Mona Kane Croft

Any speculation on who Aristotle Dumas really is? Is he/she a returning character using a fake name? Or someone already on the canvas?

I think Mitch is correct here. The plot was not transphobic. Brent was not trans. And I'll take it a step further -- he was not even a crossdresser. If I'm not mistaken, people who identity as crossdressers enjoy crossdressing. They do it for pleasure or as a way to express themselves. Brent disguised himself as a woman so he could commit crimes, and for no other reason. So unless I'm wrong about all this, I don't understand how the plot could be transphobic.

Although I haven't finished the book, I am also disappointed more of this type of stuff isn't included. For instance, I'd like to know what other plots the Corringtons had planned, that were either nixed by tptb, or they didn't have time to get to before being fired. I'm pretty sure Maggie Dekker had some kind of secret that likely involved her nephew, Rikki. Was he really her son rather than nephew? There were hints of something between these two characters that was completely dropped when Maggie was abruptly written off. I'm sure the Corringtons had an entire list of upcoming plots when they were fired, and I was hoping to learn about those. As I said, I haven't finished the book, so maybe some of the things I'm looking for are included. But I'm not hopeful.

Well, it had been exactly 15 minutes since I posted, and when I tried to edit, it was unavailable. I checked it three times, and the post was 15 minutes old. I'm not just making this up. LOL.

Yes, of course. I meant Martin. But within 15 minutes, it is too late to edit it. Now my entire point will be lost. Wish we had at least an hour to edit.

I thought the scenes between Derek and Smitty today were much more smooth and natural. Still not perfect, but at least I finally believed they are a real couple. Also, the actor who plays Derek seemed to be settling into the role, and was finding a more natural cadence with the lines. Finally. Maybe he's been getting some coaching. I do notice an improvement, so I hope he keeps it up.

If the Corringtons did not create the Bellmans on AW, then that might explain why they altered the Bellman family so much on Texas. On AW, Striker was introduced as an oil man who also owned (and lived on a ranch). He and Vicki were said to have four children, Reena, Samantha, and twin boys (one who was in the oil business with Striker and the other who preferred ranch work). Only Reena appeared on AW, but Samantha was mentioned at least once by Reena, and the twins were mentioned at least once by Striker. By the time Texas premiered, Samantha was no longer Reena's sister, but her cousin. And the twin brothers were never mentioned at all on Texas. Also on Texas, Striker was not an oil man, but an attorney. Striker and Vicki did not live on a ranch, but in a large house in the city. The changes really harmed the family and minimized their importance to Texas, in my opinion. This might also explain why Kevin Cooke didn't last long on Texas. On AW, Reena was obsessed with getting Kevin to stay married to her. But on Texas, Reena quickly lost interest in Kevin and started getting serious with other men, particularly Max Dekker and Justin Marshall. Kevin was written off rather quickly. Had the Corringtons created Kevin, they likely would not have lost interest in him so quickly.

I agree. On Another World, it seemed that Reena would become the female JR Ewing of Texas, and I have always believed that was the original plan. But so many things changed from the original incarnation of the Bellman family.

I just ordered the book. It should arrive on Monday. Will be interesting to have a comparison between Reunion and Texas. For example, any names in common -- Bellman, Marshall, Cooke, etc.

Interesting stuff. Thank you for sharing. I definitely need to get this book. So it seems Ms Corrington sees Reunion and Texas as two entirely different shows, rather than one show morphing into the other, as I believe most long-term fans have assumed.

How could Ms Corrington's memory here be correct, since at "the start", the new show was to be a period drama set in the civil-war era in New Orleans??? Tell me how Iris was supposed to fit into that?

I'm not saying it was bad. I'm just saying it's a bit too much for nearly every episode. And Dani is seeming more and more like a villain -- not a good-girl with a few problems. If MVJ wants Dani to be a villain, then I'm fine with Dani's behavior.

Dani is carrying her obsession and her behavior way too far for a character who is not supposed to be a villain. Plus, she is getting too much screen time. She is most definitely over-stimulating! Unlike Nicole, who tends to be a calming influence. If they keep writing Dani like this, they should just make her the show's bad-girl (or one of them), and allow her to be an unapologetic villain.

