j swift

It is an especially interesting quandary when we consider her reintroduction through "The Chief" storyline because her biological origins did not matter in terms of the logic of that plot. My impression was that Iris was trying to manipulate Cory stock so that she could eventually save the company from ruin and win Mac's praise (given that the story was conceived prior to the actor's death). I don't believe she was trying to buyout Cory publishing in order to ruin Amanda and Matthew's financial well being. Iris had always been driven by trying to win Mac's approval. The fact that he now had established relationships with Sandy, Amanda, and Matthew would have threatened her deep seeded desire to be "Daddy's Girl." So, wanted to help him by saving his beloved company. However, establishing her as Mac's biological daughter would have no impact on that story. Mac's will had been the subject of prior storylines and even Jamie was due to inherit part of Cory Publishing just prior to the revelation that Sandy was his son. Iris had been written out of the will during her marriage to Brian Bancroft (AW was still written by Lemay at the time so he had knowledge of those events). She knew that her son Dennis had benefited from both the Wheeler and Carrington estates, because he was included in the wills of both his biological and his perceived father. So, there was no motivation for Iris to be Mac's biological daughter in order to clam his wealth, because already knew that she was getting bupkis. The establishment of Paulina as the forgotten South American Cory was written after Lemay's departure, so there was no logic in trying to establish Iris as a Cory in opposition to Paulina, because she was considered a Cory with or without a biological connection. Finally, there weren't any romantic reasons to make her a biological Cory. Sandy had already left town and Matthew was not a viable love interest. Also, her initial story involved a triangle with Donna and Michael, so her biology did not effect any potential entanglements. While it fit with Mac's rather randy past (remember when he had sex in the back of a limo and Rachel found the underwear as evidence?). It was unnecessary as a plot detail. Unless Iris's biology was somehow going to play into Evan's history...

On Facebook someone just posted a picture of Jack Wagner as Warren #3 from 1991 (with his awful Caesar/Clooney haircut). It got me thinking about the number of recasts that occurred during that period. Warren, Mason, Kelly and Keith were all recast within months of each other and then Eden left the show. I don't know if any soap could survive that degree of cast upheaval. The cancellation of a soap is often attributed to creative issues, but it seems an important lesson that soap habits are made on repetition and once that sense of normalcy is gone the habit is easy to replace; regardless of the popularity of using actors from other soaps.

This was actually my first response to the news. She had a high profile arrest for DUI in 2002, there was also an infamous Letterman appearance when she appeared to be under the influence. These types of scandals are unfortunately more often over looked for male actors than female leads. I always associate her with the odd tidbit that she was roommates with Sandra Bernhardt when she first left AMC and moved to LA. A quick review of her IMDB page suggests that she has worked consistently since NYPD Blue, but the roles have diminished in quality and star power. So, maybe she was looking for a meatier role, and wanted to work after the stay-at-home orders restricted income for the past nine months? I would hazard to guess that there are a few former primetime actors who would relish the opportunity to work again; given the current economic climate.

@Taoboi @Chris B I get the side hustle, but am I the only looking at former daytime actor's social media posts and wondering how they are continuing to make a living (especially during stay-at-home orders)? Perhaps I worry too much, but nine years without a gig in most professions would put one at risk for poverty.

Agreed (although I would add RKK's pension for short shorts) But I have to put in a good word for Stephen Yates. He was Rachel-est of the Jamie's. They shared the same hair and an artsy vibe. They were also both vulnerable with a hair trigger temper that interfered with their relationships. It was a shame that the character changed so much in later iterations because I thought Yate's Jamie seemed like the one who really shared some character DNA with Rachel (certainly more than Amanda or Matthew ever did).

I think the reunions are a part of the franchise that are no longer necessary. First, the cast goes on WWHL several times per season, so there are ample opportunities for them to comment on the drama, far too often the reunion is a retread of what they have already stated on Twitter or WWHL. Second, they can't reference the reunion directly within the season so they are always referring to it as this obtuse situation that caused a rift in their relationships. Third, there is either never any resolution to the season's arguments or the resolution seems contrived because it happened outside of their natural milieu. I think much like the Bravo blogs that caused more trouble than they were worth, production would be better off by trying resolve story lines within the context of the 22 episodes per season.

It is interesting to recall when GH could maintain multiple plots. That summer had both Casadine island and the Diana Taylor murder plot. The previous year had the Left-handed Boy and the Quatermaine divorce saga. They were really good at balancing an outrageous action adventure with more traditional soap storylines.

I follow Alec Musser (AMC- Del Henry #2) on Instagram for the occasional shirtless pic and it got me thinking. He hasn't had a credit worthy of IMDB since 2011. However, as single man, he travels, he owns a house, and participates in expensive action sports. How do these guys who seem to never work still manage to maintain these lives? I am old enough to know that much of what is portrayed on social media is fake, but I still wonder how former daytime actors with very few subsequent jobs like Scott Bailey, Kyle Lowder, or Pierson Fode allow them to maintain a life of leisure?

