1 hour ago, watson71 said:

The zoo keeper in the final week of AW episodes was also named Sam Ratcliffe.  He was the zoo keeper who took care of Carolyn the Gorilla. 

Carolyn's handler was named Sam & that was an homage to the writer but her handler did not have a last name stated. 

Sorry , but anyone who thought having a 'gorilla' as part of the finale after 35 years was a fitting tribute...

I didn't really care about the gorilla. I just wish they'd had a few more returns which would have been fitting for the end (like Carmen Duncan as Iris...and I still have no idea why Sam Groom did not return as Russ when RUSS' DAUGHTER WAS ON THE CANVAS).

Edited March 24Mar 24 by DRW50

3 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I didn't really care about the gorilla. I just wish they'd had a few more returns which would have been fitting for the end (like Carmen Duncan as Iris...and I still have no idea why Sam Groom did not return as Russ when RUSS' DAUGHTER WAS ON THE CANVAS).

Exactly. 

But focusing on the gorilla was evidence  of what ultimately caused the cancellation.

 

6 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

Exactly. 

But focusing on the gorilla was evidence  of what ultimately caused the cancellation.

AW is one of those shows like GL where they outlived a natural cancelation endpoint so many times that I don't even entirely know what I'd blame, but I see what you mean. 

4 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

Exactly. 

But focusing on the gorilla was evidence  of what ultimately caused the cancellation.

Sorry but I don't see that at all. Don't get me wrong. I completely get that Carolyn the gorilla, her mate Richard & her handler Sam did not work as its in-joke referential nod to the Cullitons & to Samuel D. Ratcliffe AND that it also did not work as a bit of nostalgia to AW comedic high jinks & Felicia-Cass-Wally 80s show. So, it did NOT work AT ALL, agreed. But what does it have to do with the 90 minute show trainwreck & too many changes of EP & HW, etc.? Trying to guess what you mean I can only come up with its being an example of bad decision-making at the top. Is that what you mean?

Listing again Sam Ratcliffe's soap work history with Loving stint added! If anyone can confirm his exact start date on Santa Barbara, that would be great. 

Another World

script writer October 1979 - ?

 

Days
December 79-March 80 (13 weeks/13 episodes)

 

Another World

script writer: July 1980 to December 1980

 

Days

script writer 3 episodes in Jan / Feb 1981

 

Texas

co-head writer March 2- Nov 6 1981 (included 12 week writers' strike)

 

Guiding Light

script writer January to June 1984

 

Another World

script writer July 1984-March 1985

 

Capitol

Breakdown Writer October? 1985 to March 1987

 

ATWT

Breakdown Writer: May 1987 to Jan 1988

 

Loving

Breakdowns: Feb 1988 to Jan 1990

 

Santa Barbara

Co-Head Writer/Breakdowns: Feb? 1990 to December 1992

 

Another World

Breakdown Writer: December 1992 - December 1995 

Edited March 24Mar 24 by VelekaCarruthers

16 hours ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

Love your memories!!  I also remember some of these scenes.  Rachel really was a very bad woman who caused lots of trouble for the Matthews family. The ratings went through the roof and remained high the entire time Rachel was a bad-girl.  Vicky Wyndham as Rachel was even more evil than Robin Strasser's version.  i wonder if TPTB ever regretted softening Rachel and turning her into a heroine...

There's  no doubt that Agnes Nixon's great writing and her deft handling of the Alice/Steve/Rachel saga had a huge impact on the ratings. I'd say, personally, that her stints on TGL and AW represented Nixon's very best work. I enjoyed her early AMC material, and loved her on OLTL, but TGL and AW were mesmerizing under her pen.

16 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Thanks. This was a great recap (I felt like I was there). I've seen some fans say that the show ramped up Rachel's nastiness when Victoria Wyndham was cast. Do you think that's true? Or had Rachel just been more low-key for a while in the Robin exit/return (and Margie Impert's brief run)? 

To me, Rachel (under Strasser) started out as an immature young woman, stunted by her emotional problems (abandonment issues, low self esteem, misdirected anger, desperation to attain social status and respect), who simply did not understand how to fix her own issues or control her anger. She was infuriating, but I could understand where she was coming from.

