18 hours ago, BadBoy93 said:

Been watching a lot of old GH and it got me thinking about the Era of Jill Farren Phelps and whether she did any good to the show in contrast to the many many bad. 

I did like The Text Message Killer story even if all the wrong characters got killed, and I really enjoyed The Black/White ball sweeps story. 

The only fully successful things I can pull from her run were Vanessa Marcil’s original return, the Metro Court crisis was an incredible sweeps event, some excellent casting over most of her tenure, and the hospital set redesign that happened before she left.

Everything else had more negatives than positives for me. I can’t praise someone that systematically treats women so terribly, especially in this medium, and lets the men dictate and get away with being assholes.

3 hours ago, titan1978 said:

Labine plays out an older, wiser, and also more comfortable version of the original character. He is still iconoclastic, still wants a piece of the action, but the club is more than enough until he can get rid of Frank Smith permanently. Once that happens, he again becomes kind of aimless, and you could argue he stays involved with Sonny out of loyalty and also a desire to be in the action. At this time he has unique and important relationships with Laura, Sonny, Mike, Lucy, Lucky, Robin and Stone.

At first, this is the same Luke that Guza writes. But things unravel when Nikolas is revealed. And Luke cannot handle Laura being pulled away from him- his family, his son. And that she could keep it from him. And once again, his most prominent trait is an insecurity around vulnerability. And the final nail is when Lucky can no longer look at him the same way ever again, cementing a deep self loathing that settles deeper every year into the core of his personality until Geary quits the show.

The way you wrote it, too bad this isn't what we saw on screen the last 16 years of Geary's run. They really lost the character circa 1999.

With his earlier run, especially once Luke became super popular in the early 80s, I think there were times where he seemed more cartoonish than anything else, under Gloria Monty and her mix of screwball comedy and action/adventure.

Luke's original run, in 1978-1980, I don't think he ever gave off the vibe of "sleazy, evil rapist." That they went there was such a failure on so many levels on the part of the production team, especially  Gloria Monty. It was all about amassing an audience with her, not so much about the quality of what they were watching.

Edited October 15Oct 15 by Jdee43

RE the rape. I honestly think the 1998 revisit of the story was one of the best stories GH ever did. Finally correcting the major moral wrong they did with Luke/Laura. Everyone shone in that story, especially Tony Geary in that monologue which is still chilling to this day. I think it hits him hard when he sees Elizabeth all bruised and then Bobbie's cold response to Luke also. It shows how far time changes characters and revisiting these sort of things really highlights the horror of the act. 

2 hours ago, BadBoy93 said:

RE the rape. I honestly think the 1998 revisit of the story was one of the best stories GH ever did. Finally correcting the major moral wrong they did with Luke/Laura. Everyone shone in that story, especially Tony Geary in that monologue which is still chilling to this day. I think it hits him hard when he sees Elizabeth all bruised and then Bobbie's cold response to Luke also. It shows how far time changes characters and revisiting these sort of things really highlights the horror of the act. 

It was interesting to see the entire first story, and Bobbie being one of the few people back then that knew it was Luke and she does go after him about it on multiple occasions.

I thought it started out incredibly strong. But it does emotionally become more about how Lucky and Luke are dealing with both rapes, and less about Liz and especially Laura. By the time we got to Lucky saying awful things to Laura, and her confrontations with both Lucky and Luke at the Club, I was mostly disgusted. That’s the problem with revisiting it at that time. They mined every aspect of that story for Luke and Lucky, and Laura got a couple of scenes. It could have been a real examination of her building a life with this man, and how as an adult she may see her choices differently, even if she did still love him desperately. I thought Audrey got have some nice emotional material too though, but again, just not enough. 

Edited October 15Oct 15 by titan1978

4 hours ago, titan1978 said:

It was interesting to see the entire first story, and Bobbie being one of the few people back then that knew it was Luke and she does go after him about it on multiple occasions.

