Vee

That's a nice touch. I just wish there was more direct address or acknowledgement onscreen in dialogue or material on the shows.

No, as I've already said, your recurring behavior has relegated you to the role of troll. You don't listen to anything anyone's said about this topic or any other, you just wait for your name to come up and pull out the same old talking points. Literally all you do is show up and whine about the board and how awful we all are (and your characterization of people's opinions on soaps is laughably broad and inaccurate). Thanks for making my points for me. Change the record or move on with your life.

I had no idea they'd done that. I don't remember any other soap acknowledging 9/11 at the time (though there were quick rewrites to iffy stories, such as GH scuttling JFP's plans to blow up the hospital that fall and OLTL very very rapidly reshooting the planned plane crash of Todd and Blair in Mexico the week of or after 9/11 IIRC). I always thought it was a mistake; I thought the soaps as daily serialized dramas in everyone's homes had a duty of care and to the immediate moment, just like I felt it was a mistake not to acknowledge COVID-19. GL's tribute here is very classy and well-done, and you can tell JVD and some of the actors had a hard time getting through it.

First, as to the recent discussion, people took exception to the idea that P&G could've nuked the entire archive simply because of the time and expenditure involved, even with today's methods. It was a point of curiosity and interest, nothing more. Most of them, myself included, didn't bother mentioning the OP until he showed up raging about people daring to disbelieve his claim and what fools and rubes we all were. I frankly didn't even remember who he was or how he behaved until someone pointed out much later. For me the discussion around that claim was not and is not personal. He makes it personal because he always has. Unlike others, I have absolutely no idea who adrnyc actually is (and I have no reason to think he's some other troll; I can spot our longtime troll's sockpuppets most of the time). He's barely anybody to me, I forget about him every time he goes away (which is why I had no idea who he was when this latest discussion began and did not recall his past dramas initially), yet any time we do interact he seems to have festered a profound dislike for me. Whatever, I don't care. It's nice that your memory of his posts is longer than mine, but that's not my experience. If you want to know what I base my opinion on, it's that as far as I can recall all this dude ever does is periodically show up, rant at us about not liking the show's final years and complain about the forum's posters being crazy, ungrateful or stupid. Nobody's out here attacking him but he does this over and over. And sure enough, the instant Donna mentions him again he shows up to rant some more, and I'm sure he'll show up this time too. At this point, given his repeat behavior, what am I supposed to sympathize with? Why should I care? And what can I honestly call someone who only turns up to behave like this other than a troll at this point? It's just not worth my time or consideration. I have no doubt he heard what he heard from Colleen Zenk. My doubting the archive is altogether gone is not a personal reflection on either him or Zenk. But he turns into a maniac any time anyone questions him. Who needs it?

I don't remember whose memoir or film tell-all it was - maybe the recent book on Rebel Without a Cause (which she left/was booted from) - which said she introduced herself to the cast and crew as 'I used to be Marsha Hunt,' IIRC not long after being blacklisted. What a history.

Again, you don't need to spoiler anything on my behalf at least, lol. I know Gary gets involved with Kate Whittaker.

Oh, I agree. I think we've talked about that before too, and I think it's largely the same calculation at GH. They're coasting on subsistence levels of viewers and apathy. But I think there are changes that could be made that the parent companies wouldn't care that much about (though the veteran cast might). I just don't think Griffith or anyone else cares to make them.

Is he though? How many people are Sony/CBS realistically going to crow about if he starts cutting? Starting with his favorites from ten years ago who he inexplicably rehired, that is. I think you can still get mileage out of EB and MTS in senior positions and Case and Morrow in specific roles (as in remarried and not put in pointless pairings no one cares about, not that I care much about Nick and Sharon, but it's the only story left), but Heinle doesn't need to be around forever and neither does Stafford. It's all just a wash.

I'm watching the hilarious Moonfall on HBO for shits and giggles and I'm reminded that poor sweet John Bradley (Sam) is the third lead in this only because Josh Gad dropped out (with Michael Peña of all people replacing Stanley Tucci because of COVID restrictions). God bless.

Drake is always such a class act.

