Mona Kane Croft

34 minutes ago, dc11786 said:

I think Diana and Rick´s volatile marriage was similar to Alan and Susan´s on ¨Secret Storm.¨ She was the spoiled daddy´s girl and he was someone who didn´t always color inside the lines of morality.

I'm not an expert on Rick's history, so it this Diana the same character as Diana Lamont?  If not, it seems odd the show would have two different characters named Diana at almost the same time.  By the time I started watching daily, it was the Labine era and Diana was married to Charles Lamont and I believe having an affair with Jamie Rollins.  

Also regarding Rick's son Hank -- you mentioned he was born around 1963, but if I remember correctly, by the late-1970s Hank had not appeared as an adult.  Is that correct?  That is unusually slow for a soap opera legacy character to grow up.   

On 12/23/2023 at 4:50 PM, Paul Raven said:

Yes, it was amazing that Rick survived so long, even after Barbara was written out.

 

I agree. Rick really wasn't permanently connected to any other characters, except his son Hank. So he was sort of a lone-wolf cad who could float from one family or group of characters to another.  So I suppose that made him rather versatile in terms of serving the storyline(s).  And luckily, no writing-team ever wrote him into a corner by having him murder someone or commit some terrible crime which would send him to prison.  And of course, many soap opera cads are eventually murdered themselves, which luckily never happened to Rick.  Again, I see Rick as similar to John Dixon on ATWT, who had an even longer run -- but was also a long-term cad with few real permanent connections to other characters.  Rick and John sort of fulfilled the same role, in a way.  Very few soaps had a long-running character like Rick or John.  The only other example I can think of is Roger Thorpe on Guiding Light, who served a similar function to Rick and John..  But I'll admit Roger was more over-the-top in his behaviors, and he was absent from GL for long periods several times over his run.  I don't believed either Rick or John ever left their respective shows during their long runs, until Larry Bryggman was written off in the mid-2000s.   

OMG, Bill Hayes' choking-up at the end of the episode really got to me.  That wonderful man was practically sobbing. My tears started flowing right along with his, and I don't even know what he was crying about.  I haven't cried watching a soap for years, but it used to happen almost weekly -- back when soaps were more about romance and emotion.   God bless Bill Hayes.  

6 minutes ago, FrenchFan said:

Rick was on from 1960 to 1978 I think.

Wow, that is amazing.  Almost 20 years.

2 hours ago, FrenchFan said:

I bought some scripts from Packard / Provo in 1965. If I didn't make any mistake, here is what I found:

Frederic Rolf (Dr. Kenneth Wannberg) was introduced in January 1965 along with Sybil White (Elizabeth Wannberg). The mad scientist was involved in a short term plot when he got revenge against Bruce for a trial he got convincted in years ago in Germany. After pushing Link Porter to alcoholism and drugging Barbara, the characted was arrested on June 14th 1965.

Around the same time, Paul Saviour (Rick Latimer) left. It was not a planned departure apparently. He last appeared on June 16th 1965

As the Wannberg storyline ended, Packard / Provo introduced a new plot involving schoolboys. The Stanhope family (James, his wife Frances who was sleeping with Dirk the chauffeur and their son Jimmy) were introduced. James was a publisher who got close to Vanessa making Frances jealous. Jimmy had a problematic roomate, Zip Watkins (Martin Hudson) whose father, Edgar (Fred Stewart) was Alan's boss at the bank. In this storyline, Owen Sinclair (William H. Bassett) was the head master of the school.

All these characters in June/July 1965. Fred Stewart (Edgar Watkins), William H. Bassett (Owen Sinclair), Robert LeTourneux (Jimmy Stanhope) first appeared June 21st 1965. Bryon Sanders (James Stanhope Sr.) , Martin Huston (Zip Watkins) in June 24th 1965, Joan DeWeese (Frances Stanhope), Winston DeLugo (Dirk Van Hausen) in July 9th 1965.

It's interesting that Love of Life had rather few permanent legacy characters, leaving much of the casting budget for new (or rotating) characters who would come in and out for particular storylines.  Edge of Night was similar in that regard, but it was more understandable on EON, because it was a murder/mystery soap and and needed new characters for each murder plot.  EON was more plot driven than Love of Life.  I believe it was head writer Claire Labine around 1974-75 who expanded LOL's base of permanent legacy characters when she brought Meg, Ben and other characters who surrounded them back to the show more or less permanently.