Texas would have had a ready-made conflict, had Pat followed Kevin and Reena to Houston. I so enjoyed that romantic triangle on Another World. Pat had been through a lot on AW, but Reena was her first big romantic rival ever. So I was disappointed when Kevin and Reena returned to Houston, leaving Pat without a storyline. And Russ would have been interesting too on Texas, as he was young enough to be a male romantic attraction, and a colleague of Kevin Cooke. Having said all that, I would not have been crazy about having two more members of the Matthews family leave AW, especially two of the show's original characters. And yes, Beverlee had told Paul Rauch she did not intend to return to AW after her time away, so he offered her the starring role on Texas as a way to keep her at P&G. I've always understood the decision to add Iris to the cast of Texas was a last-minute decision, and threw the writer's room into a tizzy, trying to shoe-horn Iris into the show. Perhaps the new book will shed some light on all this, and we will finally know the truth about how it all played out.

No soap opera is perfect, but BTG makes all the other current soaps look like they are written for 13 year-olds. And the writers on BTG don't talk down to their audience. I finally feel like I'm watching a soap opera written for adults. Thank you MVJ!!

That seems more fitting to me, but several characters have referred to it as a casino -- not just a back room or a game room. Strange.

Thank you for the clarification. But I wish they would just call it a game room or a backroom, and not call it a casino. This is certainly not the "vision" most people in 2025 have when they hear the word casino. Suspension of disbelief is a part of all fiction, but using the word casino to describe this dark little room is expecting too much of the audience. Just my opinion.

I agree. Gambling/loan-shark storylines worked on Edge of Night, mostly because they didn't over use them and they were well written (Henry Slesar was a genius). But on other soaps, gambling plots are usually unenjoyable, uninspired, and depressing. Perhaps because they are so predictable. In my opinion, political storylines also do not tend to work on soaps. Ryan's Hope may be the exception, because most of their political plots focused on the campaign(s), and not so much on the details of "making the sausage". Other than RH, I have never seen a political plot that I enjoyed on a soap -- not even when the town Mayor is a character. (and by now, nearly every soap has tried a Mayor plot -- YUCK). I don't think most soap writers know enough about politics to write a compelling political (or even Mayor) plot. Plus, I don't think the soap audience really wants to watch politics on their soaps. If BTG goes way into politics, I hope they do it with some level of true understanding. I do have faith that MVJ knows what she's doing. She is my new soap Goddess.

What kind of casino is this supposed to be? A one-room casino with decor from the 1980s? And privately owned by one guy? Does that type of casino really exist?

Possible SPOILER-ish question below... Scroll on by, if you wish. Okay, does this dude even know Phyllis and Sharon? Does he know their history? Why would he be the person to trap them together in a room for days, so they could work out their relationship issues? Has he even had scenes with either of them? Other than him being a nut, there seems to be no organic reason for him to be their kidnapper.

It was probably lack of direction. If the actor was trending toward being dour, all it would have taken was a director (and perhaps some better writing) to tell him to lighten things up. Long running soap actors sometimes fall into acting habits that are not suitable for the character. The directors need to be strong enough to point out these habits. Do you remember Victoria Wyndham's unexplainable British accent during the last year or two of Another World? Where the Hell was the director? Sometimes they need to put their foot down and correct this kind of crap.

I can't imagine a grounded character like Bert married to that cartoon character HB. They wouldn't have done that would they?

The first thing I ever saw her in was that remake of The Waltons Homecoming a couple of years ago, and I was not impressed. Whatever acting style they asked the actors to affect was the strangest choice I've ever seen on TV, and it was not flattering to any of the actors. I don't even know what to call it -- but it was sort of wide-eyed, dopey, and naive, I suppose. But it made all the characters and the actors appear to be nuts. I'm assuming this was intentional on the part of the director, but I'll never understand why. I've since heard that Bellamy is a very good actor on the stage. So maybe I'll see her in something else sometime.

Lazy writing. Yep. . .

Yeah, but both within three-weeks? That's my biggest issue with it. And, "It's a soap" is pretty close to saying, "It's just a soap."