vetsoapfan

Actually, that is true: DVD sales are slipping across the board, but I would say that is because most of the material offered on disc can be found so easily on-line. For material, like vintage soaps, which is literally available nowhere else, I think buyers would step up and pay for it, either on DVD or via streaming.

And Y&R, and DAYS, and AW...the studios are sitting on a gold mine; they just don't know it.

Right. DS, THE X-FILES, SUPERNATURAL, STAR TREK. Just not DOWNTON ABBEY, LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE, or ANNE OF GREEN GABLES.

The late, great Irene Dailey would have knocked scenes like that right outta the park. Actually, Ada's reaction would have been amusing as well.

Oh, I did not know that the earliest episodes might be comprised or missing altogether. That's a shame of course, but we are still lucky that so many later eps do survive. I would buy any material released on DVD. I do wish they's give a shot to releasing some of TD. DARK SHADOWS sold extremely well, so who knows how profitable sales of TD might be?

Gil Gerard was sexy as hell on TD. Just sayin'.

Since Colgate-Palmolive apparently kept the entire run of TD, those earliest eps probably still exist. It's a shame that the new broadcasts of the show only began after it went to color.

I have no problem with sci-fi/fantasy storytelling; in fact, I often love it, when it is presented in the appropriate place. For me, however, daytime dramas are not that forum. Soaps have always worked best (and became and remained successful for decades) by telling multi-generational stories based upon interpersonal relationships, and remaining grounded in a semblance of reality. They do not have the time, the space, or the budget to do sci-fi effectively, and often the writing is so terrible that it ends up comprising all the characters involved. How am I supposed to empathize with Marlena Evans, or take her seriously again, knowing she's been possessed by the devil, LOL? On the other hand, if a show is created TO BE based on supernatural or fantasy themes, go wild.

I have heard that rumor, but tend to categorize it under "fan fantasy" rather than reality. The internet is awash with folks who claim to be "insiders," and who post all sorts of rumors and gossip that cannot be verified...or often, cannot be believed. Now granted, lonely older men do become attached to younger, attractive women who are kind to them. These men may even harbor unconscious desires that they realistically know could never come to pass. If Lemay had had thoughts about Jim growing attached to Angie, even becoming somewhat jealous when she become involved with more age-appropriate romantic interests, I could buy that. It would be an exploration of a older man's needs for human connection after his wife of several decades had died. But an actual romance? Okay, even that does happen in real life, but I it strains credulity that Lemay would see this as a viable storyline for Jim and Angie. (Although watching Aunt Liz freak out would have been amusing, LOL.)

Hugh Marlowe was the fourth actor to play Jim Matthews, and while he often had trouble with his lines, most viewers probably do associate him with the role more than any other performer. Considering how important the character had been to the show (and could have been again), however, I would have preferred if the show had had Jim Matthews go on an extended business trip, and be recast later on. Had Marlowe been the one and only actor ever to play the role, I might had felt differently, but after seeing four different Jims, I knew the character could have survived being played by someone else.

That's what I have heard too, and those scenes would have made more sense had they been played by Willis.

After Greg disappeared, didn't his family reference his having gone to Washington? Maybe not. Bill Bell is famous for dropping characters from existence, without a trace, LOL. I don't remember Stuart getting killed off either; as far as I know, he just stopped being there. We could surmise that he had passed away by 1984, when everyone else returned for Nikki's and Victor's wedding, but I do not remember any official exit scenes for Robert Colbert. Replacing Jaime Lyn Bauer would have been pointless, so I agree that phasing out many of the Brookses and Fosters was probably the best choice for Bell to make. Without Snapper, Lynne Topping's Chris was not popular enough to make a go of it on her on. The Robert Laurence romance was a dud, and Victoria Mallory without Jaime Lyn Bauer to play off would have been like an oar without a rowboat, so it make sense that both nuChris and NuLeslie got the heave-ho. As long as Jill and Katherine remained in Genoa City, however, Liz Foster should have been kept under contract. The show needed an original cast member-matriarch to steady the waters during rough times. The fact that they killed her off many years later was one of the worst decisions the show ever made, IMHO (and for such an awful storyline, too). They did not even mention him, when they were discussing future reunions, so the only conclusion we could draw was that Stuart had died. I hate when soaps leave things hanging like that. When Aunt Meta returned to TGL in 1996, they made no mention of her husband, Dr. Bruce Banning, and various fansites started to list the character as deceased, but again, we should be told these things and not have to guess or wonder.