I thought it started out incredibly strong. But it does emotionally become more about how Lucky and Luke are dealing with both rapes, and less about Liz and especially Laura. By the time we got to Lucky saying awful things to Laura, and her confrontations with both Lucky and Luke at the Club, I was mostly disgusted. That’s the problem with revisiting it at that time. They mined every aspect of that story for Luke and Lucky, and Laura got a couple of scenes. It could have been a real examination of her building a life with this man, and how as an adult she may see her choices differently, even if she did still love him desperately. I thought Audrey got have some nice emotional material too though, but again, just not enough. 

That's how I felt too. Lucky berating Laura at length because she didn't handle her rape in a way he saw fit summed up a great deal of where the show was and where it was heading.

12 hours ago, DRW50 said:

That's how I felt too. Lucky berating Laura at length because she didn't handle her rape in a way he saw fit summed up a great deal of where the show was and where it was heading.

One of the main issues for me is the show wanted Lucky to be angry, to lash out only. If that scene with Laura had involved him breaking, showing his actual heartbreak at learning about his father, it would have been way more acceptable to me. The anger was justified and I don’t have a problem with that per se, but Lucky became so one note. The only thing they wanted to play for Lucky were anger and falling in love with Liz.

I was watching AJ and Keesha clips on YouTube. Wow. Made me feel gushy inside. They were nice together from what I gathered. 

I know Bridget Dobson was the daughter of the show creators, the Hursley’s. She worked under them (often contentiously from what I have read about their relationships) as scriptwriter and what we would now consider breakdown writer, until she and Jerome took over the top spot. He wrote there for years too. My question is did any of their idiosyncratic style and characterizations show up on GH?

I know their types of stories and characters really shined on Guiding Light when they left General Hospital (were they fired?). Just curious if their fingerprints are as visible during their era at GH as they were on their later runs at other shows. Maybe something for @DaytimeFan or @vetsoapfan to chime in on with their extensive knowledge of that period of time! Were there characters that feel particularly like a Bridget character there, types of stories, etc?

6 hours ago, titan1978 said:

I know Bridget Dobson was the daughter of the show creators, the Hursley’s. She worked under them (often contentiously from what I have read about their relationships) as scriptwriter and what we would now consider breakdown writer, until she and Jerome took over the top spot. He wrote there for years too. My question is did any of their idiosyncratic style and characterizations show up on GH?

Someone else will know much better than I do. @vetsoapfan may. I know she said she was under the thumb of her very judgmental parents. 

One similarity is Judith McConnell playing haunted women who tried to cover up a murder. 

9 hours ago, titan1978 said:

I know Bridget Dobson was the daughter of the show creators, the Hursley’s. She worked under them (often contentiously from what I have read about their relationships) as scriptwriter and what we would now consider breakdown writer, until she and Jerome took over the top spot. He wrote there for years too. My question is did any of their idiosyncratic style and characterizations show up on GH?

I know their types of stories and characters really shined on Guiding Light when they left General Hospital (were they fired?). Just curious if their fingerprints are as visible during their era at GH as they were on their later runs at other shows. Maybe something for @DaytimeFan or @vetsoapfan to chime in on with their extensive knowledge of that period of time! Were there characters that feel particularly like a Bridget character there, types of stories, etc?

I am no expert, just remember bits and pieces from when my mother watched.  My vote for a quirky character would be Kira Faulkner, the ex of Cameron Faulkner and a very nosy reporter who was on the hunt for scandalous information against the hospital.  And that really complicated her romance with Dr. Steve Hardy.  I was just a little kid, but Kira reminded me of Barbra Streisand in character from her "What's Up Doc" movie, both in dress and speaking.  I highly doubt a single viewer was shocked that Steve and Kira's romance tanked.  Everyone could see that they were an epic mismatch.

 

You can see Kira at around 7:16 in this clip.

