I have a question that maybe someone could help with. Y'all talking about Rachel killing Janice in self defense on the island remote made me think of it. Mitch Blake came town fall on '79. Mac also married Janice in fall of '79. We found out Mitch was Sam's half brother. Seemingly he was a bad guy & he was a partner of Janice's in nefarious deeds. His purpose was to help her swndle Mac out of money. Okay, cut to being on the island & Mac is very ill. Did Mitch know he was helping murder Mac? Then, all of a sudden, Mitch did a 180 & began to help Rachel. 

What was his motivation for changing sides? Thanks anyone. 

Rachel led him on to find out what Janice was doing with Mac and followed them all to St. Croix ... Mitch ended up having feelings for Rachel and saw how nuts Janice had become. So, Mitch was not a hero, just conflicted ... he SHOULD have been in jail for that way before his jail time for eventually kidnapping their infant son Matthew. In soap items, I guess Rachel being "reformed" was a match for "reforming" Mitch. Never saw it. IMO, Rachel and Mac were so suited ... written and acted in the glory days of 73-79 to perfection ... that no one would be a good match for either. The bigger question is why Rachel would fall for Mitch after the poisoning storyline. It was just not believable that Rachel would be so desperate for Mitch to have Matthew and her as a family (her third child) and EVERYONE in her life was so strongly against it. Bad decision ... bad writing.

18 hours ago, Neil Johnson said:

Most long-term fans will remember that the Frame Farm was originally in Oklahoma.  But when Jason, Rachel, and Sharlene discussed the 1988 farm in Bay City, they said it had been Emma's farm and that Steve had later owned it. And Oklahoma wasn't mentioned, as I recall.  So the Frame farm in Bay City was one of the biggest continuity errors in the history of Another World.  A few years later, writers tried to correct the mistake, by discussing Oklahoma again and saying Emma still lived there.  

Also regarding the 1988 Frames' attitudes toward Janice's death, I believe Jason and Sharlene knew how Janice died.  But they still blamed Rachel, because Rachel actually did kill Janice -- even though it was self defense.  They sort of conveniently ignored the self defense issue, because they didn't like Rachel because of all the trouble she had caused for Steve back in the 1970s.   But they did know how Janice died.   

It was a convoluted period as others mentioned regarding the number of headwriters and the strike ... I BELIEVE the way they referenced the farms was this - (and it was total back-writing) Emma bought the Bay City farm because she missed her home in Oklahoma (totally inconsistent since Emma spent little time in Bay City and while she did, she lived with Alice as did her daughter Molly initially- PLUS Emma was poor, no way she could have managed two farms and her husband was always in Oklahoma. Steve ran from his farm roots (LeMay's backstory) and never wanted to return so that was a miss.) On top of all this was Frankie ... who as Emmas daughter went to high school outside of Bay City? (she attended a high school reunion with Cass on camera at a school outside Bay City.) This is all even further hard to believe since Harding LeMay wrote the initial story and was involved in some way in the Frame family reintroduction. I'm sure some of this helped lead him back out the door shortly after his 1988 return. 

Thank you! That is always the way I felt about Mitch. Suspicious! And, later I was unsure whether he was a worthy suitor for Felicia. But, I definitely questioned "credibility" with Rachel being romantic or sexual with him. And, then we were seemingly stuck with him as a good guy. Of course, Wm. Grey Espy was a good actor, so it wasn't that. It had to be the writing. Do you know what different writers wrote him? I can figure that out, of course, but you might know off the top of your head. 

On 1/13/2023 at 1:19 PM, j swift said:

The comparison to MOD is that both films were being sabotaged by their own production.  In both cases it was an inside job that prevented the films from being completed and released.

Jamie wrote the screenplay with the help of his editor Mark Singleton.  Jamie was dating Stacey, Cass's sister, but his drug use ended that relationship so she started dating Mark.

