Jump to content

All My Children Tribute Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

I also think that it wouldn't have quite fitted Janet even admitting she had lost her mind again.
She suffered so from having to deny she was Amanda's mother for so long... I think she would have been too sensitive to the cruelty of separating a child from her mother in that way.
At least in a universe with good consistent writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Eileen Letchworth  (Margo Flax) had her facelift Wed Aug 7 1974 and was back onscreen the following Tuesday,as Margo had her bandages removed on camera. In reality they were removed the day before.

Eileen had asked for time off for the procedure and Agnes Nixon decided to write it in for the story and asked Eileen to delay having it done until it fitted better into the plot.

Eileen had already had the bags under her eyes removed 7 years previously.

Margo had her facelift trying to keep a younger man but Eileen was happily married at the time. She was 52 in 1974.

Please register in order to view this content

 
 
 
 
Edited by Paul Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree with this as well, I was trying to play the story in my mind and I got to the point where Kate Collin's could have performed it, but I think it would have strained the audiences credulity to have Janet break in this way, and not have anyone notice for the better part of 8-9 months. The reason Janet worked in 2005, was because she was basically on there for a few months to spice up the sweep period, and even then she was sort of used sparingly like a sort of thriller villain. Having her on the canvas for an extended amount of time, the way Krystal was, basically necessitates a psychotic break for a prolonged period. It's basically the Nikki Smith/Viki story from the early 2000's on One Life To Live, but a bit worse.

Not going to lie this makes me sort of rethink the value of the Carey's honestly. I know a lot of people hated them, but I think they accomplished a lot of (for the lack of a better term) functional writing needs that wouldn't have been possible without them. For all the grief they get, I definitely do think they were able to rebalance the show towards the Martins and Chandlers after we essentially got the Kane show all through 2003. As good as 2003 was, that's not a sustainable or balanced show. The Martin/Chandler group needed essentially a Liza/Mia combo to bring them back to focus in some way.

Also Babe assisted in successfully transitioning JR and Jaime into adulthood, which is something that was sort of a gamble at the time as both teen love interests Joni and Laurie weren't able to do that for either character. This solidified a next generation of Chandler's and Martin's and made the potential for future leading men viable. No mean feat when both MEK and DC were aging. Chucking Amanda in there and having that not work, would have had the impact of potentially creating 3 lame duck legacy characters in a row. It made sense for the writers to save her for later.  

Edited by Skin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Guys you don't have to play the storyline the same way McTavish wrote it. That's the beauty in using Legacy characters, it SHOULD force you to write from character and with more care to not ruin them. I believe if taking more time to build towards the story and setting the stage, Amanda questioning/struggling with if she's just like her mother, pitting Bianca/Amanda as rivals this could have worked and gave them years a story. I would have made Amanda jealous/resentful of Binks life and relationship with her mother from the jump. I would have killed little A, after witnessing her baby takes his last breathe, Amanda hides the truth out of desperation or she actually does lose it a bit and becomes Drawn to Miranda. Janet comes in later, finds out the truth and is conflicted about exposing her own daughter. You can show Janet's growth by her being the whistle blower and that causes more friction for she and Amanda. It's many ways this could have been done. 

 

 

@Skin  I agree with a lot of what you said. If Alexia was cast as Amanda she still could have accomplished all that though. and Jamie is still a lame duck in my eyes. 

 

@FrenchBug82 Okay, for the sake of Janet's character i will go along with you, until i thought about her killing Porkchop. 

Edited by DemetriKane
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

    • Holly's final big story was the Sebastian mess in late 2004.   Vanessa and Matt were promoted to regulars near the end and were heavily recurring prior to that starting around 2007/2008.
    • Keith has a softer presence, but it would have helped to see him be more aggressive or proactive in protecting them instead of standing around like a mannequin. A man the audience should be hoping and wishing gets back together with his wife. Nicole needs a new husband!
    • She needs to learn to be honest with her husband about her lusty interests because being sex positive only works if you're not cheating on your spouse.
    • https://x.com/JermaineRivers/status/1922782226317529409       https://x.com/JermaineRivers/status/1931204864136396907
    • Very disappointed in the writers in the way they are screwing with Nicole, Ted,  and Kat to make Leslie remain viable. So many holes everywhere.
    • Somebody brought this up elsewhere which emphasizes why this NuTed appears as such a weakling. Why is Kat doing what HE should be doing? And that's everything he can to rid him and his family of this crazy woman. Kat is doing all kinds of things she shouldn't do but now I understand her more. She can't count on her father to eliminate this woman because he's a wimp. He's been too busy inviting her into his home and serving her drinks and offering her invitations to birthday parties. WIMP!!!!
    • It's Men's Mental Health Month.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • This is (maybe) overly simplistic and nonsoapy, but Doug needs to go to Gamblers Anonymous, to deal with the addictive neurological excitement hits that gambling gives him - and which control his life. Vanessa needs to go to therapy to find ways to remain healthfully lusty and sex-positive, but to stay away from anyone who would demean her.
    • YT keeps commending GL clips to me. I discovered Kathleen Cullen was on in Christmas 1987. Was there any talk of making it permanent  or was this just a special visit? I wish they had made the visit permanent. I liked her chemistry with Grant Aleksander.  
    • I'm not sure it's as unpopular as you think.  I just think the show knew they were in a bind, and needed a proven couple for the viewers to invest in. Trying to reunite Vanessa and Ross had just failed in 87. I don't think Ed and Holly's affair was well received, as Simon and Garrett had a brother/sister chemistry. Enter Billy and Vanessa, who give you history and an out not to try and do a Josh/Reva/Billy triangle, which would've really wrecked the relationship between Josh and Billy. I'd have been ok with trying Vanessa/Ross again, and doing a Vanessa/Ross/Holly/Billy quad for a while. I hated Nadine. HATED. She had to be the most insufferable also-ran before ATWT's Julia Lindsay. This is where I wish I knew Roger's history better.

      Please register in order to view this content

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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