Tisy-Lish

Denise Alexander would have been perfect as a mature Missy in the mid-1980s. Alexander was a master at playing both fragile and strong -- depending on the situation. And I can imagine Alexander and Irene Dailey going head-to-head in scenes regarding Bill's death, and their son Ricky, etc. Plus, it would have been great to see Wyndham's Rachel and Denise Alexander as Missy renewing their acquaintance after so many years. Frankly, Ada would likely have been the only person to truly welcome Missy back to Bay City. But that's okay. A hug from Ada should never be dismissed. LOL.

Thank's for including the video. I don't think I've ever seen this, even though I was watching off and on during this period. They could have done a lot with Michael and Rachel's past friendship.

Well, I grew up on a farm. But the nearest high schools were in a nearby city. So I went to high school in the city, even though I was a farm kid. Therefore I always accepted Rachel and Michael going to the same high school in Bay City. The bigger question for me is: When Ada and Rachel were introduced in 1967 (when Rachel was already out of high school), had they recently moved to Bay City or had they always been there?? I believe there were references in the dialogue that indicated Ada and Rachel were new in town, but I may be incorrect. So that could be a rather big error in continuity -- or perhaps not. Oh, and -- Rachel should have remembered Michael as Michael Garrison, not Michael Hudson.

After Beverly Penberthy (Pat) was fired in January 1982, can anyone speculate on what actor was hired using her former salary? Penberthy's salary must have been hefty, as she was the longest running cast member at that time, and still played an important character. And which character got Pat's level of screen time? I can't really identify anyone until Linda Dano (Felicia) was hired a year later in January 1983. But by that time, I'm assuming Penberthy's former salary had been eaten up and dispersed. However Felicia certainly got Pat's level of screen time, in my opinion. So in a strange way, Felicia replaced Pat -- if you know what I mean. Not literally, but in terms of being an important permanent female character with lots of screen time. Probably a level of screen time (like Pat) second only to Rachel.

Wasn't Tanner on the show a few years ago, just when Tessa and Mariah were getting together? He showed up in town, and asked Tessa to rejoin him on the road. I believe he was also a singer and a former boyfriend or ex-husband. He lasted six-months tops, and then disappeared.

Does anyone know if Rachel and Missy Matthews were friends? I believe both characters were on the show at the same time for at least a year or two, but I've never read or heard anything about their relationship -- if they even had one. Perhaps they were friendly, or perhaps they disliked one another. Or I suppose it's possible they never shared scenes together. I've wondered, if Missy had returned to AW in the later years -- maybe mid-1980s to mid-90s, would she and Rachel have remembered one another? Or would they have been introduced as if they were strangers?

Well, I think all three are equally bad. But Tomas is the only one with strong connections to the core-family. And Ashley seems to be a personal fave of MVJ, plus Ashley has tangental connections to the Duprees. So that leaves Derek as the expendable one. He has nothing but a a friend or two and a weirdly troubled romance with Ashely to leave behind. No relatives, no work colleagues (aside from a few under-fives who show up occasionally), and no relationship to any of the important storylines from the first year. If TPTB wanted to axe one of those three, I think Derek is the obvious choice. Just my opinion.

Now that the Matt Clark return from the dead plot seems to be nearing an end, which wicked character from the past will Josh Griffith dig-up next? I predict, in a couple of weeks, Kyle will go on a first date with a new character. They will go do a diner on the outskirts of town, and their server will be an older woman. The camera pans to the server's face -- it's Marge...

If Y&R ever decides to use this set regularly again, the best thing they could do is change the camera angle back toward the fireplace, as it had always been in the glory days of Kathryn and Jill. With the "updated" camera angle constantly toward the foyer, the set looks too similar to the Abbot house. I realize there are big differences (wall colors and other details), but the basic footprints are still quite similar. A new viewer could easily get the two houses confused. With the earlier camera angle, the similarities were minimized.

By this time, the writers had totally forgotten Cecile's history as a French aristocrat and daughter of a count. The idea of her being a gold-digger was silly. They wrote her like someone from the wrong side of the tracks. But it was funny, and that's all that mattered.

I agree. Albert Stratton or David Gale could have worked as Gerald Davis. It all really depends on the writing, and how much the head-writer knows about Gerald's history with Ada and Rachel. If the writer doesn't know Gerald's history, then he/she is going to write garbage that even Walter Matthews could not make compelling. So even though we've been talking about casting. The writing is even more important. Gerald Davis was a complicated character, and not every soap-opera writer would have had the skill to write Gerald as troubled and believable.

I'm glad they reversed most of Billy Abbot's decorating changes to the Chancellor house. But unfortunately they haven't reversed the front-door. The original front-door was a big heavy four or eight panel wooden-door. After Billy's remodel, the front-door is smaller and is a two panel with a window in the top half. Dear God in Heaven! Have you ever seen a mansion with the upper half of the front-door being a clear glass window? It looks my grandma's back-door from 1965.

I can't imagine remodeling a set would get an executive producer fired, but perhaps you are correct. But please remember two different events changed the Chancellor set -- first Jill's change to the "narrow shot" toward the foyer (this occurred while Kathryn was still living). And later, Billy's remodeling -- which was so awful they had to reverse most of it.

