Jump to content

Texas! Discussion Thread


Chris B

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 580
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Well, there's plenty we disagree about but it really doesn't matter. The thing is I am under the impression that they did not know what they were doing at TEXAS. Maybe that is an incorrect impression but I really don't think it is. If they'd had good sense on how to best use Beverlee things might have been so different. I know hindsight is hardly fair. I'm sure they tried their best. I always come back to wondering what if they'd stuck with their original idea. It always seemed a helluva lot more interesting that Daytime's version of The Ewings on a big ass ranch, if you know what I mean & I'm sure you do.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)

I agree!  Granted, I didn't watch back then, but what I've read - Rachel had gone blind AND had lost her memory by the mid-'80's? - doesn't sound all that great to me.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No way would AW send Rachel to a spinoff. She and Mac were all that remained of the glory days. Fans would be furious if Rachel left Mac and headed off to a new show.

The only reason Bev went to Texas was her decision to leave AW. So they offered her $$$ and a shorter contract to star in the new show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You're right, although AW kept Rachel and Mac apart for almost all of Texas! lifespan anyway. But Rachel moving to a new show entirely would have been much starker. I do think it could have been interesting...and maybe this would have been the time to bring back Pammy and Gerald. 

(sorry, I know this is all more suited to the AW thread now)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)

Well, they came close.  Rachel was blind three different times, the first time in 1978 at the end of the Sven plot. And then two more times during the 1980s.  She also had amnesia in the mid-1980s. And she did have a near-death experience during AW's 25th anniversary week in 1989.  I believe Iris was in Bay City to witness only the first and the last of these ailments.   

Edited by Tisy-Lish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)

Each time Rachel was blind, did she ever mention in dialogue that she had been blind before?  Or was each occurrence of her blindness treated as totally new?  I realize each occurrence had a completely different cause, but still she should have mentioned being blind previously.  Even if it was just a throw away line.  Does anyone remember?  And did any of these cases of blindness take place while Iris and Dennis were in Texas?  It would have been fun to see Iris's eye-roll, as Rachel goes blind for the second and third time.  LOL.  

Edited by Tisy-Lish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's not exactly my impression of how it happened. They had it in their heads that they needed Iris long before they actually talked to Beverlee about it. By that time VW had suggested to her that she play hardball with them in regards to a new contract, which she did & is the reason she got so much money & also the star billing. Since they wanted her more than she wanted them, she had a distinct advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I remember Rachel was blind (after the car crash that killed Steve?)when Mac pretended to be Reginald Fearing,but what were the circumstances of the 3rd time she was blinded?

At some point, soaps stopped using the blind/paralysis stories, when disability awareness grew. Same with rape as a plot device.

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