Mona Kane Croft

9 hours ago, Xanthe said:

I have a question about Julia Shearer. According to the AWHP, Dan and Susan adopted her at the age of 10. She first appeared at age 17 in 1982 played by Kyra Sedgwick. Prior to that Susan had last been in Bay City in 1979 divorcing Dan. Was Julia talked about prior to 1982 or was the adoption a retcon in order to fill in a family void?

Julia was a complete retcon.  She was never mentioned on AW until shortly before she started appearing.   

29 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:

Are we sure that Jill had something to do with the promo?

My understanding is that NBC was in complete control of all the promos for it's soaps, and that may be why NBC Daytime's promos often seemed so disconnected from it's soap operas in terms of tone, style, and nearly everything else.  So if that is true, then it is unlikely that P&G, the executive producers, etc. had much influence on this or any other promos.   

6 hours ago, Beachstorm said:

I thought the same at first. But in the previews, I think Seth is acting like he wants to set up a meeting with "Isabella" and her supposed old drinking buddy/AA friend Nikki. It must be a plan he hatched with Nikki (off screen).

When Larry the bodyguard was coming in the door at CL, I did a complete WHOA. He looks like Billy Miller, only different body type (much taller and thinner). There were a few angles where he looked like BM. It was a bit unsettling.

It was strange to me, that Nikki didn't call her bodyguard over to hear what Seth was saying, as she was figuring things out.  If Nikki now knows that Jordan is in town and has a physical description of her current appearance, I'd think she'd want her bodyguard to know it asap, so he could use that information to protect her.  It seems like Nikki is hatching a plan to catch Jordan without including her bodyguard.  That's nuts.  

3 hours ago, Xanthe said:

Probably at about 38 minutes in on this episode. The scene cuts from Mac and Alice dancing holding a white rose to "Edward Black"'s silhouette as he holds a white rose.

 

 

Wow, the way they expanded the Cory house set was amazing.  And characters kept walking from room to room while the camera followed them. Great work, really!  The dining room had been shown previously, but never in this way, with the entire set opened up with long shots.  That's the kind of stuff Paul Rauch was very good at orchestrating. I was watching during this era, but I don't remember all that new set work.

I do find it interesting they still did not show the front door or the staircase.   Before Rauch left AW, they did begin to show the front door.  And I believe the stairs were first seen during the Alma Rudder storyline. But the stairs were there one day and gone the next, as I recall.  Was the Alma Rudder lunacy before or after Steve Frame returned? 

So what's up with Seth?  Today, he seemed like he was genuinely on Nikki's side.  But later in scenes with Jordon, it looked like he was ready to spill the beans.  Did I misunderstand something??

33 minutes ago, j swift said:

I forget more than I recall of Another World, but that image of Reinhart's shadow that dissolved into David Canary's face for his first episode will always be memorable.  I still think it was such a creative way to clue the audience about Steve's return. 

 

Wow, I do not remember that scene at all.  Did they actually use Reinholt's photo or something?  I need to see if I can find that on youtube.  

4 hours ago, j swift said:

At the risk of once again being in the minority, I liked David Canary as a Steve re-cast.  He was blustery like Reinholt, but there was also a vulnerability that made his appeal to Alice more relatable.  I also thought the idea of Steve's re-entry was creative, because there was so much talk about his company Blackhawk before his arrival. 

I too liked the casting of David Canary as Steve. But he didn't work as Steve for two reasons:  1. The writing was so bad.  And 2. Canary needed more direction on how to catch Steve's personality and essence.  For example, Canary played Steve as loud and outgoing, often with a big smile on his face, but Steve's personality had always been brooding, quiet, and borderline sad.  I would never have expected Canary to imitate George Reinholt, but Canary should have been coached on Steve's basic personality style.  In my opinion, Canary played Steve like an entirely new character.   Having said all that -- no one will ever convince me that David Canary was not capable of playing Steve Frame.  Canary had the acting skills, but he simply needed more direction and (of course) better writing.  

