Jump to content

Harding Lemay's soap Lovers and Friends


Recommended Posts

  • Members
Posted

Because Harding Lemay's style and era at Another World fascinates me so much I've alwasy been curious about the shortlived soap that he and Rauch created in 1977 for NBC, Lovers and Friends. I've read a synopsis of its 4 or so months on the air and it sounds fascinating--but as usual NBC was trigger ready and they cut it to revampit as a much safer soap, without Lemay, For Richer and Poorer the following Dec where it ran slightly longer.

have ANY episodes of either been saved ANYWHERE?

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members
Posted

I have never seen synopses of Lovers and Friends online.

The Soap Opera History site (now defunct unfortunately)did have synopses of For Richer For Poorer.

It would be great if this post could be used to share info on these shows,as it is pretty scarce.

Eric,what makes you sat FRFP was'safer' than L&F ?

Here's some comments made by Lemay regarding Paul Rauch and L&F

We were partners, particularly at that period. We created a soap opera together, LOVERS AND FRIENDS. That lasted a year or two. It was too much. I found it interesting to be working on one soap and to be able to switch my mind completely into a whole other set of characters. We had wonderful actors like Nancy Marchand and Richard Backus. It didn't work because I didn't have the energy to fight for what I wanted to do and they changed a whole lot of things. After the first six months I didn't write it anymore. I just collected the royalties.

  • Members
Posted

OK, I'm officially intrigued now. Was L&F written in the same high melodrama style that characterized AW? Because I *love* that sort of soap.

  • Members
Posted

Don't think I ever watched either one, but I vaguely recall an introduction of two characters on AW, through Rachel. It was a young couple, the male was an artist like Rachel, that's how she knew him. Afterward there was a typical 'couple' scene where they argue about money, family, etc, and then kiss and make up at the end.

Around that time my sister and her friends were convinced Rachel would be leaving AW to join the other show.

  • Members
Posted

Well if there's any interest I could type out what I have--it's from LaGuardia's The WOnderful WOrld of TV Soap Operas, 1977 revised (and final) edition, which came out late 1977 so I assume basically covers all of Lovers and Friends (and none of FOr Richer and Poorer). I doubt there are really any other published synopsises, it was just lucky enough to not have been canceled when the book came out. It's several pages but, like I said, I'd be happy to type it a bit every day or something :P

Cat--in fact technically the style Lemay wrote in for AW was called Drawing Room (based on drawing room theatre) and NOT melodrama. He always went out of his way to avoid melodrama cliches--amnesia, sudden coincidences, court cases, etc, and instead tried to bse every action from sound normal, not pathological, psychology. I think this is still waht you mean though because I sorta use melodrama to describe that too even if it's technically incorrect.

And yes Lovers and Friends was written int hat style from everything I rad--thatwas a prob, when NBC canceled it after 5 months, they never gave it time to sit with its audience and Lemay was busy setting up the complex backstories, etc, to all hsi characters that would set up the story--I think it was a slow start for sure.

Rachel didn't get involved, from AW, until For Richer and Poorer revamp (when some characters were reacast, hero Rhett was renamed Bill, etc). For that revamp characters were introduced on AW, and Rachel and Mac came to Richer and Poorer a number of times in its half year run. Lemay remained as consultant for it but wasn't allowed to HW, TOm King from AW's staff (who later HW) was headwriter and Richer and Poorer purposefully made everyhting much more soap--it opened with a wedding where Bill's ex girlfriend revealed she was pregnant, had amnesia, verything, shoved into it to try to pick up viewers.

Because it was from the late 70s I keep hoping SOME sort of visual record exists for this, would love to see it and like I said I think the Lovers and Friends set up and plot synopsis are *flawless*, exactly the kinda soap I'd be gagging to watch.

  • Members
Posted

Eric, if it is photocopy-able, you could scan it and use optical character recognition (no need to type).

On another note, if it was late 70s, was SOD around then? There might be something in the archives...

  • Members
Posted

You know I have a scanner on my new printer and have NEVER tried to use it or even know how it works!

yeah it was Jan-May 1977 (Richer and Poorer was Dec 77 to Sep 78 or so I think...) There are decent but very short desctiptions of all in Schemering's 1987 Encyclopedia of Soaps and Waggert's 1997 one.

E

  • Members
Posted

Well I'm truly a computer illiterate. My brother said he can help me scan it tonight so fingers crossed--it's actually only 5 pages but VERY dense and would take me a long time to type (and filled with my classic typos...)

I knwo at least one color ep of Richer and Poorer exists as wost has the opening

  • Members
Posted

Lovers and Friends played at 12.30 on NBC.

It replaced The Gong Show.NBC had never had a soap run in that timeslot.The competition was Search for Tomorrow on CBS which had held that slot since it's debut in 1951 and All My Children,which had moved to that time when it expanded to 60 min in 75.

Name That Tune debuted the same day as the L&F lead-in.

Somerset had gone off the air the previous Friday.The Gong Show moved to Somerset's 4.00 pm slot.

I wonder if L&F would have performed better at 4:00,following AW and up against EON and Tattletales on CBS?

