Lynda Hirsh, Feb 1985

30 minutes ago, j swift said:

Lynda Hirsh, Feb 1985

To be fair, that's a few years before the time in question and before many actors had left or been fired. Again, I can't say anything about Penberthy because I never saw her. I just think AW had moved on, and trying to shoehorn Pat into 1988/89's AW would not have worked for me as a viewer--the same way bringing back Laurie Heineman as Sharlene would not have worked as well as Anna Holbrook. I know this is an unpopular opinion around here because others have the appreciation for Pat. I don't have that context so she would just be some stranger taking up airtime. 

35 minutes ago, chrisml said:

To be fair, that's a few years before the time in question and before many actors had left or been fired. Again, I can't say anything about Penberthy because I never saw her. I just think AW had moved on, and trying to shoehorn Pat into 1988/89's AW would not have worked for me as a viewer

Sorry, I didn’t add context in my original post.

Yes, I agree with you, and I should’ve noted that by 1985, Penberthy had publicly said she wasn’t looking to return either. Although we have idea how she felt at the time of the anniversary week shows years later.

Additionally, as someone who watched Pat, I think her arc toward liberation felt narratively complete by that point. Reintroducing her in the late '80s—as part of another family or in a triangle—would’ve undercut the impact of that growth.

Edited August 6Aug 6 by j swift

2 hours ago, chrisml said:

By a certain point, I don't think AW viewers would have cared about Pat and they would have resented her being shoehorned into plots. Aw viewers learned not to grow too attached to characters because they could be gone in a flash. Pat seems to be popular here on this thread, but I have no idea who Pat is, and as a AW watcher (1986 onwards), I would have been extremely aggravated if she had been integrated for no reason. For me, it would have been no reason. I'm not saying it couldn't have worked, but Pat's history would not have resonated with me. I'd much rather have kept the McKinnons (except for Jake who should have been shot and killed), kept Nicole, had a decent Sam recast, saved Maisie and Quinn from the Sin stalker, had an African-American family built around Zack or Quinn, etc. 

I disagree.  I also had no memory of Pat but loved whenever AW reintroduced someone from the past (I.e. Sharlene, Russ). I enjoyed learning about their past and would have been happy for Liz and the Matthews family to get more airtime. 

2 hours ago, chrisml said:

By a certain point, I don't think AW viewers would have cared about Pat and they would have resented her being shoehorned into plots. Aw viewers learned not to grow too attached to characters because they could be gone in a flash. Pat seems to be popular here on this thread, but I have no idea who Pat is, and as a AW watcher (1986 onwards), I would have been extremely aggravated if she had been integrated for no reason. For me, it would have been no reason. I'm not saying it couldn't have worked, but Pat's history would not have resonated with me. I'd much rather have kept the McKinnons (except for Jake who should have been shot and killed), kept Nicole, had a decent Sam recast, saved Maisie and Quinn from the Sin stalker, had an African-American family built around Zack or Quinn, etc. 

I do agree with this “kept the McKinnons, kept Nicole, had a decent Sam recast, saved Maisie and Quinn from the Sin stalker, had an African-American family built around Zack or Quinn, etc.” 

2 hours ago, chrisml said:

By a certain point, I don't think AW viewers would have cared about Pat and they would have resented her being shoehorned into plots. Aw viewers learned not to grow too attached to characters because they could be gone in a flash. Pat seems to be popular here on this thread, but I have no idea who Pat is, and as a AW watcher (1986 onwards), I would have been extremely aggravated if she had been integrated for no reason. For me, it would have been no reason. I'm not saying it couldn't have worked, but Pat's history would not have resonated with me. I'd much rather have kept the McKinnons (except for Jake who should have been shot and killed), kept Nicole, had a decent Sam recast, saved Maisie and Quinn from the Sin stalker, had an African-American family built around Zack or Quinn, etc. 

How did you feel when Iris returned?

1 hour ago, chrisml said:

To be fair, that's a few years before the time in question and before many actors had left or been fired. Again, I can't say anything about Penberthy because I never saw her. I just think AW had moved on, and trying to shoehorn Pat into 1988/89's AW would not have worked for me as a viewer--the same way bringing back Laurie Heineman as Sharlene would not have worked as well as Anna Holbrook. I know this is an unpopular opinion around here because others have the appreciation for Pat. I don't have that context so she would just be some stranger taking up airtime. 

