Mona Kane Croft

34 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

That first ad airing the day Douglass Watson passed on sends a chill up your spine.

(the second I imagine older viewers probably said - wait, Gwen's supposed to be a bitch now?)

 

There were several of these 25th anniversary announcements.

 Does anyone else remember the one with John Hudson addressing the camera, and talking about Pat Randolph coming back to Bay City?   I believe he said something like, " I hope she doesn't try to cause trouble for Sharlene and me."    That has always made me wonder if Lemay or Swajeski originally planned to have Pat remain in Bay City, after the anniversary celebration.     

I believe at this point, Swajeski was still using at least part of Lemay's plot projections, which were a year-long.

When Lemay left AW in 1979, both NBC and P&G knew the show needed to become a "normal" soap opera again.  Eight-years of Lemay's character-driven stuff had been a tremendous success, but it was clearly time to return to the ATWT, GL, AMC model -- which (in 1979) included strong believable characters, but also strong identifiable storylines.  Unfortunately at that time, there were precious few head-writers capable of taking-on that task, especially since AW was running itself into the ground with the awful 90-minute format.  In my opinion -- only Agnes Nixon, Doug Marland, Bill Bell, and possibly Claire Labine could have successfully taken on the reigns, after an iconic head-writer such as Lemay.  Unfortunately, all of them were unavailable, or perhaps wanted too much money.   Too this day, I cannot think of any other writers who could have gotten AW out of 8th (or was it 9th?) place in the ratings, while the show was still at 90-minutes.  And then -- even after AW returned to the 60-minute format, TPTB seemed unwilling to hire a first-rate iconic head-writer with a long successful reputation.  Without that, I thought the show had little chance of improvement.  And it was the worst soap-opera on the air for it's final 20-years (my opinion).   Yes, it had wonderful actors and moments of greatness.  But moments of greatness do not typically raise the ratings.   And although some may have enjoyed the writing of Sam Radcliff, Tom King, and all the others up until 1999 -- the question to ask is, "did those writers bring-up the ratings?"  I believe the answer is "no."     But I bet you a milk-shake Agnes Nixon, Bill Bell, or Doug Marland would have been successful at getting the ratings up to a respectable point.    

Tom King did a relatively good job writing for Lemay's existing characters.  But King's new characters were terribly ill conceived, and his writing for them was awful.  Had King been smart, he would not have written-off so may of Lemay's characters.  King eventually dedicated at least one fourth of the cast to badly written crime drama, which did not fit the style of Another World.  All soaps occasionally do crime plots, but King over-did it, plus the plots were not compelling.  And for some reason, the next two or three head-writers continued with the bad crime stuff.  

5 hours ago, Xanthe said:

Wally was positioned to have heartfelt conversations with more outsider types.

Yes, Lemay probably would have used Wallingford mostly as a talk to character, but I'm sure he would have also explored some melancholy with the character, as was Lemay's tendency.  I've enjoyed all the responses and speculation fellow posters have provided.  

Still, I can't help believing Lemay breathed a huge sigh of relief, when Wallingford (the character, not Brent Collins the actor) was killed-off by the previous writing team, whoever they were.  I feel Lemay probably viewed Wallingford as a gimmick, and was likely NOT excited about inheriting the character.  But it would have been interesting to see where Lemay might have taken Wally.  As I said in an earlier post, Lemay surprised me with his writing for Felicia (who he also probably viewed as a gimmick and a one-trick-pony). In my opinion, his writing for Felicia was probably the best writing she had up to that point.  

Just to be clear -- I in no way mean to imply that Harding Lemay would have been happy that Brent Collins died.  I simply mean that he was probably relieved he did not have to inherit a character that was so far from his vision of AW.  And of course, I could be incorrect about all this anyway.  

9 minutes ago, victoria foxton said:

@Tonksadora@Neil JohnsonDid Wally have Marfan syndrome? Like Brent had in real life. Maybe Lemay would've used that.

I don't think his little-person status was ever discusses in any detail.  In fact, I'm not sure it was ever mentioned at all.  Perhaps it was referred to indirectly, but it seemed to me most of the writers wrote all that comedy and just ignored the fact he was a little-person.  I was not a regular viewer during that era, but did tune in occasionally.  

Also, was there ever any disclosure of Wallingford's past, family, or upbringing?  I don't remember the details of his life ever being mentioned. But as I said, I wasn't watching every day during that time.   

45 minutes ago, Tonksadora said:

Well, when you put it that way Wally could have grown up in a bad situation, carney, or foster parents aka the system & have been deathly afraid of losing his hard-fought independence. 

