j swift

36 minutes ago, watson71 said:

I take all soap timelines with a grain of salt-

Agreed

BUT after rewatching the scenes when Reg comes back with Mary today there were a few issues:

It is amusing that years later when Donna and Peter meet Jake McKinnon, neither of them remark that he has the same last name as their former housekeeper who had an affair then mysteriously disappeared with their father?  And Jake never invited his cousins to his wedding to Marley at the Love mansion where their mother had worked?  Wouldn't Michael's time working in the stables overlap with Mary's employment; so why didn't he recognize her?   I guess it just struck me recently that this seems like as case of having an interesting plot - missing mother returns with amnesia - that required a lot of ret-cons to work.

It is kind of classic case of soap fandom.  I was on the edge of my seat waiting for Marissa to find out about Reginald.  However,  there are multiple recasts to endure, the history doesn't fit with established characters, and all of the sudden everyone in Bay City goes to Mary's Place for lunch.  But any true soap fan stays through it to get to the scenes where Mary and Vince reunite.

36 minutes ago, watson71 said:

Here is a brief background on Jason Frame:  

 

In the late 1960s, Jason Frame was a horse trainer for the Love family.  He was in love with Elizabeth Love.  When Reginald found out about the affair, Reginald murdered Elizabeth, then Reginald faked his death in Egypt with the assistance of Andrew Hutchins, Carl's father.  Jason left Bay City and joined the Navy. Jason claimed to be in the Navy for over 20 years; however, it was revealed that he was dishonorably discharged on suspicion of treason for selling arms to the Viet Cong.

So the Marrisa/Mary timeline is a plothole. 

In the Mary McKinnon story (which I thought was genius) Jason Frame pre-dated Steve's arrival in Bay City.  Marley would never had been believed as Donna's sister if Elizabeth left in 1969.  The McKinnon daughters would all have been older than Marley if Reg faked his and her deaths soon after Elizabeth was murdered.  That continuum just makes no sense.  However, like any soap, Denise Alexander's performance made that story work and I've never noticed the plotholes until now.  

I confuse Jason and Vince Frame, and according to the AW HomePage Jason first arrives in '87, so I defer to others on this one,

Is this timeline correct? Reginald and Elizabeth Love had three kids.  In 1969 Elizabeth and Jason had an affair and she was murdered.  Then, Reginald hired Mary McKinnon, in the early 70's, while Jake and his side of the family stayed in Lassiter. Mary and Vince McKinnon had three kids and lived in Bay City near Ada.  Later Reg and Mary have an affair and they leave town for South America. All of that was back story later added to the Love cannon.

My question is: does the timeline fit into the story of how the Love's were introduced?  I know Donna, Marley, and Peter lived in the house, then Carl stole their money but somehow they got it back.  However, wasn't Reg around before Mary?  Did he just never mention that he has a wife in South America? I know Jake never mentioned having family in Bay City before his cousins were introduced and although they were close I guess Jake never visited his cousins in his youth.

3 hours ago, adrnyc said:

I just watched the entire storyline last fall and I have to say that the Nicole reveal does not come out of nowhere. First of all, she is all over Jason in the weeks leading up to the murder. He terrorizes her over the fact that he killed their mother. Also, he had been attacking Cass, and Nicole had been begging Jason to leave Cass alone. I had watched the murder storyline as a kid and, during this re-watch, I thought to myself "How on earth did I, and other people, not see that Nicole killed him. It's clear as day!!"

Point taken, the whole story may deserve a re-watch

1 hour ago, Paul Raven said:

How was the fact that Jason Frame never existed in the original Frame story of the 70s ever explained?

I don't know what you mean?  Originally Steve had no siblings but once Lemay provided the new backstory Jason was one of the sibs introduced while Steve was still alive.  I know he was around during the Janice storyline.

I do precisely recall that Linda Dano was hosting her lifetime talk show Attitudes at the time of the Jason Frame murder trial.  As I recall on the talk show there was much discussion about Linda's bob hairdo that was actually a weave.  I also have a vague recollection that there was an episode where Linda went upside down and parts of her weave fell out.  I do not recall if the weave made it through the trial but I am eager to see it on my re-watch.

