15 hours ago, Tisy-Lish said:

So Rachel won Steve's heart in the end (what a pathetic insult to long term fans of AW!!). And later, on nearly every soap opera, whenever they wrote a love triangle, the bad-girl won the guy -- and the good girl either left town, or went crazy and became the "badder girl."  I could give many examples of this over recent decades, but I really don't have the energy.  Most of you will understand.  The ingenue became boring and the bad-girl became the star of the show. (Rachel, Erica, Reva, Vicky Hudson, Carly (GH), Carly (ATWT). In my opinion, that is weak writing and writing to the lowest common denominator.  

I would agree that making the ingénue boring is weak writing, but I will point out that by this point Rachel had let her bad girl card lapse a bit. She was a heroine for having saved Mac from Janice and even the shocking fact of Matthew's conception was part of her sacrifice in that storyline. 

On the whole of course Steve's return from the dead didn't have many long-term implications -- after he died again Rachel remarried Mac and former bad-girl Blaine married Sandy and former bad girl Sally started on a more virtuous path despite her secret love child. Steve's Australian stepdaughter left town and Alice was gone.

Maybe the introduction of Quinn was the best, longest impact of Steve's return, and it wasn't long enough. 

 

Edited July 27Jul 27 by Xanthe

3 hours ago, Xanthe said:

I would agree that making the ingénue boring is weak writing, but I will point out that by this point Rachel had let her bad girl card lapse a bit. She was a heroine for having saved Mac from Janice and even the shocking fact of Matthew's conception was part of her sacrifice in that storyline. 

Yes.  Sorry, I did not mean to imply that Rachel was still a bad-girl in 1981.  Just that in the history of Alice/Steve/Rachel, Rachel had been the bad-girl and Alice had been the ingenue. So ultimately, the bad-girl won. 

 

3 hours ago, Xanthe said:

Maybe the introduction of Quinn was the best, longest impact of Steve's return, and it wasn't long enough. 

Agreed.  Quinn was by far the longest lasting detail of Steve's return in 1982.  A lot of characters were brought in to support Steve's return storyline -- Alice, Steve, Diana, Quinn, and four or five members of the Shea family. Anyone else?  

19 hours ago, Tisy-Lish said:

... #2) By 1982, "chemistry" had become the guiding force in writing romance in daytime on all three networks. So when Canary seemed to have a little more chemistry with Wyndham than he had with Borgeson, TPTB pushed Canary and Wyndham together, despite both characters' toxic history. This sort of madness was happening on nearly every soap on every network, with nearly all romance plots -- chemistry, chemistry, chemistry between actors is all that mattered. History be damned!  #3) 1982 was near the time that "good girls" (or ingenues) started to be considered boring, and "bad girls" were considered more interesting and dynamic. At least by the writers, if not the viewers.  So Rachel won Steve's heart in the end (what a pathetic insult to long term fans of AW!!). And later, on nearly every soap opera, whenever they wrote a love triangle, the bad-girl won the guy -- and the good girl either left town, or went crazy and became the "badder girl."  I could give many examples of this over recent decades, but I really don't have the energy.  Most of you will understand.  The ingenue became boring and the bad-girl became the star of the show. (Rachel, Erica, Reva, Vicky Hudson, Carly (GH), Carly (ATWT). In my opinion, that is weak writing and writing to the lowest common denominator.  

I seem to know a great many long term fans of the show who became terminally offended by the firings of George R., JC & Virginia Dwyer. 

The sad part about Virginia Dwyer is that she did not pass away until 2012.  Had AW kept her character alive, she could have been there for the entire 35 year run of the show. And there would have been a reason to keep some form of the Matthews family on the show.

35 minutes ago, watson71 said:

The sad part about Virginia Dwyer is that she did not pass away until 2012.  Had AW kept her character alive, she could have been there for the entire 35 year run of the show. And there would have been a reason to keep some form of the Matthews family on the show.

That really is sad because Pete Lemay would've liked writing for some Matthews family person! After him, I'm not so sure, but if he'd had a chance to anchor someone, then, maybe they'd have been kept in play. And, it would've added to the pre-85 to 95 historical value of Bay City!! 

On 7/25/2025 at 4:41 PM, Xanthe said:

I do wonder whether the original plan was always to put Rachel and Canary-Steve together or whether they changed the storyline based on audience response or behind-the-scenes factors. Vana Tribbey's Alice grew close to Mac while he was separated from Rachel in the aftermath of Janice/Mitch/St Croix. Tribbey was on only 6 months, which seems like she was fired and replaced quickly at short notice with Linda Borgeson. And Borgeson stayed for only a year.

Alice during this time period made very little impression on me so I would not have a strong sense of the character and who was better. But it seemed inappropriate to construe Rachel as Steve's True Love and also unhelpful story-wise to squeeze Alice out.

I think it is unanimous, that almost everyone agrees that the whole triangle re-invent was sloppy and a big mistake.  Interesting point though, as Tribbey only lasted 6 months & Welsley Pfenning only lasted like 4 months.  Susan Harney was on the only one who lasted about 4 years as recasted Alice.  It seems like they just could never nail it again after Harney was recasted but oddly enough, when Jacq Courtney returned in 1984 as ALICE, she only lasted 11 months too.  

