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.

In a way, I'm glad they changed their minds about giving Michael and Donna triplets.  It just seems like overkill to me.

It's weird that Depriest became anti woman...because watching her brief stint on the Doctors....she seemed able to write women as somewhat strong willed and intelligent.

I do think she did somethings well in her stint..yet also had some misfires.

MJ was weakened quite a bit..but that was partly due to the change of actress.  When the new actress took over, MJ still had a backbone..but the new actress had a more passive take on the lines.

She killed off Zane..but did bring back Mitch...and he caused friction for Rachel/Mac/Felicia.

And she started Sam and Amanda...though was a waste making him related to Mitch.

And Vicki/Jamie/Lisa did start under Depriest...but that didn't get much depth until Harding Lemay and Donna Swajaski took over...but by then Joanna Going was on her way out.

And the whole Reginald thing was a rewrite.  Pre Depriest, Donna was written as being close and loyal to her dad.  Per a few conversations between Peter and Donna.

 

2 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

MJ was weakened quite a bit..but that was partly due to the change of actress.  When the new actress took over, MJ still had a backbone..but the new actress had a more passive take on the lines.

Kathleen Layman's MJ didn't have the baggage of Sally Spencer's MJ's shameful past as a prostitute. She was college-educated and slightly neurotic. DePriest forgot about her college education and busted her from detective down to uniformed officer so that even though she was still Adam's partner at work and he was new to the department she was subordinate to him. I have a hard time blaming Sally Spencer for all of those indignities piled on the character.

2 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

And the whole Reginald thing was a rewrite.  Pre Depriest, Donna was written as being close and loyal to her dad.  Per a few conversations between Peter and Donna.

But why was Donna loyal to her father? To me it was one of the few good things about the return of Reginald from the dead, that it once and for all made it absolutely plain that he had abused Donna's loyalty and trust by driving Michael out of her life, forcing her to pretend Marley was her sister, and giving away Victoria. Donna's snobbery was based on the idea of family loyalty that he had brought her up with and it was tragically, horribly false and damaging. It made sense for Donna to readjust her loyalties when she reckoned with how misplaced they had been. 

On 1/9/2022 at 1:33 PM, Xanthe said:

Donna (like Felicia) was created by Robert Soderberg. DePriest came in not long after Michael had been introduced and IMO weakened the character a lot even though she brought her to the forefront as a kind of heroine/damsel to the point where it seemed like Reginald's treatment of Donna was the reason for Michael's conflict with Reginald and Donna was just the object.

DePriest created drips like Cheryl and Dawn and Lisa. I am not sure whether she should get any credit for Anne Heche's Vicky -- as I recall Vicky spent an inordinate amount of time fretting over whether Donna and John were having an affair under DePriest's watch. I'm not sure any of Vicky's really interesting storylines started until afterward.

Of course I don't think DePriest did anything interesting with Felicia either. Even John Hudson, who may be the only character she created who lasted for any length of time, had a lousy introduction and was redeemed later (not in the sense that he became a better person, but in the sense that later writers did a better job of making him interesting).

I didn’t follow this show much after the 80s but I read a synopsis of the Donna character.  She was quite the cougar it seems with Mathew Corey and Jake?

Margaret DePriest did seem to have the same problem as Pat Falken Smith: letting sleazy men dominate the narrative. And serial killer storylines did seem to be her thing, like DID is Ron Carlivati’s. Though I do agree that killing Quinn and Maisie was unnecessary.

Except for the John/Donna and the MJ storylines, I thought she did pretty well, especially considering the massive turnaround during her run.

Edited January 10, 20223 yr by AbcNbc247

29 minutes ago, TVFAN1144 said:

I didn’t follow this show much after the 80s but I read a synopsis of the Donna character.  She was quite the cougar it seems with Mathew Corey and Jake?

It is funny to hear it put like that coz I had never thought of the Jake dalliance as a cougar moment although it technically was.
The focus was more that it was her daughter's boyfriend and I don't recall the age difference being even mentioned. Also, and that's my personal opinion, but I always tought Tom Eplin looked older than he was (or rather that his character was supposed to be) - and Anna Stuart looked younger - so the ten-year age difference didn't read on-screen that much imho.
Matt on the other hand was clearly a cougar relationship and played that way.

Edited January 10, 20223 yr by FrenchBug82

10 hours ago, Khan said:

In a way, I'm glad they changed their minds about giving Michael and Donna triplets.  It just seems like overkill to me.

Absolutely. What purpose does a triplet serve that Scott couldn't provide as Mary and Reginald's adoptive son? Or that wasn't already covered by Marley and Victoria being raised apart? I think I have said before that I might not have minded a triplet storyline that was misdirection and a cover for some more interesting reveal. 

Tangentially, since Hank Cheyne who played Scott is married to Missy Hughes who played Sara, re-reading the synopses for 1986 reminded me that they tried to create some kind of story for Sara but nothing seemed to get traction. She was the estranged daughter of Rose Livingston who appeared ready to console Mac if Rachel strayed to Mitch. She chased Chad Rollo while he pined for MJ. She probably would have been more suitable for Scott than the 18 year old Cheryl. 

 

Edited January 11, 20223 yr by Xanthe

2 hours ago, Xanthe said:

Absolutely. What purpose does a triplet serve that Scott couldn't provide as Mary and Reginald's adoptive son? Or that wasn't already covered by Marley and Victoria being raised apart? I think I have said before that I might not have minded a triplet storyline that was misdirection and a cover for some more interesting reveal. 

