Soaplovers

Erin hated the storylines they were giving her. That's why she left the show. that whole, "i don't know who my parents are" went on too long for her. Personally i admire her, she left at the right time because Jessica went from a nice strong girl from a good family to a basketcase who had several alteres and couldn't handle much of anything. The jessica that Erin played was pretty strong. She handled being resonsible for the fire at Llanfair in 1991, she handled her mother's DID in 1995 and then in 2002. and don't forget the big one, she had to deal with not only a teen pregnancy but then loosing her baby thanks to Dorian. All this withou turning into Tess.

I recall during the whole baby loss storyline that Dorian was being stalked.. and it turned out that Jessica was the one stalking her.. and that the climax involved Jessica almost running Dorian over with a car before being stopped. Did Jessica recall that she was doing this, or was she blocking it out?

I remember the story and thought she wasnt aware she was stalking Dorian, but once the story concluded, she went on with her life without any mention of therapy so maybe I'm wrong. If she wasnt aware of this, then I could see this being a foreshadowing to all of Jessica's mental issues that came much later (though I think if Erin kept playingg the role, I dont see Jessica becoming a cariature)

Kind of off topic, but recalling all the various changes in Jessica's character over the last few years of the show (i.e. all the split personalities, her regression to teen-dom, etc), I often wonder if these changes would have occurred if Erin T. were still playing the part? Or if these storylines still would have been written, but played in a different way?

I recalled Erin T. played Jessica more like a townboy/ingenue type, and I recall the exact day Bree took over, that Jessica's mannerisms changed completely (yes, slightly more in your face.. but also noticed kind of a slutty undertone),

I always loved Tess. CH's Lindsay on OLTL ended up morphing into her, pretty much, in later years when the writing for the character under Tomlin, Malone, etc. became much healthier and well-rounded.

I dont recall Tess being quite so neurotic (except for the brief stint where she was obsessed with Buck.. which seemed very out of character for tess). I remember Tess being a hard-nose, workaholic.. where her whole purpose was making a mark on the world.

I recall many Tess/Sydney confrontations where Sydney basically would be dismissive of Tess.. while Tess was trying to prove she was in the same league as Sydney.

Lindsey, on the other hand, seemed very neurotic and not so career-driven. Yes, she owned an art gallery, but her main focus seemed to be making her rival miserable, etc.

I know I have gotten into TBBT through syndication and see they broke 20 million for the first time this year, NBC should ditch the one camera sitcoms and go back to shows they used to have. Love Nene, but TNN isn't all that..

I dont think a sitcom being single camera or multi-camera filming is what makes it good or bad. For instance, The Middle and Modern Family are single camera shows and have fairly healthy viewership. They are well-written, funny, and not so niche.

Plus, TNN is very skewed for liberals and seem to portray the right wing conservatives as these angry psychos. I have several relatives that are very conservative and they do not act like that whatsoever.

Off topic, I think it is time for Adrienne, Taylor, and Kim to go bye bye when season 4 comes... and Faye should be banned from being filmed.

I checked TVBytheNumbers.com and although The New Normal had only 3.1 million viewers, the competing sitcom on ABC had only 2.8 million... Geez, is this how low network television has sunken in viewership? Wow... (I could understand if it were reruns, but not *new* shows)

Both shows are too niche, if either ABC or NBC took a page out of CBS's playbook.. it could have high viewership. CBS may skew older, but most of their sitcoms/dramas are more broad-based.. and not so niche driven.

I think the fact that people were remarking how good season 12 was showcases how strong the foundation of the show was. I think had the show bought in strong replacements after Latham and co. left, then I do think the show might have been strong enough to make it to season 15.

The one thing about Knots Landing that the other soaps lacked, was the ability to change/adapt with the times. I always viewed the show in three stages (cul de sac era, Lotus Point Era, and Sumner Group era) and each era had its strengths and weaknesses. The only character I could have seen fitting into all three eras would have been Abby, imho. She left just as the show was going into the third stage, but I certainly could have seen her getting a share of Sumner in the divorce... and working alongside Paige/Greg

The intriguing character for me was Val, since she really didnt fit into the Lotus Point/Sumner Group eras... yet had some compelling story lines especially during the Lotus Point era.

