vetsoapfan

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?

I think it was just a case of bad writers wanting to do something flashy to attract attention, but as always, when the writing is weak, no amount of gimmicks will lure audience members in for long. SFT ended up killing so much of Jo's family, and no no valid reason. This was just one more dumb mistake.

Yes, but not as tight as Rick Moses' jeans.

I have never been a fan of the "spurned lover turns psycho and tries to murder a romantic rival" storylines, simply because so many of them are contrived and cliche, and come across as easy gimmicks rather than true, heartfelt drama. Unless I am mistaken, it was Tex and Irving Elman who killed off Eunice, and their writing was always pretty bad, anyway. A good writer can make most stories work, but the Jennifer-kills-Eunice plot was unnecessarily damaging to the core of the show, did not lead anywhere, and not well written.

He was sexy as hell on GH (and infamous for wearing the tightest jeans in television history, LOL), so seeing his "after" pictures is a shock.

The science-fiction crap temporarily brought mainstream-media attention to the soaps, and an influx of young, fly-by-night viewers, but I have always believed that it destroyed the genre in the long run. The mainstream media never understood our shows to begin with, and their celebrating the campiness and stupidity of the fantasy plots was akin to internet bloggers, who had never watched or appreciated DOWNTON ABBEY, cheering a stoner producer's story about Mary conceiving a child after a drunken night on a space ship with the Great Gazoo. Strangers to a show might love watching it be destroyed through ludicrous and insulting storylines; long-time fans did not. And all those kids and fly-by-night viewers who tuned in to laugh at the space aliens and clones disappeared shortly afterwards, anyway. Soaps are simply not their cip of tea. So the shows' integrity was destroyed for nothing. The storyline was based on human emotion and interpersonal-relationship conflict, so it worked quite well.

Right. Considering how enormously popular Courtney was on that show, they should have heralded her return. Imagine Susan Lucci coming back to the revamped AMC on Prospect Park, and the commercials that week only exclaiming, "The newbie teens go shopping at a mall...this week, on AMC!" The yawns from the audience would have been heard in jJapan.

Different people enjoy different types of entertainment, and although I personally loathe low-brow camp/science fiction on soaps., there is apparently a market for that. But for me, most of daytime dramas' true, treasure-worthy moments involved dynamic interpersonal-relationship material played out among three-dimensional, complex characters. Most of this happened before the shows started being archived, and is now lost forever. The only good thing about my being so old is that I was around the see soaps' best years.

Yes. Even if I had not been watching at the time, the event was heavily promoted (the commercial showing her crashing through the glass was shown for several days beforehand), and I would have tuned in just to see it.

I doubt their work on SFT directly lead to the Corringtons working on TEXAS. P&G often recycled writers from show to show, regardless of their success or failure on previous soaps. (Some things never change.) True, in the early 1980s, soaps were jumping on the sci-fi/fantasy/adventure bandwagon, thanks to GH's painfully awful Ice Princess story, but it did not do any favors to old warhorses like SFT. One writer, Don Chastian, later admitted in the press that TPTB kept forcing the show to copy what GH was doing, no matter how wrong or destructive such material was for SFT. You just don't try to turn THE WALTONS into SHARKNADO, you know? No, that was a few years before the Corringtons arrived.

Those more recent pictures of Moses and Robinson are...well, you know.

Yes, it's her, "UGH! This murder is going to be sooooooo inconvenient!" look, LOL,

I think too much action (over characterization) and cartoonish elements are what destroyed the soap genre, actually. I have never seen "outlandish" material presented well on daytime TV. It has, IMHO, been painful and embarrassing to watch. Mind you, I do not hate the Corringtonsas much as I loathe other scribes; I just think their style was not a good match for SFT. Or OLTL. The Corringtons were much better suited to over-the-top films like OMEGA MAN and THE KILLER BEES. (Seriously.) Back in 1977, SFT's ratings were strong enough to save it, I believe. The network probably would have cancelled a low-rated game show or LOVE OF LIFE first, had Bell's second show been ready to go at that time.

The entire plot point was...pointless, along with (years later), the show revealing Logan to be Scotty's son, only to kill him off. Why even create ties to legacy characters, and them severe them almost immediately? The only "child" of Scotty's whom I WANT them to get rid of, and never mention again, is Franco.

In my opinion, Ann Marcus gave the show its last, great period. A few writers who followed her, like Peggy O'Shea, were pretty good. Mary Stuart claimed that O'Shea's team was the best set of writers SFT had ever had, but that comment might have been colored by her extreme dislike of Marcus. Of course, Henry Slesar and Harding Lemay both brought their skill to the show, but O'Shea, Slesar, and Lemay did not last last enough for their efforts to have a long-lasting, noticeable impact. Poor viewers got stuck with a revolving door of hack writers: Irving and Tex Elman, Robert J. Shaw, Linda Griver, etc., and eventually drifted away from a show they once loved. Yes, but I do believe that the ratings' decline was a result of endlessly bad writing and production choices, along with the switch from CBS to NBC. Better material still might have lured viewers back in, but...we never really got it.

You are too kind. Thank you.

I will take both of the Wednesday boys, please.

Beautiful eyes and lips.

Don Briscoe was so handsome. Just saying.

There are many soaps available on youtube, spanning several decades, and apparently their copyright owners don't care too much. God only knows why Y&R and B&B material is targeted for deletion so relentlessly. I agree that even the more "recent" stuff gets taken down too, but episodes from the early years comes and goes in the blink of an eye, no matter how well they are hidden or uploaded with obscure titles. Even uploading "private" videos doesn't keep them safe forever. What was the Y&R video that got you into hot water?