Another thing which I am continually surprised by in terms of Love of Life's cast is the length of time Rick Latimer appeared on the show.  He began appearing no later than 1964 (possibly earlier) and I believe the character was still on the show until near the end in 1980.  Aside from Van, Bruce, and Sara Dale, Rick was probably the 4th longest running character. Rick was recast several times, but the characters survived.  He was a cad, but not an out right villain - vaguely similar to John Dixon on ATWT and Roger Thorpe on GL.

2 hours ago, Xanthe said:

The introductions of Victoria and Brittany were in the same window, as well as Lesoleil and the Chapin/Love/Hutchins history. 

Any idea why there was no head writer for such a lengthy period?  Was there a strike?  

2 hours ago, Xanthe said:

You'll never believe this [/s], but Rachel's amnesia occurred during a period of no head writer from March to July 1985. Gary Tomlin was gone by February and the team of Sam Hall and Gillian Spencer took over in August. (According to the AWHP Gillian Spencer had been part of the Feb-Jul writing team though.)

Interesting.  I had no idea that all occurred with no head writer.   

15 hours ago, j swift said:

I was recently watching one of Rachel's scenes at the farm when she wanted to buy it for Jamie, and it was fun to see her be able to throw a bit of shade. 

Wyndham seemed to enjoy playing occasional scenes in which Rachel showed a bit of her old feistiness (or should I say nastiness?).  It must have been boring playing Rachel as a saint for almost 20 years.  

I'm not a fan of amnesia storylines, but if you're gonna do one, do it right.  When Rachel had amnesia around 1985 (and she even forgot she was married to Mac), I think it would have been fun if she reverted completely back to the old insecure antagonistic Rachel for a couple of months.  That would have been a shock to the other characters, especially since very few of them had been around when Rachel was the show's main villainess.  It would have been especially fun to see her interacting with Alice and Ada with her new/old persona.  I remember there was one scene between Alice and Rachel where the writers seemed to toy with this idea, but it was only one scene.  It could have been so much more, had they taken it further.  What if Rachel thought Steve was still alive?  What if she thought Alice was still a nurse, and refused to respect her as a doctor?  What if she goes after Mac just for his money (one of Mac's biggest fears, back in 1974)??  Of course this could only go on for a very limited time -- a couple of months tops.  There was so much material laying right there for the writers to pick up.  Oh, well . . .

1 hour ago, Xanthe said:

And based on the synopses for 1975 it sounds like Rachel might have been going out of her way to be friendly with Sally (and Beatrice) in order to spite Alice.

That's absolutely right, and I'm glad you saw the subtlety in Rachel's transition. Although Harding Lemay mellowed Rachel significantly, he didn't completely reform her. As long as Lemay was writing, Rachel's nasty side occasionally popped up.  Even when Lemay briefly returned in 1988, we saw bits of the "old" Rachel. Most fans forget it was actually later writers who completely reformed Rachel and turned her into almost a complete heroine/saint.  But she always remained feisty and a bit antagonistic under Lemay's pen.   

9 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

I cannot find it to confirm it. Been at it off & on. I have no memory of this at all!  April 30, 2017 NO BROADCAST. 

I just remembered, someone posted a list of all the Daytime Emmy lifetime achievement award winners somewhere online just a couple of months ago.  It was either here on the SON Board, or maybe in a Facebook group.  I remember looking through the list out of curiosity, but I can't remember if Irna was on it.   I don't know where the poster found the list originally.   

4 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Okay, ChatGPT says I am wrong & that Irna was posthumously given the Emmy Lifetime Achievement Award in 2017. Eventually I will go to the emmy website & check to see if that is true. If it is, thank god! 

I hope this is correct, but I don't remember it at all.  That is the kind of thing I believe I would have noticed.  Maybe I'm getting old and just forgot about it.  LOL.  Were the Daytime Emmy's broadcast in 2017?  I usually try to watch, but I missed it this year.   

3 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Maloney, M., & Bell, L. P. (2012). The Young and Restless Life 0f William J. Bell. Sourcebooks, Inc.

 

p. 41

 

On December 23, 1973, Irna Phillips died of natural causes at the age of 72, in her apartment in Chicago's Gold Coast area. She died in her sleep, in her bed, alone. It is thought that the last thing she worked on was her unfinished autobiography. Her obituary in the Chicago Tribune said she had requested a private burial service & that her family not issue a public notice of her death. Her desire to slip away quietly spoke to a great loneliness that she felt throughout her life. Speaking of her enviable career, Irna told Time magazine in 1940, "I'd give it all up if a man came along."

