Jump to content

DramatistDreamer

Members
  • Content Count

    11,847
  • Joined

Everything posted by DramatistDreamer

  1. Most interns are unpaid and only getting college credit. You get what you pay for, I guess.
  2. Considering the fact that Hillary never mentioned Gabbard's name, I'd say Tulsi is going to have one hell of a task proving her claims. I guess she figures a frivolous lawsuit will bring attention and maybe some campaign cash. The Hindutvas must have closed their wallets and bots don't bring in money, unless you're a web operator.
  3. The actor who was cast as Scott was nothing special, to be frank but the storylines were also terrible. The characterization was all over the place as well. You have to have an actual story for these characters. The actor can't exist in a vacuum, devoid of story. Otherwise he's just an extra. I've yet to read of Fen having an actual story. Being an addict isn't a story in of itself. An addict who has been shaking down his mother, who still struggles to keep Fenmore's from going bankrupt, that's more of a story. It's a story for Lauren though. For Fen, it would be that Fen tries to stay sober while rebuilding his life and say, falls in love with someone he shouldn't which threatens his sobriety--that's more along a story.
  4. Between the mess concerning the nominating process and functioning of the Grammys (hardly surprising) and the Oscars, it should be clear that any artist should not be looking to these institutions for validation of any kind.
  5. From what I'm reading about all these returns, it seems as if half these people were brought back just to shut some of the fans up, tbh. It doesn't look as if JG knows what to do with any of these characters. Does he have an actual plan for them?
  6. OMG. those slaps! 🤣 Especially the vintage ones, take me back!
  7. Her next Emmy reel will probably come from this storyline. Despite JG's wildly uneven storytelling, SC is good at extracting the compelling bits and stringing together high-caliber performances.
  8. The idea that a "good girl" can't be raped is an incredibly offense statement to make. I'll carry on with the Ignore feature. SMDH.
  9. Thanks for that timeline @slick jones. I definitely remember Maggie Burke as Dr. Samuels. I think there were an abundance of false positives and switched tests during that time period, lol.
  10. I definitely remember her in Margo's miscarriage storyline which was in '86. According to IMDB she was on the writing staff in '84. I always get Dr. Michaels and Dr. Samuels mixed up. Apparently IMDB claims that she played both roles? This is probably the reason why I got confused. I do remember another actress playing Dr. Michaels at some point though.
  11. I know he was briefly on ATWT and Courtney Simon was a recurring character on the show but I don't know whether their characters ever intersected. Courtney Simon was also on the writing staff but I don't remember how early she started or whether Peter was already on GL by then.
  12. I consider McKenzie (Mac) Browning on Y&R to be an ingenue. Also, I don't know what "successful" means in terms of a characterization. If the character existed at all would be successful, imo. 😀 Sharon Collins was definitely an ingenue (albeit mixed with heroine tendencies) in her earliest days. The other Lily (Winters) was something of an ingenue, albeit a largely marginalized one. I do agree though, that on today's soaps, the ingenue would be considered boring. Also, compelling storylines for young women of a certain age (teenage to early 20s) seems to be lacking-which is why I contextualized my comments to 'over the last decade' or so. Back on topic though, I was curious to hear people's opinions on the existence (or lack thereof) of the matriarch and patriarch figures on soaps because I believe that soaps, at their best, told stories that were inter-generational and I think that somewhere along the way, the balance got tipped and those types of stories went missing. But yeah, I'd agree that a lot of soap 'stock characters' have gone by the wayside in the last 15 years or so.
  13. Reading that line, made me think of the quickly disappearing ingenue character--which seems to have faded over the past decade or so, During the best of (soap) times, I think the matriarch and patriarch prototype shifted a bit in order to fit the changes in society. The image of the matriarch that worked solely to care for home and hearth, while sometimes wagging her finger at the world faded,l while the patriarch was no longer coming home to sit in front of the hearth with pipe in mouth. You had matriarchs with careers and patriarchs who sometimes didn't have all the answers and often they could have very active storylines. Over the past few years, I could the impression that nobody wants to be viewed as a matriarch or patriarch because they may believe that they'll only be used as a "talked-to" for younger actors who will have the most interesting storylines, which is a legitimate concern for today's soaps that no longer truly know how to write inter-generational stories. When I was a kid though, Bob and Kim Hughes were considered patriarch/matriarch (especially after Chris Hughes was no longer on the canvas, even before the death of Don McLaughlin) and had some of the most active storylines in the cast.
