tune_in_tomorrow

Leann Hunley (Anna, DAYS) left around the time she won the Emmy for Outstanding Supporting Actress in '86. She did some guest shots - Designing Women, Hotel among them - then landed a regular gig during the last 2 seasons of Dynasty. She also had a key supporting role on Dawson's Creek, before returning on a recurring basis to DAYS. Even with the Emmy, I always thought she was underrated as she handled heavy drama/somewhat villainous in her early tenure before switching to some comic relief when paired with the hijinks of Arleen Sorkin (Calliope), but I think she ended up with a pretty good post-DAYS run in primetime before she aged out of good roles and returned.

The actress now known as Alexandra Neil (since late '80s?) was originally billed as Dianne Neil when she played Emily Benson on Another World in the mid-'80s, then Alex Neil toward the end of her run. From what I gather in her pre- AW days, she started on Search for Tomorrow as Dianne Thompson Neil but by Texas, had stopped using Thompson

Watson, your memory of 1985 AW pretty much matches mine! The only thing I remember a little differently is that Brittany regained her hearing before becoming a villain. I might be wrong - obviously it's been a long time - but my recollection was that she was still deemed to be "good" or a victim for her first several months on the show, both to other characters as well as the audience. Her character and that of Peter were all over the place later in '85 and into '86. No wonder Gabet was unhappy... nobody knew who Brittany was supposed to be.

Watson's description of Carl explains why I found Rachel's marriage to him offensive when I tuned back in for the final couple of weeks after not watching for a decade. He was not an antihero or a misunderstood character, but an out-and-out villain. It makes no sense that Rachel would forgive him, let alone marry him, after what he did to her and her family. It really soured the ending IMO. I didn't watch any of the story of his redemption so when I read about the propping of Ben on DAYS, I just think it's been done before. Unfortunately, I think soap viewers are more likely to enjoy what they see if they have short memories.

I don't find the numbers that surprising. It doesn't take long for individual viewing habits to change when they are forced to. For daytime, most people watched daily or caught up weekly. If they weren't interested in repeats, they found something else to do. I expect the numbers will improve a little bit over the next couple of weeks as more people hear there are new episodes, and again when Y&R comes back, but my guess FWIW is that 20% or so won't come back, particularly if they were just watching out of habit rather than actual enjoyment.

My take is similar to Melroser's. Also, the primary reason why I don't think Alfonso's decision is petty, classless, etc. is because I'm sure she knows that as an actress in her mid 50s, with little other than daytime soaps on her resume for the last 20 years, she probably doesn't have a lot of options in acting. Even knowing that, she decided it wasn't worth sticking around. I actually think she's been very tactful, giving enough information that you know she's unhappy, but she's not setting the house on fire on her way out. Like I said in my previous post, I'm not a fan of hers or of Hope, but maybe I empathize because I'm close to the same age she is, have been at my job for decades, and would love to do something else. She's in a position where she can do something about it, so I actually admire her for doing it.

I'm not particularly a fan of Alfonso but I don't think she sounds stuck up or spoiled...at least not any more so than any other actor who's had success. She sounds like someone who hasn't enjoyed her job for 4 years (and probably making less money every year she shows up at her job) and feels disrespected by TPTB who want her to go away for 4 months. Aren't all the actors off contract now? What guarantee does she have that they won't renege on this promised story? It wouldn't be the first time a storyline promise didn't materialize and she's been around long enough to see the writing on the wall. Even if the storyline happens, it will be a retread of something else and the actor will be gone in a year. They don't have the resources or time to invest in a new long-term character. Haven't they been pretty much just bringing back former characters (sometimes recasts) for short stints, or aging the kids such as Ciara or Allie? I don't watch - just follow along here - but is Ben the most recent actually new character introduced who's hung around? She just sounds done and it's a good time to go, which I think more power to her! 

I haven't watched DAYS in years so haven't seen Victoria Konefal but if the rumor is true, then good for her! I see she is 23 years old and has been with the show 3 years. It's the perfect time (well, assuming all productions open back up) to strike out and see where her career goes. Kristian Alfonso did it 30 years ago, got a prime time gig for a while, and I assume she came back when the roles dried up. That's a perfectly fine route to take if you're an actor who prioritizes a steady paycheck but if you're young and want a long career, you gotta leave the nest. Konefal won't have the safety net Alfonso had since DAYS' days are numbered, but the alternative is to watch her career end with the show. Because let's face it, nobody who has been on any of the remaining soaps long-term will have much of an acting career outside one of the web soaps.

