Mona Kane Croft

1 hour ago, j swift said:

@Mona Kane Croft I am bemused that you still insist Mac was wealthier than Steve three years after you sparked a huge debate on the topic of Mac vs Steve's estimated incomes

Although, at this point I would agree that even though Steve bought Iris's mansion, and owned a big company, his wealth was fleeting and Mac's was generational.

 

Just my opinion but here is my logic:  The people who wrote Steve Frame's return from the dead obviously knew almost nothing about Steve's real history. And I'd speculate, very little about Mac Cory's real history.   So when they tried to say Steve was richer than Mac, it just seemed ridiculous to me, and I had no respect for those writers. They wrote Steve almost as if he was an entirely new character, with an existing name. So when I talk about Steve and Mac and their history, I am usually referring to their history until about 1979-80 -- really their origin stories. And at that point Frame Enterprises was a significantly smaller company than Cory Publishing, which had offices all over the world.  Plus Steve was a self made millionaire, while Mac's fortune went back at least two generations before him.   I do realize much of that was altered by later writers.  There were some idiot writers who even tried to say Mac had been a self made millionaire.  I'm really not trying to insist on anything, I am just old and grumpy.  LOL

2 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:

Actually, it is kinda strange how Gerald was just left in prison lol 

Yes, especially for such a minor offense, perjury.  And such a shame he never returned to AW.  Gerald was always after Steve Frame's money.  Can you imagine how he would have reacted if he knew Rachel had married the even wealthier MacKenzie Cory??!!

2 minutes ago, j swift said:

I wonder if there was ever a reference to the spin-off characters once they were cancelled?

Does Robert ever reference his family or their business?  Does Ada ever wonder what happened to Rachel's father?  Did Rachel never call the Cushings to see how their marriage turned out after she and Mac counseled them? 

I don't even recall them referencing Somerset or Point Clair as geographical locations after their cancellations.

BTW Point Clair being in Illinois does nothing to solve the debate of which state Bay City was in, (or when it moved), because it was within driving distance for Mac and Rachel either way.

Interesting question about character references.  I do remember Robert often referenced his dead wife and the son they had lost (from Somerset) while he was on AW.  He did this often with Lenore, but not sure he mentioned them again after Lenore left the show.  Regarding Gerald Davis, you probably know he came to AW as a contract character in 1973-74 and stayed for a year or so. And when he left, he was sent to prison. He did not return to Somerset -- at least not in the script.  After Gerald's exit from AW, he wasn't mentioned often -- and soon not at all, at least by name.  In 1979 Rachel and Ada had a very poignant scene about Rachel growing up without a father, and Gerald was mentioned but not by name.  Also, Ada referenced Gerald in 1989 during the Valentine To Singles stand-alone episode (yuck!), but again, she did not say his name.   

I'm confident the Cushings were never mentioned again on AW.  Somerset was almost never mentioned on AW after Cenedela left the head-writing job. Ogden became a nearby city during Hardling Lemay's run on the show, and Ogden was mentioned continuously.  It's likely only Robert Delany and Sam Lucas ever mentioned Somerset while Lemay was writing.   

7 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

@j swift   

1. The way things work here is if you do not wish to engage with another patron, you put them in a killfile, known as "Ignored Users". It is not the responsibility of the other party to "not connect with your content". 

2. Because you threw such a fit I have attempted to follow your wishes. 

3. As I do so, you have begun a campaign of taking potshots at me. 

4. This simply will not do. You either cease & desist or all bets are off. 

Yes, the "Ignore" feature has been misunderstood by many (or at least by me).  The Ignore feature here is not a true "Block" option, as you might have on other sites, or even Facebook.  The Ignore option here simply means you will not see the ignored person's posts.  But they will still see your posts, and can still comment.  Anyone who expects "Ignore" to function as a "Block" option will be disappointed.   I'm just trying to clarify, without stirring-up trouble.   

When it comes to listing "firsts" on various soap operas, it seems people have the attitude, "If I don't remember something, then this must be a first."  When in many (if not most) cases, it isn't a "first" at all.

I don't remember any divorced women on soap operas before Lisa Hughes, so I'm going to publish that Lisa was the first divorced woman on a soap.  LOL.

12 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

What did MdL say about Ryan's Hope that was wrong? (I did not see her piece about that show.)

