Another World

[Mona Kane Croft]

Your initial question is intriguing, and I really don't know the answer. As I was not watching AW regularly during that time.  But I will speculate -- based on the viewers' reaction to Rachel's disclosure to Alice at the engagement party -- that the audience was NOT previously aware that Rachel's baby was fathered by Steve Frame.  I think it is likely the audience found out at the exact same time a Alice got the news.   Sounds like some great drama to me!!  I suppose that scene is the holy-grail of Another World.  

[DRW50]

I don't think the Matthews family alone was enough to keep AW in a stronger place, but the show's rise began in large part through seeing how the family coped with various interlopers and changes, the likes of Steve and Rachel. They were then spun into their own worlds, but the Matthews were important counterweights for them - like the scenes where Rachel worries about Mac working closely with Pat, as Pat represents the past that Rachel doesn't believe she can leave behind, even if Mac claims it doesn't bother him. 

Once AW doesn't have that balance, there's no real core. There are often just some strong performers who keep the show going. You could say that was also the case with the Matthews, as the roles were stronger only with certain performers, but they still had a certain foundation which wasn't there as much later on. For instance, Linda Dano, Stephen Schnetzer and Anna Stuart were big reasons for the show improving in quality around 1983, but they each (especially Stuart) had to deal with not having much to lean back on (look at how AW handled Donna's siblings, or father). 

As @Mona Kane Croft mentioned, the real pits are around 1980 (what I've seen of 81 isn't great either but at least has more momentum, I suppose). There was still some semblance of a Matthews family, but they were fragmented and ill-used (I think grampa Jim was dating an ex-showgirl half his age, who was, like many in this period, brutally murdered), and the show feels so dead much of the time, trying to recreate past glories (the wonderful Judith McConnell as a naked Iris replacement). In terms of leading performers, you mostly have Susan Keith and Laura Malone, and to a degree actors like Richard Bekins or Kevin Conroy (who didn't last long, sadly) keeping the day-to-day episodes from going into dreamland (Victoria Wyndham and Douglass Watson are always worth watching but their story takes a big dive after Janice's death). The show was lucky to get through that period. Around 1983 is when they successfully stumble toward the found family AW through Felicia and Cass, with the rest of the show's run having attempts at bringing in new families that never really click. And they keep finding new vibrant performers (Anne Heche, Alicia Coppola, etc.) to showcase and distract from the empty core...but even then, it's not hard to wonder what might have been if they'd managed to combine these flashes with the building blocks they'd thrown away.

Edited Thursday at 11:31 PM by DRW50

[Mona Kane Croft]

I agree.  It seems all the firings of 1975 (including Courtney) were suggested by Lemay, but carried out by Rauch. Perhaps Rauch should have had the stones to say "no", at least to the firings of Courtney and Dwyer.  Reinholt's dismissal was a lot more understandable, based on reports of his behavior in the studio.  Still, even his firing was unfortunate and certainly hurt the show.  

[Contessa Donatella]

You know me. I don't get upset about Dwyer. But, to me, no one, EVER, was Alice except for JC!!! And, I am quite sure that George Reinholt was both a jerk and an a**hole but, damn, he was at least a third of those incredible ratings. I wish that Paul Rauch had had the stones to make Reinholt behave & placated Pete Lemay so we could have had that Steve & Alice. They were not only the core of the triangle Agnes created when she saved the show, they were also a much beloved couple. 

[Vee]

I'm not saying the Matthewses serve no purpose, I'm just saying I think the period where they were dominant was relatively smaller compared to some other big sea changes in soap history. The issue was that Rauch and Lemay had no real regard for most of the family, especially Jacquie Courtney and Alice who were absolutely essential to putting over story and new characters IMO. I absolutely agree you needed them as a counterweight and also as foundational elements and key characters. Lemay's show had too few of those and was more enamored of fleeting creative heavyweights from the NY theater scene, many of whom came and went.

I think if they'd had stronger Matthews characters (including Pat) to counterbalance the later found family elements you mentioned the show would be in a stronger position. Or if they'd dared to recast some of those cosmopolitan characters Lemay introduced, maybe they would've been more lasting.

[Contessa Donatella]

I wish I could remember. I'm pretty sure I watched it. My mother did, too. I don't think we knew. But, I can't be sure. So long ago. And, I do not think Strasser was herself pregnant. But, again, I am not sure. 

