Lorraine Broderick as AMC head writer

[Vee]

If Canary is done, they need to bring on Skye, among others, to shore the family up. I also would bring back Hayley, but unfortunately that's difficult since Ripa will be appearing. I'd have her back but she won't come back, and having her appear for the anniversary makes a speedy recast difficult. At least bring on her son, Lorenzo.

Years ago when Bianca's only love interest was frickin' Lena, I had wanted to see her romanced by an older woman, a fiery Tyler cousin (I don't remember who was supposed to have had her, but it was an actual old couple from the show) who scandalized the Pine Valley social scene as played by Susan Haskell. But well, that ship's sailed.

[LoyaltoAMC]

True about Joey. I wonder if Agnes knew the writing was on the wall for the first set of younger Martins, especially when Karen Gorney left, and set the groundwork very early on for the next generation in the 80s and 90s--Tad, Charlie, and later Joey, and then Kelsey. Maybe the Martins were seen as more beloved by the audience and decided to spare them over the Tylers. She did try to rejuvenate them in 1990 with Chuck's return and reunion with Donna, but, even though it was great to see him again, the show had changed so much by the time he left in 1984 and he never really gelled with what the show had become by 1990.

[DRW50]

Was Chuck's return supposed to be longer or was it short term just to leave with Donna?

Perhaps they could bring Cecily back, although she was more of a Wallingford, I guess. Or Hillary.

[LoyaltoAMC]

Chuck was back for about 2-1/2 years. He came back for the Emily Ann/Billy Clyde story. Felicia Behr said at the time that she wanted Richard Van Vleet back and that she was only going to do the story if he returned. Definitely great to have him back, and he and Candi Earley still had tons of chemistry, but he just didn't seem to click with the rest of the show. They pretty much kept him backburner after the Billy Clyde story pretty much became about Tad and Dixie.

[dragonflies]

What's the point of recasting Palmer? It's not like the show would use him even with a recast. Heck when JM was in good health they still didn't use him. I don't see that being any different with a recast.

[Jonathan]

The point of recasting Palmer is to bring the Cortlandts back to the frontburner. That's my point. Don't recast if he's just going to be window dressing.

[EricMontreal22]

I'm all for building back the Cortlands--its just why recast an iconic role like Palmer when the character is meant to be nearing 85 or 90 anyway?

[SFK]

I do not support the idea of recasting Palmer. To me, that smacks of disrespect, it also reminds me of ATWT never working Eileen Fulton then recasting her with Carmen Duncan for a few days worth of story. As lovely as CD is, that was a slap in EF's face. JM hasn't been in the best of health for some time now, but I'm sure there were plenty of opportunites in the past decade where he was ready, willing, and able to work and they didn't use him. I think it would be disrespectful (and typical) of the show to act like we suddenly *need* Palmer now and do some sort of Jed Allan as Edward Quartermaine-type recast. And they're not even continuing with Petey at the moment, so there's yet another reason why recasting doesn't seem very sensical.

I don't know how much of this was truth or Soap Opera Babylon, but I remember reading that Susan Lucci put her Louboutin down at the mere mention of the idea of recasting Mona when Frances Heflin went home. Say what you want about AMC, but they are not the type of show to get stunty with their elderly vets, there will be no Mona coming back from the dead for Josh's Kendall's hart. People who have accepted Lee Meriwether as Ruth had less trouble doing so because Mary Fickett left on her own accord, retiring in good health to be with her ill husband. Her health has declined in recent years, but we didn't watch her grow frail or pass away like we've seen our other beloved AMC vets. I say Palmer begins and ends with James Mitchell.

[R Sinclair]

That is so sweet!

Anyway, recast him!

[SFK]

God'll get you for that, R. Sinclair.

[sonyab1974]

ROFL ROFL You are funny! But yeah I know about Erica and her tendency's to have sex with men while she is with someone else. Susan Lucci can act it's just she can't cry very well.

[sonyab1974]

What?! No! No recasting of Palmer. I wouldn't like that.

[EricMontreal22]

Well said and I'm sure havign Agnes involved, even if she does seem to often be basically just a glorified mascott for the show, has helped. I have to say for all the crap we've gotten from AMC the past decade it has made me happy and even proud as a fan that they HAVE done right by their vets (the horrible Julia Barr situation aside, although that was a bit diff than firing someone in their late 80s who's too sick to often work). I'm thrilled James is now confirmd to be on the anniversary show in SOME form as well.

(Oklahoma was just on TCM here and I watched the whole dream ballet just to see James dance--man he was *amazing*)

[dragonflies]

SOW is reporting the same thing SOD did I think it was last week:

[LoyaltoAMC]

I think that since so much of the history of the Cortlandts has been lost throughout the years, they wouldn't revisit it. I think Ross would make a great patriarch for the next generation of Cortlandts and Chandlers. Long-time viewers know who Ross is and about his connection to those families, but new/recent viewers do not. He's been off the canvas so long with nary a mention that they wouldn't even consider bringing him back now. What they'll do is build on the foundation that's been created over the past 5-10 years, which probably means new characters connected to Ryan or Annie or Randi. I really don't think they have any interest in building up the Cortlandts. And what's to become of the Chandlers when David Canary retires? And what about the Martins? With Ray MacDonnell gone and the increasing difficulty to write Michael E. Knight as a leading man, we're left with only Ricky Paul Goldin.