Supercouple.
It may - or may not - technically be one word.
However, when two soap opera characters come together to create a coupling that neither could have portrayed on their own - or with any other acting partner for that matter - the result is, indeed, super.
The term supercouple took on a definition of its own in the 1980s when General Hospital 's Luke and Laura were all the rage. It gained even bigger prominence in the American vernacular when Days of Our Lives practically owned the rights to the word from 1981 through the early '90s.
But, as you will see, the word isn't exclusive to that decade or to that one show. Even before that, there were supercouples all across the daytime dial.
What follows is my list of the 10 - actually 11 simply because I couldn't narrow it down to just 10 - couples that to this day bring the definition of the word supercouple to life.
This list isn't exclusive or exhaustive. I certainly don't expect every fan to agree with my choices or rankings.
They are just that: my rankings, my choices and my personal preferences, complete with an explanation as to why I chose them and listed them in the order that I chose to.
I'd love to hear yours.
First off are those that I considered, but that didn't quite make the cut.
All My Children - Erica & Jack, Phil & Tara, Greg & Jenny.
Another World - Ryan & Vicky.
As the World Turns - Jeff & Penny, Tom & Margo, Steve & Betsy.
Days of Our Lives - Patch & Kayla, Will & Sonny (the original Will, that is!)
The Doctors - Nick & Althea, Matt & Maggie
Edge of Night - Mike & Nancy
General Hospital - Frisco & Felicia
Guiding Light - Hope & Alan
Love of Life - Bill & Tess
One Life to Live - Viki & Dorian ( not a supercouple in the traditional romantic sense of the word, but, to me a super- coupling, nonetheless.)
Search for Tomorrow - Steve & Liza
The Young and the Restless - Victor & Nikki ( who just missed my cut at #12.)
And, now, without further ado, my top 11 daytime supercouples of all time!
11. Adam and Nicole ( Donald May and Maeve McGuire, The Edge of Night.)
Adam tamed the shrew, turning the haughty Nicole Travis Drake into the leading lady of Edge in the early-to-mid '70s. They would be on my list purely for Adam's rooftop proposal to Nicole after running through the streets of New York City in order to get to her before the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve. However, they are on it for so many other reasons, too, not the least of which is the clever banter and instant clicking that occurred from their first meeting to their final scene.
10. Roman and Marlena or John and Marlena (Wayne Northrop, Deidre Hall and Drake Hogestyn, Days of Our Lives.) Pick whatever incarnation of the couple or the characters, the simple fact is Deidre had undeniable chemistry with all of her leading men and especially with these two. I prefer the original coupling, and Northrop to Hogestyn, but just as many preferred the latter. Either way you slice it, the couplings were both magical, with the first one bringing Days back to the top 5 in the ratings in the early 80s and the current incarnation keeping viewers enthralled - and Hall and Hogestyn at the top of the fan polls - now in the couple's 30-year-plus mark.
9. Bob and Kim (Don Hastings and Kathryn Hays, As the World Turns.) No doubt about it, their love stood the test of time. From the characters first glance at one another in 1972 to the series finale in 2010, Kim and Bob were the real deal and the longest-lasting super coupling on the show. That they went through torture - and 13 star-crossed years - to get together and then remained viable through countless writing regimes is testament to their undeniable bond.
8. Bo and Hope (Peter Reckell and Kristian Alfonso, Days of Our Lives.) Put two young - yet very green - performers together and you could have a recipe for disaster. However, what Days fans got with 'Bope' is a 30-year love affair which grew as strongly as the two actors did in their signature roles. One only needs to watch Bo's death scene from last year to witness how much both grew in their parts, while, keeping intact that much-needed chemistry required for a supercouple.
7. Steve and Alice (George Reinholt and Jacqueline Courtney, Another World.) One of the original supercouples, writer Agnes Nixon created a triangle with Robin Strasser's Rachel that glued viewers to their screen in the late 60s and 70s, and that via very limited YouTube copies of those episodes, still holds up today. Despite the actors reputed reputations within the industry, their coupling was electric and the chemistry remained when Courtney & Reinholt took their talents to One Life to Live, even if the storyline they had their didn't fully utilize their talents or that chemistry.
6. Cruz and Eden ( A Martinez and Marcy Walker, Santa Barbara.) While I admittedly wasn't a Santa Barbara fan, which was too quirky for my tastes back then, but which I can better appreciate now in my more mature age, I was a Cruz and Eden fan. One of my best friends back then watched the show religiously and I would watch with her only when this couple was on. The magic they brought to the screen was evident and I would be remiss not to include them on this list. Both deservedly won Emmys for their roles on SB.
And now, my top five, which I actually had an easier time placing in order when compared to my 11-6 placements.
5. Luke and Laura (Anthony Geary and Genie Francis, General Hospital.) I know what you're thinking, how could the most popular soap coupling of All-Time be ranked so low on my list? It's not that the chemistry wasn't there, obviously it was, but as you will see with my top four couples, there were simply others I favored more. Granted, part of this ranking may have to do with Geary's vocal disdain for the coupling in later years. Part of it is definitely the fact that a supercouple is supposed to stand the test of time and Luke and Laura - mainly due to Geary's fault - did not.
4. Doug and Julie (Bill and Susan Seaforth Hayes, Days of Our Lives.) From the show - that for better or worse - made the word supercouple a noun, this is the original supercouple of Salem. The real deal. While Doug and Julie went through every trial and tribulation known to man before their characters married in 1976, Bill and Susan were falling in love in real life and recently celebrated their 42nd wedding anniversary. With a divorce or two in between, Doug & Julie are still married and creating daily magic on Days. Wish more video of their magic early years existed because their story was worthy of all the publicity it received and certainly was deserving of Emmys for both, although neither won the golden statue in a multitude of various nominations.
3. Travis & Liza (Rod Arrants and Sherry Mathis, Search for Tomorrow.) Many may have never even watched this supercouple, but they had me mesmerized in the Summer of '79, when Search came thisclose to knocking out GH for the #1 spot in the ratings. When Sherry's southern charm, beauty and impeccable singing voice and Rod's rugged leading man looks came together, there was little doubt the two were golden. Although the on the run perils various headwriting regimes created for the duo grew tiredsome and were an ends among themselves, the chemistry between the two never grew forced or tenuous. Whatever fool decided to kill off Travis deserves to never write soaps ever again. There's not a lot of this couple on YouTube, but what little there is simply is magic.
2. Mac & Rachel (Douglass Watson and Victoria Wyndham, Another World.) If you were alive in the 1970s, how could you not root for this couple? Mac turned Rachel's life around and provided her with the one thing she had been sorely lacking - a man who really loved her. He was her knight and shining armor and they were the show's signature couple from 1975 until Watson's untimely death in 1989. Yeah, the couple went through the wringer, but you never doubted they would find their way back to one another. And, I contend, they had the best fights in daytime history to boot! Think about the makeup sex that coupling had! Both seasoned performers rank among the best ever to appear on daytime.
And that leaves us with only one couple left....and I've saved the best - and my most detailed accolades - for last.
Here we go...of the hundreds - maybe even thousands of daytime supercouples to grace our screen, here's my choice for the best ever....
1. SKY & RAVEN ( Larkin Malloy and Sharon Gabet , The Edge of Night.) From the soap that was unlike any other comes the supercouple that stands out from the rest. Edge was a mystery soap, rather than a traditional soap, so it's appropriate that my #1 supercouple wasn't of the traditional mode of the others. Except for a plot contrivance made necessary by a plot too lengthy to detail here, the couple weren't really star-crossed lovers. And they didn't look all gaga at one another like many of the other couples on the list and that's because from the start, they were different, from the start they understood each other in a way most couples - even super ones - never did.
And from the start, they were destined only for each other. Unlike other couples on this list, for the majority of their joint time on the show, they were always together. Their coupling was fast and the spark instantaneous in both of its incarnations. (More on what that means, later.)
And while some tried to tear them apart - most notably Alicia Van Dine in the show's last great murder storyline - no one ever stood a chance of breaking the Whitneys apart. That's because the chemistry of Gabet & Malloy was second to none. While other shows could - and have - survived when their couples exited the canvas, Edge would have met an earlier death than it did without Sky and Raven. The bond between them was that great, the chemistry was that electric. When those two were in the room, it was if time stood still and like they were the only two in the scene, even if there were scores of other actors in it.
Even infidelity, a common soap staple, didn't break them up, as Sky only slept with Alicia to keep his beloved Raven out of jail. And in perhaps Malloy's finest moment as Sky, when he broke down on the Whitney stairs and later confessed his deed to Raven , the tears were palpable and free flowing because the bond between the two characters and the marvelous actors who portrayed them was so real - both on and off screen.
Sky and Raven also get this top ranking because they survived in two incarnations, the first being when Malloy portrayed Jefferson Brown pretending to be Sky, and the latter when due to Malloy's arresting characterization of Jeff, he returned to the show as the legitimate Whitney heir. Yeah, long story, I know. It's also a story - and coupling - that holds up brilliantly and stands the test of time via YouTube. By reliving those fine moments between two seasoned performers, their bond is forever saved, and forever etched in my mind. From recently rewatching many of the duo's finest moments, my ultimate selection of the ultimate supercouple was cemented and brilliantly justified.
Prior to Malloy's arrival on Edge, Gabet's Raven was successfully paired and had chemistry with each actor she worked with. She's that good and always delivered that nuanced of a performance. However, once paired with Larkin, those other couplings paled in comparison to what viewers had seen before he was written onto the canvas.
There are only two travesties worth mentioning about this duo, one is that many have never seen the couple in action. Edge was perennially run in early morning slots during its final years, that is if the ABC affiliate aired it at all. That, of course, reduced the number of people who were able to witness their undeniable electricity. The other travesty is that neither won an Emmy for their brilliant work. At least the first error can be corrected now, as the Edge archives of the Sky and Raven years exist on YouTube. I highly recommend you watch them. You won't be disappointed.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Monday, July 25, 2016
Campaign 2016 Could Be Poised For A 1980-Type Ending
By Allan Brown
Aside from an occasional like or share on social media, I tend not to write or discuss the Presidential campaign.
For a sports writer, it's well, just not good politics to discuss it.
However, since I had what essentially was a political science minor in college and because the majority of stories I wrote on my first job after graduating from the University of Toledo, were political in nature ( I covered City Hall), I do have some experience in writing about it.
However, this blog is not your typical political column and it certainly should not be taken as an endorsement for any particular Presidential candidate.
Instead, it simply is an observation of some indisputable facts that I've collected since this election has been front and center in the media for the better part of two years now.
You see, while I don't necessarily like to share my political views to the general public, I am fascinated by the science that is politics.
