If Alicia minshew doesn't committ to Kendall IMO they need to recast the role. The show needs it and btw it needs a short term appearance by Susan lucci. Erica cane is needed so bad.

Alicia wants to do it as does Susan. Im sure both Erica and Kendall will be back as will Binks played by Eden

Nevermind.

Edited April 16, 201312 yr by Khan

Say what?

He misspelled her name.

Then why not create a new drama that adheres to those timeless concepts instead of re-setting a show that, IMHO, had very little left at the end on which to rebuild and renew itself? Yeah, I know: because the name "All My Children" is a known brand. So what? A name isn't everything. A brand-new soap, with brand-new actors and characters, stands an equal chance of flopping or succeeding as one that purports to be a continuation of one that's been on-the-air for over 40 years.

I'm hoping this does lead to a new soap (thats always been my holy grail) but I completely understand trying to leverage these old ones as jumping off points.

Then why not create a new drama that adheres to those timeless concepts instead of re-setting a show that, IMHO, had very little left at the end on which to rebuild and renew itself? Yeah, I know: because the name "All My Children" is a known brand. So what? A name isn't everything. A brand-new soap, with brand-new actors and characters, stands an equal chance of flopping or succeeding as one that purports to be a continuation of one that's been on-the-air for over 40 years.

Because there's still a lot of potential left in that brand, that setting, those characters young and old, and that rich history. And clearly there was a lot to rebuild with, given the right pieces, which I think they've mostly assembled. I don't need Tad or Erica back right now to have a good show - particularly one that allows vet focus to go more to people like Julia Barr, David Canary, Debbi and Darnell, Cady. Just because they were always top priority before doesn't mean they have to be now; so were Ryan and Greenlee, at ABC. You have Eden and Bianca, which is more than enough of a compass for the Kane family for the moment.

Edited April 16, 201312 yr by Vee

I asked her about seeing them in the book in the opening, I hope she answers. I just don't want an opening similar to the one at the end of the ABC run, which had shades of the GL opening.

I have to admit that I really am excited but I'm probably excited for the same reason you aren't. I like the changes.

Don't get me wrong: I like change, too. If anything, I don't think there is enough of it where OLTL 2.0 is concerned. AMC 2.0, though, might as well be a brand-new soap with a different name, because there just wasn't enough there (again, IMO) to build on or continue with.

Edited April 16, 201312 yr by Khan

They have the Chandlers, the Kanes, the Cortlandts and the Hubbards, and characters of all generations plus some other popular and new folk. I'm not sure what else they should've had in terms of building blocks.

With all apologies to Ms. Dolly Levi, I feel as if the parade has passed me by.

I think the changes are fresh and needed and important. Particularly for AMC, which has a cleaner slate (partly because it was in worse shape before, IMO), but both shows just seem very much new and lighter without so much of the old baggage. With AMC in particular, it was and is an opportunity to toss a lot of the old mess and reset a lot of the factory settings back to basic Agnes Nixon storytelling and concepts, which seem very much in play here. So it's really something very old and immortal brought to the 21st century and made new, IMO. That's how it feels to me, anyway. That's part of what makes the AMC setup particularly alluring, after some of us spent the last few months discussing Nixonian storytelling staples through the years in the context of the long experiment that was Loving.

Yes.

For God's sake, she's been around since 1970, it's Kane. KANE.

Yes.

Then why not create a new drama that adheres to those timeless concepts instead of re-setting a show that, IMHO, had very little left at the end on which to rebuild and renew itself? Yeah, I know: because the name "All My Children" is a known brand. So what? A name isn't everything. A brand-new soap, with brand-new actors and characters, stands an equal chance of flopping or succeeding as one that purports to be a continuation of one that's been on-the-air for over 40 years.

This doesn't make any sense to me. It would be one thing if this was "All My Children in name only," like the way so many people swore up and down this would be back when Prospect first entered the scene in July 2011, with a mostly new cast of mostly new characters living in a Pine Valley that bears no resemblance to any PV that we've ever known. This isn't a feature film remake or primetime reboot looking to capitalize off the AMC name (which, I hate to say it, wasn't much in the online entertainment world prior to this whole thing). It's a continuation in the truest sense of the word, with old characters returning, new characters being introduced, plotlines and backstory from the ABC run being intermingled with brand new storylines. It's soap opera.

They have the Chandlers, the Kanes, the Cortlandts and the Hubbards, and characters of all generations plus some other popular and new folk. I'm not sure what else they should've had in terms of building blocks.

The Martins. For starters. And I can't say the Chandlers or the Cortlandts belong in this particular category, since I feel like they were dying on the vine toward the end.

They have the Chandlers, the Kanes, the Cortlandts and the Hubbards, and characters of all generations plus some other popular and new folk. I'm not sure what else they should've had in terms of building blocks.

Yes, I'm with you on that one. They had plenty to build on, and they've built on it. It's exactly the way it should be.

I mean, I do need La Kane, but I understand the circumstances and am willing to wait.

Jordan said: "@JordanLanePrice: @vicksvapor77 That I don't know... Yet #AMC #StayTuned"

So they're either using episodic footage for the opening, they haven't shot their opening yet or she isn't sure the context her footage she may have shot for an opening will be used in

I think most of the Martins were so played out near the end. They needed a break. For now we have Dixie, and Joe and Ruth, and I'm fine with that. Cady's wonderful. Later you can bring back some others, not to mention some of the kids.

The Martins. For starters. And I can't say the Chandlers or the Cortlandts belong in this particular category, since I feel like they were dying on the vine toward the end.

Continue, because I'm intrigued. I thought the Martins had a decent presence at the end, and while they may not be a major force now, I personally think Tad and Jake needed to rest. I'd be all for a Jamie return, definitely Sam and Kelsey, but I don't think I'm willing to sacrifice any of the characters we do have -- new or old -- to make room for them.