Iris and Steve famously got on well because she looked just like his sister. 

2 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Iris and Steve famously got on well because she looked just like his sister. 

How dare you! Emma was famously plain and drab, unlike glamorous socialite Iris. 😀

Thanks @Tisy-Lish for the added details.

Thinking about 1989 Iris and Evan, did Steve have any point of view about what had happened to Janice or was all of that ignored when he came back from the dead?

 

 

Edited November 6Nov 6 by Xanthe
Paragraphs

23 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

It's true that I was disappointed in AW by 1981 and couldn't stomach watching the show live, but a break of 44 (!!!) years makes me less bitter about the show's destruction, and just seeing folks like Jim and Pat is nostalgic and touching. I'm looking forward to watching these eps.

Yes, I didn't like most anything from that year, but it was a treat to see (what was left of) the Matthews in that Christmas video. But I know at the time I didn't like Linda Borgeson or Jennifer Runyon, and I wasn't happy with a Pat-Brian pairing, either. 

1 hour ago, Xanthe said:

Thinking about 1989 Iris and Evan, did Steve have any point of view about what had happened to Janice or was all of that ignored when he came back from the dead?

 

When Steve returned in 1982-ish, he barely mentioned his original background at all.  And I'm almost sure he did not mention any of his siblings by name.  I could be wrong, but I had started watching daily, because Steve and Alice were back.  Needless to say, I was quite disappointed  -- more disappointed with the writing than the casting.  

Edited November 6Nov 6 by Tisy-Lish

42 minutes ago, teplin said:

and I wasn't happy with a Pat-Brian pairing, either. 

I agree with this.  It seemed TPTB just slapped Pat and Brian together because they were approximately the same age and both single.  Plus I can't imagine Pat getting involved with a rich New York attorney, and certainly not with a man who had been married to Iris.   By New York attorney, I mean he lived in NYC for years before he moved to Bay City. And he was part of the New York jet-setting group that followed Iris and Mac to Bay City.  Not a good love match for a Matthews, in my opinion.

3 hours ago, teplin said:

Yes, I didn't like most anything from that year, but it was a treat to see (what was left of) the Matthews in that Christmas video. But I know at the time I didn't like Linda Borgeson or Jennifer Runyon, and I wasn't happy with a Pat-Brian pairing, either. 

I know that there are fans who considered Borgenson to be at least adequate as Alice, and others who deemed her to be Jacqueline Courtney's best replacement in the role.

Having watched the show for so many years, however, I found the dismissal and replacement of JC to be...sacrilegious, like replacing Mary Stuart as Joanne on SFT, Deidre Hall as Marlena on DAYS, Susan Lucci as Erica on AMC, or Genie Francis as Laura on GH. Some actors just cannot be replaced IMHO. The only Alice I wanted to see on-screen was Courtney.

Runyon did not strike me as a strong actress (Cathy Green had been so likeable and good), and the Pat-Brian pairing strikes me as a "we don't know what else to do with these people so we'll push them together" plot device.

8 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

I know that there are fans who considered Borgenson to be at least adequate as Alice, and others who deemed her to be Jacqueline Courtney's best replacement in the role.

Having watched the show for so many years, however, I found the dismissal and replacement of JC to be...sacrilegious, like replacing Mary Stuart as Joanne on SFT, Deidre Hall as Marlena on DAYS, Susan Lucci as Erica on AMC, or Genie Francis as Laura on GH. Some actors just cannot be replaced IMHO. The only Alice I wanted to see on-screen was Courtney.

Runyon did not strike me as a strong actress (Cathy Green had been so likeable and good), and the Pat-Brian pairing strikes me as a "we don't know what else to do with these people so we'll push them together" plot device.

The bit I've seen of Borgeson seems very generic TV wife/mother, nothing that works for Alice. The reason Courtney worked well as Alice is she had a certain grit to offset any ingenue writing. There's no depth to her. Runyeon seems to be the same.

I'll be honest - for many years I thought this Sally went on to play the daughter on Gimme a Break. She's made in a lab for TV casting. Neither have the qualities of the earlier Matthews actresses. I suppose this started with some of the Marianne and Alice recasts in the '70s and just with Rauch's increasingly uneven choices.

I think Runyon settled more into the role in her last months as Sally once she was acting opposite Peter and Cass.  I thought she had a vulnerable vibe mixed with an impulsive streak.

Her Sally benefited from interacting with Liz, Jim, Pat, and Russ that helped establish her as a member of the Matthews clan.

35 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

The bit I've seen of Borgeson seems very generic TV wife/mother, nothing that works for Alice. The reason Courtney worked well as Alice is she had a certain grit to offset any ingenue writing.

There are some performers who just have an undefinable but undeniable presence/charisma/magnetism to which the audience responds. IMHO, Courtney was one of them.

35 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

There's no depth to (Borgenson). Runyeon seems to be the same.

I agree. I've seen other actresses whom I deemed weaker (hello Charity Rahmer, LOL), but being "less bad" than someone else is not a ringing endorsement of anyone's talent or appeal.