Good point.  I've been wondering how Lemay might have written for a little-person in a play.  He might have been able to write for Wallingford from that angle.  But I'm sure Lemay would have ditched the comedy, and done serious drama with Wallingford, if he could.   

10 minutes ago, Tonksadora said:

Of course, Wally was written in the Cass-Felicia-Wally highjinks. Remember Felicia driving the truck, out of control, flying down the hill, she & Wally screaming, headed straight for ... Tall Boys, I believe. But, then he was written very human, too. Remember he slept on the floor across Felicia's threshold one night because of some fear. I think Lemay would have written more of the latter & less of the former. 

11 minutes ago, victoria foxton said:

@Neil Johnson I think he could've done a nice job with him. That said i don't think LeMay could have written zany misadventures for Cass/Felicia/Wally like Tomlin and Culliton did.

Oh, I don't think Lemay would have written ANY highjinks for Wallingford, just as he didn't for Felicia or Cass.  I just can't imagine anything Lemay could have done.  He liked to find something in each character's past that was that character's Achilles' heel.  For Felicia it was her past with her father, for Lenore it was her knowledge of Walter being a murderer, for Pat it was her abortion and murder trial, for Rachel it was her past as a bad-girl, for Mac is was his past as a promiscuous playboy who ignored Iris as a child, etc, etc, etc.  Maybe Lemay would have dug up something in Wallingford's past that would have made the character more introspective and fearful.   I guess we will never know.

Had actor Brent Collins lived another 7 or 8 months, Wallingford would still have been in AW's cast when Harding Lemay returned as head-writer in 1988.  I can't imagine what Lemay would have done with a character like Wallingford, or an actor like Collins. Wallingford did not have the understated sense of realism (or believability) that most of Lemay's characters had. I feel certain Lemay would have wanted to write-off Wallingford as quickly as possible, but i'm not sure he would have been permitted to do that.  On the other hand, I will admit I felt the same way about Felicia Gallant and Lemay -- but Lemay wrote very good material for her, in my opinion. I remember back in 1988, being surprised that Lemay did so well with Felicia.  

Does anyone else have an opinion about what Lemay might have done with Wallingford?  Any speculation about what he might have written for the character?  Could Lemay have brought the character down to earth, and made him work in a more believable world?

56 minutes ago, Franko said:

I suspect there was also a mandate for more action and or plot-driven storylines.

Oh yes, there was definitely a mandate for more plot-driven material.  NBC/P&G wanted AW to become a more "normal" soap opera -- to get away from Lemay's almost experimental character-driven plotless stuff, -- and become more similar to AW's sister shows, ATWT and GL.  Unfortunately, TPTB at AW seemed unable to hire a head-writer who was capable of that. So the show floundered, and ratings fell for years.  Ironically, it was Harding Lemay's brief return in 1988 that refocused the show, and gave AW a new solid foundation of characters. And then Donna Swajeski finally made AW a "normal" soap opera in the model of All My Children, As the World Turns, and Guiding Light.  I was never completely happy with Sawjeski's writing, but she was certainly one of AW's four best head-writers.  The others being: Agnes Nixon, Robert Cenedella, and Harding Lemay. None of the other merry-go-round of head-writers could ever compare to those four.  My opinion only.    

2 hours ago, Olive Randolph said:

Here's what I think - I THINK he was conceived by Harding Lemay in 1979 but Tom King and Robert Soderberg developed him as they completed the poisoning storyline and the fallout.

I've always believed that Mitch was created by Lemay, just as I believe Cecile (the original French Cecile) was created by Lemay.  When Mitch first showed up in Bay City, he was a dark character but not evil and not a criminal -- just the type of character Lemay loved writing for.  I rather doubt the "Mac poisoning" storyline was conceived by Lemay, but I suppose it is possible.  Certainly Tom King took the entire show in his own direction very quickly, but he was fairly good at writing for some of the established legacy characters -- particularly Rachel, Mac, Iris, Ada, Pat, Dennis, etc.  Some exceptions include Alice, Michael, Marianne, and the entire Perrini family, all of whom King relegated to the back-burner before writing them all out completely. Then, of course, King's new characters were all completely unsuccessful, with the possible exception of Sandy Cory.  Sandy did have some long-term appeal, mostly because of the actor's charm, rather than the mediocre writing.  Tom King seemed obsessed with bringing a strong crime element to the show, and as bad as it was -- the crime segment (at times consuming over a fourth of the cast) remained on the show for over three-years, even out-lasting King.  That crime stuff was BAD.  Really bad.  King may have been trying to imitate Edge of Night, but he clearly did not know how to write compelling crime stories.   

