6 hours ago, RavenWhitney said:

In any event, Beverlee would have been out of place on any show taking place in the south.

I'm not sure what you mean by this -- do you mean that they didn't treat Iris as a fish out of water and they should have done? 

I decided to put this under the Another World discussion since this particular project was done right after Robin Strasser left AW.

It was a low budget horror movie called 'The Bride' or by other titles (The House that cried Murder or Last house on Massacre Street) that she filmed in mid to late 1972.  She would have been an effective horror movie actress based on this movie had soaps not called her back in the mid 70s..imho.

Two new 1983 episodes…

 

 

1 hour ago, watson71 said:

Two new 1983 episodes…

 

 

Thank you. Loving Felicia's harder edge. And nice to see Brian! I only wish the ep had had some of Sally and Peter.

 

So I have been watching Nov 1992 of the show, and the show was so good then. The only downside is the excess amount of Jenna, Dean, and Kelsey being shown. I don't get why Jamie was moved from Marley's orbit into Kelsey's. While the arc with Kelsey was progressive and needed to be told at that time, the bigger payoff and option should've been to have kept Jamie in the orbit with Marley and Dennis (and Olivia to a lesser extent). A quad with those 4 would've been so much juicier, as they were four characters that the audience cared for. 

Speaking of, for those who were watching AW in real time around that time, what was the consensus toward Kelsey? Or Olivia? I am always interested to hear with the soap historians on this board opinions are. 

At the time I couldn't stand Kelsey as a character. It was probably the writing, but I wanted her away from everyone. She reminds me of that co-worker you're not really fond of that continually inserts himself or herself into every conversation without being invited to join. 😆 Maybe if I watched again now, I wouldn't be so against her. There were just many more characters I would rather have had on my screen. 

I didn't mind Olivia as much. I thought she was a good foil in the Sam/Amanda relationship. Other than that, I don't remember much of her storyline. I don't think she had much "independence", did she? I just think of her always needing a man. Matt, Sam, Dennis. 

 

(AW SPOILER WARNING) Today, I enjoyed reading the recent update on the AWHP. The episode synopsis are up for August through December, 1971.  These include Harding Lemay's first episodes as head-writer (starting date: August 31, 1971).  Immediately, we begin to hear of Steve Frame's background -- growing-up poor with multiple siblings.  And it becomes clear, pretty quickly, that Walter Curtain is unredeemable.  Also, there are multiple mentions of Pat Randolph's murder-trial from a 1963 storyline.  Lemay fans will recall, Pat's 1963 abortion and murder plot was something Lemay kept percolating for his entire eight-years as head-writer.  

AND we finally get a play-by-play description of the end of the Caroline Johnson storyline -- in which Caroline (played by Rue McClanahan), nannie for the Randolph twins, plots to take over Pat's live, husband, and ultimately kidnap Michael and Marianne -- to replace her own deceased twins. Anyone who has read Lemay's "Eight Years in Another World" will recall Lemay hated this plot, initially written by AW's former head-writer, and that Lemay quickly wrapped-up the storyline when he arrived.  Well, upon reading the daily synopsis, I will say that "wrapping-up" is not the term I would use. Lemay simply ended the plot just as it was approaching its intended climax.  Out of the blue, Pat finds reason (a fairly good reason, I will admit) to fire Caroline, and Caroline is gone.  It's McClanahan's final scene.   Then about a week later, Caroline is arrested by the police off-camera, and the audience learns Caroline's entire back-story, and her intention to kidnap Michael and Marianne.   So the entire denouement of Caroline's plot takes place off-camera.  Wow, what a buzz-kill!  This had to be one of Mr Lemay's stranger decisions.    

Edited January 31, 20232 yr by Neil Johnson

This is fascinating to hear about, thank you. I'll go look it up. Eddie Drueding never lets people down.

I didn't know Lemay invoked Pat's trial much, and I read his book. I'd love to hear more.

58 minutes ago, Vee said:

This is fascinating to hear about, thank you. I'll go look it up. Eddie Drueding never lets people down.

I didn't know Lemay invoked Pat's trial much, and I read his book. I'd love to hear more.

