Jump to content

B&B: Old/Classic Discussion & Articles


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

According to IMDb she appeared in episodes #23 and #45. If I remember correctly, Donna was hanging around at the beach with some friends at a bonfire and the whole set was barely lit, so that it was not that easy to see much on-screen.
They tried some VERY natural stuff with the teens back then. Griffey's was so low key and plausible as a college hangout; and there was a disco called DANCE FACTORY for one episode, I think. Too bad they clearly did not have the proper budget to use this is a real set for the teens.

The recast was really bizarre. Judith Baldwin/the original Beth was much prettier, but Nancy Burnett fit in really well with the upcoming stories, so I guess it was storyline dictated recast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Episode 23 was at the place Rocco worked. It's a shame the teen scene did not remain an integral part of the soap. But they did grow up in front of us... for the most part.

Judith Baldwin was fantastic as Beth Logan, but, I guess William J. Bell and his team did not see her with the likes of John McCook, I guess? Marla Adams is another questionable recast. Talent-wise she was right, but she just did not fit. Know who I would've LOVED to have seen in the role? Judith McConnell (ex-Sophia, SB; ex-Miranda, AW; ex-Valerie, ATWT et al). Now that would've been excellent casting, especially in linking back to Baldwin's casting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I liked Griffey's too. Stacey the waitress was a great character! It was so refreshing that she was "normal" looking and still so totally and naturally self-confident in a world populated by beautiful people with "perfect" looks and bodies. And she had a great sense of humor. Her deadpan comments were pure gold. 

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 think Hotel would have the similar demos as Dynasty W 19-49 would have been strong. St Elsewhere survived b/c it attracted wealthier/urban viewers and The Equalizer was probably stronger with men and younger viewers. So each had their own niche-good counter-programming. As for Aaron Spelling's influence over ABC in terms of scheduling, I don't know if he would have been happy with Charlie's Angels moving to Sunday, The Colbys scheduled on Thursdays or Matt Houston moved to Fridays. I think he just had to roll with the punches.
    • Thank you @Broderick. That information was so helpful. I watched the first episode of the "Mansion of the Damned" storyline. I was extremely confused by Margaret Colin's Paige and her relationship to other characters. Your post helps me understand what's happening. The rest of the show was easy to understand and I'm enjoying it. Hunter's Nola is a good character for me since I know Kim Hunter from other work.  I must have seen clips of Edge of Night before because I remember seeing April. 
    • How is it back tracking when it was in fact the word I originally used? It's not.
    • You know what is a great way to stop these unclear "rumors"?  Just stop posting them and then back tracking with words like "apparently".   Anyhow, I didn't find the Tracy/Lois scenes as good as I hoped.    
    • Jason, in thinking this over, I realize that we look at this space, differently. To me it is a potentially collaborative space. Now that I've realized this, what I should have said, "I'm having a problem because what I'm seeing is not matching up with your descriptions. Maybe these files I just got are misdated. Maybe it's something else. I will keep you posted. Meanwhile this episode, its edit, is ready, even though I might have to issue a corrected date later. But, people can enjoy the performances now. 
    • Thank you for the constructive suggestion. 
    • But how is it "apparent" that she signed a new 3-year contract? Your wording had a voice of authority -- as if you knew it was true. A better way to post about it? Say you read online that she signed a new contract, but have no idea if that's true.
    • This interview actually reminds me a bit of Kim Zimmer’s press during the infamous clone storyline on Guiding Light, or Deidre Hall during the possession story on Days. All three were seasoned daytime veterans who made it clear they valued airtime for their characters, not just being part of a romantic pairing. It seems that idea was part of the pitch behind these bigger-than-life plots. They all took big swings in their performances. When I read Kim Zimmer’s memoir, I thought she captured it best — she wanted to be respected for being willing to take those risks. To paraphrase her, she knew it was ridiculous for Reva to think she was pregnant after menopause, but she still threw herself into those scenes and made them real. That’s what really struck me about Victoria Wyndham’s interview too. She responded like a real person. It felt like she was telling Michael Logan that she knew Justine — and a geriatric pregnancy with twins — was totally preposterous, but that she still deserved credit for trying to keep the show alive and entertain the audience. And honestly, I think that's more than fair. Logan is looking for a reductive answer for who is to blame.  And, she's telling him to accept that they were all well-meaning.  Which is not a defense of bad storytelling.  But, I understand that she's frustrated because she interpreted Logan's critique as a lack of commitment, and she wants him to know that she was committed! (maybe not for the best, but committed).
    • Fine, you only had to say so. It's not a problem to me NOT to post this. I have no idea what this means. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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