It terms of the scandal, my vague memory was that it was Pat who was embarrassed by the book, because it had references to her murder trial.  But, it is very likely that I am incorrect and I would appreciate anyone who recalls the specifics of that story.

Ok, I'm not ENTIRELY clear on this either but Jamie (James) wrote the BOOK "A View of the Bay" to handle his anger with the hypocrisy he felt his family and the people he knew in Bay City engaged in. Somehow there was interest in making it a movie with characters introduced overnight to accomplish this storyline. Mark Singleton was not involved in this Jamie storyline. He came in as a senator later with ambitions on running for president with a more motivated wife named Janet. Stacy was involved with Mark as part of her past and was torn between Mark and her budding relationship with Jamie AFTER the move storyline abruptly ended. I think movie producer/financier Milo was wrecking the film for insurance money while dating and trying to milk Liz of her money. Julia was wrapped in as an aspiring actress as the lead. Vic, another producer, was linked to Cecile. Jamie was linked to actress Christine Wylie (they tried to establish a rich family around her for about a week!!) Jason ALSO got into the act in and out of his mob connection. As fast as the movie storyline came in 82 it was gone. Yes, Pat ran from town (quite unbelievably) because her past was lightly exposed in the book ... um, didn't most of the town KNOW about her past from the initial murder trial and the follow-up Greg Barnard trial years later? Her departure was a result of the book not movie ... in fact, her departure scene was Julia's introduction scene (by phone to her adopted Aunt Liz). 

19 minutes ago, Tonksadora said:

Thank you! That is always the way I felt about Mitch. Suspicious! And, later I was unsure whether he was a worthy suitor for Felicia. But, I definitely questioned "credibility" with Rachel being romantic or sexual with him. And, then we were seemingly stuck with him as a good guy. Of course, Wm. Grey Espy was a good actor, so it wasn't that. It had to be the writing. Do you know what different writers wrote him? I can figure that out, of course, but you might know off the top of your head. 

Here's what I think - I THINK he was conceived by Harding Lemay in 1979 but Tom King and Robert Soderberg developed him as they completed the poisoning storyline and the fallout. I THINK L. Virginia Browne coupled Rachel and Mitch after Rachel shot him and went to jail thinking she killed him with Mitch suffering amnesia traveling across the country. Either she or Corrine Jacker broke Rachel and Mitch up after Rachel refused to move to San Francisco with Mitch after she discovered Steve Frame(recast Canary) was alive. It was DEFINITELY Corrine Jacker that had Mitch return (briefly) tied to the organization that kidnapped children for fathers denied their rights so I think she wrote him off to jail (after kidnapping son Matthew) as well (a plot point to bring Steve to Rachel's side and away from Alice (recast) prior to their being trapped in the building collapse. Margaret DePriest brought him back released from prison as part of the Reginald Love storyline (he was hired off camera to dig for the "trump" Reginald had stashed under the Cory stables with a tunnel to the Love property. AS a cover story he was hired as part of a former convict job story (by Quinn not knowing who he was)) that led him to be hired by Frame-Harding construction to renovate the Cory living room (plot to keep him in Rachel's orbit and again lead to a really weak Rachel-Mac-Mitch triangle) Laughingly, they covered up the living room with plastic but never changed it ... that didn't happen until 1988 when it changed overnight into the last set than ran the rest of the show. DePriest was also responsible for hooking him to Felicia after Rachel realized (ugh) again Mac was her true love. Mitch initially protected Felicia from Reginald after she wrote a series of articles in Brave for Mac called "Anatomy of a Vulture." So in this period Mitch was written by DePriest, Thom Racina, Sheri Anderson (briefly) Harding LeMay (briefly) Donna Swajewski (who broke up Mitch and Felicia in favor of quasi-mobster Lucas. It was either Swajewski or Peggy Sloane who wrote Mitch off for the last time to Africa on some kind of photo shoot. There's a LOT more detail here but that covers the headwriters.)

