The producer speaks out on why killing off Sam on General Hospital might not be a bad thing — Hear me out!
Before we get started, let me just acknowledge a few things right from the get-go. First, I know a whole lotta people are going to be very upset by what I’m about to write. But I’d ask that they hear me out read to the end before reacting. Then, they can fire off all the nasty comments they want. (I fully expect ’em.)
I’d also like to make it clear that I’ve been a fan of Kelly Monaco’s ever since her dazzling debut as Port Charles‘ vampire bride, Livvie Locke. She and Michael Easton (Caleb) created the kind of magic that can launch a thousand ships.
And to this day, I believe one of the biggest mistakes General Hospital has made — repeatedly — is never playing the Elizabeth/Jason/Sam triangle for all it was (and for that matter, still is) worth.
All of that having been said, I’m OK with the supposed plan to kill Sam. While torches are being lit and pitchforks sharpened, let me explain why.
I’m a big believer that our four surviving American soaps have become entirely too complacent. Actors or characters who become popular are deemed sacrosanct. Sure, we might admit that we’re not as into the character as we once were.
And in some cases, it might even feel like the actor or actress in question is kinda sorta walking through the part, as will most people who’ve stayed at the proverbial party (or, in this case, job) too long.
But my biggest problem with modern soaps is that they are so cowed by the whims, demands and social media accounts of fans that storytelling is sacrificed in order to keep the masses — real or perceived — happy.
But check out some of the most popular soaps from around the world in general and England in particular, and it’s a whole different ballgame.
Shocking character deaths occur regularly. And for the most part, when characters on shows such as EastEnders or Hollyoaks die, they stay dead.
Given that nearly every character on General Hospital has risen from a premature grave — some of them on numerous occasions — it’s darn near impossible for the audience to invest in deaths, which should have a huge, emotional impact on the audience.
Yes, General Hospital just killed Jagger — sorry, John — seemingly for good. But does it count if most of the audience has a hate-on for the character? (Kudos to his portrayer, Adam J. Harrington, for inspiring that type of reaction!) Killing a character such as Sam, however? If done right, that has the potential to be something truly epic.
After all, people love Sam (and her portrayer). The reaction to news of the show’s supposed plan to do away with Scout’s mom speaks volumes.
I both understand and fully support the efforts to reverse General Hospital‘s decision.
But I’ll be honest: I wish the news hadn’t leaked. I’m a huge fan of shocking surprises, which are a rarity in this day and age.
Sam being killed, no matter the circumstances, had the potential to be one of those moments which become the stuff of legend.
Although it’s rarely believed, I’ve long said that I ship storylines as opposed to couples or characters. Like everyone, I have my favorite pairings, and there are characters I adore.
But above all of that I live for what soaps, at heart, are all about: the stories of love and heartache, life and, yes, death. Should General Hospital execute Sam’s death properly — pun intended — it could wind up with a story fans never forget.
