Search For Tomorrow Discussion Thread

[j swift]

May I ask for a refresher?  Did the McCleary's live in Henderson or did they move there after Hogan?

I just recall them popping up all over the place, but I don't remember if it was a Quartermaine/Frame thing where an entire family just immigrates to a new town, or if they were established there, but we just met more and more of them over time.

Unpopular opinion, but I prefer Maeve McGuire over Mary Stuart because she was a more natural actress with less quirks.  I know fans always prefer nostalgia, but I was an EON fan, so Maeve was nostalgic to me.

[dc11786]

The conversation in the "Loving/The City" thread made me think about how limiting it was. In theory, I like the idea of Liberty House because the structure itself allows you to play a lot of domestic drama. I wish it just wasn't Liberty House that had survived. It might have been interesting if a class issue was embedded into it. From what I recall, the riverfront area was very working class. This was where Selina McCulla's clinic was and where Ryder and Cruiser had their little home away from home where T.R. crashed. I think it would have been interesting if that Liberty House had been some sort of development with city funds intended to bring in upscale business types who worked at Tourneur and other industries. The owner had perished in the flood and Jo, as a representative of the city council, convinced the new owner to turn it into lower income housing for the working class. Of course, some of the units were already sold so now you have a class, and potential race conflicts if you brought back the McCullas. I think playing that sort of element would have been effective and still allowed you to still have sets like the Sentell home and maybe a couple others. 

I think a nasty mess with Stephanie/Steve/Martin/Lloyd/Jo/Estelle/Sunny would have been fun. Tomlin set up some really good longterm material in 1983-1984 that was never seen to fruitition. I think there was an attempt at the start of his run to revisit that, but it never completely worked. 

These were the only two previewed in the article I saw. I believe Jo had never met the owner, but that they had specifically requested she would be the property manager. 

I remember a second article with someone, maybe it was his successor (Lawrence?) previewing how they would tell short term stories with new characters and if they caught on they would keep them. 

Hopefully this works:

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times/128429047/

I think what Tomlin and Lee did in 1983 was incredibly smart as it was a model similar to what had been done by the Corringtons. I do think it needed some tightening. Another revamp of that style with introducing several new character groupings that were connected to the larger structure of the show. I think the Sentells and Kendalls as rivals worked if both families had members. Travis should have come back from the dead at some point probably after Lloyd married Liza and Martin had decided to groom Steve to take over Tourneur Instruments. The McClearys as part of the working class worked, but I would have trimmed it down to Kate and two kids (preferrably Adair and Quinn, but maybe Hogan and Quinn). Marrying Jo and/or Stu off into a family of new characters may have helped. Maybe Stu marries a widow with a son who goes after Patti, but Jo struggles with because the man has a past that might lead to heartbreak for Patti. Of course, this creates tension for Stu's new lady and Jo. I don't think Martin and Jo would be my endgame, but I think as exes who care deeply for one another but understand it isn't healthy to be together would be effective. Eventually, I'd like to see Jo paired with someone more working class because most of her men were always socially mobile. Or maybe a newsreporter who worked for Lloyd Kendall's paper. Someone different than Jo's usual type. 

The McClearys were one of those families that just materialized having been living in Henderson for some time. Kate was the housekeeper suddenly at the Sentell house and then Cagney and Adair showed up. Adair, I believe, was away at school, Bedford College?, with the Kendall boys.

I prefer Jo Henderson to Maeve McGuire, but I haven't seen a whole lot fo Maeve. My favorite version of Kate was the overbearing mother causing havoc for Suzi and Cagney by cutting Jonah's hair and criticizing Suzi's mothering. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by dc11786
link added

[Contessa Donatella]

Early on in the Daytime Emmys there were some controversies. One of them was that other sponsors tried to keep P&G from getting nominations. The actors were pretty disgusted about the whole thing. This is a quote from Peter Simon, Daytime TV No. 7, Search for Tomorrow (c) 1977. 

PETER SIMON: “The process of selection is all done on the number of friends you have for votes. And this ridiculous competition now between the two coasts, as to where the Emmys are going to be handed out. I mean, what are they talking about? In a soap, where does the performance end? There are certain people in the shows who have all the gravy and other really fine actors who do nothing but the drudgery. The categories in soaps should be best recap, best getting through a scene without fainting…”

[antmunoz]

The McClearys were able to rebuild after the flood, although I think they changed the set around quite a bit. 
 

Having lived through a flood, I know that you can choose to rebuild and risk another incident, or start over in another location. 
 

I’m not certain, but didn’t Jo and Stu choose not to restore Caldwell House due to an insurance snafu?  I could be wrong. 
 

Liberty House was on higher ground and didn’t flood.  I assume the home of Judge Henderson was also.  I can’t recall if the Sentell home was salvageable or not, but Liza wound up in Liberty nonetheless. 
 

I have a hard time recalling other sets than these after the flood, but I think the newspaper office survived. We stopped seeing the TV station after Stephanie died. If there was a restaurant, I’ve forgotten, but most social interactions took place at Club Stella, Estelle’s bar in Liberty which employed Bela as bartender and Micki as assistant manager, perhaps. I think Wilma sang there. But I’m also remembering the place in the lobby of Liberty, so…perhaps there was an interior to the club also. 

