Mona Kane Croft

27 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I wonder if he even knew much about her. He mentioned only getting backstory in depth from fan letters. But he did bring back Susan...

Good question. No idea how much Lemay knew about Janet. Perhaps he'd never heard of her. Plus Janet's age may have been a factor in not having her return.  Lemay had brought back Liz, and with Mary, Ada, and Helen Moore already on the canvas, perhaps there wasn't room for another mid-50-ish woman.

But regarding Susan,  Lemay is actually the head-writer who wrote her off in 1971, so that explains why he remembered her.  And of course, he brought Susan and Dan back in 1978.    

4 hours ago, Xanthe said:

I went back to this discussion after looking at the AW Bible looking for evidence of intended maiden names yesterday because one of the interesting things was that Irna emphasized that Liz had loved her husband Bill very much and her adoration of her son came second. Obviously things can change between the bible and the actual implementation (for example the character called Cynthia in the bible became Pat) but it did make me curious about whether Liz had been depicted as a loving wife initially and the loveless marriage was an innovation of Lemay's. 

I haven't read through the whole bible yet but I must say the I found the description of single career woman Janet who "doesn't know she's lonely" to be really off-putting. Maybe it played out in a slightly more balanced fashion but I thought Janet deserved better. 

It's possible the loveless marriage angle was Agnes Nixon's idea, since she wrote a lot for Liz and really fleshed-out the character. And that Lemay just carried that forward.  Additionally -- when I was a viewer, I never believed the loveless part went both ways.  I always got the impression that Liz loved Will, but he never loved her.  He demonstrated this by being dismissive and cold to Liz, and perhaps by being unfaithful (although I do not believe Will was ever said to have been unfaithful in the scripts).  

Now, Janet Matthews must have been an interesting character!  It seems Irna likely fashioned Janet after Aunt Edie on ATWT.  But perhaps Janet was a bit more likable and bit less scandalous -- although I believe Janet had affairs with two married men during her time on the show.   Janet seems like the type of complex shades-of-gray character that Lemay would have LOVED.  So I've always been a bit surprised he never brought her back to the canvas.   

10 hours ago, Xanthe said:

On the AWHP character guide for Liz it mentions without explanation that Liz's maiden name may have been Hill. I did a little poking around and found that the source was the scripts used for the 1966 daily synopses. See the note on April 8.

http://www.anotherworldhomepage.com/aw1966.html

There is nothing mentioned for Mary on her page in the character guide. I started looking through the AW Bible on the AWHP but haven't come across any hints so far. I will refrain from attempting to start the rumour that obviously it must have been Russell.

Thank you for the research.  It is really cool that the AWHP was able to dig up Liz's likely maiden name.   

Does anyone happen to remember the maiden names of Mary Matthews and Liz Matthews?   Ada Hobson's maiden name was Lucas, if I remember correctly.   

6 hours ago, Contessa Donatella said:

This idea that some people have that there may be a rebooting of classic soaps is so much hooey. Not gonna happen. 

The Contessa is absolutely correct.  If and when new soap operas are developed, tptb are not likely to look backward and reboot classic soaps.  And even if they did, only AMC and OLTL would stand even a snowball's chance of that happening. Tptb are going to look forward and create new shows. And those in charge are going to want credit ($$$) for creating each new soap.  Why would anybody go to the trouble of rebooting an old soap opera, and then send Agnes Nixon's estate or P&G a big check for the rights??  

My biggest hope is that the new creators use some wisdom and consider what types of soap operas might actually survive in todays media market. Personally, I believe it would be wise for each new soap opera to premiere as a 30-minute five-day a week show; on broadcast, streaming platforms, and International syndication.  The new shows should only expand to 60-minutes if and when there is clear evidence that the audience will continue watching, and the network and platforms agree to continue buying the show -- which I feel is unlikely.  

Does anyone know if Jordon Charney is still planning to appear at the AW 60th Reunion?   

2 hours ago, Avatar610 said:

"Bright Promise" exists in full as it was made by Bing Crosby Productions, whose holdings are now part of CBS/Paramount.  The show is available for syndication like DS and DRS, but amazingly no takers so far.  

Interesting.  I'm surprised RetroTV hasn't jumped on this, since they had some success with The Doctors, and about four-years ago were serious about getting Edge of Night.  Maybe Paramount's syndication costs for Bright Promise are too expensive, or maybe BP is bundled with other shows that RetroTV is not interested in airing.  

Paramount could always decide to stream BP on Paramount+.  Wishful thinking??

1 hour ago, Xanthe said:

Oh, I'm so glad! I had sort of assumed that Pat would have been living there and ruled it out. I wonder where Pat was. Probably in and out of prison herself.

