Jump to content

All My Children Tribute Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

 

All Her Children is such a great book.  I remember reaching out to Dan Wakefield about 15 years ago (around the time Megan McTavish returned for her last run) asking him if he still watched All My Children.  He said he hadn't watched it in years but "might" tune in again to see what was going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 10.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

I'm not sure who put this Agnes Nixon video together and for what occasion, but there are some nice tributes, especially by Susan Lucci.  It looks like Susan taped her part on the set of Devious Maids; I remember that dress from the show.

 

Please register in order to view this content

 

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Does anyone else agree that Dixie's 2005-07 return was pretty much botched from beginning to end?  I don't just mean it how it ended(everybody hated the pancakes), but the whole thing.

 

First, the whole Di story preceded it for the better part of a year.  Someone in here a while back said they weren't sure if Di was always supposed to be lying about being Dixie or if the writers just changed their minds because no one was buying it, and I think that's a fair question.

 

Then Cady first appears again around Christmas 2005 in a bizarre scene with Di in Paris where Di updates her on life in Pine Valley and asks if she's going to come home.  This is the problem with the initial return story.  Dixie would not allow Tad and JR and the rest of her family to think she was dead.  It was completely out of character.

 

And then she does return to Pine Valley, where the skulks in the shadows for two months(I know this is a soap right of passage for people coming back from the dead, but it's still dumb) and reveals that she signed her and Tad's baby away just like that upon birth for the half-baked reason that she briefly thought she was going to die and had let the doctor, Greg Madden, manipulate her into thinking that Tad would blame the baby for her death.  Tad and JR are understandably pissed. 

 

And then so much of Dixie's airtime was dedicated to the Greg Madden nonsense, culminating in Tad burying the guy alive.  

 

And then pancakes.  Because, I think, McClain had been too publicly vocal in disparaging TPTB for treating older actors, specifically older actresses, like Julia Barr, badly in favor of youth.

 

It was just poorly written.

Edited by namkcuR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


This is my problem with back from the dead stories, in general. You have to suspend any understanding of basic human emotion to buy into it, and that's a no-go for me.

Your assessment of the story is right on the money. The false starts were stretched out for way too long that by the time Cady's Dixie returned and reunited with everyone, you just didn't care anymore. The backstory was so convoluted, and that made it even harder to accept her return without reservation. It just never felt like she was really "back" for good, so when she was killed off again, it wasn't very surprising nor was it really that sad. The show was just in a really ugly place by then.

Di was never fully developed as an actual character because I guess they didn't think they'd have to? So she became yet another aimless character in that age range, sharing the role of "female Aidan" with Erin Lavery. Mustn't forget the de-SORAS'ed frat boy Del.

Edited by All My Shadows
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

There's only a handful of ways to write back from the dead stories.  Either 1) the person has amnesia 2) has been held captive 3) has to stay away from family in order to "protect" them.

 

The third one is probably the lamest of them all because from a critical reason standpoint, the argument tends to fall apart when you evaluate the claims made by said dead person.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Both Tad and Dixie were so damn insufferable and unlikable by that point, and the story was so poorly plotted. McTavish clearly had no idea where she wanted to go with it, and it was proof that her ass needed to go. It didn't seem like she cared about any character that wasn't Babe/Krystal by this point.

 

And frankly, Cady seemed bored/confused by the material. She had just come off arguably the best performance of her career during her first stint on ATWT, and then returned to this crap return story.

Edited by BetterForgotten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


I agree with three being the worst for those reasons. That's why I can understand JHB saying that Jesse's return wasn't that great. The fact that he was back - great. The path they had to take to get him back - stupid dumb sh!t.

 

If characters died and stayed dead, I think we would have seen less reliance on serial killers and natural disasters. But then again, the UK soaps generally keeps dead characters dead, and they will still decimate a cast in the name of celebrating Christmas, the show's anniversary, or...anything, really.
 


I think Cady was excited in the beginning. I remember listening to a podcast interview with her and MEK, and they were both very happy to be working together again, but we all know how it turned out. MEK was already checking out, but I think the Dixie fiasco might have been the last straw for him and he was mostly just collecting a check until 2011. It's depressing, honestly.

McT might have cared about Babe and Krystal, but it's not like her caring translated to writing decent stories by this point. How do you manage to squander the talents of Cady, MEK, Bobbie Eakes, and David Canary? AMC had a goldmine, but it was wasted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My understanding is Cady had wanted the character to become darker and more complex, a la Rosanna, which I agree gave her the best work of her career in her first stint at ATWT. So a major part of the more cosmopolitan, noir femme fatale Dixie I think was her. And tbh I liked a lot of the superficial aspects of it; her clothes, her hair, etc. I thought she had some chemistry with Thorsten Kaye though she was walking into a buzzsaw with the audience there, too. So some of the fault lies with Cady, perhaps. But I can't blame her for wanting to innovate the character to a point, as she did when she'd pushed for the pairing with David in the late '90s/early 2000s. And she wasn't responsible for the actual bad story - they didn't need to run her down as badly as they did, and that's because McTavish made it personal. You could've done new things with Dixie without totally botching that.

 

 

The story did not make much sense, but I didn't care. I think Agnes had a light hand in it, or so I believe we were told. I think the choice of making David Rasche's villain a Gardner relative screamed her. The fact that they remembered the Remy character also impressed me. Beyond that, no, it was very silly. But compared to some of the [!@#$%^&*] since it's practically 90s level.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I was also impressed that they remembered the John Remington character.  I thought it was weird though that we only got one flashback of him and it was the back of his head.  I'm wondering if the show couldn't get the proper clearance to show his likeness (probably because it was an old ABC contract that didn't have those waivers in place at the time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This! This! This! Which is why she’s in my avatar to this very day. Cady was so damn flawless I adored her 2005-06 return. The story went left after the Mardi gras ball but I was intrigued by it for awhile. I really wished Hillary was married to tad around this time.

 

i do not think they ever finished telling Jesse back from the dead story. It felt anti climatic to me, more was sure to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The third one only works well if we already know the threats against them, and already treat them as credible.  If the menace is there, some of the details can be forgiven.

 

Laura’s return from the Cassadines was kind of a mix of part 2 and 3, plays well rewatching it because Genie plays the scenes full of fear.  She’s scared for herself, she’s scared for Luke, etc, Stavros does seem capable of anything in a soap supervillain kind of way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I haven't watched it all in a long time, but I remember them playing all the beats with Stavros and Laura's long build to reuniting with Luke. They played it all out for what, a month, two months, nonstop.

 

The Jesse story, which I paid close attention to, was far less granular on detail. I still don't remember what MacGuffin Gardner had on Jesse. Maybe Jesse had been investigating "Papel" or something. That doesn't explain why he stayed away or believed in Papel's reach to get to his wife and son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I think we have learned by now that you can never be sure anyone's actually dead on a soap...
    • I think this has been one of the best years in a long time. In no small part due to the fact that so many countries have chosen to sing in their native language. Songs like the ones from Greece and Latvia have benefitted immensely from this, and made those two personal favourites of mine. I think Greece has the most incredibly beautiful staging and Klavdia's voice is outstanding. I don't think she has any real chance of winning, but if she did I would be ecstatic. Luxembourg is another favourite of mine and Laura (with her dancers) really sold that song with the new staging. Her performance in the final was flawless and I will be very disappointed if she doesn't improve on last year's result for Luxembourg (13th).
    • If those came from that mass-produced CD that was put out a while back, I'm afraid those episodes are wildly out of order and are very confusing to listen to. I had to painstakingly put them in order to make sense of things. I need to make my own CD to give to people just to try and fix the problem. Thankfully, I had time during the lockdown to do that. Just a word of warning. 
    • Some spoilery press photos:

