17 minutes ago, Khan said:

Perhaps it was one of those situations where people were reluctant to take the HW'ing position?

And/or there was someone they wanted who was unavailable but they counted on to be available soon (and then fell through)?

It's interesting to me that when they did establish a head writer, they promoted Gillian Spencer and added Sam Hall, which makes it seem as if if they were holding out for someone specific they didn't get them. The pairing lasted until March 1986 when Margaret DePriest came in.

Bear with me briefly as this is not about Another World ... The next blog I am going to be working on is "Interesting Credits" but that will not be its name. I don't know what it's name will be. But, it is for preferential treatment in credits that do not rise to the level of "star billing." Right now all it is, is some scattered notes. I know there were some people who were interested in this. If you are, PM me. Won't be posting about it here. Thank you.

Turns out that I just had to do a revision to the star billing blog. A new instance has been located, 1951, MISS SUSAN. If you were interested in the past, PM me for a new copy. 

And, now, for the continuing story of Another World ... 

Sam & Amanda, NYC, Jan. 26, 1988 

 

Edited December 27, 20231 yr by Donna L. Bridges
combine 2 posts

On 12/22/2023 at 2:22 PM, Xanthe said:

they promoted Gillian Spencer and added Sam Hall, which makes it seem as if if they were holding out for someone specific they didn't get them.

It is interesting to think of Sam Hall as a staff writer, because he brought such a specific tone to OLTL that mirrored his work on Dark Shadows. I can't imagine him trying to write for another head writer's vision.  And a pairing with Gillian Spencer feels out of left field.  But, at this moment, I can't recall the difference between when Rachel was blind and when she had amnesia. 

However, (on a related note), I wonder if I were watching each day  in real time, if I would've felt that Mac's undercover wooing of Rachel while she was blind felt unmotivated given their recent history.  I know we were supposed to think of Mac and Rachel as "endgame", but prior to her accident, do others think that the proper groundwork was laid for Mac to go to such extremes to try to win her back?

In other words, I'm happy that they got back together.  But was the pairing at that moment in the early 1980s just due to fate, or was it established during Rachel's time with nu-Steve that Mac still pinned for her?

Edited December 25, 20231 yr by j swift

Sam & Amanda, playing in leaves 

 

 

 

 

59 minutes ago, j swift said:

t is interesting to think of Sam Hall as a staff writer, because he brought such a specific tone to OLTL that mirrored his work on Dark Shadows. I can't imagine him trying to write for another head writer's vision. 

I know. I had the exact same thought. It doesn't seem to make any sense at all. 

But, about your query regarding blind Rachel & Mac pretending to be someone else. I never found Mac to be lacking in genuine intent but I also thought it was a kind of wacky reaction to blindness. Essentially he set out to fool her & that makes you think about taking advantage of someone! 

Edited December 25, 20231 yr by Donna L. Bridges
combine 2 posts

Eddie Drueding has uploaded some of my favorite episodes from Lemay's short return stint - when Liz blurts out too much to Matthew about Mitch and Janice, leading to Rachel telling Matthew about the circumstances behind his paternity. Now I'm just waiting for the episode where Rachel confronts Liz. 

(the scene with Liz and Matthew is about 28 minutes into the first episode)

I'm sorry that the show did not continue forward with this harder, and at times more manipulative side of Rachel after Lemay left. For all the talk of Lemay making Rachel AW's central heroine, he was also willing to write her as very flawed, which is much more compelling to me than how passive Rachel became in the '90s.

 

Edited December 26, 20231 yr by DRW50

Poor Liz.  She kept trying to avoid talking about the issue, but Matthew would not let up, lol.

