vetsoapfan

Yes, the actress in the video you retained in this thread is definitely Sally Stark. I never questioned that fact. The other clip, the one you removed, did not feature the LoL actress, however. (IMHO, of course.) And thank you so much for the tag to this crisp LoL episode. What good quality! I was not old enough to be following the show at that time, so watching this broadcast will be fun!

Vlada Gelman, who is the credited author of the poll/article is too young to have seen AW during the 1960s and 1970s. Even Michael Ausiello, TVLine's founder and editorial director, was born in 1972, so he's too young to know about AW's heyday either. He has written enthusiastically about Santa Barbara over the years, which he could have watched when he was a kid, but never about AW. I think you are right: Gelman probably just googled "popular TV triangles" and culled candidates from wiki articles. Or she had read about certain characters from history books. I appreciate the effort to include a selection of vintage choices, but I seriously doubt the majority of TVLine's staff or even readers know who George Reinholt and Jacqueline Courtney were.

As fun as it was to find a 50-year-old soap triangle like this among the mix, it was still quite surprising. I wonder how many people who responded to this poll were on the younger side, and voted in favor of a character who remained on the show until the very end, and whom the modern audience remembered better. Anyway, the poll brought back a lot of memories.😁

The entertainment website TVLine just uploaded a new poll asking readers to vote for their favorite couples among divisive TV triangles. To my surprise, there was an Another World connection. https://tvline.com/lists/tv-love-triangles/

True, with all the misinformation and myths floating around, it's important to be careful about accepting just anything, from any source, reported about soap opera history. From what I've seen, however, the vast majority of misinformation comes from people who never saw the soaps broadcast on screen for themselves, either because they did not chose to watch specific series at the time, or because they were simply too young (perhaps not even born yet) to do so. Sites like Soap Central seem to fill in the blanks about stories and characters they know nothing about with a LOT of "creative fiction" from unknowledgeable contributors' vivid imagination. The writers of the Soap & Serials novelizations also got many details wrong, despite allegedly using original TV scripts upon which to base their books. Of course, some people trying to offer historical data in good faith may simply misremember details, thereby still getting the data wrong by accident. I would say that the cases of "facts" coming from non-viewers who choose the fill-in-the-blanks-with supposition method are not comparable to the commentary of first-hand viewers who actually did watch the material, who recorded the material, who read multiple articles about the material, and who remember the material in minute detail. But ultimately, people will believe what they believe, so continued attempts to convince them otherwise will be unsuccessful and therefore pointless. (I never did convince one internet poster that Eric Braedon began on Y&R in 1980, because that poster insisted Braedon was an original cast member from 1973. I offered evidence to the contrary, which was rebuffed, so I moved on. I like my drama and strife on television, not on the internet, LOL!)

I give up, LOL.🙄 All I can do is report the facts about an episode which I watched for myself first-hand, which I recorded on audiotape and listened to again later, and which was discussed at length in the soap press of the time (with quotes from Courtney and Rauch). If people who never even watched the show in 1973, and who--for whatever reason--cannot fathom the possibility that original scripts can be altered or revised before taping, there's little I can do to convince them.🤷‍♂️ I'll save myself the energy and stop reiterating the truth as I know it.😝

Over the years, I've always found the list of Daytime Emmy nominees (and even some of the winners) to be quite...dubious, but in a fair world, Nixon's AW would have been drowning in statues!

Right, with a new network and canvas, it was not surprising that Irna created a new family upon which to build the show in the late 1940s. Families being at the heart of her dramas was a staple for her.

Sam Groom was so handsome, so noble and so appealing as Russ. The actor somehow made the character an ultra-good guy without Russ being boring, trite or a cliche. Hw was excellent. Neither of his replacements ever did the character justice, IMHO. With Groom, Strasser, Courtney and Reinholt on board, the show was golden. Even in published history books, there is a lot of information about the soaps which is inaccurate. It's long been reported that Pat Matthews killed her first boyfriend, Tom Baxter, by stabbing him to death. This drove me crazy whenever I read it anywhere, because Pat shot him; she did not stab him. I saw the original episodes. Years later, when Pat killed Greg Bernard, Harding Lemay's script reiterated the false myth that she had stabbed Tom with "a letter opener or something." Argh. I am 100% sure of the fact that although the original script had other characters set to appear that day, Paul Rauch made the decision after the script had already been written to cut out the other actors from the episode, lengthen the Steve-Alice scenes, and only have Reinholt and Courtney appear on screen. I watched it live at the time and remember it very well. Plus, it was talked about and lauded in the soap press at the time, and Courtney did an interview about it. Even Paul Rauch put his two cents' worth in. The existing scenes with Pat, Dennis and Louise took place on the same "Bay City day" as the two-hander episode, but were broadcast in the NEXT DAY's television broadcast. The material available on youtube has a lot of clips lumped together in one upload; that does not mean that all the scenes came from a single day's NBC broadcast. Plus, the two-hander Steve-and-Alice episode was confirmed in the article from Daily TV Serials posted a few pages ago in this thread.

In no way were the Gregorys a core family. They were simply an unmemorable blip on the radar. It's like making a claim that the Rosales clan was a core family on Y&R. Um...no. AW continued to ride the wave of immense popularity that it had enjoyed for years under the Nixon/early Lemay years, but as the writing deteriorated in the mid-late 1970s, and as the competing soaps steadily climbed in the ratings, AW began to suffer noticeably. As someone recent said (was it Neil Johnson?), viewers will stick around through weak writing out of loyalty to beloved characters, but with bad writing AND the elimination of so many important, cherished characters, there wasn't a lot of incentive to stick around Bay City anymore. The 90-minute format might have just been another nail in the coffin. And...NOBODY has ever understood why and how TPTB bungled Jacquie Courtney's return in 1984 so badly. The incompetence of underusing and misusing her (and giving her the worst haircut known to man) is unfathomable. All we do know is that writer Gary Tomlin later admitted in a interview that he did know the character's history very well and did not know how to use her well.

After TGL lost several of its original, key players in the 1940s, there were several characters isolated in their own individualized storylines. There wasn't as much of a "homey" feeling as with the Ruthledges and Kranskys at center stage. I believe Irna Phillips, understanding soaps and the audience so well, knew that having a central family at the core was important, hence the introduction of the Bauers. It ended up being a savvy move, since the show enjoyed huge success for decades afterwards, with the Bauers at its core. The audience once again had a central family to call their own. Yes, Irna Phillips was the one to weave the Bauers into TGL, starting in 1948. She knew her own show and what it needed, which is why her choices were beneficial to the series. And you are right: Agnes Nixon did not make sweeping or damaging changes when she took over AW. She simply corrected the ship's course by writing out a few of James Lipton's tepid characters and introducing some inspired new ones of her own and attaching them to the show's core Matthews family. She got back to basics, rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Again, perfectly said. I truly believe that beloved characters are the glue which binds the audience to the soaps. Once they are gratuitously eliminated from any show (particularly in large numbers over short periods of time), the audience reacts quite negatively.

Reinventing the (very successful) wheel generally does not work with soaps. Bill Bell was able to do it with Y&R in 1984, but most writers and producers who toss out everything that had been there before they arrive end up crippling the show. I believe it was Virginia Dwyer who vexed Lemay by leaving script pages around the set. He said Courtney annoyed him by reading her lines off the cuffs of her nurse's uniform. Neither of these supposed "crimes" were ever noticeable on-screen. To be fair, Margie Impert was woefully miscast and a pretty weak Rachel. Her being replaced was for the best, IMHO. They really did underestimate her drawing power. Jacquie was a huge star; extremely popular with the audience. None of the actresses chosen to replace her (admittedly, some were better--or "less bad"--than others) had the star appeal she exuded as Alice. Lemay even admitted that JC's presence might very well have contributed to OLTL's steady rise in the ratings once she began appearing on it. Bravo, @Neil Johnson! You put that perfectly. Lemay's petulance and ego got in the way of his talent and what was important for the show, and AW sank because it it. Bravo to you too, @DRW50! The contention that Harney was a "much better actress" than Courtney is absurd. SH's scenes after John Randolph died were just embarrassing.

When Lemay began at AW in 1971, he focused on the show's core, legacy characters and everything in Bay City flourished. The material he gave Courtney and Reinholt was wonderful for the first three years. I wonder if he eventually became emboldened by his own success, and wanted to flex his muscles and revise the show into something more to his liking. It eventually crippled the show, like Pam Long's and Gail Kobe's inexplicable gutting of The Guiding Light destroyed that series.

That's why I have to begrudgingly give kudos to Paul Rauch, who made fairly last-minute changes to the concept of this episode, based on his (astute) belief that the Steve-Alice reconciliation would be historic, and deserved special treatment. It was reported at the time that Rauch worked with the director to add depth and nuance to the Steve and Alice scenes, in order to "milk" the characters' long-awaited reconciliation and gratify the audience who had been vehemently calling for the pair to reunite. Aside from Reinholt, whose backstage issues/behavior on both AW and OLTL have been well-documented, I just don't believe firing Courtney and Dwyer was "for cause." Lemay simply had an irrational hatred for both women. The justifications he used in his book to fight for their dismissal were blatantly ridiculous and hypocritical. Considering that Courtney consistently ranked at the top of audience popularity polls and was awarded for her acting multiple times (in Daytime TV, Daily TV Serials, Afternoon TV magazines, etc.), it wasn't her acting that needed to be changed to placate a petulant writer; Lemay needed to get over himself and accept that it's destructive to fire hugely popular leads from any series based on personal ire. Someone who is less-than credible has been "going on and on" about the Mike and Nancy episode from TEON, or the Steve and Alice one from AW? I cannot and do not remember every single thing about soaps gone by (alas!), but the Alice/Steve/Rachel triangle is/was my all-time favorite soap opera saga, and I do remember it (including specific scenes and dialogue) quite well. The ONLY good thing about my being older than Methusela is that I was "there" to witness, first-hand, the halcyon days of daytime TV.

