Tisy-Lish

Thank you.

Yes, he softened Liz a bit when Irene Daily assumed the role. Earlier when played by Audra Lindley, Liz was practically a villain. But Dailey's Liz was still pretty tough and unhappy. Later writers softened Dailey's Liz even more -- to the point that, at times, she was little more than comic relief.

Hey everyone, I need some information rather quickly to pass on to an author. Beverly Penberthy's son represented his mother at the AW Reunion last year. Does anyone know the son's name? The author is trying to contact him. Thank you!!

Thank you for that information. Of course ALL of that is strictly from Mr Lemay's point of view. So that must be taken into account.

Along with Ford and Wyndham, he also praised Susan Sullivan for her ability to tweak his dialogue and make it her own. So, if an actor he loved changed his dialogue, that was okay. Even praise worthy, at times. But when Virginia Dwyer (whom he openly disliked) did it, Lemay was aghast and deeply offended. Can you imagine the challenge Dwyer faced doing scene after scene with Hugh Marlowe, who stammered and fumbled his way through nearly every page of dialogue?? Of course she changed the dialogue. She was probably saying half of Marlowe's lines, because he had forgotten them. And I don't think Dwyer hated Lemay. She was frustrated with him, and just didn't understand what the Hell he was trying to do to Mary. And the answer to that (we found out later) was he wanted Mary to behave like Aunt Liz. A meddling unfulfilled sexless busy-body. I really don't think I would have enjoyed seeing Mary turn into that. On the other hand, I didn't want to see Mary killed off either.

Well, if that was true -- where was the director? Taking a nap in the control room?? A good director would have nipped that in the bud. Unless the performance was good and the director liked it. Imagine that.

The book is a wonderful look back at the Golden Age of Another World. And yes, Lemay is very opinionated and more than a little egotistical. But I would not go so far as to suggest he lied in the book. But the book is a memoire -- one man's thoughts, opinions, and experiences of a particular period in his life. Had the opinions of others been included, we might be reading a very different book. But aren't all memoirs like this?

I've never really understood Lemay's statements about this in the book. Apparently he felt Courtney over-played her scenes during these episodes. But if she was so badly over-playing the emotional breakdown, where the hell was the director? And why didn't the director receive any of Lemay's wrath? I was watching every day during this period, and the only thing I found over-done about Alice's breakdown was Courtney's physical appearance, which was a bit shocking. But Alice's appearance would not have been Courtney's decision. Wouldn't that have been a collaboration between the director and the hair/make-up department. So again, no idea why Lemay gave Courtney all the blame...

Well, the writing for Steve's return was bad. VERY bad. But the casting could have worked with decent writing that respected the history of Alice/Steve/Rachel, rather than just paying lip-service to it. The triangle was OVER, and had been over before Reinholt and Courtney were fired in 1975. Once Rachel married Mac, there was no chance she would have ever looked back toward Steve in any serious way. Had Harding Lemay written Steve's return (even though he likely would have refused, because he HATED return from the dead plots), he would have written it believably, and would have gotten Steve and Alice back on track to continue their ever-troubled romance. Rachel certainly would have been involved, but mostly through the impact on Jamie. Rachel would never have started chasing Steve again.

Wow, that sounds great. I'll try to tune in and watch it! Thanks for the response.

I don't watch DOOL often, so I need to ask -- is this a real murder trial? With a jury, and audience, a courtroom, and EVERYTHING? Murder trials used to be a staple on every soap opera. But they have fallen out of fashion since the mid-1980s. I'm wondering, what/when was the last murder trial on DOOL? And what/when was the last full murder trial on ANY soap in the US??

For the sake of conversation, let's assume for moment that soap operas are on the upswing, and become at least moderately profitable again. It seems that in 2025, outdoor shooting has become relatively affordable for daytime dramas. So today, the expensive part is not the shooting itself, but finding outdoor locations to use consistently and often enough to be believable and authentic to the audience. Here's a question: would it ever be possible for an American soap opera to have a series of permanent outdoor sets, similar to a few British soaps, such as Eastenders?? I know DOOL tried this for a while with Salem Place Mall, but it lasted only a few years. And Guiding Light shot for a couple of years in Peapack. But to a large degree, GL was just asking for permission to shoot outside people's businesses and homes, and identifying those structures as the boarding-house/Company, the Bauer house, the Spaulding house, etc., etc., etc. (I am aware GL purchased or leased at least one house that could be shot from several angles, and used as the exterior for more than one home) But there is no permanence with that format because at any time, a home owner or business owner could have (and eventually would have) said, "You can't use my home (or business) in your show anymore -- we're done!" So I'm assuming for outdoor sets to be "permanent" they'd need to be on a studio back-lot, or at least on property owned by either the studio or by the production company. So could an Eastenders type of permanent outdoor set(s) ever be affordable or possible for an American daytime soap? And again, I don't mean temporarily -- but permanently, from episode #1 until the series' final episode.

Okay, then I stand corrected. But doesn't that rather defeat the purpose of promos, and especially cross-overs? The entire purpose promos is to drive conversation and drive ratings. I can say the same thing for cross-overs. If the fans don't know ahead of time, a cross-over is rather useless in terms of cross-pollinating the audience, and increasing ratings. A cross-over is never intended to be a surprise. And you have to agree that the network obviously wants fans to be discussing this. However if that is the rule, I will abide by it.

Okay, then is has to come from a Friday promo to be "not a spoiler"?? In-between promos don't count? Really??? Is that something you just made-up on the fly?

