vetsoapfan

5 hours ago, te. said:

Well, I randomly came across this today:

 

Seemingly it's a short-lived attempt at a syndicated soap opera from 1995 starring Maree Cheatham, Raquel Gardner and Ash Adams. It's an adaptation of Mexican telenovelas Tu o nadie and Acapulco, Cuerpo y Alma and was presumably sold as either a package of 60 or 120 episodes. It wasn't successful, but I guess someone found the time to upload the series to YouTube in the 60 episodes format; I guess it's a bit of a curiosity as an attempt to break daytime soaps into the syndicated market.

 

I was certain that this would be an atrocious and painful production, but after watching the first episode, it was not as bad as I feared. The acting quality varied, but there were some good actors in the mix (along with some obviously weak ones). The sets were decent, too; not as cheap as I figured they would be. It did not lure me into watching any more (too generic), but it was a curio, to be sure. Thanks for uploading.

9 hours ago, NothinButAttitude said:

Meh. She didn't do as good as I'd expect a head writer to do though. It still boggles my mind how reduced the vets became by the mid 90s to the end. I'd kill to write for a Kim, Lisa, Bob, or Lucinda over some newbie any day. Maybe that's because I like to dig and research back history. 

I hope you did not think that I was in any way, shape, or form praising Passanante's work. EEEK! I generally found her material to be tepid and uninspired. That being said, Sheffer's obvious preference not to write for the vets was both insulting and infuriating. JP's throwing them occasional bones made me consider her work "less bad," if only by comparison.

9 hours ago, NothinButAttitude said:

That aside, do you have idea why did they kill Paul Stewart off? I feel like that was a dumb choice and quite premature. I do think though that it was smart and realistic to have him never find out that Dan parented Betsy with Liz. I feel like that was a true nod to reality where we don't always get everything wrapped up so nicely. 

@Reverend Ruthledge explained the situation quite well in his reply.

Irna Phillips was wont to make sweeping changes and clean house when she felt like it. She had made up her mind a while before to kill off Liz Stewart, and I've always felt that (finally being able to do so), the writer wanted to put the character and the storylines surrounding Liz to rest. Paul had never been a major character anyway. (Even so, I was perturbed by Ellen's colorless reaction to hearing about his death. She gave a vaguely troubled speech about how these things happen, and that we all must just...move on. It was oddly underplayed.)

9 hours ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

...I thought Bill should have divorced Bert. LOL. Especially in the younger years. In the latter years, Bert turned out to be an anchor for Bill instead of the irritant she was in the younger years. I thought Bill was a fascinating character. He seemed to always be doing the wrong things but those things came out of him trying to do the right thing and denying himself. He married Bert and stayed with her because it was expected when he should have been with a woman like Gloria and, probably, later, Maggie. He worked at jobs he hated when he really wanted to be in the military and travel but felt like he had to be domestic. That's why he could never keep a job and drank so much. He was unhappy in his life but never felt like he could do what would have made him happy because he was trying to do "the right thing". Very misunderstood character. Sorry. This is an ATWT thread and I've spent too much time deconstructing Bill Bauer. I just find the character very interesting. Everybody talks about women being constrained back then because of social expectations but men were too to some degree. 

Bravo! You summarized the situation and Bill Bauer's character so beautifully and succinctly. So much was left unsaid and undone for him in the end. Watching Pamela Long and Gail Kobe kill him off in 1983, to serve a heinously-stupid and pointless plot, was infuriating. So much family drama could have been mined from Bill Bauer's working on his demons, hashing out his relationship with Ed, and slowly mellowing into a sadder-but-wiser, repentant patriarchal figure. 

8 hours ago, NothinButAttitude said:

Wait?! Liz died the day after marrying Dan?! That is crazy. I bet the fandom was livid about that. 

You have nooooo idea, LOL! It took a while for the character to succumb to her injuries, but when she did, the audience was infuriated and made their feelings known. Even with a replacement actress in the role, viewers made it clear that they could learn to accept a "new" Liz over time, but not NO LIZ AT ALL.

(It's curious how viewers accept some replacements, but staunchly refuse to accept others. When ATWT attempted replacing Rosemary Prinz with Phoebe Dorin, viewers revolted, and the "new Penny" was shown the door less than a year after being introduced. I did not want to deal with a replacement Penny, but to be fair, Dorin had a resemblance to Prinz and seemed to be a decent actress.)

5 hours ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

You're welcome. I have a wealth of trivia in my brain and always happy to share it with anyone who might care.  

