring Teddy back at this stage that fell through.

I think you are confused. Teddy was the son of Grant and Joyce who put him up for adoption, when she was separated from Grant, without Grant having any knowledge of her pregnancy.

Mary and her husband adopted Teddy, not knowing it was an illegal adoption. It all came out but the Ellisons were allowed to keep Teddy. But then Brian died so Mary moved to Oakdale and Joyce was forever scheming to nab Grant and see Teddy.

Ralph was not Grant's brother and it was Keith Charles that played him. Larry Keith was busy on AMC as Nick.

39 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

I think you are confused. Teddy was the son of Grant and Joyce who put him up for adoption, when she was separated from Grant, without Grant having any knowledge of her pregnancy.

Mary and her husband adopted Teddy, not knowing it was an illegal adoption. It all came out but the Ellisons were allowed to keep Teddy. But then Brian died so Mary moved to Oakdale and Joyce was forever scheming to nab Grant and see Teddy.

Ralph was not Grant's brother and it was Keith Charles that played him. Larry Keith was busy on AMC as Nick.

I wrote a lot of that while in a haze, so you're right. Thanks. I'll delete it. At least I got the Keith part right.

Edited September 27Sep 27 by DRW50

12 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I wrote a lot of that while in a haze, so you're right. Thanks. I'll delete it. At least I got the Keith part right.

No need to apologize. Yep, always look at the positives!

You must have been channelling some past posters who would be writing stuff like that on a daily basis.

16 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

As I recall, he was never involved with Lisa so it was puzzling he was brought back at all.

I kept thinking they were going to bring Joyce back...that would have been fun...Lucinda..."Oh, Lisa..I hired an old friend of yours as my secretary, Joyce Coleman. Oh she says the two of you go back years and I believe shared some of the same husbands..."

One of my favorites is the scene selected for 50 Years of Soap.

Joyce invites Lisa to her wedding.  Lisa declines not because she has an excuse, but she tells Joyce that she's declining simply because she doesn't like her.

7 hours ago, j swift said:

One of my favorites is the scene selected for 50 Years of Soap.

Joyce invites Lisa to her wedding.  Lisa declines not because she has an excuse, but she tells Joyce that she's declining simply because she doesn't like her.

Was that the scene where Lisa said she wouldn't go even if Paul Newman & Robert Redford were her dates?

On 9/26/2025 at 8:59 PM, DRW50 said:

Something that most writers loved with John, but Marland seemed hesitant about, was his existence as a finger in the eye to Oakdale establishment. And I think that's what fans enjoyed too. We still got that with Marland, to a point, but there was a certain muzzle on John from about 87/88-93 or so which would have rendered the character a back number without Larry Bryggman. 

I agree -- Marland must have decided that if he wanted to keep John on the canvas, John needed to become more three-dimensional and more integrated into the Oakdale society.   Under Marland, John developed a fairly strict moral code -- gone were the days of lies, deception, and self-serving machinations.  He still interfered and lurked, but now his focus was on the well-being of his children.  All of these changes gave the character a longer life on ATWT, but it also neutered him.  Case in point: during Stenbeck's first return in 86/87, the John/Stenbeck rivalry was only briefly the focus. Initially, John made a fuss about his arch-enemy being alive and needing to pay for his crimes, but that conflict quickly disappeared and they almost never shared scenes together.  It became a Stenbeck vs. Duncan storyline.  Marland felt that John was too "normal" to be a part of an over-the-top high-adventure villain plotline.

27 minutes ago, MarlandFan said:

I agree -- Marland must have decided that if he wanted to keep John on the canvas, John needed to become more three-dimensional and more integrated into the Oakdale society.   Under Marland, John developed a fairly strict moral code -- gone were the days of lies, deception, and self-serving machinations.  He still interfered and lurked, but now his focus was on the well-being of his children.  All of these changes gave the character a longer life on ATWT, but it also neutered him.  Case in point: during Stenbeck's first return in 86/87, the John/Stenbeck rivalry was only briefly the focus. Initially, John made a fuss about his arch-enemy being alive and needing to pay for his crimes, but that conflict quickly disappeared and they almost never shared scenes together.  It became a Stenbeck vs. Duncan storyline.  Marland felt that John was too "normal" to be a part of an over-the-top high-adventure villain plotline.

That's the best description of what shifted. I do respect Marland not taking John too far over the edge, because the story that was going on under early Marland where he was obsessing over Sierra could have easily gone that route (I remember Ryan's Hope having a similar story and I think it ended with Roger Coleridge nearly raping a woman [and John did have that history]). 

Still, much as I bemoan daytime of recent decades where so many "good" characters go around murdering or attempted murdering, I would have enjoyed seeing John in a more aggressive role during James' return. 

Edited September 29Sep 29 by DRW50

 

would love to watch this, but cannot unless you allow facebook to track you. 

Play

 

 

 

-

I love the very dramatic repetitions of "Susan Stewart." One of those things that makes soaps what they are.

50 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I love the very dramatic repetitions of "Susan Stewart." One of those things that makes soaps what they are.

I love that too, because long-term viewers understood exactly why her name was repeated that way.  Susan had a history in Oakdale that went back far earlier than even Kim's history.  Love Marland's handling of this storyline.   

In terms of longevity on the show at that time among female characters, I assume it was something like this (in order of longevity): Nancy, Ellen, Lisa, Susan, and Kim.  Can anyone confirm if I am correct or incorrect?  

Edited October 1Oct 1 by Tisy-Lish

5 minutes ago, Tisy-Lish said:

I love that too, because long-term viewers understood exactly why her name was repeated that way.  Susan had a history in Oakdale that went back far earlier than even Kim's history.  Love Marland's handling of this storyline.   

In terms of longevity on the show at that time among female characters, I assume it was something like this (in order of longevity): Nancy, Ellen, Lisa, Susan, and Kim.  Can anyone confirm if I am correct or incorrect?  

I did think Frannie saying it was a little funny, but Lisa saying it was perfect.

My only complaint with the story is I think they cleaned Susan up a little too much, I guess to keep her as a viable character. I prefer how sharp she was when she first came back.

13 hours ago, DRW50 said:

My only complaint with the story is I think they cleaned Susan up a little too much, I guess to keep her as a viable character. I prefer how sharp she was when she first came back.

I loved the Kim/Bob/Susan triangle.  It was the most realistic examination of a marriage-in-trouble that I had seen on a soap. For the story to work, I think Susan needed to be a three-dimensional character. Marland had to soften Susan to make it believable that Bob could have feelings for her.  And for the triangle to work, all three had to be "real" people (and with the possibility of Bob going with Susan instead of returning to Kim.)  Prior to the tryst with Bob, Susan was already being written as "kind-hearted" especially with her friendship with Casey and her AA sponsorship of Andy.  

Edited October 1Oct 1 by MarlandFan