Mona Kane Croft

44 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:

VW turned 33 in 1978.

Interesting.  So a 33 year old had a 19-ish year old son.  Hmmm.   

12 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:

Michael and Donna were supposed to have been like 17 when she had Vicky and Marley. And when Michael was introduced into the show, Vicky and Marley were 18. But Jamie was supposed to be a lot older than 18 at the time. So, how could Michael and Rachel have gone to HS together? Unless they were saying that Rachel had Jamie when she was like 13

You are correct.  But I remember Jamie was sorased rather quickly.  He was born around 1970, and was a young adult by 1978.  So that confused several character ages (particularly Rachel,  Alice, Dennis, Michael and Marianne, etc.).  Does anyone know for sure how old Victoria Wyndham was  when Tim Holcomb assumed the role of young adult Jamie in 1978? Or Richard Bekins took over the role in 1979?  I would assume VW was no older than around 35 -- maybe younger.  

4 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I remember Lemay saying in his book that there was no established history he could use, as it was a lengthy letter from a Pat fan that told him about her background.

I'm surprised Lemay didn't have access to character histories in 1971, when those things were taken more seriously on soap operas.  It's too bad, because the existing characters on AW at that time all had detailed histories which could have been mined and woven into Lemay's plots.  And I remember, he did do that to a degree with Pat, Lenore, and Rachel.

Off topic a bit, but still pertaining to changing history for the sake of plot -- Does anyone else remember in the mid-1980s on Guiding Light, when Pam Long wrote an umbrella plot that declared that every major family in Springfield had been in town for generations, when the only two that had been were the Reardons and possibly the Chamberlins??  While any fan who'd been watching GL for more than 8 or 9 years would have known that the Bauers, Spauldings and Lewis's all moved to town on-screen post-1966.   I liked the Pam's plot, but hated the major rewrite of the families.  With a little effort and creative thinking, she probably could have made the plot work, while still respecting history.   

9 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

She could have just said she remembered it as a young woman when she arrived in Bay City.

Yes, that would have been a way to send the same sentiment, while using more accurate established history.  

4 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I remember Lemay saying in his book that there was no established history he could use, as it was a lengthy letter from a Pat fan that told him about her background.

On 12/9/2023 at 9:07 PM, Xanthe said:

Also in the category of "small world": the reveal that Michael Hudson, who had also allegedly known Rachel when he was a child, had had a serious love affair with Iris when they knew each other in Europe. 

 

Most people probably realize the Micheal/Rachel childhood (or high-school) connection contradicts Agnes Nixon's established history that Ada and Rachel moved to Bay City after Rachel had finished high-school.  Actually I believe Harding Lemay was the first AW writer to contradict Rachel's original origin story, when he wrote that Rachel remembered walking past what became the Cory mansion on her way to school.  Again, Rachel didn't even live in Bay City while she was in school.  Of course, character histories are revised all the time on soap operas, but I've always felt that was unfortunate and unnecessary.  

8 hours ago, Khan said:

I agree.  I, too, have no doubt that Ellen Holly was treated badly at OLTL - and not just by Paul Rauch either.  Her book alludes to many incidents where she and Lillian Hayman were treated like second-class citizens by TPTB.  When you live with that level of mistreatment for that long, you're bound to look twice at every word or gesture.  So, again, I don't think she was lying.  I just think she didn't hear or read what ES said next.

It's an issue worth bringing up, but it's probably not the right time to do it.

I was watching during the time of Holly's on screen exit from OLTL, but my memory is very foggy.  Here is what I remember.  Can someone please correct anything I remember incorrectly, because I'm sure some of my details are wrong??

As I recall - Carla was away for a lengthy period, and when she returned she was suddenly an attorney, which surprised me because I don't believe the character had shown any interest in the law previous to her hiatus.  Making her a lawyer seemed to me a sad attempt by TPTB to give the character something to do, since they appeared uninterested in writing anything regarding her personal life or romance. At that point, Carla sort of assumed the role of "town lawyer" dispensing legal advice when someone needed it, but without much else to do.  As her exit approached, I believe Carla was involved in someone's murder trial -- either as one of the attorneys or the judge.  Then in a very awkward turn, Carla decided to leave town right in the middle of the trial.  So her role in the trial had to be replaced by another character.  This was very strange in my opinion, and I recall thinking they could have easily waited a few weeks and kept the character until the end of the trial.  I do not remember any good-bye scenes for Carla, but I have recently found one or two on YouTube, so at least the character did get to say good-bye in a few scenes.  Those are the foggy details my memory brings up regarding Carla's on screen exit.  Can someone with a better memory please tell me if most of my recollections are correct?   And what have I left out or gotten wrong?  