And this particular election is intriguing to me for several reasons.
Not the least of which is because it seems to parallel an election that occurred some 36 years ago.
1980.
It was an entirely different time and a completely different era from what we live in today.
Long before technology provided us with social media or the ability to text our loved ones with the ease of a fingertip, most people got their information either one of two ways.
Either from the news they could turn to on three or four local channels they had on their cumbersome picture tube-made television set or via flipping through the daily newspaper that was tossed outside their door each morning.
Gas prices, albeit considered high at the time, were still way under a dollar and you could buy a loaf of bread at the grocery store for less than two quarters.
But while things in that now seemingly innocent era seem so different than today, many things remain the same.
Especially if you're looking at presidential politics.
What is happening in this 2016 presidential campaign is actually eerily similar to events and tactics that occurred - or would be used by candidates - in what now seems to be - at least to me - a life time ago.
The unemployment rate was higher in 1980, gas prices and the deficit were lower, for sure.
But still their was an economic unrest that parallels what many still out of work or struggling Americans face today.
The fear for our safety that resulted from the Iranian hostage crisis or the constant threat of war with the Soviet Union is now just a memory, only to be replaced with Isis and rampant attacks on Americans both hear and abroad.
Those parallels aside, it's actually the tone of the 1980 presidential campaign that, from start to finish, has awakened the same basic primal fears in Americans - that the electorate has now, some 36 years later.
Only the names and the events have changed.
But when comparing the two elections, there are far more similarities as opposed to differences.
In watching NBC News' six-hour coverage of Election Night 1980 on YouTube recently, I was startled to realize the similarities far outweighed the differences.
Campaign wise the biggest difference was that - unlike Barack Obama today - the incumbent President, Jimmy Carter, was running for re-election. He was doing so, though, amongst a tide of voter unrest with economic and international issues, much like voters face today.
Like Democratic Presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, Carter faced a primary opponent - Senator Edward Kennedy - who was far more liberal and who appealed to the extreme left core values of the Democratic Party just like Bernie Sanders did in his aborted run for the White House this year.
Kennedy actually kept up his fight for the Democratic nomination longer than Sanders did and took his bid all the way to the party's convention in New York City.
As for the Republicans, a basic outsider, who was both a former movie star and California Governor, Ronald Reagan, became the frontrunner in a crowded primary field, just like reality star and business mogul Donald Trump did this campaign season.
The only major difference was that Reagan did have political experience, having served two terms in Sacramento. Still, though, he was considered an outsider and he had to reach out to an insider, former CIA chief and Congressman George H.W. Bush, to give his candidacy some credence to the party faithful.
And unbelievably to those who know the now-famous Conservative values Reagan based his eventual presidency upon, many within the party didn't feel he was conservative enough at the time to be the GOP standard bearer. Part of that concern likely stemmed from Reagan's Hollywood experience and the moderate stands he had to eventually take to compromise with a much more liberal California State House and Senate that he had to deal with as Governor.
Like Trump, Reagan wasn't a lifelong Republican, either, as he switched his allegiance from the Democratic Party to the GOP in the 1960s.
Also in a parallel to the fear Trump instills in many, Reagan faced an uphill battle convincing the electorate that he wouldn't drop the bomb or start a war at a moment's notice.
Trump is famous for telling it like he sees it, whether his comments are politically correct or not. Reagan had a temper and even sometimes screamed at hecklers at campaign rallies. He also famously told the organizers of a primary debate in New Hampshire who wanted to turn off his microphone that he paid for it, as his campaign actually financed the event.
Trump has the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party to contend with, Reagan had the Moral Majority.
Trump has to deal with a party that doesn't want to include anything in its platform that supports rights for the LGBTQ community, whereas Reagan had to contend with women who were upset that the GOP would not include support for the Equal Rights Amendment in its 1980 endorsements. Both were issues of the day that split the electorate in half.
Both Trump and Clinton have chosen running mates who appeal to different bases of their party, which in and of itself, isn't that much unlike any other candidate who has ever run for the Presidency.
However, that aside, the rest of the similarities between the 1980 and 2016 are almost exclusively unique to the two campaign cycles.
Both Reagan and Carter had higher negative ratings than positive ones, just like Trump and Clinton have today.
With three months to go in the campaign, about 20 percent of the electorate is still supposedly undecided.
I use the word supposedly because as was discussed by Tom Brokaw and David Brinkley in the YouTube video I watched, many voters in 1980 didn't want to readily admit they were voting for a former movie star, who was divorced and whose views were considered by many at the time to be controversial.
It was called the 'Ballot Box Factor' and I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect many voters today are actually voting for Trump but are not willing to admit it to pollsters because he's not the politically correct choice in this current political climate.
What is for certain is that, just like in 1980, the American people are fed up with the same old, same old. Trump's ascent to the top of the Republican Party testifies to that fact.
Whether the end result in November will be the same as in 1980 (Reagan defeated Carter in an Electrical College slaughter and also scored a decisive decision in the popular vote) has yet to be seen.
Let's face it, Reagan could be testy at times, but he possessed the decorum and class that Trump so sorely lacks. But, for Clinton's part, she might face a much more uphill battle than, perhaps, Carter even did, as the many scandals her campaign has had to endure make her likeability and trustworthiness ratings fall far below Carter's. Many considered the 39th President to be inept at his job, but he was liked by most everyone and didn't face any of the negative controversies that Clinton has.
The real determining factor in this election will be the roughly 20 percent of Americans who are undecided. Will they, like in 1980, remain undecided until seven days out from Election Day?
And if they do, will they overwhelmingly go with Trump, the Republican outsider, like they did for Reagan, who, 36 years ago, was also considered a Washington outcast.
Time will tell.
And it will also show whether the many similarities between an election held a generation ago will yield the same result this time around.
Without pledging an allegiance to either candidate, I will say this: Having lived through both eras, the climate and voter dissatisfaction is definitely the same.
And, for that reason alone, I'm not so sure the actual outcome won't be the same, too.
Aside from an occasional like or share on social media, I tend not to write or discuss the Presidential campaign.
For a sports writer, it's well, just not good politics to discuss it.
However, since I had what essentially was a political science minor in college and because the majority of stories I wrote on my first job after graduating from the University of Toledo, were political in nature ( I covered City Hall), I do have some experience in writing about it.
However, this blog is not your typical political column and it certainly should not be taken as an endorsement for any particular Presidential candidate.
Instead, it simply is an observation of some indisputable facts that I've collected since this election has been front and center in the media for the better part of two years now.
You see, while I don't necessarily like to share my political views to the general public, I am fascinated by the science that is politics.
And this particular election is intriguing to me for several reasons.
Not the least of which is because it seems to parallel an election that occurred some 36 years ago.
1980.
It was an entirely different time and a completely different era from what we live in today.
Long before technology provided us with social media or the ability to text our loved ones with the ease of a fingertip, most people got their information either one of two ways.
Either from the news they could turn to on three or four local channels they had on their cumbersome picture tube-made television set or via flipping through the daily newspaper that was tossed outside their door each morning.
Gas prices, albeit considered high at the time, were still way under a dollar and you could buy a loaf of bread at the grocery store for less than two quarters.
But while things in that now seemingly innocent era seem so different than today, many things remain the same.
Especially if you're looking at presidential politics.
What is happening in this 2016 presidential campaign is actually eerily similar to events and tactics that occurred - or would be used by candidates - in what now seems to be - at least to me - a life time ago.
The unemployment rate was higher in 1980, gas prices and the deficit were lower, for sure.
But still their was an economic unrest that parallels what many still out of work or struggling Americans face today.
The fear for our safety that resulted from the Iranian hostage crisis or the constant threat of war with the Soviet Union is now just a memory, only to be replaced with Isis and rampant attacks on Americans both hear and abroad.
Those parallels aside, it's actually the tone of the 1980 presidential campaign that, from start to finish, has awakened the same basic primal fears in Americans - that the electorate has now, some 36 years later.
Only the names and the events have changed.
But when comparing the two elections, there are far more similarities as opposed to differences.
In watching NBC News' six-hour coverage of Election Night 1980 on YouTube recently, I was startled to realize the similarities far outweighed the differences.
Campaign wise the biggest difference was that - unlike Barack Obama today - the incumbent President, Jimmy Carter, was running for re-election. He was doing so, though, amongst a tide of voter unrest with economic and international issues, much like voters face today.
Like Democratic Presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, Carter faced a primary opponent - Senator Edward Kennedy - who was far more liberal and who appealed to the extreme left core values of the Democratic Party just like Bernie Sanders did in his aborted run for the White House this year.
Kennedy actually kept up his fight for the Democratic nomination longer than Sanders did and took his bid all the way to the party's convention in New York City.
As for the Republicans, a basic outsider, who was both a former movie star and California Governor, Ronald Reagan, became the frontrunner in a crowded primary field, just like reality star and business mogul Donald Trump did this campaign season.
The only major difference was that Reagan did have political experience, having served two terms in Sacramento. Still, though, he was considered an outsider and he had to reach out to an insider, former CIA chief and Congressman George H.W. Bush, to give his candidacy some credence to the party faithful.
And unbelievably to those who know the now-famous Conservative values Reagan based his eventual presidency upon, many within the party didn't feel he was conservative enough at the time to be the GOP standard bearer. Part of that concern likely stemmed from Reagan's Hollywood experience and the moderate stands he had to eventually take to compromise with a much more liberal California State House and Senate that he had to deal with as Governor.
Like Trump, Reagan wasn't a lifelong Republican, either, as he switched his allegiance from the Democratic Party to the GOP in the 1960s.
Also in a parallel to the fear Trump instills in many, Reagan faced an uphill battle convincing the electorate that he wouldn't drop the bomb or start a war at a moment's notice.
Trump is famous for telling it like he sees it, whether his comments are politically correct or not. Reagan had a temper and even sometimes screamed at hecklers at campaign rallies. He also famously told the organizers of a primary debate in New Hampshire who wanted to turn off his microphone that he paid for it, as his campaign actually financed the event.
Trump has the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party to contend with, Reagan had the Moral Majority.
Trump has to deal with a party that doesn't want to include anything in its platform that supports rights for the LGBTQ community, whereas Reagan had to contend with women who were upset that the GOP would not include support for the Equal Rights Amendment in its 1980 endorsements. Both were issues of the day that split the electorate in half.
Both Trump and Clinton have chosen running mates who appeal to different bases of their party, which in and of itself, isn't that much unlike any other candidate who has ever run for the Presidency.
However, that aside, the rest of the similarities between the 1980 and 2016 are almost exclusively unique to the two campaign cycles.
Both Reagan and Carter had higher negative ratings than positive ones, just like Trump and Clinton have today.
