In honor of AW's 45th anniversary,I thought I'd start this thread and perhaps all future posts concerning this show could be in one place.at present there are several threads.

Here's a description from Irna Phillips at the time of debut.

"What I want to say is that none of us can face reality 24 hours a day. We must have private 'worlds', made up of our down dreams and pleasures and emotions, into which to retreat. Otherwise, it would be simply too much!"

The story follows the lives of the families of two brothers, William and James Matthews, in a suburban university town. It opens with the death of William, then shows how the sad events affects the widow and their children and the other brother and his family. Grandma Matthews gets into the action, to. The writer promises to relate to contemporary problems; two of them she mentioned are school dropouts and illegitimacy.

15 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

I think it was Brown that also brought back Marianne Randolph.

Marianne was re-introduced under King and Soderberg. Browne wrote her miscarriage storyline.

Happy 56th Anniversary Another World.  Another World debuted today  on May 4, 1964!

Edited May 4, 20205 yr by watson71

I still can't believe it's been 21 years. Doesn't seem possible AW that is not still on the air. 

Is that Christine Jones in the middle? Who is behind her? 

I'm not sure, but I THINK that's Paul Tulley (ex-Dr. Larry Wolek #1, OLTL; ex-Creepy Edward, Y&R).  He played Scott Bradley.

47 minutes ago, Khan said:

I'm not sure, but I THINK that's Paul Tulley (ex-Dr. Larry Wolek #1, OLTL; ex-Creepy Edward, Y&R).  He played Scott Bradley.

 

Yes, it's Paul Tulley.  It's strange Tulley is in this photo, because Scott Bradley was a minor character, and all the other actors were in major roles.  Janice being the least, but she was important during this short time.  Plus, all the other actors are closely connected to Mac and Rachel.  Again, Scott was not really.  He was an attorney for Cory Publishing, but he was more personally connected to Alice Frame, than to Rachel and Mac.   

Thanks. Weird. 

Great new updates have just been posted on AWHP

23 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:

Great new updates have just been posted on AWHP

 

Where are the updates?  I just checked, and the last update I see on the list is March 25, 2020.   

14 minutes ago, Neil Johnson said:

 

Where are the updates?  I just checked, and the last update I see on the list is March 25, 2020.   

I could not see them either then I refreshed the update page.  

17 minutes ago, Neil Johnson said:

 

Where are the updates?  I just checked, and the last update I see on the list is March 25, 2020.   

It's listed under Special Updates (Anniversary Updates). You might need to refresh the page too. 

On 5/3/2020 at 10:01 AM, watson71 said:

 

Interesting that Rauch would even entertain talking to Reinholt in 1981.  His dislike of Courtney  continued well into the 90s- remember when he made a disparaging comment about her in the soap press and she responded in a letter to the editor to tell her version of the story to set the record straight.

I always thought it was kind of the opposite or my take on Harding Lemays version in 8 years in AW.  I thought Lemay stated Rauch wanted Reinholt off the show and H Lemay did not like J Courtneys acting and Rauch decided to recast her?

On 5/2/2020 at 10:19 PM, Soaplovers said:

 

The 1st Alice recast in 1981 was pretty good but was replaced by someone insipid later that year.

Vana Tribby was the 3rd recast of Alice.  Susan Harney (the first and most succesful and liked), Wesley Ann Pfenning was the 2nd and only lasted a few months.  Nothing wrong with the actress but it was a weird re-cast as personality, looks and Alice in general turned in a flop and she was only on the show for about 5 months.  Vana Tribby I thought seemed like a reasonable recast for Alice but she also did not even last a year.  Linda Borgorsen was the 4th recast and I thought she was so dull and a bad actress

On 5/3/2020 at 8:17 AM, watson71 said:

 

This is so true- this triangle was doomed from the start because you had two recasts instead of Reinholt and Courtney.  Paul Rauch's ego was probably too big to even contact them to see if they were interested in returning.  If the show had waited until 1984 to do this triangle once Courtney had already returned and rehired Reinholt, I believe would have been successful.  Rauch was long gone by then, so his dislike of both of them would have not have  an issue.  I wonder if they ever considered rehiring Reinholt in 1989 after he appeared in the 25th anniversary episodes after Douglass Watson died.  You could have even incorporated it into the red swan mystery storyline- Mac  really left town because he discovered the real Steve Frame was alive with amnesia and that Edward Black (David Canary) was an imposter who assumed his identity.  Mac placed this information into the red swan and sent it to Rachel before he passed away.

Wow, that sounds like an awesome story line.  J. Courtney was also visiting at this time during the anniversary and Macks death.  If the 3 of them were bak in action with that storyline I bet ratings would have skyrocket but I think there were also many new fans at this time and the that love triangle may have already been put to bed and current writer D Swajeski and Exec Producer were not interested in revisiting that.  At this point, Rachel, Steve and ALice were now much older and love story was probably more geared for a younger audience

Not to rejudicate plots from 40 years (although that's what we do on these boards), but I think the replay of the Steve/Alice/Rachel plot failed for more reasons than just the recast.  David Canary was an excellent Steven Frame, he was sexy, debonair, and had an easy chemistry with most female leads.  The build up of the story was great because everyone was talking about Edward Black before he came to town.  That created intrigue about the character while there was never a clue about his true identity (much like the introduction of Adam Chandler on AMC).  I remember the silhouette of what seemed to be Reinholt turn into David Canary in his first scene even before seeing it again in the clip that was posted because it was such a classic cliffhanger.  And sufficient time had passed between the actors that the recast was less jarring.

 

However, (from a plot point of view), the breakup of Rachel and Mac to facilitate the triangle seemed rushed.  Mitch was a viable option for Rachel, but as an audience member, the true rooting value was for Rachel and Mac to reunite.  She had changed so much during their romance, and she had fought Iris and Janice in order to be with Mac, that it made no sense that Rachel would regress to point of wanting to get back together with Steve.  Also, Mac was caddish playboy with a wandering eye when he met Rachel, so sweet nurse Alice was unlikely match for such a lusty guy.  Furthermore, it didn't help matters that during the storyline Rachel (who had just survived a barn fire) suffered from car-accident-induced-amnesia and then car-accident-induced-blindness making her the most accident prone character in Bay City.  

 

George Reinholt,(like many soap hunks in a triangle) was never the appeal of the original story.  He was wooden, he had terrible hair, and his delivery was so contrived he made Drake Hogestyn look like Laurence Olivier.  We tuned in to watch Alice and Rachel fight.  The classic scenes were Rachel crueling informing Alice that she was pregnant at the engagement party and then Rachel crueling trying to kick Alice out of the house when Steve died.  But, by the 1980's Rachel had outgrown her cruel nature.  She was still impulsive, but she was no longer driven by a need for attachment to men who didn't want her, like her father.  So, the story felt like a big step backward for Rachel.  

 

Also, without Jamie as a major character within the story, Steve's motivation was suspect.  Jamie was in Bay City during the storyline, but he did not have much of an impact on the plot.  Why would Steven abandon Jamie after fighting so hard for custody that he went to jail?  Why would Steven be so devoted to his horse loving stepdaughter Diana that he would forget to ask about Jamie's well being?  Why would Steven build a new company and not want to take care of Jamey financially? 

 

So much great plot resulted from Steve's death, including the evolution of Willis (my favorite AW male character beside Robert Delaney), the introduction of Ray Gordon and Olive Randolph, and mostly the Mac/Rachel/Iris storyline that reviving the character at any point afterward would never be as good.

Edited May 7, 20205 yr by j swift

16 minutes ago, j swift said:

Not to rejudicate plots from 40 years (although that's what we do on these boards), but I think the replay of the Steve/Alice/Rachel plot failed for more reasons than just the recast.  David Canary was an excellent Steven Frame, he was sexy, debonair, and had an easy chemistry with most female leads.  The build up of the story was great because everyone was talking about Edward Black before he came to town.  That created intrigue about the character while there was never a clue about his true identity (much like the introduction of Adam Chandler on AMC).  I remember the silhouette of what seemed to be Reinholt turn into David Canary in his first scene even before seeing it again in the clip that was posted because it was such a classic cliffhanger.  And sufficient time had passed between the actors that the recast was less jarring.

 

However, (from a plot point of view), the breakup of Rachel and Mac to facilitate the triangle seemed rushed.  Mitch was a viable option for Rachel, but as an audience member, the true rooting value was for Rachel and Mac to reunite.  She had changed so much during their romance, and she had fought Iris and Janice in order to be with Mac, that it made no sense that Rachel would regress to point of wanting to get back together with Steve.  Also, Mac was caddish playboy with a wandering eye when he met Rachel, so sweet nurse Alice was unlikely match for such a lusty guy.  Furthermore, it didn't help matters that during the storyline Rachel (who had just survived a barn fire) suffered from car-accident-induced-amnesia and then car-accident-induced-blindness making her the most accident prone character in Bay City.  

 

George Reinholt,(like many soap hunks in a triangle) was never the appeal of the original story.  He was wooden, he had terrible hair, and his delivery was so contrived he made Drake Hogestyn look like Laurence Olivier.  We tuned in to watch Alice and Rachel fight.  The classic scenes were Rachel crueling informing Alice that she was pregnant at the engagement party and then Rachel crueling trying to kick Alice out of the house when Steve died.  But, by the 1980's Rachel had outgrown her cruel nature.  She was still impulsive, but she was no longer driven by a need for attachment to men who didn't want her, like her father.  So, the story felt like a big step backward for Rachel.  

 

Also, without Jamie as a major character within the story, Steve's motivation was suspect.  Jamie was in Bay City during the storyline, but he did not have much of an impact on the plot.  Why would Steven abandon Jamie after fighting so hard for custody that he went to jail?  Why would Steven be so devoted to his horse loving stepdaughter Diana that he would forget to ask about Jamie's well being?  Why would Steven build a new company and not want to take care of Jamey financially? 

 

So much great plot resulted from Steve's death, including the evolution of Willis (my favorite AW male character beside Robert Delaney), the introduction of Ray Gordon and Olive Randolph, and mostly the Mac/Rachel/Iris storyline that reviving the character at any point afterward would never be as good.

 

I completely agree with you regarding Rachel and her unexplainable return to lusting after Steve. Since 1975, Rachel's endgame was always Mac, and the audience knew it. The triangle was long over, but I think there was still energy in the Alice/Steve romance.  Had the recasts been successful, AW could have moved forward with two popular super-couples, Rachel/Mac and Alice/Steve.  I could see Steve and Alice growing into a relationship similar to Victor and Nikki on Y&R.  

 

I also agree that Steve's motivation for staying in Australia for so long was botched.  The real Steve would never have stayed away intentionally, with Jamie and Alice grieving and waiting back in Bay City.  They should have gone with severe physical injuries and amnesia, and Willis (the perpetual loser) could have played a role, since he and Gwen had moved to Australia just a year or so before Steve's return.