When Wyndham came  aboard, Rachel became...demonic. She was filled with unbridled fury and venom, and behaved like a sociopath. To me, the delicate balance between human being and villainess was lost. I was never able to accept when Lemay turned Rachel into an insta-heroine later on.

16 hours ago, DRW50 said:

It does make me wonder why some fans at the time rooted for Rachel and Steve. 

Harding Lemay made this assertion in his book (and he would have his own reasons for making such a claim), but certainly in the fan magazines, the rooting factor was overwhelmingly in favor of Steve and Alice. I'm sure there must have been viewers who rooted for Rachel, but I never saw any evidence of that.

16 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I like that idea. If only they hadn't cast (and stayed with) an actor who felt so remote. A disappointing casting choice considering the rest of the Matthews family had a warmer sense about them.

David Bailey was not bad, per se, but he was just rather bland and limited. While handsome, he did not have much spark or charisma, and was such a let down after the depth, nobility and quiet strength Sam Groom had shown as Russ.

 

Edited March 24Mar 24 by vetsoapfan

6 hours ago, DRW50 said:

AW is one of those shows like GL where they outlived a natural cancelation endpoint so many times that I don't even entirely know what I'd blame, but I see what you mean. 

Well, if you aren't sure what your own reasons are, at least tell me what you think of my reasons. 1. 90 minute show 2. Affiliates hated 90 minute show & blamed AW moving from her to DAYS as their favorite NBC soap. (Prior AW was the pet/golden child of the affiliates.) 3. Way too many changes in EP/HW. 4. NBC awful at promoting their soaps. 5. Internecine warfare between NBC & P&G. 5. NBC tried to kill the show. 6. NBC tried to get rid of Vicky Wyndham. 6. P&G was too cheap to get really good EP/HW. 

 

2 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

David Bailey was not bad, per se, but he was just rather bland and limited. While handsome, he did not have much spark or charisma, and was such a let down after the depth, nobility and quiet strength Sam Groom had shown as Russ.

I agree with you. When first cast, David Bailey was sexy as Hell. And he was a decent actor. But sadly he had limited acting range which relegated Russ to a supporting role.  When Sam Groom played Russ, he was arguably the young male romantic lead of the show.  Groom was a versatile actor who was leading-man material.  I've said this before but -- had Groom remained in the role, I feel the entire trajectory of Another World would have been different. And I'm confident the Matthews family would never have been minimized. Russ and his love-life would have been on a par with Steve/Alice and Mac/Rachel.  

47 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

I agree with you. When first cast, David Bailey was sexy as Hell. And he was a decent actor. But sadly he had limited acting range which relegated Russ to a supporting role.  When Sam Groom played Russ, he was arguably the young male romantic lead of the show.  Groom was a versatile actor who was leading-man material.  I've said this before but -- had Groom remained in the role, I feel the entire trajectory of Another World would have been different. And I'm confident the Matthews family would never have been minimized. Russ and his love-life would have been on a par with Steve/Alice and Mac/Rachel.  

David Bailey was indeed very attractive, but--alas--it wasn't enough to make his Russ compelling. He was certainly serviceable enough, acting-wise, but the show needed someone really strong and magnetic in the role, and Bailey just never rose to the challenge AW needed to keep Russ viable and on-screen.

I loved when we had Virginia Dwyer as Mary, Sheppard Strudwick as Jim, Beverly Penberthy as Pat, Sam Groom as Russ, Jacquie Courtney as Alice, and Audra Lindley as Aunt Liz. The Matthews family was on fire, with the best and most memorable performers (IMHO) bringing the clan to life. Ahhh, the good old days!

Had Groom stayed on as Russ, I'd like to believe AW would have featured him prominently on a permanent basis, but considering how TIIC fired Dwyer, Courtney, Reinholt, Penberthy, etc., I'd look at P&G and NBC with distrust.

The "suits" never fail to live down to my expectations, LOL.

4 hours ago, Contessa Donatella said:

Well, if you aren't sure what your own reasons are, at least tell me what you think of my reasons. 1. 90 minute show 2. Affiliates hated 90 minute show & blamed AW moving from her to DAYS as their favorite NBC soap. (Prior AW was the pet/golden child of the affiliates.) 3. Way too many changes in EP/HW. 4. NBC awful at promoting their soaps. 5. Internecine warfare between NBC & P&G. 5. NBC tried to kill the show. 6. NBC tried to get rid of Vicky Wyndham. 6. P&G was too cheap to get really good EP/HW. 

