vetsoapfan

RTPP was like Somerset in the sense that it had all the factors needed to become a hit, except consistently good writing. Many of its cast members were very likeable. Ben Andrews, who played Benny Tate, was beautiful and charismatic, if not the best actor in the world. It's a shame he died so young. At the end, the writing improved dramatically and the rating spiked, precipitating some minor speculation about the series going into syndication after ending its run on NBC. Alas, it was not to be. At least the show ended with Rodney and Allisn facing a potentially happy future together.

LOL! Well, if I could stay in the kitchen and time travel back to the inception of the series and see all the episodes from day one, I'd agree. Other than that, no thanks. I agree that the only tolerable part of the wretched Mr. Big nonsense was the performances from the actors, who gave it their all. But I really think the majority of ATWT's audience did not want to see sci-fi on their show. Trying to force the show to be something it wasn't seriously damaged it.

I've also got this wedding article in my Somerset archives. Thanks for posting it, Carl. It brings back lots of memories. Ernest Thompson was a great Tony, and Renne Jarrett was my favorite Ginger, although Fawn Harriman was good too. I imagine you know that Thompson went on the write ON GOLDEN POND. Who says pretty people can't also be talented?

TEON was on fire at that period, I'm surprised it wasn't rated higher, but then again, all the soaps at the top of the ratings were good, and deserved their success. Wouldn't we all love to see more vintage eps from ANY of the soaps from 1971? I have a Christmas episode of AW from that year, and it was just so natural, so realistic, so...homey. It made you feel like you were spending the holiday with old friends. Soaps lost their when when they insisted on serving gimmicks over substance.

Oh good Lord, that dreadful, embarrassing Mr. Big garbage. Low-brow camp and farcical "adventure" stories were NOT part of ATWT's DNA. The networks were desperate to lure in a teenage audience, and foisted all sorts of painful idiocy onto the audience over the years. GH had the Ice Princess. ATWT had Mr. Big. DAYS had Marlena's possession. TGL had Reva The Clone. So many putrid stories that ruined the integrity of once-great soaps, and never did pull in massive audiences like the networks had hoped. If I had had the choice to spend time in Nancy Hughes' or Bert Bauer's kitchen, or go time traveling with Reva (barf), I'd cling to those kitchen sets for dear life!

Dalton was pretty weak on Y&R; to this day, I remember her on that show only because I thought her work was so dreadful, LOL! But it's a shame that TGL dropped the ball with Elizabeth, and just had her disappear from everyone's lives with barely a whisper and no real satisfactory conclusion to her character. With all the behind-the-scenes turmoil and ever-changing Powers That Be during the 1980s and '90s, many important characters suffered from poor writing decisions. Still, from what I watched personally, and from the extensive inventory of eps I have going back to 1940 (on radio), I would say that TGL produced a quality product from 1937 to 1983 or so, which in itself is remarkable.

Good grief. Has it already been 25 years? I was there for the end of Capitol and the beginning of B&B, and must say, although it had its ups and downs, generally depending on who was writing it at the time, Capitol had its strengths, and could have run for many more years than it did. For a long time after its premiere, B&B was dreadful. Bill Bell seemed intent on mirroring situations and characters from the early years of Y&R, with pallid results.

What a great article, Carl. She sounds so sweet and innocent. Thanks for sharing.

Yes, her voice in the audio interview was whisper thin; she sounded very fragile, indeed. It's a shame she didn't work more after leaving Somerset, since she did project an ethereal sweetness that was perfect for the soap opera medium.

It shouldn't make you this enraged that I have "dared" to put faith in Carol Roux's account of her own life--which she lived, and knew about first-hand. Perhaps you could use your education and ability to analyze, to figure out why you are getting yourself so upset. A community message board is not meant to be a combat zone, where one poster needs to be "right" and more knowledgeable than other commentators, and denounce anyone who points out some information he, himself, either didn't have or does not choose to believe. You are free to interpret Roux however you want, based on all the second- and third-hand material you read, just as I am free to accept her own, first-hand accounts of her own life. There need not be such drama about different opinions. JMHO.