We've discussed things from promos many many times here. In fact, after almost every Friday promo. I don't recall any of that being labeled spoiler. If something is in an official promo, the network clearly wants it to be discussed by the public. That's the purpose of promos.

It's not a spoiler. The promo has already been released by CBS. I've seen it. If the network already released it, how can it be a spoiler? CBS literally wants the public to be discussing it.

Yes. Sorry, I did not mean to imply that Rachel was still a bad-girl in 1981. Just that in the history of Alice/Steve/Rachel, Rachel had been the bad-girl and Alice had been the ingenue. So ultimately, the bad-girl won. Agreed. Quinn was by far the longest lasting detail of Steve's return in 1982. A lot of characters were brought in to support Steve's return storyline -- Alice, Steve, Diana, Quinn, and four or five members of the Shea family. Anyone else?

Well they both certainly behave like "deer in the headlights", which it not helpful to June or to the viewers.

I do not believe the original plan (in 1981-82) was for Steve to end-up with Rachel. The plan was for Steve and Alice to reunite, but not without plenty of difficulty -- and for Rachel to reunite with her true love, Mac. But there were three major issues that lead to the Steve/Rachel ending. #1.) Problems with the Alice recasts caused TPTB to give up on Alice, and just send her out of town. #2) By 1982, "chemistry" had become the guiding force in writing romance in daytime on all three networks. So when Canary seemed to have a little more chemistry with Wyndham than he had with Borgeson, TPTB pushed Canary and Wyndham together, despite both characters' toxic history. This sort of madness was happening on nearly every soap on every network, with nearly all romance plots -- chemistry, chemistry, chemistry between actors is all that mattered. History be damned! #3) 1982 was near the time that "good girls" (or ingenues) started to be considered boring, and "bad girls" were considered more interesting and dynamic. At least by the writers, if not the viewers. So Rachel won Steve's heart in the end (what a pathetic insult to long term fans of AW!!). And later, on nearly every soap opera, whenever they wrote a love triangle, the bad-girl won the guy -- and the good girl either left town, or went crazy and became the "badder girl." I could give many examples of this over recent decades, but I really don't have the energy. Most of you will understand. The ingenue became boring and the bad-girl became the star of the show. (Rachel, Erica, Reva, Vicky Hudson, Carly (GH), Carly (ATWT). In my opinion, that is weak writing and writing to the lowest common denominator. By the way, not suggesting either Alice nor Rachel were "girls" in 1982, as both would have been 40-ish, and Steve would have been around 43.

Broderick, your comments are insightful and enlightening. Thank you for posting. I know nothing of Soft White Underbelly. It is a podcast? A cable show? Maybe the problem is not an issue with the writing for June, but a problem with the people that surround June. Specifically Naomi and Jacob. Whenever either is in a scene with June, they seem so naive and stupefied -- frankly they are no smarter than me and the rest of the audience. If both characters were a bit more expert in working with homeless individuals (which would not be unrealistic, considering their professions), their dialogue could provide some exposition that could educate the viewers. I agree with you -- we don't need a savior to come in and cure June. I'd love to see a realistic homeless person portrayed on daytime. But I do believe the writers need to decide what June's issues are, and then demonstrate them on-screen. I guess I'm suggesting the writing for a character like June, and the characters that surround her, needs to be deliberate. Otherwise "average" viewers like me, will just assume she's a stereotype. But you have helped me to recognize that perhaps she is not. So thank you again.

I'm no expert on the homeless population. But I think June's character is mighty close to becoming a stereotype. If they intend to write the character as truly mentally ill, then that's okay, but her mental illness should be written seriously, diagnosed, and treated. But if she is not mentally ill, then they need to quit "toying" with it, and write the character as a mentally healthy human being who has become homeless for an identifiable reason -- poverty caused by unemployment, domestic violence, some kind of exploitation, etc. This show is far too smart to be writing her as a stereotype.

Agreed. Courtney (and decent writing) could have saved this mess. But I think it was time for Rachel to leave Alice and Steve's orbit. Rachel had matured and found real love with Mac. Why in the world would Rachel ever consider leaving Mac to pursue Steve in 1982? Alice and Steve could have found other problems to create drama. At this point, they really didn't need Rachel to make them interesting.

Yes, I saw that scene last week also. I actually think this may have been Ethel Remey's very first episode as Alma -- the character had previously been played by another actor, Joanna Roos, I believe. At this point Alma was infrequently seen on the show, as she did not yet live in Oakdale, and her husband (Lisa's father) was still living. After the husband died, apparently Alma (played by Ms Remey) moved to Oakdale and was possibly a contract role.

Canary was certainly capable of playing Steve. In fact, I can't imagine a better actor for the role, aside from Reinholt himself. But he needed a good director to tell him to tone down his personality, to approximate the temperament of the Steve Frame the fans knew. Not to mention, the writing was pretty bad at that time. Frankly, Canary's Steve seemed like an entirely new character. But that was not Canary's fault. Did those writers know anything about the Frame and Matthews family histories? If so, it certainly did not show up in the scripts. And that damaged the possibility that Canary and Borgeson might be successful recasts in those two iconic roles. It was bad writing and absent/ineffective directing -- not the fault of the actors. And I personally believe Borgeson was the best of all the Alice recasts. But that's not saying much, because Jacquie Courtney was pretty-much irreplaceable. Just my opinion. No interest in debating. But other opinions are always interesting.