Mona Kane Croft
-
Posts
880 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Mona Kane Croft
-
-
16 minutes ago, j swift said:
Not to rejudicate plots from 40 years (although that's what we do on these boards), but I think the replay of the Steve/Alice/Rachel plot failed for more reasons than just the recast. David Canary was an excellent Steven Frame, he was sexy, debonair, and had an easy chemistry with most female leads. The build up of the story was great because everyone was talking about Edward Black before he came to town. That created intrigue about the character while there was never a clue about his true identity (much like the introduction of Adam Chandler on AMC). I remember the silhouette of what seemed to be Reinholt turn into David Canary in his first scene even before seeing it again in the clip that was posted because it was such a classic cliffhanger. And sufficient time had passed between the actors that the recast was less jarring.
However, (from a plot point of view), the breakup of Rachel and Mac to facilitate the triangle seemed rushed. Mitch was a viable option for Rachel, but as an audience member, the true rooting value was for Rachel and Mac to reunite. She had changed so much during their romance, and she had fought Iris and Janice in order to be with Mac, that it made no sense that Rachel would regress to point of wanting to get back together with Steve. Also, Mac was caddish playboy with a wandering eye when he met Rachel, so sweet nurse Alice was unlikely match for such a lusty guy. Furthermore, it didn't help matters that during the storyline Rachel (who had just survived a barn fire) suffered from car-accident-induced-amnesia and then car-accident-induced-blindness making her the most accident prone character in Bay City.
George Reinholt,(like many soap hunks in a triangle) was never the appeal of the original story. He was wooden, he had terrible hair, and his delivery was so contrived he made Drake Hogestyn look like Laurence Olivier. We tuned in to watch Alice and Rachel fight. The classic scenes were Rachel crueling informing Alice that she was pregnant at the engagement party and then Rachel crueling trying to kick Alice out of the house when Steve died. But, by the 1980's Rachel had outgrown her cruel nature. She was still impulsive, but she was no longer driven by a need for attachment to men who didn't want her, like her father. So, the story felt like a big step backward for Rachel.
Also, without Jamie as a major character within the story, Steve's motivation was suspect. Jamie was in Bay City during the storyline, but he did not have much of an impact on the plot. Why would Steven abandon Jamie after fighting so hard for custody that he went to jail? Why would Steven be so devoted to his horse loving stepdaughter Diana that he would forget to ask about Jamie's well being? Why would Steven build a new company and not want to take care of Jamey financially?
So much great plot resulted from Steve's death, including the evolution of Willis (my favorite AW male character beside Robert Delaney), the introduction of Ray Gordon and Olive Randolph, and mostly the Mac/Rachel/Iris storyline that reviving the character at any point afterward would never be as good.
I completely agree with you regarding Rachel and her unexplainable return to lusting after Steve. Since 1975, Rachel's endgame was always Mac, and the audience knew it. The triangle was long over, but I think there was still energy in the Alice/Steve romance. Had the recasts been successful, AW could have moved forward with two popular super-couples, Rachel/Mac and Alice/Steve. I could see Steve and Alice growing into a relationship similar to Victor and Nikki on Y&R.
I also agree that Steve's motivation for staying in Australia for so long was botched. The real Steve would never have stayed away intentionally, with Jamie and Alice grieving and waiting back in Bay City. They should have gone with severe physical injuries and amnesia, and Willis (the perpetual loser) could have played a role, since he and Gwen had moved to Australia just a year or so before Steve's return.
0 -
2 hours ago, Darn said:
Thank you. He's not Barbara Walters, he's a moderator just trying to get these actors to reminisce not trash producers or writers. If they happen to while talking about the past that's on them but I don't expect him to pull it out of them.
He's really doing a great job. I'm so glad he's been doing this. He knows what he's talking about and he respects the genre.
0 -
1 hour ago, DRW50 said:
I think he may see these more as catchups for fans than in-depth interviews...if anyone knows how to contact Sandra I hope they can get her to say more.
You're right. I too wish he would ask more serious questions, but he wants these to be reunions, so things need to be kept rather light. It can be frustrating, but I completely understand why he gives them soft-ball questions. The responses to some serious queries might embarrass others in the reunion, or make them feel uncomfortable. The last thing Alan wants in a reunion is for someone to regret their decision to participate. If we want more serious questions that might get into criticizing others, trouble in the studio, or conflicts with co-workers, he probably needs to do that in one-on-one interviews. And I don't know if he has any interest in doing that.
