I don't recall any word of Rena doing PC. She left GH the year before. AFAIK Ned and Lois were only ever associated with Labine's planned spinoff Heart and Soul, which got dumped for PC.

Edited Sunday at 06:34 PM1 day by Vee

I agree with most of what was said about PC. @Soaplovers was right on the money that it was two disjointed shows slapped together: Lucy/Kevin/Scott and Debbie Morgan babysitting a bunch of newbies.

A solution for melding the show together better could have been if DM's character was involved with Scott at the start of the show. I bailed pretty quickly, did she ever get to interact much with the boomers before she bolted? Morgan & Herring might have been good foils for each other.

The writing was bad, but the directing was even worse. Everything was so low energy, even Karen stripping to #1 Crush to distract a gunman in the pilot.

If ABC went this route, they might as well have gone all-in and made it an ABC super-spinoff, using characters from AMC & OLTL too. That said, it was a success in the ratings. It immediately improved the timeslot when the rest of ABC was falling. Shortly after its first year it started to regularly beat AW in the demos, despite lower clearance.

As for hypothetical HWs to start the show, Shonda Rhimes is probably the pick, however unrealistic.

13 minutes ago, Vee said:

I don't recall any word of Rena doing PC. She left GH the year before. AFAIK Ned and Lois were only ever associated with Labine's planned spinoff Heart and Soul, which got dumped for PC.

That's what I always heard as well. It was the Labine proposed spin off. Ned/Lois would be such an odd fit for PC.

7 hours ago, Vee said:

As someone who was part of an abortive project many years ago covering DS Year One in depth, what I would say is that the trade-off ultimately was how much character depth, layerings, etc. the show really lost after that first year or two. Roger, Vicki, Burke, Sam, Carolyn, Liz, etc. are all much more rich and nuanced characters in '66 than they ever were later, where many of them became largely foils and fools for Barnabas, Julia, Angelique, etc. Especially Burke Devlin, who as originally presented with Mitch Ryan (who didn't help himself with his alcohol issues BTS) was a charismatic and powerful force on the canvas too big to be duped by a vampire. It's night and day re: who most of them are in that first year vs. who they were left as later. The intensity of the show in that year was all much more not just about the gothic atmosphere and vibes but in the oppressive focus on the characters and their inner lives and contradictions. It was only the talented actors and the thumbnail sketch of who the characters started out as that gave most of them life and spark in DS' later years.

And I do think the show fundamentally erred in shifting too much focus away from Vicki (any Vicki) as opposed to letting it be both Vicki and Barnabas.

I would agree with you on the trade offs hurting the show in the long run.

I think the depth and character development was still pretty good for the characters even when Barnabas was on at first. When the show realized Barnabas was super popular and had to figure out a way to keep him on is the start of the decline of the focus on the other characters.

I think the split focus between Barnabas and Victoria starts to erode after the 1795 story after she returns from the past. After a promising brief arc where she's under his spell, her character loses focus.

Her last few episodes with Moltke playing Victoria is often remarked by fans as a brief return to form to the original concept with heavy focus on her. She has a heart to heart with Liz, remarks on how the Collins family is her chosen family, has her wedding called off, still feels after effects to almost dying in 1795 with a well done dream sequence, declares her love for Jeff/Peter, and promises to support him after they find Eve's dead body.

Had the show done this consistently after 1795 with all the other characters.. it would have been able to thrive long term. I think Vicki was the least ruined of all the early characters in the long run.

5 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

I would agree with you on the trade offs hurting the show in the long run.

I think the depth and character development was still pretty good for the characters even when Barnabas was on at first. When the show realized Barnabas was super popular and had to figure out a way to keep him on is the start of the decline of the focus on the other characters.

I think the split focus between Barnabas and Victoria starts to erode after the 1795 story after she returns from the past. After a promising brief arc where she's under his spell, her character loses focus.

Her last few episodes with Moltke playing Victoria is often remarked by fans as a brief return to form to the original concept with heavy focus on her. She has a heart to heart with Liz, remarks on how the Collins family is her chosen family, has her wedding called off, still feels after effects to almost dying in 1795 with a well done dream sequence, declares her love for Jeff/Peter, and promises to support him after they find Eve's dead body.

Had the show done this consistently after 1795 with all the other characters.. it would have been able to thrive long term. I think Vicki was the least ruined of all the early characters in the long run.

All true. I think a lot of '67 is very strong. I don't hate the rest of the show at all, I love a lot of it - it just fundamentally moves away from spotlighting most of the original characters.

On 2/19/2026 at 6:05 PM, Paul Raven said:

Susan Seaforth Hayes was also mentioned for Stephanie. I always found John McCook a little dull. Things might have been different with another actor as Eric.

I have also read he wanted Jaime Lyn Bauer for Stephanie so he could reunite her with John McCook. I think she would have looked too young to be the mother of grown children but they sprayed McCook to look older.

If we can include Primetime soaps.

Knots Landing's first season had some hit and miss episodes.

Dynasty's first season was rocky focusing on the 2 families before being revamped the second with the arrival of Alexis.

Dallas first 5 episodes focused on the Romeo/Juliet story of Bobby & Pam before J.R. became the breakout character. Sue Ellen also became a major player with her alcoholism and tumultuous marriage. Bitchy sex pot Lucy failed and the writers didn't know what to do with her and she floundered in stupid storylines separate from the main cast/plots.

