Created by….

[Pine Charles]

ERICA KANE always stayed true to character, no??

I remember people complaining that she would never have kidnapped a baby and passed it off as her own for months - Erica is a narcissist, manipulator & schemer, not a vicious criminal - but that was explained as her having a psychotic break, like when she stabbed Dimitri. 
 

Anyhow, what do you all think?? 
 

 

Edited August 22, 2021 by Pine Charles

[SFK]

Maybe it was in her Lifetime Intimate Portrait, but I remember Linda Dano saying that upon her suggestion to TPTB, Felicia became a more sympathetic character rather than the bitch she was originally intended to be.

[watson71]

Yes, there is a big character change in Felicia from the way Robert Soderberg and Dorothy Ann Purser wrote her in 1983 (more Alexis Carrington) than the way Gary Tomlin and Richard Culliton wrote her in 1984 (still over the top, but in a comedic way).  Felicia was mad that Cass was seeing her step daughter Cecile on the side in 1983.  This caused Felicia to act mean.  Felicia even had a falling out with her secretary/assistant, Julia Shearer.  At the double wedding of Mac and Rachel and Sandy and Blaine,   Felicia smacked Julia across the face and Julia pushed her in the Cory swimming pool.  

[SFK]

Yes! I watched that episode at the Paley Center many years ago.

It seems that Linda Dano wasn’t too comfortable playing a character not beloved by audiences, she really wanted to play a version of herself which ultimately worked out fabulously for her. Erica Kane still had her fans in spite of her behavior and Susan Lucci was the major star that she was, so I’m not sure that it was all that necessary to change Felicia’s character but it is what it is.

[Soaplovers]

Susan Lucci played Erica as more comedic and someone you humored...while early Felicia seemed colder (flashes of that Felicia would come out..especially opposite Lorna in 1991-1992).

[titan1978]

I wonder if Felicia’s alcoholism storyline would have been as effective if she was the original version of her character?  Her becoming so hostile towards her friends was so out of character.

Tina Lord on OLTL comes to mind too.  It’s hard to reconcile (especially in scenes with Andrea Evans) her kind of sweet, bland young woman with what Tina would become as she became a more iconic character.  Scheming and plotting and also a Lord.

[DeliaIrisFan]

I guess I can see how Claire Labine would have come up with the general idea for Carly.  In hindsight, Bobbie was even living in the brownstone set in which RH's Jill Coleridge's long-lost sister Maggie Shelby weaseled her way and ended up seducing Jill's husband.  But that RH story (and the Kim/Rae story before it) seemed like attempts to satisfy the network's insistence on introducing younger characters, while connecting them to the existing cast, rather than something Labine's heart was really in.  Whereas GH in the mid-'90s didn't necessarily have a lack of younger characters.  So it really was surprising to me when she said that.

I recall it was reported at the time that Labine extended her GH contract six months to finish the Robin/Stone story and never intended to stay longer, and the timing jives, but it was surprising that she was still invested in the rest of the canvas enough to come up with long-range stories at the last minute.  It seemed like Bobbie and Alan almost having an affair was a short-term story to keep those characters busy during that interim period, whereas the summer of 1995 would have been a logical time—before Bobbie and Tony reconciled—to introduce Bobbie's long-lost daughter.  Maybe that was her original plan, and the network (with Disney now in the mix) got skittish about the ratings, probably blamed the AIDS story, and hit the brakes on other longer-range stories?

Edited August 23, 2021 by DeliaIrisFan

[titan1978]

The only story I know she pitched that got rejected (and this was directly because of the Stone storyline and audience erosion) was Audrey developing early stage dementia/Alzheimer’s.  ABC and Riche felt like it was too many depressing stories in a row.  Stone was the only major story going on for the two months leading to his death, and the entire show revolved around it.  I’m so glad they told the story, but I can also see why they wanted a change after.

The Labines set Guza/Harris up pretty well- they did the Jason story (his accident and personality change afterwards), Bobbie’s memories of the child she gave away, Carly’s introduction, and Jax.

[DeliaIrisFan]

I do remember the dementia story - didn't it go beyond a rejected pitch, with Audrey actually being shown forgetting things airing, or is that soap opera urban legend?

My recollection of that time period (and/or what my brain filled in in the years afterward) was that Bobbie and Tony were onscreen a fair amount, albeit less than Robin/Stone for sure, and again in that short-term story with Alan.  I assumed for the next decade or two, until that interview, that the Labines were just not committing to long-term stories for Bobbie/Tony or virtually anyone else at that point because they were only staying on to finish the AIDS story.  Bobbie and Tony weren't quite back together, so another triangle/quadrangle made for a short-term detour without throwing anything else at them that was too high-stakes.

Of course, it's possible Labine thought of a long-lost child for Bobbie at literally the eleventh hour, after the reconciliation with Tony.  Otherwise, though, I'm just surprised they didn't introduce that sooner, as a slow-boil teaser thing.