Pat moved into a high rise apartment building after her divorce from John around 1975-76.  And this is where we see her living during John's death episode (March 6, 1979).  Pat remained in that apartment until the character's departure from the show around 1982.    

2 minutes ago, Xanthe said:

For what it's worth, after Evan's murder, based on the AWHP synopses, John was in the hospital for some time. He was released in March 1978 and apparently wherever he was living, Michael and/or Marianne lived with him. 

I don't see anything on the Addresses page that is obviously John post-Olive. In fact I don't see an address for Olive's grand house.

http://www.anotherworldhomepage.com/address.html

I glanced at the Soaps & Serials novelizations but I'm not sure they cover this period so probably nothing illuminating there.

Thank you, that information is very helpful!  So based on what we see in the March 6, 1979 (John's death) episode, Michael was still living in John and Pat's former house.  And if John and Michael were living together, then John had returned to the house he had shared with Pat since around 1964-65 (and I believe John lived in that same house with his first wife, who was Lee Randolph's mother).   Thank you again!!

29 minutes ago, j swift said:

I assumed he lived at the cabin where the fire occurred, but I could be mistaken.

Actually, that cabin was just a cabin Alice borrowed from her nursing supervisor for a long-weekend.  Neither John nor Alice had ever been to that cabin before the night of the fire.   

Does anyone remember where John Randolph lived after he and Olive split-up?  If my memory is correct, Olive stayed in the big house John had built for her.  But I'm unsure where John lived after their divorce.  Did John return to the house he had shared with Pat?  Where was he living when he died?   

Any news about where the show will be produced?  

I definitely wish this show the best, and I plan to watch it.  But I understand it will probably be a 60-minute soap, which concerns me a bit.  I think 30-minutes would be a better decision.  It has always been difficult to get a new soap opera started.  And there really have been no soaps that premiered in the 60-minute format that were ultimately successful.  It think it would be wise to premiere the show at 30-minutes, then a couple of years later -- if the ratings are high -- expand it to 60-minutes.  Or maybe just leave it at 30-minutes.  

6 hours ago, Soapsuds said:

Michael Fairman

 

I hope somewhere in the scripts for these episodes there is at least a mention of the old feud between Marie Horton and Liz Chandler.  PLEASE don't portray them as old cherished friends!!!   

10 hours ago, Contessa Donatella said:

Mona, where are you?

Hi ya, Contessa.  I'm flattered at your request that I put in my two-cents regarding this particular conversation.  But I really think I've said it all before, and anything I type will just be a repeat of stuff I've posted over and over.   And I do realize I have a tendency to repeat things, so I'll sit this one out.  But again, thanks...

39 minutes ago, Melroser said:

The gorilla storyline would never have happened if it weren't for the cancellation. It was a lame way to do a "throw back" to the show's history on a short time frame.

If they wanted to do a "throw back" to the show's history -- well, they had Sam Groom in the studio.  He should have played Russ Matthews (Rachel's first husband and Josie's father), but NO.  Let's get a guy in a gorilla costume as a nod to the past.  Brilliant.  Brilliant.

8 hours ago, Xanthe said:

As I understand it Mac was always less snobbish than Iris regardless of background. And with the later storylines it wasn't clear to me whether Mac had come from a wealthy background or if he had married a woman whose family came from money and that it was her stepmother's influence that had brought Iris up the way she was.

It was established during Mac's first few years on AW, that he was born into a wealthy Manhattan family and that Cory Publishing was at least three generations old at that point.  At one point, Mac admitted to Iris that he had never really loved her mother (his first wife) and that the marriage had been arranged.  This was before Iris's adoption storyline.  He also mentioned to Rachel that his own mother was a controlling woman consumed by social status, who was not very kind or loving.  

This is why the show's 25th anniversary episodes were something of a retcon -- suggesting that the entire company -- Cory Publishing, was only 25 years old in 1989.  There was also a period in the 1990s when the writers retconned Mac's personal background, suggesting he had been a self-made man who created Cory Publishing from scratch.  Too bad they didn't stick with Mac's original origin story, because that is what gave Mac much of his motivation -- both professional and personal.  

28 minutes ago, Gray Bunny said:

I get it, but I think it can also be beneficial at times. For instance, DAYS didn't know the Brandon Barash version of Stefan paired up with Camila Banus' Gabi would be a hit with viewers, so by the time their material began airing, the show already killed off Stefan, which led to the idiotic and completely unnecessary creation of Jake, the twin. 

Well, instead of creating the idiotic and completely unnecessary Jake, TPTB could have just lived with the decision that Stefan was dead and Brandon Barash was off the show. Not every popular actor needs to be recast as a different character or return from the dead. It's okay for them to just be gone.  Fans don't run the show, or at least they shouldn't.   

