Tisy-Lish

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.

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...