When Long Ago Characters Resurface.

[SoapDope]

I was thinking about this the other day. GH is a soap known to lure popular actors and bring back characters that have been off canvas for decades (example Rick Springfield as Noah Drake).

As a viewer, when you see old long ago characters pop up, do you get excited ? or if it's a character you never watched, do you have any interest in getting to know them and their past history on the show ?

For example, I would love to see some of the Foster & Brooks show up on Y&R, but I wonder how newer viewers who never saw them would feel. Do you think old characters interest or annoy newer audiences ?

[~bl~]

I think it depends on how the returning characters are used on the program. There are times I've been extremely frustrated when shows have brought back characters even ones who weren't gone for decades, but pre-dated when I was watching. Bringing someone back into the A-story with newbies and having the returning character carry it tends to upset people except for the fans who like that particular person. For some who didn't watch Days when Marlena was on in the 80s, Dee Hall's return in 1991 was huge shock even though the character had been gone for less than four years and had a lot of fans. That year (thanks Jason in advance for the data), Marlena was on 71 episodes though she came back to town in early August, so she was on average 14.2 shows a month. The person who had the most episodes over that whole year Missy Reeves was on 164 shows or about 13.6 episodes per month. So when Marlena returned she was quickly given front burner status and anyone who was unfamiliar with the character may have been annoyed.

When Anna returned to GH this last time, what I appreciated was that while the character had story it didn't become "the Anna show" and she was played with both characters she had interacted with before and new ones based on her situation like Dante. If all Finola was given was scenes with Michael Easton, it would have been a lot more frustrating. While the material wasn't great, it was an improvement from the Anna crazy rockstar fan plot.

[P.J.]

It depends.

I used to love it when Doug Marland brought back characters for Christmas or some family event. But that was in the '80's-'90's when a return usually added depth to a story. I grew to hate "returns" on ATWT post-2000 which seemed to do nothing more than gut the character returning and trash whoever they visited. (Simon Frasier, I'm a-looking at you....)

Bringing back a character long term really depends on whether or not there's a clear purpose for them. ATWT brought back Susan after a decade away, and it worked. Shannon was brought back and it flopped.

[VirginiaHamilton]

About the only thing that would intrigue me in watching a soap these days would be watching the old school characters that I adored from an era that I love - even if it means bringing them back from the dead. 9 times out 10, that prospect yields far better results than a uselues canvas of newbies that pollute it.

As for discovering old school characters that existed prior to my tuning in, I pride myself in having enough respect for history and elders to actually sit back and learn just why they are beloved by true fans of the soaps. I find that there's plenty value in learning from them.

[DRW50]

I like the idea of people coming back for visits. Long-term, I don't see a point unless there's a good story.

I dislike returns where someone is just using the show as a cash machine.

[Khan]

Same.

[dragonflies]

Rebecca Budig & Eden Riegel their last few years on AMC

[KMan101]

I've always believed soaps should weave past characters in and out as story calls for it. I know it's easier said than done (budget, filming, schedules, availability of actor ....) but I think it creates a much more believable environment.

Or at least keep characters 'involved' even if they aren't around. I'm not saying name drop someone repeatedly or you keep the character alive in a riduclous manner by still revolving the show around them even when they're gone, but it's more believable than characters never being referred to as if they don't exist and then suddenly they may return so that's all we hear about is them and suddenly they're worked back in. I appreciate that DAYS has seemed to try and do this (not always, but I do notice they do) and even GH does to an extent (and as much as I know Ron's 'SEE THE VETS!!!!' is a ploy, I still appreciate that they are being weaved in and out).

Does any of that make sense? I'm tired and need more coffee. LOL

[Dr Neil Curtis]

^^ understandable. I just dislike characters returning to die/killed......for what?? Ex. Liz Foster-Brooks on Y&R and Pamela Buchanan on OLTL, and it may be others.

[Khan]

I didn't appreciate MAB killing off Liz on Y&R. Liz could've revealed that Jill was Neil Fenmore's daughter (?!) without dying.