  • Members
Posted

Oh :( well I read that it was their replacement for Somerset. Maybe they meant in terms of number of soaps not necesarily timeslot I do suspect it woulda had more of a chance following immediately AW especially since it was written so similarly--and it woulda appealed to a diff audience than EON or Tattletales but maybe less so SFT and AMC

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • Maree Cheatham     pg. 403

      Please register in order to view this content

            MATLOCK Sister Peggy (1) 2025   Ray Wise    pg. 428 movie THE WOLF IN THE WELL    Roland Carmel    2024 THE NAPA BOYS    Officer Toland   2025   PodCast HAVOC TOWN      Josiah Abbess       2025    
    • Vernon is an idiot. Why would he have Sharon in the same hotel that Leslie is staying at?
    • Yes, that out of the blue return was odd. Maybe GG found a forgotten clause in the contract he signed when he was wooed to ABC and they were forced to take him back! Like George Reinholt he talked about the contract that promised him primetime roles. But it was loaded in the networks favor. I think it was Gloria Loring that re-signed at Days on the promise of primetime opportunities, but that was all it was- she was put up for guest spots and TV movies but not necessarily guaranteed that she get the role.
    • I still am baffled by why Monty brought back stunt hire Gerald Gordon in the early '80s out of nowhere for like a year. I haven't found anyone who can come up with a thing he did in that second stint of note.
    • It's interesting to watch this having watched The Doctors. I'm not sure I'm seeing that much of a difference in the characters Gerald Gordon and Anna Stuart played on The Doctors and what they're playing here.
    • I keep forgetting a huge chunk of that year was written by scabs. You're probably right, because by the time the strike was over, they were likely planning an exit for Alan's character as it must have been obvious by then that Bernau was not going to return. If he was still there, it's also doubtful they would have approached MZ and MG about coming back. Wild.
    • And to think the original plan was for David and Lesley to have an affair.  Not only would that have made no sense - Lesley wasn't THAT stupid, lol - but it also would've ruined her and GH.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Week ending March 5 1978 Second season shows are tested CBS finishes first week in March with stronger than usual 1 9.5, but not enough to beat ABC The prime -time ratings pattern continued to hold steady for the week ended March 5, and attention increasingly turns to second season entries as the networks probe one another's weaknesses or cover their own. As usual, ABC -TV won the week, scoring a 20.5 average rating. But CBS -TV was closer than usual with a 19.5 average garnered with the help of several strong specials and movies in addition to some of its dependable series regulars. NBC followed its habit of plummeting when its "évent "entries failed. In this case it was the miniseries, Loose Change, which scored only 24 and 22 shares on Monday and Tuesday, leaving the network with a 16.9 average rating for the week. Looking at new series and new time slots, ABC's Six Million Dollar Man on Monday (8 -9 p.m. NYT) continued to falter with a 22 share, while What's Happening, in its new slot on Saturday (8 -9 p.m.), also remained shaky with a 23 share. Starsky and Hutch is still healthy with a 38 share in its new slot following Charlie's Angels on Wednesday, and How the West Was Won also had a 38 on Sunday (8 -9 p.m.). Against West CBS's Rhoda and On Our Own came in poorly for the second week in a row of face to face competition, with each pulling 25 shares after a 41 share lead in from 60 Minutes. ABC's special two -hour presentation of the upcoming series tryout, Having Babies, scored a 27 share on Friday (9 -11 p.m.) against strong competition from both the other networks (the movie "Ski Lift to Death" on CBS and Rockford Files and Quincy on NBC). For CBS, its new Monday night leadoffs, Good Times and Baby I'm Back, scored so -so 27 and 28 shares respectively. But the second half of the night had its best performance since the new line -up came in- M *A*S *Hwith a 45, One Day at a Time with a 41 and Lou Grant with a 36. Celebrity Challenge of the Sexes and Shields and Yarnell showed no signs of reviving on Tuesday, with 16 shares each, but the new Tuesday movie slot held up with a 41 share from Clint Eastwood's "Magnum Force." The network's entire Saturday line up continued to limp in, as Bob Newhart Tony Randall, The Jeffersons, Maude and Kojak all scored sub 30 shares (with the exception of Newhart's 29, in fact, all scored sub -25 shares). NBC premiered its new Chuck Barris Rah Rah Show on Tuesday (8 -9 p.m.),when it pulled a 24 share. The second episode of Quark had a 27, three points down from its premiere. There might be the temptation to conclude that the 29 share turned in by the National Love, Sex and Marriage Test on Sunday (9:30 -10 p.m.) proves the appetite for "sophisticated" subject matter is not insatiable after all, except that its competition was not only CBS's strong comedy block but also ABC's rerun of "The Way We Were," which pulled a 35 share. Of NBC's other midseason entries -CPO Sharkey, Black Sheep Squadron, James at 16 and Class of '65 -CPO Sharkey turned in the highest score of the week, a 27.   *NBC were in dire straits at this point relying on movies and specials which could hit or bomb in equal measure.  Fred Silverman had his work cut out for him when he arrived that Summer. He favored sitcoms and series as the schedule's foundation and NBC had no sitcoms to build on and few solid series. He also had a big backlog of specials/mini series that had been committed to air. Also NBC had a long standing relationship with Universal so he was forced to work with that studio. He struggled to get quality producers on board as they were either tied into deals with ABC/CBS or were wary of having their shows on the 3rd rated network. He still felt variety had a place on the schedule however and that lead to duds like Susan Anton, The Big Show and Pink Lady and Jeff.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy