PEOPLE Magazine: The All My Children Issue & Cover...

[EricMontreal22]

I never paid attention, but what does KWAK actually stand for? It's nice to have these tributes--especially as it seems such a missed oipportunity that they don't release an updated version of the 90s coffee table book to go with the finale (particularly as DIsney ha their Hyperion label to publish them--the original book wasn't done by them but the later ones, like the late 90s OLTL book were). It just seems a no brainer for all of these canceled soaps to try to get some money out of some sort of tribute merchandise (don't get me even started that they couldn't crank out even ONE tribute DVD...)

[All My Shadows]

KWAK stands for Krystal With a K. She says she looked at it as derogatory at first, but then she was like "Oh well, that means they care."

[EricMontreal22]

I've never really loved (or loathed) Krystal, but I think that's actually a fair point. Back in the Lemay/Rauch days of AW, Rauch used to say the best fan response, when they knew they had a successful story was when fan mail would be half positive and half negative, fairly evenly split.

[Antoyne]

Holy crap I never even knew she knew of KWAK. Was this her first time mentioning it?

[dragonflies]

Yep Krystal with a K is how Krystal introduced herself when she came to PV.

I saw this issue of People in the store today and skimmed through, didn't look that great, bought the SOD AMC Tribute issue instead, they seemingly did a better job with it than People, plus 99% of the tribute issue from SOD wasn't Cameron Mathison plastered all over

[All My Shadows]

OMG can we please stop with this nonsense? I just counted and there are eight pictures of Cameron in the magazine, and most of those are part of little features that include other cast members. He's been on the show for 12 years. There will be pictures of him in the magazine.

Jeez.

The ONLY major complaint I have about the People tribute is that they didn't do a couples spread for the 70s. I know they weren't called "supercouples" then, but they could have easily put stuff about Phil/Tara, Joe/Ruth, Linc/Kelly, and any one of the couplings out of the big Kitty/Nick/Ann/Paul/Margo saga. Also, SHAME ON THEM for not including Mark in the hunk spread. But other than that, it's a very nice tribute with great pictures.

[dragonflies]

After I bought the mag, the lady bagging my groceries said "A whole issue to the show wow" and the cashier said "I can't believe this show is really gone from tv" I echoed her sentiment

[Gray Bunny]

[EricMontreal22]

LOL No kidding, Dragonflies does get a bit hung up on certain ideas though I think the People issue is pretty fabulous to have--as much as I would have prefered a whole new updated version of the '95 book But it's nice to have it, especially in hardcover. Honestly, I can't see why any big AMC fan (even one with an extreme allergic reaction to Cam--and yes 8 pics, several in groups, in a 130 page volume doesn't seem excessive to me, and I'm no Ryan fan), would think it was useless, but meh.

I appreciated that it did cover lots of older AMC stuff, but leaving out the 70s supercouples was weird--it was almost like they simply forgot to include that section when they went to press. Tara/Phil are notorious in even the most cursory write ups of AMC as one of the first major couples and reasons people started watching.

The SOD special magazine is a lot better than I expected--even the Susan Lucci interview has a few things I haven't read in the hundreds of interviews she's been giving--complete with another dig at the Pratt era. Like the People magazine, I found a couple of factual errors, but nothing too major. If only SOD did half as good a job anymore with their own magazine, but I guess that's a moot point. I hope they put out something similar for OLTL (I have no doubt that we'll get a People magazine for them *coff*).

Speaking of the AMC 25th Family Album, I noticed that while you used to be able to find on Amazon marketplace used "like new" copies for under $5, the cost for even badly used copies has gone up, a LOT to $40+, I assue it's due to demand suddenly.

You know, ten years ago, I admit, I probably would have made a female friend or family member buy the magazine for me--I used to get so nervous what the cashiers would think... LOL

[alexisfan07]

I haven't looked at mine closely enough, are Phil and Tara not even mentioned in the book at all?

The PEOPLE issue does have some great photos and sections but it seems obvious to me based on the couples being showcased that ABC had a hand in its production, especially since they partnered with each other to promote The View special too.

[EricMontreal22]

Oh I have no doubt. Though I doubt Frons was personally involved, and I doubt even ABC said "Ok we need AT LEAST 8 shots of Cam or we won't let you use any of our photos!" The SOD volume has at least 8 photos of the man too, I think...

[quartermainefan]

I found this at a random newsstand in NYC. It's ok, I think the most interesting page was the photo essay of Erica Kane year by year and trying to spot what year it was she got her new face. She looked greatin 1998. 1999 the pic is frightening. By 2000 she is looking like a tired cousin of Jess Walton, struggling just as hard as Jess to appear attractive. 2001 and 2002look good, and then blammo! 2003 she has a new face. Then 2006 she has a completely different face and I would never know that is her.

Some of the photos are great and I was thinking of going to Kinkos to scan some. That photo of Erica attacking Richard Fields that accompanies the 1990s reminds me of something one might see on a Jack Ruby/Lee Harvey Oswald documentary. it's great. The giant photos in the where are they now section are beautiful. I love the Gillian Spencer candid and Dorothy Lyman portrait. I think it is cool that for the 70s the character they chose to spotlight was Billy Clyde.