Tisy-Lish

I'm wondering if the writers are going to un-do their gayness. Tessa has been flirting like crazy with Daniel, and it's a pretty good guess that Mariah may have had sex with a man and might even be pregnant. Could the network be pressuring the show to make them bi, or maybe even straight? I know there is political pressure on all kinds of major companies to down-play gay stuff these days. I hope this isn't the plan for Mariah and Tessa, but frankly it wouldn't surprise me.

Perhaps. But would anyone have wanted The Doctors to turn into what General Hospital ultimately became? Dear God in Heaven...

Yes, I think that is the most likely situation. TPTB were unhappy with the offer(s) they got from the tourism board in Finland, and decided the trip was going to be too expensive for P&G/NBC to finance alone. I would also speculate a similar situation likely occurred a few years later with the planned location shoot in Egypt, which was also cancelled after the storyline had already started, and changed to Arizona.

My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982. Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher. I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness. But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.

Exactly when did Ada's kitchen become the "centerpiece of the action"? And which set was the centerpiece of the action before that??? Another World premiered in 1963, and Ada didn't even arrive until 1967. And then, Ada and Rachel lived in a small apartment. A couple of years later, Ada married Ernie Downs and moved into his house. So the kitchen so identified with Ada, was actually in the house Ada inherited from her husband Ernie after he died. I'd suggest Ada's kitchen did not become the centerpiece of the action (if it ever was) until around the time Mary Matthews died, and Rachel began her romance with her second millionaire husband, MacKenzie Cory. Others might disagree, but that doesn't offend me in the least.

Mitch, thanks for that history of the Reardon Boarding House kitchen. I had always assumed that every time the kitchen set returned, it was a recreation of the original set. So I have been wrong about that. Was the kitchen set ever used later, while Buzz and the Coopers owned the boarding house?

Terrific ideas -- but would Mike and Nancy's great-grandson bear the last name Dallas? Yuck. Any way we could make him a Karr? And in a similar vein, how could Bill and Martha's granddaughter bear the name Marceau? I love the idea of continuing the Karr, Marceau, Hillyer, and Drake legacies, but if the new characters do not use the familiar last names, the effort to connect them to the past is rather fruitless. Just my personal observation.

I don't mind a watermark, if it identifies the true owner of the rights to the property. But if it's just the person who happens to have the physical video or photo, it seems very odd. Even if they paid for it to add to their collection, that person doesn't own the copyright or the trademark. And I do remember finding it strange that by late 1972, Ada still had both a kitchen and a living room, while Mary and Jim now just had a living room. And this was three years before Rachel even started to reform, when the Matthews family was still very much front and center.

Great to see Mary and Jim, and the Matthews kitchen. A year or two after Lemay started writing, we stopped seeing the kitchen, and all the action was moved to the Matthews living room. That may have been Paul Rauch's decision, or maybe just another way to minimize Mary's importance and take another jab at Ms Dwyer. I wish the Soap History guy had not chosen to put a big red watermark across the image. I do understand the physical media belongs to him, but the show is not in the public domain, so he doesn't really own the rights to the property. The big red watermark prevents anyone from even taking a screen grab and posting it legitimately (like on the AWHP, for example) without the watermark appearing. That's really a shame.

Well, knowing Lemay's style -- Jason may have been murdered, but it is unlikely there would have been a trial. Lemay detested murder trials, although he never seemed to have a problem with murders. LOL. How many murders were there in Lemay's original run (1971-79)? Several. How many murder trials? One -- which lasted less than a week, and the case was dismissed by the judge. So there was very little courtroom drama, and no verdict. No idea how Lemay would have handled AW's 25th anniversary. Although he loved mining the past, and bringing it to the present -- big celebrations and special episodes were not really Lemay's thing. Perhaps he would have given the 25th to his son, Steve, to write. But I can assure everyone, Mac's death would have been handled in a completely different way, had Lemay still been head-writer. There likely would have been no storyline (Red Swan, or otherwise) surrounding Mac's passing. He simply would have died in his sleep or something like that. And the entire event would have been character-driven, not plot-driven. We'd have seen Rachel, Liz, Ada, Iris, Jamie etc., reacting to Mac's death. And believe me -- that would have been more than enough to satisfy the audience, under Lemay's pen.