With three months to go in the campaign, about 20 percent of the electorate is still supposedly undecided.
I use the word supposedly because as was discussed by Tom Brokaw and David Brinkley in the YouTube video I watched, many voters in 1980 didn't want to readily admit they were voting for a former movie star, who was divorced and whose views were considered by many at the time to be controversial.
It was called the 'Ballot Box Factor' and I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect many voters today are actually voting for Trump but are not willing to admit it to pollsters because he's not the politically correct choice in this current political climate.
What is for certain is that, just like in 1980, the American people are fed up with the same old, same old. Trump's ascent to the top of the Republican Party testifies to that fact.
Whether the end result in November will be the same as in 1980 (Reagan defeated Carter in an Electrical College slaughter and also scored a decisive decision in the popular vote) has yet to be seen.
Let's face it, Reagan could be testy at times, but he possessed the decorum and class that Trump so sorely lacks. But, for Clinton's part, she might face a much more uphill battle than, perhaps, Carter even did, as the many scandals her campaign has had to endure make her likeability and trustworthiness ratings fall far below Carter's. Many considered the 39th President to be inept at his job, but he was liked by most everyone and didn't face any of the negative controversies that Clinton has.
The real determining factor in this election will be the roughly 20 percent of Americans who are undecided. Will they, like in 1980, remain undecided until seven days out from Election Day?
And if they do, will they overwhelmingly go with Trump, the Republican outsider, like they did for Reagan, who, 36 years ago, was also considered a Washington outcast.
Time will tell.
And it will also show whether the many similarities between an election held a generation ago will yield the same result this time around.
Without pledging an allegiance to either candidate, I will say this: Having lived through both eras, the climate and voter dissatisfaction is definitely the same.
And, for that reason alone, I'm not so sure the actual outcome won't be the same, too.
Friday, June 3, 2016
In Defense Of Jill Farren Phelps
There's likely no more of a polarizing figure in daytime TV than Jill Farren Phelps.
Just the mention of her name evokes a myriad of emotions from diehard soap opera fans.
And while many of those strong emotions are definitely negative, I think that if you look at her overall body of work, she's not nearly the monster that many soap fans make her out to be.
Right off the top, I'll go with the negative and just get it out of the way.
Her 11-year turn as executive producer of General Hospital was a disaster.
She turned what the fabulous Wendy Riche did in her nine years at GH into a convoluted, mob-laden mess.
She completely - with the help of headwriter Bob Guza - obliterated the show's core family, the Quartermaines, and reduced such fan favorites as Jackie Zeman, Kristina Wagner and John J. York to mere dayplayers - and that's putting it nicely, as years would go by and none of them would even be seen.
Under her watch, we lost Rachel Ames as matriarch Audrey Hardy. While Ames may have wanted to retire, surely JFP could have persuaded her to at least remain on a semi-recurring basis. And while Anna Lee was in declining health and couldn't work much in her final years anyway, her lifelong contract with the show was null and voided under JFP's reign.
To be fair, that could have been a network decision, but it still happened with JFP at the helm, so she has to be assigned some of the blame for it.
She definitely gets the lion's share of the blame for relegating over-40 stars like Nancy Lee Grahn, (to a certain extent) Jane Elliott, Leslie Charleson and Emmy winner Stuart Damon to storyline Siberia. The latter, was actually uselessly killed off during JFP's regime.
To me, GH was unwatachable during her last years, though that's not to say that it's that enjoyable of a show right now, either.
Yes, I agree, JFP decimated GH beyond recognition. And even if she hadn't, her treatment of the true leading lady of the show, Genie Francis, would have been enough for me to tune out. To her credit, she did bring Genie back numerous times (of course they were usually during sweeps periods) and Francis FINALLY won her long overdue Emmy that she was unrightfully denied during her hey day as Laura Spencer.
But as I look at JFP's overall career, I have to be fair and say that while her GH was a nightmare, much of what she did prior to that, if only in my opinion, definitely was not.
Of course, I wholeheartedly concur that everyone has opinions and that soap fans' are certainly a passionate lot. I'm not necessarily writing this blog to change anyone's opinion, but am doing it to just put my thoughts onto the computer screen. In the process, maybe you will change your opinion of the controversial executive producer.
Maybe not.
What I do hope to accomplish is to get fans to at least rethink their opinions of her to the extent that they can be at least a little more balanced.
Anyway, here goes. Here's why I think JFP definitely gets a bad rap when fans discuss executives and their overall contribution to the genre.
If you want to assign blame to JFP for her reign at GH, then you have to definitely give her credit for what she did at Guiding Light - and to lesser extents - Another World and One Life to Live - before coming to GH.
And to be totally honest, an EP - especially in this day and age - is certainly at the mercy of the network and the owners of the shows. That's not to say that JFP shouldn't be assigned blame for her actions at GH, but if I'm going to hold her responsible for mistakes,then I have to give her credit for her triumphs.
And when speaking of triumphs, her four-plus years leading Guiding Light has to be considered her greatest accomplishment.
I know what you're saying. I can hear it right now.
How can the person who admittedly takes the blame for killing off the beloved Maureen Bauer get any credit for her time at GL?
Here's how.
With JFP leading the way, GL was simply a masterpiece.
The storylines were riveting, the production values were sublime and the actors were on point.
In the 70-plus-year history of GL, JFP's reign was likely its shining era.
That she never received an Emmy for GL is a mystery, especially since she perfected the Emmy game once she got to GH.
Maureen's death aside, her GL was the closesst thing to 'Must Watch' Soap that the genre has seen, especially in the 23 years since the character's demise.
And since, in subsequent interviews, the exec has fully taken responsibility and blame for the death of the show's beloved heart and soul, I'm wiling to give her a pass there.
Everyone makes mistakes. She admitted hers and it's time to move on.
Even without Maureen, I would have rather watched 20 years of JFP's GL as compared to most of the last 14 years of the show that were produced without her in charge.
It was that good.
When JFP left GL in 1995, I had high hopes for the floundering Another World.
While many may disagree, JFP did not disappoint.
It's debatable whether Ryan or Frankie's deaths on the show were directly linked to her.
She vehemently denies the latter. And if she so easily takes the blame for Maureen's death on GL why wouldn't she do the same when it comes to Frankie?
My theory on that is that network interference and focus groups had almost everything to do with Frankie's demise. As for Ryan, I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that Paul Michael Valley wanted to leave the show. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
And while Frankie's death was senseless, the after affects mainly played out after JFP left the show, which may - or may not be - a coincidence.
As for Ryan's death storyline, it was brilliantly done and provided a boost in storyline possibilities for the remaining canvas.
Those question marks aside, JFP - whether by network mandate or not - turned AW into a fast-paced ER-type drama, complete with spectacular renovations to the sets and rejuvenated storylines for the veteran AW performers.
The John-Felicia-Sharlene storyline was simply riveting drama and played out fully, whereas the similarly styled Lillian-Ed-Maureen storyline did not on GL.
Lesson learned.
And that storyline in particular raises an interesting counter poiont to the theory that JFP didn't want anyone over 40 to have a lead storyline, as Linda Dano, David Forsyth and Anna Holbrook - dominated the plot for months on end and Holbrook won a deserved Emmy as the wronged Sharlene.
Her brief tenure at OLTL was considered a failure, but even that can be somewhat disputed.
At least in part.
While her controversial split of that show's supercouple, Nora and Bo, was questionable (at least how it was actually plotted), it did provide for great plot twists and allowed - once again - formerly neglected over-40 stars like Bob Woods and Hilary B. Smith a chance to show why they both have Emmys on their mantle. And JFP did bring the divine Mark Derwin to the cast and immediately paired him with Erika Slezak's Viki,. That turned out to be one of the show's best mergers in its 43-year history.
So looking at JFP's track record, it's hard to say that she didn't support more mature performers.
I strongly suspect the GH bloodbath of anyone over 40 came more from Brian Frons, who led ABC's daytime division at the time, as opposed to JFP.
Even so, as executive producer, she allowed it to happen, so much of the blame has to fall on her shoulders.
After what can only be described as a reign of terror over at GH, I was extremely nervous about JFP taking over the crown jewel of daytime, The Young and the Restless.
I needn't have been.
Yes, the show is not the Y&R of old, the Y&R I - and many of my soap counterparts grew up with - but let's face it, the genre has changed.
And Y&R is certaainly closer to its original vision than any of the remaining shows still on the air, save Bold and the Beautiful, maybe -tho the latter show simply isn't my cup of tea,
JFP did change some of the fabric of the show, she did, unwisely, change many of the sets, notably the Chancellor mansion and the Newman ranch. I'll give you that.
What she did not do, though, was slaughter the veteran cast.
While you can argue that some of the storylines are trite - even insipid at times - they feature longtime players who fans have invested their time in and their love for.
At any given moment, you can turn on Y&R and still see the same people who helped the show vault to the #1 spot some 28 years ago.
Melody Thomas Scott, Eric Braeden, Doug Davidson, Tracey Bregman, Lauralee Bell, Eileen Davidson (wisely brought back since JFP arrived in 2012) and Peter Bergman are all still there.
And while some aren't fully utilized in plots that showcase their vast - and in often cases Emmy-winning talents - they still remain vital and essential cogs to the overall success of the show.
Oddly enough, the hiring of Chuck Pratt as head writer almost two years ago proved to be JFP's best move.
And, that, in and of itself, is the biggest surprise of all.
Pratt almost single-handedly destroyed All My Children with his sweeps stunts and plot-based storylines, but his Y&R has been surprisingly good.
That's not to say that he hasn't resorted to some over-the-top un-Y&R-like plot turns like Jack's double or the obligatory sweeps disaster, but, overall, his vision has returned the show to something enjoyable and watchable. And while I wouldn't necessarily say he returned the show to its roots, his rejuvenation and concentration of the Newman-Abbott feud - despite some glaring miscues - has gotten the show on the right track. It definitely is the closest thing to honoring creator Bill Bell's vision of what that feud actually was intended to be in the first place.
Maybe that's Sony or CBS' doing, maybe not.
Just saying, if I'm going to assign most - if not all - of the blame to JFP for what happened at GH, then she deserves credit for rejuvenating and raising the ratings at Y&R.
In this era where everyone can instantly post their comments - both negative and positive - on social media, JFP definitely gets attacked almost daily.
It's just the nature of the business and the reality of what the genre has become.
And sure, JFP has made many mistakes in her 30-plus years in the industry, but I think she gets a bad rap.
Maybe part of it is because she's a woman.
While other EP's certainly get their lion's share of criticism, it almost seems like JFP gets an unfair amount of it.
I plead guilty to that myself.
But what actually sparked my desire to write this column was a post on the We Love Soaps website that flashbacked to when JFP was hired four years ago and what her plans were for Y&R.