Edited October 19Oct 19 by victorlord75
Spelling, add clip

On 10/18/2025 at 7:41 PM, titan1978 said:

My question is did any of their idiosyncratic style and characterizations show up on GH?

I know their types of stories and characters really shined on Guiding Light when they left General Hospital (were they fired?). Just curious if their fingerprints are as visible during their era at GH as they were on their later runs at other shows. Maybe something for @DaytimeFan or @vetsoapfan to chime in on with their extensive knowledge of that period of time! Were there characters that feel particularly like a Bridget character there, types of stories, etc?

I would say that overall, no. The Dobson' brand of quirky storytelling and characters did not permeate GH the way it did Santa Barbara.

Perhaps it was ABC or Bridget's parents who ruled the show with an iron fist at the time, but while they were overseeing Port Charles, GH was a fairly generic soap with only a quirky character or two (i.e. Kira Faulkner). It was interesting to see the ratings dwindle as their reign went on. The Dobsons were significantly superior to the next three headwriting teams who succeeded them.

4 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

I would say that overall, no. The Dobson' brand of quirky storytelling and characters did not permeate GH the way it did Santa Barbara.

Perhaps it was ABC or Bridget's parents who ruled the show with an iron fist at the time, but while they were overseeing Port Charles, GH was a fairly generic soap with only a quirky character or two (i.e. Kira Faulkner). It was interesting to see the ratings dwindle as their reign went on. The Dobsons were significantly superior to the next three headwriting teams who succeeded them.

Thanks! When I read about those days, I didn’t see a Rita Stapleton type, or the kind of deep psychology that happened with Holly and Roger. Nobody as complex as Alan. I do see a lot of long suffering women in lead stories like Jessie, Diana, Lesley, and Audrey. I think it’s part of why the show was on the decline to be quite honest. Compare those women at that time on GH to the women on Guiding Light, OLTL, Another World, etc. They are modern working women for the times and yet they seem much more old fashioned.

On 10/19/2025 at 3:32 AM, victorlord75 said:

I am no expert, just remember bits and pieces from when my mother watched.  My vote for a quirky character would be Kira Faulkner, the ex of Cameron Faulkner and a very nosy reporter who was on the hunt for scandalous information against the hospital.  And that really complicated her romance with Dr. Steve Hardy.  I was just a little kid, but Kira reminded me of Barbra Streisand in character from her "What's Up Doc" movie, both in dress and speaking.  I highly doubt a single viewer was shocked that Steve and Kira's romance tanked.  Everyone could see that they were an epic mismatch.

 

You can see Kira at around 7:16 in this clip.

Thank you for posting this! My assumptions are that the Dobson’s were still under a forced style that didn’t allow them to flourish. They seemed really well suited to Guiding Light though!

Edited October 20Oct 20 by titan1978

This just popped up for me on YouTube. I miss stuff like this. It can be played lightly like it is here, or more grounded, I could go either way. But someone living in a crappy apartment, starting out as best they can, and their parents trying to let them.  You can freeze the world in carbonic snow while also playing out real stuff too!

Added fun are the scenes included of Laura as Edward’s receptionist at ELQ, which has come up a few times over the years, a job she was terrible at. 
 

 

5 hours ago, titan1978 said:

This just popped up for me on YouTube. I miss stuff like this. It can be played lightly like it is here, or more grounded, I could go either way. But someone living in a crappy apartment, starting out as best they can, and their parents trying to let them.  You can freeze the world in carbonic snow while also playing out real stuff too!

Added fun are the scenes included of Laura as Edward’s receptionist at ELQ, which has come up a few times over the years, a job she was terrible at. 

I do think Monty often had that sense of reality in her run, at least for a while. As time passed it seemed to go to B or C-characters (like Brian and Claudia having big debts) but was still around.

That's such a huge apartment...I guess if it was just one room it's not too unrealistic (then again soaps are never meant to be TOO realistic anyway).