Members DRW50 Posted December 10, 2009 Members Share Posted December 10, 2009 You're probably right, but given what a generally awful addition Ryan's family was, and the horrible damage done to Annie as a character, I'm not sure where they can go with any of them. These are not people to build a show around. AMC needs to go back to basics. There are so many Cortlandts floating around, and it's not like they have to make a huge effort to bring them in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jonathan Posted December 10, 2009 Members Share Posted December 10, 2009 Ross is an excellent, excellent idea. And it doesn't matter if people don't recognize him or know his history. For long-time fans it'll enhance the story. For newer fans, they'll get a chance to discover who he is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SFK Posted December 10, 2009 Members Share Posted December 10, 2009 I would much rather watch Erica get into a sweet/tumultuous relationship with Ross over Ryan any day. Adam would eat his heart out watching Erica with his nephew. Erica needs a man closer to her age. Then there are the darker aspects of Ross' past that would certainly give Erica pause, and perhaps draw warnings from other characters. I would rather something like this than dragging Jack back or bringing in yet another C-lister as her love interest. At least Jeff in the form of John James (who I like) honored the show's history. Or if they insist upon creating a new character for Erica, why not make it a guy she went to high school with or something, I'm hungry for the show to give us a sense of Pine Valley again. ETA: And of course I should mention the possibility of Julie, Ross' adopted daughter/Erica's niece. Maybe she'd be good for Tad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sylph Posted December 10, 2009 Author Members Share Posted December 10, 2009 Good thing that the title of this thread is ambiguous, especially if you consider the subtitle. Things do not add up here. She has reportedly already started working, as HW, but ABC denies it. More surprises to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jonathan Posted December 10, 2009 Members Share Posted December 10, 2009 Here's one theory: Maybe ABC was going to hire her as an associate on Pratt's team as a way for her to learn what's going on with the intention being that Frons was going to fire Pratt and then promote Lorraine. But may be s hit hit the fan quicker than expected and they had to fire Pratt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LeClerc Posted December 10, 2009 Members Share Posted December 10, 2009 I'm sure LB is officially just an an associate headwriter (and that that's all ABC is paying her as). But since there is no HW the associate headwriters take on those duties. Someone has to take the lead within that group, and that's LB. Of course I'm sure that's the only reason she was brought on in the first place; she didn't just happen to re-join the show around the time Pratt was canned. In the interim period between McTavish an B&E two of the associate headwriters at the time (probably Addie Walsh and Stephen Demorest) assumed headwriting duties. But ABC never made any statements about that. All they kept saying was that the HW position had not been filled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sylph Posted December 10, 2009 Author Members Share Posted December 10, 2009 Perhaps. But strangely they pulled her out, and not some other choice out of the possible thousands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted December 10, 2009 Members Share Posted December 10, 2009 It does seem they're hedging their bets--but really when has a big name HW from a show's past been hired as an associate and it didn't lead to a HW? (I guess Lemay returned to AW but that was as consultant wasn;'t it? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LoyaltoAMC Posted December 10, 2009 Members Share Posted December 10, 2009 I still think that Pratt left/was fired pretty suddenly over something not related to ratings growth or non-growth, as the case may be. I think there was some kind of creative conflict that led to his sudden ouster, and that they needed someone quickly who could hold down the fort until a permanent person could be found. Agnes would probably have been their first choice if she was up to it. She's anchored the show in the past during transition periods. Let's face it, Lorraine is essentially this generation's equivalent to Agnes in terms of association with AMC, so it's only natural they would contact her. Maybe she returned on a limited basis as a favor to Agnes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted December 10, 2009 Members Share Posted December 10, 2009 Well We always sorta had an idea Pratt wouldn't be longterm--or at least that was the feeling--that he wouldn't wanna stick to a soap for that long, right? Or am I making that up--but obviously even the sorta mixed success he had at first was quickly fading away and I got the sense part of it was he just lost interest really qick. I do think broderick probably returned as a favour to Agnes--she was rumoured to say something when she left OLTL that she would never write under Frons' interference--maybe she's waiting to see if he'll let her write what she wants to write or not before fully commiting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted December 10, 2009 Members Share Posted December 10, 2009 According to the AMC (25th?) anniversary book, Erica once claimed to have attended Woodstock. Perhaps, this "new" love interest could be someone who was there w/ her. Plus, now that Kendall's just about the door, this would be a PERFECT opportunity for AMC to reclaim SOME of Erica's history that Kendall's (and Josh's) existence hasn't rewritten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted December 10, 2009 Members Share Posted December 10, 2009 How old was she meant to be when she was raped? 14? would she have been 12 or 13 at Woodstock? Of ocurse her charatcer was 17 or so when the show actually started in 1970. I think ti's too late to rewrite some of the Kendall story though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted December 10, 2009 Members Share Posted December 10, 2009 Yeah, that's kind of what I'm talking about. Ain't no way in Hell La Kane was FOURTEEN when she was raped. She was a high school senior when AMC premiered, in 1970; so, at best, Erica had to have been 17 when she attended Woodstock. (Damn that Kendall!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted December 10, 2009 Members Share Posted December 10, 2009 HAHA fair enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted December 10, 2009 Members Share Posted December 10, 2009 I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. I could be. IIRC, though, MMT went to great pains to say a) Erica was fourteen when Kendall was conceived; and the rape occurred at a time when Erica was busy dating Chuck Tyler in order to make Phil Brent jealous -- which, of course, was pretty much AMC's first year. So, either Erica was really, really, REALLY good at school to graduate 3-4 years early w/ Phil, Chuck and Tara (and her telling Mona "Oh, Mother, boys don't care about math!" was just hyperbole); or Meg thinks WE are the ones who are "math-challenged". Either way, thanks to Kendall, as well as the circumstances surrounding her conception, much of Erica's rich early history is pretty much shot to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.fbb6aa067610794e36433d57928a2f42.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.