2 hours ago, Xanthe said:

I was surprised to see that Cass got involved with the movie after Milo ran away -- he was scheming to help Cecile by hindering the distribution of the movie. While looking for episodes I came across what seems to be Cass' introduction -- he arrives and sees Elena and baby Maggie at Mac's house. I was very interested since in the later retcon where Cecile claimed he was Maggie's father it seemed impossible that they had known each other when Maggie was conceived, but it appears that he and Elena already know each other, so maybe he also knew Cecile as well?

Fans pointed this out at the time. The show's response was to claim Cecile and Cass had had some hookup on the Continent, or something, before that point...although it later turned out Cecile was lying anyway. Great writing all around.

I think that AW's real problem that after a while -for reasons unknown-  it only existed as a vanity project for Victoria Wyndham.

Getting rid of Alice, the show's heroine so that Rachel could take her place.

Getting rid of all of the veterans so that Victoria Wyndham could be the one and only.

(Why did she get star billing again?)

Sending super popular Beverlee's Iris to Texas. It was 1980. GH and AMC were huge hits, NBC was in trouble. Why do something like that again?

I personally feel that the biggest problem with Rachel is that they turned her into a Victoria Lord expy post 1983. She was much better as the antiheroine that she was before that, a bit more mature than in the Steve and Alice days but still with the type of impulses she had for example during the Mac and Mitch triangle.

53 minutes ago, Sapounopera said:

I think that AW's real problem that after a while -for reasons unknown-  it only existed as a vanity project for Victoria Wyndham.

Getting rid of Alice, the show's heroine so that Rachel could take her place.

Getting rid of all of the veterans so that Victoria Wyndham could be the one and only.

(Why did she get star billing again?)

Sending super popular Beverlee's Iris to Texas. It was 1980. GH and AMC were huge hits, NBC was in trouble. Why do something like that again?

I think many of these decisions were based on Lemay's hubris, rather than just wanting to promote Victoria Wyndham. He wasn't close to Jacqueline Courtney the way he was to Susan Sullivan, Victoria, or Constance Ford, and he and Rauch arrogantly assumed she could be replaced. He also seemingly assumed a number of theater actors he had take big roles on the show would stay long-term. This led to a rot where Victoria was one of the only popular actresses who was staying long-term. And as the canvas was so empty, that made it even easier for P&G to run through dumping based on ageism, like what happened to Beverly Penberthy. 

As for Beverlee, wasn't she burnt out of playing Iris the way she had to play her and just burnt out at AW, period?

1 minute ago, heffos said:

I personally feel that the biggest problem with Rachel is that they turned her into a Victoria Lord expy post 1983. She was much better as the antiheroine that she was before that, a bit more mature than in the Steve and Alice days but still with the type of impulses she had for example during the Mac and Mitch triangle.

One of the best parts of Lemay's 1988 return was that he wrote her much more aggressively - there's a fantastic scene which is probably not on Youtube where Rachel icily cuts Liz out of the family after she blurts out to Matt the truth about his conception. 

The original concept of AW was basically a more psychological study of the traditional soap opera format/tropes... or that's what I got from the bible I read awhile ago.  Sadly, Irna was the not right person to bring that aspect to life.. which is why the show floundered for the first couple of years until Agnes Nixon was able to right the ship.

Harding Lemay in the 70s fashion AW like a Masterpiece Theatre for daytime tv.. and I think the sudden rise of GH due to action/adventure threw all of daytime in a panic.. and AW suffered.  The 90 minute expansion, moving the timeslot, and removing Iris also eroded the show, as well as not having a headwriter that could successfully continue the Masterpiece Theatre identity.

Corrine J was an attempt to maintain that element, but she gutted the show instead of enhancing the show.  Lemay used elements already in place and just expanded upon them (he also learned the rules of soap opera writing from Iran so he understood what rules he could break and what rules he needed to maintain).

I truly think by the late 80s/early 90s, the show had managed to find a happy medium between glitz, action, and character... but a show that's a balance can sometimes blend in instead of becoming popular.