She said RH was the first soap opera set in New York City, and the first soap opera to be set in a real location.   Both incorrect.  She also said the Ryan's were the first identifiable ethnic family on a soap opera, and that Mary Ryan was the first female journalist on a soap opera.  Also both incorrect.   When MdL starts spouting out "firsts," she really seems to go off the rails.  She needs an editor or a researcher.   

42 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

I understand that your opinion is based on your analysis of various interviews or podcasts or the like. 

And, sure, we can stop, but I did want to be clear that I EVEN do understand what was said. 

Was Bay City ever said to be in Michigan?  Is Marlena monitoring this message board and cursing those who disagree with her?   LOL.

17 minutes ago, j swift said:

Certainly, we can give VW the grace that after devoting decades of her life to AW, it must have been tiring to work year after year with new actors and writers that were still learning the ropes while she was trying to perfect her craft.  The old canard about soaps being a training ground is all well and good, until they go off to a prime time show about forensic detectives in the 1800s, and you're stuck in Brooklyn.

 However, much like the Ryan's Hope book, we only know one side of the experience.

Which is why I prefer to discuss memories or what we actually saw on the screen as opposed to backstage stories that always feel like I'm listening to a stranger's office gossip, it doesn't affect me, and I just don't care.

I completely agree.  And by the way, was AW's Bay City ever said to be in Michigan?   LOL.  

I really don't think Marlena is monitoring your responses.   Really.   

19 minutes ago, j swift said:

It's ironic that I've never really considered what Victoria Wyndham was like to work with.  The only resource I've consumed was Lemay's book, and I don't recall him having anything negative to say about her a s co-worker.  But, Amy's story and the recent insight from Cali Timmons suggest she might have been a bit of a pill as time went on. 

Truthfully, I doubt Wyndham was any more difficult than other soap stars of her era -- Slezak, Luci, Courtney, Fulton, Seaforth, etc.    Although I do remember a couple of print interviews with David Canary upon his exit from AW, in which he said the "star" of the show was a very unhappy person who made life in the Brooklyn studio difficult for most of the other actors --and that he was happy to have been released from his contract.  So, there's that to consider.   Does anyone think Canary may have been referring to Doug Watson??  

8 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

I have no need to re-read what you said.

As it happens, I just asked Dano a question yesterday about Robin Christopher. It was a real question I would love to get an answer on but that probably won't happen. I wouldn't create some artifice to bring up Victoria to her.

I can think of many people where Dano might protect them in certain situations. It doesn't make sense to me for the reasons I said that this instance would be Victoria. 

I join you in loving those people. 

What does Robin Christopher have to do with anything?  

You obviously don't even understand the basis of my statement.  So let's just stop.  

20 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Well, Charles & Victoria routinely rewrote their scenes. And, Victoria wrote some for the show, whole storylines. I don't see how it would be them. They were so involved in the writing that they'd be happy with it, if you see what I mean.

So, what do you base your opinion on?

I base my response on viewing their responses to questions over the years in online forums, Facebook groups, and a couple of podcasts.  I won't retype my earlier comment, but go back and read it.   If you don't believe me, ask Dano about Wyndham, or ask Cheatham about Mary Stuart. Let's see how they respond.    

And by the way, I love Wyndham and Stuart. Also adore Dano and Cheatham.  

18 minutes ago, Errol said:

Click on your name at the top right-hand corner where your avatar is and do the following:

1. Click on "Ignored Users"
2. Add a person (username/display name) to ignored list
3. Save

 

As everyone can see, I ignore no one. Haha.

Off topic, I know.  But how do I block another poster on this message board?  I've tried everything, but I'm sure there must be a way to do it.  Help, please . . .

7 minutes ago, watson71 said:

Who is the AW actor that Amy Carlson mentioned in her podcast with Linda Dano at @17:20 who didn’t like the scripts and didn’t want to play scenes a certain way in rehearsal ? Linda cuts Amy off and says do not mention the person’s name, and Dano doesn’t mention the person’s name either.

I’m guessing it was either Victoria Wyndham or Charles Keating…

It was Wyndham.  Dano protects Wyndham the same way Maree Cheatham protects Mary Stuart.  And that is by simply never mentioning their name(s).  But when either is pushed into a corner and must acknowledge either Wyndham or Stuart, the response is always -- "Oh, dear Vicky" or "Oh, dear Mary" with little additional comment.  It's an unusual kind of protection that I'm not sure I understand. But I have noticed it many times with both Dano and Cheatham.   So go figure. . .

