Tisy-Lish

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.

Does anyone remember, in 1982 when David Canary and Linda Borgeson were playing Steve and Alice, there was a recreated flashback of the couple at Steve's house in St Croix? And rather than shoot on location, they used the studio set and green-screen ocean in the background. This was a couple of years after the big location shots with Mac, Janice, and Rachel on St Croix. So although it was fun to see that flashback, it was a little off-putting to see the out-dated special effects, since we had not seen Steve's St Croix house since Mary Matthews died there in 1975.

I stand corrected. I thought your statement meant you remembered the 1979 location scenes (Mac/Janice/Rachel) on St Croix, but had no memory of other previous visits by other characters.

Then that probably explains it. Great research on your part. Thank you!

I think you have brought up a completely different "St Croix era". Mac, Janice, and Rachel's drama in St Croix was shot on location in 1979. But previously, Steve and Alice had been visiting Steve's house in St Croix since the Agnes Nixon days, and continued until Steve died in 1975, while Lemay was writing. None of the Steve/Alice St Croix stuff was ever shot on location on the island. It was all done on a studio set with a green-screened beach in the background. And during those years, they also used a lot of filmed footage showing different views around the island to establish the location. So all that had a completely different look from the Mac/Rachel/Janice location shot in 1979.

Thank you for looking this up. Now, the question is -- did AW secure permission to use this footage? Or did Paul Rauch just pirate the footage somehow? If I'm not mistaken, The Mod Squad was broadcast on ABC. So Another World (broadcast on NBC and owned by P&G Productions) likely had no legal, network, or business connection to The Mod Squad. Why would the producers of The Mod Squad agree to allow AW to use footage from one of their episodes? I realize there is likely no sure answer, but I'm just bringing up the question. . .

Thank you for being so cordial. Wow, I'm not accustomed to that type of response online! And I agree -- if two Another World fans are discussing a scene from over 50-years ago, and praising it as compelling and believable, then Lemay and Rauch must have done something right. Regardless of the details.

Our memories disagree. But I promise not to be disagreeable. My recollection is that the snake was in the studio and shown on the same "park" set as the characters -- and not stock filmed footage edited into the taped scene. Although it was over 50 years ago, and I was only 13 years old in 1972, even then I had a fairly discerning eye and could recognize the difference between film and videotape. For example, anytime Steve and Alice visited their house in St Croix, I noticed all the filmed stock footage used as the various establishing shots. And I easily recognized the green-screen effects showing the beach beyond their terrace. And I also recall Walter Curtain's car crash, and noticing immediately that the "crash" scene had been shot on film and was likely stock footage. So you and I are in agreement about that. I later learned that the filmed fiery car crash which killed poor Walter was actually footage taken directly from a prime-time drama. I don't recall the title of the prime-time show, but that information is fairly well known and shouldn't be difficult to discover. It may even be documented on the Another World Home Page. Both of use are looking back over 50-years. So who knows which of us is correct?? And in the end, I guess it is of little consequence either way. The fact remains, the "snake scene" was compelling and dramatic. And I guess that is all that really matters.

I've heard this before about Hubbard and Marland. But I don't quite understand it. How many soap opera actors get a story that is just about her/him? I don't even know what that would mean. Every soap opera plot involves and affects more than one character. Soap characters never exist in isolation. Maybe Hubbard just didn't realize exactly how good she had it while Marland was in Oakdale.

Are there really even mountains in the South of France? Mountains on the French riviera?

Interesting thoughts. Well, Y&R is certainly not too proud to reach way back for old scenes. or even occasionally entire very old entire episodes. And those are often wonderful to see in 2025. But the other soaps seem either unwilling or unable (lack of old tapes) to use that very old cherished material. I love your term, "properly promoted." because if a soap is going to do a tribute episode for a particular actor/character, or even a full week of old episodes -- it should be promoted loud and proud -- not sheepishly and ashamedly slipped into the schedule as if no one is supposed to notice.

Yes, I did. Not so much that Lucinda was the new villainess, because Lisa was not exactly a villainess at that point. But I felt Lucinda diminished Lisa because the two characters were so similar. Both similar age, and vaguely similar looks. Both former working-class girls who had eventually both married a couple of millionaires and became wealthy widows. The only real difference was that Lisa was tied to the history of ATWT, and the audience already knew Lisa's history. While Lucinda was a newer character, and the audience was yet to learn about her history. Otherwise, the two characters were nearly interchangeable. That is just my opinion, so please do not go into attack mode... Pretty please?? And Douglas Marland didn't help the situation. Although in general, I loved Marland's writing on ATWT, he certainly favored Lucinda over Lisa. Yes, both characters got approximately equal screen-time under Marland, but Lucinda got storylines while Lisa was mostly a supporting character. How many storylines did Lucinda get during Marland's eight-years at ATWT? And Lisa got one big storyline -- the Scott Eldridge reveal, which I LOVED. I'm not suggesting Marland disliked Lisa or Eileen Fulton. In fact, I think Marland loved both Lisa and Eileen. But I do believe Marland found Lucinda a more interesting character than Lisa. And so he wrote more interesting material for Lucinda, which diminished Lisa significantly. Again -- please don't attack. Just the opinion of an old hog farmer.

Oh yes, of course. I even watched the show today, and didn't remember those names. LOL. I'm a complete idiot. Thank you!!

It seems daytime soap operas have been producing fewer new episodes for the past several years. Nowadays, we get a rerun of nearly every soap opera on all major holidays, plus Beyond the Gates recently broadcast an entire week of reruns in early July (for no apparent reason, and with no explanation). Does anyone think perhaps TPTB in daytime are preparing the audience for even fewer new episodes per year in the future? Is it possible in the future, daytime soaps might cut-down to four episodes per week (Monday through Thursday)? Or perhaps going even further -- start taking a three-month hiatus and show reruns during the entire summer -- similar to primetime dramas? And is the fairly recent use of the term "seasons" in regard to daytime soaps meaningful or important in any way? Less than a decade ago in television, the term "seasons" was used almost exclusively for prime time shows. And nearly all daytime shows used the term "years." But now, all the soaps are referring to "seasons" rather than years. Just a couple of examples: In 2024 or 2025, the soap press reported Days of Our Lives was renewed for a new season on Peacock. And Beyond the Gates was recently given the green-light for a second season on CBS. Just a few years ago, in both of those cases (and many others), the term "year(s)" would have been used rather than "season(s)." This might not be a big deal or important in the least, but the pushing of the term "seasons" onto daytime does seem deliberate to me, and not just a simple evolving of the language. Not sure it is meaningful but certainly noticeable. So these are a couple of topics to think about in this new discussion thread, where we can speculate on the future of successful daytime soap operas. I'd enjoy hearing the opinions and speculations of other soap opera fans. Since everything here will be speculation (educated speculation, I hope), there can be no right or wrong.

Sorry, but who the heck are Sharon and Tracy? I've watched nearly every episode of BTG, and I can't remember any Sharon or Tracy.

Well, it was over 50-years ago. But it seemed to me at the time, both the snake and Jamie were in the same shot. Jamie was seated on the (fake) grass, while the snake slithered closer through the grass. But perhaps it was carefully cut to avoid any real danger. It was just too long ago for me to confirm either way. Still, it seemed so surprising to see a real snake on the set. This was probably very early in Paul Rauch's time on AW, so maybe he was pushing the envelope. Although obviously, Lemay would have written the scene, the decision to bring in a real snake was probably Rauch's.

Gerald Davis was in town for a couple of years, and he encouraged Rachel to focus less on her marriage to Ted, and to pursue Steve secretly. For example, Rachel started insisting she be present whenever Steve had a visit with Jamie. And then manipulated Steve into keeping that fact from Alice, which meant Rachel and Steve (along with young Jamie) were meeting regularly without Alice's knowledge. One day when they were meeting in the park, Jamie was bitten by a snake (a real snake on the set, slithering toward a young child). When Steve and Rachel took Jamie to the hospital emergency room, Alice realized what Rachel had been up to. And Steve had to admit she was correct. So during Strasser's final few months and Wyndham's first few months, Rachel was constantly pestering Steve and Alice with small manipulations like this -- one after another, while being encouraged by Gerald. Ted was jealous of Steve, but didn't know Gerald was actively working to destroy his marriage to Rachel. The show was still in the 30-minute format during this period and extremely well written.

Thank you for the information. John Eldridge makes sense. I had forgotten about him.