I will also take a risk and admit that I actually enjoyed Linda Borgeson as Alice.  This will seem like heresy to some, but I believe Borgeson's appearance and acting style was closer to Jacquie Courtney's than any of the other Alice recasts including Susan Harney.  And I believe Borgeson was certainly the best of the Alice recasts.  I am aware many fans believe she was the worst.  But again -- with better writing, and had TPTB stuck with her, I believe Borgeson would have been accepted as Alice, and Canary as Steve.

7 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

With the endless cast defections among the actors playing the Brooks and Foster characters, I can understand Bill Bell finally throwing up his hands and deciding to start over with a largely-clean slate. He was William J. Bell; he was soap-savvy and creative enough to make it work. Other (and lesser) writers and producers over the years, who tried to reinvent classic soaps, just never had the ability to succeed.

Instead of introducing and then axing so many new characters and families over the years, AW should have concentrated on strengthening its roots and returning Bay City to its core.

I would have worked for them, cheaply, LOL!

Of course! When Lemay left AW in 1979 the show was populated with wonderful characters with so much potential -- the middle-class Matthews family, the wealthy Corys, the working-class Perrinis and Frames, and all the wonderful characters that surrounded them.    Even if the new writers wanted to strengthen the storylines and plots, why in the world would they jettison so many of Lemay's beloved characters??   It was nuts, and led to the continued ratings decline for twenty-years.   

26 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

It makes me wonder (again) why Bill Bell killed off Jennifer Brooks on Y&R in 1977. Generally, soaps are loathe to kill off the principal matriarch unless they have no choice whatsoever (i.e. death of the actress).

 

I too have questioned Bell's decision to kill-off Jennifer Brooks.  But I have a tendency to respect big decisions like that, if they are made by the show's creator, rather than later writers.   Similarly, I fairly easily accepted Bell's decision to write-off Y&R's two original families, the Brooks' and the Fosters, only because that decision was made by Bill Bell himself.  

Had a later writer made those decisions, I would still be bitching about it 40 years later.   Just as I still bitch about Lemay killing-off Mary Matthews, or the Bauers being minimized while Pam Long was head-writer, or the Martins being minimized every time Agnes Nixon came and went from All My Children, or the way the Hortons were minimized by every head-writer post-1983.   

4 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

It certainly is an entertaining read!

If multiple people were stopping Dwyer to ask for autographs as she entered a small restaurant, perhaps Lemay should have recognized something important about that, rather than using it as a way to ridicule the obviously very popular actress.  Dear God in Heaven!!

7 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

EESH. Did I phuck up? Sorry, Mona, that was not real aggression. Wheee. 

It's just an anecdote I have always loved. She looked in her closet & every single garment seemed like MARY MARY MARY & she says she tossed her whole closet & went shopping the next day. 

Hey Countess -- you and I are soap opera friends now.  Seriously, we are.  We will occasionally disagree, and perhaps even have a few serious disagreements. Frankly, I believe about 85% of the time, we AGREE.  But my intent is to always respond to your posts with respect, and no ridicule.  I am not a member of the Nasty-Girls Club.  LOL.   

I'm sure this is all understood, but I just wanted to verify.   

46 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

You got a problem? Not at all from Lemay. Her own account, on the AWHP. 

Sorry, I misunderstood. I assumed you were referencing Lemay's book. So, was this from her daytime magazine interview or something like that?   Maybe I even misunderstood your entire post.  But does throwing things out of her closet have anything do to with Dwyer's acting skills?   Again, Donna -- I may have misunderstood your post, and maybe even misinterpreted your intent.   

2 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

So, do we believe the anecdote that she threw everything in her closet out one day when she realized all of her clothes were Mary's, not hers?

