52 minutes ago, chrisml said:

I liked when Felicia was over the top and was more Felicia the writer than Felicia the mother figure. Personal taste as always. For me, Felicia was AW to me. She was one of the few constants on a show that was constantly changing. 

Well good for you. But that's what makes us people. We like and dislike different things.

Edited May 10May 10 by Maxim

As you guys know... from my short reviews... Mary was one of my favorites! RIP Denise! 

On 1/13/2025 at 5:02 PM, Maxim said:

First off, Mary is BACK! My favorite character! And her cheerful mood after spending the Holidays with the ex-hooker M.J... is completely shattered by Vince's news about the restaurant. Mary has to face the consequences of her empathy and good heart. This always happens to people like us... who offer a helping hand to those who don't deserve it.

Just couple of months ago. I'm so saddened right now.

BITD I was posting about how interesting it was that Denise had been with this same guy for simply years but they just did not marry - then that year they married! 

22 hours ago, Tisy-Lish said:

I would say, Denise was the ONLY good thing about that insultingly ridiculous plot.  But all this took place near the end of Another World's "let's play everything for laughs" era.  Thank God that nonsense ended around 1988.  

I agree.  Lemay was supposed to start in early 88 and we saw some of the writing on the wall with character reference from the past.  Notably, the core families Frames, Cory, Matthews.  The stupid Reginald Love was wrapped up.  Not even a year later Mary was written out of the show along with Vince and the McKinnons who came and left .  The previous writers tried to introduce a new family that never aspired with the viewers.  1988 was focused on the 25th anniversary of show in 1989 and suspect why Lemay was asked to come back in 88.  Prior to 1988, the storylines were so DOOL stupid.

7 minutes ago, denzo30 said:

I agree.  Lemay was supposed to start in early 88 and we saw some of the writing on the wall with character reference from the past.  Notably, the core families Frames, Cory, Matthews.  The stupid Reginald Love was wrapped up.  Not even a year later Mary was written out of the show along with Vince and the McKinnons who came and left .  The previous writers tried to introduce a new family that never aspired with the viewers.  1988 was focused on the 25th anniversary of show in 1989 and suspect why Lemay was asked to come back in 88.  Prior to 1988, the storylines were so DOOL stupid.

What AW stories do you think of as DOOLish? I mean AW, in a very positive way was KNOWN for its comedic elements. From Iris's maid, Vivian, to the naming of plants, to highjinks with Cass, Felicia, Wally & even Lily, plus remember Dee Evans & Tony the Tuna? In a way at one time DAYS had similar with Caliope & Eugene. 

On 5/9/2025 at 8:44 PM, Tisy-Lish said:

But all this took place near the end of Another World's "let's play everything for laughs" era.  Thank God that nonsense ended around 1988.  

I would argue that Another World never played "everything" for laughs. Even when there were comedic scenes in some storylines there were other storylines that were not intended as comedy. 

You give 1988 as the end point, and Mary was on the canvas from August 1986 to February 1989, so she must have overlapped with the despised laughs you are referring to at least half of the time she was there. I honestly can't recall any real comedy that Mary would have been part of. I don't think she was lighthearted about choosing between two husbands, MJ's prostitution, Kathleen's death, or even her son Scott dating her daughter Cheryl. 

I would have said that the amount of comedy depended on the head writer and there was more comedy under Richard Culliton and Gary Tomlin in 1984 than subsequent headwriters. I guess there was an outbreak of more comedy when Cecile kidnapped Cass from his wedding in 1986, but in general the Sin Stalker wasn't presented as funny, Mitch's return wasn't funny, John's arrival wasn't funny, Reginald wasn't funny. The tone was serious even if the plots verged on the ludicrous. And maybe that's what you mean -- but I would make a distinction between intentional comedy and storylines I can't take seriously for other reasons. 

22 minutes ago, Xanthe said:

I would argue that Another World never played "everything" for laughs. Even when there were comedic scenes in some storylines there were other storylines that were not intended as comedy. 

You give 1988 as the end point, and Mary was on the canvas from August 1986 to February 1989, so she must have overlapped with the despised laughs you are referring to at least half of the time she was there. I honestly can't recall any real comedy that Mary would have been part of. I don't think she was lighthearted about choosing between two husbands, MJ's prostitution, Kathleen's death, or even her son Scott dating her daughter Cheryl. 

I would have said that the amount of comedy depended on the head writer and there was more comedy under Richard Culliton and Gary Tomlin in 1984 than subsequent headwriters. I guess there was an outbreak of more comedy when Cecile kidnapped Cass from his wedding in 1986, but in general the Sin Stalker wasn't presented as funny, Mitch's return wasn't funny, John's arrival wasn't funny, Reginald wasn't funny. The tone was serious even if the plots verged on the ludicrous. And maybe that's what you mean -- but I would make a distinction between intentional comedy and storylines I can't take seriously for other reasons. 

Very very well said!!! 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👌👌👌✌️✌️✌️🤝👍👍👍🤌

I would only add that Sam Ratcliff is frequently named in regards to certain AW comedic turns. 