3 hours ago, robbwolff said:

Mary arrived in August 1986 when Margaret DePriest was the head writer. DePriest then introduced Jason in December 1987. Originally, Jason was slated to have two daughters but those plans were quickly scrapped after DePriest was replaced by Sheri Anderson in early 1988. DePriest was the one who introduced the Frame farmhouse as both Jason and Rachel wanted to buy it (Rachel wanted it for Jamie).

Most long-term fans will remember that the Frame Farm was originally in Oklahoma.  But when Jason, Rachel, and Sharlene discussed the 1988 farm in Bay City, they said it had been Emma's farm and that Steve had later owned it. And Oklahoma wasn't mentioned, as I recall.  So the Frame farm in Bay City was one of the biggest continuity errors in the history of Another World.  A few years later, writers tried to correct the mistake, by discussing Oklahoma again and saying Emma still lived there.  

Also regarding the 1988 Frames' attitudes toward Janice's death, I believe Jason and Sharlene knew how Janice died.  But they still blamed Rachel, because Rachel actually did kill Janice -- even though it was self defense.  They sort of conveniently ignored the self defense issue, because they didn't like Rachel because of all the trouble she had caused for Steve back in the 1970s.   But they did know how Janice died.   

1 hour ago, Vee said:

I am surprised they apparently never fully resolved Lenore being driven out of town by Carol Lamonte's schemes over her past with Walter (though I haven't gone through all of 1976 yet, lol). I do wonder if they ever resolved anything more happily with Lemay's seemingly semi-regular mentions of how miserably sad poor widowed Missy Palmer is in Somerset (a backstory seemingly used to motivate characters on AW).

Lenore's leaving town because of Carol was never really resolved.  Carol implied she knew more about Walter Curtain than she really did.  But Lenore over-reacted, not wanting Wally to find out his father had been a murderer.  So she left town with Wally.  Lenore did return for a short visit a few months later, but nothing was really resolved regarding Carol's information.

Yes Lemay did tend to bring up Missy fairly often.  But by that time, Missy was living in Arizona.  She actually left Somerset about six months after that show's premiere.   

I believe Willis may have been a potential love interest for Rachel.  Vic Hastings had chemistry with Lenore. But she and Robert Delany were in a long-running love story.  Vic also had chemistry with Janice, as I recall.  

13 minutes ago, Tonksadora said:

Wasn't that the substitute story that Lemay wrote when P&G reversed themselves on the Michael Randolph gay storyline? Maybe I'm wrong about that. But, if I'm right he would not have been wholly satisfied with what he wrote in the original story's place. And it could go apiece toward explaining a certain insensitivity perhaps. 

First; I don't think there was any insensitivity about either of the plots which mirrored Pat's abortion/trial.  Lemay was just mining the past, which is something unique to the soap opera genre. All good soap opera writers mine the past of their respective shows. Any soap writer who doesn't use the past is an idiot.

Second; Yes, I believe Marianne's pregnancy and abortion in 1975 were written as an alternative to Lemay's original plan to write Michael Randolph as gay.  That in no way implies that Lemay was disappointed in Marianne's storyline. But you are correct -- Lemay was clearly disappointed when P&G put the kibosh on Michael being gay.    

58 minutes ago, Vee said:

This is fascinating to hear about, thank you. I'll go look it up. Eddie Drueding never lets people down.

I didn't know Lemay invoked Pat's trial much, and I read his book. I'd love to hear more.

In addition to these early Lemay mentions of Pat's abortion and murder trial, I remember the following: In 1975, Lemay wrote Marianne Randolph's pregnancy and abortion, which mirrored Pat's situation a generation earlier, minus the murder and trial. The parallels to Pat's 1963 situation were discussed by Pat and John, Jim and Liz, and Alice and Pat.   Then in 1978, another storyline with Marianne ended with Pat killing Marianne's boyfriend Greg Barnard, while experiencing flash-backs to her killing Tom Baxter in 1963.   So clearly Harding Lemay had no intention of allowing Pat Randolph to forget her scandalous past.    

(AW SPOILER WARNING) Today, I enjoyed reading the recent update on the AWHP. The episode synopsis are up for August through December, 1971.  These include Harding Lemay's first episodes as head-writer (starting date: August 31, 1971).  Immediately, we begin to hear of Steve Frame's background -- growing-up poor with multiple siblings.  And it becomes clear, pretty quickly, that Walter Curtain is unredeemable.  Also, there are multiple mentions of Pat Randolph's murder-trial from a 1963 storyline.  Lemay fans will recall, Pat's 1963 abortion and murder plot was something Lemay kept percolating for his entire eight-years as head-writer.  

AND we finally get a play-by-play description of the end of the Caroline Johnson storyline -- in which Caroline (played by Rue McClanahan), nannie for the Randolph twins, plots to take over Pat's live, husband, and ultimately kidnap Michael and Marianne -- to replace her own deceased twins. Anyone who has read Lemay's "Eight Years in Another World" will recall Lemay hated this plot, initially written by AW's former head-writer, and that Lemay quickly wrapped-up the storyline when he arrived.  Well, upon reading the daily synopsis, I will say that "wrapping-up" is not the term I would use. Lemay simply ended the plot just as it was approaching its intended climax.  Out of the blue, Pat finds reason (a fairly good reason, I will admit) to fire Caroline, and Caroline is gone.  It's McClanahan's final scene.   Then about a week later, Caroline is arrested by the police off-camera, and the audience learns Caroline's entire back-story, and her intention to kidnap Michael and Marianne.   So the entire denouement of Caroline's plot takes place off-camera.  Wow, what a buzz-kill!  This had to be one of Mr Lemay's stranger decisions.    

4 hours ago, Faulkner said:

What was Justin Deas like with Eileen Fulton and Don Hastings? For some reason I can’t really picture it, and I haven’t seen a lot of clips of them together.

I've seen several clips of Deas and Hastings, and they are great!  It seemed that working with Deas allowed Don Hastings to display his natural sense of humor -- something Hastings seldom got to do playing Bob.  I would say, Hastings was likely even funnier than Deas, so they were good acting partners.

I don't remember seeing any scenes with Deas and Eileen Fulton.   But I'm sure they were interesting.  

20 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

Maybe NBC should have expanded The Doctors in the 70's. It would have been worth a try and could have solved a lot of problems.

I don't think a hospital based soap could survive the transition to 60-minutes without getting too far out of the hospital and morphing into a typical soap opera.  I would not have wanted to witness The Doctors becoming what General Hospital became, or anything near that.  But I do agree NBC had great difficulty maintaining a successful third 60-minute soap.   

54 minutes ago, Sapounopera said:

He also seemingly assumed a number of theater actors he had take big roles on the show would stay long-term.

I completely agree.  If you read Lemay's book, you'd think he populated the entire show with Broadway actors. But the truth is -- although many fairly well-known theater actors were hired on AW during Lemay's tenure, 90% of those actors played minor roles.  And of the few who were hired into major roles, almost none lasted more than a year.  In fact, of all the theater actors hired during Lemay's run, only Irene Dailey stayed-on long-term.  And even she was known as a soap opera actress, along with her Broadway credentials.

Of course many actors in long-term major roles on AW had significant theater experience -- Doug Watson, Vicky Wyndham,  George Reinholt, Connie Ford, Leon Russom, Kathleen Widdoes, Dorothy Lyman, Anne Meacham, Beverly Penberthy, Laurie Hineman, etc.  But all of them (like Irene Dailey) had played roles on other soaps, before joining AW.

It's not as if Lemay just picked each of them directly off the stage.    

33 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:

Coincidentally, her final episode aired 41 years ago today.

By the way, I understand that Beverly Penberthy is now 90 years old.  That is difficult to believe.  I loved her acting style when she played Pat, and she was certainly beautiful.   

18 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

Judith Barcroft had originated the role of Lenore and may have returned if asked, but I guess as she hadn't played Lenore when Robert was on, they felt there was no need.

All the return characters, I think, were from the Lemay era, which makes sense as he was writer for a significant amount of time and when the show was most popular.

With Robert back, they could have brought back Clarice and used it as an opportunity to bring his son Cory on, now a teen. But there never seemed to be much interest in looking to the past, except when Lemay returned and set some things up that Donna Swajeski followed through.

Did Beverly Penberthy return in 89?

I feel sure Judith Barcroft would have returned as Lenore for the 25th anniversary episodes.  And she certainly was a good enough actress to have great chemistry with Nic Coster. But as you suggested, TPTB probably didn't understand that, and assumed it should be Susan Sullivan or nothing.   

You are right, all the returning characters were from the Lemay era.  And there were several actors invited to appear who declined. I believe those actors included: Maeve Kincaid as Angie Perrini, Leon Russom as Willis Frame, Susan Sullivan as Lenore Curtain Delany, and Christopher Rich as Sandy Cory.  So -- that leaves Sandy Cory as the only "invited" returning character not from the Lemay era.  That really illustrates the contribution and influence Lemay had on Another World, even a decade after he first left the show.    