So before we criticize his interviewing skill too much, we need to think about his fundamental reason for holding them. And I don't think it's to dig up dirt.
0 -
23 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:
Great new updates have just been posted on AWHP
Where are the updates? I just checked, and the last update I see on the list is March 25, 2020.
0 -
47 minutes ago, Khan said:
I'm not sure, but I THINK that's Paul Tulley (ex-Dr. Larry Wolek #1, OLTL; ex-Creepy Edward, Y&R). He played Scott Bradley.
Yes, it's Paul Tulley. It's strange Tulley is in this photo, because Scott Bradley was a minor character, and all the other actors were in major roles. Janice being the least, but she was important during this short time. Plus, all the other actors are closely connected to Mac and Rachel. Again, Scott was not really. He was an attorney for Cory Publishing, but he was more personally connected to Alice Frame, than to Rachel and Mac.
0 -
1 hour ago, VanessaReardon said:
Yikes. Locher is desperate for clicks. He makes money everytime someone clicks on his page. Zenk Pinter again?? Hard pass!
Who cares if he's making money? He works hard putting the reunions together, and he does a great job. At least we don't have to pay to watch them.
0 -
8 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:
Sara remained on the show through Pat Falken Smith's excellent-but-brief tenure as head writer in 1982, and was written out by subsequent scribes during the cast massacre of the early 1980s.
Most of the vets were fired and did not leave voluntarily. Peter Simon (Ed) recalled that on his final day of taping, Tom O'Rourke (Justin) ranted and raved his entire way out of the building.
I still find it hard to believe that both Mike and Hope Bauer were written off the show around 1984, and none of the subsequent writers thought it might be a good idea to bring either of them back to town. The Bauers were such an interesting flawed core-family, surely they would have been wonderful to write for. They weren't perfect like the Hughes or the Matthews.
0 -
46 minutes ago, VanessaReardon said:
You’re right - you control your keyboard. Glad you’re not letting anyone control it for you even though some will try.
My records show Millette Alexander’s last episode as 12/24/82 and Geraldine Court’s last episode as 2/4/83. Mike Bauer was in the opening you referenced above. He didn’t leave until 1984.
Thank you for the information. Do you know if Sara was written out, or did she just stop appearing? Was Sara still important in the storylines up until she left? Or had she been minimized?
0 -
1 hour ago, DRW50 said:
And they're in them until at least March 1983. I guess these must have been stock credits they didn't want to bother changing...
Looks like Mike Bauer has been removed from this one. Does anyone know approximately when Sara and Jennifer left the show?
0 -
1 hour ago, watson71 said:
This is so true- this triangle was doomed from the start because you had two recasts instead of Reinholt and Courtney. Paul Rauch's ego was probably too big to even contact them to see if they were interested in returning. If the show had waited until 1984 to do this triangle once Courtney had already returned and rehired Reinholt, I believe would have been successful. Rauch was long gone by then, so his dislike of both of them would have not have an issue. I wonder if they ever considered rehiring Reinholt in 1989 after he appeared in the 25th anniversary episodes after Douglass Watson died. You could have even incorporated it into the red swan mystery storyline- Mac really left town because he discovered the real Steve Frame was alive with amnesia and that Edward Black (David Canary) was an imposter who assumed his identity. Mac placed this information into the red swan and sent it to Rachel before he passed away.
A year or so ago, I read an interview with Rauch. He said that in 1981, he asked George Reinholt to lunch to discuss the possibility of returning to AW. He said the meeting was pleasant, and that George was a great talent. But he could tell George still wanted to "be the writer" (which caused most of the trouble in 1975), and he couldn't take chances on bringing that type of toxic behavior back into the studio. So he hired David Canary instead.
I think Jacquie Courtney would have been great with David Canary. Although I didn't like Canary's interpretation of Steve Frame, it really wasn't his fault. He obviously knew nothing of Steve's history or Steve's personality. He played Steve as loud and happy, while the character had always been rather quiet and brooding. Canary just needed some direction, and I'm sure he would have been very good as Steve.
0 -
4 minutes ago, DRW50 said:
I wonder if they were just slow to update the credits (although you'd think it would have been easy to change out a few shots).
Funny, but I don't remember ever seeing Sara or Jennifer in the disco-opening before.
0 -
7 hours ago, DRW50 said:
That's an odd mix for the cast shots. I think I see the last Tim recast. I thought he was also gone by this time.