Tangentially, since Hank Cheyne who played Scott is married to Missy Hughes who played Sara, re-reading the synopses for 1986 reminded me that they tried to create some kind of story for Sara but nothing seemed to get traction. She was the estranged daughter of Rose Livingston who appeared ready to console Mac if Rachel strayed to Mitch. She chased Chad Rollo while he pined for MJ. She probably would have been more suitable for Scott than the 18 year old Cheryl. 

I do wonder what the story plans might have been for her, or for Rebecca Hollen (that story seemed very abruptly dropped).

14 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I do wonder what the story plans might have been for her, or for Rebecca Hollen (that story seemed very abruptly dropped).

I had forgotten that they hinted at some mystery in Peggy Lazarus' past. All I remember is that she and Peter started an affair if not during her prosecution of Brittany really inappropriately close to it. Both Peggy and Peter were gone by the end of 1987.

I was just thinking that some of the characteristics of Grant Harrison (at least as Mark Pinter played him) had overlap with Peter Love and I was just starting to wonder whether I would have preferred Mark Pinter as Peter when I realised that obviously Peter could not marry Vicky. I do think it is a shame that Peter wasn't around ever again.

If I am remembering correctly, Peter was a good guy.  A good lawyer, stand up guy.  He carried himself as though he came from money, but was a hard worker.  Then when recast was blond and somewhat of a playboy or cad.  Then he became more of a guy looking to rebuild the love and admiration of his father and maintaining the Love legacy.  It was a character that had no real definition, but was redefined as he needed to fit a storyline.  I loved the Peter/Brtiany banter and tension in the Love mansion.  But that can only go so far and then there was little one could do once that drama played out and it had to at some point.  As Reginald lost the ability to maintain the control of the Love family, the need for Peter to want his acceptance was less of a storyline.  Did he leave via the writers just running out of storyline or did the actor decide to leave and thus the decision to write him out?

1 hour ago, ScottyBman said:

If I am remembering correctly, Peter was a good guy.  A good lawyer, stand up guy.  He carried himself as though he came from money, but was a hard worker.  Then when recast was blond and somewhat of a playboy or cad.  Then he became more of a guy looking to rebuild the love and admiration of his father and maintaining the Love legacy.  It was a character that had no real definition, but was redefined as he needed to fit a storyline.  I loved the Peter/Brtiany banter and tension in the Love mansion.  But that can only go so far and then there was little one could do once that drama played out and it had to at some point.  As Reginald lost the ability to maintain the control of the Love family, the need for Peter to want his acceptance was less of a storyline.  Did he leave via the writers just running out of storyline or did the actor decide to leave and thus the decision to write him out?

I would assume it was the show's choice, as the actor was only on for a year or a year and a half. I thought it was a waste, as Donna would have been better off with more family around, and Peter still had potential as a character. 

Both Peter and Nicole could have returned at any point. I hate when soaps never have family members return.

 

While I agree that Peter could have returned for a variety of different stories, at the time of his exit he was really written into a corner that would have been difficult to turn around.  While Britney was not the most popular character, I don't think anyone wanted to see her verbally abused and threatened whilst pregnant.  The writers gave Britney a believable motive for shooting Peter, as well as creating sympathy for her relationship with Catlin, but in the process Peter became irredeemable.  I guess he could have found a new love and turned his life around, but who cares about a sniveling brat whose entire adult life (after a few recasts) had been in the service of trying to gain his father's respect?

And, while I enjoyed model/drug addict Nicole, by the time she became a murdering clothes designer who allowed Felicia to be tried and convicted for a crime that she didn't commit, she also lost whatever sympathy she may have garnered over the years.

 

Edited January 13, 20223 yr by j swift

And I guess once the show decided to be the Victoria Love Hudson....show. Moving Donna and Michael into parental roles, it would almost be distracting to have her siblings around.  Plus the sibling role went to John.  

On 1/12/2022 at 6:21 AM, ScottyBman said:

If I am remembering correctly, Peter was a good guy.  A good lawyer, stand up guy.  He carried himself as though he came from money, but was a hard worker.  Then when recast was blond and somewhat of a playboy or cad.

John Hutton's Peter was a pretty good guy -- he was exasperated with Donna's snobbery, had no ulterior motives or underhanded schemes. After he broke his engagement to Sally he got engaged to Cecile, and after Cecile he dated Emily Benson. Christopher Holder's Peter was not so much a cad as he became manipulative and scheming, specifically with a view to breaking up Sally and Catlin. But I don't think he had much else to do and when Marcus Smythe took over Brittany seduced Peter and tricked him into believing he was the father of Catlin's baby. 

On 1/12/2022 at 7:15 PM, j swift said:

While I agree that Peter could have returned for a variety of different stories, at the time of his exit he was really written into a corner that would have been difficult to turn around.  While Britney was not the most popular character, I don't think anyone wanted to see her verbally abused and threatened whilst pregnant.  The writers gave Britney a believable motive for shooting Peter, as well as creating sympathy for her relationship with Catlin, but in the process Peter became irredeemable.  I guess he could have found a new love and turned his life around, but who cares about a sniveling brat whose entire adult life (after a few recasts) had been in the service of trying to gain his father's respect?

You can sweep a lot under the rug with the passage of time/the right recast. Of course there are a lot of storylines 1985-1988 that I would unpick and redo differently, given the chance.