Members Paul Raven Posted February 9 Author Members Share Posted February 9 Going into 87 AW had lost many characters from the canvas the previous year including Cass, Kathleen, Jake, Marley,Larry, Clarice, Zane, Sally etc with Catlin and Brittany soon to go. Hardly the time to start killing off more characters. And the killer wasn't really anybody we knew or cared much about. They should have put more effort into the core stories if they wanted viewers to be involved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Contessa Donatella Posted February 10 Members Share Posted February 10 Possibly of interest, a YouTube channel called VintageNoSpintage with soaps & more, from the 80s through the 90s to the 2000s. AMC, AW, GH, LOVING, PC, OLTL, ATWT, Game shows, talk shows, a few primetime shows, but most daytime, not sure what else. All I saw of AW was these 3 episodes & the one clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVHVeua0TA0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WDFy725bhU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIsWe5nFv5g 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted February 10 Members Share Posted February 10 That clip reminds me of some comments at the time wondering if the actors who played Amanda and Matt remembered they were meant to be siblings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vetsoapfan Posted February 10 Members Share Posted February 10 Sadly, when it comes down to a choice between offering us gimmicks and stunts or developing characterization and relatable, human drama, TPTB almost always take the easy way out and heap more cheap stunts onto the soaps. They continually fail (or refuse) to comprehend that investment in human drama and characters we care for is the salvation of soaps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members denzo30 Posted February 10 Members Share Posted February 10 The 80's had to be the worst AW time era. I wonder if they really made an effort to get back to the basics would have made a difference. I really did not watch the show much after 1989 other than a sick day at home maybe. I entered my adult working years at that time. Oddly, watching some of the 90's episodes on YT, I found them entertaining. Not the AW I loved as it moved away from characters and more into stories. A lot of it was surreal but that was the theme of the soaps at that time and there was no choice but to invent the stupidness in stories but back to my comment about characters. in the 90's there were long running actors who were still on the show portraying their original or recasted characters from much earlier years. AW's problem was they never held on to actors to sustain character in roles and just recasted one after the other. The 80's were a prime example and part of the big downfall. Although, even under Lemay 1979, AW had a severe rating dip. There are at least 10 actors in 1999 when the show ended that had been with the show for at least 10 years at that time. Bravo to the TPTB who possibly saw this could be the saving grace and hold on to actors that their fans love and want to see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Contessa Donatella Posted February 10 Members Share Posted February 10 Well, March 1979 the 90 minute show began. I'm pretty sure God could have been writing the 90 minute show & the instant the schedule changed, ratings would shift. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members denzo30 Posted February 10 Members Share Posted February 10 I agree. in 1989, the 25th anniversary Swajeski's writing was on point with the history of the Frames and Corys. I always remember Alice saying to Rachel in reference to Steve "and you gave him a son". There is an episode on YT you can find where Rachel says to Alice "I gave him something you never can, a son." i think like 1974. I also thought I read that Swajeski was so fascinated with the Frame family she wanted to create a spin off soap. The Frames were created by Harding Lemay (except Steve) and odd he wanted to the family as his main focus on the show in 88 working with her and she clashed with him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Contessa Donatella Posted February 10 Members Share Posted February 10 Speaking of PP/Quinn ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members denzo30 Posted February 10 Members Share Posted February 10 I only really remember Susan Harney as the real Alice. JC was already gone at that point. I always thought Wesley Ann Pfenning was such a weird re-cast of Alice and I guess I am not alone as she was let go 5 months later. i also understand the fans loyalty to JC as she immortalized the role for over 10 years and as one of the original characters/actress on the show. I think Lemay/Rauch regret firing her but it really did not effect the ratings on the show. Its show business and like any other job, everyone is replacable. Looking back at the actress's who played Alice I have to say Linda was the worst. I am happy in 1984 AW bought JC back as the "real Alice" . Wasted time on the show as they did nothing with her character and she did not even stay one year but she did come back for the legacy episodes of the anniversary show and Mac's funeral. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Contessa Donatella Posted February 10 Members Share Posted February 10 (edited) Before I ever knew anything about any BTS at the show I just so fondly remember the Matthews sisters, Pat & the youngest, Alice, and that was JC! I think I was probably a pretty simplistic fan at the time. I remember Strasser as Rachel but I didn't like her. If I'd known them I would have been friends with Pat & Alice but not with Rachel! It was a strong emotional imprint. But I kept watching the show, of course! Agree about their wasting her when they brought her back, for the most part. Edited February 10 by Donna L. Bridges 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vetsoapfan Posted February 10 Members Share Posted February 10 (edited) This is cool. I had never seen this photo before, which is from Steve's and Alice's first wedding in September of 1971. Please register in order to view this content Edited February 11 by vetsoapfan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chrisml Posted February 11 Members Share Posted February 11 PaulRaven I agree with this 100%. AW had experienced such change and turmoil that it was ridiculous to start a serial killer storyline. Viewers want consistency; they don't want the rug pulled out from under them every year which is what AW did from 1987 on (I'm not as well versed on previous years). I believe thats why the ratings kept falling because every year AW would start from scratch and the previous year's story would be ignored or scrapped (Nicole driving story for a long while and then being written out when Swajeski came on for ex.). Its characters like Maisie and Quinn who give stability, and its those characters the execs always get rid off for not being exciting enough. This serial killer storyline had no lasting effects or longterm storyline possibilities. As much as I like Joanna Going, I don't think Lisa was the character to pin yet another murder storyline on. Margaret dePriest was also not the headwriter to create longterm story out of a murder plot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sapounopera Posted February 11 Members Share Posted February 11 Which regime do you think could have "saved" Another World if they had stayed longer with the show? All these people came and went in the 80s and the 90s, stayed for a rather short time and their work was almost erased by the next writer and producer. Who do you think is the one who should have been given a real chance? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Paul Raven Posted February 11 Author Members Share Posted February 11 On paper the De Priest/Whitesell team had an opportunity to settle the show but the execution fell short and initial plans were derailed. Rather than bringing in a load of new characters and families, they planned to focus on The Loves, Corys and McKinnons and the interactions b/w the established Corys, the Loves with many skeletons in their past and the working class McKinnons. That seemed sound. Mitch Blake was to return to shake up Rachel/Mac and Cecile was back to cause trouble for Cass/Kathleen. The McKinnons/Loves would be shaken by the return of Mary & Reginald. But things went awry. Reg never came off as an effective villain, the new Nicole and new Vicky were quickly dropped. Peter turned into a villain and Anna Stuart left. Philece Sampler was miscast. Vince had to be recast, MJ was recast, Ben never returned,Cheryl was bland and then dropped. Cass and Kathleen left as did Jake and Marley. Nancy left, Jamie was poorly recast with Larry Lau And so on... Harding Lemay was the best bet with the return of Iris, the Frames etc but he quicklyleft and Donna Swajeski didn't have the skills to really deliver. So Lemay gets my vote based on what he achieved in a short time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members j swift Posted February 11 Members Share Posted February 11 One of the great ideas that I've read on this thread is that Philece Sampler could have been a great recast for Nicole. First, I like the idea of Michael and Nicole find love behind Donna's back and the development of the sibling rivalry between Nicole and Donna. Second, Cecile became a farce, but it would have been nice to have Nicole toy with Cass and come between him and Kathleen. The role of Nicole was always undefined, troubled drug addict, aspiring doctor, scrappy designer. So, she could've taken on new traits that fit with the strengths of Ms. Sampler. Also, I like the family dynamic that Donna was Reg's focus, Peter begged for attention, and Nicole was the forgotten one, so she was the most likely to rebel against him when he returned. Whether Reginald was miscast is more illusive. John Considine played a mustache twirling villain with a cringy melodramatic flair. But, now that I have seen him in prior roles (including his prior stint on AW), I realize that he had more range. As I've noted, for me the missing piece in that character is not seeing what attracted Mary to Reg for twenty years. As well as not seeing how the pull of their affair kept Reg out of his family's life for so long. It was so one-sided toward Vince, that they didn't allow for any of the prior romance to be shown on screen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.