Another World Discussion Thread

[DRW50]

 

I know a lot of fans said the cheating story ruined him. I imagine the Olive stuff would have been worse though. It sounds like one of those stories that dragged. I do wish I could see the story with Pat killing Greg, although a soap magazine I read from back then said they totally rewrote Greg's personality.

 

The most I've seen of John was that episode where Rachel was working as his assistant and bitched out Steve. I thought he had a stalwart presence that soaps missed in recent years. Handsome as well.

[vetsoapfan]

 

To be fair, there are middle-aged men who do lose their minds and make foolish mistakes where women are concerned, LOL.

 

Lemay found Michael Ryan stodgy, but I always appreciated the actor's steadfast quality and warmth. AW needed a longstanding, familiar patriarch in later years, and killing off John Randolph was a dumb mistake.

 

As for the story about Pat killing Greg, I think the best thing about it was that Lemay wove in references to the earlier plot from 1964 about Pat's killing Tom Baxter. Lemay had Pat remembering killing Tom with a letter opener, however, which was an historical error. She had actually shot him.

 

Anyway, I am always a fan of using history.

[jam6242]

John Randolph was definitely staid but that's one of the reasons I liked him.  Not everyone needs to be dynamic to work as a character.

[jam6242]

From 1969:

Please register in order to view this content

[DRW50]

Thanks. This must have been one of the few Jacquie and George didn't win in this era. 

[Soaplovers]

I figure 1969 was just when the alice/Steve/rachel story was at its peak...and maybe the awards were for the year before...when that particular story was gaining momentum.

[NothinButAttitude]

Question to my fellow AW fans--what are your thoughts and opinions on the Justine story?

 

I've been rewatching clips from that era again and maybe it is b/c soaps are dreadful now, but I find the story not as bad as I did when I'd originally watch it. Yes, some things could've been taken out the story to prevent it from going all the way over the top (i.e. Justine locking Vicky in the basement), but the basic gist of the story isn't all that bad. 

 

Is it just me?

[Soaplovers]

 

I think when the Justine story came out..it contradicted some of the backstory established.

 

There was a confrontation between Spencer and Carl after Carl was revealed as Ryan's father where he said he was thankful that Ryan inherited his mothers goodness and none of carl's negative traits.

 

Plus..the show tried to establish that Carl wad obsessed with Rachel for years due to her resembling Justine...when the truth was that Carl came to town because of Felicia and Donna....and had an axe to grind against Mac...nothing to do with Rachel.

 

It was poorly planned..and resulted in ryan gettinf killed...and Vicky eventually reuniting with her sisters rapist Jake.   1995 to 1999 werw horrible years with some redeeming elements.

[NothinButAttitude]

 

Understandable that Carl came to town b/c of Donna & Felicia, however, he did eventually make his way round to Rachel before before getting written off his original time. I can somewhat bend my belief that he was drawn to Rachel b/c of her resemblance to Justine. 

 

I can believe that Carl once saw good traits in Justine too. I mean it does seem that his opinion of her changed once he realized Justine took Rachel's place. 

 

I do think that the stories that occurred at the climax (i.e. Ryan's death) were horrible. I don't think that Ryan should've never been killed, but stayed in a coma until PMV decided to return, which could've happened about a year or two later when he spent all that time playing ghostly Ryan. 

 

I just don't think the gist of the story is that bad looking back on it. An unhinged mother/lover blowing into town to reclaim her sons and Carl. I didn't mind her being a dead ringer for Rachel too. I just think the degree of her crimes were absurd like having Rachel locked in an asylum abroad or Vicky in a basement. I do think that her poisoning Lorna & causing Spencer to have a stroke were the most believable things to occur. The switch with Rachel was unnecessary. 

 

Overall, I just don't think the story was that heinous. Again, I might be suffering from the fact that soap stories are so abysmal now that I look back on this and see it wasn't so bad after all.

[juniorz1]

Let me preface this by saying that I didn't watch the entire story.  I had gotten into "One Life To Live" during that period and stopped watching "AW" for periods of time.  My issue with that story is nobody reigned in Vicky Wyndham.  Many say this was when her acting when into the theatrical, over-the-top mode, but the astute viewer saw the shift in her performances occur during the NYC storyline with Carl Hutchins.

 

BUT this was a story in which she not only chewed the scenery, she overdosed and regurgitated it.   To make 2 characters different, an actor doesn't necessarily need to make one OTT.  Different and opposite are adjectives with variances in their meaning.  Because nobody was DIRECTING her (or she simply wasn't listening), Justine became a caricature from the beginning, which was a crime because Vicky could play a bitch like no other (see her early work as Rachel).  IMO, the writing wasn't the issue, it was Vicky and because her Justine was grounded in no type of reality, it  made it impossible to care about her, hate her, or be frightened of her.  She was something of a joke and IMO, Vicky never recovered from the storyline.

[DRW50]

 

I remember Michael Logan heavily criticized her work in that story. When he interviewed her a few years later, she took issue with it and basically said the writing was so bad she felt she had to play it that way. 

[juniorz1]

I remember it as well.  Say what you will about Logan, but for my money, his criticism of soaps is generally spot on.

[DRW50]

 

I agree with some of his views, although I stopped paying much attention when he crawled up Guza and Braeden's hindquarters. I do think he had a point about her. He also criticized Liz Hubbard for overacting all the time as Lucinda, which I get, but I think it suited the character. 

Edited March 6, 2017 by DRW50

[juniorz1]

 

I never agreed with him about Jensen Buchanan's Vicky, whom he loved and I could never accept.  He also didn't like the Buried Alive story on DAYS, which had me glued to the set.  Once he came around to see what Reilly was doing with the show, he was all for it but initially, he resisted.

[NothinButAttitude]

Please register in order to view this content