Also, didn't Carla's exit take place around the same time as the big storyline with the group of teens (including Jon Hensley) who were somehow involved with Ivan Kipling at a mysterious cabin in the woods?  And wasn't this entire storyline (including some of the teen characters) completely dropped mid-plot and never mentioned again?

6 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

THE SURVIVAL OF SOAP OPERA: TRANSFORMATIONS FOR A NEW MEDIA ERA. Edited by Sam Ford, Abigail de Kosnik, and C. Lee Harrington. University Press of Mississippi/Jackson. © 2011.

Glad you brought up this book, Donna.  This is a great read.  Every chapter written by people who take soap operas seriously.  Much more academic than anything in the soap-press, even in 2011.  

I heard an interview with one of the authors (I think it was Sam Ford) around the time the book was published.  That guy really knows what he's talking about.  Too bad he's not in the daytime business -- at least I don't think he is/was.  Not sure if the book is still in print, but anyone who likes to look at soap operas from the serious side, should read it.   

6 hours ago, j swift said:

The brief version is that Matthew grew up thinking that Mac was his father.  Then, in 1986 Mitch returns and fights with Rachel and Mac about seeing Matthew.  Finally, he sees Matthew.  Matthew wants to hang out with Mitch, then he learns the circumstances of his conception, and he briefly rejects Rachel.  Then by the end of the year, Mitch saves Mac from a fire and Matthew is sent off to boarding school.  In 1988, he's SORASed to a teen, falls for Josie, yadda yadda yadda.  He and Mitch share some scenes when Mathew gets kicked out of boarding school, but nothing memorable.  Cut to 1990, Mitch leaves Bay City and Matthew never talks to him again. 

So, calling it a blip may have been hyperbolic, but it wasn't a lasting issue between Matthew and Rachel.  And Mitch coercing Rachel to have sex in order to save Mac in St. Croix was only dealt with by the pre-SORASed Matthew, and then never discussed by teen Matt aka Captain Cool.

But, I could be wrong and someone will correct me if I am...

Don't forget the issue between Matt and Mitch after Matt Crane assumed the role.  This was while Harding Lemay was head writer in 1988. Some of the Frames were back in town, and they blamed Rachel for Janice's death in 1979.  Matt already knew that Mitch was his father, but he didn't know the circumstances or that Mitch had conspired with Janice to poison Mac before Janice's drowning.  Some how Matt convinced Liz Matthews to tell him the entire story, which surprised and angered him.  When Rachel and Mac found out, they both completely disowned Liz, and Liz was estranged from the Cory family for a few months.  Matt rejected Mitch (yet again) and turned to Josie with his confusion and hurt.  So that is certainly one more chapter in the Matt/Mitch saga.  

By the way, if my memory is correct -- this is the first and only time in the show's history when Mac actually turned away from Liz and rejected her.  The scene in which he does this is rather gut-wrenching.  Douglass Watson plays it like his heart is breaking, rejecting his old friend and kicking her out of his home.  Irene Daily plays the hell out of the scene as well.   

51 minutes ago, j swift said:

All that aside, it was a great bit of multigenerational storytelling to set up the circumstance where Matthew would romance the daughter of Russ and Sharlene.  I agree that they didn't need to bastardize history to get there, but on balance, that's a classic soap Romeo & Juliet-type entanglement. 

And, it re-focused Rachel as the lead matriarch. (once again, please excuse my obsessive need for optimism)

Also, did anyone else read this very insightful post by our host Errol?

 

I completely agree, it was wonderful multigenerational material refocusing the show on the Corys, the Matthews, and the Frames.  And as you said, it finally established Rachel as the show's new matriarch, which AW really had not had since Mary Matthews.  This era also finally established the Corys are the core family, with Matthew as an adolescent, Amanda as a young adult, Jamie as an established professional, and trouble-making Iris on her way back.  Others may think the Corys had been the core family since years earlier, but I don't agree.  It's just my opinion though.  And as you alluded, the only fly in the ointment of this era was the Frame farm mess.

1 hour ago, Xanthe said:

The references to Emma's farm were too early to be scab writers. It seems to have come up at Christmas 1987 when Margaret Depriest was still headwriter.

