1 hour ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

No.

I highly recommend it to you. I think you'll like it & I know it will inform you. It did me. It was Eddie's effort with additional reporting by Lynn Liccardo & Elana Levine.

On 4/3/2025 at 2:20 PM, Contessa Donatella said:

I think next week Eddie Drueding is celebrating a big anniversary of the AWHP. 

Hi Donna.  Eddie has posted the updates to celebrate the AWHP anniversary.  Thanks for the heads up that it was coming. Lots of good stuff.  He also backs up what you have been saying about Marley's rape being dictated by the network and P&G wanting the Dobsons as headwaiters.

http://www.anotherworldhomepage.com/awhp30.htm

Edited April 6Apr 6 by Efulton

13 hours ago, Reverend Ruthledge said:

That's right. Which was 1967. The first three years were completely ignored. 

Yes. I believe the explanation was that the scripts and episodes from the first 3 years were not available so they had to start from the later point.

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Efulton said:

Hi Donna.  Eddie has posted the updates to celebrate the AWHP anniversary.  Thanks for the heads up that it was coming. Lots of good stuff.  He also backs up what you have been saying about Marley's rape being dictated by the network and P&G wanting the Dobsons as headwaiters.

http://www.anotherworldhomepage.com/awhp30.htm

EFulton, what a DELICIOUS autocorrect!!! LOL  Headwaiters!!!! I LOVE IT. Meanwhile off to see the AWHP celebratory goodies, thanks for the updated info on it!!

Edited April 6Apr 6 by Contessa Donatella

1 hour ago, Xanthe said:

Yes. I believe the explanation was that the scripts and episodes from the first 3 years were not available so they had to start from the later point.

 

 

 

 

That's strange because all of the scripts from 1964-1966 have been available to the public  for a while. Perhaps they weren't available back in the 80s when those books came out. To me, it sounds like just an excuse. When they started those book series, I imagine they wanted to "hook" readers from the first book and they probably thought (very, very wrongly in my opinion) that the first years of the story were too boring. Or, they figured that most readers in the 80s wouldn't be interested in the origins of the Matthew family as, even by that point, the Matthews had been largely forgotten by modern viewers of the show. It's been so long since I read the S&S books, but, if I remember correctly, they glossed over a lot of the beginnings of the show and went very quickly into the Alice/Steve/Rachael triangle story. Which is, undoubtedly, the biggest and most remembered storyline of the first ten years of the story. As Donna pointed out and, as is the case with most things, making money by appealing to the most people was the goal of S&S and not honoring or staying true to the original story. That is evident in the many, many revisionist errors there were in the books. I only read the GL, ATWT, DOOL and AW books. They had varying degrees of attachment to the original source material and I just thought the AW book series was the worse offender of the lot. I'd like to try the other sources mentioned. I've found Eddie's site to be, by far, the best historical site for the show. I used to eat up those S&S books when they first came out because of the lack of opportunity to learn about the history elsewhere. Now, in 2025, thank God that there are many more resources that we have available and that I'm aware of. I'd rather just read the original scripts. Besides, I hated how cheesy those books were as they were written in the Harlequin romance style. I HATE romance books. People find that hard to believe because I love soap operas but I think it's a misperception that soap operas are all about romance. I think soap operas are about life. Romance is just one aspect of the soaps just as it is in life. It's not ALL about romance as many people who don't watch soap operas wrongly believe. 

Nevertheless,—and perhaps even more pointedly—Harding Lemay had a valid observation: decades later, all of those books bear author attributions that omit his name entirely. The covers don’t say “inspired by” or “based on a story by.” It’s as if those (likely pseudonymous) authors had originated the Rachel/Steve/Alice saga themselves.

And it goes without need to mention that they should've given credit to Irna Phillips and William J. Bell on the cover (or paid an actual actor for use of their image), is it such a foreign concept to share the wealth?

Edited April 6Apr 6 by j swift

AWHP have started their anniversary gifts. They also mentioned this message from Kevin Carrigan, posted on a video.