 

Irna received posthumous Daytime Emmy Award nominations as co-creator of Days of Our Lives. But she did not live long enough to receive many accolades. She is commemorated on a signpost outside her North Astor Street residence. The memorial, founded by the Chicago Tribune foundation & the Chicago Cultural Center credits her as "the mother of soap opera."

p. 40 

Bill learned many things from Irna, including the importance of protecting his writers. ATWT cast member Don Hastings was privy to what went on in the writers' room, courtesy of his own brief writing stint with Irna. He recalls: "If someone from P&G or CBS didn't like a script and said, "Who wrote this?" Irna would say, "I write all the scripts! If you don't like it, it's my fault because I'm the one who said this is something that should be broadcast!"

 

p. 42

Bill never failed to honor the contributions Irna had made to his career. Later saying, "None of us do anything of consequence alone. Like Agnes Nixon, I, too, had that legend of all legends, Irna Phillips, who invested a lot of herself in me."

Did Irna never receive a Lifetime Achievement Emmy?  That is a crime.  Somebody at the Emmys needs to wake up. Irna essentially invented daytime.  Other than gameshows, I suppose.   

45 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

If we believe Susan Lucci's memoir, toward the end when Chuck Pratt, Jr. came in, he told the entire cast 2 things. 1. He did not believe in character-driven story. 2. They were to forget everything they knew about their character's history. 

Oh boy, I bet his writing really pulled in the viewers.   What a foolish thing for a soap opera writer to say.  No wonder soaps are failing.   

24 minutes ago, China Jones said:

Do new writers ever bother to ask the actors about the specifics of the history of their character? Can actors feel free to chime in when they see that an egregious error is about to be made regarding backstory or the personality of their character or would that be considered bad form or insubordination? I know the actors have a lot of lines to memorize each day, so do they even remember things that happened with their storylines years ago?  

Why can't writers assemble a panel of dedicated viewers like the people on this board as consultants? We seem to recall just about everything, LOL.

It's all case by case.  Sometimes writers ask about character histories, and sometimes they don't.  Some actors speak up if they see a historical error, and others get tired of doing so and they just give up. Depending on the atmosphere in the studio, most of the time it's not considered bad form to speak up, but ultimately the decision is made by the executive producer and/or the writer.  Convening a panel of fans to monitor continuity would be cumbersome and inefficient, and I don't believe that has ever been done.  In the old days -- like pre-1980, continuity was considered more important and many shows had a person on staff who would look for continuity errors.  But after most shows transitioned to the 60-minute format,  monitoring continuity became more difficult with so many characters and divergent storylines.  And as soaps began to take themselves less and less seriously (some to the point of practically making fun of themselves), TPTB pretty much quit caring about accurate history and just began to write whatever they felt like writing.  

16 minutes ago, Xanthe said:

I am not sure when the Corys first had stables but in 1984 when Catlin as Josh Peterson needed work, both the Cory and Love estates had stables with horses. And in 1986 when Reginald came to town, the Cory stables and the Love stables were somehow conceived of as being close enough together that there was a secret tunnel between them and that Mitch would be able to gain access to the Love stables (which Michael owned at this point) by going through from the Cory side where he was doing some kind of construction work.

The AWHP has some info regarding locations that seem to suggest that the Cory Estate had a lot of features. There is a picture of Rachel walking by the lakeshore in July 1979 which is described as being on the estate. And I believe the location where the Mac/Rachel & Sandy/Blaine double wedding took place was intended to represent the Cory estate -- it had a large swimming pool (the better to push Felicia into) and vast grounds.

I remember when Chris Chapin arrived Nancy spotted him hang gliding. So the Chapin Estate (which had been bought by Lesoleil) was also in the area at that time and probably never mentioned again.

During Lumina the Cory estate also had a secret walled garden that had never been entered in Amanda's lifetime.

I'm sure there are many other features of the estates that may have been mentioned and dropped over time, but many writers definitely treated the Cory Estate as extremely large and unlikely to be in the middle of town.

The Cory estate had stables almost immediately after the set was introduced around 1975.  Mac bought an old estate and hired Steve Frame to remodel the house for Mac and Rachel to move into.  This was while Harding Lemay was head writer, and he's the same writer who wrote the scene in which Rachel said she used to walk past the mansion on her way to school.   So Lemay created the location as both a huge estate, yet still somewhere between wherever Rachel and Ada supposedly lived and the school Rachel attended.   

44 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:

VW turned 33 in 1978.

Interesting.  So a 33 year old had a 19-ish year old son.  Hmmm.   

