Jump to content

Another World Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 13.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.)

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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 by DRW50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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 by Neil Johnson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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 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

    • 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
    • Oh I've seem this! That's part of why I'm curious! The show could put EastEnders to shame on the gangster Aspect! Oh I've seem this! That's part of why I'm curious! The show could put EastEnders to shame on the gangster Aspect!
    • Eve was one of those characters that had the "Jessie Brewer"role. They had heavy storyline, they burned through it and now they are there for support and a touchstone in the community (Marland wanted to give Jessie story, but I agree with Monty...she best served in her connecting role, and keeping that damn Amy Vining busy so she keeps her nose out of things) So charcters are important and why they should have kept characters like Bridget around (even as she is more volatiles then Eve) who didnt need a big storyline but could have been behind the bar making connections and expostion, but Rauch wanted JEVA/JEVA/JEVA and DRAMA (which to him meant a lot of yelling and stupidity.)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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