I wrote the lines of text which you reposted in your last message. I just lifted a quote from Jacquie Courtney (about filming the dress rehearsal of the two-person ep) from memory of a vintage soap magazine article. Back in the day, I literally bought and read all of the publications, so I can't specify which one.

DAYS, AW, TEON, Y&R, OLTL...so many soaps produced stellar material throughout that decade. It's frustrating that among all the surviving episodes available to fans, the 1970s is the least represented period.

Never hesitate to tag me or ask me questions. I enjoy reflecting on soaps of the past. Some magazines of the day did write about the special Steve and Alice ep. One of them remarked that it was brilliant to do the two-person episode, since the romantic duo was enormously popular, and the fans had been loudly clamoring for a reunion for the pair for a long time. TEON's Mike-and-Nancy episode was also brilliant, by the way. EDGE was primarily known for its intricate mystery and suspense plots, but Henry Slesar never skimped on characterization or interpersonal relationship drama either. He could throw emotional punches to the audience with the best of the daytime scribes. Soaps were so powerful in the 1970s!

The "two-hander" (I had never heard of that expression before) episode of Another World was in 1973, when Steve and Alice finally met up and reconciled after their divorce, when he was then married to Rachel. Clips of it are in this youtube video, starting at about 5:16. The original script had a few other characters set to appear in the episode, but Paul Rauch said he wanted to focus on the Steve/Alice scenes, so they were extended and filled out, and only those two characters appeared on-screen. Rauch even got P&G to let him move the first set of commercials, so that the day's first act was significantly lengthened and uninterrupted. In a magazine article later on , Jacquie Courtney said that Rauch also made the decision to tape the dress rehearsal, which she appreciated. She said, "I don't think I could have mustered up all that emotion a second time!" I loathe how Rauch ultimately decimated AW, but even I have to grudgingly give him credit for the wise decisions he made about this specific episode. Watching it live, I was totally mesmerized. Eddie Drueding is an acknowledged and respected treasure, of course, but he began watching AW long after 1973. If he only had the scripts of that year to rely on, he would have no way to know about the last minute changes to the episode that ended up making it a two-person, special broadcast. From The Another World Home Page: OCTOBER 8, 1973 (EP. #2337) Alice told Steve she'd heard Rachel say that he was with her the day Alice lost her baby. Steve said he'd never told her that Rachel insisted on being present whenever he saw Jamie because he knew how Alice felt about Rachel. Steve said he married Rachel only to provide a home for Jamie. ***Rachel worried when she phoned from New York and Janice told her Steve wasn't at home. Mary got upset when Russ told her today was the day Steve and Alice were meeting.*** (<<<EDITED OUT OF EPISODE) Alice admitted she couldn't forget what she and Steve had shared together. When she wept that he was married to Rachel, he vowed to free himself. ***Alice thanked Pat for arranging the meeting, feeling hope for the first time in months.*** (<<<EDITED OUT OF EPISODE. AIRED THE FOLLOWING DAY.) Steve: (To Alice) "I loved you more than anything on earth."

To be fair, anyone can make an error, but IMHO, that does not look like "our" Sally at all. I'd bet the farm that it is not her.

@DRW50 I am sure that is NOT the Sally Stark from Love of Life.

Thanks for the new link, @DRW50.

Right. Stuart was always first billed in the closing credits, with her name appearing before anyone else's. An issue later arose, however, when a new set of writers, Frank and Doris Hursley, demanded they be first-billed as the writers, which meant Stuart was then "downgraded" to having her name appearing after theirs. Stuart alleges Doris disliked her and openly vowed to destroy Stuart's position on the show. Stuart later had conflict with Ann Marcus, when AM took over the show. Tension with head writers must be a nightmare for the star of a soap. Off topic slightly in a SFT thread, but one weird incident stands out in my head about actors receiving star billing. After Rosemary Prinz left How to Survive a Marriage, the soap obviously dropped her star billing from the opening. For some unfathomable reason, however, in a post-Prinz opening, viewers were suddenly treated to, "How to Survive a Marriage...starring Joan Copeland as Monica Courtland!" I was like, WTF? Copeland's character was definitely a supporting player. If HTSAM wanted a new star to be touted in the opening, it should have been Jennifer Harmon as Chris Kirby, who was the central heroine and definitely the series' leading character. Just as strangely, Copeland's special billing quickly disappeared, but I was always baffled as to why it have ever been given to her in the first place, even once. I don't know if the show used that exterior shot of the Henderson House repeatedly, but it would make sense. They went through the trouble of filming and paying for the footage, so they would want to use it again. I do agree that stuff like this added life to vintage, often barren-looking soaps of the time. And yep: smaller casts of characters with more meaningful conversations is much more captivating than watching hordes of one-dimensional, often unlikeable characters talking about nothing of substance in today's soaps.

Mary Stuart was always listed first among the actors, of course, but I never saw (nor do I recall at this point) ever seeing her receive special star billing.

LOL!