Mona Kane Croft

Was Sara MacIntyre still there in 1982?  I thought Marland wrote her off.  And I'm surprised Jennifer is still there too.  Wow.

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.  

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.  

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.   

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.  

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.   

-- "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.    

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.   

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?  

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.

2 hours ago, DRW50 said:

 

That's crazy. I wish that was around. I can't imagine the fan reaction.

I saw it, and I thought she did a good job.  But it was completely unexpected. 

I'm a little surprised the episode isn't on Youtube.  It was probably in 1979, and P&G started preserving episodes that year.   Maybe it will pop up sometime.  Does anyone know the dates of the earliest available groups of episode on YouTube?

5 hours ago, RavenWhitney said:

I think the Corringtons were brilliant on SFT but it was too much too soon and the older audience didn't cotton to the New Orleans angle. But Travis and Liza kept the show going.  Texas was a hot mess.  The Corringtons lasted a hot minute as HW of Capitol, OLTL and GH. GL even hired Joyce for a few months during the Doug Anderson head writing debacle.  Maybe the Corringtons should have stayed on SFT and expanded it to an hour.  They found their footing after they moved the action back to Henderson.

Well, the action in New Orleans was always intended to be temporary.  It was just setting up the family history of the Sentell and Tourners.  

Do you remember when Martin Tourner returned to New Orleans on a business trip or something, and hooked=up with an old girlfriend who was a prostitute, and she was Jo's doppelgänger?  Played by Mary Stuart.  It was wild, watching Mary play that character.   It may have been Mary Stuart's first scene in bed with a man.  Not sure about that.  

I would love to go back and watch the Corrington's work on SFT again.  Especially their early months, when they were transitioning the show to their vision.  I remember enjoying it and thinking they had added new life to the show.  And the voo-doo stuff didn't go too far.  It didn't go truly supernatural.  I always felt the Corringtons left enough doubt that the audience could either believe it, or not believe it.  I think that type of story  should always be handled that way on soaps, unless we're talking Dark Shadows.   A "normal" soap opera should never go truly supernatural or sci-fi, but they can toy with it along the edges, as long as they leave room for doubt.

Remember the Corringtons were the creators of Texas.  They were hired to create the new show, because of what they had done on SFT.  But their plans for Texas were totally screwed by NBC, P&G, and Paul Rauch with his insistence the Beverly McKenzie become the star of the show.  I think what we saw in the early months of Texas was nothing like what the Corringtons really wanted to do, and would have done without network interference. 

36 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

This could generate some interest but it's a long way from a thoughtful documentary that traces the roots and the evolution of the daytime drama. It is what it is and perhaps this may lead to something substantial down the road.

I'd leave that to PBS. 

I hate it when they immediately start talking about big stars who got their starts on soap operas. It's insulting to the genre.  I'd much rather hear about the wonderful actors who spent entire careers on daytime.  Those are the actors we love.  

Well, if there are 100 over-the- top storylines on daytime, 101 doesn't make it any better.  Its sorta like whataboutism.  

3 minutes ago, chrisml said:

I have no particular reverence for Loving, but I found the Loving Murders to be an enjoyable story. Yes, the deaths were over the top, but I didn't mind that because there was so much else grounding the story. When I think of the junk that airs today on the soaps, this story seems like a masterpiece in comparison. To me, the story is no more ridiculous than making a mobster the moral centre of a show, transforming a rapist into a romantic hero, vampires, burials, rerapings, etc. 

Well, I don't like those things either. So we agree on that.  

3 hours ago, antmunoz said:

I think I’ve chatted with that same accessible actor on FB, and yes, the subject of Mary elicited virtually no response. 

Entertainment reporter Nelson Aspen only has the best things to say about his mentor, Mary. He was backstage at SFT and also day played as Albert.  Aspen speaks negatively of the accessible actor, though. Hmmmmm. 
 

Ann Williams told her kids that Mary was jealous of her and got her fired. Mary was her son’s godmother.  But Ann seemed a bit paranoid in real life as well. 

 

Oh yeah, I forgot about Nelson Aspen.  He has said positive things.  Even though I am aware he truly did know her and worked at SFT,  he still comes off more like a fan than a colleague.   

The funny thing is, if Mary's costars hated her,  that's perfectly okay.  If they were indifferent to her, that's okay.  If they loved her, that's okay too.  But why be so cryptic about it?   It just seems fishy.  

18 minutes ago, Mitch said:

Werent these kind of stupid...a body powder which poisons someone instantly? A candle that takes the oxygen out of the air..instantly... plaster which hardens..instantly??

I completely agree.  I've never understood why people rave about this storyline being so great.  It was probably the most ridiculous and unbelievable serial-killer storyline ever on daytime.  I think people are afraid to criticize it or admit how stupid it was, because it was Loving's swan song. Sort of out of reverence for the show, I guess.  

7 hours ago, Franko said:

Did Larry Haines ever talk at length about his working relationship with Mary? He'd be the one whose stories I'd want to hear.