But for me, AW will always be about Willis Frame and Robert Delaney; two intense guys who could design and build you a house, they were devoted to their women, and they were too smart for damsels in distress.  Soaps don't build 'em like that anymore.

Can we discuss the Jason Frame murder for a second?  In my opinion, it was another great idea that was poorly executed.

This is all from memory so please feel free to fill in the gaps.  However, the murder in the hall of mirrors feels like a GL ripoff.  The introduction of a Michael/Iris backstory is an unnecessary red herring.  Finally, the Nicole reveal comes out of nowhere.  As an audience, I recall that we knew that Nicole was guilty a few days before the reveal but there was no prior groundwork that would have marked Nicole as the culprit.  I love a surprise reveal but I think it has to be earned and in this case it felt random.

Nicole Love is a missed opportunity of a character.  In her first iteration as a drug addicted model she could have been an excellent counterpart for Vicky Hudson; old money promiscuity vs new money hussy.  I would have liked to see the Reginald/Mary reveal through Nicole's eyes as she was the youngest Love sibling.  Philece Sampler may have also been a better Nicole than a Donna recast.   

3 hours ago, dc11786 said:

Lindsay fascinates me. I realize he is only a bit player, but I wish they had revisited him. The Dobsons have donated their papers to the University of Wisconsin, and, among their SB papers, was a bit of information about AIDS. Bridget Dobson states that NBC (Brian Frons, in particular) wanted them to write an AIDS storyline into the show as part of the network's agreement to air the series. The Dobsons didn't want to do it, but, to appease Frons, they planned a storyline where Mother Isabel, Mary Duvall's superior at the convent, would succumb to the disease. Dobson said she thought it was the least threatening way to handle it. NBC eventually caved, and I'm not even sure the show even hinted at the story. I sort of wish they pushed the envelope and had Lindsay Smith return to town in 1986 with the disease. Rejected by friends and family, Sophia would offer to take him into the Capwell mansion during his final days. I think it would allow Sophia the chance to learn more about Channing, a young man she had believed was her son. On the other hand, they could have just kept Lindsay around in a recurring role without his sexuality being a major issue until they wanted it to be one.

First, if you have reviewed the Dobson's library archives then bravo; that is a source rarely used in forum discussions. 

Second, I whole-heartedly agree with you on the Lindsay points.  It is remarkable how tolerant the writing is around the reveal and everyone's response.  I appreciated that both Cruz and CC were respectful.  It is the only time that I remember sexuality being used as a red herring in soap history.

3 hours ago, dc11786 said:

In what I've seen, Kelly is very generic. Robin Wright is strong, but the writing doesn't really doesn't give her any shades. The pregnancy ploy during the standoff with Peter Flint is interesting, but I couldn't help but wonder if it wouldn't have been more interesting to actually go there. C.C. was determined to have a grandchild and having Kelly having Peter's baby, and passing it off Joe's, may have given some more layers to Kelly.

Re-watching Kelly drives me nuts.  Her defining characteristic is that she is beautiful.   At least once a week someone comments on Kelly's beauty.  Men fall literally madly in love with her.  However, she is merely an object.  She expresses no personal desires, drives or beliefs. 

3 hours ago, dc11786 said:

Eden's relationship with Sophia fascinated me. The level of vitriol that Eden uses to attack Sophia when she is masquerading as the Suzanne Carlyle, the reporter, is shocking when compared to the level of compassion Eden feels for Sophia when Sophia is unmasked as the killer. Eden begging Sophia not to leave them and revert to her damaged psyche is a really well done sequence. I thought Cruz's decision about whether or not to turn in Sophia provided Eden and Cruz a real natural conflict highlighting a lot of Eden and Cruz's flaws (Eden raised entitled and above any rules beyond her own and Cruz being honest to a fault without often considering the impact those laws would have on others). 

I think the same thing!  At the Gina/CC wedding, Gina tells Eden she is at fault that CC never dated after Sofia left him.  We are also told that Eden wanted to take Channing's place in the company and her father's heart.  However, none of that actually happens.  CC never really has to depend on Eden for the company and Eden never seems to really be driven by CC's approval. 