Is it possible this is the wrong opening credits for this episode? Maybe someone just edited it into the video? Is there a GL expert here, who can verify all those characters were still on the show in 1982?
0 -
7 hours ago, DRW50 said:
That is pretty. I'd never heard it. I didn't realize Vera Moore was still on at this point. I guess she was passing the torch to the next black actress, as the show so often did...I didn't know Jim was still around either.
This Alice looks so old.
I first read about the mob story on AWHP, and so much of it, especially Jason's last words, read as genuinely gripping. It doesn't seem to be as gripping onscreen, sadly.
Yes, Vera Moore (Linda Metcalf) made appearances at the same time Quinn Harding was on the show, sadly the two never had scenes together. But this is VERY late in Vera's run. She's out the door soon. What puzzles me is, why is Vera listed with the contract actors? Surely she wasn't still on-contact at that time, since she appeared only when they needed a nurse, and hadn't had even a hint of a storyline since 1975. But in this episode, she is listed several names before Linda Borgeson, and I know Borgeson was on-contract. During this era, the cast was listed in order of seniority, except VW and DW (who had billing at the top of the credits) and the non-contact players were always listed at the end.
The mob stories seemed to go on and on forever. At least 2 or 3 years. I'm confident they contributed to the show's staying low in the ratings throughout the early-80s. AW viewers didn't want a crime-drama. We wanted family drama and class-conflict. Every soap can do a crime/mob story once in a while, but not one after another after another. AW wasn't Edge of Night.
0 -
40 minutes ago, victoria foxton said:
Wanting Russ out the way Jason went to European lady pimp Isa. Isa arranged for a hit man to plant a bomb in Jason's car. But it was Tracy the object of Jason'a affections. Who was blown to kingdom come. When she got in the car. Alice Frame came back to town. Ada's husband Charlie died of natural causes in his sleep. Charlie's sons Leigh and Denny hit Bay City. Both brothers were involved with Sally Frame. Rachel who faced prison for Mitch's murder. Went on the run and found Mitch. Mac 's son Sandy arrived in Bay City. A now widow Russ dated Olivia. Noting came out of that. Months and months after Tracy's death. Russ found out about Jason causing Tracy's death. Quinn Harding arrived in Bay City. Quinn hired Denny for her mysterious boss Edward Black. When Jordan Scott was murdered Blaine became the prime suspect. Blaine was put on trial. The DA prosecuting Blaine was the killer. Rachel left Mac and embarked on a relationship with Mitch Blake. That's all i can remember from the top of my head. Brown wasn't perfect but she was way better than King and Jacker. Out of King we got Janice and Mitch's plot to kill Mac for his money. Which was really good. Everything else was BORING. Out of Jacker we got Cass. And some much need diversity. But the rest of the show was all over the place.
Ahh, I see all that mob nonsense was still running. Tom King started that about a month after he replaced Lemay. It was badly written, unconvincing, and didn't belong on Another World anyway. And I see Browne and Jacker continued it. Neither of them wrote the mob storylines any better than King. Another big problem during this era: the cast was in a constant state of turn-over from King's arrival, all the way until Felicia Gallant and Donna Love were introduced, when some of the new characters finally began to stick around longer than a year.
0 -
Was Sara MacIntyre still there in 1982? I thought Marland wrote her off. And I'm surprised Jennifer is still there too. Wow.
0 -
7 minutes ago, Soaplovers said:
The 1st Alice recast in 1981 was pretty good but was replaced by someone insipid later that year.
Interesting you feel that way, because I have the opposite opinion. Vana Tribbey (the first 1981 recast) was wrong for the role. She was too harsh and too sexual. The second 1981 recast, Linda Borgeson, was much closer to Jackie Courtney's interpretation of the role, so I liked her much better. But you can't revive a love triangle with two of the three characters recast. It probably would have worked, if either George Reinholt or Jackie Courtney would have returned to work with Vicky Wyndham. And it would have blown-off the roof, if they'd both returned.
0 -
55 minutes ago, Efulton said:
I recently watched the L .Virgina Browne era an completely agree with you.
What was going on during Brown's time at the show? Just in general, I mean. I was watching then, but there were so many head writers in the 80s, I couldn't tell you who wrote what.
0 -
1 hour ago, antmunoz said:
Thank you. Hunt Block was great and was playing Craig AS WRITTEN.Scott Bryce was in Hollywood doing prime-time. He would not have come back then.
Should he have been fired from his second stint on ATWT? No.