2 hours ago, SoapDope78 said:

I think she would have looked too young to be the mother of grown children but they sprayed McCook to look older.

I don't think I would've had an issue with Jaime Lyn Bauer playing the mother of several grown children, but given what I've seen of her work throughout the years, I think she would've been more cut out to play Beth Logan over Stephanie Forrester.

2 hours ago, SoapDope78 said:

If we can include Primetime soaps.

Knots Landing's first season had some hit and miss episodes.

Dynasty's first season was rocky focusing on the 2 families before being revamped the second with the arrival of Alexis.

Dallas first 5 episodes focused on the Romeo/Juliet story of Bobby & Pam before J.R. became the breakout character. Sue Ellen also became a major player with her alcoholism and tumultuous marriage. Bitchy sex pot Lucy failed and the writers didn't know what to do with her and she floundered in stupid storylines separate from the main cast/plots.

KL's first season was creator/EP/show runner David Jacobs' attempt at emulating both the popular series "Family," where he had cut his teeth as a staff writer, and Ingmar Bergman's "Scenes from a Marriage." Unfortunately, I think Jacobs realized (if not right away, then definitely after the 2-3 seasons) that KL was neither of those and that he didn't have what it took to MAKE it that way.

I'll go to my grave saying this: the Shapiros had set up DYNASTY beautifully in the first season, with the wealthy Carringtons contrasting the blue-collar Blaisdels, and Krystle caught in between the two, vastly different worlds. It's just Aaron Spelling's impatience with the ratings and the casting of the Blaisdel family members that doomed everything (and necessitated the introduction of Alexis and the shift toward the rich exclusively).

And I agree with David Jacobs: shifting the focus of DALLAS from Bobby & Pam, or the Ewings vs. the Barneses, to J.R. might have made the show more successful, but I don't think that made it more interesting. (And I DEFINITELY agree with you about Lucy, lol).

Edited 16 hours ago16 hr by Khan

59 minutes ago, Khan said:

I don't think I would've had an issue with Jaime Lyn Bauer playing the mother of several grown children, but given what I've seen of her work throughout the years, I think she would've been more cut out to play Beth Logan over Stephanie Forrester.

KL's first season was creator/EP/show runner David Jacobs' attempt at emulating both the popular series "Family," where he had cut his teeth as a staff writer, and Ingmar Bergman's "Scenes from a Marriage." Unfortunately, I think Jacobs realized (if not right away, then definitely after the 2-3 seasons) that KL was neither of those and that he didn't have what it took to MAKE it that way.

I'll go to my grave saying this: the Shapiros had set up DYNASTY beautifully in the first season, with the wealthy Carringtons contrasting the blue-collar Blaisdels, and Krystle caught in between the two, vastly different worlds. It's just Aaron Spelling's impatience with the ratings and the casting of the Blaisdel family members that doomed everything (and necessitated the introduction of Alexis and the shift toward the rich exclusively).

And I agree with David Jacobs: shifting the focus of DALLAS from Bobby & Pam, or the Ewings vs. the Barneses, to J.R. might have made the show more successful, but I don't think that made it more interesting. (And I DEFINITELY agree with you about Lucy, lol).

I agree about Season 1 of Dynasty. Aaron Spelling loved the rich lifestyle and the glamour and all his shows reflect that in some way. Poor or middle class people seem to bore him. He wanted everyone living in big homes, driving expensive cars, and wearing designer clothes.

David Jacobs had a good idea on paper for KL, but shows like Family, Eight Is Enough etc... were fading out by the end of the 70's and with the arrival of the 80's audiences wanted big soapy drama which he gradually gave into after the major explosion of Dallas and the Who Shot J.R. phenomenon.

I could see Bauer playing Beth. Stephanie always needed a balls to the wall actress to deliver. She did all the wrong things for the right reasons......LOL

On 3/8/2026 at 2:47 PM, bongobong said:

I agree with most of what was said about PC. @Soaplovers was right on the money that it was two disjointed shows slapped together: Lucy/Kevin/Scott and Debbie Morgan babysitting a bunch of newbies.

A solution for melding the show together better could have been if DM's character was involved with Scott at the start of the show. I bailed pretty quickly, did she ever get to interact much with the boomers before she bolted? Morgan & Herring might have been good foils for each other.

Once the original writers are fired, the show does slowly meld the two shows together and it becomes pretty connected by the 1 year mark.

I think it's revealed that Morgan's character and Kevin were friends since the show has them in scenes together.. and Morgan/Herring were great foils for one another (there is one particular comedic scene in particular that I faintly recall)

13 hours ago, SoapDope78 said:

Aaron Spelling loved the rich lifestyle and the glamour and all his shows reflect that in some way. Poor or middle class people seem to bore him. He wanted everyone living in big homes, driving expensive cars, and wearing designer clothes.

Aaron Spelling and Garry Marshall had one thing in common (besides making ABC a lot of money in the '70's and '80's): they both believed that television should provide an escape from viewers' everyday lives. People get enough realism from the evening news, they figured. Why not just give them a half-hour or hour to feel good instead? Which is fine, I guess, except that's not exactly a philosophy I've always agreed with. I think escapism has its' place, but I also think - especially these days, when it's so hard to discern real news from NOT real - that it's TV's duty to educate and inform as well.