45 minutes ago, Olive Randolph said:

Here's what I think - I THINK he was conceived by Harding Lemay in 1979 but Tom King and Robert Soderberg developed him as they completed the poisoning storyline and the fallout. .. .

Oh my! That was fantastic. I'll have to re-read that & I might have to go soak my head. 

While I'm here, have you ever heard that Swajeski had trouble getting along with the other writers on the team then? All of whom are mentioned here. 

4 hours ago, Olive Randolph said:

The bigger question is why Rachel would fall for Mitch after the poisoning storyline. It was just not believable that Rachel would be so desperate for Mitch to have Matthew and her as a family (her third child) and EVERYONE in her life was so strongly against it. Bad decision ... bad writing.

Total nonsense. 

Idk how they thought could make a Rachel/Mitch pairing work, especially everything that had happened the year before.

2 hours ago, Olive Randolph said:

Here's what I think - I THINK he was conceived by Harding Lemay in 1979 but Tom King and Robert Soderberg developed him as they completed the poisoning storyline and the fallout.

I've always believed that Mitch was created by Lemay, just as I believe Cecile (the original French Cecile) was created by Lemay.  When Mitch first showed up in Bay City, he was a dark character but not evil and not a criminal -- just the type of character Lemay loved writing for.  I rather doubt the "Mac poisoning" storyline was conceived by Lemay, but I suppose it is possible.  Certainly Tom King took the entire show in his own direction very quickly, but he was fairly good at writing for some of the established legacy characters -- particularly Rachel, Mac, Iris, Ada, Pat, Dennis, etc.  Some exceptions include Alice, Michael, Marianne, and the entire Perrini family, all of whom King relegated to the back-burner before writing them all out completely. Then, of course, King's new characters were all completely unsuccessful, with the possible exception of Sandy Cory.  Sandy did have some long-term appeal, mostly because of the actor's charm, rather than the mediocre writing.  Tom King seemed obsessed with bringing a strong crime element to the show, and as bad as it was -- the crime segment (at times consuming over a fourth of the cast) remained on the show for over three-years, even out-lasting King.  That crime stuff was BAD.  Really bad.  King may have been trying to imitate Edge of Night, but he clearly did not know how to write compelling crime stories.   

16 minutes ago, Neil Johnson said:

I've always believed that Mitch was created by Lemay, just as I believe Cecile (the original French Cecile) was created by Lemay.  When Mitch first showed up in Bay City, he was a dark character but not evil and not a criminal -- just the type of character Lemay loved writing for.

@AbcNbc247Yes, total nonsense. I balked at a Mitch/Rachel pairing.

And, I also wanted to think that he began as a Lemay creation, no telling what happened to him after he was spun around like a Spin The Bottle game with many different writers. 

I want to thank everyone for the discussion. I've brought Mitch up before different places & gotten no interest. 

🤔🫵🫰👏👏🔊NOW HEAR THIS: Mitch Blake has left the building. 

54 minutes ago, Neil Johnson said:

Tom King seemed obsessed with bringing a strong crime element to the show, and as bad as it was -- the crime segment (at times consuming over a fourth of the cast) remained on the show for over three-years, even out-lasting King.  That crime stuff was BAD.  Really bad.  King may have been trying to imitate Edge of Night, but he clearly did not know how to write compelling crime stories.   

I suspect there was also a mandate for more action and or plot-driven storylines.

56 minutes ago, Franko said:

I suspect there was also a mandate for more action and or plot-driven storylines.