The soaps are at a damned if you do, damned if you don't point, so...why not dolls? If the consensus is that daytime soaps are running on fumes anyway, then this gives a bit of a boost in interest although it won't last. It might not even last till B&B starts airing. I kind of think viewers will be looking fondly back to the days before March - it's not like budgets are going to increase, and now with extra precautions, fewer cast members on set, and probably more complicated technical work to make it all come together, a lot of that budget may be eaten by these technical realities. Add in the fact that advertisers are going to be more conservative because of their new financial realities, AND that it doesn't take long for many viewers to fall out of the habit (now 4-6 weeks and counting, depending on the show), I think the soaps have gotten closer to death. We'll see.. I have been wrong before. In 2012 I figured we'd be in the post-daytime serial world. One thing I am pretty confident about is that there isn't enough talent in daytime to really do anything creative enough that will make this period work to the shows' benefit. Even if there were, trying to churn out 5 shows a week would hamper them.

I swear I will never understand the fascination soaps had/have with reproducing, especially "late in the game." What was the purpose of 50ish Rachel giving birth especially when everyone knew AW was running on fumes? She already had 3 kids they could give storylines to, plus the show had aged Amanda's daughter, hadn't it? Was there nothing else they could have Rachel do? It just shows how lazy soaps have been for years. 

I only watched AMC during the first run of Cecily and I agree with All My Shadows - she was just fun, lively, and clearly intended to be the counterpoint to Julie. The actress went by Rosa Langschwadt in that first run if I remember correctly. I'm trying to recall without the help of Google. 

The characterization of Julie changed pretty significantly right before Cecily arrived when Lauren Holly replaced Stephanie Winters. To be honest, Julie never interested me under either actress but I only watched from maybe late 85 to spring 87. Maybe Holly brought some fire to the role after that.

I know I am with several others who wish we could have seen more of Audra Lindley's vicious take on Liz. For those of us who only know her sitcom work from the mid '70s until her death in 1999, it would definitely show a different facet to her career. 

Oscar-nominated Martha Scott (Our Town in 1940) played Terry Brock's grandmother Jennifer Talbot for several months during the Laurelton Murders storyline on GH circa 1986. When Jennifer was killed, I still remember Anna Devane being asked "Murder?" and answering, "No, she just crawled up the drainpipe and died." Made me laugh then.

Leann Hunley was one of the primary reasons I got sucked into DAYS back in '83. She was gone by '86 (as was I, for the most part, from the audience but not because of anything on the show) but I turned in for her return in '07 and again a couple of years later with Anna's fiasco of a reunion with her best friend Calliope. (Was that ever rectified)? I haven't seen her other subsequent appearances but I will probably turn in this time. 

On 2/9/2019 at 10:21 AM, alexisfan07 said:

 

My thoughts exactly. I didn’t see the original actress but she A) seems to be focused on directing now, B ) is a few years younger than Kassie, and C) has some similar features to Robin. Plus, there’s no way Ron wouldn’t take advantage of the opportunity to put Kassie and Robin together again onscreen!

The actress who played Eve's mother is a few years younger than Kassie DePaiva? I know people around here like to point out that DePaiva's too old for Eve but she's only about 6 years older than Charlotte Ross. So mother and daughter actresses were basically the same age? Who was the actress? I haven't watched DAYS in ages and don't remember Gabrielle.

I'm sure I am rehashing something we've talked about at length previously, but AW did a lot of recasting in the 80s. I only watched '84-'87 or '88 regularly during that era but there were 3 Marley/Victorias, 3 Peters, 3 Nicoles, 2 Sallys, 2 Donnas, 2 MJs, 2 Jamies, 2 Vinces, 2 Blaines... Not to mention that Cecile and Iris who I saw were replacements. The replacement MJ and Jamie and the last 2 Peters seemed to be efforts to completely change the characters. There was little or no resemblance to the previous characters. I know, mostly through this site, that this was a turbulent era for the show and so much was just thrown against the wall to see what would stick.

I agree with everyone else here that killing Sally off was a mistake. It was certainly a shocker as she had driven story for several years prior to that. There were so many unnecessary deaths in the 80s but most of them weren't leading characters, at least not for long. The other character besides Alice that should have been around for the last decade was Nancy. Jane Cameron made a couple of brief returns at Mac's and Ada's funerals but if she didn't want to return full-time, they could have easily replaced her. I liked her a lot on the show, but she was far from Irreplaceable. I think she would have made a lot more sense in some of the shenanigans than Paulina did.

One example when I think it made sense was aging Nancy McGowan to around 17 or 18 on AW in '84. Nancy had been off the canvas for a few years so it shouldn't have been jarring, plus she was clearly still a "late in life" baby to Ada, who was close to 60 in 1984, significantly younger than big sister Rachel, and obviously younger than Jamie (who as Dr. Neil Curtis pointed out, WAS aged too dramatically).

16 hours ago, Nothin'ButAttitude said:

 

Wasn't Sally also viewed as a surrogate daughter of Mac & Rachel's? If so, she so could've filled the void of Amanda instead of constantly recasting Amanda. I feel like after Christine Tucci left the role, they should've put Amanda on ice until Sandy Ferguson returned to reclaim the role in '98. 

