Our weekend discussion in this thread made me think about what different groups of fans consider attractive. The photo above reminds me that ATWT was not like Y&R, B&B, or even GH, in the types of actors they were known to frequently cast. Jon Hensley and Melanie Smith were more likely to be the exception, rather than the rule on a soap like ATWT, while on B&B, etc., it was more likely to be the direct opposite.

ATWT had attractive actors, who were attractive in a way that seemed more accessible, rather than some of the fantasy types that were on most other soaps. GL was also like this. Maybe it was more about what P&G shows believed their viewers would find appealing. It seemed like they relied more on a combination of allure and attractiveness, rather than out and out "sex bomb" qualities of their characters. There were moments (Hensley, Smith, Lamman Rucker) but they were not in the main. I think the acting showed us why one character might appeal to another beyond pretty looks.  I also appreciated that you could have a character like Smith's "Emily" have awareness of her sexual power, but you could also have Jennifer Ashe (Meg) also have an awareness of her own sexual power, yet the boundaries of the limits of each seemed quite realistic and stories built around this seemed more accessible. Nothing against those soaps that delved more deeply into the fantasy aspect but it was always the more realistic aspects of P&G shows that appealed to me as a fan.

@DramatistDreamer,  I think the word you mean is "earthy" - which the P&G soaps were, especially compared to the Bell soaps. Of course, the P&G soaps were based in NYC and the Bell soaps in LA, which played a large role. 

21 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Our weekend discussion in this thread made me think about what different groups of fans consider attractive. The photo above reminds me that ATWT was not like Y&R, B&B, or even GH, in the types of actors they were known to frequently cast. Jon Hensley and Melanie Smith were more likely to be the exception, rather than the rule on a soap like ATWT, while on B&B, etc., it was more likely to be the direct opposite.

ATWT had attractive actors, who were attractive in a way that seemed more accessible, rather than some of the fantasy types that were on most other soaps. GL was also like this. Maybe it was more about what P&G shows believed their viewers would find appealing. It seemed like they relied more on a combination of allure and attractiveness, rather than out and out "sex bomb" qualities of their characters. There were moments (Hensley, Smith, Lamman Rucker) but they were not in the main. I think the acting showed us why one character might appeal to another beyond pretty looks.  I also appreciated that you could have a character like Smith's "Emily" have awareness of her sexual power, but you could also have Jennifer Ashe (Meg) also have an awareness of her own sexual power, yet the boundaries of the limits of each seemed quite realistic and stories built around this seemed more accessible. Nothing against those soaps that delved more deeply into the fantasy aspect but it was always the more realistic aspects of P&G shows that appealed to me as a fan.

East coast soaps had relatable-looking performers. Granted, sometimes it would borderline to un-relatable, but, generally, you could see yourself in those of portrayed the roles, especially the CBS soaps.

4 minutes ago, Liberty City said:

generally, you could see yourself in those of portrayed the roles, especially the CBS soaps.

Yourself or people you knew - that was a big part of the charm of P&G soaps.

5 minutes ago, amybrickwallace said:

Yourself or people you knew - that was a big part of the charm of P&G soaps.

YES!!! That was exactly it.

7 minutes ago, amybrickwallace said:

Yourself or people you knew - that was a big part of the charm of P&G soaps.

I think that and generally the story lines were more relatable...(the before clones, etc.) The P & G soaps at that time was a heightened reality of people who seemed "real" but were of course, better looking then the average person, with storylines that were dramatic but you could still see Bob and Kim discussing it over breakfast.

A particular example of this was when MADD took over and they started casting generic looking models...(of particular note on GL the Spaulding Board, which always had consisted of actors who were older men and maybe one or two older women, somehow trnsitioned into 30 somethings who would look more at home at a gym then a board room.) That handsome guy who played David Stenbeck was recast with that porny looking actor, etc. I remember they recast Cassie's ex husband on GL with that guy from Sunset Beach and a spokesperson was saying "Women are going to be tuning in to just drool over (whatever his name is) which really told it all, they thought their viewers were a bunch of drooling idiots!

23 minutes ago, amybrickwallace said:

@DramatistDreamer,  I think the word you mean is "earthy" - which the P&G soaps were, especially compared to the Bell soaps. Of course, the P&G soaps were based in NYC and the Bell soaps in LA, which played a large role. 

I definitely meant more accessible. Y&R, at least in the 80s, when I began to watch as a little girl, had these  sweeping romances that featured scenes best suited for the cover of a Harlequin novel, (No offense meant to the genre at all, which can be an art form, in and of itself), while on ATWT you had glamorous characters and story settings but the majority of stories were just as likely to take place in a hospital or a police station or a construction site, as they were in a ritzy restaurant or Fashion's boutique.

Think about Y&R's tent pole couple, Victor and Nikki and compare to Tom and Margo or Bob and Kim. Victor and Nikki's wedding to Tom and Margo's. Which wedding would most of us be most likely to attend?😉

Accessible.

Even glamorous characters like Lucinda and Barbara faced cash crunches with their businesses in the 80s. 

There were no Colonnade Rooms at Oakdale. Everyone went to Diana's or the Mona Lisa, where everyone could see everyone and Steve was just as likely to traipse through wearing his construction clothes, lol.

I didn't use earthy because I wouldn't use that term for Barbara, Lucinda or even Lisa or Kim. I might say that, for many years, most of the storylines were more grounded than daytime serials that emphasized a fantasy type of life.

