2 hours ago, AbcNbc247 said:

My guess is Irna wasn’t a fan of the actors who played Granny, Russ and Susan and she revised her plans a lot. 

Granny was mentioned around the time of Pat’s trial. Jim and Mary didn’t want her to come back to town for the trial because it would have been too tough for Pat, I think. Idk if that was the last time she was mentioned or not. 

I’ve always wondered how that rumor started lol 

Back when Pat had the first abortion! 

And, didn't some soap have a bunch of folk killed in a car crash? Wait. Plane crash, into some mountains? I just couldn't figure out how it found its way to Bay City. Anyway, my memory is like soap twins. The good twin remembers amazing details about the oddest things & the evil twin just swears at me to be left alone & won't even try to remember other things. 

Someone told me just this week that when they were cleaning out the AMC studio they just dumped Agnes's writing desk unceremoniously at the curb, NY style. Cat Hickland recognized it & got it & was supposedly trying to get it to Agnes, who was still alive at the time. I thought it should be in some museum, but I sure don't know what one.

Oh, yes, I checked & it was March 5th, 1979 AW first 90 minute show & death of John Randolph: GL Roger raped Holly: OLTL Karen Wolek took the stand. It was the next day that she broke down under cross & revealed her life as a prostitute. That was a big week for soaps. 

Edited September 16, 20232 yr by Donna L. Bridges

17 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Oh, yes, I checked & it was March 5th, 1979 AW first 90 minute show & death of John Randolph: GL Roger raped Holly: OLTL Karen Wolek took the stand. It was the next day that she broke down under cross & revealed her life as a prostitute. That was a big week for soaps. 

It's not a very important issue, I suppose.  But the Another World Home Page lists John Randolph's death as March 6.  I've also always heard he died on the second 90-minute episode, which would be March 6.  The first 90-minute episode was March 5. Aside from the AWHP, I don't know any other way to verify this.  

7 minutes ago, Neil Johnson said:

It's not a very important issue, I suppose.  But the Another World Home Page lists John Randolph's death as March 6.  I've also always heard he died on the second 90-minute episode, which would be March 6.  The first 90-minute episode was March 5. Aside from the AWHP, I don't know any other way to verify this.  

The AWHP details in the daily synopses for 1979 seem to support the March 6 date with the caveat that apparently the script for March 6 was missing from the Bowling Green collection. But John seems to be alive at the end of March 5 and to have had scenes on March 6th.

http://www.anotherworldhomepage.com/aw1979d.html

1 hour ago, Xanthe said:

The AWHP details in the daily synopses for 1979 seem to support the March 6 date with the caveat that apparently the script for March 6 was missing from the Bowling Green collection. But John seems to be alive at the end of March 5 and to have had scenes on March 6th.

http://www.anotherworldhomepage.com/aw1979d.html

Okay, I stand corrected. It is shown elsewhere different but I will always go with AWHP if there is an issue. 

24 minutes ago, Xanthe said:

The AWHP details in the daily synopses for 1979 seem to support the March 6 date with the caveat that apparently the script for March 6 was missing from the Bowling Green collection. But John seems to be alive at the end of March 5 and to have had scenes on March 6th.

http://www.anotherworldhomepage.com/aw1979d.html

It's odd the AWHP says they had to use flashbacks for their partial March 6 synopsis, because isn't the entire episode available for viewing on YouTube?  At least I believe it used to be on Youtube.  

19 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Okay, I stand corrected. It is shown elsewhere different but I will always go with AWHP if there is an issue. 

It's not so much a question of trusting the source per se but understanding what the supporting evidence is. The AWHP synopses are created from various different sources. I expect less accuracy from the Tune in Tomorrow weekly summaries than from the synopses Eddie and Mike summarized from the scripts.

In the recent discussion about the two-hander episode, it was something the AWHP had no information on. As they say, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". So the evidence we had was initially from a contemporaneous article about the EON episode. And @vetsoapfan was able to confirm that the episode had happened and to explain why the scripts would not have been clear about it. But even without that confirmation, I would say that the EON article showed that it was worth further research.

Eddie and Mike have done tremendous work but there is still more research that can be done.

16 minutes ago, Neil Johnson said:

It's odd the AWHP says they had to use flashbacks for their partial March 6 synopsis, because isn't the entire episode available for viewing on YouTube?  At least I believe it used to be on Youtube.  

I think that synopsis was written a long time ago, before the episode ever showed up on YouTube, and they just haven’t gotten around to updating it. The episode is still up on YouTube 

Edited September 16, 20232 yr by AbcNbc247

1 hour ago, Xanthe said:

It's not so much a question of trusting the source per se but understanding what the supporting evidence is. The AWHP synopses are created from various different sources. I expect less accuracy from the Tune in Tomorrow weekly summaries than from the synopses Eddie and Mike summarized from the scripts.

In the recent discussion about the two-hander episode, it was something the AWHP had no information on. As they say, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". So the evidence we had was initially from a contemporaneous article about the EON episode. And @vetsoapfan was able to confirm that the episode had happened and to explain why the scripts would not have been clear about it. But even without that confirmation, I would say that the EON article showed that it was worth further research.

