Jump to content
Key Links: Announcements | Support Desk

News & Gossip from the mid-1980s per The Soaps of Yesterday


Recommended Posts

  • Members
On 3/22/2021 at 9:43 PM, vetsoapfan said:

 

No show can sustain itself with only one beloved, tentpole, recognizable character. The fact that Long and Kobe did not understand this boggles the mind. No soap fan wants huge, sweeping turnovers in the cast overnight. We want and depend upon seeing a variety of familiar faces over time. It's comforting and keeps us involved.

 

While I loathe how Long initially helped decimate the show, I will give her credit for the comments she made in one interview. Regarding all the fantasy/sci-fi crap she had inflicted on TGL, she said that in the end, she realized it was not the way to go, and it was "better to get real." It shocked the heck of me when she remarked, "I'd like to see one of the original characters, Meta Bauer, appear. She had so much happen to her." That gave me a temporary burst of hope that the show might honor its past and start improving, but that was not to be. Long departed as head writer, and the scribes that followed her were even weaker than she was. The mid-to-late 1980s were a wasteland in Springfield. Meta did not reappear until, what, 1996?

 

Gail Kobe was also quoted as saying (something like), "Writing the Bauers out of the show proved highly unpopular with the audience, so don't be surprised to see Mike and Hope written back into the story."

 

More BS, alas.

 

I honestly wish that Pam Long had the opportunity to bring Meta Bauer back to Springfield. I really believe that Long would have written well for the character. And you are very correct, 1985 to 1988 were definitely a wasteland. When Zaslow and Garrett returned in 1989, I started watching again full time.

 

Also, was that Kobe quote just lip service to the viewers? Someone once told me that although Kobe said that, she never really intended on doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members
11 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

It still infuriates me, and bogles my mind, that Kobe and Long were permitted to cripple TGL so completely. Did NO ONE at P&G understand the show, understand the audience, or give a damn?

 

I think you might have been the one to point this out to me, but didn't P & G want the Bauers eliminated as the core family as early as 1981? I thought Hulswit commented somewhere on this shortly after he was let go in?

 

I do remember that Doug Marland confirmed that P & G wanted "fresh" and "new" (younger) faces on TGL to cater to the younger audience. Marland was able to both introduce younger characters who were - at the same time - anchored to established characters on the show, along with keeping those established characters rooted in a storyline, even if they weren't the front burners.

 

Once Potter was gone and Kobe took over, I have a feeling Kobe wasn't as tied to history as her predecessors were, so she was open to completely revamping the show. As far as ratings went, that revamp started off well in early 1984 when the show finally hit #1, but it didn't last.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, zanereed said:

 

Stewart was definitely fired by Kobe, allegedly due to his resistance to Mike Bauer's involvement in the Alexandra/Mike/Lillian triangle, which would have essentially put Mike Bauer back into a front burner storyline. From the conversations from TGL thread in this forum, along with other input I've found, I guess Stewart was always resistant to whomever he was potentially being paired with (Jackie, Elizabeth, Jennifer, etc.). It seemed he liked Rebecca Holland (Trish Lewis), but he thought that Trish was too young for Mike. There was also Renee Dubois (Deborah May) in late 1979, who had chemistry with Stewart, but Renee was killed by Roger. In fact, in 1981 Doug Marland brought May back to TGL in a different role to be paired with Mike, but that role never stuck. Then in 1984, Pam Long wanted to write for Mike Bauer, so she made Mike part of a love triangle with Alexandra (the sister of his on-again/off-again nemesis, Alan), and Lillian, and the issues from that triangle would have an effect on Beth/Lujack. But, apparently Bev and Don did not get along well, so Stewart was resistant to the storyline. Kobe decided to fire Stewart by the end of the summer in 1984.

 

And IMHO, TPTB never got the Ed casting right once they fired Mart Hulswit from the role. I never understood why Hulswit was never asked back during the times that Simon or the character of Ed was out of Springfield. Maybe he was difficult to work with, but I've never heard anyone confirm that.

 

Firing O'Rourke was a huge mistake on Kobe's part, especially after the well-written paternity reveal in 1983, after a 6 year (in real time) secret being kept on the show. The audience was never given an opportunity to see how the Phillip/Justin/Alan dynamic would have changed. 

 

Agreed on Pennock. I loved him in other roles, but he really didn't fit Justin at all.