  14. Do you think that the characteristics for a good matriarch/patriarch have to evolve with the times in order to be viable? Or do you think that there are fundamental basic principles/tenets that soaps should cherish in order to have a believable matriarch/patriarch?
  15. Hm. Food for thought in this thread.
  16. Discussion in another thread led me to ask this question, especially to those who still actively watch/follow the remaining network daytime soaps. Days Of Our Lives is likely an exception but, as for the other remaining soaps are there truly matriarchs and patriarchs on the canvas of these soaps? Over the last decade some of us have talked about (okay complained, really) about the apparent desire to make characters younger than they are by giving them storylines more suitable for a younger generation of characters, as in The Young and the Restless. And in fact, I have a very difficult time seeing Victor and Nikki Newman as being patriarchs of the show, given what I imagine a matriarchal figure on a soap, in terms of the history of soaps. Then again, Y&R never really illustrated the idea of a matriarch, especially with the mother figures always running away (Brooks, Abbotts) and other motherly figures being somewhat marginalized (Foster, Williams, Barbers). John Abbott was probably the only character that I would think of resembling a patriarch on Y&R. It's been even longer since I watched The Bold and the Beautiful but with Stephanie Forrester gone, I can't imagine Brooke taking on any role resembling a matriarch.😂 And Eric (is he even still on this show?) always seemed to be in a state of perpetual mid-life crisis, with the younger model wives and girlfriends. Am I wrong? Does the idea of having a matriarch and patriarch still hold relevance on today's soaps? What about the other daytime shows? What are your thoughts?
  17. Was Simon's interpretation of Ed Bauer dour before Maureen was killed off? It seems as though writers cast Simon to be the "heavy", as if this is what they expected from a patriarch on a soap. The irony is that, in the long run, Ed didn't become anything close to a patriarch, mainly a man who would engage in emotional self-flagellation and wring his hands about what could have been in his life, in regards to his failed relationships. Was Michael O'Leary being cast because of a resemblance to Mart Hulswit? Without even looking at pictures, I'm seeing a resemblance in my mind's eye.
  18. No offense, but Jarry is an idiot. Also, no offense to Argentina (especially since I do like DelPo and think he's great for the game, I also enjoy Diego) but Argentina has had more than a few cases of doping offenses, each with their own ridiculous set of excuses for said offense.
  19. I dropped off with ATPCup and so, didn't see the final but apparently Team Serbia's post final celebrations have been causing some head shaking and disappointment? Tennis tournament organizations usually opt for $$$ over the health of the players. I'll never the year that the heat caused mass retirements from matches and some players even had delusions on court due to the extreme heat.
  20. Good to see you (a)board! I stopped watching ages ago but I have fond memories of our spirited chats in threads like these. 😊
  21. A whole bunch of people should've been DQed this week. If Pliskova didn't get DQed for smashing a hole into the chair umpire's station, I doubt Medvedev was going to get more than a fine. In addition to having these obscure rules about footfaults, 'not up' balls and the like, tennis needs to have some clarity on constitutes abuse, in all its forms. Don't allow spectators to verbally abuse or goad players, which I've seen, have some specific guidelines that penalize players who hurl verbal abuse at officials including ball persons/kids (and in the case of minors, intimidation or coercion should count as a form of abuse), other players and even members of their team who are in the stands. Tennis ought to develop some type of awareness campaign of the penalties for causing damage or injury to anyone in the umpire chair, a linesperson (e.g. Nalbandian) because I always get the sense that the players are only guessing at where the "line" is, and they end up crossing it often. That the rules are not evenly applied is something of an understatement.
  22. Tennis isn't normally like this, huh? Does no one recall the time that Jeff Tarango's wife slapped a chair umpire? I guess not. SMH.
  23. When I first saw those tweets boasting about the big storyline that Tessa was getting, I had a flashback to seeing similar things about Cane from Daniel Goddard's social media. It might be a longshot but don't count out the possibility of it happening.
×
×
  • Create New...