Thanks. I have an odd fascination with that 1990-1993 period because there is such ongoing level of chaos because of the constant change in headwriters, producers, cast, and stories. I think there is a bit of irony that it is ultimately the return of Luke and Laura that grounds the show in a reality that was often abandoned by their initial rise to prominence.
I think Bobbie and Tony's wedding is a surprise to Bobbie if I remember correctly. I could be wrong. Bobbie thinks she is just going on a vacation to Puerto Rico (I think?) and she ends up getting married to Tony.
I think Jackie was pregnant at some point in 1989-1990, but I don't remember what part of the year. I don't think that would have played a role in anything, but maybe it did.
Given Bobbie's often mentioned past as a sex worker, having her marry Tony, who loved her for just being the amazing woman she was, seems like such a richer emotional story than it probably was intended to be. The woman who had started off weaponizing sex to get what she wanted settling down with a man seems to borderline conservative wet dream and a truly happily ever after. Palumbo is writing most of the romance as I recall. Tony and Bobbie are fairly on the outskirts of the story until late in the year 1990 when Cheryl returns and Bobbie starts working with the adoption agency after a substory in the summer where Bobbie had helped the pregnant bodega worker.
Despite the lack of focus in 1990, when Tony and Bobbie get material, Zeman and Maule always hit it out of the park. When Simone is first diagnosing Lucas with diabetes, there are some nice scenes where Bobbie is worried about not having the medical history of Lucas because he was adopted and thinking that this was somehow her fault because of her call girl past. Tony is so supportive as Bobbie is crashing out. It was a rare moment of depth for them at a time where I don't remember them having much of their own story.
I would have preferred to see Laura without Luke and letting Geary play Bill, but I accept that was never going to be a possibility. I think Tony Geary was too big a name (with too big a paycheck) to be playing a supporting role in a much broader canvas like I would have liked. I don't think Bill could have played a leading man opposite a strong mature female lead unless the woman was morally corrupt. Maybe Bill and Katherine or Bill, Katherine, and Damian in a story, but I don't think that this would have been front burner material.
Similarly, there was some discussion about Tiffany and Sean earlier in the thread. I do think there was a place for them in the late 1990s with the Cassadines as Sean had a roguish start and there were always questions about whether or not he'd go turncoat again. Similarly, wasn't Tiffany basically one of the Cassadine women when she was first introduced (Tony's girlfriend?). I think having one or both of them playing double agent in the Cassadine circle might have been intriguing, but maybe nothing that could be played long term. I also think Tiffany being dragged into the Bobbie / Tony / Carly stuff as an anchor in the storm for Lucas would have been an interesting layer. I just don't know if you could justify contract money for those sort of positions.
Riche always seems to be about the long game. Even though Sly was raised in Luke and Laura's home, and Bill was a terrible father (sorry Geary, he was), Bill still died saving Sly and Lucky because the hitmen thought Bill was Luke. Sly lost his father because of the Spencers. The setup for a bitter young man would have been too similar to Nikolas, who hated the Spencers because of their connection to his family. It could have been interesting to bring back Sly, have Nikolas try to turn him to the dark side, only for Sly to remain a positive force.
The last episode Sly is mentioned in the curlyq summaries is January 23, 1996,though sometimes minor characters don't always make the summaries.
I will be curious to hear about this after having done bits of Monty's return run recently. These transition periods always seem to be rich in roads not taken.
I don't think Hardy / Palumbo's GH was amazing, but it wasn't the creative wasteland that needed to be hacked away in the manner Monty did. There were stories that should have continued to their natural, non-rushed conclusion (Cheryl / Bobbie / Lucas and Dawn / Decker). Some characters leaving was probably for the best (Colton and the Grecos, even though I enjoyed them), but the wholesale dump of everything in the course of 2 months was too extreme for daytime.
I enjoy what I've seen of 1992, but it's definitely rocky. For me, it seems to settle a bit by the time Levinson is left to be the solo headwriter (c. October 1992) until Labine's arrival in the next year. Tonally, Levinson's material can lean into the "women in peril" more than I feel Labine did, but it would also be a bit of a turn. Felicia may have been tortured by Ryan Chamberlain, but she had a lot of agency in his comeuppance. I don't feel like we would have seen that under Monty.
By
dc11786 ·