 

As far as never bringing back Hope, I still say the reason we never saw her again after 1983 was because of Alan-Michael. Once they SORAS-ed A-M to 18 in 1987, it made bringing back Hope awkward. When Hope left Springfield in 1983, she would have still been in her late 20's, I think. Therefore, a recast would have to be more age appropriate. If that was the case, the whole May/December dynamic of Hope/Alan would have been lost (at least in 1987). Hope really should have been brought back in 1985 or 1986, ideally at the time that Bert's death would have been acknowledged on-air. That way, A-M could have been aged a bit more slowly (well, as slowly as allowed on soaps). I wish that Roussel would have stayed in 1983, because it looked like Long was setting up Alan and Hope for a "War of the Roses" scenario.

 

Stewart confuses me so much, LOL. Any actor his age would be thrilled to be front burner in a triangle. But I guess if the actors weren't thrilled with each other ... Maybe Don was just getting burned out. I'm glad he appreciated Hollen/Trish. I love her. I kinda feel like Mike/Amanda would have made more sense just to piss Alan off, LOL. But both were a little too young for him. 

 

I have to admit a lot of what could have been sounds better than what came. I'm guessing they eventually shifted the War of the Roses-esque story to Alan and Reva. It worked at first with Christopher as Alan but with Pilon it didn't work. 

 

It's a shame we lost Stewart (more-so the Mike character) and Roussel. I also think they didn't seem to have any idea what to do with Rebecca Hollen as Trish, who could have easily been a Hope recast too.

 

Amanda Spaulding was a missed opportunity too. I refuse to acknowledge Toby Poser's version. I would have done something different with her.

 

I notice soaps were more ... resistant back then to recasting and instead seemed to try and create new characters to fill that spot on the canvas, often leaving me wondering why they weren't just a recast of a more pivotal role. 

 

Several characters never really existed past the 70s/80s, really. LOL.

 

Bert's passing would have been the best time to bring Hope back. I do agree A-M's rapid aging made it difficult to fit Hope in. I still would have done it, but I can see why they hesitated and didn't bother. I don't think there was any excuse in the 90s or 00s though. But I think there was a time where they didn't think audiences cared about "old characters". 

 

Sigh. I will never understand getting rid of O'Rourke and Justin. Especially when you have Stewart with one foot out the door. Guess he freed up some money for newbies like Dr. Jim Reardon (likely his younger replacement)

 

I feel like by the time the 90s rolled around Ross became a catchall for Justin/Mike and you didn't really "need" them. I could see that argument being made. "Why bother when we have Ross"? Wheeler was dumb as hell to take him off contract.

Edited by KMan101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
38 minutes ago, zanereed said:

 

I honestly wish that Pam Long had the opportunity to bring Meta Bauer back to Springfield. I really believe that Long would have written well for the character. And you are very correct, 1985 to 1988 were definitely a wasteland. When Zaslow and Garrett returned in 1989, I started watching again full time.

 

Also, was that Kobe quote just lip service to the viewers? Someone once told me that although Kobe said that, she never really intended on doing it.

 

I thought that Long developed into a better writer over time, and her second stint at TGL worked better than her first. I agree that she probably would have written well for Meta. Long could be perceptive and nuanced in some of the writing for certain characters.

 

The quote about bringing back Mike and Hope was (I believe) in Christopher Schemering's anniversary book. I'd have to check. I'm sure it was lip-service BS. Remember, it was Kobe who insisted to Mimi Torchin that plot was more important in the soaps than characters. She literally did not have a clue.

24 minutes ago, zanereed said:

 

I think you might have been the one to point this out to me, but didn't P & G want the Bauers eliminated as the core family as early as 1981? I thought Hulswit commented somewhere on this shortly after he was let go in?

 

I think that the decision to gut the show must have been at least agreed upon by P&G. Just like when the dreadful Mary-Ellis Bunim gutted ATWT in the early 1980s and eliminated so many of the old folk. If P&G had wanted to put the brakes on Bunim and Kobe, surely they would have had the power to stop them. But going back even further, to 1975, P&G allowed Lemay and Rauch to fire Virginia Dwyer, George Reinholt and Jacqueline Courtney from AW. Obviously, TPTB at P&G did not understand their own soaps and the audience, or just did not care about dedicated veteran viewers in their thirst to attract gum-chewing 12-year-olds. 

 

24 minutes ago, zanereed said:

I do remember that Doug Marland confirmed that P & G wanted "fresh" and "new" (younger) faces on TGL to cater to the younger audience. Marland was able to both introduce younger characters who were - at the same time - anchored to established characters on the show, along with keeping those established characters rooted in a storyline, even if they weren't the front burners.

 

Marland said the same thing was true at GH, that ABC wanted the focus to be on the young characters whom the audience allegedly wanted to see more. But at GH, TGL and ATWT, as you say, Marland was savvy enough to introduce young leads who were nevertheless tied to the older, longer-running veteran characters of the shows. That is what preceptive writers and producers do.

 

24 minutes ago, zanereed said:

 

Once Potter was gone and Kobe took over, I have a feeling Kobe wasn't as tied to history as her predecessors were, so she was open to completely revamping the show. As far as ratings went, that revamp started off well in early 1984 when the show finally hit #1, but it didn't last.

 

The show really fell apart quite quickly after the massive cast purge and structural changes. No matter what improvements came later, nothing was ever truly able to repair the damage and bring TGL back its former glory. Indeed, during its final decade, the show just kept getting worse and worse. Its cancellation was like a long-overdue mercy killing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
29 minutes ago, KMan101 said:

I have to admit a lot of what could have been sounds better than what came. I'm guessing they eventually shifted the War of the Roses-esque story to Alan and Reva. It worked at first with Christopher as Alan but with Pilon it didn't work. 

 

Pilon was a very weak recast; I would have preferred Alan to be off-screen entirely than to watch Pilon in the role. 

 

29 minutes ago, KMan101 said:

It's a shame we lost Stewart (more-so the Mike character) and Roussel. I also think they didn't seem to have any idea what to do with Rebecca Hollen as Trish, who could have easily been a Hope recast too.

 

I would have written off Alan-Michael, if his rapid aging was the cause of keeping Hope out of Springfield. They could have brought him back years later, de-SORASed to a more appropriate age if need be. But Hope's presence was needed in Springfield more than an overgrown A-M's was, IMHO.

 

29 minutes ago, KMan101 said:

Amanda Spaulding was a missed opportunity too. I refuse to acknowledge Toby Poser's version. I would have done something different with her.

 

I also refuse to acknowledge Poser's dreadful pod-Amanda, and the idea that she was Alan's sister. Just no. That was impossible according to what we had all watched play out on screen. 

 

29 minutes ago, KMan101 said:

But I think there was a time where they didn't think audiences cared about "old characters". 

 

It just goes to show how little TPTB know about soap opera fans. We NEVER forget legacy characters. Heck, even in the show's final years, viewers were commenting about bringing back Trudy Bauer, a character who had not been seen since (I think) 1958. 

 

29 minutes ago, KMan101 said:

Sigh. I will never understand getting rid of O'Rourke and Justin. Especially when you have Stewart with one foot out the door. Guess he freed up some money for newbies like Dr. Jim Reardon (likely his younger replacement)

 

I feel like by the time the 90s rolled around Ross became a catchall for Justin/Mike and you didn't really "need" them. I could see that argument being made. "Why bother when we have Ross"? Wheeler was dumb as hell to take him off contract.

 

Ross Marler was the last remaining hub of the wheel. When they fired ver Dorn, I actively wanted the show cancelled. I could tolerate no more abject stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, KMan101 said:

 

Stewart confuses me so much, LOL. Any actor his age would be thrilled to be front burner in a triangle. But I guess if the actors weren't thrilled with each other ... Maybe Don was just getting burned out. I'm glad he appreciated Hollen/Trish. I love her. I kinda feel like Mike/Amanda would have made more sense just to piss Alan off, LOL. But both were a little too young for him. 

 

I have to admit a lot of what could have been sounds better than what came. I'm guessing they eventually shifted the War of the Roses-esque story to Alan and Reva. It worked at first with Christopher as Alan but with Pilon it didn't work. 

 

It's a shame we lost Stewart (more-so the Mike character) and Roussel. I also think they didn't seem to have any idea what to do with Rebecca Hollen as Trish, who could have easily been a Hope recast too.

 

Amanda Spaulding was a missed opportunity too. I refuse to acknowledge Toby Poser's version. I would have done something different with her.