I can vouch for the breadth of your historical knowledge, and I daresay that the majority of SONers want you to share more!

5 hours ago, NothinButAttitude said:

Again, that had to suck for the fandom who probably pined for those two to be together only to instantly lose the pairing. 

100%, yes.

5 hours ago, NothinButAttitude said:

Did the actress want to leave the role? I know that people have said was rumored that Irna was not a fan of the actress. Is this true?

The original actress, Jane House, had wanted to leave the show, but the replacement (Judith McGilligan) was fired.

4 hours ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

Vetsoapfan may be able to answer that. He's very knowledgeable on the backstage drama of soaps. 

Thank you, but more likely, I have a big mouth and just like chatting, LOL!

5 hours ago, NothinButAttitude said:

I knew Bert was a pistol as I've seen some clips (via WOST and in the early YouTube days before P&G started removing stuff) of her in action. SN: Bringing up WOST, I miss that site so much. Talk about being ahead of your time.

Yep, our Bert was a pistol way back when. It's a real testament to Charita Bauer's skill that she could imbue Bert with so many layers throughout the decades, and never once play a false note. One of my favorite TGL episodes of all time is one in which Bert lambasts Ed for his attitude towards his father. She calls her son a "small man" and laments that it horrifies her to see it. Human drama at its finest; the type soaps used to do so well. (Although I adored her and would always champion her remaining on the show, I must admit that I found Helen Wagner to be a little...crusty, LOL.)

5 hours ago, NothinButAttitude said:

I think because most of the clips I've seen of Nancy are from the 80s onwards or when I started watching as a child with my grandma and mom about '92, she was defanged. 

I don't know what is still/currently available online, but many of the vintage B&W episodes of TGL and ATWT are well worth checking out. Once you start watching them, it's like you fall down a rabbit hole and can't stop yourself from devouring more.

You have been warned!

5 hours ago, NothinButAttitude said:

But reading this book has made me realize that the final years of ATWT could've recaptured the audience if they just tapped into the show's history and recaptured the essence and simplicity of the original years of the show. They should've really tapped into Kim and Bob being the modern day Chris and Nancy and had Kim be a busybody to all her kids (not saying she wasn't). 

I agree. Viewers of soaps, from what I've witnessed, tend to love and enjoy nods to history. 

I was no fan of Jean Passanante, but I will acknowledge that she did pay some attention to the vets towards the end of the series. More than Sheffer did. Even Lisa (!!!) got a few lines here and there!

5 hours ago, NothinButAttitude said:

Just goes to show how Marland tapped into everyone's history and used it properly.

Of all the scribes who assumed the reigns of established soaps, I truly respected a select few who were excellent at researching their new shows' histories in-depth and using the past effectively. Pat Falken Smith, Douglas Marland, Claire Labine and Agnes Nixon really shone in this regard.

5 hours ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

Tragic is the best way to describe Claire. She was a fascinating mess.  I think Emily inherited her neurotic gene. 

Ohhh, good point.

4 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

It gave women at home some vicarious pleasure to see women with agency(hate that term) but the overall  lesson was that true fulfillment came from being a wife and mother.

The old stereotype about matrimony and motherhood being the end-all-be-all for women lasted a long, long time. When Bob was married to Jennifer Ryan, he told Nancy that Jennifer might be most fulfilled by being a wife, a mother, AND a career woman.

Nancy immediately pooh-poohed the very idea with a dismissive, "Oh, Bob! Whoever heard of such a thing?!?"

On 2/20/2024 at 9:37 PM, DRW50 said:

@SFK Ruth Warrick is one of the soap legends interviewed in this. 

There's a hilarious question about eight minutes in where someone asks if she and Louis Edmonds are an item...

 

At 10:30, that cretin who snarked that the women's husbands should just "put them to sleep" was so misogynistic and disgusting. UGH.

At least his comment was met with dead silence from the audience. And Eileen Fulton gave him some pushback.

1 hour ago, NothinButAttitude said:

Question to veterans posters/viewers--Was Nancy truly as much as a judgmental nuisance as the summaries in the 40th anniversary book summarizes? Maybe because I hold Nancy in high regard, I could not picture her being such a thorn in many people's sides. But I guess that is what makes her so complex. 

I am used to Nancy being comforting, loving, and stern at times to all. I knew she had issues from Penny, but I didn't know she was so cold towards Don at times too. 

And Claire Lowell is an interesting character to read about too. She literally hated her own grandson, Dan, up until her death. 

God I wish a lot of these episodes were saved. 

