Jump to content

Another World


Recommended Posts

  • Members

 

Interesting that Rauch would even entertain talking to Reinholt in 1981.  His dislike of Courtney  continued well into the 90s- remember when he made a disparaging comment about her in the soap press and she responded in a letter to the editor to tell her version of the story to set the record straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

 

Yes, it's Paul Tulley.  It's strange Tulley is in this photo, because Scott Bradley was a minor character, and all the other actors were in major roles.  Janice being the least, but she was important during this short time.  Plus, all the other actors are closely connected to Mac and Rachel.  Again, Scott was not really.  He was an attorney for Cory Publishing, but he was more personally connected to Alice Frame, than to Rachel and Mac.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I always thought it was kind of the opposite or my take on Harding Lemays version in 8 years in AW.  I thought Lemay stated Rauch wanted Reinholt off the show and H Lemay did not like J Courtneys acting and Rauch decided to recast her?

Vana Tribby was the 3rd recast of Alice.  Susan Harney (the first and most succesful and liked), Wesley Ann Pfenning was the 2nd and only lasted a few months.  Nothing wrong with the actress but it was a weird re-cast as personality, looks and Alice in general turned in a flop and she was only on the show for about 5 months.  Vana Tribby I thought seemed like a reasonable recast for Alice but she also did not even last a year.  Linda Borgorsen was the 4th recast and I thought she was so dull and a bad actress

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wow, that sounds like an awesome story line.  J. Courtney was also visiting at this time during the anniversary and Macks death.  If the 3 of them were bak in action with that storyline I bet ratings would have skyrocket but I think there were also many new fans at this time and the that love triangle may have already been put to bed and current writer D Swajeski and Exec Producer were not interested in revisiting that.  At this point, Rachel, Steve and ALice were now much older and love story was probably more geared for a younger audience

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Not to rejudicate plots from 40 years (although that's what we do on these boards), but I think the replay of the Steve/Alice/Rachel plot failed for more reasons than just the recast.  David Canary was an excellent Steven Frame, he was sexy, debonair, and had an easy chemistry with most female leads.  The build up of the story was great because everyone was talking about Edward Black before he came to town.  That created intrigue about the character while there was never a clue about his true identity (much like the introduction of Adam Chandler on AMC).  I remember the silhouette of what seemed to be Reinholt turn into David Canary in his first scene even before seeing it again in the clip that was posted because it was such a classic cliffhanger.  And sufficient time had passed between the actors that the recast was less jarring.

 

However, (from a plot point of view), the breakup of Rachel and Mac to facilitate the triangle seemed rushed.  Mitch was a viable option for Rachel, but as an audience member, the true rooting value was for Rachel and Mac to reunite.  She had changed so much during their romance, and she had fought Iris and Janice in order to be with Mac, that it made no sense that Rachel would regress to point of wanting to get back together with Steve.  Also, Mac was caddish playboy with a wandering eye when he met Rachel, so sweet nurse Alice was unlikely match for such a lusty guy.  Furthermore, it didn't help matters that during the storyline Rachel (who had just survived a barn fire) suffered from car-accident-induced-amnesia and then car-accident-induced-blindness making her the most accident prone character in Bay City.  

 

George Reinholt,(like many soap hunks in a triangle) was never the appeal of the original story.  He was wooden, he had terrible hair, and his delivery was so contrived he made Drake Hogestyn look like Laurence Olivier.  We tuned in to watch Alice and Rachel fight.  The classic scenes were Rachel crueling informing Alice that she was pregnant at the engagement party and then Rachel crueling trying to kick Alice out of the house when Steve died.  But, by the 1980's Rachel had outgrown her cruel nature.  She was still impulsive, but she was no longer driven by a need for attachment to men who didn't want her, like her father.  So, the story felt like a big step backward for Rachel.  

 

Also, without Jamie as a major character within the story, Steve's motivation was suspect.  Jamie was in Bay City during the storyline, but he did not have much of an impact on the plot.  Why would Steven abandon Jamie after fighting so hard for custody that he went to jail?  Why would Steven be so devoted to his horse loving stepdaughter Diana that he would forget to ask about Jamie's well being?  Why would Steven build a new company and not want to take care of Jamey financially? 

 

So much great plot resulted from Steve's death, including the evolution of Willis (my favorite AW male character beside Robert Delaney), the introduction of Ray Gordon and Olive Randolph, and mostly the Mac/Rachel/Iris storyline that reviving the character at any point afterward would never be as good.

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy