chrisml

I don't know how much of the AW audience in 1999 would have even remembered McKinsey. For me, Carmen Duncan was Iris. I would have been highly annoyed if Alexandra Spaulding had showed up as Iris during the show's last months (I was aware of McKinsey through GL and I'm not sure if I knew she had been Iris) rather than Duncan. Even as a child, I missed Duncan's Iris when they wrote her off in that ridiculous way.

Thanks Keri and J Swift for all the information. I was watching then but I have no knowledge of the storyline Coster hated. I must have blocked it from my memory.

As for Cassandra, I remember liking the character but I was annoyed by the plot. As J Swift points out, it was a mess and just felt cobbled together as they were going on. It was another SB storyline that just fizzled out. The Stephen/Sophia relationship part of the story went nowhere and it was aggravating. 

I stumbled upon a Nicholas Coster interview where he mentions leaving Santa Barbara because of a certain producer. The link is here: https://www.welovesoaps.net/2010/09/coster3.html   I don't remember the insurance fraud/Lionel faking his own death story. When did this happen and who was the producer at the time? 

I often wonder if the Stern/Black regime would look good in retrospect or if they really were as awful as their reputation. 

As for Martha Byrne, I feel for her, but what exactly did the husband think he was doing? If his defense his true, I wouldn't leave him in charge of a rock garden.

Stringfield could have given him an honest answer AND then gotten ER. She left after two years or so it's not if fame and money meant all that much to her. Either way, did he want her to grovel for crumbs after Caruso left?

It's a shame that JFP was never held accountable for the working conditions on GL. That time is always described in terms of McKinsey's "outrageous clause" but never about how the actors felt overworked and exhausted. I really wish there were a tell-all book about the soaps and how actors and writers were treated. The OLTL oral history book got into some of that, but soap execs and producers got away with so much bad behavior.

I think the main problem with C.C. is that his personality and purpose was constantly changing depending on the writers/performers. I can't imagine any actor would be able to play any of those shifts convincingly. 

Marcy Walker could have worked well with the other actors so it's a shame it was such a disaster. I found the interview Walker gave about her time on GL as well as her time on AMC and SB. It was with Michael Logan. Walker Interview

Has Marcie Walker ever talked specifically about how she felt working with JFP on GL? I remember reading a comment she made about feeling JFP had used her to keep her job as EP but I don't remember the source of the statement.

My comments are nothing new but SB's problem was consistency. An individual episode could be brilliant, and the next one would be an absolute mess. The dialogue was usually the saving grace, but that wasn't always the case especially in the early years. The revolving door of writers and producers meant there was constant whiplash. There was little long-term plotting and most stories just fizzled out. It always felt as if the writers (whichever ones were working at the time) were just making stuff up as they went along. Yet when SB was on a roll, it was fantastic t.v. so it's annoying that someone couldn't step in and maintain that quality for longer than three months at a time. 

3 hours ago, j swift said:

Were Christopher Mayer and Christopher Norris in the cast at the same time?  I wonder if a PA ever got confused and gave them the wrong script.

I know he went by Chip, but it was amusing to me.

According to the French Santa Barbara site, Mayer last aired on April 21, 1989. Norris first showed up on March 9.

I'm so out of the loop I thought the younger performer category was still capped at 25. So odd not to have 21 be the cutoff. Why change it?

Maybe I have the timeline wrong, but was 1993 around the time there were a lot of the crazy DOOL stories that got DOOL higher ratings? (Carly buried alive for ex.). I remember AMC especially was trying to mimic those outlandish plots. I can't see Curlee fitting into any of that. It feels in retrospect that the quest to copy those stories really harmed daytime as a whole. I think Curlee would have been a much better fit at OLTL working with Michael Malone during his first tenure.

Has Donna Swajeski ever spoken about her tenure on the show? Not during her tenure, but after she left.

IS Harding Lemay a reliable narrator of what happened during his tenures at AW? I remember a few things he said being disputed by members of this board and the people involved (Jacqueline Courteney to name one). I also don't think AW was in bad shape in early 1988. It had so much potential, and there were storylines that should have been followed through on. I enjoyed Swajeski's tenure up to 1990 but I didn't like how there were also a lack of follow through. Her stories for the most part tended to just fizzle out. Aw had the problem that one character would drive story for months/a year or so and then be written out (Howard's Nicole comes to mind). The Red Swan is another example of a story that went nowhere.

1 hour ago, watson71 said:

1988 there were a lot of changes behind the scenes at AW. Margaret De Priest left as headwriter in January to be replaced by Sheri Anderson.  Michael Laibson replaced John Whitesell as executive producer.  Right before the writer’s strike it was announced that Harding Lemay was returning as headwriter.  His work would not air until after the writer’s strike.  During the strike, Donna Swajeski, who then worked at NBC was writing the episodes.  Lemay would stay about 10 weeks as headwriter, before Swajeski would take over.  From Lemay’s return until mid-1989, AW is excellent. It has always been said that Swajeski was using Lemay’s bible for the show.  The Who Killed Jason Frame story was a big umbrella story that involves the entire cast, and the 25th Anniversary and Mac’s death are well done.  A lot of what was planned for the show probably had to be scrapped when Douglass Watson died in real life.

Thank you for all of the information. I watched the show from 1986 on, but I didn't remember a lot of the stories during most of 1988. I now understand why. I could definitely tell while watching it that there was upheaval behind the scenes as there's a lot of chaos on the screen. It's a frustrating experience because there was much good material, but more often than not, it wasn't followed through on. I agree that AW was on fire and I'd even extend it into 1990.

While I'm happy to see them, I'm so bummed about the story quality of the 1988 AW episodes being uploaded because the shift in quality for most of the year is just so disappointing. There was so much potential and then it sort of dissipates shortly before the writer's strike (and thank you for those who pointed that out). Even before that, it felt like the writers were flailing and did not know what to do in early 1988. I still can't get over the number of stories that just fizzled out. Scott and Cheryl are gone which annoys me to no end. The Mary storyline just ended. NuDonna is like another character. They don't seem to know what to do with the character of Jason. Cass is being haunted by Laura Innes (later on ER) and there are all these new characters who just talk and talk and talk.

On 3/16/2023 at 3:05 PM, DRW50 said:

Eddie Drueding has been uploading 1988 episodes - I think some were already on Youtube in chunks but for me individual episodes are preferable. For anyone, like me, who is fascinated by strike-based material, 1988 AW will be one of the few mostly complete periods on Youtube (along with 1981 RH I suppose - and maybe 1981 AW) to show the effects of a writers strike. Episodes starting from April 12, 1988 were in the strike period. This will go through early/mid-October.

I wondered why there were no writers listed. It's a shame about the strike because it felt like the show was quite good in 1987 and then 1988 brought about so many storylines that never caught on/were never followed through on: Mary's past and role as therapist, Scott's past, the creepy flirtation with John and Cheryl, Sam's mother, Jason skulking about, etc. I'm not bored, but I'm confused now with the spring/summer AW.

I'm actually saddened by the destruction of the McKinnons. I enjoyed the characters and because I know Scott and Cheryl will be gone soon (followed months later by Vince and Mary), it's waiting for the inevitable. It also bothers me that the writers never really told the story of Stuart's Donna's departure story (the photo) and also just gave up on the Mary/Reginald stuff. 

Someone uploaded an episode of AW in the middle of a Bill Cullen tribute (don't know why AW is connected to Bill Cullen). The video is here: AW post  AW is 2:59:20 into the video. I don't know the year of the episode but it has Christopher Knight and Susan Keith if that narrows it down (my first-hand AW knowledge is 1986 through just before Frankie's death).

I'm not shocked by anything producers or writers say about rape on soaps.  The soaps are full of rationales for rapists--icky considering that women were the target demographic. However, I was shocked it came from Calhoun and not Farren Phelps who seemed to thrive on violence against women. 

I rewatched some of the 1987 episodes, and I was reminded how much I enjoyed them. I've said it before, but I think 1987 AW was quite good (even if some of the storylines did not not pan out for various reasons). IT had its faults, but it was going in the right direction. I applaud the show for trying to do something with Dawn, but it's the one false note in the scenes because it felt more like a message than an actual storyline. Even now, I resent her screen time.

As for changes, I don't know if those ever work when it's done in a drastic way. As a viewer, I loathe when an EP comes in and changes everything. I think a lot of viewers want consistency and comfort. They want to know that when they turn into their show that they are going to get the characters they love. The constant changes drive viewers away. I drifted away from AW in 1988 because of the immense changes because the new EP would inevitable get rid of the characters I cared most about. I came back but that pattern would repeat itself until Frankie's death when I just gave up AW and kept up via soap summaries.

I did not care for the Dawn storyline because it was one of those stories where a new character comes in and interrupts an existing storyline just to make some social issue point. It killed any momentum Scott and Cheryl had together or as separate characters. If I recall, Scott was to turn out to be Donna's child, but it never materalized after Anna Stuart left. 

I also enjoyed AW during the 1987 year. The Rex/Cass stuff, the Mary/Reginald story, (although it fizzled out), Cheryl/Scott, etc. I also liked Tracy Kolis and I still remember her departure scene. I wish that the show had been able to follow through with the 1987 stories rather than wrapping a lot of them up and starting again with new characters and stories. 

Is there a time on SB where you just lost interest and you were never invested in the show again? For me, it was when Roberta Bizeau was let go. I thought Flame was such a good character and had great potential, and then the backstage stuff just ruined it. I would read summaries and watch the occasional episode after that, but I never returned it as a faithful viewer. 

The Julia/Dash rape storyline felt so lazy and offensive. It's as if they didn't know what to do with the two characters so they fell back and the rape trope. Once the rape happened, the storyline really became so unsavory and offensive with Julia kidnapping Dash, Dash holding Julia down again, and then all the rapist as erotic dream fodder when the Dobsons took over. Gibbs and Grahn did have chemistry, and it's a shame that the writers lost interest in the character of Dash and his story. It felt like they just used Dash's story to kill off Constance Marie's character. 

I never got the feeling that the Dobsons cared about practicalities like consistency, history, common sense, etc. They just wrote whatever came into their minds in a given day. That's why so much of their second return is brilliant and ridiculous in equal measure. I wonder if they had a different exec producer if their second stint would have been more successful--one who would have stopped them from some of their more ridiculous moments (Augusta's fantasies about rapist Dash for ex.).