Actually, in ATWT's earlier years, Nancy was (or at least, could be when she was vexed) a bit of a pill. She used to light into Bob and harangue him a lot. If she did not like you, she'd make it very clear. When her son Donald got married to a woman named Janice Turner, of whom Nancy disapproved, Nancy sobbed loudly and obnoxiously throughout the ceremony. She always thought she was right. What made her redeemable, though, was that she was such a recognizable character; everyone in life knows or has known a woman like that. So we rolled our eyes and sighed and said, "Ohhhh, that's just Nancy!"

Plus, her love of, and loyalty to, her family was staunch and unquestionable.

Nancy only softened noticeably in the 1980s, when Douglas Marland wrote her and Chris Hughes back into the show.

BTW, many fans always regarded Bert Bauer on TGL as a warm and benevolent matriarchal figure, but in her earlier days, she was something of a shrew. Her husband, Bill, even slapped her once.

Both women came a long way as they got older.

14 hours ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

Julia was a complete retcon.  She was never mentioned on AW until shortly before she started appearing.   

Right. And while I generally loathe insta-relative retcons, I swallowed my distaste because because bringing in another Matthews at least gave Aunt Liz more to do.

21 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

As i posted earlier, had JC stayed on as Alice, audience might have been more receptive to a new Steve or other males cast against her.

ITA. The audience might have been more agreeable to accepting a new Steve if the true version of Alice did.

4 hours ago, Khan said:

Don't get me wrong, @vetsoapfan, I can understand (in retrospect) how viewers who'd been watching the show for decades felt or might've felt about all the changes that took place on-screen and off- throughout the '80's.

I think soap fans are experienced with sudden cast purges and tone shifts on our favorite shows, regardless of what decade we began watching. All of us have been frustrated about losing the characters whom we "met" when initially tuning in. I may not have liked the Shaynes, the Coopers, the Santoses and the Winslows, and their loss would not have difficult for me (it would have been a relief, TBH), but other viewers, who first found TGL in, say, 1985, wouldn't have cared much about the legacy of the Bauers and their friends, either. We all want to keep our familiar version of the shows at least semi-intact.

4 hours ago, Khan said:

  I also wouldn't suggest that the quality during that time was as good as or better than the previous decades.  Whenever I re-watch stuff from that period, however, I feel about as much nostalgia for back then as I do whenever I re-watch anything from Marland's period, or even the Dobsons', if that makes any sense.

It makes perfect sense. That was "your" period and incarnation of TGL, just as 1950-1982 represented mine. 

4 hours ago, Khan said:

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I loved GL - the good, the bad, the ugly, the HIDEOUS - because, in the end, GL, like AMC, feels the most like home to me, regardless of who might have been the HW, EP or principal cast members at any given time.

Actually, although I could no longer watch TGL and ATWT on a regular basis after a certain point (what I saw as destructive changes were too painful), I continued to record them from time to time, scan through eps to catch my remaining favorite characters, and keep up with current storylines in hope of dramatic rejuvenations. I stuck with "y stories" through the good, the bad, the ugly and the atrocious, until the bitter end, LOL!

So I totally get where you're coming from.

1 hour ago, Khan said:

Granted, my memories of GL only go back as far as 1981 or so, but I definitely agree with your assessment of the Irna/Agnes years, @vetsoapfan.  At the same time, though, I'm not sure I agree with you that 1985-88 were unwatchable - at least, not for me.  There's still much about that period that I love and love as much as I love everything that came before and after it, too.  In general, I love anything and everything GL-related* from its' earliest days on radio to, at least, 1998-99, which was/is the point I stopped being a regular viewer of the show.

 

(*Although Megan McTavish's crap really tried my patience, lol.)

After the incomprehensible cast slaughter of 1983-84, and with a noticeable shift in tone and (IMHO) quality, I found the "new," unnecessarily (again IMHO) rebooted version of the show to be painful to watch. To me, Springfield felt like a foreign landscape in the 1980s. I realize that losing Bert Bauer was unavoidable, but in a few years, we had a new, miscast Ed, and saw Bill Bauer, Mike Bauer, Hillary Bauer and Hope Bauer killed off or written out. We also lost stalwarts like Sara McIntyre, Justin Marler, Kelly Nelson, Amanda Spaulding, Nola Reardon and others. I don't think any soap should gut its core family, a huge portion of its cast, and historical foundation so quickly.

That being said, I think all the changes on the show resonated differently for viewers who had watched it in the earlier decades (1950s-1970s). Those who came aboard in the 1980s more readily accepted all the new people on the canvas. For those viewers, that's just how the show was.

