Mona Kane Croft

The first soap opera I remember acknowledging an anniversary was Another World for the show's tenth anniversary. I believe this was in May 1974, when AW was still a 30-minute show. On the anniversary day, AW broadcast a 60-minute episode featuring the wedding of super-couple Alice and Steve. Although the show's anniversary was not mentioned in the dialogue, it was mentioned by the show's announcer during the opening credits, and the episode had been advertised and promoted as a "special 10th anniversary episode." I do not remember another soap opera acknowledging an anniversary until the 35th anniversary of As the World Turns in 1986, which featured Chris and Nancy's 50th wedding anniversary.

I've seen one episode on Our Private World on YouTube, and it really was exactly like a daytime soap opera, simply broadcast at night. The only difference I noticed was some of the sets were larger than we saw on daytime in that era. I suppose it wasn't a terrible idea to test a "normal" soap opera during primetime. But comparing OPW to Peyton Place -- well, there's no comparison. OPW seemed more like an experiment, rather than a continuing drama specifically created for primetime.

I believe Labine said in interviews that she was not familiar with the history of GL and that made it a difficult show for her to write. But if someone had told Labine that the Bauers were a third (or was it second?) generation German American family, she might have found something she could embrace with her skills. That small fact might have motivated her to take the show and run with it. I remember when Labine was hired as head writer for General Hospital -- I thought she was a terrible choice! How could the queen of believable family drama (Ryan's Hope) possibly be successful on a soap about spies and freezing the world?? But Labine was wonderful on GH. And she became one of the two or three best head writers in the history of GH, in my opinion. And she managed to use GH's long history in several of her storylines. I fully believe she could have been equally successful on Guiding Light. But something prevented that. Maybe she didn't do enough research into GL's history. Or maybe she was rushed, and didn't have time to research. Or maybe she was being sabotaged. But I do recall, she accepted at least part of the blame for her failures at GL. So that was admirable, I think.

I've read a few times that the fertility god with the glowing eyes (involving Grant and Cindy) was also a plot Malone took from Bourbon Street.

As I've suggest a 1000 times (and here is 1001), Denise Alexander should have been cast as Missy Matthews, dragging her son Ricky back to Bay City for lots of conflict with Liz and perhaps as a contemporary of Donna, both raised in two very different worlds. That would have been believable human drama, not camp and not over the top. And that scenario would have been much more respectful to the talent of Ms. Alexander.

I'd bet the role was Raymond Spear. That one certain seems to suit O'Rourke's acting style the best.

Because the entire storyline was ludicrous and unbelievable. What soap fan in soap opera history ever wanted two returns from the dead in the same storyline? This crap was campy before Jim Riley invented campy. Actually I adore(d) Denise Alexander and John Considine, but I hated that plot. One of AW's worst ever -- right up there with the "Egyptian -- sorry Arizona mystery" and "Lumina." Just my opinion.

Here's a change of topic. Has anyone else ever thought that Helen Wagner and Ronnie Claire Edwards were similar? Although they were a generation apart, I always thought the two actresses had similar facial features, similar voices and vocal cadences, and somewhat similar acting styles. Of course, Ronnie Claire was much more "over the top", but still the similarities were rather striking to me.

Wouldn't it be terrific, if The Gates goes back to believable human drama about family struggles and social class?? We can only hope.

I thought Alexandra Wilson was adequate at Josie. But after she got that nose-job about half way through her run on AW, I completely lost faith in her as an actress. She was already absolutely beautiful, and a pretty good young actor. Why in the world would she ruin her face with a completely unnecessary nose-job? Of course, her personal decisions were/are none of my business.

I'm confident you are correct. But OMG, that kitchen set is laid-out almost exactly like Nancy's original kitchen. Why in the world is it so similar? That had to be confusing for the audience.

Have you seen Eileen's Locher Room interview from a couple of years ago? She looked and sounded wonderful.

I have a vague memory of Bob and Lisa having a serious talk maybe the day before he and Kim married. Bob and Lisa were sitting at a kitchen table, and the set looked like Nancy's kitchen. I wasn't a daily viewer at that time and had just tuned in to see parts of the wedding. So is it possible Bob and Frannie were living in Nancy and Chris's old house until he married Kim and moved into her house? And if Bob and Lisa were not sitting in Nancy's kitchen, who's kitchen was it? Does anyone remember this scene?

I agree about Scott and that era of AW. And on AMC, even Agnes Nixon gave poor Greg Nelson absolutely no internal conflict or subtext to play. Frankly I'm surprised the Greg/Jenny romance was as popular and as long-lasting as it was. And Cliff Warner was very much the same on AMC -- no personal conflict. But Cliff and Nina had Palmer Courtlandt to deal with. And Palmer provided enough conflict for the entire town. LOL.