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • With so many reference to Caroline, how many months before 'Linus' appears? We already know *twins* run in the Spencer family. We know very little about Liam's birth, etc. Please tell me it'll never happen. Brad undercutting the significance of Steffy/Hope scenes, which were great, by having Steffy squeal to Taylor less than an hour later. I was initially glad that Carter finally got a leading man story, except they've completely destroyed what made him likeable - from the imaginary House of Forrester, fake LLC papers and, Friday, he blames everything on Hope. Gross. Daphne being certain that Hope would go back to Liam is contrived. She knows nothing about their history. How many times has the Nose met Liam? If, say, Katie, Ridge or Steffy made the suggestion, at least, it would be believable from those characters' history/point-of-view.  
    • Sometimes I forget Mindy had been married four times in the space of a decade. Those are Erica Kane numbers. 
    • This is Part 2 but I was wrong, there is no 3.  Today we are going review one of the questions: “What are your thoughts on the validity of the Daytime Emmy Awards?”  At this time, there was a lot of negative feelings about the awards, from the politics, the nomination process and even, where should they be held. MARY STUART: “No, comment.  No, I really think it’s silly.  It’s only an award for one particular performance, too.  It’s ridiculous.” CARL LOW: “I understand they’re trying to change the format of selection, because a one-shot performance does not reflect a year’s work.  Who can remember that one particular performance?” MARY STUART: “You’re supposed to save it.  Three years in a row my tapes were erased.  So I’m ineligible?  One of the other sponsors said they didn’t want anyone on a P&G show nominated.  Does that make sense?  And the people who really hold the industry together never have any juicy scenes.  People like Charita Bauer and Carl Low.  I wish it were not a national game, but instead, a peer activity.  I would believe in it if it were presented by our peers and it were private, within the industry from people who really care.  Then it means something.” Mary made some very valid points. Until 1976, except for her nomination in the first year, no actor for a P&G show was nominated in the first two years of the awards. So, 1974 one nominee & 1975 zero nominees. That means only one out of about a hundred actors over five shows (SFT, EON, GL, ATWT and AW) were not nominated. LARRY HAINES: “I don’t think there should be fewer categories in daytime than there are in nighttime awards.  If there is one for best performer, there has got to be one for best supporting performer, because nobody plays in a vacuum.  It’s not a one person effort.  The categories are voted on by a completely unbiased panel.” BILLIE LOU WATTS: “I agreed to be a judge last year.  But I was not allowed to vote for best actor because we had two for our cast were nominees – Larry (Haines) and Michael (Nouri).  I might be biased toward them.  I also could not vote in best actress, since Mary (Stuart) was nominated.  I could only vote in categories where I had no personal attachments.  The only problem about the daytime awards is that the great test of a performer on a daytime show is how well he performs all year long.  You can’t judge that unless you have someone who monitors it every week.  They have increased it from judging just one scene to three, but…” VAL DUFOUR: “I resent the Daytime Emmy Awards and will have anything to do with them, as long as were presented in the daytime, with stuffed animals, instead of at night. I’m a member of AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists), Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and Equity (the theater union) and I want the work I do represented with other member of my profession.  As far as I am concerned, they are an insult to the actor.  Number one, they (Academy members) don’t even begin to understand how to decide or judge, to say nothing of the fact the whole premise is phony, because it’s a bought, political thing.  If you can get together 25 votes, then they’ll nominate you.  They have advised us not to put up any actor, unless he or she’s known for anything else, because we’ll be wasting our votes!  Now how do you like that!?  Another thing, where does he good performer come in?  It’s a different thing if you have a 2 ½ hour picture and you’re discussing this actor and only that performance – how can you do this on a soap?  The worst actor in the world can be brilliant in one scene – it has to be looked at in a broader scope; you have to get a continuity of an actor’s performance on a soap.  The Daytime Emmy’s are a raunchy, cheap marketplace that has nothing to do with the honor that should be placed on a beautiful performance.” MORGAN FAIRCHILD: “I’m very apolitical and consider the whole thing very political.  