[mikeaw1978]

Rachel discovered she was pregnant shortly after she and Steve had a one-night stand in early March 1969. She revealed to Steve that he was the father of her baby, but Steve denied paternity and refused to believe that Rachel had not been intimate with Russ prior to Russ and Rachel's separation. So, Rachel returned to Russ, convinced him to be intimate with her, had her condition confirmed, and proceeded to pass the baby off as Russ's child. All of this was known to the audience including when Rachel revealed her pregnancy to Alice and that Steve was likely the father. Alice got Steve to admit that he could've fathered Rachel's baby and broke off their engagement. It wasn't until June 1970 that the baby (Jamie's) paternity was proven definitively. Russ admitted to Alice that he and Rachel had not been intimate for four months prior to their separation and subsequent reconciliation. Alice did the math and realized that Russ could not have fathered Rachel's baby. Later, Steve and Russ had a paternity test done as the show was heading for a trial to take place, which lead to Russ and Rachel's divorce. 

Edited Friday at 01:26 AM by mikeaw1978
Correcting facts

[j swift]

Thanks, I started the synopsis in July 1969, just as Bill and Missy are moving.

It was amusing to read the synopsis and realize how many people knew before Russ.  Alice, Jim, and even Mary knew.  And their reluctance to tell Russ, a doctor who couldn't figure out when his son was conceived, was not very logical.  Don't get me wrong, I loved the whole story, including the interwoven establishment of the Somerset crew.  Yet, Russ's naïveté strained credulity.  

The plot solidified my take as not being a fan of Jim Matthews' family because they always seemed to take the stand as the moral authority of Bay City (except Pat, always a Pat-stan).  And I thought their silent rejection of Jamie was a little cruel.  Especially, when Pat goes to Alice because she's concerned that her parents won't be actively involved with the twins, given their attitude toward Jamie.  I know they set up the trust for him, but they could've at least paid him a little more attention.

Edited Friday at 01:42 AM by j swift

[mikeaw1978]

Well, once Alice told Jim the true reason that she broke off her engagement to Steve, Jim then told Mary. They decided to maintain the ruse that Russ was the father of Rachel's baby to save Russ's pride and self respect. Rachel didn't have her pregnancy confirmed by a doctor and then known to everyone until Rachel had reconciled with Russ and been intimate with him. Before Steve and Alice's engagement party only Ada knew about Steve and Rachel's one night stand. Everyone was perplexed when Rachel seemingly changed her mind about having a baby with Russ as she had vehemently opposed to it prior to Jamie being conceived. But, I see your point. The truth about Jamie's pregnancy and the revelation's effect on Russ and probably knowing the truth for some time is what led Alice to go to Avignon France.

[DRW50]

If there's one thing that I can say that Larry Lau's time on AW never was, it would be exciting.

They make Michael seem nefarious in this promo (which suits him well enough for me as I found him so offputting as time passed)

Another of the "I was on another soap" promos. I had to laugh at their going from Judi saying how different Paulina was to Adrienne to a shot of Paulina crying. 

[Jdee43]

It's interesting. Early Lemay and Raunch (1971-1974) seemed to be more in keeping with the early years of the show. It was only in 1975, when they expanded to an hour, that the two decided to do their own thing and throw out a lot of what came earlier. I wonder what role the network played in all this, if in 1975 they were encouraging Lemay and Raunch to revamp the show.

A lot of the failure of the 1975-1979 years to have long term impact was in the constant recasting. If that was done for cost control, isn't the network dictating that? You'd think with the high ratings, the network would give them the budget to keep more of the cast. 

[Contessa Donatella]

Well, the network expansion began with Pete Lemay. P&G asked him to create another half hour soap for them. He told them that his preference would be to take AW to an hour. They didn't know what to think about that. Lin Bolen, VP Daytime NBC, ran the numbers & realized the network could double their ad revenue. She took the lead then. They did a test show, an hour, with AW & then they made a plan & set a date & went forward with moving to an hour show. Pete had dreamt of 6-7 minutes scenes. Instead he got more 3 minute scenes. Fairly quickly he regretted the expansion to an hour. 

Of course, it required changes in the show & those first changes came through the writing. Next up, more actors. And so forth. 

1971-30" 1972-30" 1973-30" 1974-30"

1975-60" 1976-60" 1977-60" 1978-60"

1979-90" And, he had told them if they did this, he would quit, and within 3  months, he had done so. 

72-73 3rd 9.7/33

73-74 2nd 9.7/32

74-75 2nd 9.7/31

75-76 2nd 8.9/30

76-77 2nd 9.0/29

77-78 2nd 8.6/28

78-79 BOOM 8th 7.5/25 Mar. 5th '79 1st 90 min. show. 

It wasn't broken. They broke it with Silverman's cockamamie idea! 

