3 hours ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

And then there's Meg. Her character was completely different when they recast her. From snarky and manipulative to weak and neurotic. With all of those recasts, I never thought of them as the old characters. I just thought of them as new characters with the same name as the old characters. 

Yes, TPTB failed miserably with the recasting of Meg too.

Thinking of all the recasts as totally different characters was our only option, considering how drastically different the new interpretations of the characters were in the hands of the newbies.

1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

Yes, TPTB failed miserably with the recasting of Meg too.

Thinking of all the recasts as totally different characters was our only option, considering how drastically different the new interpretations of the characters were in the hands of the newbies.

I think this was under Marland's watch, but I never thought of KMH as Emily Stewart even though she was in the role a lot longer than MS. Different show, but I felt the same about Jill on Y&R. I never thought of Jess Walton as Jill. I just thought of her as a different character. No matter how long she was on the show. 

Some people just personify a character perfectly and nobody can take their place. 

All My Children should still be on the air. 

Frons the most incompetent head of daytime of them all. And the arrogance. His legacy is only negative. 

9 hours ago, Contessa Donatella said:

I take objection to your phrasing, saying as you have here, If Frons had genuinely cared about & then you go on but I want to stop here. In 1983 when Michael Kape first interviewed him, already, at that point, so relatively early on, Frons already hated soaps & wanted to destroy them. So, my question to you is why are you under the impression that Frons cared about the ABC soaps at all, much less genuinely?

That's why I said if he had cared. I know his history with soaps. Search for Tomorrow alone. 

1 hour ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

I think this was under Marland's watch, but I never thought of KMH as Emily Stewart even though she was in the role a lot longer than MS. Different show, but I felt the same about Jill on Y&R. I never thought of Jess Walton as Jill. I just thought of her as a different character. No matter how long she was on the show. 

Some people just personify a character perfectly and nobody can take their place. 

I loved Melanie Smith's Emily enough to where I would have had a hard time accepting a recast, but I don't think Kelley was ever a good choice. She ticked boxes of vulnerability or sex appeal, but she lacked the heart. Her shadings tended to veer more toward pathetic and sleazy. Even just walking around A&M she gave porn star. Melanie's Emily was never that way, even when she was cheating and behaving badly.

Kelley had some good moments, especially during Emily/Hal, but she was never Emily to me.

Edited February 4Feb 4 by DRW50

9 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

That's why I said if he had cared. I know his history with soaps. Search for Tomorrow alone. 

I understand now. What I heard was if he *genuinely* cared but you were after the whole shebang & it was about his NOT caring, period. Gotcha!

 

1 hour ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

I think this was under Marland's watch, but I never thought of KMH as Emily Stewart even though she was in the role a lot longer than MS. Different show, but I felt the same about Jill on Y&R. I never thought of Jess Walton as Jill. I just thought of her as a different character. No matter how long she was on the show. 

Some people just personify a character perfectly and nobody can take their place. 

I agree with you about KMH as Emily. I thought she was very limited as an actress and couldn't handle the material given to her. It was hard to warm to her Emily or be truly empathetic to the situations she'd get herself into.

On the subject of GL's Peapack days which were discussed previously, I still say they could've made that work. ATWT never looked the way GL did and at times GL did use the format to it's benefit and could deliver decent episodes. I feel like the main reason this didn't work is because it was too much of a learning curve and the people in charge weren't qualified to make it work.

 

If ever there was a time to bring in someone like Mal Young it was then. The shaky camera was a choice, a bad choice. So was the dreadful music, random scenes filmed in the middle of the woods and not adapting the writing to fit the new format. British soaps had already mastered that format and could've helped them do it the right way. 

They should've cut back the cast and built up a community feeling again. I remember Ellen Wheeler bragging about how they transformed their studio so they had a set for pretty much anything, even a nail salon. I feel like even that was a mistake. They were set up to fail.

9 minutes ago, Chris B said:

On the subject of GL's Peapack days which were discussed previously, I still say they could've made that work. ATWT never looked the way GL did and at times GL did use the format to it's benefit and could deliver decent episodes. I feel like the main reason this didn't work is because it was too much of a learning curve and the people in charge weren't qualified to make it work.

If ever there was a time to bring in someone like Mal Young it was then. The shaky camera was a choice, a bad choice. So was the dreadful music, random scenes filmed in the middle of the woods and not adapting the writing to fit the new format. British soaps had already mastered that format and could've helped them do it the right way. 

They should've cut back the cast and built up a community feeling again. I remember Ellen Wheeler bragging about how they transformed their studio so they had a set for pretty much anything, even a nail salon. I feel like even that was a mistake. They were set up to fail.

I think GL was also just done. The show was incredibly lucky to have lasted as long as it did. Ellen Wheeler probably was not the right choice to take that journey, but if they'd had another year, they could have made it work. I think some of the choices did work, just not enough, and I think GL at its core was a punchy show that could have benefited from a lo-fi look. Just not the one they got.

I'd still rather watch some of that last year again than most of what ATWT was putting out.