12 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:

Michael and Donna were supposed to have been like 17 when she had Vicky and Marley. And when Michael was introduced into the show, Vicky and Marley were 18. But Jamie was supposed to be a lot older than 18 at the time. So, how could Michael and Rachel have gone to HS together? Unless they were saying that Rachel had Jamie when she was like 13

You are correct.  But I remember Jamie was sorased rather quickly.  He was born around 1970, and was a young adult by 1978.  So that confused several character ages (particularly Rachel,  Alice, Dennis, Michael and Marianne, etc.).  Does anyone know for sure how old Victoria Wyndham was  when Tim Holcomb assumed the role of young adult Jamie in 1978? Or Richard Bekins took over the role in 1979?  I would assume VW was no older than around 35 -- maybe younger.  

4 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I remember Lemay saying in his book that there was no established history he could use, as it was a lengthy letter from a Pat fan that told him about her background.

I'm surprised Lemay didn't have access to character histories in 1971, when those things were taken more seriously on soap operas.  It's too bad, because the existing characters on AW at that time all had detailed histories which could have been mined and woven into Lemay's plots.  And I remember, he did do that to a degree with Pat, Lenore, and Rachel.

Off topic a bit, but still pertaining to changing history for the sake of plot -- Does anyone else remember in the mid-1980s on Guiding Light, when Pam Long wrote an umbrella plot that declared that every major family in Springfield had been in town for generations, when the only two that had been were the Reardons and possibly the Chamberlins??  While any fan who'd been watching GL for more than 8 or 9 years would have known that the Bauers, Spauldings and Lewis's all moved to town on-screen post-1966.   I liked the Pam's plot, but hated the major rewrite of the families.  With a little effort and creative thinking, she probably could have made the plot work, while still respecting history.   

9 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

She could have just said she remembered it as a young woman when she arrived in Bay City.

Yes, that would have been a way to send the same sentiment, while using more accurate established history.  

4 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I remember Lemay saying in his book that there was no established history he could use, as it was a lengthy letter from a Pat fan that told him about her background.

On 12/9/2023 at 9:07 PM, Xanthe said:

Also in the category of "small world": the reveal that Michael Hudson, who had also allegedly known Rachel when he was a child, had had a serious love affair with Iris when they knew each other in Europe. 

 

Most people probably realize the Micheal/Rachel childhood (or high-school) connection contradicts Agnes Nixon's established history that Ada and Rachel moved to Bay City after Rachel had finished high-school.  Actually I believe Harding Lemay was the first AW writer to contradict Rachel's original origin story, when he wrote that Rachel remembered walking past what became the Cory mansion on her way to school.  Again, Rachel didn't even live in Bay City while she was in school.  Of course, character histories are revised all the time on soap operas, but I've always felt that was unfortunate and unnecessary.  

8 hours ago, Khan said:

I agree.  I, too, have no doubt that Ellen Holly was treated badly at OLTL - and not just by Paul Rauch either.  Her book alludes to many incidents where she and Lillian Hayman were treated like second-class citizens by TPTB.  When you live with that level of mistreatment for that long, you're bound to look twice at every word or gesture.  So, again, I don't think she was lying.  I just think she didn't hear or read what ES said next.

It's an issue worth bringing up, but it's probably not the right time to do it.

I was watching during the time of Holly's on screen exit from OLTL, but my memory is very foggy.  Here is what I remember.  Can someone please correct anything I remember incorrectly, because I'm sure some of my details are wrong??

As I recall - Carla was away for a lengthy period, and when she returned she was suddenly an attorney, which surprised me because I don't believe the character had shown any interest in the law previous to her hiatus.  Making her a lawyer seemed to me a sad attempt by TPTB to give the character something to do, since they appeared uninterested in writing anything regarding her personal life or romance. At that point, Carla sort of assumed the role of "town lawyer" dispensing legal advice when someone needed it, but without much else to do.  As her exit approached, I believe Carla was involved in someone's murder trial -- either as one of the attorneys or the judge.  Then in a very awkward turn, Carla decided to leave town right in the middle of the trial.  So her role in the trial had to be replaced by another character.  This was very strange in my opinion, and I recall thinking they could have easily waited a few weeks and kept the character until the end of the trial.  I do not remember any good-bye scenes for Carla, but I have recently found one or two on YouTube, so at least the character did get to say good-bye in a few scenes.  Those are the foggy details my memory brings up regarding Carla's on screen exit.  Can someone with a better memory please tell me if most of my recollections are correct?   And what have I left out or gotten wrong?  

Also, didn't Carla's exit take place around the same time as the big storyline with the group of teens (including Jon Hensley) who were somehow involved with Ivan Kipling at a mysterious cabin in the woods?  And wasn't this entire storyline (including some of the teen characters) completely dropped mid-plot and never mentioned again?

6 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

THE SURVIVAL OF SOAP OPERA: TRANSFORMATIONS FOR A NEW MEDIA ERA. Edited by Sam Ford, Abigail de Kosnik, and C. Lee Harrington. University Press of Mississippi/Jackson. © 2011.