Jamie and Lisa report that they went for a drive and noticed that the farm where Emma used to live is up for sale (about 5 minutes in):

Between Xmas and New Year's Rachel, Jamie and Lisa visit the farm and discuss Rachel's wish to bid on it so Jamie can have it. Jason has also come to town and announced his intention to bid on it.

 

Thanks for those videos.  I remember seeing those episodes back in 1987-88 and thinking, "What the hell are they doing to the show's established history?"  Oh well.

The most pathetic thing about this entire relocating the Frame farm debacle is that it was so badly botched that even Harding Lemay didn't attempt to correct it when he took over as head writer. He just went with it, and left it alone.  And he was the writer who had created Steve Frame's history, most of his siblings, and the farm in Oklahoma (he did not create the character of Steve).  Lemay must have been very frustrated at what DePriest had done, but it was too complicated to undo.  Poor guy.

8 minutes ago, j swift said:

I guess that is what they did.  Because Emma comes to visit Bay City for Cass's wedding, and it was assumed that she lived on another farm in Oklahoma.

I assume none of the first generation of Bay City Frames bought a farm, like Vince, Willis, or Steve.  Correct?

None of the first generation of siblings owned a farm near Bay City.  Although Steve and Alice's house was out in the country and did have some acreage. But it was never said to have been a farm.  Just a large new house on several acres.  They could have had Jason buy Steve and Alice's house to get it back into the family, but then they would have had to rebuild the set which they probably did not want to do -- that set had not been used since 1979. And it was clear in the dialogue in 1987-88 that Jason had not purchased Steve and Alice's old house.

33 minutes ago, j swift said:

It had always been my impression that the farm where Sharlene lived was not the same farm where she grew up.  She lived where Jason had lived when he worked for the Love family.  My reasoning was because her mother didn't live there, and none of her siblings worked the farm.  Maybe there was some exposition that I've forgotten that would contradict that idea, but I always believed there were two farms until you brought this idea up.

When Jason first bought the farm, before Sharlene returned to town, he and Rachel talked about it being the Frame family farm where the siblings grew up, and Emma's farm. Jason and Rachel even implied that Emma was dead, without literally saying it.   And I believe when Sharlene first arrived she and Jason had similar conversations.  So my impression is it was supposed to be the original Frame farm that had previously been in Oklahoma.   But as I mentioned, later writers tried to back-peddle a bit by making the farm's origins more vague and by saying Emma still lived back home in Oklahoma.  But the damage had been done, and it was never truly explained away.

I even tried to think of ways the whole situation could be re-explained and undone.  I had a few ideas, but none of them really worked, unless those early conversations could be totally forgotten and contradicted.  

8 hours ago, Xanthe said:

And I have some tolerance for retcons that mostly respect history and squeeze story into plausible gaps, while fuming over the kind that lay waste to facts we know and substitute completely incompatible stories in their place.

I agree with you. I don't think there were implausible retcons to Sharlene's history, especially since she had been away from Bay City for 10 years in real time (more like 18 years in soap opera time).  And I thought Holbrook's Sharlene was a more flexible character, because she didn't seem to have the fears and neurosis the original Sharlene was plagued with. At least they were not on the surface.

But Holbrook's Sharlene was connected to one of the most egregious retcons in daytime history -- the mysterious relocation of the Frame Farm from Oklahoma to Bay City.  That retcon was completely implausible and went completely unexplained, even after Lemay returned as head writer after the strike. Later writers made small attempts to correct Frame family history, but it had been botched forever with the farm no longer being in Oklahoma.  Wasn't the Frame Farm in Bay City introduced during the strike, and written by scab writers?  That might explain the mistake in continuity.  

13 minutes ago, j swift said:

Do you think the plan was for Pat to cause trouble for John and Sharlene because of Sharlene's history with Russ?  Because doesn't that story get told when Olivia arrives? (Obviously not with Pat).

I've only read the novelization accounts of Sharlene and Russ, but she seemed very different in her second iteration as played by Anna Holbrook.  Almost as if she was Sharlene in name only.

I think a lot of fans assumed there was going to be a romance between Pat and John.  And I think I may have even read somewhere that was the plan.  But I suppose nobody knows for sure what the the original plan was.  It must have been curtailed pretty quickly --almost at the last minute -- because they taped the promo-commercial about it, and it aired only about a week before the anniversary episodes began.  

