2000's
Subforums
78 topics in this forum
-
- 0 replies
- 7.7k views
-
- 0 replies
- 3.2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2.5k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2.2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2.2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2.5k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2.2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2k views
-
Posts
-
To the current scriptwriters' credit, they did recently clarify that Kate's affair with Bill did cause a major relapse in Laura, so I think they're trying to make it clear that Kate and Bill hooked up once Bill had left for Lakewood, which, I'm honestly okay with. It makes the timeline clearer, and doesn't deny what we saw on screen during 1979-80, largely. I agree, @Khan, I never understood why these characters are evil for the sake of it. I already care exactly 0% for Kellam & Co. just based on their cartoon villainy straight out the gate. It's interesting that they appear to have given Liz a lot more nuance than the others. I wonder if that was the writing or if Gloria Loring was able to find something more than what was on the page. She always impressed me as being a good enough actress to do just that. Also thank you @victoria foxtonfor that repost. It looks like the article was supposed to be this big PR move welcoming everyone to the new era of the show... And yet, the entire executive team seems immediately defensive and desperate in trying to make it seem like this is exactly what they wanted to happen and everything was fine before and is fine now and it's fine FINE FINE nothing is wrong WHATSOEVER. -
An evergreen topic: Why is everyone on GH so sleazy? -
By soapfan770 · Posted
Poor Shannon in 1990, Marland had a pre-JER moment with that one. A few more for that era: ATWT: “Why Tom & Margo will never have a kid...blame Eileen Fulton!” AW: “Where’s Sandy & Cecile at?” B&B: “This Karen story is so stupid!” Days: “Marlena, Hope, Patch they keep killing off my favorites!” GL: “Josh & Harley...yuck!!” Y&R: “Whatever happened to the Brooks and Williams family members?” -
By DramatistDreamer · Posted
I have yet to see the new season, so I am scrolling and skipping past all discussions but I saw this AP article, which made me halfway roll my eyes and halfway chuckle at the complaints regarding the portrayal of the royals. I would think that the very fact that the show is using actors and not relying on newsreel footage would tell people that this is not a documentary. And the Churchill biographer had a point in that, nobody was complaining when the portrayals were more sympathetic or flattering, though there were clearly fictionalized scenes and characters. -
In 1987 when (recast) Bill returned to Salem, it was revealed that Laura had been institutionalized. Not sure what they said during this time (whether they said it was a relapse or whether they said she'd been there all along), but until that point Jennifer had believed her mother was in Europe. But I think basically in '93 they could've just made it clear that everything that happened with Kate Roberts happened *after* this point in the Days "timeline" causing Laura to have a relapse, but they instead chose to muddy the waters a bit...i'm not sure.
-