4 hours ago, kalbir said:

@vetsoapfan I think it was the combination of MG/MZ return and Robert Calhoun as EP that was the shot in the arm GL needed after some really bad years.

From what I've seen either online or in real time, I'd say the two golden eras were Potter/Dobsons/Marland and Calhoun/Long/Curlee.

ITA about the modern era, absolutely, but the early 1950s under Irna Phillips and the later 1950s and 1960s under Agnes Nixon were also halcyon years. I was shocked when the show fell into disrepair in towards the middle of the 1980s. It had been so good for decades, and I had just taken its quality for granted. 1985-88 were unwatchable years, IMHO.

On 2/26/2024 at 10:39 PM, kalbir said:

I really enjoyed 1989-1991 Calhoun/Long/Curlee era. SOD named GL most improved show in 1989. It disappoints me that the ratings didn't reflect how good the show was back then.

Yes, the show really rebounded for a few years. The return of Michael Zaslow and Maureen Garrett helped significantly, and for a little while, TGL felt like...TGL again. It didn't last, alas, but it was Springfield's last hurrah, and great while it lasted.

On 3/1/2024 at 3:07 PM, DRW50 said:

Steve and Rachel were never seen as a supercouple by fans. The idea of him thinking he's still in love with Alice but being drawn to Rachel is compelling, but that wasn't really their history.

To the audience, Steve and Alice were endgame. Mac and Rachel had become endgame as well. Some may argue that creating supercouples whom the audience refuses to see permanently separated limits future plot possibilities, but...that's just the nature of the beast. The idea that Steve would ever romance Rachel again betrayed history and made the whole situation pretty dumb. If, after decades (in terms of storyline time), the characters STILL had not come to an understanding of whom they truly loved and wanted to be with...pffft! They were too old for that cr@p.

On 3/1/2024 at 3:07 PM, DRW50 said:

I do get that the opening was badly out of date by 1996, similar to the tour of Llanview opening in 1992. I will give JFP credit for actually using the cast in her opening, unlike that soft porn muzak opening Gottlieb brought to OLTL. However, I think the style of that opening has ended up seeming much more dated in the long run than the 87-96 version, which isn't really that far off from something of today with Instagram filters or other little tricks.

How I loooooathed that OLTL opening. So generic and pointless, and not even well done. I called it, "Bed sheets in the wind." Yuck. I wish AW had stayed with its original, classic opening. Like ATWT with its globe, TGL with its lighthouse, DAYS with the hourglass, etc., AW's interlocking rings was iconic.

On 3/1/2024 at 4:21 PM, Mona Kane Croft said:

I too liked the casting of David Canary as Steve. But he didn't work as Steve for two reasons:  1. The writing was so bad.  And 2. Canary needed more direction on how to catch Steve's personality and essence.  For example, Canary played Steve as loud and outgoing, often with a big smile on his face, but Steve's personality had always been brooding, quiet, and borderline sad.  I would never have expected Canary to imitate George Reinholt, but Canary should have been coached on Steve's basic personality style.  In my opinion, Canary played Steve like an entirely new character.   Having said all that -- no one will ever convince me that David Canary was not capable of playing Steve Frame.  Canary had the acting skills, but he simply needed more direction and (of course) better writing.

Agreed. No one could reasonably deny Canary's obvious talent, but his interpretation of Steve Frame was quite different from George Reinholt's. It would have been less jarring and more likely to succeed if Canary had been directed to play the character in a more reserved, subdued manner.

On 3/1/2024 at 4:21 PM, Mona Kane Croft said:

I will also take a risk and admit that I actually enjoyed Linda Borgeson as Alice.  This will seem like heresy to some, but I believe Borgeson's appearance and acting style was closer to Jacquie Courtney's than any of the other Alice recasts including Susan Harney.  And I believe Borgeson was certainly the best of the Alice recasts.  I am aware many fans believe she was the worst.  But again -- with better writing, and had TPTB stuck with her, I believe Borgeson would have been accepted as Alice, and Canary as Steve.

While I never accepted any of the recast Alices, I understand your point here. Borgenson had a "stillness" about her which was true to the character of Alice, but with Courtney, I detected a reservoir of deep, turbulent emotion bubbling just below the surface. Still waters run deep. With Borgenson, I personally never felt she had any depth; any passion at all.