Wow! Marlena De Lecriox has lost my respect as any sort of soap opera expert or historian.  Remember the historical misinformation about Ryan's Hope she tried to spread on her blog a couple of weeks ago?  Well now she has moved on to Another World with her historical falsities.

In her most recent blog, Marlena states the following: Another World "was the first soap to be set in a real place – Bay City, Michigan – and the first to portray authentic working-class life."  Both claims are false.  First, AW's Bay City was never officially said to be in Michigan, although most fans assumed for years that Michigan was its location (until, in the early-1980s, when AW's writers officially placed Bay City in Illinois). And even if Michigan had been AW's canonical locale, AW still would not have been the first soap ever located in a real place.  And second, Another World was not the first soap to portray working-class life. Although the word "authentic" is too subjective to even include in the conversation. Who gets to decide what authentic means on daytime drama?  There were certainly well-written working-class families on some soap operas before Another World.  

Although Marlena's blog posts are often enjoyable and right on target, why does she feel the need to throw-in all these historical inaccuracies (first Ryan's Hope and now Another World)?? She clearly has strong opinions about the genre (most of which I agree with).  But she also needs to check her facts before she posts things that are untrue.

51 minutes ago, Khan said:

the silver mine that the Hugheses and Stewarts co-owned

The very idea that the Hughes family owned a silver mine (despite their history as firmly middle-class) is/was ridiculous.  Can you imagine Bill and Bert Bauer owning a silver mine? Joe and Ruth Martin owning a silver mine?  Jim and Mary Matthews owning a silver mine?  Mike and Nancy Karr owning a silver mine?   Seems to me, the Dobsons absolutely lost their minds when they became head-writers at ATWT.  This kind of crap might have worked on Santa Barbara, but not on ATWT.  Dear God in Heaven!!!

11 minutes ago, NothinButAttitude said:

I don't think I stated he needed to do a stand-alone episode. I simply stated that I assumed that Frannie/Penny weren't in the funeral episodes most likely b/c they probably had Sierra/Tonio filming in spots that should've been for them. I understand as writer what he was doing; however, Penny/Frannie were needed more than watching Sierra & Craig pine for one another and Tonio browbeat Craig. I'm just thinking it would've been nice to see them mourn alongside the Hughes clan. Regardless, the memorial of Chris/Don MacLaughlin was done too perfection. They were just missed. Furthermore, the "b storyline" with Lucinda/Lily/Iva/Tad was good enough to combat the episode's "a storyline," which was the funeral. 

Overall, '86 was a defining year for ATWT. I just wish that all of '86 and '87 were accessible on YouTube. I hate that majority of the Doug Cummings murder trial in June was removed. 

Sorry, I did not mean to imply you were in favor of stand-alone episodes. I was just speaking in general terms about my dislike of stand-alone episodes, and how Marland used special events to draw back former viewers and "hook" them with ongoing plots.

I do agree that Penny and Frannie are missed in this episode.         

48 minutes ago, NothinButAttitude said:

I've been down a rabbit hole as of late, and I have been watching 1986. 

Why wasn't Rosemary Prinz (Penny) on the funeral episode? I saw she was in the earlier episodes of Chris' passing, but we could've done without Tonio and Sierra being in this episode, so Penny and Frannie (who was missing) would've been showcased. 

Sorry for the tangent. I find myself watching a lot of P&G soaps when the holiday season occurs. They always had a stronghold on my family around that time. 

I love the way Douglas Marland didn't write character deaths, major anniversaries, or other special events as "stand alone episodes". He always used those important episodes to propel other (sometimes unrelated) plots. He was wise enough to know those episodes might attract former viewers back to the show, and he wanted to get them "hooked", so they would keep watching.   Marland loved the genre for which he wrote, and he had more intrinsic wisdom than any other head-writer since Irna Phillips.    

And by the way, stand-alone episodes are antithetical to the genre of soap opera.  Just my opinion.    

2 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Tom said: 

First was mine repeated from other sources but since corrected 

Rest seem to be from the journalist

Thanks, Donna.  I wonder what he means by, "since corrected"?  Does he mean, that statement was in his book, but he corrected it before printing?  

And I assume he means the last two statements were not from him (and are not in his book), but Marlena's mistakes.  

Thanks again!