Whatever you think of her, whatever you think of this current incarnation of Y&R, JFP has certainly not deconstructed the show. She has pretty much honored its history and provided the genre with the best soap opera there is in this current climate where soaps have been reduced to a shell of their former selves.
The throwback interview made me think of JFP's overall contribution to the genre, not just her mistakes - the admitted ones and those she doesn't admit blame for - and made me look at her career in an entirely different light.
While I wouldn't say she is the best executive producer to ever helm a soap, she is by far not the worst one and gets far more criticism than her male counterparts who are currently destroying both GH and Days of Our LIves.
To me, JFP's overall contributions to the genre are not just solid, they're actually rather fairly good. Even her work on Santa Barbara, which I admittedly hardly ever watched, was much better than previous and subsequent regimes produced before the show was cancelled in 1993.
JFP isn't perfect.
But come on, who is?
In the overall scheme of things, she produces a solid product and has often times been in charge of shows that were innovative, exciting, and, often times, brilliant.
I get that she isn't everyone's favorite showrunner, but when reviewing her career, her accomplishments in the industry definitely outweigh her mistakes.
I certainly expect the overall positive tone of this blog to get dissected and attacked on many levels
Abd that's OK. I look forward to hearing what others think of her and this is simply my opinion.
Admittedly, GH wasn't a good fit for her. Y&R, however, has certainly proven - like her stints at GL and AW - that she is a creative individual who can navigate the tricky soap waters to a calmer and better place.
Just the mention of her name evokes a myriad of emotions from diehard soap opera fans.
And while many of those strong emotions are definitely negative, I think that if you look at her overall body of work, she's not nearly the monster that many soap fans make her out to be.
Right off the top, I'll go with the negative and just get it out of the way.
Her 11-year turn as executive producer of General Hospital was a disaster.
She turned what the fabulous Wendy Riche did in her nine years at GH into a convoluted, mob-laden mess.
She completely - with the help of headwriter Bob Guza - obliterated the show's core family, the Quartermaines, and reduced such fan favorites as Jackie Zeman, Kristina Wagner and John J. York to mere dayplayers - and that's putting it nicely, as years would go by and none of them would even be seen.
Under her watch, we lost Rachel Ames as matriarch Audrey Hardy. While Ames may have wanted to retire, surely JFP could have persuaded her to at least remain on a semi-recurring basis. And while Anna Lee was in declining health and couldn't work much in her final years anyway, her lifelong contract with the show was null and voided under JFP's reign.
To be fair, that could have been a network decision, but it still happened with JFP at the helm, so she has to be assigned some of the blame for it.
She definitely gets the lion's share of the blame for relegating over-40 stars like Nancy Lee Grahn, (to a certain extent) Jane Elliott, Leslie Charleson and Emmy winner Stuart Damon to storyline Siberia. The latter, was actually uselessly killed off during JFP's regime.
To me, GH was unwatachable during her last years, though that's not to say that it's that enjoyable of a show right now, either.
Yes, I agree, JFP decimated GH beyond recognition. And even if she hadn't, her treatment of the true leading lady of the show, Genie Francis, would have been enough for me to tune out. To her credit, she did bring Genie back numerous times (of course they were usually during sweeps periods) and Francis FINALLY won her long overdue Emmy that she was unrightfully denied during her hey day as Laura Spencer.
But as I look at JFP's overall career, I have to be fair and say that while her GH was a nightmare, much of what she did prior to that, if only in my opinion, definitely was not.
Of course, I wholeheartedly concur that everyone has opinions and that soap fans' are certainly a passionate lot. I'm not necessarily writing this blog to change anyone's opinion, but am doing it to just put my thoughts onto the computer screen. In the process, maybe you will change your opinion of the controversial executive producer.
Maybe not.
What I do hope to accomplish is to get fans to at least rethink their opinions of her to the extent that they can be at least a little more balanced.
Anyway, here goes. Here's why I think JFP definitely gets a bad rap when fans discuss executives and their overall contribution to the genre.
If you want to assign blame to JFP for her reign at GH, then you have to definitely give her credit for what she did at Guiding Light - and to lesser extents - Another World and One Life to Live - before coming to GH.
And to be totally honest, an EP - especially in this day and age - is certainly at the mercy of the network and the owners of the shows. That's not to say that JFP shouldn't be assigned blame for her actions at GH, but if I'm going to hold her responsible for mistakes,then I have to give her credit for her triumphs.
And when speaking of triumphs, her four-plus years leading Guiding Light has to be considered her greatest accomplishment.
I know what you're saying. I can hear it right now.
How can the person who admittedly takes the blame for killing off the beloved Maureen Bauer get any credit for her time at GL?
Here's how.
With JFP leading the way, GL was simply a masterpiece.
The storylines were riveting, the production values were sublime and the actors were on point.
In the 70-plus-year history of GL, JFP's reign was likely its shining era.
That she never received an Emmy for GL is a mystery, especially since she perfected the Emmy game once she got to GH.
Maureen's death aside, her GL was the closesst thing to 'Must Watch' Soap that the genre has seen, especially in the 23 years since the character's demise.
And since, in subsequent interviews, the exec has fully taken responsibility and blame for the death of the show's beloved heart and soul, I'm wiling to give her a pass there.
Everyone makes mistakes. She admitted hers and it's time to move on.
Even without Maureen, I would have rather watched 20 years of JFP's GL as compared to most of the last 14 years of the show that were produced without her in charge.
It was that good.
When JFP left GL in 1995, I had high hopes for the floundering Another World.
While many may disagree, JFP did not disappoint.
It's debatable whether Ryan or Frankie's deaths on the show were directly linked to her.
She vehemently denies the latter. And if she so easily takes the blame for Maureen's death on GL why wouldn't she do the same when it comes to Frankie?
My theory on that is that network interference and focus groups had almost everything to do with Frankie's demise. As for Ryan, I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that Paul Michael Valley wanted to leave the show. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
And while Frankie's death was senseless, the after affects mainly played out after JFP left the show, which may - or may not be - a coincidence.
As for Ryan's death storyline, it was brilliantly done and provided a boost in storyline possibilities for the remaining canvas.
Those question marks aside, JFP - whether by network mandate or not - turned AW into a fast-paced ER-type drama, complete with spectacular renovations to the sets and rejuvenated storylines for the veteran AW performers.
The John-Felicia-Sharlene storyline was simply riveting drama and played out fully, whereas the similarly styled Lillian-Ed-Maureen storyline did not on GL.
Lesson learned.
And that storyline in particular raises an interesting counter poiont to the theory that JFP didn't want anyone over 40 to have a lead storyline, as Linda Dano, David Forsyth and Anna Holbrook - dominated the plot for months on end and Holbrook won a deserved Emmy as the wronged Sharlene.
Her brief tenure at OLTL was considered a failure, but even that can be somewhat disputed.
At least in part.
While her controversial split of that show's supercouple, Nora and Bo, was questionable (at least how it was actually plotted), it did provide for great plot twists and allowed - once again - formerly neglected over-40 stars like Bob Woods and Hilary B. Smith a chance to show why they both have Emmys on their mantle. And JFP did bring the divine Mark Derwin to the cast and immediately paired him with Erika Slezak's Viki,. That turned out to be one of the show's best mergers in its 43-year history.
So looking at JFP's track record, it's hard to say that she didn't support more mature performers.
I strongly suspect the GH bloodbath of anyone over 40 came more from Brian Frons, who led ABC's daytime division at the time, as opposed to JFP.
Even so, as executive producer, she allowed it to happen, so much of the blame has to fall on her shoulders.
After what can only be described as a reign of terror over at GH, I was extremely nervous about JFP taking over the crown jewel of daytime, The Young and the Restless.
I needn't have been.
Yes, the show is not the Y&R of old, the Y&R I - and many of my soap counterparts grew up with - but let's face it, the genre has changed.
And Y&R is certaainly closer to its original vision than any of the remaining shows still on the air, save Bold and the Beautiful, maybe -tho the latter show simply isn't my cup of tea,
JFP did change some of the fabric of the show, she did, unwisely, change many of the sets, notably the Chancellor mansion and the Newman ranch. I'll give you that.
What she did not do, though, was slaughter the veteran cast.
While you can argue that some of the storylines are trite - even insipid at times - they feature longtime players who fans have invested their time in and their love for.
At any given moment, you can turn on Y&R and still see the same people who helped the show vault to the #1 spot some 28 years ago.
Melody Thomas Scott, Eric Braeden, Doug Davidson, Tracey Bregman, Lauralee Bell, Eileen Davidson (wisely brought back since JFP arrived in 2012) and Peter Bergman are all still there.
And while some aren't fully utilized in plots that showcase their vast - and in often cases Emmy-winning talents - they still remain vital and essential cogs to the overall success of the show.
Oddly enough, the hiring of Chuck Pratt as head writer almost two years ago proved to be JFP's best move.
And, that, in and of itself, is the biggest surprise of all.
Pratt almost single-handedly destroyed All My Children with his sweeps stunts and plot-based storylines, but his Y&R has been surprisingly good.
That's not to say that he hasn't resorted to some over-the-top un-Y&R-like plot turns like Jack's double or the obligatory sweeps disaster, but, overall, his vision has returned the show to something enjoyable and watchable. And while I wouldn't necessarily say he returned the show to its roots, his rejuvenation and concentration of the Newman-Abbott feud - despite some glaring miscues - has gotten the show on the right track. It definitely is the closest thing to honoring creator Bill Bell's vision of what that feud actually was intended to be in the first place.
Maybe that's Sony or CBS' doing, maybe not.
Just saying, if I'm going to assign most - if not all - of the blame to JFP for what happened at GH, then she deserves credit for rejuvenating and raising the ratings at Y&R.
In this era where everyone can instantly post their comments - both negative and positive - on social media, JFP definitely gets attacked almost daily.
It's just the nature of the business and the reality of what the genre has become.
And sure, JFP has made many mistakes in her 30-plus years in the industry, but I think she gets a bad rap.
Maybe part of it is because she's a woman.
While other EP's certainly get their lion's share of criticism, it almost seems like JFP gets an unfair amount of it.
I plead guilty to that myself.
But what actually sparked my desire to write this column was a post on the We Love Soaps website that flashbacked to when JFP was hired four years ago and what her plans were for Y&R.
Whatever you think of her, whatever you think of this current incarnation of Y&R, JFP has certainly not deconstructed the show. She has pretty much honored its history and provided the genre with the best soap opera there is in this current climate where soaps have been reduced to a shell of their former selves.
The throwback interview made me think of JFP's overall contribution to the genre, not just her mistakes - the admitted ones and those she doesn't admit blame for - and made me look at her career in an entirely different light.