It would have been interesting to see how Canary, Borgenson, and the renewed Steve/Alice saga could have turned out with better writing. Probably the best chance would have been to lure Jacquie Courtney back, and then pair her with Canary. Having a beloved familiar face playing the romance might have helped the audience warm up more to the rebooted couple. Of course, we will never know.

3 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

Of course! When Lemay left AW in 1979 the show was populated with wonderful characters with so much potential -- the middle-class Matthews family, the wealthy Corys, the working-class Perrinis and Frames, and all the wonderful characters that surrounded them.    Even if the new writers wanted to strengthen the storylines and plots, why in the world would they jettison so many of Lemay's beloved characters??   It was nuts, and led to the continued ratings decline for twenty-years.   

Yep.

3 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

I too have questioned Bell's decision to kill-off Jennifer Brooks.  But I have a tendency to respect big decisions like that, if they are made by the show's creator, rather than later writers.   Similarly, I fairly easily accepted Bell's decision to write-off Y&R's two original families, the Brooks' and the Fosters, only because that decision was made by Bill Bell himself.   Had a later writer made that decision, I would still be bitching about it 40 years later.   

With the endless cast defections among the actors playing the Brooks and Foster characters, I can understand Bill Bell finally throwing up his hands and deciding to start over with a largely-clean slate. He was William J. Bell; he was soap-savvy and creative enough to make it work. Other (and lesser) writers and producers over the years, who tried to reinvent classic soaps, just never had the ability to succeed.

Instead of introducing and then axing so many new characters and families over the years, AW should have concentrated on strengthening its roots and returning Bay City to its core.

I would have worked for them, cheaply, LOL!

2 minutes ago, Xanthe said:

It's somehow worse than that -- I just looked it up and he entirely absolves himself of taking her seat intentionally ("I had apparently appropriated the wall seat she usually occupied"), but sneers at Dwyer both for his assumption that she would have preferred his seat in order to let her public gaze upon her but also for his idea that she was more than consoled by the fact that the seat she got allowed her to gaze at her reflection in a mirror. He mocks her to the reader for graciously signing autographs for fans before she arrives at the table, for bringing fan mail to show him how popular she is with the audience, for drinking sherry, for claiming that she understood her character and her fans' appreciation of her, and for daring to disagree with his assessment that the character was unrealistic. Then he insults her to her face by telling her she is an inexperienced actress and makes up his mind to write Mary out.

Thank you for refreshing my memory. He really was caustic and condescending towards people whom he decided to vilify, LOL.

People try to argue with me that Lemay did not have the power to fire Dwyer, and technically that was probably true; he needed the approval of TPTB. But with relentless determination to fire an actress he disliked, it's clear he was a prime motivating factor in her dismissal.

After Jacquie Courtney was fired, she wrote a magazine piece about leaving the show, trying diplomatically to say that she did not agree with the way TPTB were taking her character. Lemay later wrote that she may have had it "written for her." Huh? As if she were incapable of stringing sentences together in a  text like anybody else? His snide insults are hard to fathom.

15 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

If multiple people were stopping Dwyer to ask for autographs as she entered a small restaurant, perhaps Lemay should have recognized something important about that, rather than using it as a way to ridicule the obviously very popular actress.  Dear God in Heaven!!

It makes me wonder (again) why Bill Bell killed off Jennifer Brooks on Y&R in 1977. Generally, soaps are loathe to kill off the principal matriarch unless they have no choice whatsoever (i.e. death of the actress).

At least AW held on to Aunt Liz and Ada for a long time.

4 minutes ago, Efulton said:

lol.  I need to reread the book.  My memory ain't what it used to be!

It certainly is an entertaining read!

4 minutes ago, Efulton said:

I need to reread Eight Years in Another World and Lemay's We Love Soaps interview.  I remember him saying in his book something about meeting Dwyer in a restaurant and getting there early so he could purposely sit in her favourite seat.  I may have that wrong but I remember thinking how gross it was.

I don't specifically recall him saying he took her favorite seat, LOL, but I do remember him spinning a tall tale about how she was so intent on making herself seen by the public.

The Lemay quote which will always stand out for me comes from when he was new to daytime TV. A reporter asked him if he learned anything from the experienced writers of the genre. He snarked, "Only what NOT TO DO."

UGH. What hubris.

1 minute ago, Contessa Donatella said:

NOTE NOT IN LEMAY BOOK

I have already noted that in my previous post.

28 minutes ago, Efulton said:

Yes to all of the above!

Thank you, my dear!

