rick55

The clip, in the rain, after the abortion is number 121 in 1986.

She was locked away because she snapped and had a breakdown.  She just mentally couldn't handle having had the abortion.  She had the abortion because she overheard a conversation between Victor and Casey, Nikki's sister, where they discussed that Nikki was dying.  Ashley had jut found out that she was pregnant and was going to tell Victor.  Now, she didn't want to take him from his dying wife.  She doesn't tell Victor why she aborted the baby until 1987.

Ashley had a previous mental breakdown, in 1985, when she found out that John wasn't her biological father.  Completely snapped both times.  No recollection of who she was.

Rachel moved into the house, with Steve, late in 1982.  Before that, they were in the apartment.  Mac moved out and had a place of his own.  Episodes had been up that showed this.  There is one where Mac offers the house to Rachel.  She was going to use it as sort of an art school and moved in along with that.  But, yes, Rachel did live in that apartment for the majority of 1981 and 82.

On 11/2/2020 at 12:45 AM, vetsoapfan said:

 

Right. Bringing Steve back only to kill him off AGAIN was just incomprehensible and stupid. An important character like that could have easily been written out in another way, thereby leaving the possibility open for him to return later on...under better writers and (preferably) Jacqueline Courtney as Alice. What a waste.

 

Another thing that bothered me.  How, when they had the 25th anniversary in 1989, do we not get a Steve/Alice scene?   We got them with Rachel and Jaime.  I would understand if Courtney wasn't there, but they brought her back for it.  IMO, criminal considering the couple's history and the fact that they had the original actors in the role.

1 hour ago, Xanthe said:

 

Thanks. Did they present Rachel and Steve as if their relationship had been and was now true love or was it a mess of motivations? I was just watching Oct 1 where Mac told Rachel he was engaged to Alice and Rachel was completely ungracious about it. I assumed that we were seeing that Rachel was not perfect and that Mac was right when he said he didn't think Rachel was unbiased about Alice. That seems more interesting than the idea of the perfect love story of Rachel and Steve after years of cruel and unfair separation.

That was one thing that felt off to me.  Steve doesn't choose Rachel over Alice.  Of course, this isn't the same Alice or Steve.  Still, I watched when there was no doubt who Steve loved.  But Rachel was also a heroine now.

I never got why Steve had to be killed again.  Just have him leave town like Alice did.  Diana had left town months earlier.  You break Rachel and Steve up and he decides to leave town.  They had a big argument over Rachel putting money into his company, without his knowledge, a few weeks before he died.

Lynda Hirsch wrote at the time that they did some survey and people wanted Mac and Rachel together.  Okay, that doesn't mean you have to kill Steve.  He and Rachel had just gotten together a couple months back.

This wouldn't have been like breaking Steve and Alice up, in 1975, rather than killing Steve.

I just think they closed the door unnecessarily.  Courtney came back a year later, maybe they could have done the same with Reinholt.  Or maybe not.  Maybe Steve stays gone for the rest of the show like Pat Matthews did.   At least they'd have the option, though.

8 hours ago, Xanthe said:

 

Frame Harding Construction seemed much smaller than Cory Publishing, but what was Blackhawk? I was under the impression that Steve came back from the dead wealthier than he had been. 

Blackhawk was huge.  A multinational conglamerate.  IIRC, Steve's own words when he saw Rachel for the first time and explained what had happened to him.  They were into manufacturing, shipping, etc.  Then he got into other stuff like gold.  Basically everything he touched worked out.  I saw these scenes again in the last few months.  I was watching in 81 and have seen them since, but I remember the conversation pretty well since it was so recent.

Hard for me to believe Mac had that beat.  Mind you, I didn't tell you they stayed consistent about it.  If this was the case with Steve, why did one building going down, in the summer of 82, basically bankrupt him?  What was the name of it?  Something towers.  They had made a big deal that it was a huge project.  However, if the company is that big and diversified one building going down should not have wiped him out.

Frame/Harding was nothing.  That's Steve starting all over from ground zero again.  Eventually it grew after Steve died again, but in late 82 it's in it's infancy.

I didn't realize that Mac was that much wealthier in the 70s.  I could only watch around school then although if I came right home I could catch the last half of the Doctors and all of AW.  Sure wasn't watching every day, though, like in 81.

I remember the first Mac before Watson took over.  I remember seeing the episode where Alice overheard Steve and Rachel, thought something was going on when there wasn't and left town.  But day to day, no.

Anyway, I don't ever remember comparing the two as far as who was richer.  I thought Steve was pretty rich at the time. Certainly not arguing that he was as rich as Mac.  Again, I never really compared and don't remember the show doing it.  I know that Mac helped Steve get his money back after Tim Mcgowan embezzled it.

But in 1981 they were saying that Steve was pretty damn rich.

Include me in the group that was disappointed at there being no Steve Alice scene in 1989.  if it had only been Rachel he appeared to, okay, you could argue that she was delirious.  But once Jaime is involved as well then you lose that argument.  There HAS to be a Steve Alice scene.

