Vee

Forgot to mention: Nathan Dean's grief over Luke/Tony is very real onscreen. Hard to watch.

I can understand the argument, but I like political stories on soaps when they're handled fairly well and service larger story. I thought for several years running Mayor Laura on GH worked because it made Genie Francis heavily central again. There was a long stretch of time where she was the axis of multiple stories around town and no one could wipe their ass without going to "Mayor Collins" to clear it lol. Was that realistic for the town mayor? Not necessarily, but it utilized Laura and her role in the larger canvas well. I think Drew running for Congress also worked well for a while as he began to flex his power against his enemies. I don't love that both Drew and Willow's new position of power has since become subservient to the endless Sidwell saga, as has Laura's role on the show. It's become insubstantial because it's about keeping Carlo Rota around instead and the villain's endless machinations as opposed to the politicians in the mix on their own merits. The same happened with Kevin Buchanan's brief political career on OLTL, which became mired in the Santi mess when it could've been more lasting. The difference is the Drew, Willow and Laura political material can always be extricated from Sidwell. I can't speak to how well political material like Ross on GL or Grant Harrison on AW, etc. worked. And no, I don't think it's realistic for Martin to run for POTUS and get past a primary. But can I see him being one of dozens of candidates in a soap opera primary race? Sure. Crazier dudes than Martin have run and failed IRL. Or a Senate or Congressional role or whatever. Or leave it vague if one must. But just running doesn't neuter the story IMO. All sorts of weird beard folks run these days, our century has proven it.

I think we all know full well that depends on what material we're talking about. Primetime or certain movies may not do a lot of Melaswen Island storylines like DAYS, but they do tell political stories all the time without always accounting explicitly for who's in office at the time, or can eschew specific party details while exploring fictional narratives. There's plenty to critique about BTG. But when it comes to certain story or plot elements, you're demanding a yardstick for this show that has never been applied to other shows in the same medium. And that seems like it's much more about an attitude re: BTG than anything else.

Zachary Garred (the infamous Levi Dunkleman/Peter Harrell Jr., GH) is in the new Netflix thriller Apex with Charlize Theron and Taron Egerton.

Yeah, I don't need the show to acknowledge Chris Van Hollen (my former Senator for many years!) or anything like that. That's just never been something daytime does. Short of an occasional president soaps rarely acknowledge actual IRL elected officials while they're in office unless they're bringing on a special guest. I don't think that's some break with acceptable TV reality or talking down to anyone. It's just not germane or necessary for narrative purposes, particularly when you're using politician characters. (Nor do I need Martin to say onscreen that he's a Democrat - Helen Keller could figure that out.) There's not a new set of rules for BTG where they must acknowledge any and all IRL politicians locally in order to form a responsible compact with the audience. Forget using pop stars or music or referencing movies, that's a different sphere. We never once expected this kind of adherence to current government seatholders from ATWT, GL, AW, etc. when they dealt with political stories lol, so I don't see why we would start now. That's an impossible and unrealistic standard IMO.

They all look beautiful. I've hoped to get Laura Leighton on daytime for aeons but I assume with Doug Savant she doesn't need to work. I had no idea Grant Show was now married to the incredible Katherine LaNasa from The Pitt (previous husbands: Dennis Hopper and French Stewart!).

The only one in the quad I give a damn about is Portia. The rest are interchangeable wood and treated as such in story.

Also, that cabin looks pretty small!

He's awfully perky about it! I'll summon @Darn to weigh in on this.

I meant his losing Laura to another Black dude, but yes, your scenario is correct as well!

It would be a low point for him! If UK character actor Colin Salmon's international career hadn't taken an upswing in recent years (he is now a years-long regular on Eastenders) I would've actually gone after that guy, haha.

The early '90s are back! I loved it.

It figures that only a major facial injury would cause CyberJordan to install emotion chip software. That's a damn Eiffel Tower on her face! Looks like she lost a fight with a wishbone at Thanksgiving.

If they hadn't been so fixated on the Balkan saga or Franco follies or the Dante angle for Brenda, if they'd just let Brenda naturally lead story, I think it would've worked out much better. But Guza and co. were so set in their ways about their era and the mob at that point that they couldn't see beyond it, even though Guza was clearly thrilled to have VM back. They tried to make Brenda work around those latter-day storylines, or the existence of characters like Sam, etc. But to me she just made a lot of it look small. And I say that as someone who was distinctly not a Brenda fan for a long time lol. I think Frank knows that would be the case today and it's a part of why he doesn't want her back, in addition to any personality conflict. I thought both actors fit back into the show like a glove in 2009-2011. With the exception of the Sonny/Brenda payoff, a fair amount of which I thought was done well, as well as the Lucky/Dante relationship, it was the show that failed them. It was a failure of imagination beyond Guza II's narrow vision of the show. The same could be said for JJ last year, except unlike Guza (who showcased Lucky in very dark stories) I don't think FV was remotely interested in trying.