"This and other comments elsewhere make it hard for me to swallow the story that she claimed the producer's treated her badly and bullied her." Keep in mind that reading magazine articles gives fans no real, concrete first-hand knowledge of the actress, nor of the backstage interactions she experienced during her tenure on the show(s). She, herself, admitting that certain executives treated her poorly is certainly a more credible account of her history than interpretations and suppositions gained through second- or third-hand sources. She lived it. Who better to know the truth? It's been awhile since I've listened to it, but I remember Roux commenting about an executive who felt she wasn't cooperating with his demands enough, and he bellowed. "Little girl, I'm going to fire you!" The interview is referenced here: http://www.igs.net/~awhp/index12.htm

"As to good or bad writing being subjective, I would agree insomuch as it depends on personal taste, but then again, many people simply have bad taste, or cannot differentiate good writing/bad writing versus preference. Case in point the British series Eastenders. Many dislike its theme and content, but no one who paid attention could fail to realize how well-written the show has always been."--Toml1962 Of course, claiming that other people have bad taste and cannot differentiate between quality and trash is an easy way to proclaim one's own supposedly superior opinion, but again, opinion is subjective and open to interpretation. Some of Somerset's writers were better than others; that's just the way it goes on soaps or any long-running series with a variety of creative personnel in charge.

"I will end it here with saying calling a show badly written does indicate a bad writer - that is my point" I'll be happy to explain again. Saying a show is badly written when writer A is in charge, but that the quality is significantly better when writer B takes over, does NOT by any stretch of the imagination, indicate that the second scribe is a bad writer. Particularly when you specifically acknowledge his excellence. It's the nature of the beast that soaps' quality of writing rises and falls depending on who is in charge. Henry Slesar was excellent. During his tenure, Somerset was well written. That is what what I wrote, which I hope and trust most people who read the thread will understand.

Reviewing my original commentary on the AW thread, I realize that I had phrased it poorly. I said that George Reinholt had already been fired, and his character was already gone, when Mary Matthews passed away. That was, and is, accurate, but while Steve's leaving did indeed occur before Mary's dying, we saw both actors on that same, last day. Steve left earlier, and Mary's death was the ending cliffhanger. I hope this makes it clearer. I wouldn't want any confusion to ferment.

I have already addressed this in the correct, ANOTHER WORLD thread, but I'll be happy to explain again. Steven left Bay City for Australia first. Then Mary Matthews passed away in St. Croix. When the family found out about and dealt with Mary's passing, Steve was already gone. Alice had to call him to let him know what had happened. The timeline of events as I have outlined them does not contradict the summary posted on Eddie Drueding's AW homepage, which you are quoting, so I'm not sure why and what you fail to understand.

The idea of what constitutes quality writing is a personal interpretation. Even writers who are generally considered giants of the genre, like William J. Bell, Douglas Marland, or Harding Lemay have had their detractors. Even comments like "most critics will agree that the show was well written" is subjective; certainly the ones I read during the show's run did not approve of the weaker writers. Ratings alone do not prove or disprove the quality of the writing either. Henry Slesar was very good at both TEON and SOMERSET. Contrary to your erroneous comments about my previous posts, I never labeled him a "bad headwriter". Rick Edelestein's tenure on HOW TO SURVIVE A MARRIAGE was brilliant, but the ratings tanked. Pamela Long's work on TEXAS was actually quite good, but the ratings never went up enough to keep the show alive. Winsor, an old master at creating successful soap stories, knew what he was doing, and if he had been given a longer time to lure an audience in, he probably would have succeeded. Regardless of great writing, it took Bill Bell a few years to pull in viewers at Y&R, or Claire Labine to attract an audience at RYAN'S HOPE.

Of course, careful reading on the thread would allow you to know that Carl had asked me about Roy Winsor's reign, and that's the point in the show's history to which I was referring. Lahoma was gone by then, and as were most of the other characters you referred to. In general, Winsor allowed "normal", everyday characters to have fun and express humor, which not all soap writers do or did. It worked very well.