I also agree that the one thing that would have differentiated Kelly and Eden is if they had different responses to the Sofia reveal.  The stage was set for Eden to be mad and vindictive.  There could have been years of drama with Eden in the executive suite at Capwell versus Sofia at Armante.  Instead, Eden and Kelly's responses are barely explored before a trauma cements their newfound relationship with Sofia.   Then, right before Eden leaves she realizes that she was angry the whole time?

3 hours ago, dc11786 said:

I didn't know Santana and Gina had a history prior to Gina's arrival in Santa Barbara.

Eden/Gina scene before the wedding when Eden reveals that Brandon is CC's grandson she refers to Santana as Gina's old friend; although she may be using it colloquially.

Finally, can someone comment on the Lilly Light character?  The timing of her birth makes no sense with the eventual adoption of Brandon.  The switch from con-man to ingenue seems to occur both times that the character is introduced.  She is old enough when she is first introduced to be a romantic interest for Mason although Gina, Santana and CC Jr were about five years younger than Mason?  Did Summer or Haley know about Lilly?  I think she would have been more plausible (and served the same story purpose) if she was Stockman Demott's kid and GIna's stepdaughter.

9 hours ago, robbwolff said:

I thought Channing’s murder was wrapped up in May 1985. That was when Julia was introduced.

It is currently right before the tunnel explosion which brings Julia to town - that was probably in spring 1985.

I recall the denouement of Maggie the Cop is in August.

It is worth noting that Charles Bateman got some of the great material despite his OTT performance.  His diatribe toward Mason when he finds out that Channing was gay and his stuff with Gina prior to the wedding are examples of great writing. 

I continue to find fault with most of the Capwell female characters.  There is very little differentiation between Kelly and Eden.  Also, Sofia can't decide if she is going to be cold object of longing for Lionel & CC or a warm caring mother to Ted. 

Finally, I enjoy all of the tidbits that didn't get explored such as the idea that Gina and Santana were friends prior to 1984.

I'm having so much fun re-watching the episodes being currently uploaded from the summer of 1985.  It has inspired a couple of thoughts from the era:

1). Maggie the Cop is not given much to do but I like her non-sexual/cop/buddy relationship with Cruz, it is shame that she will disappear. 

2).  I forgot how long it was until Jed Allen and Robin Mattson appear.  Before them, CC and Gina are so mean and filled with anxiety.  However, the scene when Gina berates Eden for making CC stay alone after Sofia followed by Eden's revelation that Brandon is CC's grandson is great.  I like the characterization that Eden was always a little bitchy, Cruz softened her but, she reverted to type when threatened.  Early CC and Gina weren't great but they brought out a lot of good stuff in other characters.

3). Thank goodness the writers created Julia for Augusta to talk to, in this episode she was having lunch with Laken and Jade!  No wonder Augusta got so bored waiting for Lionel to return; she had no friends, she had major mother-in-law issues, and she clearly did not enjoy the ocean.

4.)  One year in and although they still haven't solved Channing's murder a lot happens in every episode.

It's funny that if the writers had made Megan Gordon into the un-dead baby of Cathy Craig & Joe Riley then they would not have had to come up with Eterna.  Megan would still have had a reason to feud to with Vicky.  Also, 10 years later, Vicky wouldn't have had to explain how she gave birth five times (Megan, Joey, Kevin, and the Jessica twins) but only remembered three of the babies.

I'm also surprised that future writers never used comebacks of the Michael Grande, Max Holden or Paul Kendall families; nor was there ever reference to Tony Lord's progeny.  Victor Lord had three kids postmortem (Tina, Todd & Vic Jr), it would have been far easier to explain a long lost kid of Tony Lord from when he was traveling abroad.

I was just thinking about this issue while reading the AW forum about Iris's return to Bay City:  Did Eliot Carrington come from a wealthy family? 

There's so much talk from Paige about getting Alex's money once she finds out that he is Dennis's father but didn't Eliot have money?  He was wealthy enough to hire Alice has Dennis's full-time nurse when he was a kid.  The Carrington's owned a townhouse in Manhattan where Alice lived.  Also, Iris was living off of her divorce settlement from Eliot for a long time.  I know that he didn't make a huge salary as a war correspondent.  However, I think from reading the history, that he had a substantial if not equal family fortune to Alex.  Unless, he spent his family's fortune on Dennis's illness and Iris's divorce?

