19 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I didn't know for a long time that John and Sharon were briefly reunited on Passions, but it wasn't much of a reunion, as their history amounted to him keeping her locked away for years and repeatedly raping her.

I had no idea she was on there too. Oy vey.

The one upload of Night Shift 2 I know of is extremely poor quality. I've always wanted to revisit it properly though, I hear great things and I only got through part of it BITD.

2 minutes ago, Vee said:

I had no idea she was on there too. Oy vey.

The one upload of Night Shift 2 I know of is extremely poor quality. I've always wanted to revisit it properly though, I hear great things and I only got through part of it BITD.

There are clips of her on Youtube but most of them just have her as a talk-to before she vanishes (that's when the show was firing a lot of people due to budget).

Hopefully Night Shift 2 will pop up in better condition sometime. You'd think ABC might make a few bucks with it.

Thanks for the episode @Vee

I agree it was a natural progression for Sean and Tiffany to exit when they did. My wish many years ago was that Sean would have been revealed as behind the virus outbreak instead of Holly. It could have been some gray area WSB storyline and him being revealed would have been more complicated for Robin, Robert and Anna than Holly was as just an opportunist. Holly only really impacts Robert and Luke.

If Sharon had been able to return I would have her running a media empire, easily more believable for her to be the head of Aurora than Michael or Curtis. Especially over Crimson BITD to be a mentor to Kate, Lulu and Maxie, and a thorn in the side of Nina. Tiffany in scenes with Todd Manning when The Sun came to Port Charla would have been a lot of fun.

In watching the rerun of Luke's last episode from 2015, GH looks nearly aesthetically identical in 2025 as it did a decade ago. The sets have improved but the lighting remains washed out.

The lighting was really good in the late JFP era when the show switched to HD. After the 50th anniversary it got very bright and the colors look a little bit odd.

2013

2012

All ABC soaps looked cheap with dull lighting and colors between 2003 in 2008 when they were doing some sort of post production to the show.

6 hours ago, titan1978 said:

Thanks for the episode @Vee

I agree it was a natural progression for Sean and Tiffany to exit when they did. My wish many years ago was that Sean would have been revealed as behind the virus outbreak instead of Holly. It could have been some gray area WSB storyline and him being revealed would have been more complicated for Robin, Robert and Anna than Holly was as just an opportunist. Holly only really impacts Robert and Luke.

If Sharon had been able to return I would have her running a media empire, easily more believable for her to be the head of Aurora than Michael or Curtis. Especially over Crimson BITD to be a mentor to Kate, Lulu and Maxie, and a thorn in the side of Nina. Tiffany in scenes with Todd Manning when The Sun came to Port Charla would have been a lot of fun.

I really do like the idea of Tiffany running Aurora and it's more believable than current options. I feel like it would be played more wacky than serious-much like they play Lucy now, which would be a shame.

Watching a bunch of 80s episodes makes you realize that the show had 1000s of characters back then too, so many of them, intentionally or not, minor, as the show always revolved around the big characters of Luke, Robert, and Anna. A few of these minor players were old Hollywood film and TV stars. Perhaps a lot of these people were kept around because they were friends of Gloria? The state of the show today has many precedents!

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by Jdee43

16 minutes ago, Jdee43 said:

Watching a bunch of 80s episodes makes you realize that the show had 1000s of characters back then too, so many of them, intentionally or not, minor, as the show always revolved around the big characters of Luke, Robert, and Anna. A few of these minor players were old Hollywood film and TV stars. Perhaps a lot of these people were kept around because they were friends of Gloria? The state of the show today has many precedents!

Most soaps were stacked like this back then. The difference was they were telling full stories, and you had people there that helped flush stuff out as true supporting over the years. GH did have tendency to revolve around a handful of characters though during that time, especially once Anna became a lead.

For example on Y&R Paul had a secretary named Lynn, you had John Silva, and Esther. GH had Amy always there at the hospital, and Lila was a significant character but never a lead like Monica, Alan, or Edward were. Same with Gail Baldwin, and characters like Amanda Barrington. When I first got into AMC in the early 1990’s that show was full of people like this.

A major difference with today was those recurring folks were rarely the leads in stories. GH does that all the time now, and has for years. They have contract players that hardly lead stories at all.

6 hours ago, Planet Soap said:

In watching the rerun of Luke's last episode from 2015, GH looks nearly aesthetically identical in 2025 as it did a decade ago. The sets have improved but the lighting remains washed out.

The lighting was really good in the late JFP era when the show switched to HD. After the 50th anniversary it got very bright and the colors look a little bit odd.