[Soaplovers]

I'll use Guiding Light (my fav soap when it was alive) to show an example of a long ago characters return working and not working:

Successful long ago character return:

Holly and Roger returning in 1988/1989 worked, and both seamlessly fit onto the canvas again. It helped that the Bauer family were still on the show for them to attach to, and then both characters managed to interact and develop connections with characters that weren't there were both were on before.

Mixed long ago character return:

Reva coming back in 1995 was stupid.. first as a ghost and then as an amish woman. Eventually she returned to springfield and sort of fit in, and when she didn't totally fit in then the show became obsessed with featuring her front and center.. when the first half of the 90s was known for a more ensemble feel. I say mixed cause she worked well opposite Annie Dutton.

Unsuccessful long ago charcter return:

Nola, which is sad due to her popularity in the 80s. Before bringing a character back, you need to understand the character.. if the character fits into the current landscape/identity of the show.. and then coming up with a story plan for the character.

[applcin]

I think old characters coming back have little to no relevance for newer viewers who never saw them before. It's purely a nostalgia trip for longer-time viewers or a possible lure to lapsed viewers.

It depends on the character and story for me. Sometimes the return of a character will bring me back to a show I had stopped watching or revitalize a show for me, like when L & L returned to GH in the early 90s or Harley returned to GL after her marriage to Mallet fizzled. As mentioned, GH did a lot of returns over the years although the return of my favorite character, Anna, was actually done on AMC instead. Anna as the tough cop/agent I remembered was nice...as the rock star groupie acting more juvenile than her daughter...not so much.

Other times, if I really disliked the character, it may be the turning factor in making me stop watching a show I was already on the fence about. This happened several times with Mitch Laurence being back on OLTL, because it was a character I always hated who got written as an uber-villain in ridiculous stories. I've never liked what I call uber-characters, villains or heroes--the kind that get intertwined in too many other characters stories (like AMC's Zach started out, Helena Cassadine, etc.), esp. the uber bad guys who are written like supernatural, horror movie villains with special powers ( I love scifi and horror, but generally not in a mainstream soap setting). The returns of Mitch, coupled with the hatred of the stories and my general disappointment with the show at the time, had me dropping OLTL at least 3 times.

When I heard about some characters coming back for GH's 50th, I decided to temporarily tune back into GH, after many, many years of not watching, for a couple of weeks just to see how those characters came across. It was pretty much what I expected...some of them were re-hashing stories from 30 years ago (Scotty, Laura and Luke) and others were just window dressing, like Kevin Collins, who didn't even stick around for the ball. I didn't stick around after it. (Truth be told, for those 2 weeks, I probably skipped about 90% of each show anyway.) That ship had sailed long ago for me and not even having Anna & Duke there was enough for me anymore.

[marceline]

Having someone come back for Christmas, a wedding/funeral or an anniversary show is a treat. Bringing back characters because you've run out of ideas and just want to coast on nostalgia is laziness.

There's something to be said for the long term recurring characters as well. They're nice to see but unfortunately soaps often use them as a way to sideline characters of color or a certain age (see Livia or Opal on AMC 1.0) while using that as a way to pretend that's not what they're doing. I think of it as Black Judge Syndrome.

[SouthOfSoap]

If there is an actual story for them, it can work out well depending on the story. If it just "ooh! we're bringing a vet back!", then it generally fails for me.

I never knew Laura Horton on DAYS until JER bought her back in 1993 after having last been on the show in 1980. But she was a major part of the story and made me go back and research the Horton history, something I would never have done otherwise at the time. So I loved that.

Bringing back Steve and Kayla in 2006 after being off the show since 1990/1992 with no properly planned story was an epic fail.

Eileen Davidson reurning in 2012 after last being seen in 1998 was a total game changer for DAYS, in all ways positive. Bringing back Carly Manning in 2009 after leaving in 1993 destroyed the character for me.

[Khan]

"Agree!" to all of the above.