I see no reason why it couldn't have overlapped with the Stone story, or even been connected: Bobbie could have been visiting him in the AIDS ward, met another patient who had been a sex worker, and made some offhanded comment about how back when she was in the life the most she had to worry about was getting pregnant.  Her memories could have been the obstacle that delayed Bobbie and Tony's reconciliation, as she pushed him away because she didn't trust him enough to confide in him after all they'd done to each other.

Again, unless the network was skittish and refusing to greenlight any other longer-term stories.

[Franko]

Not that the Curlyqgrl recaps are infallible, but I couldn't find any mention of Audrey exhibiting dementia-like behavior in 1995 or 1996. Tony/Bobbie/Alan/Monica lasted from August-October 1995. By the end of November, Bobbie put that storyline to bed.

November 28, 1995 - Bobbie comes to Q mansion to visit Monica. Emily asks Bobbie if she and Alan are going to be lovers. She tells her that she and Alan are over and that Alan wants to make things right with his marriage and with Emily. Bobbie and Monica have a talk. She hopes that even if Monica never forgives her, she hopes that she will work things out with Alan.

[DRW50]

I remember reading that there were scenes along the lines of Audrey not being able to remember where her keys were. I was not watching GH at that time so I don't really know if that is an urban legend or just a story outline never fulfilled. 

At the time the soap press was heavily playing up how depressing the show was and blaming that for the ratings losses. Marlena de la Croix made a comment to the effect that the entire comedic output of the show should not be on Lucy's shoulders, exquisitely toned as they were. 

I do wonder if it would seem less depressing to us because of how bleak the show has regularly been since. I think one issue is that this period of time was very therapy-heavy, and many viewers find that type of material to be upsetting. 

Edited August 24, 2021 by DRW50

[vetsoapfan]

There were DEFINITELY a few (and only a few, thank goodness) on-air scenes of Audrey being confused and disoriented. I remember them vividly because I was horrified. It was clear that the show was starting to foreshadow a grim dementia story for her. Then the unsettling scenes just stopped and Audrey's potential issues were never witnessed or mentioned again. I was so relieved. With Jessie Brewer gone, Audrey had become the show's matriarch, and destroying her with such a depressing storyline would have been unspeakably cruel. And unwatchable. I would have dropped the show over it.

[DRW50]

Thanks. 

Yes, I always thought Audrey was a bad choice for this type of storyline. I suppose  it showed that GH itself did not see her as a matriarchal figure, which would soon be reinforced as she was slowly phased out of the canvas through the rest of the decade. I think it would have made more sense possibly for a character like Ruby, who was beloved but also in a more limited space (and Norma passed away only a few years later), but I think it may have just been too much for viewers anyway. 

Dementia is not a story soaps have done a good job with. I have never seen GH's story with Mike, but most I have seen just felt exploitive and cheap, or they focused on the wrong things (in several cases, they become, "Oh it's so sad that our heroine can't find happiness with a man because he's still stuck with that wife who has dementia."). The one I have seen that I  think was well-constructed was Ashley's on Emmerdale. 

Casualty, the UK medical soap, gave one of their longtime nurses, Duffy, a dementia story a few years ago.

Edited August 24, 2021 by DRW50

[j swift]

there's some irony after reading the 1977 recaps in that thread and seeing Audrey marry Steve and being a leading character to twenty years later having a dropped dementia story, when you think about how the leading ladies of GH today like Carly and Sam do not seem to have aged as much in character in the last twenty years.  While it is true that Rachel Ames in 1977 was three years older than Kelly Monaco is today, one can't help but wonder when today's leading ladies will be asked to play aging storylines

 

On another note, befitting the topic, I am reminded how the recasting of AW's Cecile from Susan Keith to Nancy Frangione changed the course of that character.  Keith's Cecile was less proactive in her villainy, she was a snob, and she desired attention, but she was never mean.  The re-casting and the presence of Blaine really changed the character into a nastier, more conniving villain.   One suspects that Blaine was always meant to evolve from a schemer to a romantic lead, sort of reflecting Rachel's progression.  However, it may not have been as popular if not for the turn that Cecile took in becoming a protagonist who also took down Pat as collateral damage. 

Edited August 24, 2021 by j swift

[vetsoapfan]

I've always felt that soap fans love a good cry, but there's a difference between crying over a doomed romance, for example (which you know in your heart will work out in the end) and the torture of a beloved character that will surely lead to an agonizing finale. If a story is brilliantly written and acted (like BJ's death and Stone's death), viewers will get caught up in it and stay for the ride, but there are certain plots that the audience just does not want to see, particularly after enduring other heavy tragedies on the show. The painful, inescapable decline of a vet headed towards death is a turn off. If anything, viewers are protective of the vets and do not them written out at all unless there is no alternative (i.e. if the actor passes away).

Save the vets, save the soaps!!!