But Hunt was very well-received at the time, by fans and soap press. So was Heather Rattray as Lily. It’s revisionist history that they weren’t.
You can blame Goutman for effing up Craig, but Block seems to get so much heat for his portrayal. It was on the page, in the script.
Weirdly, when a character is NOT recast, but has major personality shifts ( Zenk’s Barbara, more than once), it’s ok.
I agree that Hunt Block was great as Craig, and he was playing the role as written. My problem with "that" Craig is that Craig had almost completely reformed under Marland's pen. He was still a bit of an anti-hero, but he had reformed. When the character returned with Block in the role, there seemed to be absolutely no motivation for Craig's return to the dark-side. Why not show us that motivation, so Block's Craig would be more easily accepted? Or perhaps Sheffer could have just created a new character for Block to play. Or former character not so reformed, Scott Eldgrige for example.
0 -
32 minutes ago, DRW50 said:
I barely watched most of that - at least they remembered it again.
After the show was cancelled, the final Cory Publishing set showed up on ATWT as Lucinda Walsh's office. And Cass's law office was used as Tom Hughes' law office for a short period.
0 -
7 minutes ago, DRW50 said:
I think Cory Publishing was last shown in 1993 or 1994. It was mentioned again around 1998 but I don't think it was shown.
There were scenes at Cory Publishing near the end of the show, when Sandra Ferguson returned as Amanda. She went to work again at Brava magazine, and there was a new set for the Cory Complex. I remember, because it was much smaller than any of the other sets they had used for the same purpose.
0 -
-- "Didn't Doug write ATWT (and Lucinda ) for like 8 years?
For sure in that time there would be instances when she wasn't happy about the writing or particular plot points. Maybe she is focusing on those times and forgetting the good stuff...human nature to do that." --
It's all about perspective, I guess. And I think Liz's idea of writing for Lucinda would be storylines specifically for Lucinda, meaning Lucinda was the "star" of the storyline. So even though Marland used Lucinda constantly, and she got lots of air-time, Liz doesn't see that as really writing for Lucinda. It's funny, because I watched the entire Marland run on ATWT, and I thought he over-emphasized Lucinda, giving too much attention to a character who was really peripheral to the show. Good Lord, it seemed like she was on every day! So every time she says Marland didn't write for Lucinda, I just shake my head. But as I said, it's all about perspective.
0 -
Alan does a great job and is a very good interviewer, but I don't think he knows enough about Another World to ask the right questions. So the conversation tended to stray away from the show. Unlike his GL and ATWT interviews, which, to a larger degree, stay on the topic of the shows.
0 -
1 hour ago, Paul Raven said:
Travis (1978) pre dated Luke, (1979) who did not have the perm when he first appeared.
Luke didn't have the perm when he first appeared? Did Travis have the perm when Travis first appeared?
0 -
14 minutes ago, VanessaReardon said:
Thanks. Sorry for the repeat. It’s brought up discussion though. I think SFT was doing great in the ratings at this time. Liza & Travis were ‘it’ and they were capitalizing on Rod Arrants having the Luke Spencer hair. lol
I think SFT gave Rod Arrants the Luke Spencer hair intentionally. Because he didn't have it earlier, when he was on For Richer, For Poorer. Or later, when he was on Y&R. Another World also gave a perm to one of their hot new studs. It finally disappeared about a year and a half later (the perm, not the stud).
But was Luke Spencer already all that popular, when Travis first appeared on SFT? That was 1978, I think.
0
Another World
in DTS: Cancelled Soaps
Posted · Edited by Neil Johnson
Your feelings about this are valid, but I'm not sure they are healthy for soap operas in general. This attitude goes along with the current (now long-held) soap opera trend that there should be no good people or bad people -- that all characters should be morally ambiguous. Ingenues are boring, middle-class core-families are boring, the villainess should be the show's female romantic lead, a barely-reformed anti-hero should be the male romantic lead, etc, etc, etc.
That's been the philosophy in soaps for the past 35 years, and what has happened to the ratings? I do think soaps require characters to root for, and the audience long-ago grew tired of being told they should root for essentially bad people. Soaps need protagonists and antagonists. The most prominent characters on nearly all soaps for the past 35 years have been a group of antagonists (with some exceptions). Good storytelling doesn't work that way. It's perfectly okay for the good people to have flaws, and for the bad people to have some redeeming qualities. But the audience wants to be able to tell the difference. I think the ratings add validity to my point.