DRW50

A new official channel for 2012 episodes. https://www.youtube.com/@NeighboursRamsaySt

Barbara never had a good hair day... @Maxim if you ever get to 1993 there's an Opal and Dixie scene you would love.

Finally finished the first of the summer 1966 videos and watched a little of the second. - What exactly is the backstory with the Reynolds family? I got something where Sam had to lie and take the blame for something he didn't do. And Len having a brother. Did the brother die? Was there a fire? - It's funny how these soap blocs of episodes work. I've read so much about Andrea, and about all the Patty Parade, and when a ton of episodes appear, it's with an Andrea I had never even heard of (Virginia Gilmore) and a Patty I mostly knew from a photo in an old soap magazine (Melissa Murphy). I am pretty sure the photo came from one of these episodes as the pose is exact (it's one of her staring into the distance in her nurses' uniform). - Looking through some posts from about 15 years ago I see why a few bits of this are vaguely familiar - saynotoursoap had posted an episode that must be from this same set (the one where Jo vents to Bob about the burden Sam was putting on Patti and talking about how Sam was replacing her relationship with Arthur). - The Patti/Andrea/Jo/Sam/Len story seems one-note on the surface but is surprisingly rich underneath - Jo and Sam on opposite sides, but also on the same side, but Jo struggling to get past her anger toward him over Arthur's death. This all slowly boils under the constant melodrama with Patti, Len and Andrea. I don't really know why Patty even wants Len, given how childish he is (Dino is a good actor though), but I do enjoy seeing her fight what is a constant losing battle against Andrea. - What makes this so delicious to watch is the writing having respect for the characters and for us. Most soaps would write Patty as a fool, with Andrea running rings around her, but Patty clearly knows just how manipulative Andrea is, and even manages to convince those around her who would have given Andrea the benefit of the doubt. This awareness means that you don't just see Patty as a cipher. - Thanks to @Paul Raven we know why Gilmore left (for a teaching position). I am glad to know it was her choice to leave because she's great in these episodes. She's very believable at 'nice nasty,' so you understand why Len is fooled by her. She underplays the poison even when alone. I know nothing of Gilmore or her career, but I'm extremely impressed with her work in this first batch of episodes. - I appreciate how the writing, and most of all the measured work of Mary Stuart, brings out the psychological aspects of the Sam/Len/Andrea mess and the Len/Andrea relationship, without feeling like the characters are reading from a textbook. - This is by far the most I've seen of Stu and Marge together. I'm glad that even with the 15-minute runtime there's enough to allow for glimpses of their married life, natural even as they recap plot. I can see why viewers loved them. I've rarely seen such a simple but effective quasi-comedic duo on a soap, especially in these years. There's a lot of talk these days about "positive masculinity," which unfortunately seems to mean shooting up steroids while listening to Rogan, but we get the real version with Stu. He watches sports (we even see him watching TV - I wonder if we ever see Jo watching TV) and doesn't know what a "boutique" is, but he loves his friends dearly and wears his heart on his sleeve. I'm reminded again and again of just what an understated but brilliant actor Larry Haines is in dramatic moments - just watch his work when he tells Jo that Arthur's land struck saltwater, not oil. Yet Melba Rae matches him beat for beat. - "Junior" is their baby, right? Is this after Janet was off the canvas for a while and their son was made into their nephew? Is the son/nephew already gone? - I notice that Patty and Emily are both full of what used to be called having "pep in your step," or what Marvel used to call "snappy patter." I'm reminded of how Leslie Jackson was the same way on GL in the episodes from around this same time. I think @vetsoapfan or others have mentioned that Alice on AW was portrayed in a similar way early on. I wonder if the P&G soaps were trying to react to the 'youth craze.' - Something else that stands out and which I think is very smart is having the younger set all bursting with life, anxieties, resentments, hopes, dreams, while the older characters are restrained, scarred by the years, but still alive. This is an inverse of soaps in modern decades, where the younger characters often feel much less vibrant than the older characters. - A few days ago, I was reading an old Youtube comment thanking Mary Stuart for how much her work had meant to this viewer, how she had always felt like someone they knew. That's very much on display here. She makes you feel every bit of Jo's inner turmoil, playing the pain so subtly, honestly. This is some juicy melodrama, but Stuart never plays it as such. - Melissa Murphy does a very good job playing all the different sides of Patty, but...silly as it is for me to say she's "wrong" as Patty given how little I've seen of the character, I just don't think she suits as Jo's daughter. She's missing the haunted quality I think makes sense for Patty, and I don't sense a big connection between Murphy and Stuart. - I've said for years that I believe soaps should try a 15-minute format again, and these episodes I would use as a chief example of why. They are able to keep a small canvas and focus almost exclusively on one story, a story that would be exhausting if the show ran for 30 minutes (don't even want to think about an hour). - Of the few stories on display that aren't the big one... - I am very glad to get to see these glimpses of the Allens. As mentioned, I do wonder what plans the show even would have had for them. Were they planning early for a half-hour extension? They seem a bit younger than Jo, Stuart or Marge. I'm not sure if that was intended. I can't see any big couple swap going on here. Maybe Bill would have caused Stuart business trouble? I wish they could have stayed around. I like the idea of the two of them living in Henderson, offcamera, years earlier, having stories with "our" characters that we never saw. (I also feel stupid for thinking their son, played by Bobby Breen, was the child star, as I didn't realize he would have been about 40 at this time) - Does anyone know if the story with Emily dating (?) her college professor was ever an actual story or just something that happened offcamera? - You can see what a disaster is on the way with Emily's love for Nick (and Nick leading her on). On paper, it's a story I'd have a difficult time watching, but there's something I can't look away from in how earnestly Pamela Murphy plays Emily's devotion. She also has a regality about her. I see that she was on Dallas as a character named Marie. Did she and Ken Kercheval interact? Do we know why Nick was recast? Did the original actor want to leave? I wonder just where Ken's mind may have been in these early episodes. Only about two or three episodes into his run as Nick he is having surprisingly intense tonsil hockey with Murphy (you can decide for yourself at 8 and 33 minutes). Anyway, I've been enthralled by these episodes, helped by their being in easily digestible form. I haven't ever read much about this time, other than the Andrea climax a few years later. Sometimes I get the feeling this period would be seen later on as old hat and the early '70s would bring the refresh, but this all seems very strong to me, much more than I had expected.