And I think anybody on the soaps realizes this.” MICHAEL NOURI: “I have mixed feelings about it.  Having been nominated for one was very flattering and having been nominated, I like that part.  But there’s something farcical about it: the Academy Awards, all awards. People are judged on the basis of one performance, which says nothing about somebody’s overall character portrayal.  I have seen some people come in for just a one-short.  I can sense how really good they are, but because of their nervousness, they’re just not relaxed enough to get to what they have to offer.  So the criterion for the awards is off-base, I think.” TOM KLUNIS: “In a way I think it’s good and gives recognition to the actor and the medium.  I think possibly it’s commercially necessary…” MARIE (MAREE) CHEATHAM: “That’s not high on my list of feelings.  How can you judge…If a performer is consistently fine and does something very interesting with very little material…that’s the trick in daytime.” LEWIS ARLT: “No comment.” MILLIE TAGGART: “I think the award for the male performer who won last year’s award was the most valid award ever given.  I can’t judge for any others, but Larry is a wonderful, wonderful actor-he’s the best that I’ve ever known.” JOHN CUNNINGHAM: All such awards are really invalid because the only way could really judge whose better for that year, would be if everybody contesting then played the same part. Because to say an apple is better than an orange is crazy. You just can’t do that.  That’s why George C. Scott was right to turn down his Oscar.  Somebody has to stand up every so often and say it’s a lot of crap.” MILLIE TAGGART: “You can have a wonderful story one year, while someone else is vacuuming…” JOEL HIGGINS: “It’s a very loaded question at this time because there is a furor raging between L.A. and New York about the whole thing and when it gets to the point, it’s silly.  You’re no longer awarding someone because they’re the best…You’re awarding them because they live in L.A. or New York.  I’m sure anyone who has ever won is talented.  But I think there are so many talented people-how you can possibly say this person’s better than that? It depends on the character, what they get to play…a million things. Stack the Emmy’s up against the Pulitzer Prize, where it’s not a group of nominees and only one winner.  They say, “We’re going to give 12 of them this year, because these were all good achievements.”” PETER SIMON: “Ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous.” COURTNEY SHERMAN: “I hate the idea.  Talk about various aspects of the business, the daytime drama is definitely a field unto itself; there really is a repertory company feeling here.  I don’t think it is ever to any one’s advantage to have competition for awards.  As dignified as everyone may act about it, I think it’s destructive and silly.  It’s different with a play or movie-they’re entities unto themselves, but I find the Emmys offensive. PETER SIMON: “The process of selection is all done on the number of friends you have for votes.  And this ridiculous competition now between the two coasts, as to where the Emmys are going to be handed out.  I mean, what are they talking about? In a soap, where does the performance end? There are certain people in the shows who have all the gravy and other really fine actors who do nothing but the drudgery.  The categories in soaps should be best recap, best getting through a scene without fainting…” COURTNEY SHERMAN: “Not that you can’t be a fine actor sitting and drinking coffee, but is that the scene you’re going to give to the board of judges?” Obviously a lot about the Emmys have changed since 1976.  But a lot has stayed the same as well.  Too many fine actors, both in Daytime and Primetime have NEVER been nominated.  Whole shows are ignored while others are nominated year after year.  Love of Life was only nominated for ONE acting award, and that was for Shepperd Strudwick, who has previously been nominated.  This year in primetime, Ted Lasso (an excellent show) got many nominations as it has every year, but Ghosts has been ignored again.  Different shows, but both excellent. What is your opinion?  
    • very danceable theme song https://x.com/iammskye1/status/1923509048416043443
    • You are not. I'm so happy that this storyline for Anita is finally showing movement. 
    • A shame that Santa Barbara lost the Andrades but I wonder what the Dobsons had in mind for them. From what I know of the Joe/Kelly situation, they didn't seem to know what to do with the Perkins. I don't think McConnell in particular gets enough acclaim for what she added to the show.  The Dobsons (from what I know of the show) didn't seem to know what to do with Augusta. This was especially true on their second go around but that was also Rauch getting back at her, so who knows?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy