Return To Peyton Place Discussion Thread

[Bright Eyes]

The writers really stretched themselves out naming his character, eh?

[vetsoapfan]

RTPP was like Somerset in the sense that it had all the factors needed to become a hit, except consistently good writing. Many of its cast members were very likeable. Ben Andrews, who played Benny Tate, was beautiful and charismatic, if not the best actor in the world. It's a shame he died so young. At the end, the writing improved dramatically and the rating spiked, precipitating some minor speculation about the series going into syndication after ending its run on NBC. Alas, it was not to be. At least the show ended with Rodney and Allisn facing a potentially happy future together.

[toml1962]

The general consensus among critics was NOT that RTPP was badly written. Cast turnover and the producer's uncertainty over whether to replicate, replace or continue storylives from the earlier show. All three were tried in the show's 21-month period. In that respect it has something in common with the last half of Somerset's run.

Reading through the scripts, the shows were neither better or worse writing-wise. Both shows had some of the best head writers in the business like Henry Slaser, Robert Cenedella (both shows), James Lipton, Roy Windsor, Robert Shaw and A.J. Russell. No one who remembers the shows and knows the caliber of these writers would be ignorant enough to suggest they turned out bad scripts.

Whenever producers/networks cannot decide on what a show should be, or whenever they constantly change the direction of a show - in particular a daytime drama - that causes problems. AMC took over TWO years before it caught on, and it was widely considered to be one of the worst soaps on tv for many years - badly directed and often badly acted. But time and consistent storys made it a success.

Had Slesar not left Somerset to concentrate more fully on the ailing EON, SOM might very well continued to climb in the ratings...

Edited June 2, 2012 by toml1962

[toml1962]

RTPP certainly did not fail where ratings where concerned. Not the top show, but #10 or 11 out of 16 or 17 shows is nothing to call a failure.

1971-1972

1.As The World Turns 11.1

2.General Hospital 10.4

3.Days Of Our Lives 9.9

4.The Edge Of Night 9.5

5.The Doctors 9.3

6.Another World 9.1

7.Search for Tomorrow 8.6

7.The Guiding Light 8.6

9. Love is Splend. Thing 8.0

10.Love Of Life 7.4

10.Return to Peyton Place 7.4

10.The Secret Storm 7.4

13.One Life To Live 7.3

14.Somerset 6.5

15.Where The Heart Is 6.3

16.Bright Promise 6.1

17.All My Children 5.7

1972-1973

1.As The World Turns 10.6

2.Days Of Our Lives 9.9

3.Another World 9.7

3.General Hospital 9.7

5.The Doctors 9.3

6.Search for Tomorrow 8.6

7.One Life To Live 8.3

8.All My Children 8.2

8.The Guiding Light 8.2

10.The Edge Of Night 7.9

11.The Secret Storm 7.3

12.Love Of Life 7.2

12.Return to Peyton Place 7.2

14. Love is Splend. Thing 7.1

15.Somerset 6.8

16.Where The Heart Is 6.4

17.Young And The Restless 5.0

1973-1974

1.As The World Turns 9.7

1.Days Of Our Lives 9.7

1.Another World 9.7

4.The Doctors 9.5

5.General Hospital 9.2

6.All My Children 9.1

7.The Guiding Light 8.1

8.One Life To Live 7.8

9.Search for Tomorrow 7.7

10.The Edge Of Night 7.4

11.Return to Peyton Place 7.0

12.How/Survive A Marriage 6.4

13. Young And The Restless 6.2

14.Somerset 6.1

15.Love Of Life 6.0

16.The Secret Storm 5.8

It lost approximately 130,000 viewers in the period from 71-72 to 73-74, but easily could have recovered given time.

[vetsoapfan]

Of course, your personal opinion of writers like Cenedella, Lipton, Shaw and Russell is your own, and you are free to voice it, although soap historians, who are well versed in the supposed quality of their work can, and will, contest the notion that their material was among the best in the business. You are correct, however, that soaps can take a while to find an audience. AMC and Y and R both did, despite being well-written from the start. Somerset never really soared to the top of the pack, even though after an initial bout of poor writing, it improved a lot under Slesar. If the theme, writing and concept had stabilized and remained consistently good, a wider audience very well may have found the show. That happened with OLTL in the late 1970s.

Despite acknowledging the flaws with a few of its directors and some of its cast (and what soap has never had weak performers in key roles?) AMC was never "widely considered one of the worst soaps on TV for many years", not ever. Individual viewers may have seen it that way, but to announce it was the general consensus is undeniably inaccurate.

RTPP was cancelled just as it was finally hitting its stride, and it's a shame the network was so quick to axe it for another experimental series, HTSAM, which they also decided to axe after its quality improved dramatically. The lesson here surely is that the networks should not be so quick on the draw, and must learn to be patient, waiting for ratings to come. Sadly, the usual suspects never learn.

Edited June 2, 2012 by vetsoapfan

[Susan Hunter]

No one ever really talks about Robert Cenedella that much. He always struck me as one of those workhorse writers who just moved from show to show. Did he ever tell a story that stood out on any show or did he just continue stories from the writers that preceded him?

[toml1962]

Cenedella was a writer for AW for about one year from 1968 to 1969, then was promoted to head writer early in 1969, where he remained until he willingly stepped down from the role and Lemay came in in late 1971. Cenedella stayed with the show another two years.

Although Agnes Nixon (the previous head writer) created the Steven/Alice/Rachel storyline, it was RC who really exploited it and made it grow. He helped create Somerset and did double duty for the first nine months. Most sources say he left SOM in 1972 in favor of Slesar but that is incorrect. Slesar took over at the start of 1971.

RC was largely a TV writer, and a prolific one. Later he changed careers and became an artist of some notability.

Edited June 2, 2012 by toml1962

[toml1962]

I think someone mentioned this before, but for the record, five episodes are at UCLA.

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 109px;" width="109"> <colgroup> <col /> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr height="19"> <td height="19" style="width: 109px; height: 19px; text-align: center;"> 3/12/1973</td> </tr> <tr height="19"> <td height="19" style="height: 19px; text-align: center;"> 3/20/1973</td> </tr> <tr height="19"> <td height="19" style="height: 19px; text-align: center;"> 3/28/1973</td> </tr> <tr height="19"> <td height="19" style="height: 19px; text-align: center;"> 4/5/1973</td> </tr> <tr height="19"> <td height="19" style="height: 19px; text-align: center;"> 4/13/1973</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Edited June 9, 2012 by toml1962

[danfling]

I think that Robert Cenadella was one of the best writers on soap operas. Somerset was not written poorly during its early months! One thing that may have hurt it, though, was that so many of the characters from Another World:Bay City crossed over to Somerset for cameo guest appearences. I had never seen Another World, and the crossovers would sometimes get in the way.

Had Dark Shadows remained as it initially was (not turning into a horror soap opera), I think that Cenedella would have been an EXCELLENT writer or headwriter.

Mr. Slesar has a pattern of breaking up the couples that he inherits or sometimes creates, such as Laurie Ann and Vic on The Edge of Night, Liz and Steve on The Edge of Night, Adam and Roxanne on The Edge of Night, Tony and Jill on Somerset, David and Emily on Somerset, Steve and Deborah on The Edge of Night, Winter and Logan on The Edge of Night, etc. This sometimes hurts his shows because the audiences are not happy.

[toml1962]

Agree with nearly all of what you say. This superstition about the show being badly written during its first two + years has no basis in fact. It is merely the ill-informed opinion of one writer whose article clearly showed they had NOT followed the show very closely. Other's since then propagated this inaccuracy and those who did not watch the show repeat it again and again. People always say the show got better when Slesar came on in 1972, but he came on in 1971 nine months after the show began so as to free up Cenedella - that is clear from many sources.

But, two things:

1) The crossovers were an issue largely because the shows were not back to back, due to the fact that SOM was unable to go up against another P&G show. I have letters printed in soap mags where people complained A LOT about this very issue and that SOM not being shown right after AW caused some viewers lots of issues due to the fact that if you wanted to know what happened after AW, you HAD to watch SOM. Also, most parents said that their kids came home when SOM came on and that it was hard to watch it in full, etc. BUT, as some have also stated here, the crossovers were very useful. AND, when the crossovers dwindled, so too did the ratings.