I also thought that the 2 actors were Coster and Fitzpatrick.  It's funny how Lemay has no problem mentioning names so many times, but wouldn't here.  He also mentions a friendship with Coster that seems to heve become strained at some point.

On Monday, December 05, 2016 at 5:50 PM, zanereed said:

 

Most likely. If you look at some of the other soaps during this time period ("The Guiding Light", for instance), if a major, popular character would have murdered someone, it would have been by accident (Joe Werner accidentally pushing Lee Gantry out a window, for example). But in this case, Walter strangled Wayne. It may have been a "heat of the moment" action, but the writers had Walter murder Wayne. Then, Walter does nothing to help his pregnant wife as she is convicted and put away for a crime Walter committed.

Not really defending Walter, but he did not strangle him.  He hit him in the head with a statue.  Remember, Lenore was on trial for it.  Noone would believe she could strangle Addison, but she could whack him over the head with an object.  It was a crime of passion.  Addison goaded him, goaded him, played on Walter's insecurities and jealousy.  That said, Walter still did what he did.

Now, I didn't see this.  I've read this.  Read some 70s novels that recapped this period.  But one of my first concrete memories of watching the show is Lenore on trial for that murder and i remember that Walter had done. He was defending her and was torn.  Then she was axquited and he just said nothing.   Not denying that his actions are unconscionable just clearing up how Addison died and that it was a crime of passion.

For me. the first Willis was a flat out bad guy.  Lemay's book read to me as the softening of that character was due to the recast.  That Russom didn't possess the qualities to portray Willis the same way.  Whatever the case, the character sure changed.  IIRC, the change started after Russ found out what he was doing to Sharlene and beat the crap out of him.

On Monday, December 05, 2016 at 5:50 PM, zanereed said:

 

 

 

I would certainly not dispute that an argument could be made that Matt wasn't considerate enough of Maggie's feelings vis a vis Karen from the start. He had a blind spot to her and since the feelings were entirely one way at the time, he was perplexed as to what the problem was. When Karen told him how she felt, at the farmhouse, my interpretation was it was totally unexpected to him. Still, he was clear and firm. I love my wife. Not saying that while the room was filled with tension, where he can't wait to get out of there, like the last time he was in her apartment.

The farmhouse was also an uncomfortable conversation, but only because of what Karen was saying, not conflicted feelings on Matt's part. That is what is different the last couple weeks, dramatically different. It's not just that I don't like it, it's that I see it as a sudden shift in months of characterization.

I didn't include Carolee before. She is another main character who is essentially the way I remember her. More humor, yes, but a down to earth really good person. The other jarring thing is how small the cast is. The cast credits are done in about 10 seconds.

Yes, it's only a half hour show. Still, look at the credits from a 1982 show and compare. Much bigger cast. So many times you watch shows now. Characters, contract players, disappear for a couple weeks at a time. That couldn't happen with the 1968 Doctors. There weren't enough people.

Whatever misgivings I might have about some of the particulars, what I'm watching on Retro beats any new soap material I'm watching.

Long time lurker here. I am really bothered by what seems to me like a giant swerve in the Matt/Karen/Maggie story. Since when is Matt attracted to her? All hot and bothered by her? Her being Karen. This came out of left field in a subplot that has lasted months. Pretty much from the point Retro started airing it.

Could you have accused Matt of having a bit of a soft spot for Karen based on her father? Sure. Or having a blind spot to some of her manipulations? Absolutely. But attracted to her? Where. He wasn't the least bit tempted in the farmhouse. Just a couple weeks back, in her apartment, when Maggie overheard Karen asking him to get her a drink. I saw no romantic tension.

This all started a week or two back. They are in his office, she touches his face with her hand, asks if he does not respond to that, and it's gone on from there. He's snapping everyone's heads off because he feels guilty because he's got something to feel guilty about. He wasn't doing that before. He could talk openly to maggie about it, when she really pressed, because he had nothing to feel guilty about.

I wonder if this has something to do with Edelstein. He just recently started being listed in th credits. Maybe it was Larkin. I just don't see it as consistent with Matt's characterization these last several months. I don't like it. I don't care about Karen. It's the integrity of Matt's character that I care about.

I never saw this story. I started watching in maybe 72 or 73. And I didn't like the writing for Matt in the later years. Or them breaking Matt and Maggie up. "Humanize" Matt aka flaw Matt. Even then, ESPECIALLY now, soaps have a difficult time writing truly morally upright characters. Matt, in the few months leading up to these latest developments, I think certainly qualified. Karen can throw herself at him to heart's content. I don't care not until he starts to respond. Then I have a problem.

Other than that, really enjoying the show. The characters, the main ones, behave the way I remember them. Althea, Nick, Maggie and Matt(for the most part). It is really jarring to see Steve as such a heel. He was reformed by the time I started watching.