I remember reading years ago, that Irna finished (or nearly finished) her autobiography before she died, but it was never published. Someone probably has the manuscript, or maybe it is with her papers (which I believe are at some university -- possibly Bowling Green State University in Ohio). It would be an interesting read, assuming she was honest and forthcoming.

I agree. But unfortunately, today's Hollywood would probably play Irna's story for laughs with an emphasis on campiness. Rather than on her accomplishments (in the male dominated world of television) and the poignancy of her personal, family, and professional lives. It could be a great film, if done respectfully. But a complete insult, if done as a farce or comedy.

Well, in reality nearly all male serial killers who target women are extremely sexist individuals. And their actions and motivations are based on their extreme sexist views. Any writer penning such a plot would do a disservice to the audience if they did not explore the extreme sexism that is part of most serial killers' motivations. Unless one is writing some kind of fairy-tale serial killer, sexism is always going to be a big part of the plot.

Interesting thoughts. I agree with many of them.

Question about soap opera sets. Which soap opera set was "retired" longest from a show, yet brought back many years later? Explaining more clearly -- Which previously used set had the most years "retired" before being brought back?? I'll suggest one: On Guiding Light -- the Reardon boarding house kitchen. First appeared around 1979-80. Not sure when last seen, but unseen for years. Then returned around 1995, when Nola returned to GL. I'm sure there are better examples than this one. I'd enjoying hearing the memories of other revived sets (used as the same locations) on soaps.

In no particular order: The Red Swan Lumina The Egyptian/Arizona Poison Bottle of Sand

This is great news to me. Especially since I too, tend to be a sloppy typer. Glad to know I can make corrections whenever I notice the need to do so. But Errol, can you give a general explanation of how "editing" has been abused in the past? I'm not asking for specific examples, but just curious. What went so wrong with editing, that the administrators needed to limit it? Happy to know that limit has been removed.

Wow, I have never heard that quote before. But it is a very deep thought. I'd agree with Colishaw. Had Lemay written Mac's death, I can imagine Iris being completely inconsolable and likely suicidal.

Yep, that's about all we know. And that's not the fault of the actors.

Well, "quickly" is a relative term. LOL. I would not describe "months" as quickly. But yes, she always managed to charm herself back into Daddy's good graces.

Plus we've had next to no exposition about either Derek or Ashley. What are their backgrounds? What makes each of them tick? What past experiences inform their decisions now? The writers have been so good about giving most of the characters a past to provide subtext. But they have clearly forgotten a few -- Derek and Ashley for example. When the audience knows almost nothing about a character, that makes the character seem boring and difficult to empathize with. And it makes it hard for the actors to play, if there is no subtext (history) behind their performance.

I agree, the Red Swan was probably Swajeski's first completely independent plot (meaning completely independent from Lemay). But WOW, it was terrible -- and an undignified way to write the death of an iconic and dignified character like Mackenzie Cory. And regarding Iris, I'm not sure Lemay would have redeemed Iris at all. And if he did, it would have taken months and months (possibly years) before Mac (or the rest of the Corys) forgave her. But that's what creates believable drama.

I hesitate to enter this debate, but here I go! LOL. My observation has been that a head-writer who is unable to write for returning (or new) core family characters, also typically struggles to write for any character. And, there are occasions when a head-writer's ego prevents her/him from writing successfully for any character she/he has not created, or at least has taken a personal liking to. So it is less about the character, and more about the ability of the writer. The success of any soap opera character is all about the writing and the casting -- but mostly the writing, since a casting mistake can easily be corrected. The reason AW's return of the Matthews family in 1989 ultimately failed was because Donna Swajeski's heart wasn't in it. It had been in Harding Lemay's story projections to being back Russ and Pat, along with new character, Olivia -- and to slowly weave them back into the canvas. So Swajeski followed Lemay's outline either until it ran out, or until she felt empowered enough to start ignoring it. She ditched the plan for Pat's permanent return, wrote poorly for Russ, had Josie mostly reject her Matthews heritages (including the name Matthews), etc. But Swajeski was not exactly a master of creating (or returning) characters herself. Since few of her newly created characters were successful long-term. Not wishing to argue with anyone, just expressing my observations.

I saw it too. Isn't it basically the same place that's been redecorated? What structural changes did they make? They must be subtle, because I didn't notice them.

When are we finally going to see the remodeled Abbot house? Any speculation on when it will be revealed?