 

I notice soaps were more ... resistant back then to recasting and instead seemed to try and create new characters to fill that spot on the canvas, often leaving me wondering why they weren't just a recast of a more pivotal role. 

 

Several characters never really existed past the 70s/80s, really. LOL.

 

Bert's passing would have been the best time to bring Hope back. I do agree A-M's rapid aging made it difficult to fit Hope in. I still would have done it, but I can see why they hesitated and didn't bother. I don't think there was any excuse in the 90s or 00s though. But I think there was a time where they didn't think audiences cared about "old characters". 

 

Sigh. I will never understand getting rid of O'Rourke and Justin. Especially when you have Stewart with one foot out the door. Guess he freed up some money for newbies like Dr. Jim Reardon (likely his younger replacement)

 

I feel like by the time the 90s rolled around Ross became a catchall for Justin/Mike and you didn't really "need" them. I could see that argument being made. "Why bother when we have Ross"? Wheeler was dumb as hell to take him off contract.

 

That exact question about Stewart was asked in TGL thread! Some have speculated that he was actually burned out after 16 years, and wanted to make a change. To be fair, once he was fired, he promptly relocated to the west coast to try his luck there. He appeared briefly as a fill-in for Nick Coster as Lionel Lockridge in 1985. I don't think he appeared in any soap after that? I have heard from others that Stewart felt a bit shielded because of his popularity, and was able to subtly dictate how the show could/should use him. Mike Bauer had really been a supporting/anchor player from 1982 to 1984, so maybe Stewart had gotten used to that role? From what little I've gleamed from Pam Long's comments, Mike would have been front and center in story for a least a year, if not more.

 

Here's what I would have loved to have seen play out in 1984 to 1986 from Alex/Mike/Lillian:

 

Mike ends up following Alex to Barbados and discovering Brandon alive (late 1984).

After Barbados, Alex wants to rekindle her romance with Mike, but Mike is still dating Lillian (late 1984/early 1985).

Bert passes away peacefully in her sleep. Mike stops dating Lillian, wanting some time to himself to reevaluate his life. Hope returns to Springfield (recast, likely), with A-M cast in the tried and true tradition of "Boarding School" for Bert's funeral (spring 1985).

Alex, both feeling sorry for Mike due to Bert's passing, but also wanting a way to get back into Mike's good graces, hires Hope (before she can consider returning to NYC) to redecorate the Spaulding mansion (giving Hope both gainful employment and an opportunity to further eliminate Alan's presence from her life). Mike and Alex interact because of this. Lillian continues to give Mike space, but sees right through Alex's scheme (summer/fall 1985).

Mike comforts Alex after Lujack is killed, and this leads to their romance rekindling (winter 1985/early spring 1986).

Mike decides he's ready to commit again, and asks Alex to marry him. Alex is elated to have some happiness in her life after losing Lujack, and wants to marry Mike as soon as possible, leading to a summer wedding (late spring 1986).

On the day of wedding, Mike and Alex are horrified as their wedding is interrupted by the return of none other than...Alan Spaulding, back from the dead (summer 1986)!

 

That's how I would have plotted it, anyway! 

 

 

Edited by zanereed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

I thought that Long developed into a better writer over time, and her second stint at TGL worked better than her first. I agree that she probably would have written well for Meta. Long could be perceptive and nuanced in some of the writing for certain characters.

 

The quote about bringing back Mike and Hope was (I believe) in Christopher Schemering's anniversary book. I'd have to check. I'm sure it was lip-service BS. Remember, it was Kobe who insisted to Mimi Torchin that plot was more important in the soaps than characters. She literally did not have a clue.

 

I think that the decision to gut the show must have been at least agreed upon by P&G. Just like when the dreadful Mary-Ellis Bunim gutted ATWT in the early 1980s and eliminated so many of the old folk. If P&G had wanted to put the brakes on Bunim and Kobe, surely they would have had the power to stop them. But going back even further, to 1975, P&G allowed Lemay and Rauch to fire Virginia Dwyer, George Reinholt and Jacqueline Courtney from AW. Obviously, TPTB at P&G did not understand their own soaps and the audience, or just did not care about dedicated veteran viewers in their thirst to attract gum-chewing 12-year-olds. 