Atlanta:

I'm preparing to duck, but I'm getting a kick out of Kenya! The sad thing is that she seems like an interesting person without resorting to all the cra cra behavior (though I totally have taken up the Gone with the wind line as my new motto LOL).

I'm not sure how to read Porsha... part of me thinks she can't be as stupid as she is portraying herself, but on the other hand, I know plenty of people that do seem to not know simple things like how many days are in the year, etc.

Beverly Hills:

I always thought Beverly Hills would be a higher class Housewives show (ala, like the mini-series Hollywood Wives)... however, there seems to be a seedy undercurrent that started in season 2 with Brandi's addition (and I like her). However, if Faye Resnik joins full-time then count me out as a viewer. She is a vile, trashy human being.

With that said, I did enjoy the transition from ROBH to Vanderpump Rules... though I question introducing an unlikeable character like Scheana on the show. I always figured you would introduce a likeable person on ROBH so that when it switches over to Vanderpump Rules, we would gladly follow them over. Since the show is mostly about these delusional twenty somethings (when I thought it would be more focus on Lisa), I think they should have cast a likeable person and had them start on ROBH. With that said, I guess after watching the first episode, Scheana was the most likeable LOL

I have to say, Kenya is certainly stepping up as the season 5 train-wreck... though nobody will ever top Marlo/Sheree's confrontation with the hand gestures and sound effects... though kenya's skirt twirl and quoting Gone with the Wind certainly is an honorable mention!

I similarly had problems with Phillip abandoning his wife and daughter. Both Grant and Beth should've been rehired at the same time.

I agree with this... didn't Phillip and Beth usually work as a team, or was that Beth and Lujack? I seem to recall that if either of them were in crisis then the other person would step up to support/help them up. If Phillip were serious about finding out who framed him, then I think Beth would have been glad to help him especially since that whole event caused great upheaval for both of them, imho.

I think it was a little of both. Judi Evans didn't portray Beth as the typical, dewy-eyed, sweet-as-sugar heroine, and the writers responded to it.

Since I didnt watch the show when Beth was first introduced.. was she introduced as the typical sweet-as-sugar heroine.. and when the writers saw how JE played the part, they changed how they wrote her?

One, I don't think "vixen" or "neurotic bitch" were BC's strong suits;

I thought BC's strongest suit was when they had Beth doing the corporate stuff.. and I especially liked it whenever they had Beth being sarcastic.. which I thought BC played very well.

While I could buy JE playing Beth as an artist type, I couldnt buy BC as that... but I could certainly buy her working in the corporate world, imho

What I liked about Beth was that while she was an ingenue, she wasnt so sickly sweet that you wanted to barf. While she was nice, she also could stand up for herself and gave as good as she received. I dont know if that was due to JE playing the part, or if the writers wrote the character like that.

I guess Kim's 'melt-down' and leaving the show verifies that Porsha was not added until after Kim's abrupt departure. Which makes me wonder why didnt they just introduce Porsha after Kim's final episode? I know other housewife shows have done that.

I've seen a few 1983 episodes that featured Hope... and she seemed much less wish washy then she was during the Marland years. I really liked how she was written during the Dobson years (based on what I've seen).. and really hated how Marland made her so wimpy. It's a shame that Pam Long wrote her off months into her tenure because it would have been interesting to have Alexandra/Hope interact especially since it looked like they were putting Alexandra with her father Mike. Would have been interested to see Hope's reaction as well as Alan's reaction to his sworn enemy Mike dating his sister.

It is a shame that the Bauer/Spaulding feud was cut short especially given the build-up started by the Dobsons.

I remember Cutter.. He was fixed up with almost all the eligible women... I know he flirted with Tangie, went out a few times with Mindy, and was fixed up with Holly once with Blake ( I think that was around the time Roger was shot).

I do remember one funny scene where Cutter asks Blake if she could name anyone that would have reason to shot Roger and she pushed the phone book at him and basically said to take his pick.

Re: Holly's return in 1990 -- I can see the difference between her in the 70s and 1980 and the later Holly, and I think it is organic. Holly took Chrissie to Switzerland, and she became more sophisticated and mature in some ways. She'd seen a little more of the world. She'd grown, evolved, she wasn't stuck in a 1980s mindset. I think I like her better as this Holly because of all the new edges, her wit, her newfound strength coupled with lingering vulnerabilites. She is so human. It is these kind of women on Daytime that were role models (for lack of a better word) for me. I wanted to be them when I grew up, minus the bouts of alcoholism or other terrible events that befell them.