I don't remember that anecdote, but if it was in Lemay's book, how the Hell would Lemay even know what Dwyer did with her clothes?  Did she come to the studio one day and announce it?  And if so, was Lemay even in the studio that day?   Seriously, I don't remember that from the book, but I haven't re-read it for a few years. Still that sounds like hearsay or gossip.   Why would he even expect his readers to take something like that seriously??   

1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

The footage I have seen of Virginia Dwyer, she appears to be a fine actress and very much playing mother Mary Matthews.  Lemay just wanted to change the landscape.  He should have really just been honest instead of commenting on their acting abilities considering he excused the actors he praised for the same flaws. 

Agreed. And to be honest, Lemay simply did not understand the soap opera archetype of the traditional loving matriarch (Mary Matthews, Nancy Hughes, Alice Horton, Bert Bauer, etc).  He admits that in his memoir.  Soap matriarchs are usually fundamentally happy women -- not flawless, sometimes interfering, but fundamentally happy.  And Lemay preferred writing for unhappy characters.  Think about it -- Lemay's favorites: Pat, Lenore, Steve, Liz, Mac, Iris, Elliot, all of the Frame siblings, Robert Delany, Rose, Angie, even Alice, were all unhappy people or at least in a fairly permanent unhappy situation.  Lemay had no idea how to write for a happy woman like Mary.  So first, he tried to make her unhappy and meddling by writing for her as if she were Liz Matthews.  And when Dwyer didn't play his scripts that way, he simply brought Liz back to the canvas and killed-off Mary.    Years later in his memoir, he tried to blame Dwyer's firing on her acting skills, while vaguely admitting he did not know how to write for a traditional matriarch.   Virginia Dwyer was perfectly cast as Mary, and her acting skills were strong.  In his memoir, Lemay toyed with the idea of being truthful about Mary's exit, but his pride got in the way -- and he blamed it on the actress.  I love Lemay, but he made some huge damned mistakes.   

13 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:

The storyline possibilities would have been endless if producers and writers had just taken the time to learn AW history. 

Absolutely!  Although all the old soaps had great untapped histories, Another World's history was especially ripe for new (or resurrected) storylines because of the unfortunate multitude of short term writers who were constantly writing character in and out of the show.  If AW had ever had a long-term head-writer in the later years (like Lemay, Nixon, Marland, or Bell), things could have turned out very differently in 1999. 

The soap opera is the only genre that can use its long history as fodder for new stories.   And fans love nothing more than that!

5 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

I'm not sure Ada liked men. 

LOL, Donna.  Then they'd have been a perfect couple!   Although Dru was probably almost old enough to be Ada's father.   

1 hour ago, Jdee43 said:

Going back to a pre 1975 character you would have liked brought back, how about Mitchell Dru? They could have revealed that he was really a lothario, and that he was also Cass Winthrop's true biological father  And of course, being the only old guy in town, they'd finally have to pair him with Ada

I'm not sure Mitchell Dru liked women.  

2 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

@Efulton @Mona Kane Croft @robbwolff @vetsoapfan @j swift @Paul Raven @Xanthe @Althea Davis @danfling @asafi @Sapounopera @Aragorn @ranger1rg @FrenchFan @MichaelGL @Dr Neil Curtis @DramatistDreamer @kalbir @DRW50 @AbcNbc247 @janea4old @carolineg @soapfan770 @Taoboi 

This is not strictly AW, so sorry about that, up front. This is more meta. I have an idea for a new discussion thread. It would be named something like this: 

ALL SOAPS ALL Channels Cross Talk & Meta

I think we keep going OT in specific soap threads on discussions that cross over different shows & perhaps we need a thread where this would always be on topic. On my way home yesterday I put this all together in my head & planned to implement it. Well, instead the GH current discussion thread had blown up & I got distracted. So, today, I thought I would toss this idea out & ask, What do any of you think? I could say more in terms of examples of discussing, but I'm not sure that is needed. So, I open the floor for discussion. 

