1 hour ago, Neil Johnson said:

Nixon didn't really change the cast of characters drastically. But she certainly improved the writing.  In terms of cast, she really just got rid of 3 or 4 members of the Gregory family, and introduced Ada, Sam, Rachel, and Steve.  Nixon made AW perhaps the best soap on TV while she was there.   

Yes, those are the changes I was thinking of and it certainly seems drastic to me. I am reminded of the beginning of the passage about the pressure-cooker atmosphere of soaps. 

Quote

But Another World towers over all comers in this respect in having its seams show publicly. Consider the following: In more than 30 years on the air, the show virtually wrote out its entire core family not once but twice; 

Hyatt, W. (1997). The Encyclopedia of Daytime Television. Billboard Books.

What is the twice meant to be? The Matthews were the core family when the show started. They were mostly gone by the '80s, and the Corys took over. The main living Corys (Rachel and her kids) were still there to the end, aside from Jamie.

1 hour ago, DRW50 said:

GL also changed setting several times.

Reinventing can mean anything to anyone, of course, so that was just my suggestion.

GL sure did! And the completely lost the Reverend & his sermons. 

Sure, that was why I specified the character changes. I mean Gloria Monty definitely reinvented GH & most of her changes were production paired with writing changes from Marland so unlike this discussion. But, Nixon at AW was characters & writing. 

59 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

What is the twice meant to be? The Matthews were the core family when the show started. They were mostly gone by the '80s, and the Corys took over. The main living Corys (Rachel and her kids) were still there to the end, aside from Jamie.

I've always thought he meant the Gregory family. Lipton's error that Agnes fixed. I can't imagine who else it could be.

Yes, the Corys became core & stayed. Perhaps the Frames could be considered core? IDK. 

9 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

I've always thought he meant the Gregory family. Lipton's error that Agnes fixed. I can't imagine who else it could be.

Yes, the Corys became core & stayed. Perhaps the Frames could be considered core? IDK. 

Oh. That's odd if so because I don't know if the Gregorys were any more notable a core family than others who just lasted a few years, like the Sheas, or most of the McKinnons, etc. But I have not seen anything of their era. 

1 hour ago, DRW50 said:

Oh. That's odd if so because I don't know if the Gregorys were any more notable a core family than others who just lasted a few years, like the Sheas, or most of the McKinnons, etc. But I have not seen anything of their era. 

I have always thought he meant them & also thought that he overestimated them! 

Just now, Donna L. Bridges said:

I have always thought he meant them & also thought that he overestimated them! 

I know little about them and was shocked to see at least two of the three on AWHP's major characters list did not last a full year. Only one of them did. 

59 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I know little about them and was shocked to see at least two of the three on AWHP's major characters list did not last a full year. Only one of them did. 

I also know very little of them & my opinion of Lipton as a writer is so low that I have zero motivation to learn more. 

AW was never my soap but some of the time periods fascinate me, as well as its rise and fall. Would the exits of George and Jacquie long-term have caused them to fall off in the late-70s or would that more so be the 90 minute experiment? Perhaps the show was in a good place once they were recast but the thrill wore off on top of the 90 minute experience? 
 

That’s one thing I don’t understand is how they squandered Courtney’s return in 1984, if they positioned that well with some good marketing, it could have set them up well for years to come. 

1 hour ago, soapfave06 said:

AW was never my soap but some of the time periods fascinate me, as well as its rise and fall. Would the exits of George and Jacquie long-term have caused them to fall off in the late-70s or would that more so be the 90 minute experiment? Perhaps the show was in a good place once they were recast but the thrill wore off on top of the 90 minute experience? 
 

That’s one thing I don’t understand is how they squandered Courtney’s return in 1984, if they positioned that well with some good marketing, it could have set them up well for years to come. 

If you ask me, nothing was as destructive, single item, as the 90 minute year. 

Just no excuse for it when they squandered different returns. JC yes, but also Nancy Frangione. 

3 hours ago, Neil Johnson said:

I believe revamping Y&R was only successful because Bill Bell was still in charge, and he had been the creator of the show.  He knew his audience, he knew his show, and of course he was a brilliant writer.  

I can't think of another soap opera that was reinvented successfully.  Soap opera fans generally tune-in for the characters they know and love.  The audience will tolerate a good deal of bad writing without abandoning the show.  But if their beloved characters disappear, the audience loyalty typically disappears also.  

Again, perfectly said. I truly believe that beloved characters are the glue which binds the audience to the soaps. Once they are gratuitously eliminated from any show (particularly in large numbers over short periods of time), the audience reacts quite negatively.

5 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

I wonder if he eventually became emboldened by his own success, and wanted to flex his muscles and revise the show into something more to his liking.

That's possible.

As much distain as he had for being there, I also think that, at the same time, he really did like it on some level. 

1 hour ago, Neil Johnson said:

Yes. I wonder if Irna Phillips was writing GL during the make-over?  If so, that would be another case of the creator making the changes.     

Yep.

Irna was there for the first 21 years. Doing double duty with ATWT was what prompted her to turn GL over to Agnes Nixon

41 minutes ago, soapfave06 said:

AW was never my soap but some of the time periods fascinate me, as well as its rise and fall. Would the exits of George and Jacquie long-term have caused them to fall off in the late-70s or would that more so be the 90 minute experiment? Perhaps the show was in a good place once they were recast but the thrill wore off on top of the 90 minute experience?

I think the view is that the show was fading around 1977, which is one of the reasons Lemay brought in the stories he claimed he would never have done before then, like Sven's reign of terror and Pat killing her daughter's sleazy boyfriend in a psychotic break. 

1 hour ago, AbcNbc247 said:

As much distain as he had for being there, I also think that, at the same time, he really did like it on some level. 

If you're talking about Pete, I'm sure of it. He was completely in thrall with his characters. And, he thoroughly enjoyed his reputation. He talks about not knowing as they were doing it, that they were doing anything special. Which is natural, common sense, etc. But you can tell he likes that people think highly of it. And who wouldn't? 

2 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

But Another World towers over all comers in this respect in having its seams show publicly. Consider the following: In more than 30 years on the air, the show virtually wrote out its entire core family not once but twice; 

This is my most hated urban myth in the history of Another World -- the myth that James Lipton replaced (or was replacing) the Matthews family with a new core family, the Gregorys.  Actually, the Gregory family replaced the Baxter family (not the Matthews). The Baxters began to exit after Pat Matthews' first trial for murder, so Lipton wrote-in the Gregorys. In fact, Lipton wrote-out no members of the Matthews family.  Although Grandma Matthews, Susan, and the adolescent Russ had been written out by earlier writers.   

Another somewhat incorrect myth about a later head-writer is that Harding Lemay wrote-out the Matthews family. Here is the truth: I will admit Lemay's writing choices eventually led to the decimation of the Matthews family on AW (by killing-off the family matriarch (Mary) and two long-term popular sons in-law (Steve Frame and John Randolph), and recasting the female romantic lead of the show (Alice) -- all during Lemay's tenure.  Whew!  But it is important to note that, as those characters left, Lemay repopulated the Matthews family with returning family members and grown-up children.  So, believe it or not; in February 1979 (just before the 90-minute expansion), the Matthews family was still the largest family on AW (still larger than the Cory family, including in-laws and not including servants).  

John Randolph was killed-off on March 6, 1979, and by mid-April Harding Lemay had resigned as head-writer.  After that, the Matthews family disappeared one-by-one in fairly quick succession.     

Good points @Neil Johnson 

Did any at the show ever talk about Granny Matthews? Was she Irna's attempt at another version of Grandpa Hughes and Papa Bauer, but someone decided she wasn't needed? Was she ever mentioned again?

(I guess Janet wasn't either)