1 hour ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

After the 90-minute disaster, what would you say was Another World's biggest failure during the show's last 20-years (1979 to 1999)?  I'm really asking about big fundamental failures -- not casting decisions and smaller mistakes.   

I'll go first.  I think AW's biggest failure during it's final 20-years was never hiring an established well-known head-writer with a long record of success (a writer similar to Nixon, Marland, Bell, Lemay, Phillips, Labine, etc.), AND giving that head-writer the freedom to write, AND keeping that head-writer for 7-8 years.  

What do you consider AW's biggest failure during the show's final 20-years?   

Actually, @Mona Kane Croft, I think AW did the best that it could under the circumstances, but I really think the fix was in for them at NBC, no matter who was in charge at the show.

1 hour ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

After the 90-minute disaster, what would you say was Another World's biggest failure during the show's last 20-years (1979 to 1999)?  I'm really asking about big fundamental failures -- not casting decisions and smaller mistakes.   

I'll go first.  I think AW's biggest failure during it's final 20-years was never hiring an established well-known head-writer with a long record of success (a writer similar to Nixon, Marland, Bell, Lemay, Phillips, Labine, etc.), AND giving that head-writer the freedom to write, AND keeping that head-writer for 7-8 years.  

What do you consider AW's biggest failure during the show's final 20-years?   

I think the biggest failure was being unable to sustain the momentum they were building up in 1983 and early 1984. I'm not sure about the ratings, but to me there was something that had the potential to be special in that time period, and afterward they never really get it back, even in periods that are generally decent (late '80s/early '90s). 

10 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I think the biggest failure was being unable to sustain the momentum they were building up in 1983 and early 1984. I'm not sure about the ratings, but to me there was something that had the potential to be special in that time period, and afterward they never really get it back, even in periods that are generally decent (late '80s/early '90s). 

Good point!

I would add not keeping Harding Lemay when he returned in 88.

He had been responsible for great success in the 70's and the stories he put in place looked promising. How it would have worked out in the long run -who knows?

But he definitely deserved more of a chance than he got.

Why was he dropped anyway? Was it a budget thing? Or was Donna Swajeski easier to work with/manage as wellas being cheaper?

Shades of Mulcahey and GH...

3 hours ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

After the 90-minute disaster, what would you say was Another World's biggest failure during the show's last 20-years (1979 to 1999)?  I'm really asking about big fundamental failures -- not casting decisions and smaller mistakes.   

I'll go first.  I think AW's biggest failure during it's final 20-years was never hiring an established well-known head-writer with a long record of success (a writer similar to Nixon, Marland, Bell, Lemay, Phillips, Labine, etc.), AND giving that head-writer the freedom to write, AND keeping that head-writer for 7-8 years.  

What do you consider AW's biggest failure during the show's final 20-years?   

I agree with you.  The biggest failure was not hiring an established head writer.  I had hoped Doug Marland would step down from ATWT, take a 6 month to a year break to recharge then become AW'S head writer.

1 hour ago, DRW50 said:

I think the biggest failure was being unable to sustain the momentum they were building up in 1983 and early 1984. I'm not sure about the ratings, but to me there was something that had the potential to be special in that time period, and afterward they never really get it back, even in periods that are generally decent (late '80s/early '90s). 

Definitely this.  I believe if they had kept Gary Tomlin and Richard Culliton as HWs and Allan Potter as EP for a few more years there would have been a rise in the ratings.

Being satisfied with mediocrity. Forgetting the show's history and what made it special. The decline in special acting talent and the prominence of hair models.

The episode that was posted from 4/3/92, with Dennis, Jamie, Marley, etc -- to those who remember the history of the show, those characters, and the better actors who portrayed them -- it's painful. 

Edited May 31, 20241 yr by Jdee43

6 hours ago, Efulton said:

Definitely this.  I believe if they had kept Gary Tomlin and Richard Culliton as HWs and Allan Potter as EP for a few more years there would have been a rise in the ratings.

Allen Potter came to the show in Spring 1983 and stayed at AW until the end of 1984.  He quickly cleaned up the mess that Paul Rauch left at the show.  Potter did raise the ratings, but the show could not break out from the middle of the pack in the ratings.  Had the show jumped significantly in the ratings or received some Emmy recognition, I believe that Potter would have not retired at the end of 1984.  Props have to be given to Dorothy Ann Purser as well.  She was the head writer in 1983 into 1984.  She gave us the double wedding, killed Alma Rudder, moved Sally front and center, and created Carl Hutchins and Catlin Ewing.  The show should have kept her and paired her with Culliton and Tomlin.

And the biggest blunder in the show’s last 20 years was the mistake of killing Sally Frame in 1986.  They should have let the character leave Bay City for awhile then return as a recast.  She was a legacy character that started on the show in the 70s, one of the last Matthews on AW in the mid 80s, and once she was gone there wasn’t much for Aunt Liz to do and gave Alice Frame no reason to return to Bay City again.  Also, having Sally on the show would have slowed the rapid aging of Amanda.  Mac and Rachel were like parents to Sally and could have been involved in her storyline during that time.  Sally could have driven story for years on the show, and maybe the 90s would not have become the “Vicky Show.”

