AMC: Brief SOD Spoilers

[SFK]

Oh my God, how did I not read the OP thoroughly yesterday, my head is spinning. Yet ANOTHER Chandler heir?

Wait, Miguelito isn't Damon by any chance is he? I mean, there is a resemblance there, and the black hair, I'm just sayin'.

[AllMyDaysatGH]

I think it could be Damon. I put my suspicions as to how it could be him, up there in one of my posts. It could make sense, and I do see the resemblance somewhat to him and Adam..and he and JR sort of have the same piercing eyes. I could buy him as Adam's son, JR's brother. I think the mother could be related to the Santos family. But who knows, it's all up in the air.

[Jack]

Maybe Miguel will be older (think Hayley/Skye) and was the product of a one night stand with hired help. Adam father a child that is half latino with the help, go back to the time when this would have happened and it would be too much to come out with therefore Adam let the child go. If Miguel is in this age range he can come in and take Adams place as the older Chandler in charge.

[SFK]

Wow. Well, I NEVER saw this one coming. Damon with that coal black hair looks like DC did back in his Bonanza days, and as I alluded to in my last post, it helps to sell him as half Latin. But yes, maybe Miguel is actually older, like Skye's or Hayley's age range. My question then would be just what exactly is the show going for... a *dashing* fortysomething gentleman who has an Adam-like vibe and by age can muscle in as patriarch, or a younger hot shot dude who can give J.R. more direct competition...

[bellcurve]

+1

[Sylph]

Well, apparently, Lorraine is not loved as much as I thought. It came as a shock to me when I opened that thread about her. ATWT fans really seemed to dislike her. And some AMC fans, who also watched during the Nixon and Washam eras.

[YRBB]

Yep, the idea doesn't sound good.

But I'll wait and see whose name is on the credits when this story starts airing and then how it goes. I don't have a lot of hope, but we'll see....

[Adam]

Yeah, I never saw any of Lorraine's ATWT, but that is where she seems to get the most criticism leveled at her, but I think most agree when she was fired in favour of Leah Laiman it was considered a downgrade.

[LoyaltoAMC]

In Lorraine's defense, at ATWT supposedly she couldn't get P&G to sign off on any of her story ideas. I think it was Eileen Fulton who said that Lorraine had pitch after pitch rejected by P&G.

[Sylph]

But you weren't really a fan of her AMC, if I recall correctly? Obviously, you found her miles above Pratt or McTrashish, but not immensely fabulous?

[Adam]

I know this was not directed at me, but I'd like to add a response. I think the general feeling at the time of Lorraine's 1995-97 run at AMC was overall positive, but obviously it had its flaws, especially the supernatural like storytelling that came aboard when James took over from Behr as EP..... I think though now after 13 years of very inconsistent writing.... her tenure looks golden. Maybe in 1996 compared to the golden eras of the 80's and in some people's eyes the early 90's.... it was maybe a bit flat. No one can deny though the critical acclaim. 3 writing wins at the emmys and a drama series win as well.

[You're Soaking in it]

Lorraine Broderick is not perfect. Her critical track record is far better than the vast majority of AMC head writers, and I believe she is highly regarded as a daytime writer in general (the three Emmys in a row might add to that), but she - like all writers - has her faults. Her stories can move too slow, snd sometimes characters can go over the edge in their actions...

What distinguishes her from many other writers, particularly with AMC, is that she GETS the show and that she cares about staying true to its identity. She really does. From writing team meetings to board rooms to Frons to Carruthers to our screens, who knows if that translates as well as it should to us viewers? But this writers gets it - she gets the show, but she also gets the red tape. She gets it so well, that she refused to take the job permanently... twice.

What I don't get is this angle... What I mean is, it seems as if some people are waiting around the corner with loaded rifles, ready to shoot her down. The ideas we're firing at haven't even aired. The work that HAS aired is miles above what we've seen in years on this show... but we're not really looking at that. We're now evolving a thread that's saying, "hey, people seemed to like this writer. Well we know that not everybody did. Let's pontificate about this writer's faults - that's more fun!"

