Tisy-Lish

Interesting stuff. But why would Iris consider a potential affair with middle-class Mike Randolph as social gain for herself? If anything it would have been the other way around, with Michael gaining social status from a relationship with Iris. Maybe AI didn't catch the fact that Iris was a jet-setting socialite who had spent most of her life in Manhattan, the south of France, and Switzerland.

Thank you for that information. I would love to see his scenes from GH. And so, if he was still acting in 1986, there would have been little reason to recast the role at that time. It would have been quite a treat to see Walter Matthews acting with Connie Ford and Vicki Wyndham again!! Conflict, conflict, conflict...

Knowing P&G in the 1980s, they would have likely recast Gerald Davis with Gil Rogers (who had played Ray Gardner on AMC and Hawk Shayne on GL). I believe Gil Rogers could have played Gerald Davis well -- he certainly had the talent. But I'm almost sure some of his acting tics from AMC and GL (the vague Southern drawl, the tendency toward campy humor, etc.) would have made their way into his version of Gerald. In fact TPTB at AW might have even encouraged it. And all of that would have been completely inappropriate for Gerald Davis and for AW. Gerald Davis was a serious loser who was never able to do anything right in his entire life. He wasn't funny, or cartoon-ish. He was a man to be pitied. He had betrayed is own daughter (Rachel) more than once. So I don't believe Gil Rogers would have been a good choice, despite his talent at playing dead-beat loser fathers. Ed Nelson would have been an interesting choice. He took his roles seriously and was rather intense. But I doubt Ed Nelson would have left California at that stage in his life. And would Nelson have enjoyed playing a working-class perpetual loser who had been married to working-class Ada? But was there any real need to recast Gerald at all? Was Walter Matthews (the original actor) deceased by the mid-1980s? Walter Matthews created the role and played it to perfection -- especially when Harding Lemay was writing.

Assuming you are correct, even that was poorly conceived for the time. Sympathetic or not. Did any fans want to watch a disabled woman (deaf, or anything else) attempt to come between Sally and Catlin (who were AW's latest super-couple since Mac and Rachel)? How is the audience, in good conscience, supposed to dislike/hate/despise or root-against a deaf woman? Dear God in Heaven! It's just a nutty situation to expect the audience to go along with.

Absolutely! That would have been perfect casting! I've said that for years. Sharon Gabet would have been amazing as Rachel's sister, Pamela.

Sharon Gabet is a wonderful actor, but Brittany was a badly conceived character. The year was 1985-86, and Brittany was introduced as a vixen/villainess who was also disabled. She was completely deaf. Now tell me -- in what world would soap opera fans want to see a deaf woman be the bad-girl/bitch?? Back then, the entire idea was off-putting to the fans. You "might" be able to make something like that work in 2025, but I can't imagine how any soap opera would finesse it. The entire idea still seems amazingly bad to me, all these years later. But none of this garbage was the fault of Sharon Gabot. I just wish she'd been cast on AW in a different role.

Ruth Warrick as Jill Foster Abbott.

Brilliant! You think just like Josh Griffith. LOL

Griffith should bring back Marge.

Great comment. And I totally agree. But I must admit, Lemay was great at writing long tortured romances. Alice/Steve, Lenore/Robert. Rachel/Mac. Lemay was never afraid to mine history to create new material based on AW's long run. For example, he revisited Pat Randolph's (1964) abortion/murder trial storyline two different times (1975 and 1979) -- and both featuring Pat's daughter Marianne. Great writing and character driven drama.

I suppose it's possible she wouldn't have left, if Lemay had stayed on. If my memory is correct, Ms McKenzie didn't start complaining about wanting to leave until after Lemay was gone. So maybe the lackluster writing (post-Lemay) contributed to her desire to quit.

Great question, but I don't know enough about either Tom King or Virginia Browne to know if either would have been interested in writing a gay character. One might assume they would be interested -- as progressive artists on the east coast. But I haven't seen or read any evidence that either of them had that expressed desire.

If Lemay had written it, I think Jim Poyner would have worked. With other writers, I'm not sure. Regarding Iris -- I think Iris might have reacted more like Phoebe Tyler (with Little-Phillip) on AMC -- reluctantly accepting the child wasn't her biological grandson, but using her influence to try to keep him connected to her family. Mary Matthews had little social influence, so was forced to give-up Jamie as her grandchild completely.

Well, I assume either Blaine or Cecile would have born Jamie's child out of wedlock with Dennis Carrington playing the Russ Matthews (or Chuck Tyler on AMC) role in the plot (and marrying the pregnant woman) -- while Jamie married the other woman. That could have led to years of romantic difficulty between Jamie and Cecile, while being constantly pestered and threatened by nasty Blaine. Just speculating here.

I think at the beginning of his storyline, TPTB planned to write Sandy as straight-ish, but willing to prostitute himself with either men or women -- anything for money. But by the time the scripts got to broadcast, all the male references had been removed, or at least severely softened. Frankly, there was no real need to make Mac Cory's illegitimate son a prostitute at all. Being Mac Cory's illegitimate son was scandalous enough, without the escort/prostitute accouterments. Can you imagine if Iris had still been in Bay City during the Sandy reveal? Oh Lord, her reactions to an illegitimate brother would have been priceless!!

Sorry, I forgot to mention this last month. But Thanksgiving came and went with no sign of Anita's female impersonator from Las Vegas -- Thankfully. Remember back in early October, Anita had been talking on the phone with the impersonator and had invited her to Thanksgiving dinner with the Duprees. Dear God in Heaven, I was dreading that visit from Hell. The last thing Beyond the Gates needed within its first year was a silly campy doppelgänger invading the Dupree family, and attempting to take over Anita's life. I'm assuming we are far enough out from Thanksgiving to safely say that did not happen. Fingers crossed.

I'll drink to that...

The plans for Cecile and Blaine were completely changed by the post-Lemay writers. Before he left AW, Harding Lemay was planning to re-create the Steve/Alice/Rachel triangle with Jamie/Cecile/Blaine. Jamie (young adult version) and Blaine appeared before Lemay left, and Cecile arrived just a few days after his departure. And in an interview, Lemay mentioned it took six-months to cast Cecile. So he certainly created the character and had some influence over casting. In Lemay's plan, Cecile was to be the ingenue and Blaine was to play the bad-girl (Rachel role). But later writers had Cecile and Blaine more-or-less reverse roles (I never understood why) and added Sandy to the mix which minimized Jamie's role. So the recreation of Steve/Alice/Rachel was taken off the rails by decisions made by the new writers. Cecile took-over the bitchy role and Blaine went down the Perils of Pauline path.

I was watching regularly at the time. And I remember Frank's arrival seemed like it was planned to be a big deal. It appeared there was a plan for him to be a new romance for Rachel. Then, Frank was quickly written off as if he didn't matter at all. So obviously there was some sort of change of plans. Remember, this is not long after Harding Lemay left the show, and it is possible Frank was created by Lemay and left behind in his storyline projections. It is even possible the character was already cast and hired before Lemay's exit. So if Tom King (Lemay's replacement) did not care for the character, he may have written him out as soon as he could. That's one possible explanation for the abrupt change of course.

Of all the pseudo science-fiction plots on soaps in the 1980s, this was the only one I found even moderately believable. As crazy as it was -- at least the storyline was related to Texas and Native American lore (even though it was completely made up). It worked, and then it was over. And the show went forward.

I hope you are correct.

Since Greg Vaughan is not on contract, I fear we might see him about as often as we see Cady McClain. Appearing about two days each month, and seeming to be a very important character, then disappearing for another month -- over and over again. That doesn't work for Cady's character and it won't work for Greg's character. TPTB can't build a believable romance between Nicole and Kial under those circumstances.

No idea why my response to DRW50 was attributed to Mitch64 a few minutes ago. Maybe a glitch in the system? Who knows? Anywhoo, here is the response I wrote: Alice and Mitch went on a couple of dates (this was while Vana Tribbey was playing Alice). And they shared a prolonged kiss, after dancing at the disco. But I don't believe they ever had sex -- thankfully. God only knows what kind of bugs sleazy Mitch Blake would have passed on to Alice. I wasn't so worried about Rachel, when she slept with Mitch -- for obvious reasons. LOL.

Oh yes. Health clubs are another thing that never really worked on soap operas. Not sure why. But none of them were ever believable to me. Lord, I don't understand why not. Maybe because the characters were always socializing while working-out. But most people are rather solitary, when taking a gym seriously. Who knows?