 

And didn't the show become Vicky-centric once Vicky Wyndham supposedly gave the green light for them to push Vicky more in the forefront? That's something I've always heard. I feel like the show became too focused on Vicky about the last 3 years. While Vicky drove story throughout the early to mid 90s, there was at least balance and other characters got to shine. 

In addition to Sally, keeping Nancy around would have also helped the balance. I'm surprised she didn't resurface on a regular basis, either with Jane Cameron or a recast. AW certainly wasn't shy about recasting in the '80s/early '90s even if most were unsuccessful. 

Fair enough opinion, AMS, and I should clarify that I wasn't hoping to see a revival of a feud or a rehashing of anything that happened 20 years ago but trying to make a statement that there were a lot of characters with a lot of history still on the show but many were given very little to do in the last 9 months following the cancellation announcement.

I never watched GL until the end so can't really speak to it but I knew that there was SOME attempt to respect history -- at least back to the '80s so most fans who tuned in at the end could at least identify the characters. I'm one of those who thought the last several months of ATWT were a waste. I didn't need to see a turnstyle of characters or actors from the golden age but with as much time as it had to wrap things up,  there was more than enough opportunity to acknowledge the history that made it successful. Instead what I saw was a last minute scramble to *pretend* there was a nod to the past but there really wasn't. There were, what, about 15 characters (not necessarily actors) who had been on the show for more than 20 years and I saw nothing that acknowledged the past except for the reunion of Lucinda and John. Meg was a vixenish spitfire in the '80s; in 2010 she's carted off to a mental hospital because of her obsession of some man (as I recall). Dusty and Craig were entirely different characters. No revisiting of the Kim-John, Kim-Susan, Bob-Lisa battles, or even more recent Barbara-Carly conflict. Instead it was make sure Katie had a man, Luke the Gay was unhappy, and window dress the rest.

Sorry for the long rant. As unhappy I was with "my show" AW hooking up Rachel and Carl somewhere along the line, I appreciate what they did with their finale with only a few weeks notice. ATWT deserved better...and I wasn't even a loyal viewer.

On 3/31/2017 at 11:21 PM, amybrickwallace said:

Those of you who were watching back then - what did you think of Sharon Gabet as Brittany?

I agree with Watson71. I thought Gabet did a very good job when she came on the show, portraying a sympathetic character but with an edge. I think Brittany as a character was a great interloper in the triangle because she was layered - not a villain, not sugary sweet. Others are more knowledgeable about the writing changes but that era of AW was all over the place. Brittany alternated between villain and victim, married off to Peter, who changed from nice guy to villain with a recast, Thomas Ian Griffith seemed to check out as Catlin (in my opinion) once Mary Page Keller left, so Gabet really wasn't given much to shine in as time went on. I actually liked her Melinda on OLTL although I never saw the other actresses in that role. 

I'm late to the discussions about Erin Torpey and whether Viki was a matriarch, but what it reminded me of (in my admittedly inconsistent viewing in the last several years) was how cold the relationship between Viki and Jessica was once Bree Williamson was in the role. There was little warmth between them, as there had been with Torpey or even with Melissa Archer as Natalie. I know the whole DID storyline was to put a wedge between them but I never saw that relationship really thaw. It was a huge disappointment to me at the end to see Viki's relationship with her children either strained or nonexistent except for Natalie. I liked both Natalie and Archer but really her existence as Viki's daughter shouldn't have happened. She already had unknowingly given birth to another child so she already filled that soap trope quota!

I'm also enjoying the vintage AW clips from and thank you all of you who have pointed them out. Some of them are just brilliant in their simplicity and others pack a lot of emotion. I watched during the mid '80s, which was filled with some great actors and characters but not a lot of story. Victoria Wyndham had very little to do but seeing her in the 70s/early 80s really makes me realize how good she really is. And seeing the late 80s allows me to see how good Carmen Duncan is. I didn't see Beverlee McKinsey's years (except through the magic of YouTube) but I can see why Duncan lasted as long as she did. 

I thought Carmen Duncan did an excellent job in a role that was pretty iconic. It helped that Iris was gone a number of years. I think in retrospect it's good that a name actress wasn't brought in.

I thought that Sin Stalker storyline was dumb altogether. As far as Quinn and Maisie as victims, it was just an easy way to get rid of two 40ish actresses whose characters had no familial ties to anyone on the show, and add a little shock value.

Regarding the McKinnons, I was surprised that they never tried recasting Ben. As I recall, Ben and Jake overlapped only a very short time (if at all) and that's when the McKinnon family was being positioned as a prominent one. The "good v bad" dynamic of the two of them could have been played out, with both eventually showing shades of gray.