 

 

Marland said the same thing was true at GH, that ABC wanted the focus to be on the young characters whom the audience allegedly wanted to see more. But at GH, TGL and ATWT, as you say, Marland was savvy enough to introduce young leads who were nevertheless tied to the older, longer-running veteran characters of the shows. That is what preceptive writers and producers do.

 

 

The show really fell apart quite quickly after the massive cast purge and structural changes. No matter what improvements came later, nothing was ever truly able to repair the damage and bring TGL back its former glory. Indeed, during its final decade, the show just kept getting worse and worse. Its cancellation was like a long-overdue mercy killing.

 

I watched Long's SFT stint when the episodes were up in the last months.

 

I was surprised at how balanced the show was, with a wide variety of different age groups shown.  And hearing her speak about Stu/Jo...it made me think she got what the core was of that show.

 

She opted to do the final good bye scene between Jo and Stu without doing the planned wedding between them because they were best friends and platonic...and they were the heart of the show.

 

I think that experience helped her make her 2nd stint at GL quite successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

 

I watched Long's SFT stint when the episodes were up in the last months.

 

I was surprised at how balanced the show was, with a wide variety of different age groups shown.  And hearing her speak about Stu/Jo...it made me think she got what the core was of that show.

 

She opted to do the final good bye scene between Jo and Stu without doing the planned wedding between them because they were best friends and platonic...and they were the heart of the show.

 

I think that experience helped her make her 2nd stint at GL quite successful.

 

I think killing off Suzie was a dreadful mistake. Killing off so many of Jo's relatives over the years really hurt and isolated the character. Still, Long's writing style had improved since her first stint at TGL.

 

I had never, ever heard any rumor about a planned wedding between Jo and Stu to cap off the end of the series. Do you remember where you saw that mentioned? As you say, they had been platonic buddies for far too long for that to be even remotely feasible. Plus, Jo and Stu were related, anyway. They had become step-siblings when their widowed parents married each other decades before.  The show's final scene, played out between two life-long friends, was perfect the way it was.

Please register in order to view this content

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

Pilon was a very weak recast; I would have preferred Alan to be off-screen entirely than to watch Pilon in the role. 

 

@vetsoapfan, what would you have thought if TGL had eventually tried George Reinholt in the role of Alan Spaulding. I could definitely see parallels between how Reinholt played Steve Frame and Bernau played Alan Spaulding. Someone a few years ago had posed that question to me, and I never thought of how well Reinholt might have done in the role. By the 1980's, Reinholt looked a bit different (as could be seen in his return for Another World's 25th Anniversary in 1989), but I think he would have been fascinating to watch. The role of Alan might have allowed Reinholt to go a bit darker than he was allowed to do with Steve Frame. I know at the time Reinholt had sworn off of acting, but I now ponder what that would have looked like, had he been able to portray Alan.

On 3/23/2021 at 8:44 AM, Mitch said:

I think a Nola/Ed pairing had potential..did Brown and Simon have chemistry? She could light a fire under dour Ed and Ed would ground her. Actually..Nola as new kooky matriarch made a weird kind of sense...McTavish had good ideas but then she would screw them up.

 

Honest question, @Mitch: did Simon have any chemistry with anyone other than Ellen Parker? After I read your comment above, it made me wonder if Simon really had any true chemistry with anyone...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
28 minutes ago, zanereed said:

 

@vetsoapfan, what would you have thought if TGL had eventually tried George Reinholt in the role of Alan Spaulding. I could definitely see parallels between how Reinholt played Steve Frame and Bernau played Alan Spaulding. Someone a few years ago had posed that question to me, and I never thought of how well Reinholt might have done in the role. By the 1980's, Reinholt looked a bit different (as could be seen in his return for Another World's 25th Anniversary in 1989), but I think he would have been fascinating to watch. The role of Alan might have allowed Reinholt to go a bit darker than he was allowed to do with Steve Frame. I know at the time Reinholt had sworn off of acting, but I now ponder what that would have looked like, had he been able to portray Alan.

 

I think Reinholt was an interesting case in that sometimes his performances could be complex and brilliant, whereas at other times, he looked detached and bored. So many people from AW and OLTL acknowledged he was difficult to work with, but if he were able to reign in some of his bad behavior, I would have enjoyed seeing what colors he could have brought to Alan Spaulding. I certainly would have taken a gamble on him over Pilon.  If Reinholt and McKinsey had ended up playing Alan and Alex at the same time, that would have been...awesome!

