7 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

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!!!

That's well said. 

I think ATWT mostly got it  right with Mac in that he was a well-liked character, but not a longtime favorite, and we got plenty of story for Nancy from her struggling to cope. That story was winding down at the same time as the Audrey story would have happened. At the time they got some criticism for cutting the story short but I think it's one of the better decisions that regime made, and Mac got to have a classy goodbye with Nancy (I think their last scene was her dreaming of them dancing together). 

Edited August 24, 20214 yr by DRW50

14 minutes ago, j swift said:

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

For many years, soaps had the habit of transforming characters pretty quickly from romantic leads to supporting parental units, aging them rapidly. Think of poor Ellen Stewart (ATWT), Doug and Julie (DAYS), etc., along with Audrey Hardy. Nowadays, some performers are kept in the romantic-lead category loooooong after they should have graduated from that position.

14 minutes ago, j swift said:

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. 

Casting really does influence character interaction and story decisions.

2 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

That's well said. 

I think ATWT mostly got it  right with Mac in that he was a well-liked character, but not a longtime favorite, and we got plenty of story for Nancy from her struggling to cope. That story was winding down at the same time as the Audrey story would have happened. At the time they got some criticism for cutting the story short but I think it's one of the better decisions that regime made, and Mac got to have a classy goodbye with Nancy (I think their last scene was her dreaming of them dancing together). 

I did not want to see the Mac-dementia story on ATWT at all, but as you say: at least he was not a long-time favorite character and essential to the show. If they had given Nancy, Bob, Kim, Lisa or Ellen dementia, I would have gone nuclear. Fans would have revolted en masse, I'm sure. 

I agree that ending the plot quickly was the right decision. 

2 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

For many years, soaps had the habit of transforming characters pretty quickly from romantic leads to supporting parental units, aging them rapidly. Think of poor Ellen Stewart (ATWT), Doug and Julie (DAYS), etc., along with Audrey Hardy.

Of that list Doug and Julie were some of the hardest hit.  One day Doug is a suave ex-con, cabaret singer, chased after by women and their mothers.  The next day Hope is SORASed, he's suddenly a curmudgeon who disapproves of Bo, and then next thing you know they're off on a world tour and too busy to attend Hope's wedding.

3 minutes ago, j swift said:

Of that list Doug and Julie were some of the hardest hit.  One day Doug is a suave ex-con, cabaret singer, chased after by women and their mothers.  The next day Hope is SORASed, he's suddenly a curmudgeon who disapproves of Bo, and then next thing you know they're off on a world tour and too busy to attend Hope's wedding.

I know, it was a shameful and idiotic move on DAYS' part. (But, then again, that show has been in the toilet since 1983, LOL!)

If we had to have Doug and Julie become parents to a teen, it could have worked had the writers looked at their characters and history and used that.

Julie,a troubled teen herself could have advised Hope not to get too intense with Bo, remembering her obsession with David Martin and where that lead.

Doug may have had a different viewpoint, maybe being too permissive as he didn't want to face no longer being the free and easy playboy.

Instead they just became roadblocks to young love with no real agency or point of view.

20 hours ago, j swift said:

Of that list Doug and Julie were some of the hardest hit.  One day Doug is a suave ex-con, cabaret singer, chased after by women and their mothers.  The next day Hope is SORASed, he's suddenly a curmudgeon who disapproves of Bo, and then next thing you know they're off on a world tour and too busy to attend Hope's wedding.

I think you can go earlier than that: David. He wasn't Doug's child, but having him as an adult by the late 1970s aged Julie horribly before you even got to Hope being grown up.

24 minutes ago, Titus Andronicus said:

I think you can go earlier than that: David. He wasn't Doug's child, but having him as an adult by the late 1970s aged Julie horribly before you even got to Hope being grown up.

I think the same could be said for Laura and Mickey with Mike. Granted, it didn't help that John Clarke was aging like milk at the time. I have no idea how he looked older in 1973 than he did in 1993, but...regardless. Aging up Mike in '74 certainly shoved them into the middle-aged category in a hurry. But, for obvious reasons, the change was more jarring for Julie, especially since she went from high school to middle age within a decade.

Not to mention Julie, even as late as her solo return in the early 1990’s, still had an agency and an inherent sexiness that was very true to her earlier run.  But since then, especially under the ridiculous stuff she had to do under Reilly, she has become more busybody than anything else.  One of the things I liked about her initial friction with Gabi was it was at least about her family and how she felt about Nick (which was another wasted Horton).  But it has morphed away from that and now it’s just done in such a way that it makes her look awful.

Sometimes new dimension is added but the character still feels like the original one.  Like Lucy on GH over the years- she was introduced as a sexy schemer, but soon she was BJ’s step-mother and we saw more sides to her personality.  But she was still Lucy.  I feel Bobbie is the same- she might not be an outright schemer anymore, but she still had a volatile temper and could be impulsive.

But look at Sonny- the character that Levinson created was horrible.  He ran a strip club, didn’t mind that Karen was young and hooked on drugs.  I’m pretty sure he was a drug dealer back then too.  But he was brooding and cute and Riche/Labine made him into the Sonny that eventually ate the show.  And it was in contrast to his original version, not really a new side being explored.  They white-washed him to make the character more palatable so he could stay.

