DRW50

Thanks. You'd think if they had a decent Ryan actor they would have held onto them, but I guess not.

Another example of the perils of today's "journalism" (whether real or by AI). Real Reason Jess Walton's Jill Isn't On 'Young And The Restless' (tvshowsace.com) If you turned on The Young And The Restless in the 1980s and 1990s, you were likely to see Jill Abbott front and center on your television screens. The character first appeared in Genoa City in 1973, played by Brenda Dickson until 1980. The role was recast with Deborah Adair, who played Jill off and on until 1986. However, the character didn’t really flourish until actress Jess Walton took over the role in 1987

@Skylover Enjoyed reading your thoughts. There are some episodes which seem to suggest awareness of the past (like Harold's scenes with JJ about his tuba) but this seemed to have noticeable errors. I'm not surprised at the lack of interest in giving Melanie that moment, as she has gotten poor material and a lack of followup - I can't even remember if she ever mentioned Sharon after Sharon's appearances early in the revival. I do remember some fans recently, on DS, talking about how contrived the writing was for Sky in 2020 (namely, getting her together when Lana).

Pierson has always seemed fine to me in the material I watched of him. Sanderford is much more generic. I don't know why they recast.

Rich was smart to trade off his TV good looks into a longtime career of aw-shucks roles. If Laura hadn't married well and moved into other ventures, she may have had more of a career...I wish she'd done more as she was so dynamic on AW. Still, she made the right choice for herself.

I remember reading about their falling out (which, sad to say, didn't really help my view of Chris and Nancy if true). I could see the part about her weight being put in for spite, but given how common this was (as Ilene Kristen was also let go from RH around the same time due to her weight), I'm not sure. I do wonder how fans at the time felt about the material for Alice. Unlike Pat, who is more slowly woven into a world of finance, and more gradually put into relationships, Alice, who had mostly just loved Steve for nearly a decade, was all over the place - marrying again, getting engaged to Willis in spite of presumably knowing of some heinous deeds from him (did she know what he did to Sharlene?), taking a large role in running Steve's company, and finally, deciding to marry her cousin's estranged husband after a period of months. This all feels very plot-driven - I think the material that most feels like it could have been character based was her being drawn to Willis, but that isn't really the same without Courtney or John Fitzpatrick (who so resembled George Reinholt - I cannot see Leon Russom as Steve's suffering younger brother) in the roles. For all of Lemay's disdain for Courtney, it doesn't seem like he put a great deal of care into writing for Alice even after she left.

This would have been an interesting idea. Laura Malone could have carried a new show. Clarice and Larry also would have made sense as characters to spin off. (it still angers me that Laura Malone was fired due to not losing weight, allegedly - clearly by that point they thought of Blaine as just a support to Sandy [who was never that compelling]) @Contessa Donatella The clip of Ada worrying about aging was very poignant, especially given Constance's health struggles at that point. The hospital set, what we see of it, also looks perfectly fine - another example of just how damaging the bankrupting "Cheers meets ER meets NYPD Blue" remodeling of JFP was.

I'm relieved to hear the news as I know there was a ton of speculation that the show was ending. I think the show has improved over the last year or so (I still think the Harry killer story was a mistake but at least the fallout with Chris has been powerful) but moving to three episodes isn't necessarily a bad thing if they make the right decisions. If they need any cast cuts I can think of a few very quickly.

Well, it depends on the soap...

If there's one thing that I can say that Larry Lau's time on AW never was, it would be exciting. They make Michael seem nefarious in this promo (which suits him well enough for me as I found him so offputting as time passed) Another of the "I was on another soap" promos. I had to laugh at their going from Judi saying how different Paulina was to Adrienne to a shot of Paulina crying.

It was so obvious the only reason they told that story was because Kevin Spirtas is openly gay. Lazy and insulting as it feeds into the narrative that gay actors can only play gay characters.

She looks like a lot of real people do sans makeup. I thought the story with Nancy and Craig and Leo was trash, but I'll always be glad to see her working.

Any time I think I can't be more appalled by that soiled diaper of a paper they prove me wrong. And it reminds me again of just who is in charge of the NYT - people who hate us and want us gone. They later changed this from "don't vote" to "won't vote."