I think Iris as the Chief is a great reveal without a great motivation.  I get that Texas is non-canonical to the AW universe but Iris's return negates her time in Houston.  She didn't need the cash, Dennis's inheritance was intact, and she had evolved from Mac's baby girl.  Texas-Iris lacked the passion and the confidence for business to pull off that scheme.  That's why she was never a threat to takeover World Oil; or Marshall Oil or whatever it was called.

The other obvious flaw in the story was Evan.  His connection to Janice was told so dubiously it seemed like the writers were trying to decide his actual origin after the character was introduced.  Replacing the actor did not help the character.  It was a classic soap problem, the exposition about the character is that he is a charming lout but then on screen he is depicted as a weasel.

Women being aroused by violence or grief is as fictional as evil twins or sudden teen aged infants.

Felicia changed a lot over the  years.  My least favorite was when she was with John Hudson, I hate any relationship that is predicated on "taming a wild spirit"  and John certainly never learned to appreciate Felicia's energy.  It is amusing in retrospect that she was brought on as an ex-lover of Carl Hutchins because (a) years later they acted like they never knew each other or only met while he was in town and (b) the whole-first-love-first-child story never fit the timeline from when she was introduced.

I wanted to recommend an amusing re-watch.  I put together a playlist of the youtube videos of Irene Manning's explanation of the Todd/Victor Jr story with the original death of Irene Manning from the period when Tina was introduced.  It creates some retrospectively amusing observations. 

(1), Vicky finds out that Karen is a suburban hooker when she collects Irene's things from the hotel and sees Karen in the lobby.  Karen is there looking worse-for-wear in a green shawl, Marco introduces her to the "john" and the guy is really handsome.  It is easy to see how Karen kept her secret because no one would guess that such an attractive guy was paying Karen for her time. 

(2) Irene looked healthy when she was dying.  The doctor tells Vicky that Irene is in constant pain and has only days to live but honestly, except for some shortness of breath in discussing Tina, Irene seems fine.

(3) Years later, Irene tells this whole story to Todd, Victor and Vicky but she never mentions Tina?  She briefly mentions that she was reuniting Vicky with her sister.  However, she never mentioned if she tracked Tina or Tina's kids. 

(4)That entire exposition was so rushed and contrived it would have been better if McBain was given the job of explaining the outcome.  McBain's main duty is trying to tape Irene's confession (despite the fact that she is confessing in front of 3 witnesses; including 2 journalists and a former mayor).  I would prefer if he had actually done some detective work and then explained the outcome. 

(5) The timeline from Tina's birth to the twins doesn't really make sense. Todd/VictorJr are the same age as Kevin who is easily 15-18 years younger than Tina  So how long was the Victor/Irene affair?

The generational changes in head writers seems remarkable.  You get the originators who are strict stalwarts of story, then you get their trainees who assert their individuality by ignoring history and trying to be socially relevant, and then you get the current generation who treat history like cannon to be mined either for camp or trivia.

5 hours ago, edgeofnik said:

 

BTW - Does anyone know why SG left the show at that point? Upon her return, she was clearly being punished by being left out of the new opening credits, which debut months after her return - despite being the main female protagonist. Obviously, that was more that made up in future openings.  

I seem to recall during one her podcast interviews SG mentioned that she had left the show for pilot season in LA so they didn't kill her off.

This is a perfect example why it is a whole team and not just a writer or producer.  The run from Margo's murder to Draper's escape to the Puppet Murders to Emily & Sharky to Nancy & the Bryson clinic to Sky is a remarkable achievement in terms of intersecting mysteries and characters that lasted years.  At the same time, actors were leaving, pressures from the networks existed and, technology was changing.  So, to achieve that linear story is amazing in retrospect and makes the firing of the writer seem like a bad idea.

Question: Was there ever a connection made between the fact that Cathy Craig's baby with Joe Riley was named Megan and then Vicky's long-lost daughter was named Megan?

Megan Gordon was probably named by Roger, (I guess he married later and had Sarah).  She also would have been older than Megan Craig-Riley. The whole coincidence is also likely due to a change in writing and production.  However, it was interesting that an oversite in naming Todd Manning created his whole relationship with Vicky but there was no mention of the two Megans.

Two fanfic possibilities: (a) Somehow Cathy Craig knew about Eterna and named her daughter Megan just to torment Vicky about her secret child. (b) when the whole town gathered around Megan Gordon's deathbed to retell the history of Landview (because that's what nobody does when a loved one is dying) Vicky's memories of being present at the birth and death of Megan Craig-Riley were effected by time travel.

The Knots Landing"bottle episodes" are some of my favorites and they differentiate Knots from other prime time soaps.  Bottle Episodes are when a few characters are stuck in a single set for most of an entire episode.  I remember an early episode when the women go to a house owned by a family member of Abby and Karen (through her dead husband).  There is the Abby/Olivia drug episode.  There is also a bottle episode with Mack.  These types of episodes were necessary for budget and writing when each season required more than 22 episodes.  However, while the other soaps would depend on flashbacks or clip episodes I always appreciated Knots quirky single-episode stories.

1 hour ago, Soaplovers said:

Saw the last month's of 1984...and I think Sheldon wrote some great episodes....not anything like slesar..but the show was pretty good still.

It is hard to say whether I enjoyed Sheldon's writing at the end or if I enjoyed Raven and Sky so much that I didn't notice the change in writing.  However, it seems to me that the Raven/Sky relationship shifted by 1984.  When they were investigating Nora's murder Raven and Sky were a team.  My favorite type of soap duo is a Thin Man/Nick & Nora type of couple who are written as equals.  Later in the series, perhaps to facilitate the actresses real pregnancy or it was a reflection of the writing, Raven became a damsel in distress that needed to be saved by Sky (Sky-prime not fake-Sky). 

Contrast that with my favorite period of the show when Raven left town for the first time before Margo's murder and Raven does seem different; if not more mature.  One of my all time best soap scenes is when Raven explains to April how she gave herself her nickname.  I love when Logan tells her that she incapable of love and she believes it so she gives up parenting Jamie.  I love her weird relationship with both Ansel and Draper that dripped of sexual undertones.  I love that she and the Chief Mallory have no-strings-attached sex and there are no consequences.  I also love that she is ambivalent about motherhood.  I think what sums my appreciation of that era is that it is so contemporary.  Unlike the Irma Phillips characters who were always shamed for their craven desires, Raven's punishment was much more internal.  Of course she lost her kid and some money along the way but it wasn't until Sky-prime that Raven believed that she was capable of being loved.

In both stories that writers needed to deal with Raven's temporary departure but the earlier one is done in a much more intriguing way; but I can't tell if that is writing or producing or just time.

4 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

Please don't take anyone expressing different points of view as a personal affront, or that folks don't want to hear your views about what you watched as a child. I have vivid memories of soaps from before I was in kindergarten too, LOL. I am only responding to you because I am interested, not because I want to complain that you don't agree with me. Disagreement is normal. Conversations can be lively and even heated at times (we soap devotees are a passionate bunch), but of course your thoughts are welcome. If we all sat across saying, "Why yes, you are perfectly right...I agree with you 100%....our beliefs are perfectly in sync...." it would be soooooooooo tedious, LOL. 

 

 

Thanks and Happy New Year!!!!

It is disappointing to hear the reviews of Harding Lemay as a person.  As someone with a family history of television production from the early 1960's through today,  I really liked the book and it was so entertaining to hear his perspective on how soap writing worked when advertisers owned the shows and there were no writers union contracts.  I particularly like the scene when Lemay meets Henry Slesar for the first time and he is so impressed that Slesar had his own mimeograph machine in his dining room.

As for forming opinions after fact, I am afraid the only way to discuss TV events from 40 years ago is through personal reflection and it would be difficult to separate the immediate response  from the responses made over time after reading about soap history both in books and now online.  I don't think either way is any less virtuous and I am under no illusions that anyone would want to discuss what I thought about Alice and Steve when I was four years old.

5 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

BTW, I was team Russ and Alice all the way. Rachel is lucky that I was not there when she was at her worst, tormenting the Matthews family. She would have been dead meat. Dead meat, I tell you. There were three times in particular when I would have literally smacked her into oblivion, LOL!

 

 

The only Matthew family member I liked was Pat and her twins.

I recall in 8 Years in Another World, how Harding Lemay was appalled when he was first asked to watch the show by P&G while Pat was being poisoned by her maid.  He was bemused that a woman with a doctor for a brother would never ask his advice or consult with him about her symptoms.  Lemay's charmingly written disdain for the actors playing Mary and Jim may have informed my own recollections of disliking the Matthews.   

Earlier this month I saw Nancy Lee Grahn at the grocery store.  Nobody seemed to notice her which is not unusual in Los Angeles.  However, it made me ponder this fact: here is an actress who has worked steadily for almost 40 years and, has been watched by at least 3 million people a day yet, she can be so under radar of mass media.

It must be an odd sort of fame.

1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

If your first memories of AW are May 3, 1974, doesn't that mean you came in AFTER the early years of the Alice/Steven/Rachel storyline, which ran from 1968-75?

 

Color me confused.

I probably began watching in '74.  I was four and would come home from school for lunch and it was always on in the kitchen on the small black and white tv.  I also read the serialized paperbacks so I remember a lot about the triangle but I am hazy on the chronology.  Eventually the paperbacks were banned from our reading list for book reports because my teacher was not a fan.

1 hour ago, denzo30 said:

Holly Molly you really do have a psychological point of view on all of this.  Class really needs to be mentioned though.  Rachel was looking for something other than she knew and Alice always grew up expecting that she was going to have the perfect husband/life.

1970's AW lent itself to  psychological exploration because so much of it was in the scripts.  As I recall, Ada used to explain Steve's motivations to Rachel frequently during their talks in the kitchen, and John Randolph or Robert Delaney were in charge of explaining Steve to the Matthews family. Oddly, as a kid, I really liked Willis and Gwen because they were constantly analyzing each other. 

1 hour ago, denzo30 said:

I really loved Larry Lau as Jamie.  He also was also one of the longest running actors to play the role aside from Beckins. I just think all the characters in 88/89 were so great.   The character changed so much.  Bobby Doran played the role for years as a young teen but the actor who played him after for just a few months was like night and day but loved him.  He was the temp before Richard Beckons. 

 

This is why the Todd/Lau's Jamie period is such a disappointment to me because there was no exposition for why he changed character and Rachel never seemed to notice.  However, in retrospect I really liked the Jamie who was friends with Dennis as a kid.

BTW - I hope that we are involved in a lighthearted discussion of soaps past, I really don't intend to ruffle feathers, it is just great to have a place to express opinions about this trivial stuff that I used to think about all the time as kid.

4 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

Sam Groom's Russ was "dull" to you? Or were you referring to David Bailey's tepid interpretation of the character? Alice was a "wimp"? Meaning the character in general, or thge portrayal by some of the weaker actresses in the role?

 

Yes I am referring to David Bailey's Russ and I know that he didn't play Russ when he was married to Rachel.

In terms of Alice, I could rant about her character (regardless of portrayal) for days.  Early in the Steve/Alice/Rachel triangle, Steve was often compelled by Alice because she was frail due to her hysterics and neuroses.  Rachel was upfront with Steve, encouraged his wild business sense, and believed in his vision.  Alice was always questioning "Steven" and trying to make him a better man.  She wanted "Steven" to be more like her father and brother.  She even manipulated him to sell his groovy penthouse and commission a Robert Delaney designed house for her in suburbs so she could be near her parents.  If the gender roles were reversed and a male character insisted on calling his girlfriend by her full name even though she preferred to be known by her nickname, and then told her to be less motivated by sex and money, that character would be portrayed as a villain.  Later Alice became a doctor and appeared more stable emotionally but she still went after Rachel's man! 

It's like the book Wicked, if you look at it from Rachel's perspective, Alice used her economic and social status to slut shamed her to the whole town, confined to her to a life as a single mother in the early 1970's, tried to interfere with her custody agreement and, she stole back the house when Steve died which left Rachel practically broke.  Then, years later, she swoops in when Rachel has amnesia and tries to steal Mac?!?   Alice was a wimpy mess and any attempt by Jamie to be more like the Matthews annoyed me.

I'm so glad to get that off my chest after 40 years!