19 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

I don't remember that anecdote, but if it was in Lemay's book, how the Hell would Lemay even know what Dwyer did with her clothes?  Did she come to the studio one day and announce it?  And if so, was Lemay even in the studio that day?   Seriously, I don't remember that from the book, but I haven't re-read it for a few years. Still that sounds like hearsay or gossip.   Why would he even expect his readers to take something like that seriously??   

It's like the absurd anecdote in his book about having lunch in a restaurant with Virginia Dwyer, when she was unhappy about how much he misunderstood her character. According to Lemay, she was all about preening; sitting and conducting herself in a manner to maximize potential attention from onlookers. And Lemay's declaring that Jacquie Courtney sobbed through her scenes because she couldn't be bothered to learn her dialogue.

I swear, his remarkable talents as a writer were far outstripped by his prowess as a mind reader, ROTF!

To be serious, however, I think the quote about discarding a bunch of her clothes came from Virginia Dwyer, herself. After being fired, she gave an interview in Afternoon TV entitled, "I Told My Daughter, 'I Will Not Die for Them!'" The anecdote may have come from there (although I'm not sure).

2 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

Agreed. And to be honest, Lemay simply did not understand the soap opera archetype of the traditional loving matriarch (Mary Matthews, Nancy Hughes, Alice Horton, Bert Bauer, etc).  He admits that in his memoir.  Soap matriarchs are usually fundamentally happy women -- not flawless, sometimes interfering, but fundamentally happy.  And Lemay preferred writing for unhappy characters.  Think about it -- Lemay's favorites: Pat, Lenore, Steve, Liz, Mac, Iris, Elliot, all of the Frame siblings, Robert Delany, Rose, Angie, even Alice, were all unhappy people or at least in a fairly permanent unhappy situation.  Lemay had no idea how to write for a happy woman like Mary.  So first, he tried to make her unhappy and meddling by writing for her as if she were Liz Matthews.  And when Dwyer didn't play his scripts that way, he simply brought Liz back to the canvas and killed-off Mary.    Years later in his memoir, he tried to blame Dwyer's firing on her acting skills, while vaguely admitting he did not know how to write for a traditional matriarch.   Virginia Dwyer was perfectly cast as Mary, and her acting skills were strong.  In his memoir, Lemay toyed with the idea of being truthful about Mary's exit, but his pride got in the way -- and he blamed it on the actress.  I love Lemay, but he made some huge damned mistakes.   

You are on a roll these days, with many great posts!

I wish everyone here could have been around to watch a scene from the 1960s, in which a subdued Jim Matthews had to reveal to Mary Matthews that their daughter-in-law, Rachel, had not gotten pregnant by their son Russ. Steven Frame was the child's actual father. Mary, so often composed, warm and understanding, did NOT take the news well. She couldn't hold back her rage and just went berserk. She started shrieking, "I hate her! I...HATE... HER!" I actually froze and got goose-bumps, the scenes was so harrowing. To this day, I think it was Dwyer's finest moment.

Like you, I greatly admired HL's initial work, but...

2 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

On this we agree. 

I think two of the Alice recasts were adequate (although they still didn't capture the essence of the role, IMHO), but the remaining two were simply dreadful. I'm glad, at least, that Courtney reclaimed the part in the end and became the "last Alice standing."

7 minutes ago, Efulton said:

I have mixed feelings about Rauch returning.  There is no doubt he could be a brilliant producer but his during his last 4 years the show was a mess.  Of course the writing was a big part of the problem but casting was also an issue (i.e. Alice #3, 4 & 5).  I do think we would have seen the return of some favourite actors in the final years if Rauch have been there and Victoria Wyndham would most definitely have been front and centre again.  Actually as I type this he would have been a hell of a lot better than Charlotte Savitz so the show would have possibly had lasted a few more years longer.

I think Rauch did well on AW in the beginning, when he and Lemay kept the core of the show (the way Phillips and Nixon had created and developed it) intact. Once he and Lemay started tampering with and dismantling the drama's roots, however, the bottom fell out. As you say, the last several years of PR's reign there were a mess.

His stints on Texas and For Richer, For Poorer failed. IMHO, he was a disaster on OLTL (which he decimated) and TGL. His stints on Santa Barbara and Y&R were not terribly noteworthy, although not as harmful as his time on OLTL in particular. I do agree he would have been better than Charlotte Savitz to re-helm AW, however.

The endless miscasting of Alice Frame still baffles me. How some of those actresses were chosen will forever remain a mystery.