Jill Farren Phelps has said in interviews that she updated (her word, not mine) Y&R by getting rid of the old background music (which was classic, so big mistake), and she changed the Chancellor mansion by turning the entire set away from the fireplace and toward the foyer (in other words, turning the camera away from the broad shot (fireplace), and toward the foyer (which is a narrow shot). Not sure how that was an "update", but she has bragged about it. She also bragged about a few other "updates", but I can't remember the details. The Chancellor house was also "remodeled" by Billy, however I believe that was after JFP left. But even after Billy's remodeling, TPTB stayed with the narrow shot (view toward the foyer). I'm always hoping someone will change the angle of the living room back to the original version. But dear God in Heaven, even JFP's vision of Y&R was ten-times better than the lackluster garbage we've endured for the past several years.

All these actors were probably talented enough to play Gerald Davis very well. But there may be other reasons some would not have been good choices. These are just my opinions on some suggested actors: James Pritchett had too much bravado to play loser Gerald Davis. Plus, I don't think the audience would have believed him in the role, after playing hero Dr Matt Powers on The Doctors for so many years. Robert Milli was a good actor, but always came across as too sophisticated to play plain-spoken working-class Gerald. Ed Bryce (Bill Bauer on GL) might have been rejected by the audience, because Gerald had been a hated character -- and the fans may have felt uncomfortable hating Ed Bryce. Wayne Tippit probably would have worked well in the role. He had the right look and gruff exterior. But was he too young to play Ada's ex-husband? I've not seen Robert Colbert play a heavy. I only saw him as perfect father, Stuart Brooks on Y&R. But he might have worked as Gerald. He had the right look, if costumed well -- in other words, dressed like Gerald Davis, not Stuart Brooks. Larry Haines is a big NO for me. First, AW's audience would never feel comfortable hating Stu Bergman. And Larry might have had a difficult time keeping humor out of the role. Eventually, Larry's Gerald would have likely morphed into a good guy.

I do too. Being a core-family kind of soap opera, I think we will get great holiday episodes as long as MVJ is in charge. Maybe in 2026 we will also get a Juneteenth celebration and a 4th of July picnic. I've been watching soaps for more than 60 years, and I've always loved the holiday episodes. But I don't want the holidays to be silly stand-alone fantasy episodes. I want the plots to be acknowledged and moved forward a bit, along with the good family times and the revelry. This year, BTG has done a great job with holiday celebrations!!

Search for Tomorrow: Jo and Stephanie

I can't argue with that. So what I'm taking away from this discussion is-- AI would likely write a better soap opera than an untalented human writer. But AI-writing would be unlikely to be as compelling as the master soap-opera writers such as Irna Phillips, Agnes Nixon, Bill Bell, Harding Lemay, Henry Slesar, Douglas Marland, Claire Labine, etc. Interesting discussion.

Okay, I remember that era of the show and I actually enjoyed it. Certainly 100 percent more compelling than what we get these days on Y&R. I do not, however, remember the "fetus in the fireplace" interview. Eeew! Wouldn't that smell like steak on the grill, and smell-up the entire house? Dear God in Heaven!!

Okay, I think I understand. But again -- anybody can write what-if situations regarding old classic soap opera storylines. That would be easy, at least for me and countless other serious fans of daytime. The hard part of writing a soap opera is taking established canon (even the bad, ineffective, and sometimes embarrassing plots from the past), and moving the drama forward into the future. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I hope this is a discussion, not an argument. But if AI cannot do anything more than what you or I are capable of doing, what is the point of it?

I'm drawing a blank. Can you remind me of the "fetus into the fireplace" plot?? And who was the head-writer at that time?

Thank you for providing the date. But if AI changes canon, it is really rather useless and silly in my opinion. Anybody could go back and write a plot that changes canon. The real challenge comes when the writer is expected to respect established canon, and then carry a story forward.

I don't think it caught it either, but that's something that could be easily tweaked by feeding Gemini more information and why Iris wouldn't be the best choice. Wouldn't Molly Ordaway be better? Didn't she and Michael get involved at once? At least I thought I heard it in the clip where Olive and Liz locked horns before Liz spoke to John. If I'm not mistaken, Molly and Mike had been married briefly. They divorced rather quickly, and Molly left town. I'm not sure in what year the AI scenario is supposed to take place. But Mike's history is already canon, until the time he married his second wife, Karen. They were both written off not long after Harding Lemay left as head-writer. So the last time we saw Mike was likely in 1979. I'm assuming the AI stuff must take place after 1979. But who really knows?

I completely agree. At least MAB wrote real storylines. Not just characters standing around talking. And when MAB was in charge, the show still seemed like Y&R. Today it's like a different show, with weak plots and absolutely no romance. How the Hell can somebody write a soap opera for years, and refuse to write romance? Plus -- romantic plots on soaps practically write themselves, and they can be effectively performed with a very low budget. Griffith is simply refusing to write romantic plots. He should be smarter than that.