35 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I'll be honest - for many years I thought this Sally went on to play the daughter on Gimme a Break. She's made in a lab for TV casting. Neither have the qualities of the earlier Matthews actresses. I suppose this started with some of the Marianne and Alice recasts in the '70s and just with Rauch's increasingly uneven choices.

"Uneven" is the word. Some casting choices were spot-on while others were truly painful. Of course, this is true for all soaps, not just Rauch's AW.

4 hours ago, Tisy-Lish said:

When Steve returned in 1982-ish, he barely mentioned his original background at all.  And I'm almost sure he did not mention any of his siblings by name.  I could be wrong, but I had started watching daily, because Steve and Alice were back.  Needless to say, I was quite disappointed  -- more disappointed with the writing than the casting.  

I remember somebody on here posted an article by John Kelly Genovese a long time ago, where he discussed 1982 AW and one of his main criticisms was that Steve's family wasn't even acknowledged when it was revealed that he was alive.

Which can sort of be tied to one of AW's biggest problems; a lot of writers, producers, etc. post-Lemay/Rauch never did their homework.

Edited November 6Nov 6 by AbcNbc247

20 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:

I remember somebody on here posted an article by John Kelly Genovese a long time ago, where he discussed 1982 AW and one of his main criticisms was that Steve's family wasn't even acknowledged when it was revealed that he was alive.

Which can sort of be tied to one of AW's biggest problems; a lot of writers, producers, etc. post-Lemay/Rauch never did their homework.

And Rauch was still producer at this time!

4 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

And Rauch was still producer at this time!

After so many years there, I could imagine that people were getting tired of him, which could have been one of the reasons why 1982 was such a mess

On 11/6/2025 at 5:58 PM, AbcNbc247 said:

I remember somebody on here posted an article by John Kelly Genovese a long time ago, where he discussed 1982 AW and one of his main criticisms was that Steve's family wasn't even acknowledged when it was revealed that he was alive.

Which can sort of be tied to one of AW's biggest problems; a lot of writers, producers, etc. post-Lemay/Rauch never did their homework.

So many PTB are too lazy, indifferent and incompetent to do their homework and get to know the history of the shows they are being paid handsomely to handle. This has been a  major problem across the board on soaps for decades.

I look back with respect and even awe at writers like Agnes Nixon, Pat Falken Smith, Claire Labine and Douglas Marland, who CLEARLY studied the new shows they took over quite thoroughly.

Edited November 8Nov 8 by vetsoapfan

On 11/6/2025 at 2:58 PM, AbcNbc247 said:

I remember somebody on here posted an article by John Kelly Genovese a long time ago, where he discussed 1982 AW and one of his main criticisms was that Steve's family wasn't even acknowledged when it was revealed that he was alive.

It’s such a valid criticism.

Steve’s one return from the dead was squandered—reduced to a limp triangle with nu-Alice and a focus on his nu-daughter, while the characters who should’ve anchored his comeback, Jamie and Sally, were sidelined and swiftly dismissed. Worse, they were recast again. That’s the real tragedy.

As a lifelong Stephen Yates stan (short-shorts Jamie supremacy), I always felt Another World should’ve been framed through Jamie’s evolution. The 1970s rightly centered Rachel’s romantic chaos while Jamie was still a child. But by the 1980s, his identity crisis as a Cory/Frame should’ve taken center stage, culminating in his emergence as a romantic lead in the 1990s. Instead, the show bungled him repeatedly—never committing to his arc long enough for him to become the emotional core.

This moment, Steve’s return, was the perfect inflection point. The tension between Steve and Mac could’ve mirrored Jamie’s internal conflict. Sally’s storyline could’ve been defined by the search for a long-lost father and the painful struggle to connect. But the show chose shortcuts over substance, and the opportunity to deepen its legacy characters was lost.

On 11/6/2025 at 4:06 PM, vetsoapfan said:

Runyon did not strike me as a strong actress (Cathy Green had been so likeable and good), and the Pat-Brian pairing strikes me as a "we don't know what else to do with these people so we'll push them together" plot device.

After the child Cathy Green and before Jennifer Runyon we had the juvenile delinquent iteration played by Julie Philips. I occasionally wonder what Sally's storyline would have been like if they hadn't whitewashed both her and Catlin's pasts for the Brittany storyline and gone back earlier than Peter when looking for a spoiler in their marriage. Chris Holder's Peter was quite a different guy from the more decent John Hutton version.

Regarding Pat and Brian, I don't recall how far it went, and without context his apparently sudden declaration of love and her resistance felt awkward. Then in the Xmas day episode when Brian steps out of the room briefly Pat, who has been trying to sidestep talking about personal matters, is somehow willing to open up to Liz, who wants to push them together, about how great it is that he can be both level-headed and whimsical. I can understand that they wanted to show Pat's feelings but it felt like the wrong place and time for that conversation as written. That's probably a lower-level decision than HW so it may not be Jacker's fault, but a lot of the scenes feel inorganic to me with sudden changes of mood.