Yes, Beverly Penberthy returned for the anniversary.

On 1/6/2023 at 8:42 PM, j swift said:

Does anyone recall the context of this scene?

I know Robert returned for the Cory Anniversary party in 1989, but what did he do for Iris to cause this reaction?

Carmen Duncan is really captivating in this scene (even in that ridiculous dress).  And 34 years later Robert Delaney's still got "it" in that white dinner jacket.

 

This was basically a convenient re-write of history.  First, Robert and Iris had parted on extremely bad terms around 1975-76, and their marriage had never been very stable to begin with.  So for Iris to tell Robert (in 1989) that he had been her favorite husband was ludicrous.  In "real" history, Iris's favorite husband would have most certainly been either Alex Wheeler or Brian Bancroft.  And Robert Delany would likely have been her least favorite!!  But again, this was a convenient re-write of history.  The rationale was likely to give Nic Coster something to do during the reunion episodes, since he had agreed to return.  Robert's true love on AW, Lenore, did not return -- Susan Sullivan had been invited to appear as Lenore, but declined.  Although Sullivan did attend the Anniversary cast party in New York.  Had Sullivan reprised her role as Lenore, I'm sure 90% of Robert Delany's scenes would have been with her, and he and Iris might not have even crossed paths.    

25 minutes ago, titan1978 said:

While checking out @JAS0N47FB posts about the Horton Ornaments, I wondered is there an in-story origin of their creation?  Did the kids make their own, was Alice the one making them for years?  Has it ever been stated on the show who makes them for the characters?

I read somewhere that in the early years of the show, Alice commented that the ornament tradition was started by Tom's mother, and passed down to Tom and Alice.  But I don't believe it has ever been revealed who actually makes the individual ornaments.   

2 hours ago, j swift said:

I take it this was Lenore's mother?

I don't know anything about her, can you fill me in?

Yes, Helen was Lenore's mother.  Originally, Helen and Lenore were introduced to the show as quite wealthy.  Somewhat more wealthy than Liz Matthews, although Liz was fairly wealthy herself.  Helen was a widow, and friends with millionaire Katherine Corning. And I believe Helen and Liz were both instrumental in Katherine being introduced to the show.   Both Helen and Lenore were created by Agnes Nixon, so I assume Nixon also created Katherine.  

After Nixon left AW, the next head-writer (Robert Cenedella) downplayed Helen and Lenore's wealth a bit, allowing for the close friendship between Lenore and the middle-class Matthews sisters, Pat and Alice.  And when Harding Lemay became head-writer, he downplayed their wealth even more, writing Helen and Lenore as themselves middle-class (or perhaps upper middle-class).  Lemay also downplayed Liz Matthews' wealth, when he brought the character back to the show played by Irene Dailey.  Although he still wrote Liz as somewhat wealthier than Jim and Mary.   

Obviously, Lemay had plans to introduce his own wealthy characters, Iris and Mac. So that might explain his choices with Helen, Lenore, and Liz.   

As far as I know, Helen Moore never had a storyline, other than a brief flirtation and a date or two with Jim Matthews, after Mary died.  

15 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

Missy had already been set up as an orphan by Irna . She loved adoption stories, right back to Guiding Light on radio.

I wonder if she had a character in mind as Missy's mother and Agnes followed up or Katherine was completely Agnes' creation?

Looks like Ann Sheridan signed on for 6 months, so they killed off the character. Would it have been better to keep Katherine around?

I'm not sure Katherine should have stayed on the show, after the initial plot.  AW was already playing Liz Matthews and Helen Moore as the rich older ladies, so I doubt they needed a third.  Still, I would not have killed-off Katherine.  She might have been used later, especially on Somerset.  Perhaps on Somerset, the presence of Katherine (even if recast) would have made Missy more interesting, and led to a more lengthy and successful run for Missy on the spin-off.  I understand Missy was rather boring on Somerset with little written for her, other than a failed romance.  

Agnes recreated several characters from AW on AMC.  And some of them had been originally created by Irna Phillips on AW.  Missy Palmer (Kitty Shea) and Liz Matthews (Phoebe Tyler).  Obviously, Phoebe was more extreme than Liz.  Linc Tyler was Bill Matthews with a new name and face.  Agnes also re-used some of her own creations from AW on AMC -- Rachel and Ada / Erica and Mona are the most obvious.