Members jfung79 Posted February 6, 2009 Members Share Posted February 6, 2009 I'm pleasantly surprised, you could still say the same things about what distinguishes each show, for most of the shows. Was there an AW answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dragonflies Posted February 6, 2009 Members Share Posted February 6, 2009 Someone should print this out and sent it to Prass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MichaelGL Posted February 6, 2009 Members Share Posted February 6, 2009 Yeah I wonder that too. Michael Laibson although not the best EP, definitely wasn't a bad one. This sounds like a guy who would use a scene of him smashing a cigar under his shoe as the final scene of a show. This is why Calhoun is one of my all time favorite EP's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members David V Posted February 7, 2009 Members Share Posted February 7, 2009 Some people consider the Laibson/Swajeski years (1988-92) to be a "Second Golden Age" for Another World in terms of storylines and critical acclaim, even though ratings did not reflect that. Valente followed Laibson, IIRC, and Carolyn Culliton was HW in that period. That was before P&G did its big changeovers on all three of its shows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaytimeFan Posted February 7, 2009 Members Share Posted February 7, 2009 I would definitely agree that 88-92 was the "Second Golden Age" of AW...Felicia Alcoholism being the absolute standout in my mind. I also think the cast was just 'right' at this time...Carmen Duncan, who I LOVED as Iris, Anna Stuart back as Donna, Linda Dano as Felicia, Victoria Wyndham as Rachel and Stephen Schnetzer as Cass...among a LOT of other great talent made those years really special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted February 7, 2009 Members Share Posted February 7, 2009 I've never gotten the big deal about Swajeski's AW, when I re-watched it on SoapNet, it was some of the must mundane, run of the mill, and just plainly average soap opera I've EVER seen. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't outstanding either. I know the Laibon/Swajeski years were AW's least chaotic years behind the scenes since the Rauch/Lemay era, but I just don't see what was so good about it. I can watch old episodes from AMC, GL, ATWT, Y&R, etc from the late 80's/early 90's and be more entertained and compelled than anything Swajeski turned out at AW during this same era. I believe Felicia's alcoholism was started by Swajeski and finished by Peggy Sloane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaytimeFan Posted February 7, 2009 Members Share Posted February 7, 2009 You're absolutely right. Felicia's Alcoholism was started by Donna Swajeski and carried through by Peggy Sloane. It's one of my favorite storylines ever in daytime. I really think Linda Dano dug deep to make that storyline come alive. Felicia Gallant was Linda Dano... What you see as mundane, those of us who loved AW see as delightful. AW was a soap opera that didn't aspire to be grand or pioneering, it entertained and amused and sometimes moved its audience. It was the simple things that I felt it always got right. It was like an old friend...I especially liked any of the 'party' scenes that happened over the years...everything was always very well to do and fun, the kinds of parties that New York socialites like Nan Kempner or Pat Buckley actually threw, there was always a sense of whimsy with the show. I also always had the feeling that the cast really liked each other and that the chemistry traveled through onscreen. I think AW was REALLY dependent on its cast. It never had brilliant writing or producing over a sustained period of time like Y&R or AMC or GH did...it had a few great years here and there...but what pulled it through and made it magic was the cast. The late 80s/early 90s AW cast was the best of the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted February 7, 2009 Members Share Posted February 7, 2009 I agree, Dano was the only reason I found myself watching the AW re-runs on SoapNet, she's a fantastic actress, she can make almost ANYTHING watchable. I never thought she got enough respect for her acting. I think what set the P&G soaps apart from the other soaps was the acting. Even when GL, ATWT, and AW were absolutely horrid, they always had a stellar group of actors that could make almost anything watchable. I think the P&G soaps have always had the most nuanced and "real" actors. Of course, the same might not be true today, but I always though the P&G soaps strived much harder to capture a more theatre-esque feeling, which isn't true anymore obviously. The late 80's/early 90's are often considered the last golden age of the P&G soaps, but the thing is, I saw what was so great about Marland's ATWT, and Long and then Curlee's GL, to me AW wasn't on the same level writing-wise. All the P&G soaps suffered from bad behind the scenes choices, however, AW was hit the hardest IMO. SOD once called it "The longest show in transition." Barring the Laibon/Swajeski era, AW seemed to have a new HW or producer almost every year, which of course wasn't a good thing. Of course, NBC probably had a lot to do with this, especially after they went crazy after DAYS skyrocketed in the ratings in the mid 90's, and poor AW didn't follow suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members David V Posted February 7, 2009 Members Share Posted February 7, 2009 Another World wasn't helped by the constant turnover of HWs and EPs during the 80s, even though ratings recovered and stabilised (along with Days), yet the show for most part retained its relatable character-driven focus and the fact the social classes were well-represented realistically. Up