21 hours ago, FrenchBug82 said:

• I am not sure to which extent this is an unpopular opinion since I wasn't online much then. I gather people clung to their understandable emotional attachment to Erin Torpey but I actually liked Bree Williamson and while we can argue with the retcons necessary for that story and some of the writing along the way, I think she was doing mostly good work with the DID. 
   
• I had then and still have zero interest in OLTL's Marcie and Michael and I cannot understand why the show played them for so long.
   
• A ATWT one would be: I did prefer Scott Holroyd in the role (as many others, I think) but I actually ... didn't mind RH as Paul? I mean, yes, he was playing Roger Howarth as Todd Manning as Paul Ryan but it made sense enough considering the Ryan history.
  I am a bit more sour on RH now after the GH messes, but at the time I confess I was enjoying watching him do his thing as Paul, even admitting that it changed the character towards the kind of material he is more comfortable doing.
   

I actually liked PB's Jack with Nikki. Their first marriage was and still is my favorite PB pairing.

I couldn't imagine Erin Torpey handling the over the top campy material that Bree had to work with 

It's not a knock on Erin, but her Jessica was a little more grounded 

The whole Heaven Can Wait storyline with Marcie and Michael was cringe even for soap standards, but I think every show needs the nice boring couple. That's what Marcie and Michael's purpose on the show.

I think Roger Howarth's Paul Ryan was a chance for the actor to play a Todd Manning type of character without the rape aspect in the background 

Although my memory is fuzzy, but I thought Scott Holyrod's Paul was a good guy. It was weird seeing the character become a anti hero once another actor stepped in the role 

42 minutes ago, Frank2803 said:

Although my memory is fuzzy, but I thought Scott Holyrod's Paul was a good guy. It was weird seeing the character become a anti hero once another actor stepped in the role 

Yeah they definitely completely changed how the character had just been portrayed to fit RH indeed and while I wasn't mad at it because it would make sense for Paul to not be a straight-up good guy considering his parents, it was jarring at first and that probably compounded the fan rejection of RH's Paul as a diet Todd.
I think it would have been easier to accept if Paul has been off the canvas for a long while before RH was cast.
 

20 hours ago, FrenchBug82 said:

I think it would have been easier to accept if Paul has been off the canvas for a long while before RH was cast.

Maybe they just should have brought RH on as a new character.

2 hours ago, amybrickwallace said:

Maybe they just should have brought RH on as a new character.

On balance, you may be right; changing a character to fit the actor rather than the other way around is why recasts often fail. And just putting an actor you want to hire in an existing role is a lazy way not to have to establish relationships and backstory.

BUT playing Devil's advocate... On the other hand, had they cast him in a brand new character, fans would have quickly complained of a "new" character taking over the show while core families are neglected. Sure they could have used it in small doses at first but you don't hire RH at what must have been pretty money in order to use him "in small doses"

This is why I am in general opposed to poaching "big names" for the sake of poaching them without having an actual plan for how to use them organically. Casting a role you want to cast with a big name is different from hiring an actor and then thinking how to use them.

As I said, personally, if I ignored everything that had happened before he was cast (a huge if, granted) I could enjoy his performance on the merits.
But the original sin is that they simply wanted to hire Roger Howarth and THEN started thinking about how to use him. Does that sound like a familiar pattern?

Paul wasn't very interesting as a good guy. RH gave Paul the edge that the son of Barbara and James should have.

6 hours ago, amybrickwallace said:

Maybe they just should have brought RH on as a new character.

The previous two Pauls weren't on very long, RH outlasted both of their runs.

I might've appreciated "boring good guy" Paul better if I grew up with ATWT but I didn't pick up the show until 1990.

Edited October 25, 20214 yr by Spoon

On 10/22/2021 at 4:23 PM, AMCOLTLLover said:

I have loved Terry Lester's Jack so much.. It was a shame that in 1986 when Nikki/Jack were a thing it got ruined with Victor/Ashley's affair and her cancer (was it cancer? I don't remember but she was ill and Victor stayed with her) and the 'WHO SHOT JILL'-Story where Jack was accused of attempted murder.

 

!!!!