11 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I think GL was also just done. The show was incredibly lucky to have lasted as long as it did. Ellen Wheeler probably was not the right choice to take that journey, but if they'd had another year, they could have made it work. I think some of the choices did work, just not enough, and I think GL at its core was a punchy show that could have benefited from a lo-fi look. Just not the one they got.

I'd still rather watch some of that last year again than most of what ATWT was putting out.

Yes, well, I was still a daily watcher of both, but If I ask myself which I preferred watching at that point, it's GL over ATWT. It's true, I believe that what GL needed at that point was a very extremely experienced EP & they only considered two candidates, both of whom were totally inexperienced as an EP. Directing, yes both trained & experienced. But, EP all they had was shadowing Goutman for some part of a year. Then of the two they picked EW & she was left to sink, swim, drown, I don't know walk on water? They wish, I guess. BTW, they here is P&G. 

On 2/3/2025 at 8:07 PM, kalbir said:

The P&G shows were effectively over in the aftermath of OJ. The ABC shows were effectively over with the sale of ABC to Disney.

Disagree on ABC soaps. Disney bought ABC in July 1995. Disney CEO Michael Eisner was VP of Daytime in the 1970s and was a huge supporter of the soaps. The soaps on ABC made money in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The soaps' solid performances were cited in DIsney yearly reports to shareholders and I as a shareholder have the reports and read them. Disney integrated the soaps into the theme parks and had events and cruise trips. Disney made plenty of money from the soaps. In 2000 Disney created the SoapNet cable network that aired the ABC lineup plus Ryan's Hope and eventually Days and Restless. When DIsney canceled SoapNet in 2010 and was shifting over to Disney Junior that signaled the death of the ABC soaps. Purely business and money. Frons was the instrument that was used to execute Disney's plan. AMC gone in 2011. OLTL in 2012. Conversion to Disney Junior comlplete in June 2012. Purely business. GH will go eventually it is not a matter of if but when. Once Eisner left as CEO in 2005 the soaps lost their strongest supporter and the soaps were doomed.

Edited February 5Feb 5 by JoeCool

2 minutes ago, JoeCool said:

Disagree on ABC soaps Disney bought ABC in July 1995. Disney CEO Michael Eisner was VP of Daytime in the 1970s and was a huge supporter of the soaps. The soaps on ABC made money in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The soaps' solid performances were cited in DIsney yearly reports to shareholders and I as a shareholder have the reports and read them. Disney integrated the soaps into the theme parks and had events and cruise trips. Disney made plenty of money from the soaps. In 2000 Disney created the SoapNet cable network that aired the ABC lineup plus Ryan;s Hope and eventually Days and Restless. When DIsney canceled SoapNet in 2010 and was shifting over to Disney Junior that signaled the death of the ABC soaps. Purely business and money. Frons was the instrument that was used to execute Disney's plan. AMC gone in 2011. OLTL in 2012. Conversion to Disney Junior comlplete in June 2012. Purely business. GH will go eventually it is not a matter of if but when. Once Eisner left as CEO in 2005 the soaps lost their strongest supporter and the soaps were doomed.

"ABC was actually valued less after Disney's acquisition than it was previously." (HER STORIES 216)

5 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

"ABC was actually valued less after Disney's acquisition than it was previously." (HER STORIES 216)

True but ESPN was the jewel of the transaction and was undervalued at the time of the transaction. Eisner wanted ABC and ESPN so the deal worked. ABC's value to DIsney subsequently increased after the tranasction. Disney wanted the sports and ESPN then ABC. ABC and ESPN were linked. Eisner wanted them both. Eventually Disney's stock went up as well. 

Edited February 5Feb 5 by JoeCool

1 minute ago, JoeCool said:

True but ESPN was the jewel of the transaction and was undervalued at the time of the transaction. Eisner wanted ABC and ESPN so the deal worked. ABC's value to DIsney subsequently increased after the tranasction. Disney wanted the sports and ESPN then ABC.

And, it was a bit of a dirty trick because their other assets were so very different from Daytime Drama that the de-valuation was more about accounting than anything else.

1 minute ago, Contessa Donatella said:

And, it was a bit of a dirty trick because their other assets were so very different from Daytime Drama that the de-valuation was more about accounting than anything else.

ABC bought AMC and OLTL from Agnes Nixon for about $10 to $20 million in 1975. Those assets were paid bought and very profitable by the time DIsney purchased Cap. Cities/ABC.

Disney bought Caps Cities for primetime ABC and ESPN...the daytime shows on ABC were a bonus.

4 minutes ago, JoeCool said:

ABC bought AMC and OLTL from Agnes Nixon for about $10 to $20 million in 1975. Those assets were paid bought and very profitable by the time DIsney purchased Cap. Cities/ABC.

Disney bought Caps Cities for primetime ABC and ESPN...the daytime shows on ABC were a bonus.

👏✌️🤏👊👌🤌

9 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

And, it was a bit of a dirty trick because their other assets were so very different from Daytime Drama that the de-valuation was more about accounting than anything else.

When Cap Cities bought ABC in 1985 the value of the transaction was $3 billion.

When Disney bought Cap Cities in 1995 the value of the transaction was $19 billion.

 

ABC Daytime was a drop in a huge bucket there.