While I wouldn't say she is the best executive producer to ever helm a soap, she is by far not the worst one and gets far more criticism than her male counterparts who are currently destroying both GH and Days of Our LIves.
To me, JFP's overall contributions to the genre are not just solid, they're actually rather fairly good. Even her work on Santa Barbara, which I admittedly hardly ever watched, was much better than previous and subsequent regimes produced before the show was cancelled in 1993.
JFP isn't perfect.
But come on, who is?
In the overall scheme of things, she produces a solid product and has often times been in charge of shows that were innovative, exciting, and, often times, brilliant.
I get that she isn't everyone's favorite showrunner, but when reviewing her career, her accomplishments in the industry definitely outweigh her mistakes.
I certainly expect the overall positive tone of this blog to get dissected and attacked on many levels
Abd that's OK. I look forward to hearing what others think of her and this is simply my opinion.
Admittedly, GH wasn't a good fit for her. Y&R, however, has certainly proven - like her stints at GL and AW - that she is a creative individual who can navigate the tricky soap waters to a calmer and better place.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Miss USA 2016 Contenders Emerge After Presentation Show
Going into Wednesday night's Miss USA presentation show, I thought this would be one of the most competitive pageants in history.
Following the parade of states, I was sure of it.
I had no less than 24 states written down as potential winners, on just the basis of facial beauty alone.
However, as the evening progressed, many of those fell to the wayside and several legitimate contenders for the crown emerged.
That's not to say that this year's pageant, which will be televised on Fox from 7-10 Sunday evening, won't still be competitive, as I still have difficulty in choosing an ultimate winner, but let's just say I've definitely narrowed the field down some now.
Some of my early favorites, based solely on headshots and videos up to this point, continue to be strong. Those would include Michigan, Virginia and Hawaii.
Others - such as Texas, Maryland and Georgia - have dropped significantly from where I had placed them in previous power rankings. In fact, a few - including Pennsylvania, Ohio and Iowa - have dropped off my radar entirely. Still, others like Georgia and Utah are now iffy, rather than slam dunks.
Without any further ado, here's my overview of the presentation show categories.
SWIMSUITS -
Since Miss USA is the ultimate beauty pageant, you would expect the swimsuits to be ultra competitive.
The Class of 2016 did not disappoint, as the majority of the contestants looked tremendous. What I particularly liked was the variety of suits the young women had to choose from, which definitely allowed them to accentuate their diverse body types.
My top five in this category - which was by far tougher to narrow down as compared to the evening gown segment - were:
1. MICHIGAN
2. HAWAII
3. WISCONSIN
4. VIRGINIA
5. TENNESSEE
Of note, is that Virginia has a muscular body type, which may not appeal to all judges, but certainly was toned down from when she competed at Miss America three years ago. Personally, I loved her in both national competitions, and I believe she should be rewarded - not penalized - for being so physically fit.
Also, my voting was close and I thought Massachusetts, Texas, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota and Missouri slayed this segment, too.
EVENING GOWN -
My first impression of this category was that less is definitely more when it comes to evening gown. With the exception of Hawaii, whose gown I loved, but could be considered a tad 'too much,' the delegates who went classic and with simple lines impressed me way more than those who, perhaps, thought outside the box, but went way too over the top for a pageant.
Yes, New York, I'm talking to you. But, I really could be talking to about half of the delegates in what I thought, overall, was one of the worst evening gown preliminaries I've seen in ages.
Shoulder pads may be coming back, but they certainly didn't look good on you, Miss Georgia. The half sleeve may be in, but I'm not a fan, and it cost several - including one of my faves, Miss Minnesota, precious points in this competition.
And note to blondes, with a particular shoutout to Miss Mississippi, pink is generally not a good color for you.
Also, whoever thought the simply gorgeous Miss Colorado looked good in the monstrosity she wore ought to be shot. For pageants, again, less is definitely more, which Hawaii aside, is why my top gowns were all classic looking ones.
Miss Hawaii looked Miss Universe ready in her stunning white lace gown, which was a tad over the top, but seemed to fit her personality to a T.
She was one of my faves, again. However, my top gown prize of the night went to Miss South Carolina, who looked ready for the Academy Awards in her classic black gown.
My top five in gown were:
1. South Carolina
2. Virginia
3. Hawaii
4. Tennessee
5. Wisconsin.
I also liked Arkansas, DC, Maine and Oregon in this category, but with a few notable exceptions, namely Oklahoma, Missouri and Nevada, the gowns were abysmal.
A couple of other notes from this competition: I have no words on how to explain Miss Ohio's gown, but to say what animal did they kill and put at the bottom of her gown and what kind of fashion statement were they trying to make?
Also, Miss Illinois had a stunning gown and great swimsuit, but her inability to walk in either competition will make her a clapper on Sunday night.
And two other notes here: an extremely poor choice in gown selection by Miss Maryland could keep her out of the running altogether. As for another one of my pre-pageant faves, Miss Michigan, you were fierce in swimsuit, but a lackluster gown choice may cost you the crown.
Though in retrospect, I did think the reigning Miss USA, Olivia Jordan, had lost her shot at the title last year in that pink, bubblegum "Gone With the Wind" gown she wore and it didn't hurt her any, so maybe Miss Michigan will be fine, as her gown wasn't bad, it simply wasn't what I would put one of the favorites for the crown in. In a sea of over-the-top gowns, it was simply a little too underwhelming.
Which, again in retrospect, may end up being a good thing.
In trying to come up with a top 15, interviews must be taken into consideration and we don't get to see that round of the preliminary competition. Still, I feel I've watched enough of the videos the organization has put up on its website in the past few weeks to give me at least a fighting chance in selecting an elite group of semi-finalists.
So here goes:
15. Texas - She's Miss Texas, need I say more than that.
14. Oregon - My surprise sleeper of the pageant, think she could surprise even more so and possibly advance to the 10.
13. Massachusetts - Wasn't overly impressed with her gown, but she did enough in both categories to make the first cut.
12. Maryland - A great swimsuit, pageant resume and video may rank her higher than this, but her awful gown choice could actually put her lower.
11. Maine - Another dark horse, there was something about her that I liked and stood out to me, a certain freshness in both categories that could stand her in good stead with the judges.
Also, the gimmick that was Miss 52 comes into play here. Chosen by the organization and a separate panel of judges to compete following a fan vote last month, Alex actually did enough, I think, to get into the 15 and surely the powers that be will slide her through at least the first round, which would negate one of my above selections.
Also, if any of these overall choices falter in interview, look for Idaho, Oklahoma or South Carolina to pick up the slack.
10. Missouri - Extremely consistent in both categories Wednesday and has TV broadcasting experience that should help her in interview.
9. District of Columbia - Gorgeous gown and a great story and military background should help her.
8. Colorado - Save not having the pageant resume, the same things apply to this beauty that I just wrote about Maryland. Has the USA look, though.
7. Minnesota - Despite the gown choice, think that she, too, will advance.
6. Nevada - Loved the gown, the face and the confidence.
MY TOP 5 -
You could really pick any at this point so am just going to list them alphabetically.
HAWAII - Rocking body, great gown, facially not as strong, but not lacking in that department, either.
MICHIGAN - Putting her up here despite my reservations on the gown. Best swimsuit, tall and confident. Leaning toward her, tho only ever so slightly over Wisconsin, as my winner. And that could easily change.
TENNESSEE - Overlooked by many, she is regal and classy and had a fun video. Being 19 might hurt her, tho. Think she's been underestimated.
VIRGINIA - Smart, fit and fashion savvy, she has never left my top five.
WISCONSIN - Would have preferred she wore her hair entirely down for at least a portion of the evening, but that shouldn't stop her from being Michigan and Virginia 's strongest obstacle to winning the crown. And in her defense, she had a ponytail in swimsuit and really had to wear her hair up for evening gown. Either winner or first runner-up.
Following the parade of states, I was sure of it.
I had no less than 24 states written down as potential winners, on just the basis of facial beauty alone.
However, as the evening progressed, many of those fell to the wayside and several legitimate contenders for the crown emerged.
That's not to say that this year's pageant, which will be televised on Fox from 7-10 Sunday evening, won't still be competitive, as I still have difficulty in choosing an ultimate winner, but let's just say I've definitely narrowed the field down some now.
Some of my early favorites, based solely on headshots and videos up to this point, continue to be strong. Those would include Michigan, Virginia and Hawaii.
Others - such as Texas, Maryland and Georgia - have dropped significantly from where I had placed them in previous power rankings. In fact, a few - including Pennsylvania, Ohio and Iowa - have dropped off my radar entirely. Still, others like Georgia and Utah are now iffy, rather than slam dunks.
Without any further ado, here's my overview of the presentation show categories.
SWIMSUITS -
Since Miss USA is the ultimate beauty pageant, you would expect the swimsuits to be ultra competitive.
The Class of 2016 did not disappoint, as the majority of the contestants looked tremendous. What I particularly liked was the variety of suits the young women had to choose from, which definitely allowed them to accentuate their diverse body types.
My top five in this category - which was by far tougher to narrow down as compared to the evening gown segment - were:
1. MICHIGAN
2. HAWAII
3. WISCONSIN
4. VIRGINIA
5. TENNESSEE
Of note, is that Virginia has a muscular body type, which may not appeal to all judges, but certainly was toned down from when she competed at Miss America three years ago. Personally, I loved her in both national competitions, and I believe she should be rewarded - not penalized - for being so physically fit.
Also, my voting was close and I thought Massachusetts, Texas, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota and Missouri slayed this segment, too.
EVENING GOWN -
My first impression of this category was that less is definitely more when it comes to evening gown. With the exception of Hawaii, whose gown I loved, but could be considered a tad 'too much,' the delegates who went classic and with simple lines impressed me way more than those who, perhaps, thought outside the box, but went way too over the top for a pageant.
Yes, New York, I'm talking to you. But, I really could be talking to about half of the delegates in what I thought, overall, was one of the worst evening gown preliminaries I've seen in ages.
Shoulder pads may be coming back, but they certainly didn't look good on you, Miss Georgia. The half sleeve may be in, but I'm not a fan, and it cost several - including one of my faves, Miss Minnesota, precious points in this competition.
And note to blondes, with a particular shoutout to Miss Mississippi, pink is generally not a good color for you.
Also, whoever thought the simply gorgeous Miss Colorado looked good in the monstrosity she wore ought to be shot. For pageants, again, less is definitely more, which Hawaii aside, is why my top gowns were all classic looking ones.
Miss Hawaii looked Miss Universe ready in her stunning white lace gown, which was a tad over the top, but seemed to fit her personality to a T.