Personally, I'm happy that I'm able to enjoy a show that I found decimated merely a month ago. Someone or something is responsible for those changes that have made AMC compelling viewing for me again. I'm not anxious to rip anyone apart merely because not every story beat hits the way I think it should (and I agree, it doesn't). But, as I said before, no one is unaborting - nor murdering beloved characters for dumb reasons in trite ways - nor having lesbians get it on with men to satisfy his own wet dream fantasy. Those might be reasons to provoke a backlash.

But for some reason, some are all ready to start trashing Broderick specifically... even though she is only in the lead position temporarily. We're not even going to wait for the changes to sink in. I think we're way jumping the gun. I don't know if it's just the nature of people to concentrate on faults. I'm starting to think that fans have become so jaded and so used to being upset because the crap we've become accustomed to, that we otherwise don't know what to do with ourselves when things get better... I'm not directing this at anyone specifically, but I sometimes wonder if our predispositions for negativity - which I have been guilty of myself - end up helping TPTB shred our own beloved genre apart.

I'm feeling quite good about AMC right now. In spite of the fact that I know ABC is always going to paint Ryan Lavery as a benchmark character (which not even LB will be able to get around), in spite of the fact that some typical soap plot devices will be forever retreaded, I'm not letting those things ruin the rest of the big picture. I'm going let myself enjoy what I can plainly see has vastly improved.

[Sylph]

No. I actually have quite a different impression. I see people saying that random plot point in which a beloved character who is about to depart forever gets yet another child who no one knew nothing about and which dangerously moves close to a miraculous sperm / done-to-death baby stories which probably won't have enough payoff since the actor who is the centre is departing is a dangerous continuation of this series you mention yourself:

Many threads, and not just this one, are a clear emanation of a pattern: something good happens – this must be a beloved writer from the Agnes universe writing or Agnes herself; it's definitely not the dreadful regime that's departing – cracks appear on a ceramic vase from the Ming dynasty – many are reluctant to blame a respected writer – someone does it – sh!t starts hitting the screen – Is it Frons? Yes, it's Frons! It can't be [insert name] – perhaps it's not Frons – a platoon of people jumps on a ship and starts hating a writer calling for a regime change... Rinse, then repeat. Instead of making people hesitant to assign responsability, because God knows no one really knows what is happening behind the scenes exactly, people just jump ahead of themselves without proper thought.

And P. S., yes, I think people should wait and see. Wait and see. But does it look good? Not really.

[You're Soaking in it]

And say you get a directive from the EP or from the head of daytime that there must be this new character tied to this departing character. Maybe it's someone already on the canvas. (They think that will strengthen this family in the absence of its patriarch.) How do you suggest that be implemented?

In spite of your twice mention of "danger," the idea of linking a typical long-lost offspring plot device to a scientifically impossible (and morally abhorent) reversal of an abortion? That's a big stretch. Honestly, I mean no offense, but even the way you tried to tie them together was a bit convoluted...

You see, though I agree with the pattern you describe, I also feel like this last statement is laced with cynicism toward the idea of fans actually enjoying someone's work. (Like we're generally eye-rolling at people who are optimistic about Agnes Nixon or Lorraine Broderick or insert the name of any writer being praised.) I know you're describing what you feel other fans are feeling, but what I can't tell is if it's also a reflection of your own perceptions.

Not saying this was your intention, but I guess I roll my eyes when people already start singing a dirge and marching a death march. Sometimes, I swear I even see a little bit of "glee" from a few - like they were just dying to say something negative (and I know I am not the only one who sees that ). It happens so prematurely now, sometimes I wonder if we're practically asking for it.

[Sylph]

Invent a long-lost child. Seriously. I got what you were saying right from the start. That is why I said it is difficult to assign responsability. Unless Lorraine Broderick gives an interview in which she clearly states what is her stamp and what has been a mandate. This is why people need to avoid saying Oh, it is definitely Lorraine. Definitely. Because it just creates tension, messiness, carfuffle, uproars...

It was a clear continuation of that list. Random, hated by fans before it even started, plot, no sign of a possible payoff...

Oh, I do not contest that. Nastiness is pervasive. People lost patience. And can you blame them? Not everyone wants nor has the luxury of sitting and waiting for a miracle to happen because it won't. And es, sometimes it's just gratuituous and viciouss which is what's a big problem.