I think AW set out to be more plot driven as well--which is usually seen as an insult but in this case I mean more so than ATWT which was so incredibly character driven back then, plot was VERY slow to happen.

SHe also spoke about how GL being 15 mins allowed her only one core family and the characters associated--30 min soaps allowed two core families and the characters between them.

Re what made AW different and wrong for Irna,compared to ATWT, I found this quote attributed t a "writer" on AW from the late 60s (so your gues is as good as mine). Anyway basically he/she says that AW set out to tell story by grappling from the get go with high emotion and dramatic tension, whereas ATWT's focus was on the day to day realities of life. In fact, up until the Dobson's came in to ATWT, really, soap books say that the stories (which Proctor and Gamble never allowed to be too controversial or out there--few bedroom scenes, many topical disease stories weren't allowed, one actor said they had learned whenever they tried any minority character that audiences didn't like them and ratings fell, etc) were secondary. the main focus was the mundane day to day, with the stories almost being a loose backdrop or excuse for dialogue scenes. I guess AAW was completely opposite to this in approach.

I'm not sure what got me thinking about AW. I admit it's a soap that I'd love to see more of--at least from the start to the early 80s--the rest interests me far far less--and obviously I'd especially like to see Nixon episodes and some early Lemay. There is a soap DVD trader who has two of the Irna episodes listed (as well as the Lenore wedding episodes Agnes wrote), though I think some of the Lemay stuff is on youtube--this is his AW list:

ANOTHER WORLD

5/24/64 JIM AND MARY CELEBRATE MEMORIAL DAY/ TOM SEDUCES

PAT

11/10/64 PAT RETURNS HOME AFTER KILLING TOM BAXTER

7/68 2.5 SHOWS WALTER AND LENORE’S WEDDING

1973-74 60 MIN OF SCENES ALICE/ STEVE/ RACHEL TRIANGLE

9/4/74 RACHEL HELPS JOHN AFTER HE IS FIRED BY STEVE

8/15/75 MAC AND RACHEL THROW A GARDEN PARTY

11/23/76

3/6/79 FIRST 90 MIN SHOW JOHN RANDOLPH IS KILLED IN A FIRE

11/28/80

The 1974 and 1976 episodes are on Youtube.

The versions I saw of the 1964 episodes were those where you have to turn your head and strain your eyes, although the audio is OK. That was on a tape, a number of years ago. There's also a Lemay episode where you have to turn your head and strain your eyes, which features Robert Delaney destroying Iris' bust of Mac.

I have most of the other stuff on DVD/tape too but never can remember where most of it is.

Edited September 25, 201114 yr by CarlD2

Ha yeah recently I ent through my boxes of old soap tapes and finally organized them...

Hrmm straining your eyes doesn't seem worth it, though I would be curious to see why the first year of AW with those sensational stories didn't go over well. I would love to see Lenore's Wedding again which I remember being two standout episodes...

(And now you have me curious about this guy in the lettuce green speedo )

I've been watching some of the 1980 episodes, and what I guess was the start of the parade of the new families that came and went from AW in the early 80's.

Carl, I searched YouTube and Google, but still cannot locate these 1980 episodes (that were the same episodes posted years ago on the defunct P&G Classic Soaps website). Could you or somebody else please tell me where I can currently find them? I would greatly appreciate it.

Been watching YouTube clips from the week of Steven's paternity test. I know it's been said a thousand times but Anne Heche is so good as both Vicky and Marley. It's really hard to believe that it's the same actor playing both roles. The one thing I have to wonder is why the show made Jamie Steven's father instead of Jake. Seems to me like it would have been a much more interesting storyline to make Jake the father and have a long custody battle between Vicky and Jake/Marley.

I was watching Hung last night, and maybe it's the fact that I really don't like Anne's character on that, but I didn't find her nearly as good as she was on AW.

I really think Anne was suited for daytime (or what daytime used to be). It helps that she was softer then, but beyond that, I think the pace and the wide range of material and the relationships built with other cast members helped her really grow and put herself into so many different emotions. She has had a very hard edge in a lot of her work after AW. In many ways I compare her to Sarah Brown.