She was one of my faves, again. However, my top gown prize of the night went to Miss South Carolina, who looked ready for the Academy Awards in her classic black gown.
My top five in gown were:
1. South Carolina
2. Virginia
3. Hawaii
4. Tennessee
5. Wisconsin.
I also liked Arkansas, DC, Maine and Oregon in this category, but with a few notable exceptions, namely Oklahoma, Missouri and Nevada, the gowns were abysmal.
A couple of other notes from this competition: I have no words on how to explain Miss Ohio's gown, but to say what animal did they kill and put at the bottom of her gown and what kind of fashion statement were they trying to make?
Also, Miss Illinois had a stunning gown and great swimsuit, but her inability to walk in either competition will make her a clapper on Sunday night.
And two other notes here: an extremely poor choice in gown selection by Miss Maryland could keep her out of the running altogether. As for another one of my pre-pageant faves, Miss Michigan, you were fierce in swimsuit, but a lackluster gown choice may cost you the crown.
Though in retrospect, I did think the reigning Miss USA, Olivia Jordan, had lost her shot at the title last year in that pink, bubblegum "Gone With the Wind" gown she wore and it didn't hurt her any, so maybe Miss Michigan will be fine, as her gown wasn't bad, it simply wasn't what I would put one of the favorites for the crown in. In a sea of over-the-top gowns, it was simply a little too underwhelming.
Which, again in retrospect, may end up being a good thing.
In trying to come up with a top 15, interviews must be taken into consideration and we don't get to see that round of the preliminary competition. Still, I feel I've watched enough of the videos the organization has put up on its website in the past few weeks to give me at least a fighting chance in selecting an elite group of semi-finalists.
So here goes:
15. Texas - She's Miss Texas, need I say more than that.
14. Oregon - My surprise sleeper of the pageant, think she could surprise even more so and possibly advance to the 10.
13. Massachusetts - Wasn't overly impressed with her gown, but she did enough in both categories to make the first cut.
12. Maryland - A great swimsuit, pageant resume and video may rank her higher than this, but her awful gown choice could actually put her lower.
11. Maine - Another dark horse, there was something about her that I liked and stood out to me, a certain freshness in both categories that could stand her in good stead with the judges.
Also, the gimmick that was Miss 52 comes into play here. Chosen by the organization and a separate panel of judges to compete following a fan vote last month, Alex actually did enough, I think, to get into the 15 and surely the powers that be will slide her through at least the first round, which would negate one of my above selections.
Also, if any of these overall choices falter in interview, look for Idaho, Oklahoma or South Carolina to pick up the slack.
10. Missouri - Extremely consistent in both categories Wednesday and has TV broadcasting experience that should help her in interview.
9. District of Columbia - Gorgeous gown and a great story and military background should help her.
8. Colorado - Save not having the pageant resume, the same things apply to this beauty that I just wrote about Maryland. Has the USA look, though.
7. Minnesota - Despite the gown choice, think that she, too, will advance.
6. Nevada - Loved the gown, the face and the confidence.
MY TOP 5 -
You could really pick any at this point so am just going to list them alphabetically.
HAWAII - Rocking body, great gown, facially not as strong, but not lacking in that department, either.
MICHIGAN - Putting her up here despite my reservations on the gown. Best swimsuit, tall and confident. Leaning toward her, tho only ever so slightly over Wisconsin, as my winner. And that could easily change.
TENNESSEE - Overlooked by many, she is regal and classy and had a fun video. Being 19 might hurt her, tho. Think she's been underestimated.
VIRGINIA - Smart, fit and fashion savvy, she has never left my top five.
WISCONSIN - Would have preferred she wore her hair entirely down for at least a portion of the evening, but that shouldn't stop her from being Michigan and Virginia 's strongest obstacle to winning the crown. And in her defense, she had a ponytail in swimsuit and really had to wear her hair up for evening gown. Either winner or first runner-up.
Sunday, May 8, 2016
My Pre-arrival Picks for Miss USA 2016
So many choices, but only one crown.
With less than a month to go before Miss USA 2016 is crowned, this is a good time to sit back and speculate on who might be wearing the rhinestone-studded crown when the winner is chosen in Las Vegas on Sunday, June 5.
With so many photos and videos already on the internet, it's easier than ever to narrow it down somewhat even before the preliminary panel of judges select 15 or 16 semifinalists to compete on the live Fox telecast of the Pageant.
Keeping in mind that the Pageant has come up with a gimmicky twist this year (Umm. I'll save my opinion on that one for my post-pageant review.) and is allowing a 52nd contestant to compete via an online contest that recently concluded, this list is in no way gospel. Rather, it's simply my compilation of the state delegates who I think have the best chance at becoming the 65th Miss USA. I tried to keep it to 20, but went with 22 cuz the field is so strong this year, reminiscent to me of only four other years in my memory, 2011, 1995, 1980 and the strongest year ever, I think, which would be 1978.
The Absolute Contenders -
These are the ones, pre-arrival, who I think have the strongest shot at the crown. All of my lists are in alphabetical order.
DC - Not only is she gorgeous, but she's in the military to boot and since the Pageant is putting a lot of emphasis on videos and stories since moving to Fox, I think she's a strong possibility.
HAWAII - Every year I choose someone as soon as they win their title as having the look and Hawaii is it for me this year. Killer body and even though she's now put blonde streaks in that black hair, it hasn't swayed my opinion of her in the least.
NEW JERSEY - A blonde bombshell with possibly the best body of all heading into Vegas.
OHIO - A stunning redhead among a sea of blondes and brunettes, she will definitely stand out. Plus, I love her perseverance she displayed as it took her nine years to win her state crown.
PENNSYLVANIA - See Hawaii and DC for comments that put her on my contention list. Loved her from the start and has a definite story since she is hearing impaired. Also, just being gorgeous doesn't hurt.
TEXAS - Didn't put her up there because of the sash, tho being from the state that has produced the most Miss USA winners doesn't necessarily hurt, either.
UTAH - Love her first name - Teale - but beyond that she's beautiful and at 26 very mature, which should help her with the final question.
VIRGINIA - Another one of my absolute faves with a toned body to die for, this firmer Miss America contestant has really glammed it up since her MAO days and may be the best speaker of them all.
STRONG POSSIBILITIES -
The following could definiteky take the title, IMHO.
ALABAMA - It's hard to leave out a state that's placed consecutively the past six years and she is one of the most improved since winning her state title.
GEORGIA - Another state with a great track record, although they've never won the crown. Wholesome and down to earth and liked her personality in her video.
IDAHO - Definitely not from a pageant state, but like her look a lot, nonetheless.
MICHIGAN - Very strong possibility, so much so I seriously considered putting her in my contender tier.
MISSOURI - Another great speaker who always looks confident and poised on stage.
NEVADA - Another state with a good recent track record - and a former Miss USA - as its director, this year's titleholder should be just as strong as recent winners from the Silver State.
THOSE WITH A DEFINITE SHOT -
The last list are those who I've gone back and forth on in the past few months, but who's stock I think is definitely on the rise heading into Vegas. While they may not have always been consistent in photos, interviews and such since their state crownings, they have definitely impressed me enough to at least give them a solid chance at the 16 and even a possibility of winning the crown.
CONNECTICUT
IOWA
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
SOUTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE (My photogenic winner for sure, but once I hear her speak, I immediately drop her lower on my list. But since this is unequivocally a beauty pageant, that may not matter.)
WEST VIRGINIA (Another strong Photogenic possibility.)
WISCONSIN (My sleeper pick, just something I really like about her.)
Of course, this list could - and probably will - change once the preliminary presentation show is held June 1 and they all compete in swimsuit and evening gown, but for now I feel this is a pretty comprehensive prediction of those I expect to see in the semi-finals come June 5.
With less than a month to go before Miss USA 2016 is crowned, this is a good time to sit back and speculate on who might be wearing the rhinestone-studded crown when the winner is chosen in Las Vegas on Sunday, June 5.
With so many photos and videos already on the internet, it's easier than ever to narrow it down somewhat even before the preliminary panel of judges select 15 or 16 semifinalists to compete on the live Fox telecast of the Pageant.
Keeping in mind that the Pageant has come up with a gimmicky twist this year (Umm. I'll save my opinion on that one for my post-pageant review.) and is allowing a 52nd contestant to compete via an online contest that recently concluded, this list is in no way gospel. Rather, it's simply my compilation of the state delegates who I think have the best chance at becoming the 65th Miss USA. I tried to keep it to 20, but went with 22 cuz the field is so strong this year, reminiscent to me of only four other years in my memory, 2011, 1995, 1980 and the strongest year ever, I think, which would be 1978.
The Absolute Contenders -
These are the ones, pre-arrival, who I think have the strongest shot at the crown. All of my lists are in alphabetical order.
DC - Not only is she gorgeous, but she's in the military to boot and since the Pageant is putting a lot of emphasis on videos and stories since moving to Fox, I think she's a strong possibility.
HAWAII - Every year I choose someone as soon as they win their title as having the look and Hawaii is it for me this year. Killer body and even though she's now put blonde streaks in that black hair, it hasn't swayed my opinion of her in the least.
NEW JERSEY - A blonde bombshell with possibly the best body of all heading into Vegas.
OHIO - A stunning redhead among a sea of blondes and brunettes, she will definitely stand out. Plus, I love her perseverance she displayed as it took her nine years to win her state crown.
PENNSYLVANIA - See Hawaii and DC for comments that put her on my contention list. Loved her from the start and has a definite story since she is hearing impaired. Also, just being gorgeous doesn't hurt.
TEXAS - Didn't put her up there because of the sash, tho being from the state that has produced the most Miss USA winners doesn't necessarily hurt, either.
UTAH - Love her first name - Teale - but beyond that she's beautiful and at 26 very mature, which should help her with the final question.
VIRGINIA - Another one of my absolute faves with a toned body to die for, this firmer Miss America contestant has really glammed it up since her MAO days and may be the best speaker of them all.
STRONG POSSIBILITIES -
The following could definiteky take the title, IMHO.
ALABAMA - It's hard to leave out a state that's placed consecutively the past six years and she is one of the most improved since winning her state title.
GEORGIA - Another state with a great track record, although they've never won the crown. Wholesome and down to earth and liked her personality in her video.
IDAHO - Definitely not from a pageant state, but like her look a lot, nonetheless.
MICHIGAN - Very strong possibility, so much so I seriously considered putting her in my contender tier.
MISSOURI - Another great speaker who always looks confident and poised on stage.
NEVADA - Another state with a good recent track record - and a former Miss USA - as its director, this year's titleholder should be just as strong as recent winners from the Silver State.