I don't think the Matthews family alone was enough to keep AW in a stronger place, but the show's rise began in large part through seeing how the family coped with various interlopers and changes, the likes of Steve and Rachel. They were then spun into their own worlds, but the Matthews were important counterweights for them - like the scenes where Rachel worries about Mac working closely with Pat, as Pat represents the past that Rachel doesn't believe she can leave behind, even if Mac claims it doesn't bother him. Once AW doesn't have that balance, there's no real core. There are often just some strong performers who keep the show going. You could say that was also the case with the Matthews, as the roles were stronger only with certain performers, but they still had a certain foundation which wasn't there as much later on. For instance, Linda Dano, Stephen Schnetzer and Anna Stuart were big reasons for the show improving in quality around 1983, but they each (especially Stuart) had to deal with not having much to lean back on (look at how AW handled Donna's siblings, or father). As @Mona Kane Croft mentioned, the real pits are around 1980 (what I've seen of 81 isn't great either but at least has more momentum, I suppose). There was still some semblance of a Matthews family, but they were fragmented and ill-used (I think grampa Jim was dating an ex-showgirl half his age, who was, like many in this period, brutally murdered), and the show feels so dead much of the time, trying to recreate past glories (the wonderful Judith McConnell as a naked Iris replacement). In terms of leading performers, you mostly have Susan Keith and Laura Malone, and to a degree actors like Richard Bekins or Kevin Conroy (who didn't last long, sadly) keeping the day-to-day episodes from going into dreamland (Victoria Wyndham and Douglass Watson are always worth watching but their story takes a big dive after Janice's death). The show was lucky to get through that period. Around 1983 is when they successfully stumble toward the found family AW through Felicia and Cass, with the rest of the show's run having attempts at bringing in new families that never really click. And they keep finding new vibrant performers (Anne Heche, Alicia Coppola, etc.) to showcase and distract from the empty core...but even then, it's not hard to wonder what might have been if they'd managed to combine these flashes with the building blocks they'd thrown away.

Cindy is mostly just there to serve George's storylines. She has no real past, story or identity of her own. If you enjoy George it isn't a flop. That's about all. Chrissie isn't needed, but then, on Clenshaw's EE, everything is so plot-driven and empty, no one is actually needed.

It's not the media I'm worried about as much as what the people in Congress and the donors end up doing. I just hope whatever happens happens soon as we don't have much time left.

I have to admit a part of me just isn't sure Biden can meet that threshold many are now expecting him to meet. I'm already seeing people whining that his interview with ABC isn't going to be long enough, and that's something we're going to just keep hearing. There was so much resentment and anxiety about his age and manner already there pre-debate and now many more are willing to say it out loud. The main indicator beyond donors is how many in Congress are scurrying like rats. Once they start, it's hard for them to stop.

I do think there's a chance that Trump has gotten new voters since 2016 and 2020. Many younger voters don't have a clear memory of his time as President. There is a constant drumbeat from the media about how much better the economy was then and how bad inflation is now. There's been a real shift to the right on a number of social and social justice issues (aside from abortion), which always benefits Republicans. The media has gone along with whitewashing Trump's actions in terms of abortion, claiming that he will just leave it to the states, will not go after IVF, etc. People don't seem to either know or care about Project 2025 because they don't care about these things until they are directly affected. There's always an idea out there that Trump was actually a good President ("no wars" and other BS) who just did "mean tweets." And day after day you still have the media efforts to get Arab-American voters to support Trump, with another op-ed from some activist in Ohio saying it doesn't matter if Trump wins because any short-term pain will be worth it due to the "lesson" Democrats will learn. Many polls have shown movement to Trump, and that supposedly highly trusted Democratic firm poll Puck News mentioned claims that he is losing ground in NH, VA, NM, on top of swing states moving further away from him. I'm dubious on that poll as apparently it shows the likes of Pete Buttigieg outperforming (Buttigieg is a good talk show guest, but he would lose badly in any actual election), but I imagine it's one of the big reasons for the donor revolt. It's not just donors, it's also slimy media whore James Carville, who is telling donors to stop giving money to any candidate who supports Biden. James Carville Issues Blunt Plea To Democratic Donors About Ditching Biden | HuffPost Latest News Much as I have long disliked the man, he wouldn't be going that far unless there was some type of huge alarms being rung in the party. In my gut, I don't think Biden is going to be replaced, or step down, but I do feel like the party, outside of the above internal kicking and thrashing, has now innately embraced an idea of him losing and are just going into triage mode, hoping they won't be slaughtered in the House and Senate. If that's where they are, then it means they have given up, and that Biden and his advisors and family are just in their own separate bubble until an inevitable November loss. I would almost rather they all agree to try something new and fight to the end than just wait out the clock. Even if Biden can regain stronger footing, there's so much against him, and against the party in general, because of the apathetic, easily distracted public, and because the media hates Biden, hates Democrats, and absolutely adores Trump. I just hope they can figure out something, with or without Biden, to bypass the dying press and scrape out a win.