I could agree with that, yes.

4 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

There's  no doubt that Agnes Nixon's great writing and her deft handling of the Alice/Steve/Rachel saga had a huge impact on the ratings. I'd say, personally, that her stints on TGL and AW represented Nixon's very best work. I enjoyed her early AMC material, and loved her on OLTL, but TGL and AW were mesmerizing under her pen.

To me, Rachel (under Strasser) started out as an immature young woman, stunted by her emotional problems (abandonment issues, low self esteem, misdirected anger, desperation to attain social status and respect), who simply did not understand how to fix her own issues or control her anger. She was infuriating, but I could understand where she was coming from.

When Wyndham came  aboard, Rachel became...demonic. She was filled with unbridled fury and venom, and behaved like a sociopath. To me, the delicate balance between human being and villainess was lost. I was never able to accept when Lemay turned Rachel into an insta-heroine later on.

Harding Lemay made this assertion in his book (and he would have his own reasons for making such a claim), but certainly in the fan magazines, the rooting factor was overwhelmingly in favor of Steve and Alice. I'm sure there must have been viewers who rooted for Rachel, but I never saw any evidence of that.

I can see Lemay having his own biases on the Steve/Rachel front.

Thanks for the explanation. I would be so glad if some episodes from early Wyndham showed up (beyond the two bits we have now) to see the change. I've always wondered if Lemay took time but I guess he really didn't, other than what he mentioned about using Ada's pregnancy to soften Rachel.

Do you think Wyndham was playing Rachel similar to Charlotte on GL, or was that a more sympathetic character?

15 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I could agree with that, yes.

Well, that's lovely!!

15 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I can see Lemay having his own biases on the Steve/Rachel front.

Yeah, I don't know why he would have had, though, so quickly. 

15 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Thanks for the explanation. I would be so glad if some episodes from early Wyndham showed up (beyond the two bits we have now) to see the change. I've always wondered if Lemay took time but I guess he really didn't, other than what he mentioned about using Ada's pregnancy to soften Rachel.

Oh, having any more of that time is so wished for!!! 

15 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Do you think Wyndham was playing Rachel similar to Charlotte on GL, or was that a more sympathetic character?

That would surprise me if so.

59 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

1 hour ago, DRW50 said:

Do you think Wyndham was playing Rachel similar to Charlotte on GL, or was that a more sympathetic character?

That would surprise me if so.

I can't answer the question about Charlotte, but I can add something about Wyndham's acting style versus Strasser's as Rachel.  Strasser played Rachel somewhat similarly to the way Susan Lucci played Erica Kane in the first decade of AMC -- sort of flighty, using her voice to exaggerate things, and a hint of humor, even though Rachel did terrible things.  Wyndham played Rachel with none of that.  There were no similarities between VW's Rachel and Susan Lucci's Erica.  VW's Rachel was dead serious. At times, she almost seemed dangerous -- like she might actually do something violent to Steve or Alice, if she didn't get her way.  VW could play a humorous line now and then, but still it was nothing like Erica Kane.  It really did seem that Strasser's version of Rachel would have been much more redeemable than Wyndham's.  So it is interesting that Lemay didn't begin to soften Rachel until a couple of years after Wyndham assumed the role. He could have easily began Rachel's transition to heroine while Strasser was still on the show.  

Edited March 24Mar 24 by Mona Kane Croft

5 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

I can't answer the question about Charlotte, but I can add something about Wyndham's acting style versus Strasser's as Rachel.  Strasser played Rachel somewhat similarly to the way Susan Lucci played Erica Kane in the first decade of AMC -- sort of flighty, using her voice to exaggerate things, and a hint of humor, even though Rachel did terrible things.  Wyndham played Rachel with none of that.  There were no similarities between VW's Rachel and Susan Lucci's Erica.  VW's Rachel was dead serious. At times, she almost seemed dangerous -- at times like she might actually do something violent to Steve or Alice, if she didn't get her way.  VW could play a humorous line now and then, but still it was nothing like Erica Kane.  It really did seem that Strasser's version of Rachel would have been much more redeemable than Wyndham's.  So it is interesting that Lemay didn't begin to soften Rachel until a couple of years after Wyndham assumed the role.   

Thanks. Always appreciate more insight.