 

15 hours ago, titan1978 said:

But he was brooding and cute and Riche/Labine made him into the Sonny that eventually ate the show. 

True, but at least under Riche/Labine Sonny was more part of the ensemble. Under Guza/Phelps he ate the show.

38 minutes ago, amybrickwallace said:

True, but at least under Riche/Labine Sonny was more part of the ensemble. Under Guza/Phelps he ate the show.

I would argue that the show eating began when Riche was still there.  Once Guza paired Sonny with Carly they were tied to everything and were being propped heavily in the writing.  It just got worse with JFP.

On 8/23/2021 at 10:34 PM, vetsoapfan said:

I did not want to see the Mac-dementia story on ATWT at all, but as you say: at least he was not a long-time favorite character and essential to the show. If they had given Nancy, Bob, Kim, Lisa or Ellen dementia, I would have gone nuclear. Fans would have revolted en masse, I'm sure. 

I agree that ending the plot quickly was the right decision.

Yea, I hated that story line, and I could have cared less about Mac. (I personally thought he was gross and Nancy wouldn't have married him, he looked like his jacket smelled of smoke..)  It was one of Marland's "See, I'm doing something RELEVANT" ..but I don't think anyone wanted to see Mac sh*tting his pants and anyone who lived through someone they love having dementia probably didn't want to see him spiral down, which is unfortunately the only way to go. There is just some stuff that won't work on soaps and a prolonged real illness is one. At least we never had to see more of his annoying daughter and grandkids!!!

53 minutes ago, titan1978 said:

I would argue that the show eating began when Riche was still there.  Once Guza paired Sonny with Carly they were tied to everything and were being propped heavily in the writing.  It just got worse with JFP.

Once Maurice Benard returned in late 1998, the only thing stopping him from completely dominating was Jason and the lack of a successful pairing. Both of those were taken care of in 2000 and they never looked back. 

4 hours ago, Mitch said:

Yea, I hated that story line, and I could have cared less about Mac. (I personally thought he was gross and Nancy wouldn't have married him, he looked like his jacket smelled of smoke..)  It was one of Marland's "See, I'm doing something RELEVANT" ..but I don't think anyone wanted to see Mac sh*tting his pants and anyone who lived through someone they love having dementia probably didn't want to see him spiral down, which is unfortunately the only way to go. There is just some stuff that won't work on soaps and a prolonged real illness is one. At least we never had to see more of his annoying daughter and grandkids!!!

Real-life illnesses can work on soaps if they are maladies from which folks can possibly recover. The the audience can have hope, and there's some "suspense" as to whether or not the afflicted characters will pull through. Devastating illnesses that cause unending agony and still lead to certain death? That's not my idea of entertainment. I don't want to see explicit, cruel violence or pain directed at children, animals or the elderly. I realize that strong drama can be gripping in many cases, but there's a limit. There's a difference between strong, mature drama and gratuitous ugliness for its own sake.

4 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Once Maurice Benard returned in late 1998, the only thing stopping him from completely dominating was Jason and the lack of a successful pairing. Both of those were taken care of in 2000 and they never looked back. 

I find GH's glorification of violent, criminal degenerates and murderers to be morally repugnant. Talk about elements I do NOT want to see on soaps. Hold back my hair, I'm going to hurl.🤮

3 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

Real-life illnesses can work on soaps if they are maladies from which folks can possibly recover. The the audience can have hope, and there's some "suspense" as to whether or not the afflicted characters will pull through. Devastating illnesses that cause unending agony and still lead to certain death? That's not my idea of entertainment. I don't want to see explicit, cruel violence or pain directed at children, animals or the elderly. I realize that strong drama can be gripping in many cases, but there's a limit. There's a difference between strong, mature drama and gratuitous ugliness for its own sake

I see your point, but then again, Stone’s storyline was possibly the most important thing I watched peer aged characters going through on television at that time.  I am also a gay person, and knew folks dying of AIDS.  It was heartbreaking but ultimately very moving.  The same thing with BJ’s heart (which was not a long illness like Stone).  It would have been heartbreaking to watch Audrey decline.  It would also have given her and Steve something important and worthy to do, something with a lot of humanity for them to sink their teeth into.

The issue with dementia is that it doesn’t get better.  It’s hard to watch that in real life, let alone in entertainment.  Truthfully, AIDS was kind of similar, in that it slowly, one illness at a time, breaks a person down until they have no immunity left to fight anything.  But I am still glad they told that story.

 

5 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

I find GH's glorification of violent, criminal degenerates and murderers to be morally repugnant. Talk about elements I do NOT want to see on soaps. Hold back my hair, I'm going to hurl.🤮

There was a scene  under Riche/Guza where Jason had been shot by a rival mob, but made sure to stop by the Q mansion  to read a bedtime story to Michael. After he left, Monica noticed the blood-stained stuffed animal Jason had used to hide his wound while with Michael. The scene sickened me, most of all because this was shown as an example of what a loving father he was.