I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea.  I assume you're talking about -- when a conversation begins to go off-topic, it would be moved to this new thread.  The only problem I see is, I've noticed that when OT conversations are moved currently, they often just die because the participants don't move along it.  But I understand your idea, I think.   

Personally, it doesn't bother me when a conversation goes off-topic because so many things in the world of soap opera are meta anyway.  All soaps share many of the same creators, writers, executive producers, fans, actors, and even plots.  So to me, it seems only natural when discussing ATWT, that the conversation might veer to GL or AMC or AW.  And if I get bored by an off topic discussion, I just scroll on by.  But I do realize some folks do not like OT discussions.  So I'm cool with whatever decision is made.  

4 hours ago, j swift said:

I hope we can put a moratorium on the semi-annual retrial of Virginia Dwyer's firing.  The interpretation that any writer had enough power in a production to dismiss an actor on their own because they didn't like the way that they read their lines is simply too literal. I am not quoting anyone in particular, I am just voicing my frustration that we keep circling back to the same disagreement.

I think it is unrealistic to expect an end to the occasional discussion the firings of 1975 (Dwyer, Reinholt, and Courtney).  This is after all, an Another World discussion thread.  Those firings were shocking at the time, and very unique decisions in the entire history of daytime.  Fans, especially long-term fans, have strong opinions about something that was very important to them at the time, and we enjoy speculating and revisiting that part of AW's history.  I understand it can seem repetitive, but nearly every topic on this entire message board has been discussed ad infinitum. Frankly, there isn't much new to discuss in the history of cancelled soap operas.  If we criticize every repetitive topic, there won't be much action here in the future.  Of course not every topic is of interest to everyone, that should be expected.  Just my opinion.   

1 hour ago, watson71 said:

Janet Matthews- Jim and William’s sister and Liz’s sister-in-law.  You could have built an entire branch of the Matthews family around this character and had her move back to Bay City.  She could have married Vince McKinnon, etc. and been the matriarch of the McKinnon family rather than Mary.

Gerald and Pammy Davis- they could have been grifters looking to get their hands on the Cory fortune instead of Ken Jordan and Paulina Cantrell. And Ada was still alive at that time to be included in the storyline.

Peggy Nolan and Linda Metcalf- either could have been a cousin of Quinn Harding or Lily Mason, a love interest for Grant Todd, or been a relative of the Lawrence or Edwards families.

Mike or Hope Bauer- Guiding Light clearly wasn’t interested in using them.  AW could have brought them back in some capacity.

Oh yes -- Janet Matthews.  I had forgotten about her.  Perhaps she could have returned sometime after Jim died, and tangled with Liz.  Janet was a complicated and fundamentally unhappy character, having been involved with two married men before leaving Bay City.   With the right head-writer, she could have brought some realism back to AW in the mid-80s.   But in the hands of the wrong writer, Janet's history would have likely been forgotten.  Maybe Lemay in 1988 would have been a good writer to reintroduce Janet, since he was good at writing unhappy characters.  Sadly, by that time, Liz would have been the only person in Bay City who had ever even met Janet.  And later, Russ in 1989.  I believe Agnes Nixon wrote Janet off the show before introducing Ada and Rachel.   

And some wishful casting for the role -- Rosemary Prinz.  

For any of us old enough to remember -- name 3 or 4 pre-1979 Another World characters you think should have returned to the show anytime after 1985.  Not at the same time, but in separate storylines.  

I'll go first.  Gerald Davis, Pamela Davis, Sven Petersen, Missy Matthews.  (Pamela Davis would not technically be a return to AW, but she was a regular on Somerset)

22 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

There was a spoiler that said 

  Hide contents

An item was found in a box or trunk that may lead to a mystery. 

But, of course, we are leery.

Personally I think this should be considered a standalone episode. 

