Jump to content

Another World Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Members

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 13.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

 

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.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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?

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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 by j swift
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

    • Has anyone ever posted January and February 1974? I can't find them in the 'Look Back to 75' thread. Thanks.
    • Did January and February 1974 DSN ever get posted? I can't seem to find it in this thread.
    • I agree. Especially after SilkPress got back to her apartment and started to mock Nicole. Her dislike for Nicole and seeing her as a threat to her getting Teddy Bear is growing worse. So I could see her pulling a kidnapping on Nicole at some point. If anything she was going there to poke the bear and got pressed (pun unintended) when the bear gathered her.   Completely understandable. 
    • Beyond The Underwear Oops I mean Gates!

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I swear this entire time I thought Roman knew about the Phillip/Vivian letter lol.  I do like how mature Roman/Kate are as a couple.  It makes me sad the new writers never got a chance to write for John/Marlena. I agree with @AbcNbc247 that the Felicity stuff is a bit after school special-y.  I am pretty sure that (most) of the viewing audience is aware that a grown man should not be shouting at any teenage girl especially one with disabilities.  Just let Xander apologize and move on. Linsey Godfrey was in her Sarah baby voice mode today and it irritates me to no end.   I know it's a cutesy thing her and Xander do but it's annoying. Bringing Kevin back is strange, but I do like the use of history.  I do think Rex probably could have been used instead, but whatever.  I don't care about Rex much either lol.
    • I mean over the past decades. But I do agree that in recent years now, the writing is not working for them as well as it used to then. It's same old, same old...which is what made the Damian storyline refreshing. At least for me.   
    • Did Denise give any interviews where she talked about her first few years on GH... '73-75? I wonder if she had any regrets leaving Days for GH, as from what I've read, the show was in the dumps writing-wise, so am thinking she didn't have great story? Any Leslie story highlights I've seen always start with '76, after Gloria Monty took charge.
    • I know! It's like second verse, here we go again!  Agreed. Certainly there was concern maybe even fear at the highest levels for the very good reason that what they had was so economically successful, so of course this risk was scary but if anyone was brave she was. Yes, he was. I have seen her associated with getting it on the air one other place but no details nor official title. Not the writer or creator so it made me wonder if she functioned as a kind of uncredited ad hoc producer, but then maybe she just supported it. At any rate that is nothing but supposition on my part. No data! Yes, not a surprise anymore but still so frustrating! On one hand I am appreciative that she is included in this book, but scholarship where are you?!
    • that wasnt her point. She wanted to further demonize Ted; that was the main focus of their talk. She wants to ensure that Nicole leaves him so that he's free and single to be with her. At this point, I dont think she really cares what Nicole thinks of her; she just wants her out of the way Eva is Nicole's stepdaughter and is a Dupree by association. If Nicole takes Ted back then its reasonable that she would accept his daughter and i that happens, Eva will have welcomed to their country club, be invited to their parties, have access to their resources, etc....much like Andre whom also isnt a blood Dupree but is accepted by them via Nicole. Eva got what she got from Anita bc of Hayley. I think its important to remember that context bc they just dealt with an interloper that infiltrated their ranks and hurt her daughter in the worse way. Now you have another unfortunate girl positioned to do the same to her other daughter. The feelings are still too fresh and she doesnt want Eva to get the idea that she would ever be allowed the opportunity to play them again
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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