29 minutes ago, Xanthe said:

Chris Holder's Peter was quite a different guy from the more decent John Hutton version.

I would add my recollection that they each related to Donna in fundamentally different ways.

Peter 1.0 is the pragmatic operator—keeping the Love mansion off the auction block by working for Mac, while Donna scrambles to secure her own income stream. In this dynamic, Peter can afford to dismiss Donna’s take on Sally. He would be intrigued—maybe even aroused—by Sally’s reckless past, not threatened by it.

Peter 2.0, by contrast, has become Donna’s confidant. But in doing so, he’s lost his footing in the family. Now, Donna’s opinion of Sally suddenly matters. The man who once scoffed at her judgment is now quietly seeking her approval.

I also believe that once Nicole is introduced, Peter's youth in comparison to Donna is emphasized. For example, she's already a divorcee and a mother of twin teens when he is getting engaged for the first time. Which allows her to have more control over her siblings as the quasi-matriarch of the Loves

Edited November 8Nov 8 by j swift

1 hour ago, j swift said:

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.

Agreed.

Jamie should have been like the Michael Corinthos of AW (not awful and spoiled lol) but at least to watch him grow up onscreen and have his character arc play into storylines for years, instead of just having him go from career to career and woman to woman.

It all goes back to what I said about people BTS not doing their homework.

Edited November 8Nov 8 by AbcNbc247

Much like Michael Corinthos on GH, when the legacy character keeps landing as the eternal second choice in every romantic triangle, it makes him look downright pathetic.

The show’s could've revolved around Jamie, and yet most women he dated preferred someone else? That’s not tragic, it’s embarrassing. If effortlessly cool women like Lisa and Vicky could move on without a second thought, it says a lot about his long-term appeal—or lack thereof. Even if he were played by Robert Redford (RIP), the writing made him feel like a placeholder, not a prize.

Edited November 8Nov 8 by j swift

On 11/6/2025 at 4:28 PM, 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.

Possibly even worse, Jennifer Runyon played the girlfriend of Charles In Charge.

30 minutes ago, Xanthe said:

Possibly even worse, Jennifer Runyon played the girlfriend of Charles In Charge.

Oof. Le Soleil doesn't sound so bad after all.

39 minutes ago, j swift said:

Much like Michael Corinthos on GH, when the legacy character keeps landing as the eternal second choice in every romantic triangle, it makes him look downright pathetic.

The show’s could've revolved around Jamie, and yet most women he dated preferred someone else? That’s not tragic, it’s embarrassing. If effortlessly cool women like Lisa and Vicky could move on without a second thought, it says a lot about his long-term appeal—or lack thereof. Even if he were played by Robert Redford (RIP), the writing made him feel like a placeholder, not a prize.

I think if they had had a better choice in the role of Jamie during Laurence Lau's run, they could have done more with him. It took Vicky a while to move on from Jamie - other than her bond with Evan she didn't have a proper love interest again for over a year - but there just wasn't any chemistry between Lau and Anne Heche, so viewers never wanted them to get back together. On paper the show was clearly trying to recreate Rachel and Steve but soon gave up.

50 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

It took Vicky a while to move on from Jamie - other than her bond with Evan she didn't have a proper love interest again for over a year

You wouldn't consider sleeping with Jake, early in her relationship with Jamie, moving on quickly?

Sure, she did it to possibly entrap Jamie, but that was more complex than just lusting for Jamie.  She wanted a family, she wanted stability, she wanted to beat Lisa.  

And, more to the point, the whole triangle is written from Vicky's perspective, so Jamie is not really destined to be the central figure from the start of the recast, regardless of the limp Lau of it all.

Oy, the spelling of it all.  I keep typing Jamey as in the writer, and Viki as in the Lord.

Edited November 8Nov 8 by j swift

2 hours ago, j swift said:

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.

One of the ironic things about new-Steve not mentioning his family and his working-class roots upon his return is that, in 1975 Steve's helicopter went down in Australia. Around 1979, Willis and Gwen moved to Australia and stayed there permanently. Soon after that, nephew Evan joined them in Australia where Willis and Gwen raised him.  Meanwhile, sometime after 1975 Steve was found alive but unidentified (in Australia). He had a short struggle with amnesia, but soon his memory returned. Strangely, Steve stayed in Australia for years, creating a new company -- Black Hawk, which was far larger and more successful than Frame Enterprises in Bay City had ever been. But all this time -- post amnesia, Steve never found out that Willis (his favorite sibling) was also living in Australia??  Apparently multi-millionaire Steve had no interest in checking-in on his siblings (not even secretly)??  Short-story long: In 1982, Steve makes his way back to Bay City without Willis even knowing he's alive, and apparently without Steve even knowing Willis had also been in Australia for years.  Lazy writing, absolutely no research, and lost plot opportunities. Worst of all, Paul Rauch had been executive producer through both versions of Steve.  Why didn't Rauch speak-up and tell the writers to include some of Steve's real history in the scripts?  Did Rauch also have amnesia?  And I'm assuming Vicky Wyndham was biting her tongue and rolling her eyes at all this idiocy...

