Tisy-Lish

Understand.

Interesting, it seems you are correct. And we could also include The Brighter Day, Somerset, and Texas on that universe list. But on BTG, characters have already discussed ATWT as being a TV show. So somebody messed up the continuity on us.

Which role on Another World was recast the most times?? I'm assuming it was probably Jamie Frame or Marianne Randolph. But more likely Jamie. Other opinions??

Understood. But If Dani is the bad-girl. That makes Hayley the good-girl, which means she cannot be faking her pregnancy. Be careful what you wish for... LOL

Many soap-opera tropes (the moustache-twirling super villain, multiple returns from the dead, evil doppelgängers, campiness, etc.) have been harmful to the genre. And I support BTG's efforts to avoid those. But other soap tropes (those that are classic and archetypal) actually enhance the drama and contribute positively to the genre. The "social-climbing daughter with the long-suffering working-class mother" is a trope that simply works. Over the decades, it has driven up ratings on multiple soaps, and the viewers always seem to love that dynamic. Plus, that dynamic helps explain and humanize the bad-girl, and helps the audience to understand and empathize with her.

One big mistake BTG has made is not giving Hayley a talk-to character. They should have cast her mother, or sister, or someone with whom Hayley can express her wants and needs -- which would have allowed the viewers to know her motivation. Hayley could be BTG's version of Erica Kane, Lisa Miller, or Rachel Davis -- but those three wonderful bad-girls all had mothers to talk to, and who would set them straight occasionally. BTG has two "big-bad" villains (Joey and Leslie). But the show also needs a couple of low-key trouble-makers, who are less over-the-top and can be a presence for years and years on the show. Perhaps a Rachel/Lisa type, and a John Dixon/Roger Thorpe type.

Sadly, you are correct on every point.

I've also heard Gwen's scenes were originally written for Willis. And the lines themselves certainly didn't fit the Gwen we had known in the 1970s. Gwen was an architect from a wealthy family in NYC. She was good natured and confident. There had been mention of some past emotional issues, but we saw very little of that during Gwen's first run on AW. Too bad Leon Russom did not want to reprise the role of Willis. Even though he declined the invitation to appear on the 25th anniversary episodes, he did attend the anniversary party in NYC. Interestingly, Susan Sullivan made the same choices -- she had been invited to appear as Lenore during the anniversary week, but declined. But did travel to NYC to attend the 25th party. I wonder if TPTB even considered asking Judith Barcroft to return as Lenore (after Sullivan declined). Although most of Lenore's scenes would have likely been with Nick Coster (with whom Barcroft had never worked), Barcroft and Sullivan had very similar acting styles, and I'm confident Barcroft would have had chemistry with Coster. Barcroft did attend the anniversary party. Lenore had been such an important character in the late-1960s until leaving the show in 1975, it's sad that her name was not even mentioned during all the returns. I'm wondering if there is any chance of finding the list of former AW actors who attended the 25th anniversary party. Years ago, there was one grainy group photo from the event floating around online. I thought I saved a copy of it, but can't find it in my files. I understand it was a very well attended party. I've been told even Virginia Dwyer was there. It's difficult to believe only one photo exists from the party, and even that seems to have disappeared from the online ethos.

Yes, that's got to be a streaming thing. I enjoyed the 1990 NBC Dark Shadows, but I felt it was not scary enough. It focused too much on romance, and too little on gothic horror. Still, it was pretty damned good.

I've always assumed, in 1989, Pat would have still been working for Cory Publishing as an editor. So she would have transferred back to the Bay City headquarters and had interaction with her old friend Mac at work, her complex histories with Rachel and Liz, and perhaps she could have become Felicia's editor -- opportunity for interaction there. Plus, if Russ also returned (as he did), then Pat would have had a brother on the canvas. I realize those relationships are not "storylines", but storylines could have come from them. Plus she had history with Sharlene and Ada. We should also remember that in 1989, Pat had been away from AW for only seven years. So it would not have been like bringing an ancient long-ago character back.

Respectfully, I don't think any supporters of Pat's return in 1989 wanted (or expected) her to be "shoe-horned" in. We would have wanted Pat to return organically, and with a planned storyline for her that involved others on the canvas. And regarding displacing existing characters -- viewers seldom even notice who's been fired to provide budget for any new or returning character. For example, who was displaced when Liz returned in 1987? Who was displaced when Sharlene returned in 1988? Or when Iris returned in 1988? Or when Russ returned in 1989? Most viewers would have no idea, and I certainly do not.

Another reason Swajeski may have decided not to follow Lemay's (supposed) plan to bring back Pat permanently in 1989 was that AW already had five 40 to 45-ish females in leading roles: Rachel, Iris, Felicia, Donna, and Sharlene. Adding Pat to the cast would have made that six, and in an era where soaps were chasing a very young demographic, six middle-aged women in leading roles might have gone against the conventional wisdom of that time.