2013

2012

All ABC soaps looked cheap with dull lighting and colors between 2003 in 2008 when they were doing some sort of post production to the show.

Thanks for comparing the lighting styles over the years. I never notice that myself.

I can appreciate that GH was competently produced for many years but by the time I started watching GH in the mid/late '90s there was a certain haze which did nothing to make me feel less enervated as the show got duller and duller.

I miss that haze! It's overly lit these days but was worse in 2015.

7 hours ago, Planet Soap said:

In watching the rerun of Luke's last episode from 2015, GH looks nearly aesthetically identical in 2025 as it did a decade ago. The sets have improved but the lighting remains washed out.

The lighting was really good in the late JFP era when the show switched to HD. After the 50th anniversary it got very bright and the colors look a little bit odd.

2013

2012

All ABC soaps looked cheap with dull lighting and colors between 2003 in 2008 when they were doing some sort of post production to the show.

It's because with the arrivals of Frank Valentini and Ron Carlivati, they seemed to bring with them the non-HD camera quality that One Life to Live had. Both mirrored each other. By 2015/2016, it began to shift, but they appeared to be using 4K lights and non-4K cameras.

When the 4K cameras were introduced in 2018, it definitely looked better than it does in 2025/2026. Since COVID, things have shifted in how production has looked, and it's very disappointing. This is from the debut of the new cameras, and while it is bright, the post is much more complimentary in comparison to now where it is beyond cold and dull:

19 minutes ago, Liberty City said:

It's because with the arrivals of Frank Valentini and Ron Carlivati, they seemed to bring with them the non-HD camera quality that One Life to Live had. Both mirrored each other. By 2015/2016, it began to shift, but they appeared to be using 4K lights and non-4K cameras.

When the 4K cameras were introduced in 2018, it definitely looked better than it does in 2025/2026. Since COVID, things have shifted in how production has looked, and it's very disappointing. This is from the debut of the new cameras, and while it is bright, the post is much more complimentary in comparison to now where it is beyond cold and dull:

Thanks for the breakdown. I did notice that shift in look around 2016 as well.

I always remember how the show shifted in storylines between 2012 and 2013 with the switch from JFP to Frank, but looking back at the show changed aesthetically it really downgraded in that one year.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by Planet Soap

5 minutes ago, Planet Soap said:

Thanks for the breakdown. I did notice that shift in look around 2016 as well.

I always remember how the show shifted in storylines between 2012 and 2013 with the switch from JFP to Frank, but looking back at the show changed aesthetically it really downgraded in that one year.

It's what happens when you use non-HD cameras on a set that was updated to be shot in HD. It was yellow, blurry, and low quality.

I didn't want to bump the Geary thread for this, but as we've discussed this stuff a lot of late this infamous clip from E!'s Pure Soap in '93 has returned online, in which Tony is still visibly pissed following the airing of Bill Eckert's demise. (I won't timestamp it because there's fan reaction and the scene itself in the video, but they start discussing it at 3:20)

Worth noting to how sharp some of them are. Including the fan who wants him to die on an ELQ ship, as Bill first appeared when one sank.

Edited 46 minutes ago46 min by Vee

10 minutes ago, Vee said:

I didn't want to bump the Geary thread for this, but as we've discussed this stuff a lot of late this infamous clip from E!'s Pure Soap in '93 has returned online, in which Tony is still visibly pissed following the airing of Bill Eckert's demise. (I won't timestamp it because there's fan reaction and the scene itself in the video, but they start discussing it at 3:20)

Boy, when E! covered entertainment news seriously. A whole program dedicated to analyzing soaps, that was cool.

Tony was the most popular male lead in soaps, part of the most popular super couple on television. Did he really think fans would accept him back on GH as a different character?

Again, I've never quite understood his aversion to playing the character that made him a household name.

Edited 40 minutes ago40 min by Planet Soap

5 minutes ago, Planet Soap said:

Boy, when E! covered entertainment news seriously. A whole program dedicated to analyzing soaps, that was cool.

Tony was the most popular male lead in soaps, part of the most popular super couple on television. Did he really think fans would accept him back on GH as a different character?

Again, I've never quite understood his aversion to playing the character that made him a household name.

Isn't that a common story with many actors/ singers? - the very thing you wished for becomes a burden. Tony probably hoped that his success with Luke would translate into other roles that were varied, more prestigious etc and when that didn't happen there was a certain resentment. Then not to have the Bill character be well received also meant that if he wanted that kind of income and what it brought him, he would have to go back to playing Luke.