How do you know bringing back Laurie Heineman would not have worked? She was a talented actress.

16 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

How did you feel when Iris returned?

I was for it because it felt natural and because it was part of a major story that relied upon characters already on the canvas. The added bonus was that Carmen Duncan was sensational. Unless I'm mistaken, Pat does not have any major connection to anyone in Bay City around 1988 so it would be a forced situation. Iris worked much better than Pat ever could have.

1 hour ago, j swift said:

Sorry, I didn’t add context in my original post.

Yes, I agree with you, and I should’ve noted that by 1985, Penberthy had publicly said she wasn’t looking to return either. Although we have idea how she felt at the time of the anniversary week shows years later.

Additionally, as someone who watched Pat, I think her arc toward liberation felt narratively complete by that point. Reintroducing her in the late '80s—as part of another family or in a triangle—would’ve undercut the impact of that growth.

I know you're not suggesting this, but I feel like I have to say that I am not slighting Penberthy or people who love Pat. I just know how I feel when this sort of thing has happened on other shows. If someone is going to return, it needs to feel organic (Vivien, Liz, Iris, etc.) rather than something shoehorned in. I don't have the connection to Pat, so she would be coming in as a new character to me and I would be annoyed  because at the same time I would be losing characters I did like over the last year or more. 

18 minutes ago, Efulton said:

How do you know bringing back Laurie Heineman would not have worked? She was a talented actress.

Because Anna Holbrook was so fantastic. I don't understand the point of trying to change/imagining changing something on AW that actually worked. There is enough that didn't work. Why mess with or go back and change what did work? 

1 minute ago, chrisml said:

I was for it because it felt natural and because it was part of a major story that relied upon characters already on the canvas. The added bonus was that Carmen Duncan was sensational. Unless I'm mistaken, Pat does not have any major connection to anyone in Bay City around 1988 so it would be a forced situation. Iris worked much better than Pat ever could have.

I know you're not suggesting this, but I feel like I have to say that I am not slighting Penberthy or people who love Pat. I just know how I feel when this sort of thing has happened on other shows. If someone is going to return, it needs to feel organic (Vivien, Liz, Iris, etc.) rather than something shoehorned in. I don't have the connection to Pat, so she would be coming in as a new character to me and I would be annoyed  because at the same time I would be losing characters I did like over the last year or more. 

Because Anna Holbrook was so fantastic. I don't understand the point of trying to change/imagining changing something on AW that actually worked. There is enough that didn't work. Why mess with or go back and change what did work? 

Anna Holbrook was brilliant but that doesn’t mean Heineman would not also have been.  

12 minutes ago, chrisml said:

I was for it because it felt natural and because it was part of a major story that relied upon characters already on the canvas. The added bonus was that Carmen Duncan was sensational. Unless I'm mistaken, Pat does not have any major connection to anyone in Bay City around 1988 so it would be a forced situation. Iris worked much better than Pat ever could have.

Pat was very close to Liz and to Mac, and I could see her fitting in well into the whole Chief story, but I agree Iris had more natural ties. 

7 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Pat was very close to Liz and to Mac, and I could see her fitting in well into the whole Chief story, but I agree Iris had more natural ties. 

In order to have her on the show, they would have cut someone else. Who would they have fired? Pat would have had to displace another character currently on the canvas to get airtime if the actress agreed to come back. 

14 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Pat was very close to Liz and to Mac, and I could see her fitting in well into the whole Chief story, but I agree Iris had more natural ties. 

With the proper set up and good writing most popular characters can be brought back with success.

1 minute ago, chrisml said:

In order to have her on the show, they would have cut someone else. Who would they have fired? Pat would have had to displace another character currently on the canvas to get airtime if the actress agreed to come back. 

I suppose if AW was good at one thing it was finding reasons to fire people...

As Denise Alexander was leaving, I could have seen them writing her out earlier. 

Just now, DRW50 said:

I suppose if AW was good at one thing it was finding reasons to fire people...

As Denise Alexander was leaving, I could have seen them writing her out earlier. 

Or don’t bring Hilary Edson on as Stacey.

6 minutes ago, Efulton said:

Or don’t bring Hilary Edson on as Stacey.

True. That was a mistake anyway.