Interesting analysis of the rich prince charming archetype, and I don't fundamentally disagree. But I think a good writer would choose to give that character another kind of conflict. George Reinholt's Steve Frame for example -- Lemay gave Steve conflict with his past, and escaping his childhood. That gave Steve enough subtext to keep him interesting. Regarding Jamie and Dennis -- Jamie's internal conflict should have come from his mother's history and his growing up with a mostly absent father. And for Dennis, focusing on Iris's meddling and control issues could have kept that character interesting. But I do agree, rich prince charmings can tend to be boring and replaceable, unless the writer intentionally creates some kind of believable internal conflict for the character. Frankly, all soap opera characters need some kind of subtext that motivates their decisions. And Harding Lemay give almost every character on AW something in their past that was shameful, or traumatic, or missing. Few soap writers do that to the extent Lemay did it.

That's interesting that the remodeling was acknowledged on air. So often in the past 35 years on various soaps, set changes are just ignored. I remember the house originally had that white tile stove in the living room, which was replaced by the large fireplace. And the original staircase was much smaller and rather fake looking. Does anyone remember if anything else was changed during the remodeling?

Does anyone know what set Kim and Carol are on? I'm assuming it was probably Kim's house. If so, then is this the same house she later lived in with Bob in the mid-1980s? I've always been told the house we mid-80s fans always called the Hughes house (Kim and Bob's house) had previously been Kim's residence for years, and the Bob moved in with her when they got married.

I'm a soap opera traditionalist. But even I can tolerate a little de-aging of a returning character, as long as it is not completely unreasonable. But de-aging really needs to be within half a generation at most. For example, I could not accept the recast of Patti Tate Whiting on SFT in the mid-1980s, because she was de-aged an entire generation. Ridiculous, in my opinion. Just cast Patti's daughter, if you need a character that young!! But I did enjoy Justin Deas as Tom Hughes, probably because the character was de-aged only a few years. And although I think recasting with a more vivacious actor is often a good idea (Justin Deas as Tom again), complete reinventions of any character is a big mistake in my opinion. If a soap writer feels the need to "reinvent" a character, then he/she should probably just invent a completely new character to carry the plot the writer has in mind. I believe that would be more acceptable to the long-term fans -- the fans who really stick with a soap through thick and thin.

Oh, I can be critical of Jensen too. I thought from day-one she was miscast as Vicki. And as the months went by, Jensen's Vicki lost more and more of her edge -- essentially making Vicki too Marley-esque. On the other hand, Jensen was popular with the viewers (at least that's the general wisdom). So she did have some appeal -- apparently enough appeal to become the young female romantic lead on AW for nearly her entire run. I never thought Jensen was a bad actress, but simply miscast as Vicki. She might have been better cast as an older Sally Frame (I know Sally was dead); or an older Nancy McGowen; or a de-aged Marianne Randolph. Or how about just casting her as Marley?? Jensen just didn't have the "bite" to play a spicy bad-girl like Vicki.

Really? Expensive and good quality? That is interesting information. To me, the wig looked like something they picked up from a novelty shop on 42nd Street. It looked like yak hair to me.

I'm torn about my opinion of Alan. I agree, he is not a very good interviewer and he has some bad interviewing habits he needs to rid himself of. BUT, at least he has this podcast and is able to attract the big names we all love. Nobody else seems to be stepping up to the plate. So I try to be generally supportive of him and his podcast. Is it perfect? Far from it. But look at all the wonderful guests he has had. He has coaxed a lot of our old favorites out of retirement to spend an hour with us.

I don't think Marley literally had to have bangs to be recognized. Didn't they drop the bangs (and the wig) later in Anne Heche's run, when Marley was dating Jamie? And did Jensen Buchanan play Marley with bangs every time she played her? I honestly don't remember, because Jensen's Vicki also had bangs some of the time. And regarding the voice -- I certainly think Anne Heche played Marley with a breathy voice. Perhaps not falsetto, but definitely breathy and different from Vicki's voice. I don't remember much about Buchanan's Marley. But I do recall thinking her version of Marley was acceptable, and that she was actually better cast as Marley than as Vicki. Yes of course. Something classic and preppy. Is preppy still a word???? Anything but that wig. LOL.

Oh yeah, that wig. And of all times to use it -- when Anne Heche was playing the roles so brilliantly and believably. The wig was so bad it almost distracted from Anne's performance. Surely a talented hair stylist could have altered Anne's (Vicki's) long hair into a style appropriate for Marley, without resorting to that terrible wig.

Thanks for the information. I didn't know any of that, aside from the on screen romance with Frannie. By the way, whatever happened to Finn Carter?

What actresses are you referring to? I seriously have no idea, other than I do know the character was involved with Frannie Hughes in 1985.