In addition to these early Lemay mentions of Pat's abortion and murder trial, I remember the following: In 1975, Lemay wrote Marianne Randolph's pregnancy and abortion, which mirrored Pat's situation a generation earlier, minus the murder and trial. The parallels to Pat's 1963 situation were discussed by Pat and John, Jim and Liz, and Alice and Pat.   Then in 1978, another storyline with Marianne ended with Pat killing Marianne's boyfriend Greg Barnard, while experiencing flash-backs to her killing Tom Baxter in 1963.   So clearly Harding Lemay had no intention of allowing Pat Randolph to forget her scandalous past.    

35 minutes ago, Neil Johnson said:

In addition to these early Lemay mentions of Pat's abortion and murder trial, I remember the following: In 1975, Lemay wrote Marianne Randolph's pregnancy and abortion, which mirrored Pat's situation a generation earlier, minus the murder and trial. The parallels to Pat's 1963 situation were discussed by Pat and John, Jim and Liz, and Alice and Pat.   Then in 1978, another storyline with Marianne ended with Pat killing Marianne's boyfriend Greg Barnard, while experiencing flash-backs to her killing Tom Baxter in 1963.   So clearly Harding Lemay had no intention of allowing Pat Randolph to forget her scandalous past.    

Wasn't that the substitute story that Lemay wrote when P&G reversed themselves on the Michael Randolph gay storyline? Maybe I'm wrong about that. But, if I'm right he would not have been wholly satisfied with what he wrote in the original story's place. And it could go apiece toward explaining a certain insensitivity perhaps. 

13 minutes ago, Tonksadora said:

Wasn't that the substitute story that Lemay wrote when P&G reversed themselves on the Michael Randolph gay storyline? Maybe I'm wrong about that. But, if I'm right he would not have been wholly satisfied with what he wrote in the original story's place. And it could go apiece toward explaining a certain insensitivity perhaps. 

First; I don't think there was any insensitivity about either of the plots which mirrored Pat's abortion/trial.  Lemay was just mining the past, which is something unique to the soap opera genre. All good soap opera writers mine the past of their respective shows. Any soap writer who doesn't use the past is an idiot.

Second; Yes, I believe Marianne's pregnancy and abortion in 1975 were written as an alternative to Lemay's original plan to write Michael Randolph as gay.  That in no way implies that Lemay was disappointed in Marianne's storyline. But you are correct -- Lemay was clearly disappointed when P&G put the kibosh on Michael being gay.    

50 minutes ago, Neil Johnson said:

First; I don't think there was any insensitivity about either of the plots which mirrored Pat's abortion/trial.  Lemay was just mining the past, which is something unique to the soap opera genre. All good soap opera writers mine the past of their respective shows. Any soap writer who doesn't use the past is an idiot.

Second; Yes, I believe Marianne's pregnancy and abortion in 1975 were written as an alternative to Lemay's original plan to write Michael Randolph as gay.  That in no way implies that Lemay was disappointed in Marianne's storyline. But you are correct -- Lemay was clearly disappointed when P&G put the kibosh on Michael being gay.    

Good points! And, yes, thank goodness soaps do use their history.

Yeah, well, P&G pulled a fast one, in a way. Lemay had not yet signed a contract. They gave him a greenlight so much so that he cast the role & told the actor what would come to pass and, he signed a contract. Then, they withdrew their approval once they had the signed contract. There's the business side of the 'biz. I do think he took his responsibilities to the show just as seriously but as you say, clearly disappointed. 

I didn't realize just how many daily synopses AWHP had. It is a bit wild that it doesn't seem as though Mac and Rachel actually began seeing each other until December of '74 (she still is calling him "Mr. Cory" in quoted dialogue, and he tells her to call him Mac). Then he proposes about a month later!

That's interesting because they were married on Valentines Day 1975. Maybe Lemay turned up the heat on their involvement because of the impending expansion to one hour in January 1975 (though he surely would have known about that for a while) since Mac/Rachel (and Iris) was to be the central storyline of the hour-long show for the next few years.

My own first look at Bay City was Wednesday 2/12/75; turned it on because we were stuck indoors due to a big snowstorm. I was immediately captivated by Beverlee McKinsey's Iris - who was this woman frantically running around town looking for her father and gradually realizing that someone named Rachel was missing too? Two days later we saw the private wedding at Mac's NYC townhouse, and the week after they returned home to shock everyone in town. Liz actually attacked Rachel when she heard the news, since Iris had been encouraging the idea of a Liz/Mac romance.

By then I was hooked.