 

28 minutes ago, zanereed said:

 

Honest question, @Mitch: did Simon have any chemistry with anyone other than Ellen Parker? After I read your comment above, it made me wonder if Simon really had any true chemistry with anyone...?

 

You did not direct that question to me, but personally, I would say no. His morose, listless Ed did not generate sparks with anyone. Well, maybe Rachel Miner to a degree. I could be biased because I always wanted Mart Hulswit back in the role, but Simon just never seemed to fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

The quote about bringing back Mike and Hope was (I believe) in Christopher Schemering's anniversary book. I'd have to check. I'm sure it was lip-service BS. Remember, it was Kobe who insisted to Mimi Torchin that plot was more important in the soaps than characters. She literally did not have a clue.

 

The quote about bringing back Mike and Hope was in Soap Opera Digest and was part of an article about Jeff Ryder's plans for the show. It was around early April 1986, so right after Bert passed away. He also discussed plans to introduce Sarah and Rusty Shayne. Of course, Ryder was gone from Guiding Light by May 1986. Here's the article:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 minute ago, robbwolff said:

 

The quote about bringing back Mike and Hope was in Soap Opera Digest and was part of an article about Jeff Ryder's plans for the show. It was around early April 1986, so right after Bert passed away. He also discussed plans to introduce Sarah and Rusty Shayne. Of course, Ryder was gone from Guiding Light by May 1986. Here's the article:

 

 

 

Thanks for that article. I thought Ryder was a bad writer for TGL, but it's always interesting to hear TPTB talk about their plans.

 

Gail Kobe always spoke about bringing Mike and Hope back to Springfield, however, based on fans' displeasure over their absence. I'm almost certain the quote is in Schemering's book. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
20 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

I think Reinholt was an interesting case in that sometimes his performances could be complex and brilliant, whereas at other times, he looked detached and bored. So many people from AW and OLTL acknowledged he was difficult to work with, but if he were able to reign in some of his bad behavior, I would have enjoyed seeing what colors he could have brought to Alan Spaulding. I certainly would have taken a gamble on him over Pilon.  If Reinholt and McKinsey had ended up playing Alan and Alex at the same time, that would have been...awesome!

 

 

You did not direct that question to me, but personally, I would say no. His morose, listless Ed did not generate sparks with anyone. Well, maybe Rachel Miner to a degree. I could be biased because I always wanted Mart Hulswit back in the role, but Simon just never seemed to fit.

 

Regarding Reinholt and McKinsey playing siblings...I completely agree. Again, after all these years, Reinholt was someone I had never, ever considered for the role of Alan until someone asked me out of the blue a few years ago. The more I thought about it, the more I wondered if it could have worked. I admit, Reinholt was uneven, but sometimes I wondered if it was who he was acting in a scene with, or if he was actually invested in the material that was written for him.

 

Regarding Simon, you know I'll agree with you on that one

Please register in order to view this content
. I really was trying to figure out who Simon had any chemistry with. Even when he was first on with Ellen Dolan, it always seemed like Dolan was striving to make that relationship interesting.

 

19 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

Thanks for that article. I thought Ryder was a bad writer for TGL, but it's always interesting to hear TPTB talk about their plans.

 

Gail Kobe always spoke about bringing Mike and Hope back to Springfield, however, based on fans' displeasure over their absence. I'm almost certain the quote is in Schemering's book. 

 

Yes, that you for finding that article, @robbwolff. I admit, reading it doesn't instill confidence that they even knew what they would even do with Hope and/or Mike should they have brought them back to Springfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, zanereed said:

 

Regarding Reinholt and McKinsey playing siblings...I completely agree. Again, after all these years, Reinholt was someone I had never, ever considered for the role of Alan until someone asked me out of the blue a few years ago. The more I thought about it, the more I wondered if it could have worked. I admit, Reinholt was uneven, but sometimes I wondered if it was who he was acting in a scene with, or if he was actually invested in the material that was written for him.

