Jump to content

Texas! Discussion Thread


Chris B

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I agree Donald May should have been Alex and Kin Shriner should have been Ryan. Throw him into the mix from the start. Ryan and Ginny could have still have been paired. Having three top leads, Beverlee, Donald, and Kin, in story together could have pulled in more interest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 580
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members
Posted (edited)

Another context variable that seems to have been ignored in our discussion thus far, is that this was 1980, during the height of Luke and Laura. 

I just looked it up.  Texas premiered on August 4th, 1980.  August 6th, 1980, Luke and Laura danced at Wyndham's Department Store.  Which then meant that their first November sweeps period was dominated by the L&L wedding, which was (arguably?) the highest rated episode in daytime history.

I don't care how cute Donald May was at the time.  Nobody was going to compete against Luke and Laura by focusing on the past loves of Iris Cory.  It did not matter if they weren't in direct competition, the youth were driven to ABC that summer.

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, I think TPTB probably believed it would be impossible to create a soap opera where the star was an antagonist. How do you make such a mean neurotic woman the center of the show?  Perhaps a decade later, they would have tried that, and it might have worked.  But in 1980, they probably thought that would be impossible.  And they may have been right.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

How good did they try to make Iris? My memories of Texas don't go much beyond the fact that it existed and Iris and Dennis were there, but I had a vague idea that although Iris didn't have Daddy to obsess over and Rachel to spite, she possibly interfered in Dennis' love life. Was Iris completely toothless in Texas?

Of course part of the transformation of Rachel from villain to heroine was the introduction of Iris -- did heroine Iris not have any antagonist to plague her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Erica was not the star of AMC at the beginning.  Plus Erica was never as mean and dangerous as Iris.  

Lisa was also never as mean (or as effectively mean) as Iris. By the time Liza became wealthy, she had mellowed considerably. 

And Rachel had reformed before she became the lead at AW.

I think the question TPTB were dealing with at Texas was, how do we build an entire new show around such an antagonistic character?  And is that even possible or advisable??  And they decided against doing that.  I've always believed that was the reason they turned Iris into a heroine.  Otherwise, why not just let her remain neurotic and deceitful?  I can't think of another reason they would have changed Iris so much.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The L&L wedding was in November 1981 - if you meant the first Texas sweeps when the show was on the air a full year, my apologies. 

I think the best way to compete with GH would have been trying not to compete with them and doing their own thing. GL did manage to compete with GH, but that was with the headwriter who had helped build GH's comeback. 

There just wasn't any reason for Texas! to exist, at least the way it was put together. I do not believe 60 minute soap debuts are a good idea, it was clear strong plans weren't in place, and this was the worst time to try to spin off AW. If they were going to spin off AW, then some of the suggestions of characters like Pat, or other Matthews family members who weren't on the canvas at the time, might have made more sense to me, but even then, I don't know.

I guess they were too early on the train to realize that trying to imitate Dallas was also not going to work. The only successful daytime attempts (or primetime attempts for that matter) were fusing OLTL and GL with Ewing offshoots.

Of course, GL would go on to inherit so much of Texas' spirit, minus Carla Borelli (I wonder if she ever regretted that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)

Is it wrong to say Iris was "toothless" on TEXAS?  Maybe.  As a character, however, Iris was about one thing: her obsessive love for her father, and her jealousy over her new stepmother's place in his life.  Everything Iris did on AW was motivated by that obsession.  Take that away from her, and what is she?

I agree.  Furthermore, P&G and NBCD had spun off AW at least once before, and the results were mixed to say the least.  What convinced them and Paul Rauch that the second attempt would be more successful?

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)

I think so, too.  Just as I think expanding TD to sixty minutes was worth a try in order to save the show.  If P&G and NBCD really wanted to spin off AW again, then they should've used Victoria Wyndham/Rachel.  Maybe create a new, half-hour serial that followed her to a new town after her and Mac's marriage blew up over Janice or something.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They eventually remedied that by Iris transferring that obsessive love over onto her son Dennis and her initial disapproval over his relationship with Dawn.  So she has Dawn's older sister Paige help her break them up, then Paige turns around and marries Dennis.   Thus Iris becomes the mother in law from hell.

She kind of reverts back to the nicer Iris as she leaves the soap.. even briefly helping her nieces Lacey and Brette before she moves to New York to run the Alex Wheeler foundation.

Ironically, the show found it's footing creatively once Iris/Dennis/Elliot leave the soap.. but the viewers didn't want to stick around with Iris gone so the ratings dipped drastically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's a good idea. AW would have been hurt without Rachel but at least she could have carried a soap (and the show doesn't really know what to do with Rachel in the early '80s anyway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've often wondered what if Blaine had been spun off into her own storyline? Given that, she was more naturally associated with western culture.