Eddie and Mike have done tremendous work but there is still more research that can be done.

Yes, you make a good point. Eddie & Mike & the AWHP is an absolutely invaluable resource but that doesn't mean there's not new information, debunking, etc. & anything has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. 

25 minutes ago, Xanthe said:

And @vetsoapfan was able to confirm that the episode had happened

Do you feel this was solidly confirmed?  Are you aware one of the existing scenes from that day's episode actually includes Pat, Dennis, and Louise (along with Alice and Steve)?  So to me, that seems to confirm the episode was not a two character episode.  Unless I'm misunderstanding something.  

Edited September 16, 20232 yr by Neil Johnson

1 hour ago, Neil Johnson said:

Do you feel this was solidly confirmed?  Are you aware one of the existing scenes from that day's episode actually includes Pat, Dennis, and Louise (along with Alice and Steve)?  So to me, that seems to confirm the episode was not a two character episode.  Unless I'm misunderstanding something.  

Yeah, Eddie brought up to me that in the ending of the scene we see them & they have dialogue. And, of course, I saw it for myself. Maybe it is a case of MOST of the episode focusing entirely on two characters only. IDK. Because it was very natural for them to be there at the conclusion. 

It seemed like Irna, and to a lesser extent Bill Bell, were attempting to take all of the tropes used in soaps and add more controversial elements (or for 1964 standards).

Problem was that the 1964 characters were too trope..or copies of previous Irna characters without anything new.

Mary Matthews was a warmer Nancy Hughes.

Granny Matthew's was a female version of Papa Bauer and Hughes.

Janet Matthews was a less developed Edith Hughes.

Susan and Pat Matthew's were variations of Penny Hughes  and Ellen Stewart.

Liz Matthews was a colder Nancy Hughes/Claire Lowell combination.

Alice Matthew and Russ Matthews seemed like a young siblings that were the greek chorus.

I think had the bible been followed more..it would have been an interesting show..but Irna's neurosis and P & G being so conservative hurt the show in the early months as it struggled to find its footing.

Nixon helped focus the show by using some of her AMC bible..and also bringing out the psychological elements Irna was intending.  She created Lahoma, Rachel, Sam, Ada, and helped develop Missy...which was the have not section of the show to play off the Matthews/Randolphs/Curtains as the haves.

And not only did start Alice/Steve/Rachel...she made Bill/Missy popular... and depend Lee's character into a tragic anti heroine in the Sam/Lahoma/Lee triangle.

1 hour ago, Soaplovers said:

Nixon helped focus the show by using some of her AMC bible..and also bringing out the psychological elements Irna was intending.  She created Lahoma, Rachel, Sam, Ada, and helped develop Missy...which was the have not section of the show to play off the Matthews/Randolphs/Curtains as the haves.

Found out earlier this year that Agnes wrote for The Brighter Day but her scripts never got used because the show was canceled before they got to them. However, in those scripts were the characters & mother/daughter relationship that was Rachel & Ada in AW. So, the first iteration of the troublesome daughter with the put upon mother is "LikeRachel" & "LikeAda" in TBD before 1962. (Then AW, then AMC & then LOV)

9 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

In the late 60's under Cenedella Susan married Fred Douglas who had been seeing Liz.

Thanks. I guess that wasn't using the old bible and more just inevitable mother/daughter soap conflict.

1 hour ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Found out earlier this year that Agnes wrote for The Brighter Day but her scripts never got used because the show was canceled before they got to them. However, in those scripts were the characters & mother/daughter relationship that was Rachel & Ada in AW. So, the first iteration of the troublesome daughter with the put upon mother is "LikeRachel" & "LikeAda" in TBD before 1962. (Then AW, then AMC & then LOV)

Does anyone know who was head-writing As the World Turns when Lisa and Alma were created?  Could Agnes Nixon have been involved?  I've always believed Lisa and Alma (in their early years) to be quite similar to Rachel/Ada and Erica/Mona.  Any possibility Nixon might have created Lisa/Alma?  

1 hour ago, Neil Johnson said:

Does anyone know who was head-writing As the World Turns when Lisa and Alma were created?  Could Agnes Nixon have been involved?  I've always believed Lisa and Alma (in their early years) to be quite similar to Rachel/Ada and Erica/Mona.  Any possibility Nixon might have created Lisa/Alma?  

No idea, but that bears looking into! My memories of ATWT at that time are just literally LISA LISA LISA. I do not recall Agnes writing ATWT but she worked for Irna early on where she wrote whatever Irna told her to write that day, you know? 

Steady as she goes ... Open Schemering. 

"By the end of its first year, with Phillips and Agnes Nixon writing and Ted Corday handling ... " oh who cares. ".... the show was a certified hit." So year 1 was 1956 & Lisa starts in May of 1960. Talks about Lisa. Nothing on writing till 1970 when Irna left due to illness. 

Edited September 16, 20232 yr by Donna L. Bridges