Jump to content

As The World Turns Discussion Thread


edgeofnik

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Nancy Hughes was always a more cold, dominate matriarch...so I don't think it was as much execs as it was the Dobsons as Bridget would always airly say they "Write what they feel, and what interests us and no one else."  It would have bene interesting to see writers evolve Nancy more.to see her gradually see that she she can let go of her family a bit more and have another interest..I think she also should have been the one more aggressively angry with Joyce then Lisa..(she shot her kid) and show her trying to block Joyce's access to that kid and ride Joyce...all the right reasons (Joyce was neurotic and unreliable) to show her iron fist..and I am sure more fun for Wagner then being a walk on and serving coffee.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • DRW50

    2970

  • DramatistDreamer

    1958

  • Soapsuds

    1716

  • P.J.

    823

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

I absolutely agree with what you said here.
For years, I have been somewhat exasperated by soap fans repetition of the same boilerplate reasoning behind the decline in popularity of daytime soaps to a single inciting event like the O.J. Simpson trial, rather than a number of factors that include the production companies behind these daytime soaps’ and their rigid adherence to the same format, plots and unchanging characterizations (pandering to the anachronistic idea of the mythical Midwestern housewife from the 1950s) for years on end. 
For years, I have believed that the idea of the supercouple was one of the best and perhaps the worst thing to happen to the daytime soap opera. It should have been a brief marketing campaign that lasted for about 48 months and dispensed with when it became limiting and tired, which it had obviously become by the very early 90s.

If there was anything that soap production company executives should have doubled down on, it should have been the insistence that their viewers had not truly abandoned these shows but that time shifted viewing (viewers recording their favorite soaps on VCRs preset via timers) had become a bigger factor because of more women working outside the home and those numbers were not being recorded, and figuring out a way for those numbers to be factored into the ratings as DVR viewing is now factored into today’s ratings.

 

I still think the executives and industry set the standards for how archetypes were and are written, especially female ones. There should have been room for all types of matriarchal figures, the way that there was room for patriarchal figures (Bob Hughes was a fatherly type and also a serial cheater, for instance) but there was an industry wide standard of having a warm, very nurturing matriarch. GL never allowed the likes of Vanessa to be a matriarch because, despite her being of age at the time, a matriarch wasn’t supposed to ever be ambitious in her career or even sexy enough to attract younger men. If you had an ambitious figure like an Alexandra Spaulding or a Lucinda Walsh who had any maternal feelings at all, it was usually presented as a weakness, a character flaw or something that the woman, as intelligent as she was, could never quite manage properly and despite repeated stories, the clumsy way these women could never seem to manage their maternal relationships with half the level of competence as they did their businesses. It was a sexist trope that needed to die with the evolution of more women in the workplace but it persists to this day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What? Bert was certainly no slouch in the vinegary-interfering mother department. If Nancy was seen as a bit colder, maybe it was because she didn't have the obstacles (broken marriage, health problems) that Bert did. 

I think the structure of Guiding Light at the time allowed the Dobsons to keep the Bauers "front and center". (Although there were probably viewers who saw the Spauldings and Marlers as interlopers) Mike and Ed were diametric opposites, each who generated story. When the Dobsons took over ATWT, they didn't have that with the Hughes, who at that time consisted of Bob, Tom and teenage Frannie. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Beyond having less interesting Hughes relationships compared to the Bauers on GL, and maybe not understanding Nancy, I wonder how much of the change is down to the Dobsons joining ATWT at a time when P&G was beginning to more actively push to phase out older vets and core families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think sponsor and/or network interference is mostly to blame for the difference between the Dobsons' work on GL and their later work on ATWT.  By the time they had joined ATWT, pretty much all of daytime was chasing after the same demographic that had flocked to GH in the wake of Luke and Laura's success.  The rules of the game, as they say, had definitely changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think you're right. What hurt ATWT was no one in place there seemed to have any idea what this shift needed (was anyone in the viewing audience horny for Brad Hollister?). With a few exceptions, like the casting for Margo and Craig and recasting Tom, they didn't seem to figure it out until around 1984 or 1985.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Since the days of Irna Phillips, P&G was known for being very actively involved in stories and characterizations on their shows. Both the showrunner and the executives were known to have bumped heads numerous times and in the end, P&G mostly got their own way.