Regarding Sharlene -- yes the original Sharlene was very different from Anna Holbrook's version.  The original version was very insecure and tentative about everything.  When Sharlene returned in 1988, she was much more confident and secure, and she dressed and acted more like a traditional farm woman, growing a garden, making preserves, etc.  The original Sharlene seemed happy to be away from the farm, and dressed more like contemporary suburban woman.

17 minutes ago, denzo30 said:

I thought the rumor was when Lemay returned in 88, there was talks of bringing Beverly back?  In fact, the 25th annniversary promo showed Pat,John and Sharlene as if she was going to stir up trouble in their relationship.  Made no sense since Lemay had been gone many months before that and not one single bit of interaction with Pat and John and Sharlene during the anniversary episodes.  Such sloppy promos

Yes, it was months after Lemay had left AW, but Swajeski was still following some of Lemay's storyline projections.  So I assume there were plans for Pat to stir up some kind of trouble with John and Sharlene, but like so many plans at that moment, the change likely occurred because of Douglass Watson's death.  I believe the entire cast and crew just had to push through their shock and grief to get through the anniversary episodes, while acting (on camera) as if nothing had changed.  Swajeski also followed through on the reveal that Josie was Russ Matthews' daughter, and I'm almost positive that development came from Lemay's projections.  

8 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

I believe in general that if soap fans are into the characters, they will tolerate a good deal of bad writing. I think that the combination of the actor they like with the characterization that they are fond of that that is the glue that will cause fans to stick it out through some pretty rough periods.

Very true.  In most cases, compelling characters will get a soap opera through a period of bad writing. Donna is correct, the glue absolutely is character character character.  But a problem arises because it is fairly typical for bad writers to also get rid of a lot of characters the audience loves. In that case, previously loyal fans will abandon ship PDQ.  

11 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

Watching now. Wow at this. He said the actor physically assaulted him twice. 

Did Irizarry and Beecroft have many scenes together?  I'm surprised they'd have much conflict otherwise.

7 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

During her time on Guiding Light, Nixon is believed to have written the first health-related storyline on a daytime soap opera. 

First of all -- this Wikipedia statement is WAY to general to likely be accurate.  Think about it; for this to be true, the storyline (which I believe was Bert Bauer's cancer in the early to mid-1960s) would have had to have occurred before The Doctors, General Hospital, or any of the earlier hospital/doctor based soaps premiered. Additionally, it is difficult to believe there had been no health-related plots on any of the other soaps earlier than Nixon's time as HW on GL, even if those soaps were not hospital/doctor based.  In other words, no character had ever been sick on any soap before Nixon got to Guiding Light.   Hmmm.  

Why didn't the Wikipedia poster give the year?  Identify the storyline specifically?  This makes the statement almost impossible to prove.  It's just a bizarre general statement, stated as truth.  

I do think there is historical value to Nixon's writing Bert Bauer's cancer storyline.  If I'm not mistaken, it was cervical cancer or uterine cancer.  And it was as much a "social issues" plot as it was a medical plot.  It was controversial at the time, and should be documented as important.  But the Wikipedia statement is simply worded too generally, which makes it blatantly incorrect.  My opinion only.

5 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

I'm quite capable of being a true historian of soaps & using the first mention by media as my basis. I also fully acknowledge ATWT's Penny & Jeff's chronological advantage but what if the first coinage of the term is the Time 1976 cover & article? Then calling them a supercouple is a read-back. They couldn't be the first if the term didn't exist yet. 

But in point of fact I am not too concerned with who is right on this issue. Except for what I believe is the first use of the term being my basis, I'm pretty fluid. And, I also am not calling out anyone's status as a "true soap historian" into question. I think that's just being inflammatory rather than conversational. 

I wasn't referring to anyone on this message board, I was referring to professional soap historians who have written books, numerous articles, taught classes, etc.  That's why I used the word "true."  Maybe I should have used the term "professional."  And I do still believe that any professional historian of soap operas would likely agree that Penny and Jeff were daytime's first super-couple.  But like most things I post, that is my opinion only.   

5 hours ago, Vee said:

I wonder when. Because Holden and Lily have been the driving interest through the whole year from what I can see - it seems they realized quickly the new Emily wasn't going to work or be that serious.

I was watching at the time, and I always thought Emily was supposed to be the "bad-girl" who would keep Holden and Lily apart for a while.  Similar to Rachel/Steve/Alice on Another World.  But after Holden and Emily split up, she got over Holden pretty quickly and left their orbit almost completely.  I think Emily could have caused a lot more difficulty for Holden and Lily, but Marland decided he had different plans for her.  