I remember reading an irate letter from a fan in a soap mag that went, "I never appreciated Jacquie Courtney (I never voted for her in any fan-magazine polls) until I saw her replacement!" I think that most performers can be replaced effectively, but with some, TPTB shouldn't even try. After TGL's Charita Bauer passed away, a friend asked me if I could accept a Bert Bauer recast. UGH. Over my dead body. I never accepted any of the "fake" Alices, LOL.

The pre-Lemay ratings which even you just posted were as high, or higher, than the ratings seen under Lemay. So how does that equate to HL's claims of being responsible for noticeable increases "hold up"?

The numbers achieved by Agnes Nixon grew higher than Lemay's, and even the ones seen under Cenedella were higher or comparable. Were Lemay's ratings impressive? Yes, but that's not the issue. The question was, did he make the ratings markedly improve, and were Cenedella's worse, as HL claimed.

The evidence indicates no.

For example, Cenedella may have garnered a rating of 9.6 (1969 and 1970) and 9.5 (1970 and 1971), whereas Lemay had 9.1 (1971 and 1972) and 9.7 (1972 and 1973), but in reality, 9.5 and 9.6 under one writer is not noticeably weaker than 9.1 and 9.7 under another.

If in doubt, anybody can review the ratings here on SON, in many soap opera history books, or even on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_daytime_soap_opera_ratings

5 hours ago, Xanthe said:

I recently started worrying about not having access to the VHS format so I have been making an effort to transfer VHS to DVD since that was the easiest first step for me. Most of my tapes were in good condition although there was the occasional failure.

I don't have anything before probably 1987. I know youtube has a lot of 1980 but there isn't much of 1982 to at least 1984 as far as I can see and there is a lot of 1983 that I keep hoping will show up.

I realized quite some time ago that my ancient Betamax and VHS tapes (going back to the 1970s) were starting to disintegrate (literally, shedding "dust"). Some had become unplayable. I was crushed. Fortunately, other tapes (usually the higher-quality ones like TDK, Maxell and Sony) were still in good shape. I wasted no time in converting everything over to DVD-R. I am grateful that all the videos I wanted to preserve the most were salvageable.

I had audiotapes going back to the 1960s, some of which I had transferred as well. Unfortunately, I no longer have access to a cassette-tape player. But my trusty VHS survives!

5 hours ago, j swift said:

I agree, but I don't think that is a bad thing.  We have to consider the context.  The book is a memoir, not an attempt to write the history of the show.  The humor is derived from his frustrations working for the first time within the daytime genre.  And there is no way of knowing if he maintained these opinions years later. 

True, memoirs are always colored by, influenced by, the subjective feelings and interpretations of the author. Lemay certainly had every right to express his own opinions, whether the public found his analyses believable or accurate. And in the end, he was an excellent writer who provided the daytime audience with stellar material for years. That's all we could ask for; all we have the right to expect.

23 hours ago, robbwolff said:

Even though I've frequented this board for many years, I wasn't completely familiar with the whole Virginia Dwyer story. So I'm personally grateful that this subject came up over the past few days.

That's an important point.  Even if fellow commentators wish to influence what other posters discuss on message boards (out of boredom, frustration, disinterest, whatever) it's unlikely to happen. Subjects which one person would prefer to see set aside, another person is curious about and wants to see explored more. Personally, I am totally surfeited with the social media attention paid to a certain tangerine-tinted individual who is constantly discussed EVERYWHERE, ALL THE TIME, but obviously other people are still interested in hearing about, reading about, and talking about the individual in question. If it bothers me, it's my own obligation to avoid engaging in discussions about those whom I no longer wish to discuss. On the internet, scrolling down is pretty easy.

Today on Facebook, a group moderator posted a photograph of an actor whom she found attractive. While a surprising number of members were oohing and ahhing, one man announced that he did not want to see posts like this again, because lust was a sin, and all the posters drooling over the photo needed to REPENT and read the good book.  To that I would ask, why did he even click on the link???

23 hours ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

Absolutely!  Although all the old soaps had great untapped histories, Another World's history was especially ripe for new (or resurrected) storylines because of the unfortunate multitude of short term writers who were constantly writing character in and out of the show.  If AW had ever had a long-term head-writer in the later years (like Lemay, Nixon, Marland, or Bell), things could have turned out very differently in 1999. 

The soap opera is the only genre that can use its long history as fodder for new stories.   And fans love nothing more than that!

I agree. I've always found it interesting that so many soap fans investigate their shows' histories, and become engrossed by past material they never even watched first-hand. AW's brilliant past held a cornucopia of fascinating characters and storylines which could have been mined for present-day drama, if only TPTB cared to do so.