In JFP's defense, when she entered in the mid 90s, the show had no clear identity anymore (Swajeski was long gone by then).. so she figured changing the show might entice new viewers to come... but it ended up driving away the loyal viewers that had been attracted by the version of AW that had been the constant since 1988/9.

I do think the final months of AW did show that there was still a bit of life on the show (though by then, everyone was isolated in their own story bubbles with little to no overlap in interaction.)

8 minutes ago, heffos said:

I personally feel that the biggest problem with Rachel is that they turned her into a Victoria Lord expy post 1983. She was much better as the antiheroine that she was before that, a bit more mature than in the Steve and Alice days but still with the type of impulses she had for example

11 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I think many of these decisions were based on Lemay's hubris, rather than just wanting to promote Victoria Wyndham. He wasn't close to Jacqueline Courtney the way he was to Susan Sullivan, Victoria, or Constance Ford, and he and Rauch arrogantly assumed she could be replaced. He also seemingly assumed a number of theater actors he had take big roles on the show would stay long-term. This led to a rot where Victoria was one of the only popular actresses who was staying long-term. And as the canvas was so empty, that made it even easier for P&G to run through dumping based on ageism, like what happened to Beverly Penberthy. 

As for Beverlee, wasn't she burnt out of playing Iris the way she had to play her and just burnt out at AW, period?

One of the best parts of Lemay's 1988 return was that he wrote her much more aggressively - there's a fantastic scene which is probably not on Youtube where Rachel icily cuts Liz out of the family after she blurts out to Matt the truth about his conception. 

during the Mac and Mitch triangle.

I remember during Leah Laiman's stint in the final years that they smartly played up the reformed bad girl seeing through the tricks of the newest social climber with Lila putting on the southern girl act even calling Rachel 'Mother Hutchins'.. and Rachel just stands there with an expression that said 'oh you're good, but I was way better then you when I pulled this routine' LOL

38 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

And as the canvas was so empty, that made it even easier for P&G to run through dumping based on ageism, like what happened to Beverly Penberthy. 

Coincidentally, her final episode aired 41 years ago today.

33 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:

Coincidentally, her final episode aired 41 years ago today.

By the way, I understand that Beverly Penberthy is now 90 years old.  That is difficult to believe.  I loved her acting style when she played Pat, and she was certainly beautiful.   

2 hours ago, Neil Johnson said:

By the way, I understand that Beverly Penberthy is now 90 years old.  That is difficult to believe.  I loved her acting style when she played Pat, and she was certainly beautiful.   

She was a wonderful actress, and that's just in the flat material I've seen of her last few years as Pat. AW made a huge mistake getting rid of her. She would have easily fit into the more chic '80s Bay City. 

A part of me wishes they'd tried pairing her with Mac, instead of going for Mac/Alice. Imagine Cecile's reaction to that.

Edited January 15, 20232 yr by DRW50

6 hours ago, DRW50 said:

One of the best parts of Lemay's 1988 return was that he wrote her much more aggressively - there's a fantastic scene which is probably not on Youtube where Rachel icily cuts Liz out of the family after she blurts out to Matt the truth about his conception. 

Also a couple of scenes in which she goes toe to toe with Sharlene. Rachel was much more interesting when she had a bite to her ... a sentiment I think Vicky W. would wholeheartedly agree with. 

7 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I think many of these decisions were based on Lemay's hubris, rather than just wanting to promote Victoria Wyndham. He wasn't close to Jacqueline Courtney the way he was to Susan Sullivan, Victoria, or Constance Ford, and he and Rauch arrogantly assumed she could be replaced. He also seemingly assumed a number of theater actors he had take big roles on the show would stay long-term. This led to a rot where Victoria was one of the only popular actresses who was staying long-term. And as the canvas was so empty, that made it even easier for P&G to run through dumping based on ageism, like what happened to Beverly Penberthy. 

As for Beverlee, wasn't she burnt out of playing Iris the way she had to play her and just burnt out at AW, period?

