Eric, DAYS did a story with Marlena trapped in a pit by a crazed woman. It was the year after "Natalie in the Well," and had the woman coming to visit periodically and taunt Marlena (just like Janet did to Natalie).

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by Sensuelle

33 minutes ago, Sensuelle said:

Eric, DAYS did a story with Marlena trapped in a pit by a crazed woman. It was the year after "Natalie in the Well," and had the woman coming to visit periodically and taunt Marlena (just like Janet did to Natalie).

Thanks for you and others who have pointed this out! My DAYS lore is VERY VERY spotty though I think I have seen bits of this, come to think of it. And, ok, McTavish is right in this case, it obviously is based on what AMC was doing lol.

Homeless Laura always creeped me out. It wasn't til the Laura Allen recast who was super Sporty Spice dýke with Eden Riegel that I could take an interest in her. Of course that collapsed as soon as they moved her to Leo and Greenlee, which got so embarrassing.

I have stuff to say about that and about what you say @DRW50 but I'm working on a LONG message about some other McTavish tidbits (though I prob won't post till tonight.) I WILL say that I feel a bit biased--I did love that era (the Broderick era) despite some huge misfires (Erica and Maria's baby, Tanner) when Iw as 15-16, it may have been the most invested in AMC I was. I thought some of that was my age (especially with the so well done long gay storyline) but now watching May-Aug (so far) of AMC on Pluto TV, which started basically from McTavish's last credit into Erica's accident and until Sep is all Corley's interim episodes, I'm a bit surprised how well everything plays. Some of this may be from my modern perspective not having watched a trruly well balanced/told soap in a long time daily :P

Brooke and Jack were two characters that had their usefulness diminished by the mid 90s. It would have been smart to have written both out and then bought them back when the need arose.

All My Children used to be known for writing characters out that no longer seemed useful (Tara, Anne, Phil, Liza, Greg, Cliff, Nina).. and some did return later on when story arose while others remained off canvas.

For some reason, starting in the 90s.. the show seemed intent on keeping certain characters on canvas long beyound their shelf life while removing characters that still had some story/life to them.

3 hours ago, DRW50 said:

McTavish would, whether for PR or genuine belief, later claim the Kit story had been a mistake, although I think she framed it as being a mistake because it meant viewers hated the character. Some of her writing had such misogyny I could see her wanting to tell a "cry rape" story.

To be honest, if you had given Kelsey this story in 1996, I could have believed it. She was in a terrible place and could have lashed out at Bobby or Edmund. By 1998 she had grown more as a person. And giving someone this type of story just because viewers didn't like them just suggests you don't care about character-based storylines and the message of false rape is the paramount importance.

As for some of her other statements, they are an instance of (not for the first time with McTavish), right message, wrong messenger. [snipped]

I agree with a lot of this. I think @Darn said it made sense for Kelsey and I was horrified lol. But he may have been right! Megan could just be so crass.

She was the wrong messenger, but I think part of the reason Megan survived so long despite being such a toxic, odious person is not only because she dearly loved and understood certain fundamentals of AMC but also because as Eric notes she was a cynical and highly knowledgeable game player at the network. She goes through Q rating, audience scores, etc. and the audience response to certain male or female characters or archetypes with encyclopedic knowledge and focus, not just in what Eric notes here but in her other story notes/plans we've seen before as well as in her hellraising memoir. That is capable and impressive. Unlike Agnes and others in the writers room with her who she critiques to Shapiro, et al, Megan doesn't seem to care what story is right or wrong, what leaves a positive impact or is foul and regressive, what makes sense for the characters or which veterans the audience loves; she cares what will bring the show to the top of the heap, what will help it take on Days, what will not make it seem 'old' and leave it in the dust of O.J., etc. There is something to admire in that instinct, though in the end it helped neither AMC nor her career.

I disagree with Megan on many things but I will agree with both her and @Jonathan that I never bought into Janet and Trevor ending up together. Yes, as an older viewer looking at some of the material again I can say she and others actually did write a solid, nuanced and carefully laid out love story for them in retrospect. But at the time as a teenager I was just aghast and grossed out. I remembered Jane Cox. So she's right that a portion of the audience would never buy into a male lead again who willingly got with Janet. I didn't. She describes all these things and more in very mercenary terms but she's not always wrong. And yes, I absolutely thought Brooke was an over the hill embarrassment for much of the mid-late '90s. I have a more informed and nuanced take on Brooke and her larger history now. But as ugly and awful as Megan can be, she wasn't always off the mark. The problem, I think, was how she never challenged any of those perceptions or stereotypes, or tried to make them better for characters like Brooke who the audience loved. She just leaned into them, and would go for the next 'sensation' as Agnes called it, or stunt, or headline.

Edited 8 minutes ago8 min by Vee

21 minutes ago, Soaplovers said:

Brooke and Jack were two characters that had their usefulness diminished by the mid 90s. It would have been smart to have written both out and then bought them back when the need arose.

All My Children used to be known for writing characters out that no longer seemed useful (Tara, Anne, Phil, Liza, Greg, Cliff, Nina).. and some did return later on when story arose while others remained off canvas.

For some reason, starting in the 90s.. the show seemed intent on keeping certain characters on canvas long beyound their shelf life while removing characters that still had some story/life to them.

When I started watching AMC, Jack was always just there. That remained the case for about 2-3 years. The best thing that happened to him was the show for some reason deciding to utterly destroy the Dimitri/Erica relationship. They finally started properly using Jack again in fall '97 when he was along with Myrtle and Opal one of the only people who would have anything to do with Erica. Then McTavish built on what was already there for Jack with a few ill-fated stories (Roy/Erica/Jack, That Kit Fisher Person). The same happened when she returned in 2003 - after dumping another Erica love interest (Chris Stamp) the show had already been building Jack up again with Erica, and had him raising Reggie, so McTavish built on that by having him revealed as Greenlee's father.

Walt Willey seemed very personally popular, always doing appearances and having a standup act, etc. and that presumably was what kept him around. He must have been well-liked backstage too, as he was even brought back to GH. There's a strong chance Jackson Montgomery will be the last AMC character to ever appear on television.

I do think Julia Barr was refreshed and sharp when she returned in AMC's last year, and on the revival. So it did show the problem was in how the show used her and not giving her a proper break.

I was never some huge Jack/Erica fan BITD (I loved Dimitri, and then David/Erica) but I did like Walt Willey, and by the time she'd been through Chris Stamp, etc. I thought it was right when they married her and Jack off in the early 2000s. I had hoped it would end there. It seemed appropriate. But of course it didn't, and that's clearly not how Agnes wanted it for Erica in the end either. Her final statement on them in 2011 was very clear. And I guess that's right.