2) The Jill/Tony story did not come to an end by dint of Slesar, who came on as HW in early January 1971. Pammy and Randy work big time to keep the two of them apart nearly from the start of the show. Also, the actor who originated the role of Tony Cooper, Doug Chapin, refused to renew his contract. Tony was originally only supposed to leave town for a month or so. When Chapin left, the character stayed away for six months, thus the end of Tony and Jill. Slesar brought on Mitch Farmer at the end of October 1971, and then brought back Tony to heat things up at the end of November of that same year. I recall an item in one of the soap magazines that Pamela Toll was approached but declined to resume her role as Pammy.

[vetsoapfan]

Of course, different critics can view the same material and come away with different opinions on its merit. Asserting that another critic's assessment is "ill informed", simply because it contradicts one's own, is akin to proclaiming that no one else can judge a piece of art negatively, because you had once read something, somewhere, praising the art to the sky. Ten different viewers could have judged a show's writing during its first few seasons and all expressed  varying opinions on it. Rationally, since personal opinions cannot be wrong, they should not precipitate any sort of ire among fans. I find it curious, surfing the net, how viewers of such diverse series as STAR TREK to I LOVE LUCY can become livid with rage when other viewers "dare" to have opinions of their own.

Was Cenedella the single worst writer in the history of soaps? No. Was he the best? No. The shows he was involved with benefited from his leaving; AW with Harding Lemay taking over and Somerset with the gifted Henry Slesar assuming the writing reigns. Cenedella was also very fortunate to have Agnes Nixon's long term storyline in place, and to have the wonderful characters and situations she which had evolved, to work with during his tenure on the show. It was Nixon and Lemay, bookending Cenedella's work, who really benefited AW the most.

Edited June 10, 2012 by vetsoapfan

[vetsoapfan]

To be fair, what long-running soap opera writer does NOT break up popular couples on a regular basis, if only to get the audience agitated enough to tune in regularly, hoping to see the characters reconcile? I think most times, fan know in their hearts that the star-crossed lovers will eventually find their way back together, so they accept and watch the storylines with anticipation of that happening. I do agree that viewers get peeved when incompetent decisions by the powers that be screw up characters' histories. On the soap opera General Hospital, do viewers appreciate how Guza and company destroyed the Luke and Laura legacy? I doubt it. Sadly, in the last decade or more, writing for all the soaps has taken a serious turn for the worse. There are only four soaps still being produced, all in California (how tragic that all the NY soaps are dead), and none of their writers are producing quality material.

Edited June 10, 2012 by vetsoapfan

[toml1962]

Cenedella was not "lucky," he happens to have been already on the show as one of her two assistant writers BEFORE the Steve-Rachel-Alice story began. Nixon herself credited Cenedella as hugely responsible for the shows success, which came about several years before Reinholt came on the show. It was also Nixon who recommended Cenedella become head writer when she left in February 1969 to concentrate full time on OLTL.

In other words, opinions are one thing - facts often quite another. Some may wish to assume Nixon did not know what she was doing when she hired him AND kept him on the show AND saw to his promotion...I on the other hand, agree with the dear lady - The man was a fine writer.

Edited June 10, 2012 by toml1962

[danfling]

Breaking up couples is common, but that particular writer (Henry Slesar) had a habit of breaking up couples and NOT allowing them to eventually re-unite. I think that some viewers become disinterested in their favorite couples and tune the soap opera out. This may be good for the present storyline, but I don't think that it is good for the eventual outcome.

[vetsoapfan]

Yes, Cenedella was very lucky, both to have had Nixon as his boss originally, and then to have her longterm storyline to work with after she left. Who would not benefit from learning and working with one of the masters of the genre? Sadly, as time went on, Cenedella's own material, like Pat's being poisoned by her housekeeper and the tiresome winding down of the Wayne Addison murder mystery, were not as effective as Nixon's great stories. Cenedella may have impressed Nixon as a script writer, working off her ideas, however. Pat Falken Smith praised Margaret DePriest, upon turning over the reigns of DAYS to her, claiming DePriest was a fine writer with a solid background who would "do a very good job". She was proven wrong, too, alas.