"I have acted with Richard Dreyfuss (he taught me to play poker), Gus Alleghretti, Eugene Troobnik, John Caprice, John C. McGinley, Maria Tucci, Dominic Chianese, David Proval, Mike Starr, George Segal, Hal Linden, Ossie Davis, Glynn Turman, Judd Hirsch, Clevon Little, Vincent Gardinia, Neil Maffin, John Lithgow, Arnold Vosloo, Esai Morales, Al Pacino, Rick Zahn, Sheryl Lee, Lars Mikkelsen, Mark Moses, Kevin Spacey, Campbell Scott, Mahershala Ali, Robert Downey, Jr. (briefly...my room-mate), Paul Sparks, Luke Hemsworth, Hemky Madera, Paul Johansson, Diego Tinoco, Harley Jane Kozak, and Robin Wright (among others); but, I am as proud of this toe-to-toe with Bill Espy as anything (1:04, 13:19). What a cool guy! Bill, should you ever see this...I love golf now, too! And--Oh, My Goodness!--was Hilary Edson gorgeous in this episode! We had our great differences at this time (I wish we had not; or, that we could have resolved them. Alas, we didn't.); but, she was simply stunning. I don't even think she knew how truly breath-taking she was. After the fact, I believe she realizes now. Maybe none of us are ever able to fully understand what we have when we have it; only, many years later, someone can point out to us that we once did."

On 4/5/2025 at 3:28 AM, Wendy said:

I finished watching the first episode of The Pitt (excellent show, by the way!), and the credits had AW alum Joanna Going in the guest roles.

Thanks for pointing this out, I had no idea that was her. I have a hard time seeing the resemblance to her earlier self even now. 

I wonder if this is why the Derek/Stacey pairing never seemed to take off. I was always confused why it didn't seem to go anywhere and his character lasted such a short time. For that matter, they never made much of Stacey either. She could have gone in so many directions, but the writers didn't have much interest in her.

On 4/6/2025 at 2:07 PM, Reverend Ruthledge said:

 I HATE romance books. People find that hard to believe because I love soap operas but I think it's a misperception that soap operas are all about romance. I think soap operas are about life. Romance is just one aspect of the soaps just as it is in life. It's not ALL about romance as many people who don't watch soap operas wrongly believe. 

Well, there's romance & there's romance, two different things. You're speaking of attraction & love between people but in the grander sense of the word it refers to, well, the grandness of life. And, when it comes to soaps, neither is the Harlequin thing. I love both on soaps but I can't stand that kind of paperback book. 

52 minutes ago, chrisml said:

I wonder if this is why the Derek/Stacey pairing never seemed to take off. I was always confused why it didn't seem to go anywhere and his character lasted such a short time. For that matter, they never made much of Stacey either. She could have gone in so many directions, but the writers didn't have much interest in her.

Alice Barrett said that Kevin Carrigan (Derek) was prima-donna backstage, and threw his weight around. He was literally like the second coming of George Reinholt. P&G and producers saw the writing on the wall, and went through this once, and didn't want to go through it again. So they fired his butt.  

2 hours ago, chrisml said:

I wonder if this is why the Derek/Stacey pairing never seemed to take off. I was always confused why it didn't seem to go anywhere and his character lasted such a short time. For that matter, they never made much of Stacey either. She could have gone in so many directions, but the writers didn't have much interest in her.

They made the character look awful by having her bed down Michael after taking Mikey from Donna and Michael. Kale Browne and Hilary Edson had no chemistry and they both came across as pricks, even though the writing clearly meant for us to side with them over Donna. Anna Stuart had to play against the writing for Donna during most of Swajeski's tenure, which she later complained about in an interview. 

Edson was also very cold in many of her scenes, more than I remember her being on GL a few years later. I wonder if it wasn't a happy experience.

@Paul Raven from the Texas! thread - in 1991 (?), Carl had a henchman try to kill Rachel at the TV studio. She managed to fight him off, but had vision problems for a while, I think due to some type of explosion.

Edited April 8Apr 8 by DRW50

Thanks. That story about the shoulder pads is very funny.

I wonder whatever happened to the antique store.