I've never quite understood why they made Jamie the father either. All I can think of is that they had already decided they were going to turn Jake very dark and they didn't want to saddle him with a child.

Jamie as Steven's father could have had potential if they'd just built Jamie up again as a character. It made me sad when I read SOD saying, after Laurence Lau's firing, that they might as well just kill Jamie off, as he was played out. Jamie should have been the heart of the Cory family, and of the show.

I really think Anne was suited for daytime (or what daytime used to be). It helps that she was softer then, but beyond that, I think the pace and the wide range of material and the relationships built with other cast members helped her really grow and put herself into so many different emotions. She has had a very hard edge in a lot of her work after AW. In many ways I compare her to Sarah Brown.

I've never quite understood why they made Jamie the father either. All I can think of is that they had already decided they were going to turn Jake very dark and they didn't want to saddle him with a child.

Jamie as Steven's father could have had potential if they'd just built Jamie up again as a character. It made me sad when I read SOD saying, after Laurence Lau's firing, that they might as well just kill Jamie off, as he was played out. Jamie should have been the heart of the Cory family, and of the show.

The problem with Jamie is that he's really the Mike Horton type of character. He was never actually a character, he was a merry-go-round of different actors in their early 30s, perpetually the young single very-available doctor who was the leading man of whatever attractive leading lady was in need of one at the time.

The problem with Jamie is that he's really the Mike Horton type of character. He was never actually a character, he was a merry-go-round of different actors in their early 30s, perpetually the young single very-available doctor who was the leading man of whatever attractive leading lady was in need of one at the time.

I think that can work with proper material - they managed to do this pretty well with Richard Bekins, making Jamie a decent man with many demons and insecurities. That's what Jamie should have been. They also should have done more with his Frame side.

I'm wondering how AW would have turned out if Bell had written the show for the long haul--can't you see Alice and Pat getting entangled with Lance and Lucas Prentiss while Mac watches Rachel stripping?

With people comparing AMC's finale to past finales, I'd thought I'd share this:

I will always defend that finale, many flaws and all (Sam Groom as a minister why??). It helps that Carolyn Hinsey didn't like it.

I do wonder what Bill Bell would have done. I think he probably would have written Mary out too, but for different reasons. I think he would have kept Liz more viperous and also sexualized her a little more. I can see her as lusting after Steve, secretly, and making life hell for Alice/Steve as a result. Or lusting after John Randolph.

I can imagine Mary might have ended up the same more or less or possibly gone the way of Jennifer Brooks. As for Liz, all I can say is Katherine Chancellor. Missy Palmer probably could have been his Laura Horton.

I do think he would have done more to give Mary a dignifed end - the abruptness with Mary's death seemed to be what upset people the most.

I also don't think he would have created Rachel - she wasn't his type of character.

I think he probably would have done more with John/Pat like giving John a crazy and not actually dead wife (Lee's mother). Lee probably would have been a central character.

One of the problems with Jamie was the SORASing,with Bekins being 25 in 79,when Jamie should have been about 10.Then as the years go by,Jamie can't age too much as Rachel will start to look too old,so the character gets stuck in limbo.Recasting with Yates, Lau and Todd didn't help as Jamie lost the edge that Bekins brought to the role.

Also,after 10 years the character had been married 3 times,so story possibilities were more limited (particularly with soap writers obsession with marriage.)

Lau seemed like a totally different character.Making Jamie a doctor was another change for the character.Having him work at Cory Publishing would be more true to the character.Was it ever mentioned that he had written a novel etc when Lau came on as a doctor? - after about a year offscreen.

I don't think any of that was ever mentioned.

If they were going to keep him as a doctor they should have kept Russ on and had them in some conflict at work.

It was an odd decision to make him a doctor, as John Hudson, who was brought on by the same team early the following year, was also a medic.

When I was watching the late 1991 episodes (which I guess I should get back to before they're gone) Jamie was all but obsessing over Paulina and her welfare. I think that they were initially going to put her with Jamie but it never happened.

Having Jamie and Jake as rivals so often never worked for me, because Jamie just tended to purse his lips and look peeved. It was almost like a parody of a preppie and a punk, and Jamie wasn't supposed to be a preppy.