I totally agree that it makes sense for Holly to have changed during the 9 years she was off the show. From what I can read from old 1980 summaries, after Roger's fall, she stayed on the show for several months and seemed like she was a zombie during that time. From what I can tell, she basically fell for Ed again while feeling guilt about coming between him and Rita. Plus, it seemed like she had some doubts about her brother Andy when he first came back to town. Reading this, I can see why Maureen Garrett bailed from the show when her contract expired. 1978-April 1980 were very exciting times for the character.. and then to spend the next seven to eight months doing nothing would be such a whip-lash for any performer.

With that said, I think had the character not left in late 1980, I dont forsee her becoming the assertive, snarky character that she was when she returned back in circa 89/90. With that said, do you think the character could have found a place on canvas post 1980? Or do you think it was logical for Holly to leave town and start anew for several years?

Seeing the topic of obscure stories on AMC, I wonder what obscure stories we can think of from Guiding Light's 70 plus year history that is never talked about that much?

Regarding the 2.0 reboot, I thought the only character from the original that was written somewhat like the original was Jo. Given all the hell she went through from her four seasons on the show, it would stand to reason she would be cynical and bitter about the world.

Jane, Sydney and Amanda were written way too bitter and unlike their characters on from the original show.

Seeing the spread though, I would love to see a 10 episode follow up (ala Dallas 2012) focusing on some of the old crew mixed in with some newbies.

The one thing missing in 2.0 was the lack of a true community feel that the original show employed in season 1 thru 3.. with declining emphasis in season 4, 5, and 6.

Technically Walsh was the headwriter. Pam Long was the Executive Story Consultant.

What was the difference between a executive story consultant and a head-writer?

Do you think Pam Long would have been a good fit for the show long-term? I know she only was there for the last six months of the show... did she make any noticeable changes to the show? I read somewhere that she had originally wanted to end the show with Jo and Stu getting married but utimately nixed it because the characters worked so well as friends.

Was Ann Marcus on long enough to make an impression on Love of Life? I hear so much about how Jean halloway basically hurt the show, but do you think Ann marcus was able to turn it around.. or did she hurt the show in a different way?

I thought season 4 basically had a lot of great ideas but the ideas were not properly carried out, imho. Case in point, Sydney/Amanda as room mates... totally rife with comic potential but we only were treated to one or two scenes. Another great idea was having Kimberly moving into the very building that she blew up.. yes very unrealistic but still would have been interesting to see her interact with all her victims (case in point, no interaction between Jo and Kimberly.. and I would have loved to have seen some awkward scenes between the two of them given their history).

I noticed that season 4 was the start of isolating characters with little character cross-over. Totally would have been interesting to interact Sydney and Brooke, and what happened to Allison/Jo's friendship? I know they had a falling out after the custody situation but the two had made up.. but season 4 showed Allison/Jane as best friends when before it was Jo/Allison.

The first three seasons of Knots were basically a series of self-contained episodes with some continuing aspects mixed in. An advantage of self-contained episodes are that you get resolution but also can present an excellent character study.. if done correctly. A disadvantage is that since the story is wrapped up in one episode with very little carry-over, sometimes the beats arent played out properly.

With that said, were there any self-contained episodes that you wish were carried out in a more soap-opera format (i.e. story carried out over several episodes as opposed to just one episode?) Or do you think that the issues presented in the self-contained format were just fine without any need for future episodes?

While some people hate the "Three Sisters" episode, I think this episode totally summed up Val's inner feelings/guilt quite well! Granted the haunted house aspect was a little out there, at the heart of it was Val's need to be a mother that was never fulfilled. Hence why she always helped out those in need during the early years like Annie, Cricket, and Olivia.

What I most liked about that episode was how Laura figured out why the ghosts were targeting Val and none of the other women.. and that Lillimae finally stepped up as a mom and helped her daughter in need... when she had failed miserably back when Lucy was a baby. I cant really recall if Karen, Abby, or Ginger contributed anything to this episode or not... I just recall Laura, Lilimae, and Val being more prominent.

I know that Gary and Val's daughter Lucy visited once... but was she more resentful against Gary or Val? or was she resentful to both of them equally?