I do not know why, but it feels to me like all the drama over Matthew's learning the circumstances behind his conception is a lot of ado over nothing.  Maybe it is because Matthew knows already that Mitch is his biological father and that takes some of the sting out of this latest revelation.  (Why did all this information not come up when he did learn he was Mitch's son?)  Maybe it is because Mitch had redeemed himself somewhat in the original story by trying to stop Janice from killing Mac, even though Matthew is refusing to consider that fact.  Maybe it is because I cannot understand Rachel's antipathy toward the entire Frame family when only a handful of them - Steve, Willis, Janice, Jason - caused trouble for the Corys and others (and Steve's mention on that list is debatable, because it was more than clear that Rachel herself was the antagonist in that triangle with Alice).  Again, I do not know why.

However, this much, I do know: I think AW had changed so much in the years that Harding Lemay was away that I question how successful he would have been again, even if he had been allowed to continue.

31 minutes ago, Khan said:

However, this much, I do know: I think AW had changed so much in the years that Harding Lemay was away that I question how successful he would have been again, even if he had been allowed to continue.

I think it depends on how / when he would have returned, and how much autonomy he'd have over the canvas, et al.

On 12/4/2023 at 3:43 PM, Mona Kane Croft said:

Others may think the Corys had been the core family since years earlier, but I don't agree.  It's just my opinion though.  

I think you're correct! Obviously, reading up on the show's history, other Corys had been introduced along the way: Iris, some random nephews of Mac's that didn't seem to last long, Adam (who I sort of remember), and Sandy. But, I can see where some would think the Corys weren't a core family in the traditional sense. For years, it may have just been Mac and Rachel (and Jamie) for the most part...and by connection, Ada. And, it appears for a few years there they were mostly backburnered. 

This era of the show smartly decided to really put the focus on them with Mac and Rachel as the matriarch and patriarch and with Jamie, Amanda, and Matthew as their children. Of course, Iris and Dennis also return to town. It's so sad about DW passing. Even as a kid watching the show, it was so sad when he died. The show kind of struggled for a bit there trying to figure out what the heart of the show would be now, and we never got to see the full story with Mac and Iris play out.

I started getting heavily invested in the show as a young teen around this time. I thought all of the history was fascinating. Despite the mess-up on backstory about the farm, Matt and Josie were a great use of history to start a new generation on the show. There were some wonderful clips on YouTube of Rachel and Sharlene in conflict over the pairing AND the fact that Rachel had killed Janice. It set the show up with the "has and the has nots" which is something that I think is desperately missing on the current versions of Y&R and B&B, where everyone is already rich and successful. As a writer, you miss all sorts of potential conflict when you don't have those characters clawing their way up.

I was kind of disappointed that they sort of dropped the Josie connection to the Matthews in the 90s and changed her last name back to Watts. Even though it was just her from the family in town at that point, it still would have been a nice nod to the show's history.

I can see where they moved Rachel to matriarch during this time, and for a bit there, she even got a bit of her "bitchiness" back if you watch the clips on YouTube with her and Sharlene and also with Donna. I wonder if that was Lemay influence who wanted to give her an edge again. I did find reading his book fascinating just to get her perspective on things.

Since I was too young to watch the show in the 70s, I was curious if some others thought that Rachel was prematurely aged too quickly with the rapid aging of Jamie in the 70s. He would have been shown as being in his 20s by the time Matthew was even born. VW must have only been in her early 40s during the mid-80s.

 

54 minutes ago, Khan said:

Poor Liz.  She kept trying to avoid talking about the issue, but Matthew would not let up, lol.

I do not know why, but it feels to me like all the drama over Matthew's learning the circumstances behind his conception is a lot of ado over nothing.  Maybe it is because Matthew knows already that Mitch is his biological father and that takes some of the sting out of this latest revelation.  (Why did all this information not come up when he did learn he was Mitch's son?)  Maybe it is because Mitch had redeemed himself somewhat in the original story by trying to stop Janice from killing Mac, even though Matthew is refusing to consider that fact.  Maybe it is because I cannot understand Rachel's antipathy toward the entire Frame family when only a handful of them - Steve, Willis, Janice, Jason - caused trouble for the Corys and others (and Steve's mention on that list is debatable, because it was more than clear that Rachel herself was the antagonist in that triangle with Alice).  Again, I do not know why.

