Members Cheap21 Posted April 24, 2011 Members Share Posted April 24, 2011 She used to be a slut back in the day and boasted about bedding hundreds of guys. Jesse was one of the guys she screwed before coming to PV 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LoyaltoAMC Posted April 24, 2011 Members Share Posted April 24, 2011 For those of you who watched regularly in the 70s, was the show as fractured as the summaries make it sound? Seems like everyone, even members of the same family, was islanded in their story. In the Martin family, you had Jeff in the Chris-David-Edna abyss, Joe & Ruth looking for Ray Gardner, Tara caught up with Phil & Chuck, while the Tylers saw Ann, Chuck, and Linc involved in separate stories as well. Did these characters ever have any interaction besides, say, for the occasional throwaway recap-exposition scene? This type of fractured storytelling worked very well through the 80s, because the show became more about the town than the individual families. So, for example, you wouldn't need to have Phoebe involved in the Greg-Jenny story, or Palmer care about Jesse and Angie's baby plight. Not sure that would've worked as well in the 70s, when the show was essentially about two families and Erica. I think Chris Schmering in his book refers to 1970s AMC as "a good but flawed show" (before going into how magical the show would become in its golden age from the late 70s thru early 80s). I always wondered what he meant by that, and I wonder if this is what he meant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted April 24, 2011 Members Share Posted April 24, 2011 I would imagine that we miss a lot by just reading storyline summaries. Each of the Martins had their own storylines, but the Martins as a family wasn't a storyline, so I guess they didn't feel the need to recap the more family-based stuff. I find that with a lot of 60s and 70s stuff, story recaps don't really give you the full experience of actually watching the show because those recaps were written mostly as a way to let people know the major story movements. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted April 25, 2011 Members Share Posted April 25, 2011 It's really odd how AMC has completely toned down the sex/"nudity" in the past few years when it would have made sense to play it up. I'm not sure if I mind--I would hate to have seen it turned into what OLTL is right now (though during the Rayfield era it was close) but... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Angela Posted April 25, 2011 Members Share Posted April 25, 2011 In the past year or two, AMC has been very minimal on slaps and, even with Griffin, shirtlessness. Those are staples of soaps. I wouldn't want AMC to be like OLTL in terms of near nudity and wild sex, but a little more wouldn't have hurt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted April 25, 2011 Members Share Posted April 25, 2011 There's definitely been a noticeable lack of edge on AMC since the NY/LA move. We got bitchy, snarky Annie and we get some shirtlessness every now and then, but not a whole lot. I wonder how much of that has to do with David and Donna. They're P&G people, and those shows were always more conservative than the ABC soaps. GL was probably the least sexy of all soaps (besides Y&R) in its last five to ten years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted April 25, 2011 Members Share Posted April 25, 2011 Totally agreed. It seemed especially odd with Griff--the online "character preview" episode was him all shirtless--and in the new credits they show him the same way. But we've gotten kinda half shots of him when injured which could not be remotely called gratuitous--and that's it. Aside from that one Scott scene, we haven't had any male semi nudity really on the show all year it seems. Wouldn't things like male nudity fall down more to the EP than the HW? Don't forget GL (although a long time now) had the male ass shot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted April 25, 2011 Members Share Posted April 25, 2011 Not to go off topic, but geez that type of underwear can look so offputting on some men. Either that or it was just a bad shot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Angela Posted April 25, 2011 Members Share Posted April 25, 2011 The only thing I see in that picture is JR checking out Jamie's half naked ass as Jamie gets ready to chow down on a burrito. AMC used to totally do that sh-t on purpose, lol. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted April 25, 2011 Members Share Posted April 25, 2011 Welcome! I wish he had more AMC cuz, yeah, the video quality is terrific. I kinda get why some felt that by 1987 the show had become a bit too segmented, but it's terrific stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted April 25, 2011 Members Share Posted April 25, 2011 And when it tried to be sexier, particularly during the John Conboy/Ellen Weston era, it was either laughable or offensive and laughable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted April 25, 2011 Members Share Posted April 25, 2011 Even after all these years Laurel still gets on my nerves. This role should have been packed up instead of recast - and Felicity La Fortune doesn't play this type of thing well IMO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbrxQ6QjojI I was never that crazy about Noah either, I think I just find him very put-on and overly mannered. It never seemed like a tough guy trying to turn his life around - more like a Milli Villi fan who joined a soap. I didn't realize they were still playing with Jack/Erica up to this point...for some reason I thought she was already back with Dimitri. Can you believe that set they're on? It seems so expensive compared to today. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ghfan89 Posted April 25, 2011 Members Share Posted April 25, 2011 http://www.angelfire.com/celeb2/nader/photo37.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted April 25, 2011 Members Share Posted April 25, 2011 Back in the day I actually really would agree with you--I think now I'm just overun by nostalgia fever. But no one I knew likes Laurel, and I know Noah was beloved by many--but I liked everyone connected to his stories, except him. The only thinf I dislike now about this era is the background music--it's so pervasive! I think back then I didn't even notice. Because you know if Pine Valley had a Heaven it would be one that looked like an Easter garden party.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted April 25, 2011 Members Share Posted April 25, 2011 That's true about the music. The episode feels a bit...empty, and restless. I guess I can see why they went another way by spring of the next year, although the changes made were too much in the other direction (the awful teens, dumping vets, etc.) This was it for Erica and modeling, right? Or the catwalk incident was. How long after this was the catwalk? Rudolf Martin isn't too bad here. He was worse in some other clips. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.