Thought of another detail slightly related:  I read a while back that in the script for DOOL's very first Christmas episode, it was explained that the ornament tradition was started by Tom Horton's parents, and passed down to Tom and Alice.  Does anyone know if this is actually true?  If so, then the flashbacks from last week sorta changed history by having the ornament tradition be Alice's idea, with no mention of Tom's parents.  No big deal 55 years later, I suppose. But real nods to established history are actually one of the things that soaps do best, if they choose to.

So all this focus on the Horton house and the newly created flashbacks featuring a young Tom and Alice -- is this just a flash in the pan, little more than a stand alone episode??  Or is this actually going to lead to something, like an ongoing plot?  Or possibly a renewed focus on the Horton family?  Funny (or is it tragic?), they always talk about the Hortons as if they are still very important to the show, but mostly is seems like all talk.  In other words, they pay a lot of lip-service to the Hortons, but it never seems to go anywhere past the talking stage.  Is this time going to be any different?  What do you think??

9 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

Oh, yes, if intelligent, perceptive and knowledgeable PTB had been in charge a few decades ago, and had worked effectively to stop the hemorrhaging of daytime dramas, old warhorses like ATWT (which still had a viable, but misused, foundation upon its cancellation) might very well have survived and potentially even thrived.

Unfortunately, the money-hungry and oppresive, micro-managing suits just continued to drive the shows into the ground.

You can listen to vintage radio soaps and watch older television episodes from the 1950s, and quickly become immersed in the drama because it was predicated on identifiable human emotions; experiences the audience often shared and could identify with. It's telling to me that in 2024, so many viewers are caught up in the Hortons losing their house, the family's Christmas ornaments being at risk, and Doug's impending death. Nobody expresses this much emotional involvement in brain implants and uber villains threatening to kidnap the central heroine for the 17th time.

The viewers want the timeless basics of the genre. They're not getting them. The soaps are dwindling away. And after decades, TIIC still don't get it.

It seems to me, based what's going on with the remaining television soap operas, that the shows have completely given up on attracting the youth demographic.  It seems they are seeking ratings in general without pursuing a particular age group. If they had made this decision 20 years ago, there might be several more soaps still on the networks.   Does does anyone else agree?  

Does anyone know which building was used as the SOHO apartment building on The City?  What was it's real address?  And did ABC lease the place, or just get permission to shoot the exteriors?  Anyone have pics of how it looks today?

10 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

UGH! Hogan Sheffer really s**t all over the show and its legacy, and did tremendous damage. By comparison, Stern and Black, and even the dreaded Jean Passanante did less harm. Now that we can look back, hindsight tells us that Stern and Black, while bad, could have been worse. They could have been Sheffer or JER or Carlivati bad.

 

I enjoyed a lot of Sheffer's writing.  He was good at going back and connecting earlier plots to his current storylines, especially during the early part of his tenure.  And he wrote several plots and situations that were unusual for daytime, but still compelling and believable.    But I hated that crazy plot he wrote for Bonnie, when she discovered that her African American mother was actually of Scottish descent (or something like that).  And the Griffin's actually owned a castle in Scotland.  All of that was so unbelievable and unnecessary.  Mostly because Bonnie was already of Scottish descent (through her father), and the McKecknies already owned a castle in Oakdale and a large property with a huge manor-house in Scotland.  The entire storyline was silly and redundant for a character with Bonnie's existing heritage. If Sheffer wanted to explore Bonnie's heritage, he should have brought back Duncan and/or Jessica and written something that seemed authentic.  

I also disliked a lot of what Sheffer wrote for Barbara.  He took her too far off the deep end, almost to the point of being unredeemable.   But Coleen Zenk seemed to love that sort of thing.   

In my opinion, Sheffer needed a co-head writer or a stronger executive producer -- someone who could hold him back a bit.  Much of Sheffer's writing had "good bones", but he lacked self control.  

4 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

To me, the MORE popular actresses on a soap at the same time, the better for the show.

 

Of course, you are correct.  That is EXACTLY what brings up ratings.  The more popular actors a soap has, the better!!  Soaps that focus too much on one star usually end up in a bad place.