Glad you brought up this book, Donna.  This is a great read.  Every chapter written by people who take soap operas seriously.  Much more academic than anything in the soap-press, even in 2011.  

I heard an interview with one of the authors (I think it was Sam Ford) around the time the book was published.  That guy really knows what he's talking about.  Too bad he's not in the daytime business -- at least I don't think he is/was.  Not sure if the book is still in print, but anyone who likes to look at soap operas from the serious side, should read it.   

6 hours ago, j swift said:

The brief version is that Matthew grew up thinking that Mac was his father.  Then, in 1986 Mitch returns and fights with Rachel and Mac about seeing Matthew.  Finally, he sees Matthew.  Matthew wants to hang out with Mitch, then he learns the circumstances of his conception, and he briefly rejects Rachel.  Then by the end of the year, Mitch saves Mac from a fire and Matthew is sent off to boarding school.  In 1988, he's SORASed to a teen, falls for Josie, yadda yadda yadda.  He and Mitch share some scenes when Mathew gets kicked out of boarding school, but nothing memorable.  Cut to 1990, Mitch leaves Bay City and Matthew never talks to him again. 

So, calling it a blip may have been hyperbolic, but it wasn't a lasting issue between Matthew and Rachel.  And Mitch coercing Rachel to have sex in order to save Mac in St. Croix was only dealt with by the pre-SORASed Matthew, and then never discussed by teen Matt aka Captain Cool.

But, I could be wrong and someone will correct me if I am...

Don't forget the issue between Matt and Mitch after Matt Crane assumed the role.  This was while Harding Lemay was head writer in 1988. Some of the Frames were back in town, and they blamed Rachel for Janice's death in 1979.  Matt already knew that Mitch was his father, but he didn't know the circumstances or that Mitch had conspired with Janice to poison Mac before Janice's drowning.  Some how Matt convinced Liz Matthews to tell him the entire story, which surprised and angered him.  When Rachel and Mac found out, they both completely disowned Liz, and Liz was estranged from the Cory family for a few months.  Matt rejected Mitch (yet again) and turned to Josie with his confusion and hurt.  So that is certainly one more chapter in the Matt/Mitch saga.  

By the way, if my memory is correct -- this is the first and only time in the show's history when Mac actually turned away from Liz and rejected her.  The scene in which he does this is rather gut-wrenching.  Douglass Watson plays it like his heart is breaking, rejecting his old friend and kicking her out of his home.  Irene Daily plays the hell out of the scene as well.   

51 minutes ago, j swift said:

All that aside, it was a great bit of multigenerational storytelling to set up the circumstance where Matthew would romance the daughter of Russ and Sharlene.  I agree that they didn't need to bastardize history to get there, but on balance, that's a classic soap Romeo & Juliet-type entanglement. 

And, it re-focused Rachel as the lead matriarch. (once again, please excuse my obsessive need for optimism)

Also, did anyone else read this very insightful post by our host Errol?

 

I completely agree, it was wonderful multigenerational material refocusing the show on the Corys, the Matthews, and the Frames.  And as you said, it finally established Rachel as the show's new matriarch, which AW really had not had since Mary Matthews.  This era also finally established the Corys are the core family, with Matthew as an adolescent, Amanda as a young adult, Jamie as an established professional, and trouble-making Iris on her way back.  Others may think the Corys had been the core family since years earlier, but I don't agree.  It's just my opinion though.  And as you alluded, the only fly in the ointment of this era was the Frame farm mess.

1 hour ago, Xanthe said:

The references to Emma's farm were too early to be scab writers. It seems to have come up at Christmas 1987 when Margaret Depriest was still headwriter.

Jamie and Lisa report that they went for a drive and noticed that the farm where Emma used to live is up for sale (about 5 minutes in):

Between Xmas and New Year's Rachel, Jamie and Lisa visit the farm and discuss Rachel's wish to bid on it so Jamie can have it. Jason has also come to town and announced his intention to bid on it.

 

Thanks for those videos.  I remember seeing those episodes back in 1987-88 and thinking, "What the hell are they doing to the show's established history?"  Oh well.

The most pathetic thing about this entire relocating the Frame farm debacle is that it was so badly botched that even Harding Lemay didn't attempt to correct it when he took over as head writer. He just went with it, and left it alone.  And he was the writer who had created Steve Frame's history, most of his siblings, and the farm in Oklahoma (he did not create the character of Steve).  Lemay must have been very frustrated at what DePriest had done, but it was too complicated to undo.  Poor guy.