Jump to content

Another World Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I think the GH model really only worked for Santa Barbara, Days, and somewhat OLTL. The bizarre, over the top, adventure, borderline sci-fi storytelling did not work for the other shows. 

 

It just saddening that majority of the soaps (with the exception of Y&R and AMC) lost their identities in the early 80s. ATWT reclaimed their's upon Marland's return and it worked heavily in their favor. 

 

What made this genre so special was that while the model was the same, each show had different elements that made it unique from the next. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 13.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

 

I must strenuously disagree about DAYS and OLTL. The wretched sci-fi/fantasy plots did not work for them either, IMHO. Such material may have engendered attention from the press, and even resulted in temporary ratings boosts, but in the long run all the traditional shows were severely crippled by the nonsense. Even GH couldn't sustain the sci-fi camp model, and (IMHO) only survived because Wendy Riche and Claire Labine were miracle workers who salvaged the carcass and returned GH to its traditional roots.

 

As soon as the Ice Princess/Freezing the World dreck began, I knew it would ignite a negative trend on daytime TV and ultimately destroy the genre, and alas...it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Unfortunately, TIIC never learn. They continue to make the same bone-headed mistakes over and over again, year after year...or decade after decade. 

 

Daytime TV needs a massive transfusion of fresh blood; creative, energetic PTB with vision, who understand that characterization and relatable human emotion are the foundation of successful serialized storytelling.

 

Of course, at this point, it appears to be too late. The soap opera genre as we know it is on life support, slowly-but-relentlessly butchered by those who understood neither soaps nor their core audience.

Please register in order to view this content

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Variety is reporting that Procter & Gamble wants in to the streaming business, and has contracted with a production company to "launch a long-form scripted series aimed at boosting themes of gender equality, diversity and inclusion."

 

I can think of a format that would be perfect for that.

 

Anyway, if this is successful -- and the production company says "we're planning to do many of these" shows with P&G -- could streaming of the P&G soap library finally be on the horizon?

 

https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/procter-gamble-streaming-video-stone-village-1203483777/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Let's hope. Those are buzzwords, but when P&G tried, they did manage to showcase diversity and inclusion in a way that didn't feel heavy-handed. I wish that could happen now, because we really need it. And yes, I wish we could get those episodes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

As far as anyone knows, that material no longer exists in the P&G video archives. The company routinely wiped/erased all their soap episodes up until the late 1970s.

 

In an interview back in 1974, Jacqueline Courtney (Alice) mentioned that she had had kinescopes made of her most important episodes of AW, and I imagine that the engagement party "reveal" would have been a highlight that she wanted to keep. We have no idea for sure, however, and with Courtney's passing, the existence of any kinescopes she had ever had remains in question.

 

Several years ago, AUDIO-ONLY clips of that episode surfaced and were put out on CD by Eddie Drueding, who runs the AW Fan Page. I'm afraid that is all we are going to get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

AWHP estimates that P&G didn't start saving the tapes until about October 1979, however on Eddie Drueding's YT page there are some audio clips of that famous scene, plus the scene in which Jim tells Mary about what Rachel did and Mary flips out.

Edited by AbcNbc247
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

UCLA Film and TV Archive lists as having several pre-wiping period episodes in their archives along with episodes of ATWT. They are listed as not available for public viewing. I assume they do not have the equipment to play those old quad tapes or it's just an excuse to not have to bother with them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Are those on quad tapes or on kinescope/33 mm film? I remember that UCLA also has episodes of "The Guiding Light" and "Edge of Night" also in their archives, but I believe those are listed as 33 mm film. Which, (unfortunately) unless those tapes have been transferred, has likely degraded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I was watching the series "live" back then, and the scene in which Mary found out about Rachel's treachery--and then went berserk--was chilling. Her rage was explosive, and if Rachel had walked into the room at that moment, blood would have been shed. Virginia Dwyer really knocked that scene out of the park.

 

The stupidity of keeping ancient material in storage, but never bothering to transfer it over to a format that can be saved and viewed, boggles my mind. Why even hang onto vintage episodes if you KNOW they are just rotting away in the basement? Either do everything you can to upgrade and save them, or auction the episodes off to fans who WILL do the work to save them from disintegrating.

 

UGH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Virginia Dwyer is one of the AW actors where I wish more of her work was available to see. From what I've seen and heard, she seemed like a really good actress who likely got a raw deal from Rauch and Lemay. I've always wondered how much of it was her and how much of it was Lemay just not liking her and not liking the fact that she wasn't going to adhere to his style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I am a huge Lemay fan, but I think his treatment of Dwyer was uncalled for and should have been stopped by Rauch.  Lemay wanted to change Mary's personality and make her a meddling troublemaker (similar to Liz Matthews).  Dwyer, knowing the character's history and position on the show, resisted that.  Although she did play it in some situations -- particularly in Mary's growing dislike for Steve Frame.   In Lemay's early years, Dwyer got a huge amount of screen time playing the traditional matriarch. But by late-1973 Lemay had begun minimizing Dwyer's appearances, often having other characters explain that Mary was "out of town." This happened dozens of times, and sometimes it was obvious her lines had been given to other characters (such as Aunt Liz, Jim, and even Ada). Dwyer even had a rather minimized role in the show's 10th anniversary episode, and was not included in the cast photo from that episode.  As he explains in his book, he brought Liz Matthews back to the show in 1974 (now played by Irene Dailey), and when the actress was successful in the role, he decided to kill-off Mary.  Daily was playing Liz exactly the way he had wanted Dwyer to play Mary. So now, he felt Mary was an unnecessary character.  

 

Virginia Dwyer was a very good actress, and she was essentially AW's leading-lady.  Of course the female romantic lead (in the mid-70s) was Jacquie Courtney.  Killing-off Mary allowed the show to completely shift it's focus (even if unintentionally).  Had Dwyer not been fired, she could have easily played Mary until the show's cancellation.  And I'm sure Mary's presence would have, to some degree, prevented the near complete erosion of the Matthews family from the show.  I'm sure AW would have still evolved and changed focus in the 1980s, and the importance of the Matthews family might have somewhat diminished.  But they would still have been a larger part of the show until the end.  Just as the Hughes on ATWT, the Martins on AMC, and the Hortons on DOOL.  

Edited by Neil Johnson
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

    • On the subject of sets (seems more interesting to discuss than the actual show)  Some sets we don't see anymore Lauren/Michael apartment (haven't seen that in years) Victoria's house (are Marian/Tessa living there?) Apartment above Crimson Lights (I think Chelsea was the last resident) Penthouse (Lily's home) Chancellor Estate (Devon/Abby) Chancellor office (once Dark Horse) Nick's house GCAC room (used as residence/hotel room for several characters) Some of these may pop up again. The tack house,for example, was not seen for many months before being used again. Have I missed anything?
    • Thanks for searching through everything. Worked on them so long, just too lazy to check for those links myself, so I am glad you chose to do it! I guess I never did type out anything for 1973-1977 in regards to the preemptions, but they are on the charts at least (and this far back, they don't seem to do any of those "breakouts" anymore, so things are simpler in the 1970's, so eventually I could type those out). 
    • I dump on the Y&R sets problem all the time, but BOLD is no better -- and they're not even introducing new sets. All of their sets are years old, and very few look like they're inhabited by people with money. Is that going to change with this move? I'd rather they save the money spent on another remote, which is no better than an HGTV travelogue, and get some new/better sets.
    • The donut posts here make up for a Friday show that was barely meh. Aside from seeing Anna, I really didn't care much about anything else. While I understand the thought behind breaking up all the sadness with "other scenes," I'd rather they moved right to John's funeral. Instead of hearing a stupid story about John changing some minor character's tire 20 years ago, just move on to the crying. I also thought the Chad and Cat scenes were a waste. I realize not everyone is devastated by John's death to the point of not functioning, but going sky diving is a choice. By the way, Jack and Jennifer are giving me nothing on this return. Please leave asap. DAYS did such a great job with John's death, so ending the week this way was a letdown.
    • Add Dr. Montgomery to list of fine women on this show! I hope the show goes forward with Madison/Chelsea and then once they're developed, bring back Allison, who is now divorced or a widow, for a Madison/Chelsea/Allison triangle.  It would definitely be the hottest triangle in daytime.  
    • I wonder if Linda Bloodworth-Thomason had Kim in mind for any of her other characters/series. If they intended Allison Sugarbaker (Julia Duffy's character) to be more in line with who Suzanne was/Delta Burke's portrayal-persona, then I think Kim would have aced that. Yes, it would have been odd, Kim having previously played a different character (from a different family), but Designing Women wouldn't have been the first show with that issue. Or maybe Kim could have played Beth Broderick's role on Hearts Afire. Or Patricia Heaton's role on Women of the House.
    • Sony is probably waiting until Y&R’s lease is up as well. All of TV City is going to be gutted, so they have to relocate at some point. 
    • At this point Y&R's next step is to go fully green screen and have the actors Zoom from home.
    • I was just taking about this in the Y&R thread - they desperately need better studio space. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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