1 hour ago, slick jones said:

She wasn't a very important character, and thankfully shared most scenes with the elegant Anne Jeffreys, Emma Samms and John Callahan. They all carried her scenes.

 

Ouch! Thanks for clarifying.

I never understood Mitch and Felicia. I think he would have been better served in a romance with Rachel. I'm sure the writers did it to stir up conflict between Rachel and Felicia, but it just never worked.

The class conflict could have been done at a couple of different times. With the Loves/McKinnons when they first started taking over the show (especially during Reginald and Mary's returns) and around the time Sharlene and Josie first arrived.

I think they started it with the latter. Josie and Matt on the phone connections line and there was conflict between Sharlene and Rachel. It's too bad that it didn't continue further. Rachel and Sharlene should have been rivals of sorts for years instead of friendly. With Rachel's history against the Frames (Janice's death, destroying Steve and Alice's happiness), Sharlene would have had reason. 

7 minutes ago, Melroser said:

I never understood Mitch and Felicia. I think he would have been better served in a romance with Rachel. I'm sure the writers did it to stir up conflict between Rachel and Felicia, but it just never worked.

The class conflict could have been done at a couple of different times. With the Loves/McKinnons when they first started taking over the show (especially during Reginald and Mary's returns) and around the time Sharlene and Josie first arrived.

I think they started it with the latter. Josie and Matt on the phone connections line and there was conflict between Sharlene and Rachel. It's too bad that it didn't continue further. Rachel and Sharlene should have been rivals of sorts for years instead of friendly. With Rachel's history against the Frames (Janice's death, destroying Steve and Alice's happiness), Sharlene would have had reason. 

Plus, both Rachel and Sharlene had been married to Russ.  

13 minutes ago, Melroser said:

I never understood Mitch and Felicia. I think he would have been better served in a romance with Rachel. I'm sure the writers did it to stir up conflict between Rachel and Felicia, but it just never worked.

The class conflict could have been done at a couple of different times. With the Loves/McKinnons when they first started taking over the show (especially during Reginald and Mary's returns) and around the time Sharlene and Josie first arrived.

I think they started it with the latter. Josie and Matt on the phone connections line and there was conflict between Sharlene and Rachel. It's too bad that it didn't continue further. Rachel and Sharlene should have been rivals of sorts for years instead of friendly. With Rachel's history against the Frames (Janice's death, destroying Steve and Alice's happiness), Sharlene would have had reason. 

I think by that  point it was impossible to break up Mac and Rachel again, and then after Mac died and Rachel went through a period of mourning, Espy was leaving.  If he  had stayed I wonder if we would have had  more with Rachel and  Mitch.

I think Felicia and Mitch were  fine together, as  he was a support for her yet not  so heavy that he got in the way of her lighter moments (as Lucas did),  but I think Felicia was really too much of  a camp  construct to  ever fully work with a love interest. She was the  closest soaps  got to the old Crawford/Davis/Stanwyck type dames, who in their 40's tended to feel too  rigidly defined to be viable with any love interest.

2 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I think Felicia and Mitch were  fine together, as  he was a support for her yet not  so heavy that he got in the way of her lighter moments (as Lucas did),  but I think Felicia was really too much of  a camp  construct to  ever fully work with a love interest. She was the  closest soaps  got to the old Crawford/Davis/Stanwyck type dames, who in their 40's tended to feel too  rigidly defined to be viable with any love interest.

To me Felicia and Mitch kind of worked because as you said, I couldn't buy Felicia into a full-fledged long-term romance. Lucas completely defanged her personality and the less said about the damage done with the John thing, the better.
What fit her was a casual "For fun and For good conversation" kind of relationship and while it wasn't written that way at all, I sort of saw Mitch as the happy medium between what would be the ridiculous literal version of the boytoy with Sergei later on and the maudling  more classic romance with Lucas.
Mitch was "beneath" her enough that I could pretend she was just getting her rocks off with a hot guy but still in an age-appropriate adult mature kind of way.
Of course all of this was me projecting onto it an interpretation the show wasn't giving us although I would argue the easy way they were broken up is proof they didn't see that couple as particularly solid in the first place.

Edited October 18, 20214 yr by FrenchBug82

We were discussing Cecile's reign in Tanquir and I came across artifact on the Soaps of Yesteryear tumblr

Edited October 18, 20214 yr by j swift

2 hours ago, Melroser said:

I never understood Mitch and Felicia.

I never understood Mitch with anybody, except maybe Janice. Contra seemingly everyone else here, I thought Espy was a block of wood on screen. Good looking, yes, but just a painfully bad actor. I felt bad for his scene partners, who had to do all the heavy lifting in every scene. I saw zero chemistry between him and Wyndham, and him and Dano. He must have been popular, though, they kept bringing him back. 

Was Zane more of a fun character when with Felicia?  My mom liked them together in the 80s.

And when V. Tibbley was playing Alice..she was tested with Mitch and had chemistry.

With the correct writing and directing Vanna Tribbey could have been a very interesting Alice.

6 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I think by that  point it was impossible to break up Mac and Rachel again, and then after Mac died and Rachel went through a period of mourning, Espy was leaving.  If he  had stayed I wonder if we would have had  more with Rachel and  Mitch.

After Mac died, I never understood why they did not pair Rachel with Russ.  Vicky Wyndham did have chemistry with David Bailey's Russ.  Even if it wasn't a long term pairing, having Rachel lean on Russ would have caused all kinds of conflict and the show could have used the history of these two characters.  Once it was revealed that Russ was Josie's father, he left Bay City only to return for a few guest appearances.

2 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

Was Zane more of a fun character when with Felicia?  My mom liked them together in the 80s.

And when V. Tibbley was playing Alice..she was tested with Mitch and had chemistry.

I really liked Zane with Felicia. He was down-to-earth and laid back and seemed to mesh well with Wally. If they had to bring back Mitch for Matthew's sake I would rather they had kept Zane alive and found something else for Mitch to do in his adult time. Having him pester Rachel was also tedious, so not breaking up Mac and Rachel either. I thought at a couple of points they were testing Brittany with Mitch and Jamie. I don't know if the idea of Mitch and Brittany appeals to me only because it would have had the virtue of sidelining characters I didn't like or if they could have been a good match.

 

I like this photo of Linda Dano and Patrick Tovatt as Felicia and Zane:

20 hours ago, Efulton said:

With the correct writing and directing Vanna Tribbey could have been a very interesting Alice.

To me, Jacqueline Courtney was the one true, definitive Alice, but I've always felt that Tribbey was the most acceptable (least objectionable?) of all the replacements.

I'd rate the actresses:

JACQUELINE COURTNEY

Vanna Tribbey (C+)

Susan Harney (C)

Wesley Pfenning (D-)

Linda Borgenson (BOMB)

Admittedly at a glance, all of the recasts seemed way off to me except for Harney who was a serviceable replacement at best. Tribbey seemed like she was playing a completely different person - a fine actress, but nothing like Courtney's Alice. Very remote and/or arch. It was bizarre seeing what various shapes they seemed to keep trying to mold the character into, from Pfenning to Tribbey to the amazingly bad Borgeson.

11 minutes ago, Vee said:

Admittedly at a glance, all of the recasts seemed way off to me except for Harney who was a serviceable replacement at best. Tribbey seemed like she was playing a completely different person - a fine actress, but nothing like Courtney's Alice. Very remote and/or arch. It was bizarre seeing what various shapes they seemed to keep trying to mold the character into, from Pfenning to Tribbey to the amazingly bad Borgeson.

Yes, the casting for Alice post-Courtney just seemed so random.