1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

I give up, LOL.🙄

All I can do is report the facts about an episode which I watched for myself first-hand, which I recorded on audiotape and listened to again later, and which was discussed at length in the soap press of the time (with quotes from Courtney and Rauch). If people who never even watched the show in 1973, and who--for whatever reason--cannot fathom the possibility that original scripts can be altered or revised before taping, there's little I can do to convince them.🤷‍♂️

I'll save myself the energy and stop reiterating the truth as I know it.😝

I can understand the need for caution, especially when it comes to soap magazines, but I do trust your word, and I'm glad you are sharing your memories. The sad truth is we will probably never see the full episode resurface. I see why AWHP doesn't want to go out without having more info, but I hope if some of us manage to find the articles where Rauch or Jacquie talked about the two-hander, they might reconsider.

2 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I can understand the need for caution, especially when it comes to soap magazines, but I do trust your word, and I'm glad you are sharing your memories. The sad truth is we will probably never see the full episode resurface. I see why AWHP doesn't want to go out without having more info, but I hope if some of us manage to find the articles where Rauch or Jacquie talked about the two-hander, they might reconsider.

True, with all the misinformation and myths floating around, it's important to be careful about accepting just anything, from any source, reported about soap opera history. From what I've seen, however, the vast majority of misinformation comes from people who never saw the soaps broadcast on screen for themselves, either because they did not chose to watch specific series at the time, or because they were simply too young (perhaps not even born yet) to do so. Sites like Soap Central seem to fill in the blanks about stories and characters they know nothing about with a LOT of "creative fiction" from unknowledgeable contributors' vivid imagination. The writers of the Soap & Serials novelizations also got many details wrong, despite allegedly using original TV scripts upon which to base their books. Of course, some people trying to offer historical data in good faith may simply misremember details, thereby still getting the data wrong by accident.

I would say that the cases of "facts" coming from non-viewers who choose the fill-in-the-blanks-with supposition method are not comparable to the commentary of first-hand viewers who actually did watch the material, who recorded the material, who read multiple articles about the material, and who remember the material in minute detail.

But ultimately, people will believe what they believe, so continued attempts to convince them otherwise will be unsuccessful and therefore pointless. (I never did convince one internet poster that Eric Braedon began on Y&R in 1980, because that poster insisted Braedon was an original cast member from 1973. I offered evidence to the contrary, which was rebuffed, so I moved on. I like my drama and strife on television, not on the internet, LOL!)

Edited September 18, 20232 yr by vetsoapfan

1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

True, with all the misinformation and myths floating around, it's important to be careful about accepting just anything, from any source, reported about soap opera history. From what I've seen, however, the vast majority of misinformation comes from people who never saw the soaps broadcast on screen for themselves, either because they did not chose to watch specific series at the time, or because they were simply too young (perhaps not even born yet) to do so. Sites like Soap Central seem to fill in the blanks about stories and characters they know nothing about with a LOT of "creative fiction" from unknowledgeable contributors' vivid imagination. The writers of the Soap & Serials novelizations also got many details wrong, despite allegedly using original TV scripts upon which to base their books. Of course, some people trying to offer historical data in good faith may simply misremember details, thereby still getting the data wrong by accident.

I would say that the cases of "facts" coming from non-viewers who choose the fill-in-the-blanks-with supposition method are not comparable to the commentary of first-hand viewers who actually did watch the material, who recorded the material, who read multiple articles about the material, and who remember the material in minute detail.

But ultimately, people will believe what they believe, so continued attempts to convince them otherwise will be unsuccessful and therefore pointless. (I never did convince one internet poster that Eric Braedon began on Y&R in 1980, because that poster insisted Braedon was an original cast member from 1973. I offered evidence to the contrary, which was rebuffed, so I moved on. I like my drama and strife on television, not on the internet, LOL!)

And so many things have been debunked & I am glad we live in the time when there is interest in this & scholarship & research, etc. If you've been in the position of trying to correct something, it is simply amazing how difficult it is! I've been publishing a blog on "star billing" for several years now when I set out to correct the supposed fact - that was totally accepted as truth - that Beverlee McKinsey got the first star billing in daytime. So, when I set about to correct it on her IMDb page I was armed for bear, if you will, but still it took me 4 passes to get them to accept my corrections! And "The Creation of Another World" is still a document I point both AW & ATWT fans to with all that it debunks! At Wikipedia I was all set to be a part of their editing team & their very specific procedures made it so difficult to get anything done that I deemed it not worthy of my time & thanked them & quit. 

On 9/16/2023 at 10:15 AM, 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.  

 TL;DR: it depends. I'm not the final arbiter but if I intended to make a case I'd evaluate the evidence we have and try to figure out what additional research might make a difference.

Based on the discussion here I was not aware we had any direct evidence of what was in the episode on October 8th, 1973. The link to video that I saw provided in this thread was to a compilation of scenes from different days and on its own could not prove the point definitively.

So if there is an intact version of October 8th, 1973 available to view, given that we have been told that the original script did include scenes with other characters, my first question would be how do we know that it is the broadcast version and not either a version based on the original script or a compilation of multiple broadcasts? 

If it is clear that it is the intact broadcast version then I would see how that can be reconciled with the reference in the EON article and @vetsoapfan's recollections. Were Pat, Dennis, and Louise only supporting players in the Steve/Alice drama and limited to short appearances? If so I would probably say that it still belongs in the list of "special episodes" on the AWHP but I would not describe it as a *pure* "two-hander".

If I had any further doubts or questions (video only rumoured but not available, or provenance not certain) I would try to research (to the extent possible) publications from the mid-1970s after October 1973. Normally I would say that the closer to the original event the information is published the more reliable it should be, but I would also want to take into account that a synopsis might have been provided to the publication before broadcast and might not match up with what was actually broadcast. So part of the question would need to be whether the source was definitely based on the actual broadcast.

At the end of this the evidence may still not be 100% definitive but I'd probably still be willing to say that the episode was trying to do something special even if the EON comparison might have overstated the case. 

An alternate version of the Bull pilot. Bull featured Alicia Coppola, among many others like Elisabeth Rohm and Stanley Tucci.

 

I really enjoyed BULL and was so happy for Alicia breaking out onto the show. I just wish it had lasted longer. 

Had to post this great anecdote Beverlee McKinsey shared about Ruth Warrick!

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Adam Tariq Ghani (@adamtghani)

 

Edited September 19, 20232 yr by Bright Eyes

14 minutes ago, Bright Eyes said:

Had to post this great anecdote Beverlee McKinsey shared about Ruth Warrick!

I was definitely not expecting some of those stories. Thanks. 

@SFK you'd love this.

16 minutes ago, Bright Eyes said:

Had to post this great anecdote Beverlee McKinsey shared about Ruth Warrick!

 

 

That's hysterical! Thanks for sharing. I'm curious what Warrick's AMC castmates think of her. 

2 hours ago, DRW50 said:

An alternate version of the Bull pilot. Bull featured Alicia Coppola, among many others like Elisabeth Rohm and Stanley Tucci.

 

Thank you. I don't remember this series and spent far too long wondering when it was going to get to the part about jury selection. Love Stanley Tucci and George Newbern.

I was just listening to Alicia on Linda Dano's podcast yesterday and she mentioned both Christine and Stanley Tucci. I don't recall her mentioning this series but they talked about a guest-starring rôle she had on Monk. Linda had found watching Monk a comfort after her husband died and Alicia had been pleased that Tony Shalhoub recognized her comedic ability. 

2 hours ago, Bright Eyes said:

Had to post this great anecdote Beverlee McKinsey shared about Ruth Warrick!

 

 

Yes, I love that anecdote. BTW, that whole interview, not just part like this, is up here in this forum. I posted the link myself. And the whole interview is easily findable on my YouTube channel, also. 

19 hours ago, Xanthe said:

 TL;DR: it depends. I'm not the final arbiter but if I intended to make a case I'd evaluate the evidence we have and try to figure out what additional research might make a difference.

 

I just cannot figure it out. What does "TL;DR:" stand for here? Timeline? Dead Reckoning?

Oh, gee, I'll just post it again. Beverlee McKinsey's famous "City Lights" interview, the full show. 

Beverlee McKinsey's son, Scott McKinsey, Director at "Days of our Lives", says this is her most candid & best interview. I concur. A Canadian interview, we think of the host as the Canadian Dick Cavett. "Another World" was hugely popular in Canada. She makes one wholly unintentional error. She says she is the first to have star billing on a US soap. No, actually there were 4 before her. But, she is the last. No one has been granted it since she was. Please sign our petition seeking a Posthumous Lifetime Achievement Award https://www.change.org/p/honoring-beverlee-mckinsey-s-legacy-a-posthumous-lifetime-achievement-award

 

The entertainment website TVLine just uploaded a new poll asking readers to vote for their favorite couples among divisive TV triangles. To my surprise, there was an Another World connection.

https://tvline.com/lists/tv-love-triangles/

 

20 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

The entertainment website TVLine just uploaded a new poll asking readers to vote for their favorite couples among divisive TV triangles. To my surprise, there was an Another World connection.

https://tvline.com/lists/tv-love-triangles/

That IS a surprise.

I see the votes are evenly divided. 

Somewhere, Harding Lemay would be pleased. 

44 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

That IS a surprise.

I see the votes are evenly divided. 

Somewhere, Harding Lemay would be pleased. 

As fun as it was to find a 50-year-old soap triangle like this among the mix, it was still quite surprising. I wonder how many people who responded to this poll were on the younger side, and voted in favor of a character who remained on the show until the very end, and whom the modern audience remembered better.

Anyway, the poll brought back a lot of memories.😁

7 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

As fun as it was to find a 50-year-old soap triangle like this among the mix, it was still quite surprising. I wonder how many people who responded to this poll were on the younger side, and voted in favor of a character who remained on the show until the very end, and whom the modern audience remembered better.

Anyway, the poll brought back a lot of memories.😁

I was definitely shocked too. I wonder if someone just read a Wiki and went with it, unless a diehard old school AW fan runs TVLine. Maybe they can help dig up some episodes.