According to SOD, Judge Henderson owned Liberty House. 

Please register in order to view this content

[Sapounopera]

Is it too much to ask what all the houses on SEARCH were? Thanks to @dc11786 I now know what Liberty was. What about Hartford and Caldwell?

By the way Liberty House sounds like THE CITY before THE CITY. 

[dc11786]

Hartford House and Caldwell House were both properties that were operated by Stu and Jo. Hartford House was in the 1970s (starting around 1977) for a few years. I believe it previously belonged to the family of Dr. Greg Hartford, one of Jo's love interests. Greg had impregnated Louise Bergman, Stu's sister, years earlier and she had died before giving birth. So there was some animosity between them. I'm not sure when Hartford House stopped being a thing. Stu is operating the Terrace, a wine bar in the fall of 1981 in the clips we have seen. 

Caldwell House was introduced in March or April 1985 when Jo, as a part of the city council, was trying to preserve the property due to its historic significance. I believe the bank was trying to buy the property. Later, the show actually introduced the property, and Jo and Stu turned it into lodging. Sarah Whiting stayed there for a bit. So did Mel Hibbard. Suzi and Cagney were living there while Cagney was doing maintenance work before becoming a cop. In November, Sarah Whiting was murdered in the basement. In a separate plot, Hibbard was trying to break through the basement of the Caldwell House to access the bank and steal money. 

[Contessa Donatella]

From Search For Tomorrow. (1977). Daytime TV Library Series No. 7. When the Daytime Emmys began there were 5 P&G soaps on the air - SFT, EON, GL, ATWT & AW. The other sponsors tried to shut P&G out of the nominations & they did so save one solitary nomination! 1st year, 1974 one nominee, Mary Stuart. 2nd year, 1975 zero nominees. 

[Paul Raven]

Actually there were 6, the other being Somerset.

[Contessa Donatella]

Oops. Thanks! 

[TEdgeofNight]

Thank you, as always, Paul for citing FACTS. 

[Contessa Donatella]

7 hours. 

Please register in order to view this content

[Contessa Donatella]

Written by DM James Fairbanks

More from the Daytime TV Library Series: Search for Tomorrow

Between 1975 and 1977, Daytime TV Magazine, the leading publication dedicated to US daytime programs, began a series of special editions dedicated specifically to one serial. In early 1977, they released issue #7 which focused on the longest running serial at that time, “Search for Tomorrow”.

The publication contained interviews with key cast members and productions staff, such as the producers, directors, writer and costume designer.

Today we are going review one of the questions: “What are your thoughts on the validity of the Daytime Emmy Awards?” At this time, there was a lot of negative feelings about the awards, from the politics, the nomination process and even, where should they be held.

MARY STUART: “No, comment. No, I really think it’s silly. It’s only an award for one particular performance, too. It’s ridiculous.”

CARL LOW: “I understand they’re trying to change the format of selection, because a one-shot performance does not reflect a year’s work. Who can remember that one particular performance?”

MARY STUART: “You’re supposed to save it. Three years in a row my tapes were erased. So I’m ineligible? One of the other sponsors said they didn’t want anyone on a P&G show nominated. Does that make sense? And the people who really hold the industry together never have any juicy scenes. People like Charita Bauer and Carl Low. I wish it were not a national game, but instead, a peer activity. I would believe in it if it were presented by our peers and it were private, within the industry from people who really care. Then it means something.”

Mary made some very valid points. Until 1976, except for her nomination in the first year, no actor for a P&G show was nominated in the first two years of the awards. So, 1974 one nominee & 1975 zero nominees. That means only one out of about 120 actors over six shows (SOM, SFT, EON, GL, ATWT and AW) were not nominated.

LARRY HAINES: “I don’t think there should be fewer categories in daytime than there are in nighttime awards. If there is one for best performer, there has got to be one for best supporting performer, because nobody plays in a vacuum. It’s not a one person effort. The categories are voted on by a completely unbiased panel.”

BILLIE LOU WATTS: “I agreed to be a judge last year. But I was not allowed to vote for best actor because we had two for our cast were nominees – Larry (Haines) and Michael (Nouri). I might be biased toward them. I also could not vote in best actress, since Mary (Stuart) was nominated. I could only vote in categories where I had no personal attachments. The only problem about the daytime awards is that the great test of a performer on a daytime show is how well he performs all year long. You can’t judge that unless you have someone who monitors it every week. They have increased it from judging just one scene to three, but…”

VAL DUFOUR: “I resent the Daytime Emmy Awards and will have anything to do with them, as long as were presented in the daytime, with stuffed animals, instead of at night. I’m a member of AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists), Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and Equity (the theater union) and I want the work I do represented with other member of my profession. As far as I am concerned, they are an insult to the actor. Number one, they (Academy members) don’t even begin to understand how to decide or judge, to say nothing of the fact the whole premise is phony, because it’s a bought, political thing. If you can get together 25 votes, then they’ll nominate you. They have advised us not to put up any actor, unless he or she’s known for anything else, because we’ll be wasting our votes! Now how do you like that!? Another thing, where does he good performer come in? It’s a different thing if you have a 2 ½ hour picture and you’re discussing this actor and only that performance – how can you do this on a soap? The worst actor in the world can be brilliant in one scene – it has to be looked at in a broader scope; you have to get a continuity of an actor’s performance on a soap. The Daytime Emmy’s are a raunchy, cheap marketplace that has nothing to do with the honor that should be placed on a beautiful performance.”

MORGAN FAIRCHILD: “I’m very apolitical and consider the whole thing very political. And I think anybody on the soaps realizes this.”

MICHAEL NOURI: “I have mixed feelings about it. Having been nominated for one was very flattering and having been nominated, I like that part. But there’s something farcical about it: the Academy Awards, all awards. People are judged on the basis of one performance, which says nothing about somebody’s overall character portrayal. I have seen some people come in for just a one-short. I can sense how really good they are, but because of their nervousness, they’re just not relaxed enough to get to what they have to offer. So the criterion for the awards is off-base, I think.”

TOM KLUNIS: “In a way I think it’s good and gives recognition to the actor and the medium. I think possibly it’s commercially necessary…”

MARIE (MAREE) CHEATHAM: “That’s not high on my list of feelings. How can you judge…If a performer is consistently fine and does something very interesting with very little material…that’s the trick in daytime.”

LEWIS ARLT: “No comment.”

MILLEE TAGGART: “I think the award for the male performer who won last year’s award was the most valid award ever given. I can’t judge for any others, but Larry is a wonderful, wonderful actor-he’s the best that I’ve ever known.”

JOHN CUNNINGHAM: All such awards are really invalid because the only way could really judge whose better for that year, would be if everybody contesting then played the same part. Because to say an apple is better than an orange is crazy. You just can’t do that. That’s why George C. Scott was right to turn down his Oscar. Somebody has to stand up every so often and say it’s a lot of crap.”

MILLEE TAGGART: “You can have a wonderful story one year, while someone else is vacuuming…”

JOEL HIGGINS: “It’s a very loaded question at this time because there is a furor raging between L.A. and New York about the whole thing and when it gets to the point, it’s silly. You’re no longer awarding someone because they’re the best…You’re awarding them because they live in L.A. or New York. I’m sure anyone who has ever won is talented. But I think there are so many talented people-how you can possibly say this person’s better than that? It depends on the character, what they get to play…a million things. Stack the Emmy’s up against the Pulitzer Prize, where it’s not a group of nominees and only one winner. They say, “We’re going to give 12 of them this year, because these were all good achievements.””

PETER SIMON: “Ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous.”

COURTNEY SHERMAN: “I hate the idea. Talk about various aspects of the business, the daytime drama is definitely a field unto itself; there really is a repertory company feeling here. I don’t think it is ever to any one’s advantage to have competition for awards. As dignified as everyone may act about it, I think it’s destructive and silly. It’s different with a play or movie-they’re entities unto themselves, but I find the Emmys offensive.

PETER SIMON: “The process of selection is all done on the number of friends you have for votes. And this ridiculous competition now between the two coasts, as to where the Emmys are going to be handed out. I mean, what are they talking about? In a soap, where does the performance end? There are certain people in the shows who have all the gravy and other really fine actors who do nothing but the drudgery. The categories in soaps should be best recap, best getting through a scene without fainting…”

COURTNEY SHERMAN: “Not that you can’t be a fine actor sitting and drinking coffee, but is that the scene you’re going to give to the board of judges?”

Obviously a lot about the Emmys have changed since 1976. But a lot has stayed the same as well. Too many fine actors, both in Daytime and Primetime have NEVER been nominated. Whole shows are ignored while others are nominated year after year. Love of Life was only nominated for ONE acting award, and that was for Shepperd Strudwick, who has previously been nominated. This year in primetime, Ted Lasso (an excellent show) got many nominations as it has every year, but Ghosts has been ignored again. Different shows, but both excellent.

What is your opinion?

[Contessa Donatella]

We found 4 episodes of Hollywood Square/Match Game Hour with NBC Daytime stars. From AW Christopher Rich & Nancy Frangione (looking quite marvelous). From SFT David Forsythe & Marcia McCabe. From DAYS Wayne Northrup, Dee Hall, John De Lancie & Leann Hunley. I've posted one in the DAYS BTS Thread & will post the others there. 

[Chris 2]

The Sentell house was on higher ground. However, a power line went down and set off a fire that pretty much destroyed it. There used to be a clip on Youtube where Sunny had to break the news of the fire to Liza and TR, who had been looking forward to going back home. And we later saw Liza walking through the charred remains and saying quietly, “I’m so sorry Travis, for what happened to our home.” It would have been more powerful with Sherry Mathis playing Liza instead of Louann Gideon, but it was still good.

[Contessa Donatella]

I have a question about the show opening. Have you ever seen an opening that showed

Search for Tomorrow "with Mary Stuart"?