Thanks as always @slick jones Didn't realize Alice Hirson was on Loving.

I kept meaning to watch, at least until I heard how difficult the schedule was, but I did wonder when the hook would come. I'm sure there may be some wealthy people who love Knots, but in this economy, reintroducing the show to the public only through paying is just a bad idea. I don't have the money to pay and I won't be doing so. I have my memories of Knots and some clips here and there - that will be enough. And I have the first two season DVDs in a box somewhere. I know the rights are complicated, but I don't know why these shows can't start putting episodes on Youtube, even just assorted episodes, to whet the public's appetite.

Julia was a wonderful actress. Extremely intelligent and always underplaying what she was given, in comedy or drama. I think she was much better than most of what Brooke became by the mid '90s. I remember the character being a laughingstock to a number of fans by that point, through no fault of Julia's. I'm glad the last year of AMC 1.0 as well as 2.0 allowed her to go out on better terms.

Thanks @Joseph and @te. . I've never seen anything of this show.

I think it's meant to be the Sabrina Carpenter look. It does remind me of Morgan.

I like Chase well enough but when he sings, he reminds me of someone from a Disney band. I thought the character background of that family was meant to be somewhat grimy. The little shown of them was sweet. I have to admit I was distracted by whether or not Aiden was wearing a wig.

Thanks. That explains why Trish always felt like the most believable to me of the family. I think you could just write Iris off as eccentric.

Thanks @Paul Raven I watched the whole of Paper Dolls on Soapnet and maybe I just wasn't in the right mood but I didn't think it was good even in the episodes that TV Guide seems to love. The story involving Mimi Rogers was a particular dirge for me.

I was wondering if anyone has a strong guess about the dates for these summer 1966 episodes? In the first episode, Andrea says Len and Patti will be married on July 8th. An episode or two after that has a character saying that the wedding is "five weeks" away.

I guess the ratings are the only way to know for sure, but I don't really get any of the buzz the show had during the last year or so of Sprina. Of course that was never going to last forever, but there really aren't stories that are going to get the same type of sustained interest. The closest would be the few weeks of drama surrounding Willow/Drew, but that is mostly gone now. I wish the show would realize those types of moments, which are "soapier" (much as that term annoys me) drama rather than yet another serial killer, are more likely to get interest. I knew Lucky's return wasn't going to provide much drama, as the character is mostly part of the past, but given how much Alexa Havins settled in and that she has several kids who are central to the current canvas, they should have done much more with her return than they have. I'm not too amazed. I think I said it too much at the time but I always thought that was just a sop because they were raked over the coals for writing out a bisexual woman and trying to make us feel sorry for her homophobic mother. They have given Lucas some nice material with his family, which was more than I had expected to be honest, but his just being there before slowly fading away doesn't surprise me.

I guess George W Bush might be one of the last examples of a Texas accent on the broad national stage. I just read that Larry Gates, whose most famous roles were as Southerners, was born in Minnesota. He stayed there until he graduated from college and then went to Virginia, per his Wiki. I wonder if he ever talked about why he was so often cast in those parts. I am not sure if any of the Lewis actors were born in the South - not sure where Rebecca Hollen was born.

Yes. I remember some Kelly fans felt it was a deliberate slight as those were some of her final moments with her family. It's difficult for me to even count that period because it felt like the same generic hand-wringing characters always do over Sonny (and they always revert to supporting him). In today's climate this is the best we're going to get, sadly. Maybe BtG will do better. At least we don't have a Leo. (that was formerly Brad)

I suppose you could say early Josh and Trish fit the bill (was it stated in Marland's run that they were from Tulsa?). After that point I think they just got swept into Kobe/Long remaking Texas and the idea many had at that time that anyone in the South with money was just like the Ewing family.

He's likely much cheaper.

Reading about that story enthralled me. I've wanted to see it, even a moment of it, ever since.

I wonder how much of the Lewises was her along with Gail Kobe just trying to recreate Texas! rather than drawing on her knowledge. She clearly cared a lot about the Lewises, but I notice she didn't try to introduce similar character backgrounds when she wrote for other soaps.

Everything probably moves too quickly now for it to be deliberate, but given how much I don't believe Frank wanted Lucky back, I wouldn't be surprised. I'm reminded of when Eileen Fulton was unable to film and suddenly viewers saw Lisa again after not being on much for a good while.

I would love to see anything of Nancy playing Patti. I'm sure she was very different then but it's still jarring to imagine.

Thank you for all the extra information. I know I probably took this thread off course. I will just say the info about how the show treated Sharon when she was pregnant makes that story even more disgusting to me.

Those are all good suggestions. I don't think Frank will ever ask her back, unless he has no choice, but I could see a future producer, if GH has one, doing so.

That was very kind of you to share so many priceless episodes (as these are 15 minutes each it's a ton). Thank you so much.