Victoria Wyndham has said some very interesting things in her interviews. Like writing the show herself, or that they didn't cancel because of her. I am pretty sure someone at NBC really really liked her. 

54 minutes ago, Sapounopera said:

He also seemingly assumed a number of theater actors he had take big roles on the show would stay long-term.

I completely agree.  If you read Lemay's book, you'd think he populated the entire show with Broadway actors. But the truth is -- although many fairly well-known theater actors were hired on AW during Lemay's tenure, 90% of those actors played minor roles.  And of the few who were hired into major roles, almost none lasted more than a year.  In fact, of all the theater actors hired during Lemay's run, only Irene Dailey stayed-on long-term.  And even she was known as a soap opera actress, along with her Broadway credentials.

Of course many actors in long-term major roles on AW had significant theater experience -- Doug Watson, Vicky Wyndham,  George Reinholt, Connie Ford, Leon Russom, Kathleen Widdoes, Dorothy Lyman, Anne Meacham, Beverly Penberthy, Laurie Hineman, etc.  But all of them (like Irene Dailey) had played roles on other soaps, before joining AW.

It's not as if Lemay just picked each of them directly off the stage.    

Edited January 16, 20232 yr by Neil Johnson

8 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

I think the sudden rise of GH due to action/adventure threw all of daytime in a panic.. and AW suffered. 

I think all shows that weren't the ABC big three suffered. NBC on the whole was a giant mess in the late 1970s/early 1980s. CBS daytime was shaken up to the point that they made numerous scheduling changes in the early 1980s.

Thank you for all the comments about AW and the major mistakes made with the show. On a storytelling note, I think AW had a similar problem to SB from 1987 on. They did not have long-term storylines planned out so that so many storylines just fizzled out (Dawn's HIV, The Red Swan, Mary's return, Cass/Rex, the strangler, MJ's past, Nicole, etc.). I also think a big mistake was getting rid of Petronia Paley and not doing much with Jane Cameron's Nancy. There was so much potential during these years, but it felt as if the writers or execs just didn't care to follow through with anything. They just threw anything at the wall in the hopes it would work. As much as I liked aspects of Swajeski's writing, she was not great at pacing and follow through either. I remember it annoyed me that she would end an episode with a cliffhanger, and then it would take another three episodes to go back and resolve the cliffhanger.

The problem with Rauch and P&G by 1979/80 is that they were trying to copy instead of invent.  The Corringtons were doing fine at SFT and having them create a show based in Texas when they lived and breathed New Orleans was the first mistake.  Daytime audience did not need to see a cheap rip off of Dallas which had premiered in 1978.  The Corringtons might have had a better long term bible if they had been able to write what they knew: New Orleans.  In any event, Beverlee would have been out of place on any show taking place in the south. It was dumb.  I thought AW slightly recovered with Soderberg/Purser.  They created bunch of characters and stories that lasted for years afterwards.  

5 hours ago, RavenWhitney said:

In any event, Beverlee would have been out of place on any show taking place in the south. It was dumb.  I thought AW slightly recovered with Soderberg/Purser.  They created bunch of characters and stories that lasted for years afterwards.  

In a prior discussion I opined how odd it was that Iris was chosen for the spinoff.  Reading the synopsis, Iris and Brian divorce rather quickly, after months of squabbles, and she suddenly flies off to Houston.  It was as if Iris was randomly chosen, rather than being a part of the original plan.  Although, most of the Texas characters who were featured on AW before the spinoff were in Iris's orbit, I agree that she was a poor fit, and her character was in many ways unrecognizable on Texas.

In my opinion, Blaine would have been the ideal center of the spinoff.  She had been the center of the story for a couple of years.  She was established as coming from a ranching background.  In the story, she was single at the time of the spinoff.  And her backstory was unexplored enough that there was story to be mined from her history (I don't know where the Alma stuff comes in the sequentially in the context of Texas).

Edited January 16, 20232 yr by j swift