MVJ has been pretty pointed in recent public comments that she did not love a lot of her last ten years at GH ('02-'12, the Frons regime) so I imagine she'd have comments on that.

I think between 2-5 more sets are necessary. I don't think 5-10 or 20 are possible atm. That's just the reality of the current daytime budget for most shows.

I liked those gigantic taro donuts!

I don't expect the show to constantly splash out for a ton of sets. I understand the realities of current soap budgeting (unless your name is Frank Valentini). But I do think several more are needed for these stories. At least we finally saw a warehouse last week to add to the plasma story. Still, not having the clinic or several other key locations isn't acceptable.

That's always what he was thinking. It was the same with Jason and Brenda IMO. Plus I think Guza really did intend for Dominic to inherit the show. No male has had that level of layered material or deep focus since, sadly. Again, I think VM could've stayed if the situation BTS was different. Just as in '02, she wasn't given the incentive. Though in 2011 it may have been about the story issues, or knowing Guza was leaving and the show was on the slide. Who knows.

I know what I'd do with it and have talked about it before ad nauseam so I won't now, but yes it would be a WSB guy lol. But it would be a man of color most likely. I love Dan Gauthier but I had him in mind to do a recurring stint as Tom Hardy Sr., should he ever appear again as a foil for his son who would be a new lead. I would recast Lucky if I absolutely had to at this point. But I would hope to secure JJ once more.

All of the above IMO. I think they also thought they could get JJ and the audience to just go along with the Siobhan thing instead. It didn't work. Same with how VM vehemently rejected Guza's big plans for Dante/Brenda, and unlike Jonathan she wielded her power there (and may have had more leverage).

Is it wise to give Josh Taylor a microphone to enunciate into at this point? I'm just asking questions.

Did we mention that Jon Lindstrom is now on contract at BTG? Time for Kevin to 'die' for awhile.

But in fairness, you have been calling Dani out as toxic and far more malevolent than what I think has been presented onscreen for at least the last six months. I think the character has evolved but you simply have a different POV on her. You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think it necessarily corresponds to how they've matured Dani since the first several weeks or months. Dani can definitely still be a lot, and I don't have any objection to her spiraling out, doing bad things or getting into trouble and making a fool of herself again. I'm sure she'll do more soon enough. But she's not at the level of Leslie, nor do I find her the most toxic of all the female characters at all. JMO. As for Joey, I think they know full well he is a villain and are just rolling with it. Whether that's to other people's tastes varies. I certainly don't want him to last forever, I'd probably kill him by 2027, but my biggest complaint with Joey is not his portrayal but his rinky-dink set. Vanessa OTOH I think is gloriously delusional and always has been. I think LB is playing that to the hilt and I'm all for it. She's been on point with this character since Day 1. And I don't think either of them are presented by the show as heroic people in a healthy and sane romance. So I'm fine with them continuing to get up to nonsense. My objection came when people like Nicole were expected to suck it up and be nice to Joey, which fortunately has come to an end.

Yeah. I don't fault Jonathan for asking for Lucky and Liz, which I assume he did since it was an issue in his last contract stint in 2009-2011 and the lack thereof was stated as part of the reasons for his exit. He was told then that they'd get to it and they never did, and as you say the grueling miserable material he got instead turned him off continuing. I believe he'd have re-upped in 2011 if not for that. It was a massive fumble for a show in major BTS flux that year. And frankly I suspect if he'd still been there while Tony was there and FV arrived in '12 the situation would be very different today. Tony Geary was one of very few actors Frank has notably bowed to on story and he was very close to JJ, and they were entering a crucial anniversary period trying to save the show. Jonathan was vocal again this time about wanting LNL2. He's been pretty consistent about that and I don't blame him. Most of the audience wants it, Becky wants it and he wants it. It's the show that doesn't want it simply because multiple regimes just don't have a vested interest in showcasing Becky vs. other women despite being stuck with her out of audience loyalty, and FV clearly doesn't have much use for Lucky either. IMO, as you also said he knows that if he centers Laura's family and children again it gets away from the people and stories he prefers to showcase. Alexa is getting a lot of airtime and story again atm but still she is the dupe for Cassius Faison, and is being painted by her nonconsensual mutant spawn and Valentin as an unreasonable helicopter mom. Her past romance with Dante is presently defunct, as Dante continues to mourn for his last girlfriend possibly longer than any other contract male in recent daytime history. That also is no coincidence IMO and speaks to FV's disinterest in DZ. I have heard JJ's scheduling was a mess and I'm sure it's true. But to that I will raise them with skewing story around JPS and Valentin for years, which FV is more than happy to do with a less popular lead. Anyway it's all irrelevant now. He has Ethan and that solves his problem for the moment. It's just really too bad. Who knows if we'll ever see Lucky again or get the character fixed, which was clearly the hope last time round. For once the network had the right ideas about exactly what the show needed.