Just the typical vague brief comments that everybody else tends to use, when asked about Mary.  It's almost comical how evasive people are, when Mary's name comes up in interviews.  Almost like they've taken a vow of silence (I'm exaggerating a little. LOL).  I've heard former colleagues be very open about working with other soap stars -- John Bernadino, MacDonald Carey, Susan Lucci, Connie Ford, Susan Flannery, etc., etc., etc.  But when Mary Stuart's name comes up, it's a quick, "Oh, dear Mary" (or something similar) and that's it.  

A couple of years ago, I was engaged in a Facebook conversation with a former SFT actor, who is very accessible to fans on social media.  We had several pleasant exchanges over a couple of weeks, and he/she seemed eager to discuss career related memories.  Then I ask her/him to share a few memories about working with Mary, and I got a three or four word response. Nothing negative, really.  But negativity was implied in the brevity.  It was clear she/he was uncomfortable with the topic, so I dropped it.  

By the way, I want to say that I am a huge Mary Stuart fan.  I think she was an amazing talent.  That's the real reason I've been interested in hearing more about her.  Then I noticed how ominous discussion of her seems to be.   It's very puzzling.  

1 hour ago, denzo30 said:

 

 

I think the 90 min episode was the John Randolph dying in the fire.  I am almost positive, AW was already in the back of the pack of #8 before this episode even.  I could be wrong but if you look at the ratings a few months prior to March it was at the top but rapidly declined and even if the 90 mins was a downer, I dont understand how in such a short amount of time a top rated rated show would be one the least rated in just weeks.  

The episode in which John Randolph saved Alice and then died in the fire was actually the second 90-minute episode, March 6, 1979.  The first was March 5, and as I recall, it heavily featured Mac and Rachel.  

And regarding the ratings, it's been my understanding AW was #1 in the ratings during the Sven storyline, and then settled to #2 after that plot concluded.  Then stayed at #2 until March when the show expanded to 90-minutes and the ratings plunged to number 8.  It was said at the time that AW lost half of its audience because of the 90-minute expansion.  I supposed we'd need to see month by month ratings for late-78 to at least mid-79 to verify any of this.  

Tom King seemed to have learned a thing or two from Lemay, and he was pretty good at writing for Rachel, Mac, Ada, and Iris.  But he didn't seem to understand Pat, Liz, or any of the remaining Matthews family, or the Perrini family, or just about any of Lemay's other characters (Blaine, Elena, Willis, Sylvie, etc.).  Plus, King was terrible at creating new characters.  Nearly all of his new characters were terrible failures and really harmed the show,  Additionally King hurt the show by introducing such a strong element of crime, police drama, and the mob.  For a couple of years, it seemed like half the cast was involved in plots that belonged on Edge of Night. King's only real successes were with Mac, Rachel, Ada, and Iris.  

4 hours ago, AbcNbc247 said:

What role was she supposed to play?

I can't remember.  It was well known at the time, which actress took the role on DOOL, but I just don't remember now.  Maybe somebody else will.   I remember one of David Forsythe's lines on the DOOL episode was extremely insulting to AW fans.  It was all very indirect, of course.  But the end of his line was something like, "Why don't they just get over it?"   

2 hours ago, denzo30 said:

Ironically, if you look at the ratings of AW in 1979 late winter, early spring, when Harding Lemay was still writing, the ratings began to dip very rapidly.  This is before Texas, Before moving Bev or changing any time slots.  It makes me wonder,  did Harding LeMay start to lose his touch with the audiience and he saw the writing on the wall and he decided to quit?  I found the writing and production to be the same as the previous year but maybe his burnout was starting to show and the audience started to move on.  I know this is when GH began to become a big attraction.  If anything, I think changes Rauch made were due to AW's decline.  It is odd to see how the show was like #2 and just a few months later it moved to the back of the pack and never regained that top status again..  

It was the beginning of the 90-minute episodes when the ratings took severe plunge.  From #2 in the ratings all the way to #8, I believe.   The 90-minute transition was a fiasco, even with Lemay writing.  Lemay didn't lose his touch, but the 90-minute thing just didn't work.  Shortly after Lemay left in April 1979, the ratings fell further to #9 and then never got above #9 for the final 20 years of the show.   

5 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

In this interview Burton was on GL and happy with the work environment there.

 

I agree re VW. Also, she was so identified with Rachel that the other shows may not have been interested. And there were not many roles available in that age group.

Remember, she pulled out of DOOL when she realized the part was miniscule. can't really blame her I guess.

I think VW also pulled out of DOOL because she realized the dialogue was going to be campy and make fun of the genre and even the fans.  

Back to David Canary's comments about AW -- he also said the atmosphere in the studio was toxic, and he was glad when he was released from his contract.  And he implied that VW was difficult as well as unhappy.  He basically said his experience at AW was a negative one, but that AMC was the opposite.