You are correct, it was a different show than it had been in the 1970s. But I think Lemay seemed to understand that very well. His writing in 1988 certainly reflected that. Although he wrote his signature "character scenes" and quickly reminded the audience that every important character has an "Achilles heal" that informs their behavior and their decision-making (in other words, sub-text) -- he also wrote much more deliberately than he had during his first tenure. His work in 1989 was significantly more plot-related. But of course, characters still came before plot. That was quite an update for an aging ego-driven curmudgeon, who I happened to love love love...

Yes, many plans for the show's course were likely changed when Doug Watson died. But here is my speculation about Swajeski's change regarding keeping Pat around: I'm speculating that the problem Pat was going to cause between Sharlene and John was that Pat would stay in Bay City and slowly put two-and-two together to figure out that Josie was Russ's daughter. And that would cause difficulty between Sharlene and John. Here's even more speculation: I've come to believe that Swajeski may have decided -- Since Russ is coming to town for the 25th anniversary week, why not keep him in town (rather than Pat), and allow Russ to be the one to figure out the facts about Josie's parentage. Maybe Swajeksi decided keeping Russ in Bay City, instead of Pat, would lead to a cleaner storyline and more drama. Again, all this is just my speculation based on what appeared on the show and what I have read regarding the time period. I'd love to hear other theories about what may have led to the decision not to keep Pat on the canvas after the 25th anniversary week.

There has been a vaguely substantiated rumor that (in 1988) Lemay's intent was for Pat to stay in Bay City after returning for the 25th anniversary episodes in May 1989. And that Lemay's replacement, Donna Swajeski, originally planned to go along with Pat's return. But it seems Swajeski changed her mind, almost at the last-minute, about Pat's permanent return, for unknown reasons. If I'm not mistaken, one of the on-air promos for the anniversary week even foreshadowed Pat staying in town and causing trouble between Sharlene and John Hudson. And of course, that never happened. There are likely AW historians on this forum who know more about this than me, and can probably explain it in more detail.

I agree. Imagine having layered characters again on daytime... It is so refreshing to finally have a believable soap opera to enjoy again. After 40-years of over-the-top bafoonery, mustache-twirling super-villians, and campy embarrassments. Real human drama has returned to daytime. I only hope this is a trend that spreads to the other remaining soap operas. Time will tell.

So it was taped on location? Wow, it didn't seem to be. Hmm. Thank you for correcting me, as I had not heard or read that. I know it was supposed to represent the real Howard Theatre, but it didn't appear to be location shooting to me. I suppose that might be a good thing. Either way, still a flawless episode.

Just watched today's episode on Paramount+. All I can say is -- My God, this is a good soap opera! How did they pull-off that concert believably without leaving the studio? No location shooting, no long shots from the back of the theater. But I believed every minute of it. It was perfectly and believably shot. The director and production designer both deserve Emmys for this episode. The writers too, and the actors as well. And most especially MVJ. Emmys all around. In my opinion, today's episode of BTG was flawless.

Interesting idea, and I like it. Although I will always hope Martin and Smitty eventually reunite permanently, Now that they've separated, why not keep them apart for a while and allow a few issues to threaten their possibility of getting back together? Some of us have complained there is no true romantic plot on BTG, so a lengthy Martin/Smitty separation might be just what we need to give them "Julie/Doug", Alice/Steve", or "Cliff/Nina" status. Tortured romance is the best type of romance for daytime. And that type of romance will really get the viewers rooting for their reconciliation. As long as Martin/Smitty are eventually end-game, I don't care how long it takes. But in the mean time give us some juicy longing looks and some tears, and maybe even an interloper or two.

Thank you for the great information. When I originally posted my question, I didn't expect to learn so much so quickly. Thank you for engaging.

Wow, that's a thorough response. Very interesting. Thank you! So, I'm guessing -- if a soap opera used one set to represent three different locations (three different homes, for instance), the designer of the set would be paid for designing one set. I'll make up an example: Suppose Katherine Chancellor, Phoebe Tyler, and Lucinda Walsh appear on the same soap opera, and all three ladies buy large condos in the same condo building. The production company could pay a set designer to design one basic set, and then the producers could redress that set to represent three different homes (the condos of Katherine, Phoebe, and Lucinda). Interesting. But that does seem a bit like cheating the set designer. Hmmm. Maybe set designers need a new union. LOL.

Is anyone here knowledgeable about laws and rules regarding set design on soap operas? Specifically, when a set designer designs a series of sets for a soap opera, does he/she receive royalties weekly or monthly as long as those sets appear on the show? Or does the designer get a one-time payment for the designs, and that's the end of any payment? Another question, if a designer creates a series of sets for a soap opera, and one or more of those sets are later used on another soap (as has happened a few times through the years) -- does the designer receive any additional payment at all because her/his creations are now being used on a second show?

I think you are right. The final Cory Publishing set (which had been significantly downsized on AW), became Lucinda's office which we had not seen in several years.

Yes, I think they used Cass's final law office from AW as Tom Hughes' new law office on ATWT. And I believe a set from AW later became Jessica Griffin's house on ATWT. But I can't remember how it had been used on AW. There were a couple of others too, but I have forgotten them.