1 hour ago, denzo30 said:

I think it is unanimous, that almost everyone agrees that the whole triangle re-invent was sloppy and a big mistake.  Interesting point though, as Tribbey only lasted 6 months & Welsley Pfenning only lasted like 4 months.  Susan Harney was on the only one who lasted about 4 years as recasted Alice.  It seems like they just could never nail it again after Harney was recasted but oddly enough, when Jacq Courtney returned in 1984 as ALICE, she only lasted 11 months too.  

Well, the writing for Steve's return was bad.  VERY bad.  But the casting could have worked with decent writing that respected the history of Alice/Steve/Rachel, rather than just paying lip-service to it. The triangle was OVER, and had been over before Reinholt and Courtney were fired in 1975.  Once Rachel married Mac, there was no chance she would have ever looked back toward Steve in any serious way.   Had Harding Lemay written Steve's return (even though he likely would have refused, because he HATED return from the dead plots), he would have written it believably, and would have gotten Steve and Alice back on track to continue their ever-troubled romance. Rachel certainly would have been involved, but mostly through the impact on Jamie. Rachel would never have started chasing Steve again.  

This is probably controversial, but is Harding Lemay really as good as everyone claims he is? I keep reading about his accomplishments and what he did for the show, and I get that he did do a lot for a lot for the show. However, he also strikes me as someone (like Marland) who was never able to take criticism or get out of his own way when he made mistakes or was wrong about something. I didn't see any of his work, so I'm only going on what I've read about him and in reading his book. From his book, he  does not always come across that well and relentless anger at JAcqueline Courtney seems pathological. 

Edited July 30Jul 30 by chrisml

12 minutes ago, chrisml said:

This is probably controversial, but is Harding Lemay really as good as every claims he is? I keep reading about his accomplishments and what he did for the show, and I get that he did do a lot for a lot for the show. However, he also strikes me as someone (like Marland) who was never able to take criticism or get out of his own way when he made mistakes or was wrong about something. I didn't see any of his work, so I'm only going on what I've read about him and in reading his book. From his book, he  does not always come across that well and relentless anger at JAcqueline Courtney seems pathological. 

I loved Lemay's work on AW because he wrote the characters like real people. So yes he was really a great soap writer.  When we watched an episode it was like checking in on friends.  Lemay's AW was all about the interior lives of the characters. But most of Lemay's plots were weak to say the least. He was great at writing character driven stuff.  Not so good with identifiable plots.  Lemay's AW was more about characters in situations, rather than identifiable plots.   And I agree his relentless anger toward Jacquie Courtney and Virginia Dwyer was a bit pathological. Frankly he seemed intent on destroying their careers.   As the old song says, "Ya' take the good, ya' take the bad..."   

On 7/28/2025 at 8:09 AM, Contessa Donatella said:

That really is sad because Pete Lemay would've liked writing for some Matthews family person!

He killed off Mary in the first place!

5 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

He killed off Mary in the first place!

But, we don't know if that was his decision or if it was Paul's. Sure, as HW it would have been his job to implement it, though.

15 hours ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

I loved Lemay's work on AW because he wrote the characters like real people. So yes he was really a great soap writer.  When we watched an episode it was like checking in on friends.  Lemay's AW was all about the interior lives of the characters. But most of Lemay's plots were weak to say the least. He was great at writing character driven stuff.  Not so good with identifiable plots.  Lemay's AW was more about characters in situations, rather than identifiable plots.   And I agree his relentless anger toward Jacquie Courtney and Virginia Dwyer was a bit pathological. Frankly he seemed intent on destroying their careers.   As the old song says, "Ya' take the good, ya' take the bad..."   

I definitely need to read his book now. I have to know more about this fixation with these actresses. 

Aaaand nice to see you posting back in the topic. 🙂

38 minutes ago, Maxim said:

I definitely need to read his book now. I have to know more about this fixation with these actresses. 

Aaaand nice to see you posting back in the topic. 🙂

I would not say that he was fixated on either of the two actresses or the actor. If he was fixated on any actresses, they were probably Connie Ford & Vicky Wyndham. 

With Dwyer, it was his contention that she refused to learn lines instead substituting her knowledge of the character  & saying what she thought Mary would say. 

With Courtney, he did not think she could act, which I interpret to really mean that he did not like her style of acting. 

George, the original bad boy of soaps, was more of a thing, a problem for Paul, not Pete. 

But, I will & do recommend his book to any & all. 

 

 

Edited July 30Jul 30 by Contessa Donatella

16 hours ago, chrisml said:

This is probably controversial, but is Harding Lemay really as good as everyone claims he is? I keep reading about his accomplishments and what he did for the show, and I get that he did do a lot for a lot for the show. However, he also strikes me as someone (like Marland) who was never able to take criticism or get out of his own way when he made mistakes or was wrong about something. I didn't see any of his work, so I'm only going on what I've read about him and in reading his book. From his book, he  does not always come across that well and relentless anger at JAcqueline Courtney seems pathological. 

You may get a lot of different answers. To me, yes, he was that good!! In terms of taking criticism, I think it's all down to who it was from & what the content of it was. I do think he could take constructive criticism because if he could not, I don't think he could've functioned as he did & as well. One thing that is different about others compared to him is that he took the whole thing on himself which probably gave him HW burnout faster & deeper if he had not. For a couple of years, he wrote everything himself, no breakdown writers & no script writers. I'm sorry, I forgot that you've read his book. 

38 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

With Dwyer, it was his contention that she refused to learn lines instead substituting her knowledge of the character  & saying what she thought Mary would say. 

Given what I’ve seen of Hugh Marlowe’s Jim Matthews, any actor would need to substitute lines given how “robotic” he acted on the show.