Yes, the inexplicable way they wrote Gwen during the 25th anniversary celebration was definitely a weak point, but with so many former cast members returning, I knew there would be some missteps. The Matthews family took its first major blows back in 1975, when Rauch and Lemay axed Jacqueline Courtney, Virginia Dwyer, and George Reinholt. With weak actors in both the roles of Russ and Alice, it was difficult for me to care much about those characters after that, and then of course, writing out Pat and killing off Jim really crippled the show. Executives come and go over the years, and tend not to understand the importance of long-running characters, but viewers are firecely attached to them.

It was like on TGL in the 1980s, when in quick succession (or so it felt), viewers had to watch Bill Bauer and Hillary Bauer getting murdered, Mike Bauer and Hope Bauer getting shipped out of town, Bert Bauer disappearing (when the actress became ill), and Ed Bauer parading around with a new face. It was painful.

I was watching both DAYS and GH at the time, and losing DA as Susan Martin was a HUGE blow to DAYS. Her character was enormously popular, and always in the throes of major storylines. When the actress moved over to GH, Lesley Williams was just so...unfocused. It took them a long time to figure out what to do with her over there. TPTB often fail to realize that it is not just a performer, herself, who is popular, but rather a specific performer in a specific part. Paul Rauch fought to bring Janice Lynde over to AW, based on her popularity as Leslie Brooks on Y&R, but the problem was...Leslie Brooks was a multi-dimensional character in well-written storylines. Her AW was not. Neither was her OLTL character. Lynde never achieved the popularity anywhere else that she had had on Y&R, because the writing for her other characters just wasn't there.

Which tended to happen so often to former leading ladies. Look at poor Emily McLaughlin of GH, whose Jessie Brewer went from the show's leading heroine to a rarely-seen bit player before disappearing completely. Or Eileen Fulton of ATWT, whose inexplicable downgrading to nothingness was shocking.

I thought he was the best of all the recasts; much better looking and more likable than the icky Wings Hauser, and a lot more charismatic than the colorless Brian Kerwin. In an interview at the time, Bell explained that it was becoming a struggle with all the constant cast defections and recasts among the original core characters, and after Jaime Lyn Bauer decided to leave, he felt it was best to wipe the slate clean and start afresh, rather than beat a dead horse with so many original actors leaving. He had a point. None of the replacement actors in any of the major roles were as effective as the originals (IMHO), and it started to be like, "Oh, there's the fake Greg talking to the fake Nikki...." It was hard to care about the original characters any more when you simply did not warm up to the actors. I never liked Hasselhoff as Snapper, but Hauser as Greg was simply unwatchable. He came across as a serial-killing pimp, LOL, rather than the true-blue, steadfast good guy Greg was supposed to be. I could not wait for him to be gone. I probably would have chosen to kill Snapper off after William Gray espy departed. He was not replaceable. Sherry Mathis probably would have been a great Leslie Brooks. Victoria Mallory was a charming woman; very beautiful, poised, and she sang like an angel, but her version of Leslie lacked real vulnerability, and did not have the ethereal quality necessary for the character. Conboy's nasty backstabbing of Bell was shocking. What hubris on his part! As if, in a power struggle between the two of them, CBS would have chosen Conboy over a legend like William J. Bell! Pffft! While I personally adored all the original characters, and wanted them to remain on the canvas (PLAYED BY THE ORIGINAL ACTORS), when I realized that was going going to happen, I thought Bell was very successful in redirecting the focus to the Abbotts, Williamses, and Newmans. I just wish, sometimes, that we could get a blast from the 1970s back on our screens.

TPTB never seem to care about the audience's attachment to core families, but there was still a lot of life in the Matthews clan. Alice, her daughter Sally, and grandson Kevin were all viable characters. Aunt Liz was an asset to the show, and it would have been easy to introduce her grandson Ricky Matthews into the mix. I always wanted Sam Groom to return as Russ, and if he had, there was a lot to do with him. Ditto Pat Matthews Randolph. So many missed opportunities!

I can't see that really being true, because it was Stuart, not Williams, who was always at the top of all the popularity polls. In an interview at the time, Williams said that the writers were excited about this story...but God knows why. In any case, it was but one of countless bulnders made by TPTB over the years. Actually, I remember Wyndham claiming that the executives wanted to isolate her character, too, so perhaps that IS what you were thinking of. Stuart did go on record, however, about the lack of sense it made to kill off so much of Jo's family.

Or even just looking at each other longingly from across the dance floor. Something. Anything.

Yes. Nowadays, soaps lack a moral core and their habit of allowing various rapists, murderers, and other degenerates to roam free is well known. Back in the 1970s, however, heinous behavior was usually punished in the end, and even popular characters had to pay for their crimes. The Elmans really did not have the skill to write complicated characters, however, which is why they had to resort to cliches and gimmicks for shock value.

I agree. It both amuses and irks me to read commentary from later-generation soap fans who announce as fact that Courtney was a weak actress "because Lemay said so." Never mind that these viewers never actually SAW Courtney's original run on AW, themselves, or even witnessed any of Lemay's work. They take the writer's word and critique as gospel based on no first-hand experience or insight. I thought Courtney was a strong, charismatic actress; very likable, blessed with an indefinable star quality that some performers are just born with, and which others never develop no matter how technically talented they are. I will grant that her spin as Maggie Ashley on OLTL was not successful, but that character was so badly conceived and written, it would have broken many fine actresses. In 1989, the final scene on the yacht between Rachel and Alice was great, and brought a much-welcomed closure to the long-running rivalry between the two characters. Both actresses were superb. With its endless on-screen changes throughout the years, AW could have benefited so much by having Courtney, an original cast member, at the hub of its wheel. With Courtney and Wyndham at its core, the show could have had a strong foundation upon which to build a rich tapestry on interwoven characters and storylines, rich is history. Alas, TPTB screwed it all up, over and over again. At least we have many vintage scenes of Courtney available on youtube and floating around among collectors, like the first meeting between Steve and Alice, their reconciliation after their first divorce, their second wedding from 1974, Alice's infamous pot-throwing fight with Rachel, etc.

For the most part, writer DS did pretty well using the past in her 25th-anniversary episodes. At least she made an obvious effort. I was sorry we did not see any interaction between Courtney and George Reinholt; this was my biggest disappointment, but Courtney's appearances with Wyndham were good. Knowing that so many great scenes from the early 1970s (featuring Courtney, Reinholt, and Wyndham) still existed, I was also sorry that the only flashback given to Alice was one from 1984, when Rachel was in the hospital. It would have been much better to see scenes from 1974, when Rachel tried to kick Alice out of the country house, and Alice went berserk. But yes, it would have been better to bring Alice back permanently in 1989. DS obviously knew more about the history of the character than Gary Tomlin ever did. You know, Courtney had great chemistry with Tom Fuccello, who played her husband Paul Kendall on OLTL, and there was great, easygoing charm between them. Thinking about it now, Schnetzer would very well have brought out the actress' sense of humor on-screen, too, and I'll bet they would have had good chemistry!

Yes, that's what I mean. Ed Trach and Allen Potter should have been smart enough to insist on Courtney's being used better. The fact they were involved with the show during this time does not say much for their competence or decision-making ability. Probably the show's best option would have been to pair Alice with Mac during Rachel's amnesia, particularly if losing her memory caused Rachel to revert back to the old, antagonistic Rachel of yore. A triangle with Courtney, Watson, and Wyndham would have been captivating, if written well. I imagine if Lemay were to be rehired during a period when Courtney was back on the show, the actress would have gotten the heave-ho.

It just shows, once again, how clueless the mainstream media was about daytime dramas, and what made them tick. Claiming that AW's ratings were slipping because it was not pandering to sci-fi-loving viewers is absurd. For the vast majority of the soaps, including AW, the ratings were at their peak when the stories were naturalistic. If the plan was to boost the ratings with Courtney's return, then everyone in charge was an idiot. The show did nothing of substance with her, did not pair her with any viable leading man, and then let her character peter out before finally axing her again. They also had her hair cut in the most unattractive way possible, and gave her some hideous clothes as well. Courtney was a beloved and magnetic actress, but through no fault of her own, Alice's return was an unqualified failure. It still annoys me that writer Gary Tomlin admitted he did not use Courtney effectively during her return, because he really did not know much about the character's history. Well, as HEAD WRITER, isn't it your job to...you know, LEARN?