I still maintain that if Terry Lester had stayed in the role, Jack and Jill should have been the end game.  They were made for each, they accepted and understood each other, and they brought out the best in each other.  Personally, I love a dastardly duo and Jack and Jill could have filled that role. 

Poor Jack just looks pathetic now trying to date women younger than his forgotten son Keemo.  Just for the record, if Keemo never called, texted, or emailed Jack during the million times that he's been married, shot, or kidnapped since he left town, then I say "f#@*" him anyway, he's a terrible son.

16 hours ago, Spoon said:

The previous two Pauls weren't on very long, RH outlasted both of their runs.

I didn't realize RH was on ATWT for so long - seven years. I thought he was on for only two or three years until I looked it up. Wow.

It was pointless making Ray Krebbs into the fourth Ewing son.

It added a little tension at the beginning of the storyline, but it made no impact overall on the show.

If they were going to do a fourth Ewing son at least make it a new character 

Amen. Ray was already on the show and in the Ewing inner circle already - what was the point. Plus, he was sort of a boring character so his introduction to the family didn’t really add any conflict. It would have been much more interesting to bring in a true outsider as Jock’s fourth son.

22 hours ago, Frank2803 said:

It was pointless making Ray Krebbs into the fourth Ewing son.

100% this. It also made all interactions with Lucy really awkward since they couldn't really mention the fact that they had screwed around.

Perhaps the most unpopular opinion about cancelled soaps in general, Proctor and Gamble is neither disinterested in its historical soap content nor does it lack foresight in the investment opportunity in rebroadcasting classic soaps more than the average soap fan.

Contrary to belief, they did not stop producing soaps because of a lack of ratings or creativity.  Fans may disagree with writing, casting, or production decisions, however the truth is that civil lawsuits over faulty consumer products nearly bankrupt the company in the early 2000s, right around the time that they stopped daytime production.  

Since 2009 (the year GL was cancelled), P&G sold off its pharmaceuticals, snack food, and pet food divisions.  Vicks, Durcell batteries, and Coty cosmetics were all divested in 2015.  Those divisions account for 16 billion dollars in lost revenue in order to keep pace with the global economy.  It is not as if P&G CEO David Taylor has a vault of tapes in the closet next to his office that he refuses to open, there is actually nobody in the current corporate stratus that is responsible for for that data.  So, asking P&G (the manufacturing company) to broadcast soaps is like asking GM to produce an Oldsmobile, they just don't do that anymore, there is no infrastructure in place for distribution, and they have much larger concerns to stay in business.

Furthermore, Telenext, the division that was spun off to produce the soaps, has had international distribution deals for the last decade to sell soaps abroad.  In 2009, Chinese distributor Matan bought 130 episodes of GL and ATWT.  So, I think they are well aware of the financial benefits to the company.  Also, starting with Texas, P&G implemented contracts that limited actor's residuals, so they've always planned ahead for redistribution and cost is not always a concern.  

However, most US cable attempts to rebroadcast soaps have failed.  Soapnet and PopTV never attracted profitable ratings and sponsors.  RetroTV has lost product shares and stations. And DVD sales failed to cover the cost of production.  Also, in 2020 P&G Entertainment, the newest iteration of the brand, announced that they were starting their own branded streaming service, so they would have little interest in releasing their content elsewhere. 

I want to watch old soaps as much as anyone else on this thread.  However, nothing bores me more (although it is unpopular to write) than those who claim to know more about how and why P&G should be using their content.  Except, of course, people who have no idea how Nielson ratings work discussing how content effects viewership, without an understanding of the analysis of variance or non-randomized sampling (but that's another post).

Edited October 30, 20214 yr by j swift

You bring up a lot of good points, @j swift. A lot of it is sad but true.

I saw very little of Sunset Beach, but did see some of the infamous turkey baster story, and thought it was a hoot. Since I wasn't a regular viewer, I don't know if that fit with the overall tone of the show or not.

 

2 hours ago, Nicholas Blair said:

I saw very little of Sunset Beach, but did see some of the infamous turkey baster story, and thought it was a hoot. Since I wasn't a regular viewer, I don't know if that fit with the overall tone of the show or not.

 

The little I remember about Sunset Beach it was fun, but the acting was bad even by soap standards 

Edited October 31, 20214 yr by Frank2803