I do recall season 13 could be actually be split into two seasons... First half of season 13 was a totally odd show (i.e. Linda being killed, Karen's public service story, Claudia trying to kill herself to guilt her daughter to forgive her, the tidal wave story, and Val teaching a waitress how to read). It was like the new writers were trying to combine early season type of stories in the current soap opera model.. which didnt work.

The other part of season 13 had some interesting stories started up (Val writing Greg Sumner's biography, Claudia sleeping with her hunky male house guest while he was starting to date her daughter Kate, and it looked like they were bringing up Laura's history with her 'real mom' coming back to claim Meg.. which potentially would have revealed Greg as her father...).

Off topic, but do you think if the show had stuck with the original concept of life on a cul-de-sace, do you think the show would have lasted 14 seasons? Personally, I can divide the show into three distinct eras: The cul-de-sac era, the Lotus Point era, and the Sumner Group era.

I think that the ;'Scenes from a Marriage' concept survived all 14 seasons, it just evolved over time.

Out of all of Karen's children, I think Diana had the most story potential and it is a shame that she left because I could have seen her with the Alec Baldwin character plus would have been interesting to see her go toe-to-toe with Paige later on.

I do think it is a shame that Olivia ended up leaving because I think she and her hubby could have easily moved onto the cul-de-sac and been the start of the next generation of 'Scenes of a Marriage". JMHO

It's interesting watching the first few seasons and noticing that Valene isnt quite so 'Poor Val'. She displays a quiet strength and I think it is interesting to note that she doesnt fall apart when Gary cheats on her but being told her babies are dead when she knows they are alive. For her, having her children stolen from her twice is too much for her to bear. I think for her, not fighting for her children is the biggest regret in her life.. not losing Gary. It's a shame that LML turned VAL into a campy victim. I did like in season 13, that Val is normal and thinking about her career (i.e. writing greg sumner's biography even though Gary and Karen disapprove).

Regarding the last season, there does seem to be a lack of truly Knots traits like the little moments though there is one memorable moment when Claudia/Nick are sleeping together and a towel-clad Nick answers the front door when Karen knocks. Karen's reaction at seeing him in a towel and his towel slipping down and seeing Karen's reaction was truly a classic Knots trait (the neighbors reactions to the latest going ons).. that it sticks out at me.. probably cause it's the only moment I can recall from that season!

I love RHoNY! The new ladies are fantastic. Carole is up there with OCHeather as best addition ever, IMHO.

I can not with LuAnn, who simply does not fit anymore and feels forced unlike Sonja or even Ramona.

I agree with all that is said! I kind of wish they had traded Luann for Alex. Somehow I could see Alex getting along with the new additions especially Aviva for some reason. Oh well..

So I'm finishing up season 4... and I can totally tell there is a new show-runner in charge. The pacing, stories, and out of chracter behavior is apparent throughout the season. Is season 5 as bad or is it an improvement?

1) Jo- You guys weren't kidding when you talked about Jo changing.. and this is most apparent in season 4. Gone is the independent, no non-sense girl with a biting wit and big heart. What I'm seeing in season 4 is a woman trying to stay with a guy who turned to her when Jane admitted she didnt love him. The Jo of old wouldnt have fallen for his charms and I bet she would have popped him one! P

2) Friendships/character interactions: This season is the start of characters only interacting with characters in their own stories. Sometimes it felt like watching three different shows (i.e. D & D gang, Richard Hart Designs gang, and the Wilshire gang with very rare crossovers). Almost no Jo/Allision interaction... Brooke hardly interacted with anyone outside of Allison/Billy/Amanda (twice with Jane, once with Jo, and twice with Jake)... I would have had Brooke/Sydney interact.. either as partners in crime or trying to one up each other in some respect. Plus, the fact you have Kimberly moving into the very building she blew up would have created a boatload of interesting character interactions (i.e. with Jane, Sydney, Jo, Matt, Amanda, etc).

3) Amanda/Sydney: I totally loved these two interacting... Though in the reboot, they seem more evenly matched in terms of outwitting each other as opposed to this season where Amanda outwits Sydney at every turn.

It seems like there were a lot of good ideas, just very poor execution (i mean amanda/Sydney as room mates should have been featured more.. the comedic potential alone.. oh well.. dare to dream).

How does season 5 fare in comparison to season 4?