Oh yes, there was definitely a mandate for more plot-driven material.  NBC/P&G wanted AW to become a more "normal" soap opera -- to get away from Lemay's almost experimental character-driven plotless stuff, -- and become more similar to AW's sister shows, ATWT and GL.  Unfortunately, TPTB at AW seemed unable to hire a head-writer who was capable of that. So the show floundered, and ratings fell for years.  Ironically, it was Harding Lemay's brief return in 1988 that refocused the show, and gave AW a new solid foundation of characters. And then Donna Swajeski finally made AW a "normal" soap opera in the model of All My Children, As the World Turns, and Guiding Light.  I was never completely happy with Sawjeski's writing, but she was certainly one of AW's four best head-writers.  The others being: Agnes Nixon, Robert Cenedella, and Harding Lemay. None of the other merry-go-round of head-writers could ever compare to those four.  My opinion only.    

15 minutes ago, Neil Johnson said:

Ironically, it was Harding Lemay's brief return in 1988 that refocused the show, and gave AW a new solid foundation of characters.

I'm curious about this - how so? I'm not challenging you, I'm just curious. I know they'd introduced Vicky, Marley, Jake, Donna, Michael, etc. in the mid-80s before his return.

22 minutes ago, Neil Johnson said:

I was never completely happy with Sawjeski's writing, but she was certainly one of AW's four best head-writers.  The others being: Agnes Nixon, Robert Cenedella, and Harding Lemay. None of the other merry-go-round of head-writers could ever compare to those four.  My opinion only.    

Someone has suggested to me that P&G asked King to do crime stories because of what GH was having success with at that time.

And, later, NBC wanted AW to be more like what DOOL was at that time. I think it was an impossibility but NBC felt they couldn't promote AW & that they could promote DOOL & if AW were more like it, sort of a DOOL jr or DOOL Lite, that they could "brand" advertise. 

I believe that Agnes Nixon saved AW from an early cancellation, very early. It could easily have been one of the soaps that was cancelled with around 6 years tenure. There are many in the history books. She changed Rachel & Ada & made them into her first put upon mother with selfish daughter. And, she created the first famous romantic triangle with Alice, Steve & Rachel. 

I adore Pete Lemay & have combed over all of his interviews in addition to his book with epilogue. I disagree with him on one thing, only. I understand the necessity of firing George Reinholt & I think a lot of his problem stemmed from self-loathing. And, supposedly everyone was going to Paul begging him to get George to stop saying the things he was, to everyone. I understand the necessity of firing Virginia Dwyer. She refused to learn lines, or maybe she could not, and instead made up what she thought Mary Matthews would say. That kind of insubordination can poison a group of actors. Then, the issue with Jackie Courtney was that Lemay did not think she could act. I feel they should have put her with an Acting Coach to get her to deliver what they wanted. Frankly, many people thought her acting was fine. 

I love Donna Swajeski & her work on AW & her work writing for Otalia at GL at the end. 

1 hour ago, Neil Johnson said:

Oh yes, there was definitely a mandate for more plot-driven material.  NBC/P&G wanted AW to become a more "normal" soap opera -- to get away from Lemay's almost experimental character-driven plotless stuff, -- and become more similar to AW's sister shows, ATWT and GL.  Unfortunately, TPTB at AW seemed unable to hire a head-writer who was capable of that. So the show floundered, and ratings fell for years.  Ironically, it was Harding Lemay's brief return in 1988 that refocused the show, and gave AW a new solid foundation of characters. And then Donna Swajeski finally made AW a "normal" soap opera in the model of All My Children, As the World Turns, and Guiding Light.  I was never completely happy with Sawjeski's writing, but she was certainly one of AW's four best head-writers.  The others being: Agnes Nixon, Robert Cenedella, and Harding Lemay. None of the other merry-go-round of head-writers could ever compare to those four.  My opinion only.    

My favourite era of Another World was definitely 1975-79 with Harding Lemay as head writer.  My second favourite was December 1982 - mid 1985.  I thought Dorthy Ann Purser & Robert Soderberg and then Gary Tomlin & Richard Culliton struck a nice balance of the old and new.  I enjoyed Donna Swajeski and Peggy Sloane's tenures but for me Another World was a completely different show after 1985/86.

Edited February 2, 20232 yr by Efulton