And, we know from Carolyn Culliton (tweet 2024) that Sam & Gary put their heads together & came up with that gorilla.

 

Edited May 12May 12 by Contessa Donatella

5 hours ago, Xanthe said:

I would argue that Another World never played "everything" for laughs. Even when there were comedic scenes in some storylines there were other storylines that were not intended as comedy. 

You give 1988 as the end point, and Mary was on the canvas from August 1986 to February 1989, so she must have overlapped with the despised laughs you are referring to at least half of the time she was there. I honestly can't recall any real comedy that Mary would have been part of. I don't think she was lighthearted about choosing between two husbands, MJ's prostitution, Kathleen's death, or even her son Scott dating her daughter Cheryl. 

I would have said that the amount of comedy depended on the head writer and there was more comedy under Richard Culliton and Gary Tomlin in 1984 than subsequent headwriters. I guess there was an outbreak of more comedy when Cecile kidnapped Cass from his wedding in 1986, but in general the Sin Stalker wasn't presented as funny, Mitch's return wasn't funny, John's arrival wasn't funny, Reginald wasn't funny. The tone was serious even if the plots verged on the ludicrous. And maybe that's what you mean -- but I would make a distinction between intentional comedy and storylines I can't take seriously for other reasons. 

Understand your point.  But I usually see Reginald's mustache twirling villainy as ultra campy bordering on comedic (albeit unsuccessfully).  And upon Reginald's exit, most of the overt camp/comedy seemed to cease. And although I'm aware camp and comedy are not exactly the same thing, I tend to throw them together anyway -- especially when discussing soaps.  You are correct, Mary was not played for laughs.  When I used to term "let's play everything for laughs" I didn't mean literally everything or every character was comedic. But TPTB put so much effort into comedy, it did tend to eat the show for a few years (again not literally). I'm just expressing my perspective on the topic, and lots of folks probably disagree.  That's cool.

People who like comedy on soaps tend to defend it, and folks who don't like comedy (or think it want too far) tend to criticize it.  Whichever side of the fence one is on, it sure didn't help the ratings on AW. 

Edited May 12May 12 by Tisy-Lish

5 minutes ago, Tisy-Lish said:

People who like comedy on soaps tend to defend it, and folks who don't like comedy (or think it want too far) tend to criticize it.  Whichever side of the fence one is on, it sure didn't help the ratings on AW. 

Well, on that point, I am one fan, and I know I'm not alone in this, who thinks that it is possible to have a time or times on a show where the ratings do not reflect the show's popularity & I think that is because it is possible for the metric to be broken. 

 I think too many of Mary's storylines were absolutely depressing. A lot of that  though was mitigated by her relationship with Scott, Cheryl, Ada and other characters though. I'm one of the few who preferred Mary with Reginald and wish that they had made Reginald less of a villain and made the Reginald/Mary/Vince triangle more of a battle and less a foregone conclusion. Mary choosing Reginald had much more storyline possibilities. What if what if what if...

 

I can see both sides here. I don't believe that everything in that period was intended as comedy, but I think John Considine played the part in a very mustache-twirling way, as did Marcus Smythe as Peter until near the end, and that did come across as the material not being taken seriously. And I think the same is true of some of the treatment of other stories. The Sin Stalker, for instance, has that incredibly batshit material with Crystal Gayle being attacked. It's pure WTF, and something that, if done in more recent decades, would probably end up having the part played by a Drag Race queen or a Real Housewife. 

The main takeaway I have from that period is how little those running the show cared. There's just a callousness. And that leads to a real cynicism onscreen.

Edited May 12May 12 by DRW50

From that time period, the one thing that was played for laughs, that stands out to me the most, was Cecile and Kathleen's pie fight, while that French can-can music played.

19 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

The main takeaway I have from that period is how little those running the show cared. There's just a callousness. And that leads to a real cynicism onscreen.

Agree to disagree. I think they cared. I think at times fans underestimate both the creative types & the execs. Certainly there can be specific times & specific people when ego & hubris are huge issues. But, basically, and most of the time the people involved very much want things to work. I'm not saying you don't have your Brian Frons or even your JFPs & your Susan D. Lees. We know at the end Chris Goutman had lost his way.

Just now, Contessa Donatella said:

Agree to disagree. I think they cared. I think at times fans underestimate both the creative types & the execs. Certainly there can be specific times & specific people when ego & hubris are huge issues. But, basically, and most of the time the people involved very much want things to work. I'm not saying you don't have your Brian Frons or even your JFPs & your Susan D. Lees. We know at the end Chris Goutman had lost his way.

I don't see the people who were brought into AW around 1986 as being that different from JFP, but I don't feel like going back and forth either.

Just now, DRW50 said:

I don't see the people who were brought into AW around 1986 as being that different from JFP, but I don't feel like going back and forth either.

I was just about to compose a post where I mention this period AW reminds me of JFP's  time on GL (1993-95) where it just reeked of cynicism and desperation. OR ATWT during Black and Stern. The common denominator is P&G. They allowed this stuff to go on.