36 minutes ago, j swift said:

You wouldn't consider sleeping with Jake, early in her relationship with Jamie, moving on quickly?

For some reason I thought at that time she didn't even see herself as being in a real relationship with Jamie due to his still wanting to be with Lisa, but I don't feel like checking so I'll take your word for it.

Yes the Steve BFTD story was a bust from Day One.

The show had changed so much from 75 that his return didn't have the gravitas it needed as most of the cast would have no idea who he was.

Alice had been recast 4 times since Steve's death  and all of his siblings were gone.

Yet most of the viewers would have been hold outs from that time so it would have been wise to better explain his absence and maybe bring in Willis and some other siblings for a few episodes to tidy up that aspect of the story .

What was the motivation for Steve deciding to reveal himself at that particular point? How many soap years were supposed to have past since his presumed death?

Was it because Diana's mother had died?

Do you think the story would have been better had George Reinholt returned?

26 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

Yes the Steve BFTD story was a bust from Day One.

The show had changed so much from 75 that his return didn't have the gravitas it needed as most of the cast would have no idea who he was.

Alice had been recast 4 times since Steve's death  and all of his siblings were gone.

Yet most of the viewers would have been hold outs from that time so it would have been wise to better explain his absence and maybe bring in Willis and some other siblings for a few episodes to tidy up that aspect of the story .

What was the motivation for Steve deciding to reveal himself at that particular point? How many soap years were supposed to have past since his presumed death?

Was it because Diana's mother had died?

Do you think the story would have been better had George Reinholt returned?

I can't answer your question about why Steve chose to return at that particular point, as it was not explained in any way in the scripts.   But it should have been, of course.  So great question.  

Do you think the story would have been better had George Reinholt returned?

Well, that would not have changed the lazy writing. But at least Reinholt would have played Steve as he had before -- giving Steve the same personality.   So to that degree, I'd say yes -- it would have been better if Reinholt had returned.  But the writing was really the problem, and also the directing -- but not the casting.  David Canary could certainly have been successful as Steve, but he needed some direction on how to play the essence of Steve -- not to copy George Reinholt, but  to have a grasp of Steve's quiet, almost melancholy personality.   Steve had never been loud, boisterous, overly positive, with a big smile on his face. But that's how Canary played Steve, and it didn't work.  All Canary needed was some direction. And better writing, as I have said.   

Edited November 8Nov 8 by Tisy-Lish

Blackhawk was an odd company.  Because we're told it is bigger than Frame Construction.  And there's the oft-discussed promo which calls Steve the "richest man in Bay City."

Then, one building failure and they're out of money.  

Didn't leverage their building projects?

My bet is if Canary had withstood the storm of his introduction, his Steve would've been cherished as more compassionate and romantic.  But, it would've taken three years at least.

Edited November 8Nov 8 by j swift

27 minutes ago, j swift said:

Blackhawk was an odd company.  Because we're told it is bigger than Frame Construction.  And there's the oft-discussed promo which calls Steve the "richest man in Bay City."

Understood.  

And oh yeah -- So in less than seven years, Steve has gone from being an unidentified amnesiac found in the outback of Australia, to being wealthier than MacKenzie Cory who had generations of New York wealth behind him and his publishing empire.   Dear God in Heaven, was anybody supposed to believe that nonsense??  

41 minutes ago, j swift said:

My bet is if Canary had withstood the storm of his introduction, his Steve would've been cherished as more compassionate and romantic.  But, it would've taken three years at least.

Yes, Canary would have worked and should have worked.  Better writing and better direction would have helped so much.  And, as you suggest -- time.   TPTB gave up on him too soon.  

And having Steve finally choose Rachel over Alice was the nail in the coffin.  WTF?  But again, WRITING.  Not Canary's fault.  

Edited November 9Nov 9 by Tisy-Lish

1 hour ago, j swift said:

You wouldn't consider sleeping with Jake, early in her relationship with Jamie, moving on quickly?

Sure, she did it to possibly entrap Jamie, but that was more complex than just lusting for Jamie.  She wanted a family, she wanted stability, she wanted to beat Lisa.  

And, more to the point, the whole triangle is written from Vicky's perspective, so Jamie is not really destined to be the central figure from the start of the recast, regardless of the limp Lau of it all.

Laurence Lau really read in some ways as a replacement for blond Dr Chris Chapin rather than Jamie. Vicky in Ellen Wheeler's day was slightly interested in Chris because he was rich (and Donna pushed him because his family was "good") but mostly made a point of seeing him in order to annoy Nancy. Rhonda Lewin's Vicky had a brief flirtation with Jamie but was let go not long before Lisa was brought in to be the good girl. 

Vicky's relationship with Jake during her pursuit of Jamie wasn't quite romantic. IIRC she slept with Jamie and told him she was pregnant when she wasn't and then turned out to be -- and then somewhat later the audience found out that she had slept with Jake somewhere in there and Jake could be the father. And for some reason Jake was oblivious to the idea that he might be Steven's father until after the baby was born. I guess if that was because he believed she was already pregnant when they slept together that could account for it but I thought it seemed like they had retconned the paternity issue rather than intended it from the start.