Jump to content

AMC: The Prospect Park Era (old production thread)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes.

Yes.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Speculation about Missy Reeves' potential evolution on basic civil rights doesn’t change my opinion of her. My view is shaped entirely by her public social media presence—which I find unpalatable—and I have no interest in learning more beyond that. I simply liked Jennifer’s hair and dress. That’s as far as my admiration goes.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Cheryl was gone before Lemay came back but I agree with your thinking that he would rather a character from a family he introduced to the show than a family he did not originate.  I remember reading somewhere in the early 90's probably after DS left as writer, their was an either a writer or a producer who made a comment that their intent was bring the McKinnon family back to AW.  Would have made sense for the newer viewers from the 80's.  Much like Lemay's attempt to bring the Frames back from his writing in the 70's in his 1988 return
    • DePriest left in January 1988. According to the AWHP, Rose last appeared nearly a year before in February 1987 while both Sara and Peggy appeared as late as October 1987.
    • Annie was not brought in as an antagonist for Reva. Reva wasn’t even on the canvas when Annie first appeared in late 1994. 
    • The speculation……….very entertaining. 
    • I had forgotten that several Days stars came out strong against Melissa. Good for them!
    • That would have made sense. Did all these characters get dropped when DePriest left or had they already been dropped?
    • The other issue with Missy: in June 2020, she "liked" some social media posts by Candace Owens -- things Candace said that were against Black Lives Matter.  That is described here https://tvline.com/news/melissa-reeves-racism-days-of-our-lives-instagram-controversy-2894568/ I don't know if that was ever resolved.
    • She appeared onscreen not long after Rose Livingston and Sara Montaigne, and we found out that Sara was Rose's estranged daughter. I wonder whether Peggy might have been part of that family group -- or else they were just juggling a few different potential mysteries so that they could develop whatever seemed to be getting the best response from the audience. They didn't do anything much with Rose and Sara really either. Maybe Rose would have become more prominent if Rachel and Mac had split up over Mitch, or if Sara had really flourished. In some ways I can picture Cheryl being affected by MJ's prostitution similarly to how Josie was distressed by finding out about Sharlene. But I can also see that Josie as a Frame being involved with Matthew would have different stakes for Rachel and Sharlene than Cheryl being involved with Scott. I do think the solution for Cheryl would have had to be a badder boy than Scott -- either a real bad boy who would do her wrong, or the kind of bad boy (not Chad!!!) who is essentially misunderstood and other people just don't understand. Cheryl would also have been better off with some friends her own age. Matthew and Josie benefited a bit from having other teenagers to interact with.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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