But my main point was that the actors were attractive, some even sexy in ways that were accessible. Very few fit that "impossibly beautiful" model type that became all the rage on some other daytime soaps. You occasionally had your slice of beefcake (how else can we explain Frank Cooper on GL), which I never really found all that alluring, tbh but I understand the impulse to throw that into the mix. And if one or two or five other competing soaps were doing this, others felt compelled to follow suit in some way. At least ATWT didn't go full B&B, 😂. They recognized the need for all types.

Fair enough! 😊

1 hour ago, DramatistDreamer said:

You occasionally had your slice of beefcake (how else can we explain Frank Cooper on GL), which I never really found all that alluring, tbh but I understand the impulse to throw that into the mix. And if one or two or five other competing soaps were doing this, others felt compelled to follow suit in some way. At least ATWT didn't go full B&B, 😂. They recognized the need for all types.

Yea, but even then, and I am not Frankie D's biggest fan (he has a soap guardian angel looking after him to stay employed all these years) but even when he was looking his best...the guy came off as this big, friendly and you gotta admit, kind of dumb guy you would see anywhere.  But then all my friends, who watched crap like "Days" would say, "You watch those shows with all the ugly people" uh..I wish I was that ugly!

4 hours ago, Mitch said:

Yea, but even then, and I am not Frankie D's biggest fan (he has a soap guardian angel looking after him to stay employed all these years) but even when he was looking his best...the guy came off as this big, friendly and you gotta admit, kind of dumb guy you would see anywhere.  But then all my friends, who watched crap like "Days" would say, "You watch those shows with all the ugly people" uh..I wish I was that ugly!

When Frank first showed up in Springfield, I thought he was a hunk and a half, and looked sexy as heck in that tight blue T-shirt he used to wear. Woof. But, honestly, while FD was not a great actor, the character did come across as a kind of dumb-but friendly lug, which was not so bad. I preferred Frank over Buzz and Lucy, and usually over Harley.

2 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

 the character did come across as a kind of dumb-but friendly lug, which was not so bad. 

I feel soaps have forgotten that sometimes "basic good guy" can be a good archetype to have as one of your leading men.
Lord knows we have enough of the antiheros and the brooding types. And it is in the interest of even those characters to have someone that works in contrast.

3 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

When Frank first showed up in Springfield, I thought he was a hunk and a half, and looked sexy as heck in that tight blue T-shirt he used to wear. Woof. But, honestly, while FD was not a great actor, the character did come across as a kind of dumb-but friendly lug, which was not so bad. I preferred Frank over Buzz and Lucy, and usually over Harley.

Agreed..they did a total disservice to Frankie D by making him not only a cop, but chief of police. He just did not have the strong personality of a leader to convince us as one and well, he was dumber then a box of rocks...(he should have been a cop in one of the Halloween movies he is so dumb...) He worked as a nice guy always ready to help out..i would have had him at Lewis construction as I would have also burned that damn diner down.  I did like Frank and Harley's relationship. NuEleni was dull as dirt so I have no idea who I would pair him with..Bridget? I always kind of liked the thought of as people would call them.."Frick" and have the new core couple be two nice middle gay guys.

3 hours ago, FrenchBug82 said:

I feel soaps have forgotten that sometimes "basic good guy" can be a good archetype to have as one of your leading men.
Lord knows we have enough of the antiheros and the brooding types. And it is in the interest of even those characters to have someone that works in contrast.

Right. Balance is important. Not all of us drool over the antiheroes, rapists, mobsters and murderers that soaps have become obsessed with, LOL. "Basic good guys" like Frank Cooper or Larry Wolek or Russ Matthews are important too.

2 hours ago, Mitch said:

Agreed..they did a total disservice to Frankie D by making him not only a cop, but chief of police. He just did not have the strong personality of a leader to convince us as one and well, he was dumber then a box of rocks...(he should have been a cop in one of the Halloween movies he is so dumb...)

I saw (or rather, endured) the new Halloween Kills this week. As always while watching movies like this, I kept shaking my head in disbelief and wondering, "WHY are these people sooooooooo stupid?"

2 hours ago, Mitch said:

He worked as a nice guy always ready to help out..i would have had him at Lewis construction as I would have also burned that damn diner down.  I did like Frank and Harley's relationship. NuEleni was dull as dirt so I have no idea who I would pair him with..Bridget? I always kind of liked the thought of as people would call them.."Frick" and have the new core couple be two nice middle gay guys.

Finding a decent romantic partner for Frank was another problem in the long run. That's why I was fine with him being a friendly, supportive background player, but I never wanted him to be a lead.

30 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

Right. Balance is important. Not all of us drool over the antiheroes, rapists, mobsters and murderers that soaps have become obsessed with, LOL. "Basic good guys" like Frank Cooper or Larry Wolek or Russ Matthews are important too.

I saw (or rather, endured) the new Halloween Kills this week. As always while watching movies like this, I kept shaking my head in disbelief and wondering, "WHY are these people sooooooooo stupid?"

Finding a decent romantic partner for Frank was another problem in the long run. That's why I was fine with him being a friendly, supportive background player, but I never wanted him to be a lead.

I think the best pairing was at the end.  Frank and Blake had history as friends for so long, they made sense.  By that point both had been supporting characters for a while. They would have made a good pair of talk tos with minor stories from time to time.

5 hours ago, slick jones said:

I think the best pairing was at the end.  Frank and Blake had history as friends for so long, they made sense.  By that point both had been supporting characters for a while. They would have made a good pair of talk tos with minor stories from time to time.

I could have accepted that.