DRW50
Member
-
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Currently
Viewing Topic: One Life to Live Tribute Thread
Everything posted by DRW50
- Guiding Light Discussion Thread
-
Loving/The City Discussion Thread
Thanks so much. So did Lauren Marie-Taylor leave for a while, when Tony and Stacey went to California? Was that a maternity leave? Who played Tony? I didn't know June was ever back either. Was Ann Williams still playing her or was she gone by this time? I'm sorry about the 1989 scan being kind of poor - I was trying something and had a new scanner.
-
Any Capitol Fans Here?
- Hollyoaks: Discussion Thread
- Another World Discussion Thread
I hope that type of role won't hurt his chances at other roles, if people think that's how he looks most of the time. The Sven story was AW's ratings peak wasn't it?- Hollyoaks: Discussion Thread
I didn't watch most of her era but I guess if ratings are any indication, Lucy Allan, at least towards the end of her run. I think that in terms of quality both she and Marquess were bad. She had no ideas - his ideas were generally poor, or poorly executed. Even the new family hyped as a success, the Costellos, are generally awkward characters in awkward stories.- EastEnders: Discussion Thread
January 7 2005 - Kate says goodbye. I still think it was a stupid decision to get rid of Kate. She could have gone anywhere, in any story, as she was not bogged down, and she had easy chemistry with many different sections of the cast. I'm sure someone felt she had no major connections but that is an asset in many cases. For most of her run (until she started going nuts) I thought Kim Medcalf's Sam was a spoiled bitch and I had little sympathy for her, but her last scene with Kate does make me feel sad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAZ2JzKyuKI&feature=related- Loving/The City Discussion Thread
Thank you both. So was Agnes involved in casting Luke Perry? I was also wondering if she had any involvement in Roger Howarth joining OLTL, since he'd been on Loving a few years prior and been fired. But she was probably not heavily involved in either show by that time. So Lorna and Jack were Ann's kids, is that right? I keep forgetting. For some reason I thought Stacy and Lorna were sisters but now I realize that wasn't possible. I guess this is before Stacey and Jack were together. Who was Tony again? I wonder what it was like for Susan Keith and James Kiberd working together at this time, as they said they initially hated each other.- ALL: Temporary Replacements
Anne said that she felt her time on AW as Nicole made DAYS viewers accept her as Kim. Do you think that was true? I wasn't watching ATWT in fall 1996 so thanks for the clip. I'd forgotten how stupid people seemed to be - then again Lily was never exactly bright. But Lisa wittering on that way...I wonder if Eileen Fulton was glad to be off. She hated this story.- Loving/The City Discussion Thread
From the August 22, 1989 Digest.- ALL: Temporary Replacements
I remember Priscilla being a little better than that on SuBe...- EastEnders: Discussion Thread
It always gets on my nerves when I think about it as the potential was there, and Sharon/Den and Den/Dennis were fascinating. Dennis was everything wet Ryan and constipated Sean could never be. The show just bungled it by making Den too dark and by not giving him the Vic back immediately. It has been a huge mistake in the long-term because now they are still clinging to the husk that is the Mitchells, and trying to pretend Phil is any sort of powerhouse. I still remember the scenes where he went around and talked to those he knew when he first lived there. It's funny that, aside from Pauline, they're all still on the show. I guess this also means they will never bring anyone else back from the dead - another mistake. Did you hear that- EastEnders: Discussion Thread
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jShcNPY8_d0- Generations Discussion Thread
From the March 21, 1989 Digest. Wow, I didn't know Sade was on daytime.- EastEnders: Discussion Thread
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnI4mxFMQN8- EastEnders: Discussion Thread
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0fbU32Yr7A- The Politics Thread
Geraldine Ferraro has passed away. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51981.html- ALL: Temporary Replacements
You're right. I can never remember when Justin started on Santa Barbara.- Dynasty Discussion Thread
Some scans someone made of an old Dynasty book. http://awfullibrarybooks.net/?p=10044- ALL: Temporary Replacements
So I guess it was between 1978-1980 that he was Marco? I'd like to see that.- EastEnders: Discussion Thread
Yeah, you're right. I didn't really notice his absence because he hasn't been on the show in ages and ages. But Suzy was on only a few years ago, so to ignore her but include April is...odd.- EastEnders: Discussion Thread
Thanks for posting that. I was watching some of the EE Revealed on Whitney (annoying narrator), and in the family tree section, which was a lot of fun, they list Carol's siblings as Max, Jack, and...April. I guess it doesn't mean she's coming back (if Revealed was the gospel then Denise's other sister would have returned) but isn't it odd that they show her but not Suzy?- Loving/The City Discussion Thread
I wonder if Marland would have been better off if he had stayed with established shows he could reshape in his own image. Nixon seemed to have more of a forte for creating shows. Something that I think viewers had a harder time with than the shows anticipated was the whole "sympathetic adultery" story. The only time I can remember this being overly popular with viewers was the Jill/Katherine/Phillip story on Y&R. I remember how awful it was on Ryan's Hope with Frank/Jill/Delia.- Loving/The City Discussion Thread
Thanks. You can always be counted on to know these wonderful details. I wonder why they even bothered to bring Doug back. Do you think writing him out was an ABC or Marland decision?- Hollyoaks: Discussion Thread
I've missed your posts. It was obvious from the time the show moved away from their original plans to write Brendan out that Ste would pay the price. Ste is now irrelevant and it's all about hyping Brendan at any cost. They are going to turn Ste back into a one-note monster just to make us weep for Brendan. No thanks. The serial killer story has been horribly structured in every way. Few deaths, people in the village not giving a crap that someone was murdered, even the girl's own sister and mother not caring. The painfully random reasons for him to go after his victims, while women who are incredibly slutty, like Mercedes, he doesn't even look at. This is the way it is for most of the show's stories. All hype and little attempt to apply this to the story. Claiming the rape story was going to be about a question of consent, then dragging in other stuff from their pasts that has nothing to do with the issue. The fiasco with the O'Connors, with Diane losing her baby rabies at the same time as she became an agoraphobic. Huge chunks of story that should have run for years with this family being dumped in about five minutes of airtime, literally. And my personal favorite, the transgender story, which, aside from Jasmine/Jason looking constipated, bugging out his eyes, going through a Lisa Hunter knockoff story that lasted about a month, and drooling over a creepy looking 30 year old passed off as a teenager, seems to have never had any purpose. I think the best part was when Heidi mistook for a real woman someone who was about as believable as Tom Hanks and Peter Scolari on Bosom Buddies. - Hollyoaks: Discussion Thread
Important Information
By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy