Jump to content

AMC: Pratt's bible


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Just a question to the person who mentioned Joe & Leora's affair. I remember that story and to the best of my ability it was more of a just a flirtation thing and they never slept together - same as it was for Ruth and David Thornton a year or so before that.

I know that Wikipedia says Ruth slept with David and that it was during the time Joe was attracted to Leora but they have the story all wrong. Ruth got attracted to David when she separated from Joe back in the mid-70's - they separated over Phil and Tara that time.

Joe developed feelings for Leora and Ruth got jealous but they never slept together as far as I remember and as far as I can find in any of my sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ruth definitely cheated on Joe with David Thornton. They were having an affair, and she was going to run away with David, until Joe suddenly took ill. That had to have been around 76 or 77, when I started watching the show. Pretty certain about that. As for Joe and Leora. I thought they had slept together, or at least the implication was that they had slept together. Whatever the case, I'm sure that Pratt won't be looking at the Martin family circa 1978 for story ideas LOL. As far as TPTB are concerned, the only ancient history on AMC that matters at all is Erica's life. But they do need a demographically desirable female character to carry the Martin torch. And I don't mean Krystal LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ruthie was getting her groove on with the younger doc LOL! I often wonder if Ruth's rape by Ray Gardner was Agnes's attempt to redeem Ruth in the viewers' eyes after she cheated on Joe. She does have a track record of redeeming characters through rape and making them more sympathetic to the audience. Gloria and Natalie come to mind, even Kit. OK, maybe Kit was more Megan than Agnes, but you get my point. Maybe it's more a general soap device.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It used to be a general soap staple that characters who committed such acts had to be redeemed some way. Irna Phillips practiced it and she instilled it in her protege's nixon & Bell.

But even other writers used it.

When Bob & Kim cheated on ATWT, they had to pay with the loss of the child Kim was carrying.

On Y&R, when Jennifer Brooks was revealed to have committed adultery, Bell had her get breast cancer to redeem her.

Bell made Doug & Julie and Bill & Laura suffer through numerous unhappiness before either could be happy together on Days. I still get sick over how long I waited to see both couples happy and together - even after they got married they still went through trials and breakups. Not long after Bill & Laura married he had the affair with kate Winograd. Doug had the affair, then Julie got raped, then she got burned, the divorced, Doug remarried to Lee, took forever to get back together. Laura went crazy and of course Bill & Laura were written off and fans never really got any conclusion to that story. Then of course Doug & Julie were written off, divorced offscreen, and then got back together offscreen.

Fans who complain today that they are cheated by the writers don't know what cheating is. The Bill/Laura & Doug/Julie fans waited 6 to 8 years for their couples to even get together and never got to enjoy it much at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But the thing is, I enjoyed Janet Green's redemption on AMC in the mid 1990s. It was slow and it was organic. It wasn't "Okay, she was bad -- she was raped, now she's good." It was a slow build up. One good deed... followed by another... followed by someone showing her gratitude... followed by a friendship with Erica... followed by a bond with Amanda... followed by Trevor softening... It was growth, change and self-awareness that helped Janet become redeemed. I think all a writer has to do to "redeem" a character is present them as flawed HUMANS. You don't need to go to the extent of having them tortured or raped or beaten or victims... and you don't need to gloss over their offenses and have them become all-knowing morally superior saints. The best way to redeem a character is to simply make that character relatable. A character who realizes that they've tresspassed against someone, attempts to make reparations and humbly asks for forgiveness is, IMO, able to have a better connection to the viewing audience. A character who does something horrible, lies and covers it up, justifies their actions and plays victim to their own choices and proceeds to judge others without a single drop of humility and/or self awareness is more difficult to redeem -- even if you have them beaten or raped or shot or imprisoned.

Also, I can't get behind women who have been blatantly sexually active being raped -- as if that's how you "redeem" or "punish" a "dirty, nasty woman" who has the absolute nerve to be comfortable with her own sexuality. Erica Kane's been using sex as a weapon for years -- we find out she was raped at 14 by Richard Fields. Gloria Marsh was a slut -- raped by Will Cortlandt. Julia Santos was a slut -- raped by Louie Grecco. Kit Fisher was a slut -- raped by Braden Lavery. Bianca was a lesbian -- raped by Michael Cambias.