P&G was notorious for being conservative, long after other soaps started pushing the envelope. Very possibly certain executives wanted the story dropped for other reasons, and used this "explicit" scene as an excuse. Of course you are free to believe or disbelief any reference to the incident you like, but personally, I'll take Jameson Parker's take on it.

Yes, light-hearted character moments, with folks having a good time, were also seen on ATWT and TGL. Somerset--and, indeed all soaps--work best when characters can be human, and experience the same ups and downs that we all do in life. Humor is part of the human experience.

According to Jameson Parker, the foot kissing was a spontaneous gesture; a decision made on the spur of the moment, which probably would have been vetoed early on if it had actually been in the script. But it's curious that the executives reacted so strongly against it. On the same network, in 1976, DAYS had young Mike Horton sleep with the older Linda Anderson, after decrying the fact that he had been impotent with Trish Clayton during an earlier attempt at love-making. Mike appeared with no shirt, bulging away in some very revealing pajama bottoms, but no firestorm from the network caused the actors to be fired. I guess the executives' ire was arbitrary. The show didn't have specific "comical characters", but rather, ordinary, regular characters were allowed to joke around with each other, be amusing, have fun. Just like in real life. It was great.

Winsor was great, because he mixed suspense stories with family drama, romance, and lots of warmth and humor. I think that by the time he took over the reigns, the general audience had been burned by Somerset's bad years and tepid writing, and weren't interested in giving it another chance, which is a shame, because if they had tuned in, they would have been treated to the work of (IMHO) the best writer the show ever had. I thought Winsor was even better suited for Somerset than the great Henry Slesar, because of the romance and humor angles he added.

In the episode dealing with Mary Matthews' death, everyone found out about her passing after Steven had left Bay City. He was already out of the country, which is why Alice had to make a long-distance phone call to him from her sister's house. She postponed her own plans to join him in Australia because of her mom's death.

No, Ellen Grant was not there at the end of the series. The last we heard about her, several characters were having dinner at a restaurant, and Jerry kane asked if anyone had heard from Ellen Grant lately. He was told that she had been away, on a cruise with her sister India, As for why network executive are so abusive...only God knows, Their attitude and behavior has certainly decimated more than one soap over the years.</p>

Vicki Paisley was a great character; very fun, charming, charismatic, and a little bit naughty. Think Lorie Brooks on Y&R. Or 1970s Julie on DOOL. Veleka Gray was perfect in the role. She could make you vexed at her character's machinations, yet understand and feel sympathy for her at the same time. The Ellen/Dale romance was considered quite daring for its time. It might have lasted longer if they hadn't pushed the envelope in certain ways. Molly Picon's character made the comment once about his pants always being "good and tight, let me tell you!" which I thought would surely raise the ire of conservative viewers if not the censors. At one point later, they had Ellen and Dale in the Grant living room, with Ellen sitting barefoot on the sofa. Dale took one of her feet to his mouth and kissed it playfully, which DID end up causing trouble behind the scenes. Jameson Parker admitted that TPTB found the gesture too provocative, too sexual, and ruled that Dale be written out of the show. They decreed that Ellen should have a more mature, discreet (i.e. non-hot, non sexual) romantic partner from then on. It was a mistake, I think, because at that time, viewers were more sophisticated than the reactionary executives gave them credit for.

As someone who watched the show religiously from beginning to end, it's always struck me that some of the actors whom I thought were destined for bigger and better things never found the fame they deserved. Both Gary Swanson and (particularly) Gene Bua were extraordinarily attractive, personable and charismatic; perfect romantic leading men material, but neither one of them had much mainstream success. Jobeth Williams was quite appealing on the show; very likeable, right from the start. Ted Danson and Sigourney Weaver were good, but no better or no worse (IMHO) than many other competent soap actors have been. Audrey Landers was a curious case. She was not a good actress, and had limited range, but she still exuded an indefinable "star appeal" that made you want to watch her, and have her on the show.