I need a second opinion. I found this pic of 80's hunk Christopher Atkins (Dallas) on Tumblr. Is there an inadvertent ball-slip from those short shorts?

I have a theory that the key to decoding any Housewives scene is watching who gets to be the talking head commenting on the action. Thus, it was surprising to me that Denise, (who has been an obvious pain in the tush for production) got such a favorable edit in Rome. Sutton and Dorit were chosen as the narrators and they provided the audience with reasonable doubt when it comes to Brandi's allegations. One could imagine that the fan response would have been very different if Kyle or Teddi's interviews were interspersed in that scene. Certainly every housewife is interviewed about each scene, however, by only using the Sutton and Dorit footage, it was easier to either sympathize with Denise or vilify Teddi. I've read fan theories that RHOBH is focusing on Denise because nothing was going on for the other women. However, I doubt this because there are hours of footage that go into each week's episode and these story editors could have created drama out of any number of events that went unseen. We have no idea about the other scenes of Sutton, Rinna, or Garcelle that could have made for an interesting story. This was chosen because Denise stopped filming and the editors needed to provide context to the story about why that occurred.

I believe the appropriate adjective would be "zaddy" !

Not to be argumentative but, this is a classic example of people interpreting data without basic statistical knowledge. Comparing an average rating year to year does not take variability into account, which is the basis for measuring significant change. For example, Andy Cohen has stated that the ratings for Miami Housewives decreased over the course of the final season. However, if one was to average the high rating at the beginning of the season with the low rating at the end of the season, that average would not seem very different from the average rating of the season before it. Which is why variability in statistics has always been a more important determinant than the average. I get frustrated when fans discuss drops in raw rating numbers because it is reductive in terms of how ratings are used by networks to set fees for advertisers. Networks have always used ratings to provide a prediction to their advertisers about the ratings for a given show in order to set the fee for commercials. The ratings are there to prove the accuracy of that prediction. The audience samples are bias toward those who will buy the advertiser's products and do not include people with digital cable services (like youtube tv), people with certain household demographics, and it does not reflect the proportion of the minority status of the US population. If they over predict then they have to return part of the fee, and if they under predict then they need to charge more the following season. Networks would never release their predictions to the public, (because they want more people to watch than they predicted), so there is virtually no person involved in the system that looks at the data in the way it is presented above. Again, I hope the reader will excuse my exasperated tone, but ratings are not an indication audience response. Ratings are reliable and stable so they cannot be used to interpret if the audience likes a certain cast member or storyline. That data is taken from audience response surveys, not letter writing campaigns, or twitter replies to Andy Cohen. So, as a fan base, can we finally stop caring if an intentionally bias sample of 5% of the audience watches the same show that we like? There are more important things to worry about; like whether Dorit will finish decorating the room at Buca di Beppo on time for Teddi's baby shower.

I think the missed opportunity with Santana was making her the third wheel in the Eden/Cruz storyline. By history, Santana was in love with Channing, and left Santa Barbara to study interior design in Europe, after giving birth to Brandon. Making her into a whiny drug addict who developed a dependent relationship with Cruz really pinned her character into a corner. I would have preferred either an ongoing collusion with Mason, (who needed an ally), in order to take down CC. Or, an ongoing rivalry with Gina. It felt like once Gina was recast with Robin Mattson, she made most of the storyline potential for Santana seem redundant. Brandon was better suited to be raised by Gina, and Eden became too good to scrap with her housekeeper's daughter. However, Santana should have been a Latinx version of Alexis Colby, (regal, snobby, and always on the come up for a richer husband).

If we've learned one thing about Denise Richards it is that she has an exaggerated need for privacy which why I question Brandi's story about her initiating their first kiss in a restaurant bathroom. Given the other woman's responses, it was not common knowledge that Brandi identifies as bisexual, Brandi was admittedly drunk, and they were among friends. So, not only could their tete-a-tete have been witnessed by others in the bathroom, Denise also had no idea how Brandi would have respond, or if she would immediately tell their mutual friend. Thus, the story strains credulity.

The thing that I don't get about Camille is that she is amusingly self-effacing in her 1:1 sessions (remember her humor about having multiple nannies in S1?) and then she is so haughty with the ladies. Also, from DeeDee, (the makeup lady), to Kimber, (the water pourer?), it makes no sense why she takes her hired helpers to social events. One doubts that the great hostesses of society past brought their paid staff to mingle with other upper crusters.

It seems to me that Dorinda's social media posts about Colin Cowie's party planning is the same thing as Ramona asking for pictures in exchange for Larry Scott's party planning. Both required the wives to drive an hour for a PR stunt in service of a free party (with candy in large glass jars at both sites).

Yes, Linden House - what was the etymology of its name?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think of Erica having an animus toward Donna which may have also kept her out of Palmer's circle for awhile. Also, did Erica's return to Pine Valley coincide with the publication of her first autobiography? I recall a failed appearance at a parade around the time of her return and that she lived with Mona during that period (maybe due to the death of Dr. Tyler?), immediately prior to her relationship with Adam. Did she buy her house after her divorce from Adam and prior to her marriage to Travis? And can anyone recall the name of Erica's house? Finally, was Nina's later friendship/bridesmaidhood with Erica due to Nina's relationship with Matt Connolly who was close with Jeremy?

I think Cassie is a flawed idea given that Minx had switched Brick and Channing at birth, which established Minx as a serial baby concealer. The suggestion that Minx allowed her daughter to be raised at an orphanage (with boys who made regular visits to the Capwells) while years earlier she couldn't bare the thought of her grandson being raised in the Capwell mansion, (right next door), strained logical reasoning. As for storyline potential, the Lockridge estate was always on the brink of foreclosure due to a lack of new income, so Cassie was not immediately wealthy when she came into the family. There was no conflict with Lionel feeling betrayed by having a long lost sibling. There was no discussion of finding Cassie's father. The Angela/Warren coupling was not worth complicating. Cassie and her Musketeers played with Mason as children which would have made her years older than Warren. Finally, the exposition about her birth required the written contortions of both Minx's de-Sorasing and the retcon that Warren was not a Lockridge, (two soap tropes that are not usually appreciated by soaps fans), indicating that Laken was the only child in the family who was actually raised by her biological parents. If the Lockridges fed their only legitimate child her pet pidgin, perhaps Cassie should have been more grateful to those nuns...

My memory is that had more to do with Erica's friendship with Opal, as opposed to being "close" with Palmer.

It's an interesting issue. Around the time of Nina Courtland's first wedding, Phoebe English (I forget if that was her maiden name or if Brooke was her maternal niece) Tyler Matthews Wallingford had banned Erica from most social events due to her mother Mona's relationship with Phoebe's ex-husband Dr. Charles Tyler. Erica was explicitly banned from the country club, nor was she welcome in the yacht club. This was one of Erica's motivations for moving to New York that summer, because her prospects in Pine Valley were sparse. Phoebe, (who was Palmer's next door neighbor), also expressed that she would not attend Nina's wedding if Erica was invited. However, perhaps due to her association with the Kingsleys and the Bogarts, Palmer relented and Erica attended the wedding. Years later the animus between Erica and Phoebe was mostly forgotten and the relationship with Palmer was always cordial but never close; maybe because she never got involved with any of his relatives.

RHOBH - Real question: When the ladies say that they want to "get past" an issue, what do they mean? BTW, this post does not indicate that I condone the behavior of her husband in any way, I just don't know how the woman would measure a resolution beyond simply submitting to their point of view.

Can we talk about the weirdness that was Kristen's party set up by Ridge and Eric for her to meet the "top bachelors" in LA? 1. The Bachelorette owes everything to this episode, from the introductions of the men in tuxedos, to the fact that everyone is casual about this being a 10:1 group date, to the various guys attempts at trying to get "alone time" with Kristen. 2. B&B's odd incestous tone continues, Kristen is in a room of ten single men but chooses to have the first dance with her brother, then Stephanie comes by the pool filled with guys in speedos but she only has eyes for her son, and finally Ridge stares longingly at his sister when she comes into the party (meanwhile, I still contend that Thorne was always cuter and came with less baggage). 3. The dancing would have been campy even in 1988. Styles range from a waltz, to a couple of guys doing the Russian squat dance, to an 80's era slamdance, all culminating in a group dance to an elevator music cover of Janet Jackson's Control. 4. Ridge has speedos brought in for all the guys on a silver platter ("one size fits all"), but poor Storm chooses to wear some baggy briefs. 5. Some of the guys mention on how well Ridge is doing professionally, but nobody comments on the fact that he, and his grown siblings, are all still living in their parent's home. 6. The truly bizarre juxtaposition of having scenes of Kristen's party happening in the same episode that Caroline is dealing with her sexual assault and Donna is about to be exploited by a photographer (maybe Kristen was single because all guys in LA were either unattainable professionals or sexual predators).

So, now that I've found the B&B vault can someone tell me the episode number(s) or date(s) of Kristen's top bachelor in LA toga party when Ridge and her father tried to find her a date? I've seen the pictures and read the articles and now I feel as if I am ready to see the actual episode.

I think the Zoom confessionals are an interesting choice and they add some intimacy to the interactions (especially when Avery zoom bombed her mother talking about Elyse). But, much like every Zoom call that I am on IRL, I wish they would wear earbuds to reduce the ambient sound.