I honestly think the only reason Babe Carey wasn't "redeemed by rape" was due to not only the fact that Bianca was raped three months before she came on the show, but also the whole Great Baby Switch storyline had to have Babe pregnant ALREADY by the time she came on the show. But I totally believe if McTavish & Co. didn't play their Redemption by Rape card too soon with Bianca, they would've had JR rape Babe in order to gain her instant sympathy -- since they were doing everything in their power to villify the JR character at her expense already for Babe's redemption, I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I never thought that Babe was going to be raped. They always tried to model her character by the Dixie formula, she is basically just an extended clone of that model. The thing with redemption is that you have to unify with the character. However more often then not I find myself hating the "heroes" of the story (Zach, Jason, JR, Elizabeth) and rooting for the flawed, "evil" people (Lucky, Sam, Greenlee, Ritchie, Annie, ect.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The part of not just you Skin but many fans today rooting for the bad guys is something that I still find interesting. I wonder if it is more of a change in the way America thinks or what, but when I grew up the HEROES were the one you rooted for. And I am still that way.

We rooted for Superman, Batman & Robin, Roy Rogers, etc.

On soaps we rooted for Alice Matthews over Rachel Davis, for Tara Brent over Erica Kane, for the Bradys over the DiMeras, etc. The classic battle of good vs evil is what made the soap world go round. You loved the villians, but you couldn't wait for the good guy to triumph and for them to get what was coming to them.

Today fans root for the bad guy and want them to prevail and to never even pay for the bad things they do. And thus writers don't even write characters with shades of gray anymore - they are all bad and never pay for the crimes they have done. Even the supposedly good guys don't pay anymore because it seems the fans don't want anyone to pay anymore.

I am not passing judgement on anyone who does root for the bad guys, but I just grew up in a different time. I would love to see soaps go back to the classic good vs. evil pattern. I like good characters who sometimes do bad things, but I like to see them pay too. I don't think there are any totally good people anywhere. We all have shades of gray and I think that needs to be explored on the soaps - but not all the people are like Carly (ATWT), Kendall (AMC), Greenlee (AMC) or Sami (Days) eitehr who are played as the central heroines we are supposed to root for today. I can't root for them because they never learn from their mistakes - they just keep making the same ones over and over and over and over.

At least when Days reformed Julie Olson and AW reformed Rachel - they paid for their mistakes and suffered big time for them.

I loved Bianca on AMC and really miss her. She was really the last classic heroine we had in Soaps. Lily on ATWT fits the mold too but they hardly ever use her for anything really good anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think it would be great to have Taylor McBride connected to the Martins. They needs to bring in some new Martins. I think Pratt will have a good bible. They already have a (Donna/Chuck ) type storyline . They had alot great storylines from the 70 's like Phil Brent ,Tara . They were the most popular couple during that time. AMC was the NO. 1 daytime show during the 70's. and the best written daytime show back then thanks to Agnes Nixon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

He fits the bill always blamming others, never being made to pay for consequences of actions, doing equally duplitious deeds while calling everyone else wrong, evil and commiting vigilante justice i.e. (Jason, Zach)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

AMC was not the #1 rated show until the 1977-78 season.

In 1970-71 it finished 17 out of 18

In 1971-72 it finished 17 out of 17

In 1972-73 it finished 8 out of 17

In 1973-74 it finished 6 out of 16

In 1974-75 it finished 5 out of 14

In 1975-76 it finished 6 out of 14

In 1976-77 it finished 6 out of 15

In 1977-78 it finished 3 out of 14

In 1978-79 it finished 1 out of 14

In 1979-80 it finished 2 out of 13

*******************************************

The top 3 rated shows of the 1970's were:

1) As The World Turns

2) Another World

3) The Guiding Light

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • 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