20 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

Some would argue that Penny and Jeff of ATWT were the first 'supercouple'.

I agree with that.  And any true historian of soap operas would likely agree.  

35 minutes ago, j swift said:

ITA.  For example, Blaine Ewing was introduced three months after the premiere of Dallas.

Interesting.  I was watching both shows at the time, but had forgotten the chronology.  Funny, but I do recall an interview in which Harding Lemay claimed that both the Ewings of Dallas and the Carringtons of Dynasty had been named because of his characters on AW.  I guess Lemay's ego got in the way yet again.  LOL.   But I still love him anyway.  

2 hours ago, Xanthe said:

could it be possible that Clarice was the first character created as comic relief who went on to have a dramatic story of her own (as opposed to being in a long-running supporting role)? 

Well,  Lahoma Vain Lucas would be an earlier example of this from AW. She was a humorous character who had dramatic material also.  And, although I'm not an expert on early All My Children, I'm confident Agnes Nixon used humorous characters (who also had dramatic storylines) on AMC before 1975. We'd need someone who knows early AMC to provide the specifics.  And even before Nixon, there had been humorous characters.  Just because I (or you) can't name them does not mean that Clarice was the first.   

2 hours ago, Xanthe said:

[Disclaimer: In defining firsts, we can prove that X is not "the first" if we can prove that Y was earlier -- but that doesn't necessarily mean that Y is the actual first until we prove that nothing else was earlier than Y.

But the opposite is not necessarily accurate either.  Just because I might not remember a humorous character on daytime earlier than Clarice, does not mean I should go around claiming she was the first.  Or maybe I don't remember a soap opera matriarch earlier than Nancy Hughes.  But that doesn't give me the license to post that Nancy Hughes was the first matriarch on a soap.  Being a soap opera "first" has nothing to do with someone's memory.  It should have everything to do with the truth -- not just what I remember.   But I have come to believe that is what people are doing. Another example -- I don't remember a female journalist on a soap before Mary Ryann.  So I'm going to post online that Mary Ryan was the first female journalist on daytime.  That is just crazy thinking.  

I guess what I'm saying is: In my opinion, if a person is going to post something as fact, it is that person's responsibility to prove they are correct.  It is not everyone else's responsibility to prove them wrong.   But that doesn't seem to be how it works with soap opera history.   Again, crazy.

7 hours ago, Xanthe said:

It claims that Clarice was the first "continuing" comedic character in daytime soaps.

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-kane-republican-gail-brown/76993998/

Oh boy -- Here we go again with another incorrect "first!"  What is it with all these claims of daytime "firsts" that are just plain wrong??  Clarice was certainly not the first continuing comedic (I prefer the word humorous) character on daytime.  By the way, I am not blaming Xanthe for this false information, Xanthe merely shared it with us.  The blame should go to the person who wrote the original article.  

There have been continuing humorous characters on daytime since day-one.  And by 1975 (the year Clarice was introduced) there had been dozens.  Particularly, Agnes Nixon's version of AW contained ongoing humorous characters, not to mention the humor Nixon later used on All My Children.  And please never forget, while Harding Lemay was writing AW, Clarice was as tragic as she was humorous. 

10 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

So was anything changed in Ada's living room to be repurposed as the Shea's? Like ornaments, sofa etc? That lattice work at the entrance is quite distinctive and I'm sure even viewers who didn't pay much attention to sets would have noticed.

I just watched a few scenes in the posted episode.  Yes, the set has been painted and the furniture and curtains are nicer than Ada had.  I think the lattice work may be new, as I don't remember that feature when it was Ada's set.  Generally the entire set is brighter and less drab than when it was Ada's living room, when it looked a lot more worn and working-class.  But the Shea's were also working class, so not sure where they got those fancy curtains.  LOL.  

If anyone wants to do a more thorough comparison, there is a lengthy scene somewhere on Youtube in Ada's living room from 1979, between Ada and Rachel.  It's a well known scene when Ada tells the story of hearing Rachel cry at night missing her father, and Ada admits she could not give to Rachel what she really needed -- her father's love.  In that scene, you'll get a good look at Ada's version of that set.  Not to mention, this 1979 scene should have won Emmy's for both actresses and the writer. If you are a long term AW viewer, this scene just might make you cry.   There used to be two versions of this scene on Youtube -- a short edited version and a long version.  The long version is better, of course.