@slick jones I already mentioned it to AWHP but in case it wasn't in your files, per what a commenter said on Youtube (and I think they're right as I know his face fairly well) Craig Stepp played Amanda's video dating patsy, Tim, on 1/5 and 2/2 1989.

Victoria Wyndham with Harding Lemay at her 25th Anniversary bash.

Thanks.

Looks like Harding was enjoying himself...

On 11/1/2024 at 9:01 PM, DRW50 said:

@slick jones I already mentioned it to AWHP but in case it wasn't in your files, per what a commenter said on Youtube (and I think they're right as I know his face fairly well) Craig Stepp played Amanda's video dating patsy, Tim, on 1/5 and 2/2 1989.

Thanks @Xanthe

This show is honestly, sublime. Literally sublime. Sophisticated, psychological, a little dark, but not too much, little funny, but not too much. Perfect. It's always the too funny aspect of some soaps that turn me off.

So... YES. Officially back into 1989... Managed to watch November-December 1988 to catch up with all the New-Iris drama. I may stop again sometime soon and go back to mid 1986 to watch all the way up to 1989. There are ton of new episodes on youtube.  

 

Edited November 12, 20241 yr by Maxim

Is Donna Swajeski considered by fans to be a good writer for the show?  

Edited November 12, 20241 yr by Maxim

13 minutes ago, Maxim said:

Is Donna Swajesky considered by fans to be a good writer for the show?  

I have mixed feelings about Swajeski.  It seemed she did a pretty good job while she was following Harding Lemay's storyline projections.  But as soon as she used that up,  the stuff she created on her own was very mediocre.  And many of the new characters she created were created around a gimmick.  Derek Dane was "beauty and the beast", Frankie Frame was a psychic private eye, Lucas was a reformed gangster, etc, etc.  She often gave her characters a gimmick that made them less believable.  Some of the characters out-lived their gimmick and became believable despite Swajeski (Frankie for example), but most of them did not.  Sawjeski certainly wasn't AW's worst head writer, but she was far from the best.  At least she stayed with the show for a relatively long time, and slowed down the merry-go-round of head writers that preceded and followed her.  This is all just my opinion.  

5 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

I have mixed feelings about Swajeski.  It seemed she did a pretty good job while she was following Harding Lemay's storyline projections.  But as soon as she used that up,  the stuff she created on her own was very mediocre.  And many of the new characters she created were created around a gimmick.  Derek Dane was "beauty and the beast", Frankie Frame was a psychic private eye, Lucas was a reformed gangster, etc, etc.  She often gave her characters a gimmick that made them less believable.  Some of the characters out-lived their gimmick and became believable despite Swajeski (Frankie for example), but most of them did not.  Sawjeski certainly wasn't AW's worst head writer, but she was far from the best.  At least she stayed with the show for a relatively long time, and slowed down the merry-go-round of head writers that preceded and followed her.  This is all just my opinion.  

Thank you. So far I'm enjoying her writing. I'm 3 months into her tenure.

17 hours ago, Maxim said:

This show is honestly, sublime. Literally sublime. Sophisticated, psychological, a little dark, but not too much, little funny, but not too much. Perfect. It's always the too funny aspect of some soaps that turn me off.

So... YES. Officially back into 1989... Managed to watch November-December 1988 to catch up with all the New-Iris drama. I may stop again sometime soon and go back to mid 1986 to watch all the way up to 1989. There are ton of new episodes on youtube.  

 

Just watched [some] scenes from this episode... and it truly is sublime.

37 minutes ago, Maxim said:

Is Donna Swajeski considered by fans to be a good writer for the show?  

I enjoyed most of it, though there were some things that I didn’t like either. 

But, I do have to admit that I find the first half of 1989 to be brilliant. 

25 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:

I enjoyed most of it, though there were some things that I didn’t like either. 

But, I do have to admit that I find the first half of 1989 to be brilliant. 

It's my introduction to the show, so I must be very lucky then. Do you recommend I go back to 1986 (the first available episodes that can be called semi-complete year in youtube... 1987 and 1988 are pretty complete in various playlists...) to catch up to 1989... or should I just continue with 1989...? I'm debating myself what to do. Is 1986-1988 a good period?

1 minute ago, Maxim said:

It's my introduction to the show, so I must be very lucky then. Do you recommend I go back to 1986 (the first available episodes that can be called semi-complete year in youtube... 1987 and 1988 are pretty complete in various playlists...) to catch up to 1989... or should I just continue with 1989...? I'm debating myself what to do. Is 1986-1988 a good period?

I wouldn’t recommend it.

But not because it was bad, but because there was so much turnaround from like May 86 to May 87. Literally half the cast was written out. It even confused me a little and I love AW lol 

1988 is a bit of a mixed bag too, because that year had 4 different head writers and the strike writers as well. 

Just now, AbcNbc247 said:

I wouldn’t recommend it.

But not because it was bad, but because there was so much turnaround from like May 86 to May 87. Literally half the cast was written out. It even confused me a little and I love AW lol 

1988 is a bit of a mixed bag too, because that year had 4 different head writers and the strike writers as well. 

Then it's really decided... I am so obsessed with 1989 that it would have been harder to go back... and your response helped me decide. I'm sticking with the sublime 1989... and maybe if some day I ran out of episodes... I'll go back. I'm watching 1 episode a day... 2 at most, since it's sooo good I don't want to watch everything in just couple of months. And Eddie Drueding (GOD BLESS HIM, he's AMAZING) is still uploading 1989... 

Thank you for the advice @AbcNbc247! 

1 hour ago, Maxim said:

Is Donna Swajeski considered by fans to be a good writer for the show?  

In my opinion Donna Swajeski had 2 really good years and rebuilt & stabilized the show after Margaret DePriest gutted it. 
 

1989 was amazing partly because she followed a plan developed by Harding Lemay. Anna Stuart returned, the 25 anniversary episodes were great, Iris and Rachel were front and centre, Anne Heche was lighting up the screen and the Matthews were back albeit briefly.

1991 was must see.  Vicky & Ryan, the returns of Kathleen McKinnon and Carl Hutchins, Sharlene’s split personalities, the fallout of “Who Shot Jake?” and the introduction of Lorna Devon.

 

Just now, Efulton said:

In my opinion Donna Swajeski had 2 really good years and rebuilt & stabilized the show after Margaret DePriest gutted it. 
 

1989 was amazing partly because she followed a plan developed by Harding Lemay. Anna Stuart returned, the 25 anniversary episodes were great, Iris and Rachel were front and centre, Anne Heche was lighting up the screen and the Matthews were back albeit briefly.

1991 was must see.  Vicky & Ryan, the returns of Kathleen McKinnon and Carl Hutchins, Sharlene’s split personalities, the fallout of “Who Shot Jake?” and the introduction of Lorna Devon.

 

All of this sounds soo promising. I have already to see something I don't like... and I'm nearly 50 episodes in. It's just amazing. They don't make them like that anymore.