THOSE WITH A DEFINITE SHOT -
The last list are those who I've gone back and forth on in the past few months, but who's stock I think is definitely on the rise heading into Vegas. While they may not have always been consistent in photos, interviews and such since their state crownings, they have definitely impressed me enough to at least give them a solid chance at the 16 and even a possibility of winning the crown.
CONNECTICUT
IOWA
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
SOUTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE (My photogenic winner for sure, but once I hear her speak, I immediately drop her lower on my list. But since this is unequivocally a beauty pageant, that may not matter.)
WEST VIRGINIA (Another strong Photogenic possibility.)
WISCONSIN (My sleeper pick, just something I really like about her.)
Of course, this list could - and probably will - change once the preliminary presentation show is held June 1 and they all compete in swimsuit and evening gown, but for now I feel this is a pretty comprehensive prediction of those I expect to see in the semi-finals come June 5.
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Why Soaps Are DOA and Beyond Resuscitation
People want to blame the real-life soap opera that was the O.J. Simpson trial for the demise of the real soap opera.
That's just too easy.
That's just a cop out.
In reality, the genre that once had as many soaps as 19 on the airwaves is now down to four.
And that number might be two - maybe even three - too many.
As a lifelong soap fan, who has defended the genre to anyone who would listen, I'm ready to surrender.
And I'm ready to place the blame squarely where it belongs.
Sure, the O.J. trial, which pre-empted soaps for months in 1995, didn't help the genre.
Certainly, the onslaught of cable channels that continue to hit the airwaves hasn't benefitted soaps.
But the main reason that the once burgeoning American soap opera has all but become extinct is more complicated.
Actually, maybe it's not complicated at all.
The advent of focus groups, many of which consisted of people who never even watched a show, more rapidly contributed to the demise of the genre than O.J did.
The interference of network and studio executives who told TPTB what to do was destructive to the genre.
And the hiring and then continued shuffling of the same writers and producers who never were good to begin with put the final nail in the genre's coffin.
Ratings for the remaining four soaps - save The Young and the Restless - are horrendous.
And for good reason.
The remaining three soaps are disasters.
And, I think at least two of them are way beyond saving.
A closer look at those three shows will tell you why the industry is DOA and beyond resuscitation.
Let's look at General Hospital first.
Once the crown jewel of the entire industry, the show is a parody of its former self.
No matter who produces or writes the show reverts it back to the Mob.
It's a story about a Hospital, not a mafia show.
Maybe former Executive Producer Gloria Monty, she of the creator of Luke and Laura fame, she who saved the show from certain cancellation and rejuvenated the genre some 38 years ago, is really to blame.
Monty immediately quickened GH's pace, took the show out of the hospital and onto location and gave us iconic characters. Ratings soared and other shows followed suit.
Now, almost four decades later, the same ingredients Monty used to save GH may have contributed to its untimely demise.
Expanding soaps to a hour in 1975 also may have hurt the industry, but the main cause of GH's problems and with the genre in general is that the networks - desperate to boost ratings and revenue - have interfered to the point of no return.
GH - with its uneven pacing and emphasis on numerable actors who were hits on other shows - is now maybe the most unwatchable of the four remaining soaps.
Getting rid of talents like Emmy winners Michelle Stafford and Roger Howarth - as well as eliminating those with no talent at all, Hayley Erin (Kiki) comes to mind - would certainly improve the show, but wouldn't cure it's ultimate ailment.
While, I love Stafford and Howarth as performers, I could care less about their characters.
And that is the underlying problem at GH.
There are way too many characters who no one cares about on the show.
Bringing back Michael Easton for the umpteenth time in his umpteenth character isn't doing anything to help the show.
The return of the legendary Genie Francis as Laura could have helped the show, but, to date, TPTB have given her nothing interesting to do.
By that, I mean romance.
Soaps used to be about romance, romance and family.
GH was a hit not because of its outlandish plots, but because of its romantic couplings and the families of Port Charles.
Now, the Webbers are all but gone, the Quartermaines barely exist and the show is a disjointed mess. I never can get through an entire hour without either changing the channel or falling asleep.
Sometimes both.
As bad as GH is, Days of Our Lives may be even worse.
I say that because at least GH honored its history during its 50th anniversary three years ago.
Days, instead, totally slapped its fans in the face with their 50th anniversary celebration late last year.
Sure, they brought back a few fan favorites like Peter Reckell (Bo) and Stephen Nichols (Patch) and gave the latter and his splendid on-screen partner Mary Beth Evans ( Kayla) their first real story in years.
Unfortunately, that was amid a bloodbath of serial killings, rapes, other convoluted murders and deaths and drug addiction
The temporary ratings spike Days received during its 50th anniversary month has now evaporated.
And that's because the show is so damn dark, so ridiculously paced and plotted and overall simply umbearable to watch that I can only hope NBC puts it out of its misery when its recently signed extension contract expires a year from September.
Hiring novice actors to play legacy characters who were aged overnight didn't help the show.
Putting them front and center only showed how glaringly bad the writing and the acting is from the newcomers.
Rehiring writers who have never achieved ratings success on other shows - countered by network interference - have ultimately been the real reasons that both GH and Days are horrendous.
Maybe a Hogan Sheffer or Lorraine Broderick or Pamela Long or Claire Labine could save these shows. But even that is questionable, as the networks and sponsors won't let capable writers do what at least these four Emmy winning writers have proven they can do, which is write.
Maybe that's the real reason the networks recycle the mediocre writers because they can more easily influence them.
In fact, I'm sure that's the reason they keep the same old, same old.
Of course, there are still writers who can write, such as The Bold and the Beautiful's Brad Bell.
Unfortunately, of late, he just hasn't been doing that.
To be fair, B&B was coming off a terrific season where Bell was brilliant and no one can expect any writer to maintain excellence 100 percent of the time.
But still, the show that gave us the tremendous Maya transgender storyline last year has now turned into a muddling, recycled storyline mess in the past eight months.
Time will tell whether B&B can rebound, but right now, the show is a shell of its former self.
And that's not a good thing even for a show that is widely popular worldwide and can probably survive longer than the others for that reason alone.
That brings us to the only show that I think should survive, The Young and the Restless.
Not that Y&R is perfect or that it's anywhere near what it was in its heyday, but it is certainly in much better shape than any other soap currently on the air.
And who would have guessed that a Chuck Pratt incarnation of Y&R would be the best the genre has to offer?
When Pratt was hired to scribe Y&R some 18 months ago, I was terrified.
Pratt was the same guy who turned All My Children into a complete mess and helped seal its cancellation. So, I didn't hold out much hope for a then-floundering Y&R.
Despite a few clunkers like the Jack/Marco dual role and Neil kidnaps Hilary storylines and a myriad of sweeps disaster stunts, Pratt has proven golden at Y&R.
He is actually the first head writer since the legendary Bill Bell who really understands the Jack/Victor history and writes to it, giving the masterful Eric Braeden his best material in years.
And the continued coupling of the best supercouple to come along in years, the Adam/Chelsea pairing, has helped make his other glaring blunders at least bearable.
I would still like to see a more balanced Y&R, I would still like to see the show keep its next generation of legacy characters like Kyle and Noah on the canvas, but Y&R is at least entertaining, at least watchable and definitely showing potential to survive in an era where I feel the other shows just can't - or won't survive.
Overall, the soap landscape is in critical condition. I don't see that changing.
And that's because the same focus groups, the same network executives and the same people who helped contribute to its demise continue to dominate and continue to destroy the genre.
For a soap fan who grew up watching the genre in its golden days and who wayched the splendid Another World, The Edge of Night or the Days and Y&R of the 70s, that's sad.
I remember the brilliant story telling, the tremendous couplings and the overall excellence the genre once provided its fans.
What's even sadder than the genre reaching the point of no return is that I can no longer defend it and would rather see it disappear completely rather than continue in its current form.
That's just too easy.
That's just a cop out.
In reality, the genre that once had as many soaps as 19 on the airwaves is now down to four.
And that number might be two - maybe even three - too many.
As a lifelong soap fan, who has defended the genre to anyone who would listen, I'm ready to surrender.
And I'm ready to place the blame squarely where it belongs.
Sure, the O.J. trial, which pre-empted soaps for months in 1995, didn't help the genre.
Certainly, the onslaught of cable channels that continue to hit the airwaves hasn't benefitted soaps.
But the main reason that the once burgeoning American soap opera has all but become extinct is more complicated.
Actually, maybe it's not complicated at all.
The advent of focus groups, many of which consisted of people who never even watched a show, more rapidly contributed to the demise of the genre than O.J did.
The interference of network and studio executives who told TPTB what to do was destructive to the genre.
And the hiring and then continued shuffling of the same writers and producers who never were good to begin with put the final nail in the genre's coffin.
Ratings for the remaining four soaps - save The Young and the Restless - are horrendous.
And for good reason.
The remaining three soaps are disasters.
And, I think at least two of them are way beyond saving.
A closer look at those three shows will tell you why the industry is DOA and beyond resuscitation.
Let's look at General Hospital first.
Once the crown jewel of the entire industry, the show is a parody of its former self.
No matter who produces or writes the show reverts it back to the Mob.
It's a story about a Hospital, not a mafia show.
Maybe former Executive Producer Gloria Monty, she of the creator of Luke and Laura fame, she who saved the show from certain cancellation and rejuvenated the genre some 38 years ago, is really to blame.
Monty immediately quickened GH's pace, took the show out of the hospital and onto location and gave us iconic characters. Ratings soared and other shows followed suit.
Now, almost four decades later, the same ingredients Monty used to save GH may have contributed to its untimely demise.
Expanding soaps to a hour in 1975 also may have hurt the industry, but the main cause of GH's problems and with the genre in general is that the networks - desperate to boost ratings and revenue - have interfered to the point of no return.
GH - with its uneven pacing and emphasis on numerable actors who were hits on other shows - is now maybe the most unwatchable of the four remaining soaps.
Getting rid of talents like Emmy winners Michelle Stafford and Roger Howarth - as well as eliminating those with no talent at all, Hayley Erin (Kiki) comes to mind - would certainly improve the show, but wouldn't cure it's ultimate ailment.
While, I love Stafford and Howarth as performers, I could care less about their characters.
And that is the underlying problem at GH.
There are way too many characters who no one cares about on the show.
Bringing back Michael Easton for the umpteenth time in his umpteenth character isn't doing anything to help the show.
The return of the legendary Genie Francis as Laura could have helped the show, but, to date, TPTB have given her nothing interesting to do.
By that, I mean romance.
Soaps used to be about romance, romance and family.
GH was a hit not because of its outlandish plots, but because of its romantic couplings and the families of Port Charles.
Now, the Webbers are all but gone, the Quartermaines barely exist and the show is a disjointed mess. I never can get through an entire hour without either changing the channel or falling asleep.