to about 1995 when JFP took over, this more or less remained the case- what happened to characters on AW, up to that point, could have happened to anybody anywhere. That's what it was good at doing. What really proved the show's undoing was the fact that under JFP in particular, the show tried to be something it was never meant to be and that hurt it badly. Partly because various soaps at the time, and no doubt pressure from NBC, to try and be more Days-like. P&G has a lot to answer for what happened to its three shows from 1995 onwards, because they have never been able to quite regain the standing they enjoyed in the soap world up to that time. Maybe I'll get more into detail about it some other time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted February 7, 2009 Members Share Posted February 7, 2009 JFP bankrupted AW, didn't she? Not just creatively, but financially. There were parts of the Swajeski years I wasn't thrilled with when I watched on Soapnet. I detested the Stacey/Michael relationship, the self-righteousness of it all. I loved Hillary Edson on Guiding Light, so hating her on AW was not the greatest experience. I was disappointed they didn't develop the electric chemistry between Donna and Jake and instead used their time together to rip Donna's child away from her. I didn't like Frankie and Cass as a couple, so their scenes together always give me mixed emotions. The actors are wonderful but nothing compared to what she was in scenes with Ryan or what he was with Kathleen. Swajeski wasn't very good at keeping her biases out of her writing. I think Anna Stuart even said once she went to Laibson and complained about what Swajeski was doing to her character. I know Anne Heche ate the show at the time but I love her work as Vicky so much, this is what I most enjoyed about the Swajeski years. Anne Heche was simply amazing with Charles Grant (Vicky/Evan) and I think she had more chemistry with Paul Michael Valley than Jensen Buchanan did. Anne had chemistry with nearly everyone and had such a fearless acting style. I also liked seeing how Iris was continually haunted by her last memories of Mac, and how Rachel and Iris slowly formed some sort of bond. And Sharlene, who I loved to bits. What made AW stand out for me was the large amount of flawed yet sympathetic characters in every storyline. There were very few "good" or "evil" characters. The "good" characters they did have, like Sharlene or Ryan, were not sanctimonious goodie-goodies, and the "bad" characters usually had understandable motivations even if they went about things in the wrong way. I think when AW got away from this complexity, and away from the friendships and the history of multiple generations, the show was lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members David V Posted February 8, 2009 Members Share Posted February 8, 2009 Can't believe it's been 10 years this year since Another World and Sunset Beach were both cancelled. IMBHO, AW's cancellation was a pivotal moment in Daytime, in hindsight. I think hindsight has proven that the state of the genre grew far worse after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Paul Raven Posted February 8, 2009 Author Members Share Posted February 8, 2009 Some cancelled shows Loving Joe Stuart Exec Producer,Barbara Duggan Associate Producer "Since the inception of Loving almost 5 years ago,our show has consistently been better than ratings would indicate.If you think this is asour grapes statement,we suggest you take a look at Loving and decide for youself." Another World Meg Beliveau Associate Producer "Even in the early days of AW,class structure was an essential part of the show.There were always the blue collar families,the upper middle class and the very wealthy.It's still that way.although romance has always been the primary focus,AW is a drama that focuses on relationships-not only romantic relationships,but friendships,multi-generational relationships and families.We see kids repeating their parents mistakes and the effect it has on their parents when they recognise their own patterns in their children.another recurring theme is the struggle of the person from the wrong side of the tracks who wants wealth and social standing.Having pivotal characters like Mac and Rachel on the show gives the show great continuity.I also think it's important that Rachel and other characters have been able to grow and develop.many soap characters don't get the chance to mature,and I think our characters do.AW has always had glamour,humor and an awareness of social problems.Those have been strong threads throughout the years.we also have very loyal fans. Santa Barbara Len Friedlander Producer "I think it's the show's humor.we don't take ourselves too seriously.and our production values-the sets and the overall lighting-are extraordinary.we have a sense of the absurdity that is different from the others.We have a really great cast and production crew,inventive directors and terrific writers.I really like the show." Knots Landing David Jacobs Exec Producer "It's about you and me,ordinary people-however,in extraordinary circumstances." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted February 8, 2009 Members Share Posted February 8, 2009 That's so sad, they were so pummeled for their ratings woes that their only statement was, "Please watch even though we have bad ratings." Maybe they were just in the wrong era of soaps. Today they'd be better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted February 9, 2009 Members Share Posted February 9, 2009 I always wondered what the hell happened to Joseph Stuart after Loving, did he retire or has he passed on? IMO, he's one of the most underrated soap opera EP's ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.