However, this much, I do know: I think AW had changed so much in the years that Harding Lemay was away that I question how successful he would have been again, even if he had been allowed to continue.

You're right about all of this. I assume Lemay came back and decided he wanted to play those beats even if the best time had already passed. If he had stayed I do wonder if we would have had more estrangement between Mitch and Matthew. 

I think the writing did try to point out that Rachel was only blaming all the Frames because of regret or bitterness, and that she was wrong in doing so, but they could have been more nuanced (I would have had Josie being a bit of a schemer, or at least edgier).

48 minutes ago, 1974mdp said:

It set the show up with the "has and the has nots" which is something that I think is desperately missing on the current versions of Y&R and B&B, where everyone is already rich and successful. As a writer, you miss all sorts of potential conflict when you don't have those characters clawing their way up.

 

31 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I think the writing did try to point out that Rachel was only blaming all the Frames because of regret or bitterness, and that she was wrong in doing so, but they could have been more nuanced (I would have had Josie being a bit of a schemer, or at least edgier).

I agree on both counts.

Carolyn Culliton sometimes replies to an AW "on this day" account. Here are her thoughts on the exit of Fred J Scollay (Charlie Hobson). I'll post them as text too as Twitter will be lucky to be around by this time next year (as most of us will, admittedly).

She confirms in a second tweet that he was fired and she didn't know why.

On his last day in the studio, Fred came into the production office and sadly said, “I finally found out who you have to [!@#$%^&*] to get off this show …Ada”. We all said we were sorry to see him go.

Ada probably holds the record for most dead husbands-Ernie, Gil and Charlie.

They probably sacked him because he was old, not really important to the story and the money could be used for young newbies.His contract was up and they didn't see Charley being necessary for 3 more years.

He married Ada in Jan 80 and died in December that year.

And he wasn't alone. Almost 20 characters departed that year for Texas or parts unknown.

6 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

Ada probably holds the record for most dead husbands-Ernie, Gil and Charlie.

They probably sacked him because he was old, not really important to the story and the money could be used for young newbies.His contract was up and they didn't see Charley being necessary for 3 more years.

He married Ada in Jan 80 and died in December that year.

And he wasn't alone. Almost 20 characters departed that year for Texas or parts unknown.

It seemed clear to me at the time, Charlie was killed-off as a plot device to get Rachel out of prison, so her storyline could go forward.  If I recall correctly, Rachel was temporarily released from prison to attend Charlie's funeral (do people REALLY get released from prison to attend funerals??).  And then while she was out, something happened -- I think she ran away, or something like that.  Anyway, Charlie's death got Rachel back on the canvas so she could remain center-stage without playing all her scenes from a prison cell.  They needed a big event that would get Rachel briefly released, and Charlie was sacrificed. It was embarrassingly transparent.  That's the long and short of it, in my opinion.   

2 hours ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

(do people REALLY get released from prison to attend funerals??)

Yes, they do.  As a matter of fact, a distant cousin of mine was released so he could attend my maternal grandfather's funeral, wearing handcuffs and being escorted the entire time.

12 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Carolyn Culliton sometimes replies to an AW "on this day" account. Here are her thoughts on the exit of Fred J Scollay (Charlie Hobson). I'll post them as text too as Twitter will be lucky to be around by this time next year (as most of us will, admittedly).

She confirms in a second tweet that he was fired and she didn't know why.

On his last day in the studio, Fred came into the production office and sadly said, “I finally found out who you have to [!@#$%^&*] to get off this show …Ada”. We all said we were sorry to see him go.

L. Virginia Browne came on as head writer and a lot of characters were immediately sent packing. I guess Carolyn Culliton was a casualty as well