51 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

I read her review & I read Alina Adams review & they both gave the book extremely positive reviews. Can't say that I caught any errors but then I am not up on RH. What were the errors? 

Sorry, it was not her first paragraph.  It was the third and fifth paragraph:

Ryan's Hope "was the first soap to be set in a real place (New York City instead of a made-up vaguely suburban hamlet."    INCORRECT.

Ryan's Hope was the first soap "to dramatize the lives, loves, and trials of a recognizable ethnic culture."     

     INCORRECT.

Mary Ryan "was daytime’s first female journalist."

     INCORRECT.

Jeeze Louise!!  I just hope Marlena did not get this information from Tom's book.  Marlena should have known those statements were untrue.  

5 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Tom Lisanti, the author posts on my forum. I'm so pleased that so many people are so tickled with his book. He first posted about it a year ago & it's been interesting & it's kind of a Hooray for him & FINALLY, also, moment. Marlena delaCroix reviewed it & said that it's scholarship was equal to that of the Christopher Schmering SOAP ENCYCLOPEDIA 1985 & there is no greater compliment that could be paid!! 

Did anyone notice Marlena delaCroix made three historical errors re: Ryan's Hope in the first paragraph of her review?  I hope these errors were not in Tom's book, but simply mistaken assumptions by Marlena.  If those errors are in Tom's book, then I don't even know what to say . . .

1 hour ago, SoapDope said:

Many years ago a short film showed up youtube starring a Carol Roux as a crime fighting nun. Everyone speculated if it was the same Carol Roux from Another World. The same poster uploaded some more content and here is another film starring her. I think it's the same CR from AW. 

 

Yes, that is Carol Roux from Another World.  Surprisingly, her acting skills still seem very strong in 1992.  Thanks for sharing this.

10 hours ago, dc11786 said:

Lemay seems to set up the return of Mignon as well as the return of the real Brian Emerson (and I wouldn´t be surprised if his long story involved the return of the aged Suzi Wyatt as his romantic interest). He quickly nixes Sunny´s brain tumor story (it´s cured) and wraps up the Jamie Adamson tale (like the tumor, she disappears). He also writes out David Sutton during the height of the custody trial. Lewis Artl´s departure seems to take a lot of the conflict out of the situation involving Garth and Kathy´s sudden marriage. The custody trial seems to continue focusing on the relationships between the characters and the reaction to the events in the story. Elements of the Richard Kent story seem to be a bit Lemay-esque (the emphasis on artists), but I cannot imagine this was what Lemay originally planned unless this was his middle ground with Mary Ellis Bunim. I suspect this might be the infamous rape story he refused to write.   

Wow.  Thank you for all this detailed information.  I was not aware that Mignon actually did return.  I only heard that had been Lemay's plan.  I also did not know she was murdered.  I assume Lemay would have used Mignon as a long-term "Iris Carrington" type character -- using her money and influence to interfere in the lives of Travis and Liza for years to come.  I doubt it was Lemay's plan to kill off Mignon.   

11 hours ago, danfling said:

I have two questions about Grandma Matthews (Vera Allen).   When the character was written off the show, what was the explanation that she was no longer living with Mary and Jim?    Did she leave at the same time Janet Matthews was written off the show or before that?

As someone has posted above, Granny stopped appearing about a month after the show premiered.  But Janet remained an important character until she was written-off in June, 1966.  So Janet made it through the Irna Phillips/Bill Bell tenure, through James Lipton's short time as head-writer, and even six-months into Agnes Nixon's very successful time in the writer's chair.   

Some soap historians have reported -- when Agnes Nixon wrote-off Janet, it was intended to be a temporary break for Janet, and Nixon planned to bring back the character after a few months.  But the actress, Liza Chapman, died in an auto accident.  So Janet never returned to the canvas.   

Meg Harper's return to Love of Life in 1975.  A major character who had been gone 20 years and hardly mentioned, returned and immediately assumed major character status again.  Head-writer Claire Labine made Love of Life compelling must-see drama for her short tenure on the show.

And Iris Wheeler's return to Another World in 1988.  Iris had been gone for eight years, and Harding Lemay plotted Iris's return perfectly. Little did the audience know, she had been involved in a major long-running plot (behind the scenes). Sadly -- if I'm not mistaken -- Iris's return episode was the final episode written by Harding Lemay.  New writers took over the next day.  Can anyone confirm if I am correct about this?