I was actually just trying to find a fitting community to ask, but couldn't find anything fitting. Was this just a simple editorial error, or is there something making the statement technically (virtually?) true?

UPDATE: Apparently, I was superficial enough to not take a closer look at the 1973 title. I never even heard of it (I don't think it was on TV in my country), and I didn't even consider the responsibility of it not being a standalone film. Thanks for solving the mystery, folks!

all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 year ago

    Thanks for cracking the case - I never heard of that title before, and I automatically assumed that would be a standalone film. It makes perfect sense, knowing it's actually a show. Thanks for the info!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    1973 would the year The Young and The Restless first aired, not when she appeared on the show.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago

    In hindsight it looks pretty obvious - for some reason I didn't even take a closer look at the imdb page of The Young and the Restless, and I had no idea it was a show. Thanks for the answer!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Maybe a long running series?

    Daily Soaps often have such long runtimes and are also often the debuts for young actors because they're relatively easy to get into but also give lots of work and thus experience.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    That is why I actually appriciate those stupid daily soap operas. Regardless of how lame they are, they are a great breeding ground for young talent to evolve. Some girl from my school got on such a soap opera and is now doing pretty well in theater. It was pretty fun at the time to point to my mom's daily soap opera and say "I know that girl".

  • source
  • parent