It's saddening, if not surprising, how many, especially on the dead end left, love to say, "this is already happening and Democrats don't care," or dismiss it was "fearmongering." They used to say the same about the end of Roe...which they now just blame on Democrats after saying before it would never happen.

They did still write for Pat and Marianne at this point, so not keeping Michael around does confuse me. I can only assume they decided they had edgier or more compelling male characters in that age range and didn't need him, but in the long run they would have benefited from having someone around who was related to longtime characters instead of one of a sea of men who would be forgotten within a few years (Jerry Grove, Rick Holloway, Pete Shea, etc.). Then as the years passed one new writer or producer after another came in, and the past was buried under another layer, but given that the show did at least bring Pat and Alice back for visits in 1989, enough memories and groundwork for longer-term returns and a revival of the Matthews family beyond Josie and Olivia were still there. You're right. That makes no sense. Another reminder of how little awareness many writers had of the history of their show (which is somehow still true even now with Wiki, Youtube, etc.). GL and ATWT did gut their core families, getting rid of people who still could have had plenty of stories (Don Hughes, Mike Bauer...too many Bauers to list). It seemed like AW decided to not even hang on to one core Matthews member, an Ed or a Bob. In another world (no pun intended) they probably would have kept Russ on, but it just didn't happen. You were mostly left with Liz, who was absorbed elsewhere and slowly eroded in importance. It's a shame.

Coming from you, that means a lot. This really shows again what even a handful of clips from the wiped era of soaps can do to help inform a viewer. There were certainly some families on AW I cared about, like The Corys, but it wasn't a show I ever watched for family interaction. The found family/friendship elements appealed to me more. Yet I do find myself so fascinated by the Matthews in these clips, and I am sure that would have been even more the case if Jacqueline Courtney had stayed as Alice, and if they had a warmer actor as Russ in these years. I can see where the show might have decided the family was easy to replace and the chicer elements, characters jet-setting and knowing all the right parties and people, were what made the show unique, along with the inevitable parade of younger actors. Yet Pat and her family feel so current to me in these moments, not just for 1975 or 1976, but for today. I think about the potential even in the early '80s, with Julia and Sally, and the expansion of the family through adoption, a topic that soaps are ideal to cover. (I wonder if they ever talked to each other about being adopted, or if Julia was even mentioned when Sally died) If they had kept those family bonds and connections, then when the very rich writing tapered off by 1979 or 1980, then, as you said, those viewers might have stayed around. As it was, the show was incredibly lucky to make it another twenty years.

It's been a while, but IIRC Brad did this with Michael early on. Soaps don't care about reality or day-to-day or buildup now because they think viewers are fools and it's easier for them to just stall and stall between the latest shock value moment. Feels like they are just waiting until Taby leaves so they can say it was her own choice. She doesn't even seem to spend time with her own mother now.

I'm seeing people on Twitter who are demanding writers be fired due to this story. I hope those people were as adamant over past stories along these lines or stories that were much worse in spreading anti-gay views, including a storyline where a gay man sexually harassed a rape victim. I do think people need to go, but less because of some statement of homophobia (maybe I'm wrong, but I imagine at some point Natalia will come to support her daughter) than the story making no damn sense.

I'm not entirely sure how much trust to put in polls anyway, but in many polls, state and national, Trump had already opened up a lead of a few points over Biden (with some outliers claiming 5-6 or higher). Some of those were pre-debate, or during the debate, or right after. Then there are the Republican polls that are created to flood the zone and draw a lot of coverage that claim Biden will lose New Jersey or Virginia. Any time polls come out bragging about Trump's big lead with younger voters, or how well he's doing with minority voters, I'm wary (even if I do think societal conditions and the Rogans and Tates and tiktok accounts out there have turned a lot of younger people to the right and into bigotry), but I do think Biden is probably narrowly behind or at best dead even at the moment. I don't say that because I think he needs to drop out - I don't believe any other Democrat would do better, no matter how much some weep for Andy Beshear.

I see that the 9/22/1981 episode on Shawn Stevens' channel was already posted a few years ago; not sure if this other clip of him singing was or not.