22 hours ago, denzo30 said:

Totally, When I look back at the episodes where I see Connie Ford and most especially Victoria Wyndham constantly looking down at the cues for their lines, I have to wonder why Lemay was so upset with Jackie Courtney doing the same thing?  No disrespect to Hugh Marlow but I am sorry, he fumbled almost all his lines.  The footage I have seen of Virginia Dwyer, she appears to be a fine actress and very much playing mother Mary Matthews.  Lemay just wanted to change the landscape.  He should have really just been honest instead of commenting on their acting abilities considering he excused the actors he praised for the same flaws.  I think George Reinholts acting appealed to Lemay.  He even created the Frame family after him but that was more of Paul Rauch issue where George was difficult on the set.

Considering all the dialogue soap actors have to memorize daily, I'm astonished when certain actors can handle it flawlessly, and I'm sympathetic towards people like Hugh Marlowe, who obviously struggled a lot. I watched the show daily during Lemay's run (while I criticize him for certain things, I have always acknowledged the excellent work he did from 1971-1975), and people like Jacqueline Courtney and Virginia Dwyer were much more adept at dealing with their lines than other actors like Marlowe.

21 hours ago, chrisml said:

As someone whose knowledge of AW pre-1986 is from family members and online boards I'm always thankful for these discussions. I love reading about the history of the show and the firings/hirings that happened. I didn't witness a lot of these AW events at the time, and I have not watched my family's tapes in a very long time (my family was an early VHS adopter so they have tapes from the early 80's). As someone who does read a lot of soap history, I would not consider anyone's account to be the only valid or reliable one. In fact, it seems to me that some execs and performers are not the best when it comes to remembering specific details or accuracy in detailing events. It's been years since I read Lemay's book, but I felt that a lot of his remarks about the show and the performers were tinged with a degree of self-serving reflection. 

Right. Sometimes even the actors, writers and producers involved get confused about past facts. Agnes Nixon's autobiography included some obvious blunders about her time on OLTL. Harding Lemay has said that AW's ratings before he arrived were not satisfactory, and that he made them jump, but the facts don't bear out that contention. Before Lemay took over, Robert Cenedella had been the head scribe for a few years. While I would never claim that Cenedella was a writer of Agnes Nixon's or Harding Lemay's skill, he was at least adequate. Contrary to Lemay's assertion about his own tenure, he did not make the ratings increase to any significant degree (although granted, the writing was much better).

In the 1968-69 season, AW had an average rating of 10.5. In 1969-70, the rating was 9.6. In 1970-71, 9.5. Lemay was hired in 1971. In 1971-72, AW's rating was 9.1. In the 1972-73 and 1973-74 seasons: 9.7. By 1979, the show had dipped to a 7.5.

(All ratings taken from The Soap Opera Encyclopedia by Christopher Schemering. The yearly ratings can also be checked here on SON, in the Ratings Archives.)

The cast massacre of 1975 and the declining quality of Lemay's work in the mid-1970s, IMHO, contributed to the slow sinking in the ratings. It was a shame to witness AW's decline, after it had been a daytime jewel for so long.

6 hours ago, janea4old said:

There's already a thread for that:
"ALL: The "Soapourri" Thread"
https://boards.soapoperanetwork.com/topic/65864-all-the-soapourri-thread/

I had no idea this thread even existed. Thanks for the heads up!

5 hours ago, Jdee43 said:

Going back to a pre 1975 character you would have liked brought back, how about Mitchell Dru? They could have revealed that he was really a lothario, and that he was also Cass Winthrop's true biological father  And of course, being the only old guy in town, they'd finally have to pair him with Ada

I never wanted Uncle Dru to be written out in the first place. As a character who had been featured on The Brighter Day, As the World Turns, and then Another World, he was like a lynchpin of the Irna-verse. Plus, I have always found warm and wise patriarchal and matriarchal figures on soaps to be comforting.

If the show could have ever gotten good writers who were knowledgeable about and invested in the show's rich past, I would have asked Jacqueline Courtney to return again and USE HER EFFECTIVELY this time. I probably would have brought Ricky Matthews and Wally Curtin back to Bay City too. To newer viewers, Wally would have been like any other new character they were asked to invest in, but his addition to the canvas would be a nice nod to history for veteran viewers.

I realize TPTB would veto a sudden influx of much-older characters, but it would have been wonderful to see Beverly Penberthy and Sam Groom put back on contract as Pat Randolph and Russ Matthews.