Sometimes both.
As bad as GH is, Days of Our Lives may be even worse.
I say that because at least GH honored its history during its 50th anniversary three years ago.
Days, instead, totally slapped its fans in the face with their 50th anniversary celebration late last year.
Sure, they brought back a few fan favorites like Peter Reckell (Bo) and Stephen Nichols (Patch) and gave the latter and his splendid on-screen partner Mary Beth Evans ( Kayla) their first real story in years.
Unfortunately, that was amid a bloodbath of serial killings, rapes, other convoluted murders and deaths and drug addiction
The temporary ratings spike Days received during its 50th anniversary month has now evaporated.
And that's because the show is so damn dark, so ridiculously paced and plotted and overall simply umbearable to watch that I can only hope NBC puts it out of its misery when its recently signed extension contract expires a year from September.
Hiring novice actors to play legacy characters who were aged overnight didn't help the show.
Putting them front and center only showed how glaringly bad the writing and the acting is from the newcomers.
Rehiring writers who have never achieved ratings success on other shows - countered by network interference - have ultimately been the real reasons that both GH and Days are horrendous.
Maybe a Hogan Sheffer or Lorraine Broderick or Pamela Long or Claire Labine could save these shows. But even that is questionable, as the networks and sponsors won't let capable writers do what at least these four Emmy winning writers have proven they can do, which is write.
Maybe that's the real reason the networks recycle the mediocre writers because they can more easily influence them.
In fact, I'm sure that's the reason they keep the same old, same old.
Of course, there are still writers who can write, such as The Bold and the Beautiful's Brad Bell.
Unfortunately, of late, he just hasn't been doing that.
To be fair, B&B was coming off a terrific season where Bell was brilliant and no one can expect any writer to maintain excellence 100 percent of the time.
But still, the show that gave us the tremendous Maya transgender storyline last year has now turned into a muddling, recycled storyline mess in the past eight months.
Time will tell whether B&B can rebound, but right now, the show is a shell of its former self.
And that's not a good thing even for a show that is widely popular worldwide and can probably survive longer than the others for that reason alone.
That brings us to the only show that I think should survive, The Young and the Restless.
Not that Y&R is perfect or that it's anywhere near what it was in its heyday, but it is certainly in much better shape than any other soap currently on the air.
And who would have guessed that a Chuck Pratt incarnation of Y&R would be the best the genre has to offer?
When Pratt was hired to scribe Y&R some 18 months ago, I was terrified.
Pratt was the same guy who turned All My Children into a complete mess and helped seal its cancellation. So, I didn't hold out much hope for a then-floundering Y&R.
Despite a few clunkers like the Jack/Marco dual role and Neil kidnaps Hilary storylines and a myriad of sweeps disaster stunts, Pratt has proven golden at Y&R.
He is actually the first head writer since the legendary Bill Bell who really understands the Jack/Victor history and writes to it, giving the masterful Eric Braeden his best material in years.
And the continued coupling of the best supercouple to come along in years, the Adam/Chelsea pairing, has helped make his other glaring blunders at least bearable.
I would still like to see a more balanced Y&R, I would still like to see the show keep its next generation of legacy characters like Kyle and Noah on the canvas, but Y&R is at least entertaining, at least watchable and definitely showing potential to survive in an era where I feel the other shows just can't - or won't survive.
Overall, the soap landscape is in critical condition. I don't see that changing.
And that's because the same focus groups, the same network executives and the same people who helped contribute to its demise continue to dominate and continue to destroy the genre.
For a soap fan who grew up watching the genre in its golden days and who wayched the splendid Another World, The Edge of Night or the Days and Y&R of the 70s, that's sad.
I remember the brilliant story telling, the tremendous couplings and the overall excellence the genre once provided its fans.
What's even sadder than the genre reaching the point of no return is that I can no longer defend it and would rather see it disappear completely rather than continue in its current form.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
WHICH LEAD PERFORMERS WILL HOIST THIS YEAR'S DAYTIME EMMY?
The biggest Daytime Emmy categories of the evening are always the lead ones.
In the past such daytime icons as Erika Slezak, Anthony Geary, and yes, Susan Lucci, have hoisted that golden trophy.
Who will join these legends as Emmy winners?
The categories are tough and filled with previous winners such as Geary, Finola Hughes, Maura West and Kristoff St. John, who could become the first actor to win an Emmy in all three acting categories.
Here are the nominees, what they submitted and who I would vote for and not necessarily who I think might win.
Outstanding Lead Actor -
In the past such daytime icons as Erika Slezak, Anthony Geary, and yes, Susan Lucci, have hoisted that golden trophy.
Who will join these legends as Emmy winners?
The categories are tough and filled with previous winners such as Geary, Finola Hughes, Maura West and Kristoff St. John, who could become the first actor to win an Emmy in all three acting categories.
Here are the nominees, what they submitted and who I would vote for and not necessarily who I think might win.
Outstanding Lead Actor -
TYLER CHRISTOPHER (Nikolas, General Hospital.) Hugely powerful reel dealing with the aftermath of Spencer's accident. Wish, though, Christopher had submitted an additional reel to show his range, as Nikolas went from the sympathetic character we see in this reel to a cold, conniving evildoer as the year progressed.
ANTHONY GEARY (Luke, General Hospital.) Submitted the 52nd anniversary episode where he played his father as well as Luke. As Luke is dealing with finally remembering how his mother was killed - Luke did it - Geary was spectacular, in both roles. Will Geary's exit comments as he left his legendary role in the summer affect voters? He basically lambasted the genre and his iconic co-star Genie Francis (Laura) in the process and it didn't sit well with me or many in the industry. Politics aside, will that cost him his ninth Emmy? And should it? That said, this reel was brilliant.
JUSTIN HARTLEY (Adam, The Young and the Restless.) Between he and Eric Braeden (Victor), Hartley's TV father, who was not nominated and should have been, they gave the overall performances of the year. However, the Emmys are given out on the basis of one - or two - reels, so this is what Hartley has to contend with. The big reveal that Adam wasn't dead was one of the pivotal moments of Y&R last year and Hartley is subdued, but yet terrifically nuanced with the reveal. And Melissa Clair Egan is equally sublime as Chelsea and should have received her own Emmy nomination. She was the perfect counterpart to Hartley in this reel. The chemistry the two possess only enhances this reel. Another brilliant submission choice.
CHRISTIAN LeBLANC (Michael, The Young and the Restless.) Two reels, the first of which Michael finally deals with having cancer and the second where he hires a prostitute to have sex and ends up telling her why he wants to divorce his wife. Second reel is especially poignant and much stronger than the first.
KRISTOFF ST. JOHN (Neil, The Young and the Restless.) Clocking in at just over five minutes, the shortest of all the reels. The amount of time, though, doesn't diminish the impact of St. John's performance as he confronts his son and wife over their affair. Both episodes deal with the betrayal and maybe he should have submitted a different second reel to show his range.
While I personally am over Geary and his antics, there is no question that he is perfection in his reel and he will probably win, but I'm disgusted with how he treated the show and co-star that made him a star, so in a column where I don't predict the winner, but would say, instead, who I would vote for, here goes:
1. Justin Hartley
2. Anthony Geary
3. Tyler Christopher
4. Christian LeBlanc
5. Kristoff St. John
Am wondering if Emmy voters will vote the same way for the same reasons? We will find out on May 1.
While I personally am over Geary and his antics, there is no question that he is perfection in his reel and he will probably win, but I'm disgusted with how he treated the show and co-star that made him a star, so in a column where I don't predict the winner, but would say, instead, who I would vote for, here goes:
1. Justin Hartley
2. Anthony Geary
3. Tyler Christopher
4. Christian LeBlanc
5. Kristoff St. John
Am wondering if Emmy voters will vote the same way for the same reasons? We will find out on May 1.
Outstanding Lead Actress -
TRACEY BREGMAN (Lauren, The Young and the Restless.) One brief, under five minute reel, that packs a powerful punch as Lauren confronts her husband with her own feelings about his cancer.
KASSIE DePAIVA (Eve, Days of Our Lives.) Two episodes dealing with the death of her daughter, Paige where DePaiva is brilliant at showing Eve's grief and despair. Originally, I thought she should have submitted one reel dealing with the death and the other that was the climax of the Eve/Paige/JJ storyline, but after watching those episodes in Missy Reeves' supporting submission and True O'Brien's younger actress reel, I think Kassie made the right choice, as she owned these two submitted episodes, whereas she was more supporting - yet still outstanding - in their reels.
MARY BETH EVANS (Kayla, Days of Our Lives.) Surprise nominee, only because she was more of a supporting actress for the past year. She was particularly strong in her first reel, but really supporting as she helped Bo deal with his brain tumor. Her second reel was when she and Patch were locked in the closet at the hospital and almost seemed out of place because of the strength of the first reel.
FINOLA HUGHES (Anna, General Hospital.) Like DePaiva and West, Hughes had a wealth of episodes to choose from. Her first reel was the day Duke died, powerful in itself, though I would have gone with the following day's episode, which was meatier and had a superb scene with Obrecht. The second reel was simply Hughes going to town at her psychiatrist's office and perfectly recaps the Duke/Anna love story and Anna's murder of Carlos. All three left the door slightly ajar for the others to win, but, still, this was Hughes at her best.
MAURA WEST (Ava, General Hospital.) The defending champ in this category and, in my opinion, the finest actress currently still in the industry, West could have clinched another win just by submitting her scenes interrogating Sonny in the courtroom during the custody battle. I thought it was odd that she didn't submit that to complement her hugely powerful first reel where she learned she was dying and begged Silas to kill her. Instead, she submitted the episode where it was revealed how Ava survived, rather than died, and West played Denise in the reel, too. In the end, it was a good second reel, as it completely held my attention and told a complete story arc in 17 minutes. West is absolutely sublime.
Had the above-mentioned Egan and Karla Mosely (Maya, The Bold and the Beautiful) been in this race, the outcome might be entirely different, but, that said, here is my final vote.
This race could go one of three ways and I'd be happy with anyone winning the Emmy.
1. Finola Hughes
2. Kassie DePaiva
3. Maura West
4. Mary Beth Evans
5. Tracey Bregman
Pick 'em. 1-2-or-3, they're all that good!
Had the above-mentioned Egan and Karla Mosely (Maya, The Bold and the Beautiful) been in this race, the outcome might be entirely different, but, that said, here is my final vote.
This race could go one of three ways and I'd be happy with anyone winning the Emmy.
1. Finola Hughes
2. Kassie DePaiva
3. Maura West
4. Mary Beth Evans
5. Tracey Bregman
Pick 'em. 1-2-or-3, they're all that good!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)