During this time, I believe that Lemay was writing the show himself with no script writers. I'm sure he appreciated  not having to split the money & also from what he said in his book he didn't have to "fool with" instructing someone how to do what he wanted done. HOWEVER, it had to be a factor in burnout, which I think he was by the end. It should be noted that when Lemay had AW in the #2 spot, ATWT was occupying the #1 spot. Some of that time GL was right behind in the #3 spot. Obviously this picture of the top 3 was VERY PLEASING to P&G!!! 

 

Edited Friday at 04:36 PM by Contessa Donatella
more

[Contessa Donatella]

Some Connie Ford

https://https://rumble.com/v55oqn0-connie-ford-ada-and-nancy-argue.html… https://rumble.com/v55ovne-connie-ford-rome-adventure.html… https://rumble.com/v55ow6j-connie-ford-ada-advises-rachel.html… https://rumble.com/v55owjy-connie-ford-famous-slap.html… https://rumble.com/v55ox39-connie-ford-ada-faces-growing-older.htmlhttps://rumble.com/v55oqn0-connie-ford-ada-and-nancy-argue.html… Ada & Nancy arguehttps://

rumble.com/v55ovne-connie-ford-rome-adventure.html… Adventure in Romehttps://

rumble.com/v55ow6j-connie-ford-ada-advises-rachel.html… Ada gives Rachel advice about menhttps://

rumble.com/v55owjy-connie-ford-famous-slap.html… famous slaphttps://

rumble.com/v55ox39-connie... -ford-ada-faces-growing-older.html Ada faces growing older  

If any of you happen upon Connie Ford in a Perry Mason, or other, please if you can, grab it for me. Thnx. 

Edited Friday at 04:58 PM by Contessa Donatella
typo

[Soaplovers]

From reading 1975 to 1979 outlines for Alice, I noticed that she had a lot of interesting stuff with raising Sally, dealings with Willis, her brief marriage to Ray, plus a low key feud with Olive that really took shape with the house fire in 1979.  While Harney was a decent actress, imagine the dramatic possiblities had Courtney not been fired and been able to play some of this material.  Fans would have rooted for her.

Plus, the show wouldn't have put all their eggs in the Rachel/iris/Mac basket... since Beverlee was pretty burnt out by 1979/1980 (hence being given a spinoff that was somewhat less work then what she had to do at AW).

At first, when AW expanded to an hour.. Lemay/Rauch added characters that were connected to the main cast starting with Angie Perrini in early 1975... who grew up next door to Ada/Gil (and the femaily had been mentioned for 3 years as neighbors and also how Joey was child hood friends with Jamie).

Problem was that eventually they added characters with little to no connection to the core characters.

[j swift]

I would further add that when you look at soaps today, it was clear that they had trouble envisioning what an hour-long daytime drama would look like.  Rather than using modern tricks like cutting up scenes to air across the episode, or employing more repetition. The production made it harder on themselves by trying to merge two half hours into one, rather than just expanding what was already present.  We have to give them the grace that they were pioneers in establishing what an hour soap would look like, so they didn't have a blueprint.  Although they created many lasting troupes like bookending an episode, and using the mid-episode mini-cliffhanger. 

I would also quibble with the assumption that giving Iris a spinoff was in response to the actress's implied burnout.  If she was given less to do, then she might have stayed longer on Texas.  But, if you re-watch the first few months, she is on almost every episode. 

I've often thought that Blaine should've been the one to be spun off.  At that point in the story, she had firmly moved from antagonist to protagonist, she had just been through her trial, and it would be a perfect time to have a fresh start.  She was also already associated with the Southwest, and imagine the possibilities if the rest of her family slowly started to show up in Houston.  It would've made much more sense than having Caitlin go to Bay City, to work at the one house with a stable, and then have his sister move away. 

Also, a tangential thought from reading the 1969-1971 synopsis.  It is a miracle that the Rachel-Steve-Alice triangle popped like it did, considering the production issues at the time.  Jim was recast right before the big reveal at the engagement party.  Rachel takes off for months at a time.  The cast exodus of 1969 means that there wasn't a lot of engaging b-story going on (aka Emily, Susan's triangle, and Sam taking the bar exam).  And finally, and perhaps the biggest hurdle, was recasting Rachel.  (Note: I didn't like Susan's triangle, but I loved reading about her conflict with Liz, the use of that relationship as the jumping off for the Wayne saga, and I can see why people were disappointed in later iterations of Liz as Mac's receptionist). 

So, when I read about the Alice recast, I am reminded that the contemporary audience would have to view it in the context of how amazing the Rachel re-cast had gone, as well as the jarring effect of losing 2/3s of the triangle. 

Edited Friday at 09:27 PM by j swift