Picture this: she’s just been exonerated of murder, ready for a clean slate. She and Sandy decide to leave their troubles behind and relocate to Houston, where they buy a local TV station.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I watched an hour's worth of scenes with Lisby Larsen and Beverlee McKinsey fighting and it was riveting. I wanted more. They were excellent sparring partners. I don't know if Larsen was on AW before Texas or what happened after MCKinsey left, but I would have tuned in every day just to see these two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    •   Like I said I wasn’t talking about characterization. It makes sense that Dani is in denial. However literally no one in the real world would accuse someone of faking a pregnancy. Why? Because it’s just not feasible. What is Dani supposed to expect from Hayley—that she’ll be hiding a pillow under her shirt 24/7? Come on. The accusation has no legs, and that’s exactly why nobody would ever go there. A far more plausible accusation—one that actually has been made for centuries—is that someone might lie about who the father is. Dani only vaguely hinted at that, but at least that angle would make some narrative sense. I’d go for a coworking space that would be home to these small businesses like Kat and Chelsea’s bag startup (the whole police station trope feels like copaganda to me)
    • I guess RTPP looked worse because it followed Another World, but it's a shame they didn't give it more time especially considering how the shows that were put on following it fared.
    • Please register in order to view this content

    • Durkin was awful. The writing did her no favors, but she was all wrong for the part, lacking the mix of mystery, steeliness, sorrow and hesitancy that defined Victoria. I still have the awful memory of Adam lugging her around like a rag doll. She looked much more like one of the Blue Whale dancing extras than Victoria. And her voice... Maybe I am too harsh. With that said, Curtis didn't seem as bothered. I see from a fan review mentioning Barnabas & Company that Durkin was asked to return for Victoria's final episodes and declined as she had a Christmas trip to Europe with her husband planned and wasn't interested in just a few appearances.  I refuse to believe Victoria actually died during the Leviathan storyline. If Barnabas and Angelique could come back 8 times, she could come back a few.
    • It's a shame she only appeared in three episodes for the purpose of being written out - I thought she was quite good in the little we saw. I liked her vibe better than Durkin that never seemed to quite capture Victoria as a character.
    • He did a lot of romance novel covers, so that might've just been enough for them to get their panties in a twist.
    • Pre-TGIF, ABC most successful 1980s Friday 8 pm comedy I'd say was Webster. Full House wasn't a hit its first two seasons but it started showing growth in its third season which overlapped with the launch of TGIF. Funny thing is, Full House became a Top 10 show with the 1991/92 move to Tuesday.
    • Oakland Tribune, 14 July 1985   AW is another show with Schenkel at helm By Connie Passalacqua For the most part, dictators of South American banana republics enjoy better reputations than executive producers of daytime soap operas. Total authority is vested in these producers, who can kill off a character (thus firing an actor) with a stroke of a pen, or completely change life in his or her soap opera dominion (both in its fictional locale and backstage at the studio) on any kind of whim.  Most rule despotically, inspiring fear in their actors and writers. Which inevitably surfaces on the screen and subtracts from a show's quality. Then there's Stephen Schenkel who became executive producer of Another World last fall. He's been described by one of his actresses as "a teddy bear." He has noticeably improved the show, mostly because his natural warmth encourages backstage cohesiveness, and he believes in personally nurturing his staff and cast. 'I like to be supportive', he said.' I like to generate a certain amount of enthusiasm. I love actors and writers and technical people. And I like to laugh..  ' Schenkel said that most of the factors that have led to the shows improved ratings existed before he took over. There were well defined characters, outstanding writers and excellent production values, he explains. 'These things were in place but needed to be stimulated. There wasn't a lot of excitement. What really was missing was an adequate story. We added Gillian Spencer as a writer. (she also plays Daisy on All My Children), who's wonderful, and it just coalesced. The writers energy and commitment to the show began to give it an emotional intensity and some real passion within the characters." Schenkel, a former ABC programming executive who helped develop Ryan's Hope, is a strong believer in stressing romantic and comedy elements in soap operas. AW is also one of the only soaps with an established group of comic characters, including Wallingford (Brent Collins) and Lily Mason (Jackee , Harry). Schenkel raves about the talents of all his actors, and even has something good to say about the Brooklyn location of the shows studio, which most of his Manhattan-oriented staff loathe. I like the people here. I like to walk down the street and feel their energies, he said. He also violateda soap opera no-no, ' inviting actors and writers to the same party. "Everyone got to know one another, he said. And I didn't get any complaints about actors ' begging for story lines, he said. 
    • Since it's pride month.

      Please register in order to view this content

         
    • National City Star-News, 5 May 1977 TV topics by Peter Blazi Lear’s ‘All that Glitters’—doesn’t The best thing that can be said about Norman Lear’s newest soap opera“All That Glitters” is that it comes on so late at night most people will miss it. Role reversal is supposed to be the big draw, with women the breadwinners, mainly executives of a huge conglomerate. The men either fuss with the housework or fidget at the office as secretaries to their bawdy bosses. A female fantasyland? I doubt it. While the role reversal idea has some possibilities, the show pushes too hard for laughs and winds up with raucous females and effete males. A confident, independent woman is indeed a sight to behold and attract, but femininity need not be sacrificed. Unlike Lear’s “Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman,” "Glitters” doesn’t, but you’ve got to give him credit for trying. Today’s experimental comedy is what tomorrow’s hits are made of. Better luck next time, Norman. (“All That Glitters” can be seen weekday evenings at 11 p.m. on Channel 6.) .
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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