2 hours ago, watson71 said:

Also, having Sally on the show would have slowed the rapid aging of Amanda.

Keep in mind that they aged Matthew first in order to give Mitch storyline so Amanda had to be older than that when she showed up. I don't think it was necessarily wrong to age Amanda and Matthew (especially given Jamie's age) but I agree if Nancy and Sally and Thomasina and/or Julia had been around maybe they could have waited a little longer and also integrated Amanda and Matthew and Cory and Jeanne and Maggie and Alex and Kevin Thatcher into young adult stories later. 

The purges of 1985 and 1986 were really difficult and there were too many random characters with Lesoleil and too much international supervillain with Carl and then Reginald. 

3 hours ago, watson71 said:

Allen Potter came to the show in Spring 1983 and stayed at AW until the end of 1984.  He quickly cleaned up the mess that Paul Rauch left at the show.  Potter did raise the ratings, but the show could not break out from the middle of the pack in the ratings.  Had the show jumped significantly in the ratings or received some Emmy recognition, I believe that Potter would have not retired at the end of 1984.  Props have to be given to Dorothy Ann Purser as well.  She was the head writer in 1983 into 1984.  She gave us the double wedding, killed Alma Rudder, moved Sally front and center, and created Carl Hutchins and Catlin Ewing.  The show should have kept her and paired her with Culliton and Tomlin.

And the biggest blunder in the show’s last 20 years was the mistake of killing Sally Frame in 1986.  They should have let the character leave Bay City for awhile then return as a recast.  She was a legacy character that started on the show in the 70s, one of the last Matthews on AW in the mid 80s, and once she was gone there wasn’t much for Aunt Liz to do and gave Alice Frame no reason to return to Bay City again.  Also, having Sally on the show would have slowed the rapid aging of Amanda.  Mac and Rachel were like parents to Sally and could have been involved in her storyline during that time.  Sally could have driven story for years on the show, and maybe the 90s would not have become the “Vicky Show.”

I agree, always have, that it was a terribly flawed mistake to kill off Sally. 

But, I also want to say that there is nothing at all bad about the "Vicky Show". I know so many AW fans who are younger than me & the reason AW became their show is ANNE HECHE. I would have always wanted to have Vicky substantially as we did have her. 

Edited May 31, 20241 yr by Contessa Donatella

The mistake was throwing out Dorthea Ann Purser who had been guided for nearly a year by highly experienced Soderberg. DAP was doing fine but they canned her for Culliton and Tomlin.  Under DAP, the show was classy and reminiscent of Lemay's time. DAP had done admirable work on Texas as well. P&G and NBC interference and lack of discipline.  

Maisie's murder (near the end of this episode). I don't think I'd ever seen it before. I wonder if this is the first time Maisie was ever dressed up. 

I notice this is much shorter than some of the later strangling - more like a Vulcan neck pinch. Maybe someone at the show decided they needed to go on more.

 

Margaret DePreist set the example for hack head writing (which led to the likes of Higely, McTavish, Reilly) on AW, AMC, AW again and OLTL. She was awful and never lasted in any of those jobs. Her only successful stint was following Smith's six months in 1981 at Days. I think she lasted about 2.5 years.

Edited June 1, 20241 yr by VelekaCarruthers

43 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Maisie's murder (near the end of this episode). I don't think I'd ever seen it before. I wonder if this is the first time Maisie was ever dressed up. 

I notice this is much shorter than some of the later strangling - more like a Vulcan neck pinch. Maybe someone at the show decided they needed to go on more.

 

NBC was very very bad to be at them about increasing the level of violence against women. They forced Swajeski to write that Jake raped Marley. They told more than one regime that violence against women increases ratings! 

11 minutes ago, VelekaCarruthers said:

Margaret DePreist set the example for hack head writing (which led to the likes of Higely, McTavish, Reilly) on AW, AMC, AW again and OLTL. She was awful and never lasted in any of those jobs. Her only successful stint was following Smith's six months in 1981 at Days. I think she lasted about 2.5 years.

At one point at AW didn't she do two serial killer storylines, with different killers, of course, back to back? And, notably she wrote the Fax Neuman serial killer storyline including the gruesome on camera murder of Frankie Frame. MDP who we called Maggie the Beast. 

19 minutes ago, VelekaCarruthers said:

Margaret DePreist set the example for hack head writing (which led to the likes of Higely, McTavish, Reilly) on AW, AMC, AW again and OLTL. She was awful and never lasted in any of those jobs. Her only successful stint was following Smith's six months in 1981 at Days. I think she lasted about 2.5 years.

I think Schemering or someone said she did raise the ratings in that 86-87 stint but watching the onscreen material I have no idea why. I guess sleaze sells.

I’m actually curious as to whether or not there was any backlash from fans since, at the heights of the AIDS epidemic, AW (and Days too) were doing so many storylines that involved prostitutes and prostitution?

31 minutes ago, VelekaCarruthers said:

Margaret DePreist set the example for hack head writing (which led to the likes of Higely, McTavish, Reilly) on AW, AMC, AW again and OLTL. She was awful and never lasted in any of those jobs. Her only successful stint was following Smith's six months in 1981 at Days. I think she lasted about 2.5 years.

She seemed to have a thing for serial killer storylines