Although his reunion videos are not always known for being of the highest quality, several uploads provided insight as a few former ATWT actors talked about the battles between writers and the brass at P&G and/or CBS Daytime for content in scripts that the higher ups considered to be objectionable. Scott Bryce once described it as being akin to being called into the principal’s office. Creativity by committee tends to yield insipid results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Their big fat Greek wedding will always be stunning. They did have chemistry and the actors promoted the hell out of that pairing, regardless of how each actor now looks upon their time on the show. I do think the promotion of the supercouple should have faded with the end of the decade (1980s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Everything said earlier in the thread about how much ATWT and soaps suffered from trying to still cling to old patterns in the OJ era is so true. ATWT was based on complex friendships and family dynamics - they did have one of the first soap supercouples (Penny and Jeff) but that wasn't their calling card. ATWT trying to still cling on while running away from the family units and complicated histories and becoming whatever mutated '80s primetime soap the show was trying to be for so much of the mid/late '90s (aside from some of the stronger moments of 1995) was unfortunate. I remember disliking Mike and Rosanna so much, but assuming they were loved by viewers with how heavily pushed they were. Only years later when I read more soap magazines from that period did I learn they weren't ever very popular. All that for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But IIRC, Don was gone shortly thereafter. It doesn't feel like his character was ever well-defined. Certainly not the same kind of impact Mike Bauer had on GL. If there was ever any kind of rivalry between Bob and Don, it certainly got overshadowed by Bob and John's animosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Earlier under Irna Phillips, Don was more clearly defined I think. He was more of a contrast to Bob, more ambitious and resentful of Nancy's treatment of Janice.

By the time he came back in the mid 70's a lot of that was forgotten/ignored.

They should have kept Don's stepdaughters by Janice in the picture as they could have become honorary Hughes and the show would have had 2 young women to write for.

Irna drastically aged them (for no real reason) in the mid 60's but they could have played around with that a little and kept them early 20's in the mid 70's.

They could have held off SORASING Dee and Annie. Those 2 characters had only a few years in the spotlight when they should have been leading the next generation.

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   1 member




  • Recent Posts

    • The bit with the scarf reminds me of the fabled stuffed animal scene with Rick and Phillip. (That wasn't debunked, was it?)
    • Ohh, interesting. I instantly gravitated towards her in that episode. Of course I'm already hooked and want to know why she was trying to poison that older lady, but then how did the older lady know to switch the mugs so Susan drank her own poison...  but I have too many timelines I'm watching right now haha.  Oh, Bolger is definitely hot. I didn't realize he was on GL haha. I knew him from OLTL and other primetime stuff.
    • This is a effin shame. Eff Trump and eff the bastards that enable him.
    • I 100% agree but I think this is due to how the show is structured. It's a one family show which means there are no people in her age range that could be used as friends or contemporaries of her. The show definitely needs a second main family. I am glad someone finally said this. Especially now that the cast is gelling in their roles, he stands out like a sore thumb. No energy, no chemistry with anybody. He is just there.  I thought that was odd as well! The previous scene would've worked better as a tag for the credits.
    • That's the one and only Carrie Nye (Mrs. Dick Cavett) as Susan Piper, a deadly realtor. I don't want to spoil a lot if you ever want to see those episodes. She returns as another character in 2003. I think Grant has aged well and he always did a good job at being ripped without going too far, but he was never entirely my cup of tea either. I did think John Bolger was hot.
    • Totally agree. KKL looks great! It makes the Widge groveling so bizarre. Brooke needs to leave FC and with $B's/Liam's funding launch a rival fashion house with Hope, Rick, Katie and a secret designer. The best scenario is that Rick has been absent because he's been with very much alive C2, who is revealed on the runway as the secret designer. It'll never happen because B&B is comfortable just focusing on FC and the Forresters Marones v. Logans. But it'd been so much more interesting if the Spencers/Logans united.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Haha that scarf thing did go on a bit too long, very odd. And what a young Rick!  I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I just never got the physical appeal of Grant Aleksander, but he's definitely a great actor. Who is the older lady around the 8:30 mark, and also ends the episode, alone and in pain? She seems like a really interesting character. I love the smoky voice and sultry, snaky vibe she seems to have.
    • I can't remember exactly but I think she lives in or is part of the cottage story with Carrie. Carrie poisons her in this episode.  I forgot Teresa was on the show. (I see that AI is insisting she wasn't - well they're wrong) Poor Maeve. I can how even she had her limits. 
    • It pisses me off that the other Duprees are making this incident all about them as well. They are playing a family of victims, acting as if Ted cheated on all of them. They should be supportive, but not like this. I have a family that makes anything that happens to me personally all about them, and seeing the same thing on TV is rage-inducing.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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