 

It had never occurred to me to consider Reinholt for the role of Alan Spaulding, either, but now that you've mentioned it, I've been pondering the idea. I would have taken Reinholt over Pilon, as I said earlier, over Ron Raines, and certainly over Michael Zaslow, whom TPTB allegedly considered briefly for the part. I adored Zaslow tremendously, but casting such an identifiable TGL actor in another major role would have been infuriating. It annoyed me when both William Roerick and Jordan Clarke were hired to play new characters, after they had already been on the show previously as different ones. I hate that Josh Taylor is now Roman Brady on DAYS. He's Chris Kositchek to me. I hate the revolving door of characters given to Roger Howarth and Michael Easton on GH. Yuck.

 

2 hours ago, zanereed said:

Regarding Simon, you know I'll agree with you on that one

Please register in order to view this content
. I really was trying to figure out who Simon had any chemistry with. Even when he was first on with Ellen Dolan, it always seemed like Dolan was striving to make that relationship interesting.

I never liked Dolan on TGL and I liked her even less on ATWT. She always came across as cold and brittle to me, devoid of human warmth. I don't recall her having genuine chemistry with anyone on the  shows, either. I know, I know: I am a curmudgeon!

 

2 hours ago, zanereed said:

 

Yes, that you for finding that article, @robbwolff. I admit, reading it doesn't instill confidence that they even knew what they would even do with Hope and/or Mike should they have brought them back to Springfield.

 

Ryder didn't even seem to know (or remember) Mike existed. And he didn't mentioned Meta or Trudy (and their potential offspring) as members of the Bauer family who could have been reintroduced.

 

Not all headwriters are professional enough and savvy enough to study the histories of the shows they take over. That's why the mediocre ones like Ryder can't use the past effectively: they don't know it. I'll never get over Gary Tomlin saying that when Jacqueline Courtney returned to AW in 1984, he didn't really know the history between Rachel and Alice, which resulted in Courtney's character floundering around with little purpose for the year she was there. What incompetence and stupidity. When Pat Falken Smith briefly assumed the reigns of TGL in 1982, I was thrilled to see how well she had researched the show and could write effectively for its varied characters.

 

I swear, I should have been a consultant for P&G, LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

It had never occurred to me to consider Reinholt for the role of Alan Spaulding, either, but now that you've mentioned it, I've been pondering the idea. I would have taken Reinholt over Pilon, as I said earlier, over Ron Raines, and certainly over Michael Zaslow, whom TPTB allegedly considered briefly for the part. I adored Zaslow tremendously, but casting such an identifiable TGL actor in another major role would have been infuriating. It annoyed me when both William Roerick and Jordan Clarke were hired to play new characters, after they had already been on the show previously as different ones. I hate that Josh Taylor is now Roman Brady on DAYS. He's Chris Kositchek to me. I hate the revolving door of characters given to Roger Howarth and Michael Easton on GH. Yuck.

 

I never liked Dolan on TGL and I liked her even less on ATWT. She always came across as cold and brittle to me, devoid of human warmth. I don't recall her having genuine chemistry with anyone on the  shows, either. I know, I know: I am a curmudgeon!

 

 

Ryder didn't even seem to know (or remember) Mike existed. And he didn't mentioned Meta or Trudy (and their potential offspring) as members of the Bauer family who could have been reintroduced.

 

Not all headwriters are professional enough and savvy enough to study the histories of the shows they take over. That's why the mediocre ones like Ryder can't use the past effectively: they don't know it. I'll never get over Gary Tomlin saying that when Jacqueline Courtney returned to AW in 1984, he didn't really know the history between Rachel and Alice, which resulted in Courtney's character floundering around with little purpose for the year she was there. What incompetence and stupidity. When Pat Falken Smith briefly assumed the reigns of TGL in 1982, I was thrilled to see how well she had researched the show and could write effectively for its varied characters.

 

I swear, I should have been a consultant for P&G, LOL!

 

It seemed like once Ryder was solo..that's when the show went off the rails.  And I wonder if he would have listened to his writers or not that might have given him info on characters to use, etc.  

 

He seemed dismissive of the Bauers...and I doubt he would have done Nola justice even if Lisa brown opted to come back.

 

How was Simon on Search?  

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
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.

  • Community Activity

    1. 3,392

      DAYS behind the scenes, articles/photos

    2. 3,392

      DAYS behind the scenes, articles/photos

    3. 3,392

      DAYS behind the scenes, articles/photos

    4. 34,121

      Bravo's The Real Housewives of....

    5. 3,392

      DAYS behind the scenes, articles/photos

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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