On 4/6/2024 at 9:52 PM, Paul Raven said:

To have Neal suddenly appear as Mac's nephew was odd. as stated I don't believe there was any exploration of his history/connection to Mac,just a quick way to tie a newbie  to established characters.

As for Adam replacing Neal,there was a writer change and they probably decided to go with a 'hotter' actor. Lupone was definitely a character actor, not a leading man type. Surprised he was also cast as Tom Bergman on SFT.

 

It was very strange to suddenly have (not one, but) TWO of Mac Cory's nephews arrive in town as law enforcement officials, with no mention of that being unusual -- considering the multi-generational wealth of the Cory family. Wouldn't it have been expected that someone (Mac? Rachel? Ada? Jamie? The maid? or someone?) might mention how odd it was to have two brothers coming from a millionaire family and choosing law enforcement as a career? Trying not to stereotype, but it was written as if the Corys were suddenly working-class, with two nephews "movin' on up" into law enforcement.  

I'm not suggesting it should have been a huge deal in the scripts, but still it was worthy of mention.   And the situation itself could have made for some good social-class drama, had it not been ignored.  Imagine how Iris would have felt about two of her cousins joining law enforcement?  Or how about Neal and Adam's mother? She could have come to Bay City to express her displeasure about her sons' choices.   Lots of opportunities for class-conflict that were ignored or lost.  Just my opinion, of course.  

3 minutes ago, Gray Bunny said:

We can only hope, especially since we're about to have a whopping FIVE soaps on the air in the near future. Come through The Gates! 

But really, it's just the ridiculous taping schedule that is irksome. It's literally impossible for them to course correct something that isn't working. 

I understand what you are saying, but sometimes I think there is too much course correcting on modern soaps.  Social media has made every soap opera fan an expert and a self-appointed critic.  And when TPTB get a whiff that the audience doesn't like something, they change it, rewrite it, or eliminate it. Often too quickly, with too little thought, and with too MUCH attention paid to social media.  I remember soaps in the old days, when the writers wrote what they thought was best, and the audience just watched it, or they didn't. And believe me, soaps were better 45 years ago than they are today.  Personally, I believe writers are better writers than self-appointed internet critics.  So I rather like that DOOL gets to avoid all that.  My opinion only.   

16 minutes ago, Gray Bunny said:

I swear, when the time comes that this show gets the ax, it's going to be like a Port Charles situation where they've already filmed what's gonna air and there's no chance to go back into the studio to shoot a proper finale. 

Since Peacock operates differently than a network, if the time comes to cancel the show, maybe Peacock will handle it differently than a network. Maybe Peacock will give them enough advance notice to wrap things up and have a nice ending.  

But I understand DOOL is doing very well on Peacock, so maybe there is no need to worry about cancellation.  Who knows??

23 minutes ago, te. said:

I mean, I'm 99.9% sure that it's DAYS since they're obviously putting Doug's send-off together at the moment.

With that said - I'd like those two episodes to turn into more, but who knows how much she acts these days or that she'd even be interested in doing DAYS with the type of filming schedule they use.

She actually still works quite a lot.  Mostly guest shots on primetime dramas and comedies.  And in the fairly recent past, she has said on FB that she would be thrilled to return to DOOL.  

Maree Cheatham is saying on FB that she recently booked a two-day television appearance, but she hasn't revealed what show.  Could Marie Horton be returning??

7 hours ago, adrnyc said:

I don't understand what certain posters on this board need to hear in order to understand that P&G has made it perfectly clear they have zero interest in their soap opera history. Where's the mystery?

That is simply untrue.  But I certainly have zero interest in arguing about it.  So keep on believin'...

31 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

Rachel & Ada on AW were only one of many things that were nowhere to be found in her book at all.

She covers 3 things in order of how much attention is paid. 

1. her life & familiy

2. All My Children

3. One Life to Live

GL no, AW no, Loving no, The City no, ABC Writer's development no, ... 

Also I was one of many fans when reading it when it first came out who were horrified by its having so many errors.

This week I've gotten it out of storage with an eye to re-reading it.

 

I know for a fact that Agnes Nixon was one of the two or three best writers in the history of daytime. And she was likely the very best head-writer Another World ever had.  But sadly, her book (My Life to Live) is so full of errors it probably should never have been published.  There are things in her book that will go down in history as truth, when there are simply incorrect.  Not two or three errors, but likely dozens of errors. Her book will do much more harm than good, as future television historians use it as a source for soap opera history.   If only Ms Nixon had written this book ten-years earlier.  Things might be very different.   Just my opinion, of course.