Lol, I know you don't like him but the fact is he was a very attractive dude in his glory days and had pulled female viewers for many years for that reason. The problem is he's not a fantastic actor and they don't have any role he can convincingly play beyond being the now-aging fratboy hunk who bangs chicks. But he's never, ever going to be recast unless he quits abruptly. That's not me being a fan of Josh Morrow, that is simple reality. Unless some Ronn Moss, Michael Muhney or Steve Burton at GH shít goes down it is never gonna happen.

I'm happy for Krista. It seems like a perfect marriage of a similar type of actress and look with a character who desperately needed a new face that wasn't a total divorce from the original (which is what happened with Thorsten Kaye among others).

When Josh Morrow is too old to pass for, idk, 38, they're gonna kill Nick off. I agree he has had virtually no other or deeper stories in many years besides being a stud who fùcks. I like Trevor when he shows up to act, but when he doesn't look out. He gets bored easily and starts doing whatever he feels like, actively playing against scenes written for pathos. He always had absolutely scorching chemistry with most of his leading ladies especially Florencia Lozano, but it was very hard to enjoy their scenes when by the time she came back he was playing a serial rapist who had violated the same woman twice. To his credit Trevor seemed to know this and began playing his character on OLTL as an out and out psychopath, but unfortunately the writers just kept writing it as though "Todd II" was a romantic leading man who, you know, occasionally had psychotic breaks over his daughters or tried to befriend the woman he'd raped. (If anyone else remembers the disturbing scene where he visited Marty at her office and had a meltdown just before she fell down the stairs, you know what I'm talking about) It was a very bizarre viewing experience, and while in hindsight I can sympathize with subverting the material more it was hard not to feel like I was getting trolled by the actor everyday. I honestly can't see Trevor playing a normal romantic lead. When they tried to do it at OLTL he tanked it and played the truth of what they actually had given him, which was a largely unrepentant predator (and ultimately his character was unmasked as a savant with multiple personality disorder). I don't think he is built for or interested in playing normal heartthrobs. He is a funky dude who plays weird people, that's what he is best at and where he excels - it's part of why I wish some form of OLTL was still around, because there is a lot you can do with crazy Victor Lord Jr. getting out of the nuthouse and causing chaos from time to time on a recurring basis like the Joker. But I can't seem him spouting the rote crap they give to these guys on Y&R and not looking completely checked out within about three minutes.

I agree, but I see it a little of both ways. Mack is completely off the spool in the last few episodes of the season with mania over Wolfbridge; anyone who tries to talk any sense into him, not just Karen but Greg, Gary, Detective Morrison, even Abby who all tell him to pull back, he can't do it. When Karen comes to him and tells him she's been contacted by St. Claire and that his life is on the line, his reaction is very literally 'that's good news! They're desperate!' She's terrified and he is elated. It's clear the writers are telling us Mack has gone way too far, and that's after he admittedly risked the lives of Val's unborn babies, something Ben rightly punches him out for when he figures out the truth, and which put all their families in a terrible state which is something Karen invokes re: the boys. I don't think Mack is celebrating a win, but I do think he's clinging to whatever sense of rationale he has to keep himself sane, and that means going back to the central obsessive drive that got them all here: 'Getting' Wolfbridge. So it seems like he can't even mourn or regret in a functional or coherent way, he just keeps chanting his life's purpose to his wife's prone body. I agree it's not about who he loves more, but I do think it's indicative that he cannot and will not let go of Abby no matter how much he loves Val. I do not agree with Krasker that Gary is the same man he was at the end of Season 3, but I do think Abby is a pull on him stronger than even Gary realized, which is why he abandons Val there without thought. The women have an equal place in his heart and mind at that moment IMO, which is something Gary had been denying to himself for the stretch of the final eps until that instant.

This is pretty much my take. I will never forget seeing the pictures of the very young Elizabeth working as a mechanic in the war. That's what I take away from her and respect most of all. She didn't have to do that. She put herself out there when her country faced annihilation from a fascist empire. I respect that.

It is surprising to me how quickly they seemed to ditch the Gary/Cathy affair - I'm talking about it now simply because one of Cathy's few scenes (possibly her only one) in the Season 5 finale is telling Laura she's leaving town because there's nothing for her here and it's obvious to her Gary is not over Val. This seems to come out of almost nowhere to me; Gary and Cathy discuss their past entanglements very openly and honestly once they become intimate, particularly once he's in isolation with her faking his death at the police station, and there doesn't seem to be any profound beat or confession that he can't get over either Val or Abby. Cathy seems very understanding of Gary's complicated feelings for the other two women, who they discuss, just as he is of hers for Ray (which is a great scene for her, mourning his death), and they still seem to be together. But you cut to an episode later and Cathy says she's leaving because Gary still has Val in his heart. What? I don't get it. Obviously they were planning even then to begin to pivot away from the affair, but I think it's a little bit of a loss. Not that I think Gary and Cathy were a romance for the ages, but I personally liked their unpretentious, matter of fact chemistry and natural, athletic interplay a lot and I thought it was something very different from Mills and Van Ark. It could've driven story for a bit as his kicky midlife crisis and gone to some interesting places. But it also seems clear at the end of Season 5 (just as at the beginning of the season, when Abby had been all but positioned as the evil queen at the end of S4 before they reset) that they again decided 'hey, maybe we're not done with Gary and Abby after all,' there's still a lot of complicated love there, hence the emphasis on Abby's love and guilt over him in the final hours of the season, her willingness to risk her life for him, and Gary running after her in the car and leaving Val in the dust in the final moments of "Negotiations". Tommy Krasker again has an interesting take on the finale sequence; I don't agree with all of it but with a large portion of it, and it's beautiful analysis: Richard returning as Greg Sumner's major domo in say, Season 6 or 7 - once he's firmly established with Laura - would've been very interesting, at least as a guest spot. Richard as a stand-in for Jim Westmont is interesting but I think would've just become an ancillary role. But yes, I agree I prefer McCashin hanging around.

I agree that would've been very interesting. We saw very little of Jeff Cunningham but the man who turned up in Season 2, though he'd obviously gone to an extreme that was unlike who he might have been before, was no picnic. I seem to recall Abby mentioning her and Sid's father too, but I don't remember the details. I previously had thought it wasn't totally necessary to cut Richard at the end of Season 4 given Pleshette's immense talent, but now I'm more inclined to agree with him that he would've had no solid place on the canvas. More importantly, as you say, I don't think Laura could've fully blossomed with him around. I do think they could've brought Richard back more often in a recurring role, but that's another pipe dream. And while Laura's role has already become somewhat transformed, her voice and attitude are so different that I think losing her down the road will be very tough.

Another great commentary on Abby in Season 5 (and overall) from KL writer Richard Gollance on Krasker's blog, who notes a line that I also found very important in the finale:

I did finish Season 5! Very solid stuff. I think I may try to cover it and the opening eps of Season 6 in one go in a more abstracted overview, because I'm very busy right now. I did want to make a point of admiration re: the well-known climactic scene of the season with the cliffhanger at the hotel and Karen being shot in that blood-red dress by Twin Peaks' own Grace Zabriskie. I especially liked the great climactic moment where the whole eternal Val/Gary/Abby triangle is explicated onscreen with Gary literally torn between them physically in the parking lot. Man, if Mack's stunting here isn't grounds for divorce I don't know what is.

I couldn't find a tweet linking it, but here's a non-paywalled link to a gossipy Puck News story re: Brianna Keilar allegedly stumping to keep her job at CNN, hence her recent behavior.

This is just sad, yet I can't help laughing.

Really never thought I'd see Mike again.

I don't know what to tell you, dude. They are running new Trek practically year round and have greenlit new seasons of most of these shows a year to two years in. First Picard/DSC then SNW and now Lower Decks. Their Trek schedule is fast and hectic enough that I am still catching up on the last season of DSC and Picard. Adding more live action shows right now would turn it into a meat grinder for quality just like Enterprise or a lot of Voyager. If the animated shows aren't to your liking, another show is coming soon enough. And that's even with COVID delays. What more can you want? Just stop the subscription til one comes back.

They're running new Trek right now. There's rarely any interruption between Trek shows on Paramount anymore.

Still broke: Also, the public is ahead of the Beltway again.