Vee

The writing for Passions was sloppy on Day 1!

I should give it a go. I never watched the original with Gabriel Byrne but I heard good things.

Reminds me of Bob Woods on OLTL cackling about countless scenes set in the hospital lounge. Why? "Because the set is up!"

With the exception of B&B, any time a network soap in the late 2000s/2010s/2020s starts going outside or off-set to ugly or banal-looking areas it's because they're low on cash. I remember ATWT staging a poor fight scene by some dumpsters. The constant 'remotes' on that show, AMC and OLTL near the end all looked pretty poor. Staging stuff in studio stairwells is super obvious too. Good remotes are well-lit and don't look incongruous (like Pine Valley, California on AMC after the doomed L.A. move) or like you're just using whatever's immediately available despite if it fits the scenes.

I still feel it is largely unnecessary to recast Lucky after JJ's return - he proved again there is no one like him, IMO. I think Branson or someone else could work if absolutely needed, but first I'd be certain Jonathan wouldn't rather get something to feed his kids if he doesn't have another Nashville-style opportunity on the way. It would not take much to get this show on its feet and viable - locking down Vanessa, firing a ton of dead weight, going after Jonathan or getting a strong Lucky recast - but it would, again, require investing in foundational stars bigger than the network's casual neglect and disinterest while they're simply waiting for it to starve and die, and bigger than FV's vision of the show as a budget playground for himself, and neither party wants to do that. So it's going to just slowly die as mediocre at best.

I'm not particularly happy about the speech. but I understand the issue. Biden is dealing with two supreme egotists in Manchin and Sinema who have to be massaged gently to get his priorities through while making it seem like their own idea; if he alienates them by demanding the filibuster die and pounding the pulpit, they'll dig in hoping for a book deal about being The Last Non-Partisan. I think Manchin will agree to filibuster reforms, which will be absolutely essential to pass anything. I also think it has to be soon, and this speech is not nearly enough without action and direct engagement and pressurizing them in private. Which needs to be coming, and then the rhetoric needs to get more specific in public. Right now, I think what is working most on them is the Texas Dem contingent, Jim Clyburn, and the groups pressuring them one on one, as well as the Senate. And Biden is going to have to get in there, whether he does it on TV or not. I'm sorry, but any key people (and I'm not saying this is Joe) pretending "just vote!" and educating voters on turnout is going to turn back what the GOP is doing is not enough, and anyone left in the establishment apparatus who believes they can lean on that to avoid dealing with the Senate dysfunction is delusional. Real action is going to be necessary. I don't care if he excoriates them on TV, but I care that the work gets done. Important thread re: the supposed 'many Senate Dems' secretly supporting Manchin and Sinema, none of whom I've been afraid of: In the meantime, we (probably) got it:

Yep.

They almost certainly would've had Vicki's memory clouded and unclear about Barnabas had the 1991 show continued, just as they did when Vicki returned to 1968 in the original series.

Jill pushed Sarah and Amber before they would've likely left. It was a huge blunder and very typical of her.

If this was eight years ago I might have patience for Dr. Austin. Today there's no way. It doesn't matter if they've finally found a remotely appropriate role for Howarth to play (Quartermaine, doctor). It's too much.

She was pushed out by JFP.

The first one I thought of, yes. And I def agree about how bland they made Emily with Natalia. Such a waste, especially of a triangle that on paper (Nikolas/Emily/Zander) was dynamite given the torch she had carried for Nik since adolescence.

A huge loss.

LOL, this is not "my argument". It's what literally happened! It has happened countless times throughout the history of soap operas, let alone network television. TV executives routinely make tacky decisions. Why is this so impossible to believe? This is not a forensics debate society.

It's not, at all. Guza and co. just didn't like Liz.

I don't blame him or even Lucky for that; that was Guza. JJ explicitly said he left again after only a couple years because of the excessively grim and dark writing that failed to reunite that couple in a healthy way, which is what he felt had been promised him.

JJ made Lucky as a cop totally work when it never had before, AFAIC. He and Dante should've run the show for years to come like Luke and Scorpio. No one needs to convince you - it's simply how the network worked in the early 21st century. I had a huge crush on Jonathan Jackson as a kid, so it's not a question of me not finding him attractive. I thought he was very hot. That doesn't change the fact that had the network or the execs there had their choice, they would never have cast him as their teen heartthrob. The higher-ups are often very shallow and focused on more conventional types of 'beauty'. JJ and Amber do not fit that shallow mold. These are facts. That doesn't make them any less beautiful people, but they are not the cliche soap 'type'.

AMC and OLTL worked at a half hour in 2013. I wouldn't have a problem going back to that, but if they're streaming I'd want them to get the full 30 or close to it.

GH cast JJ at age 12, lol. And by the time the recast came along in 2000, the network was taking a much firmer hand in things. They would not have cast Jonathan, at age 12 or age 18 or age 21, in the 2000s. My opinion of soap standards being low is backed up by over two decades of them being low. But even when they were good, they still cast for T&A over talent often in the golden years. There is a reason Ryan's Hope blew through umpteen recasts and lost good people, among so many other shows.

Soaps have cast for abs over talent for decades. It's not shocking.

It definitely plays out, although only up to a certain point on one key issue. 1795 stays with Vicki til the end of her time on the show, let's put it that way.

With JJ gone, ABC wanted a hunkier Lucky and JY was hot at the time from B&B. The network (and perhaps Riche) didn't care about anything else. I would love to know who else auditioned back then, I know it was a contentious process and that GF didn't want Jonathan replaced at all while TG drove a hard bargain as well. The J.R. role on AMC ultimately played to Young's strengths - he could be loud, arrogant, boorish, etc. And he has improved as an actor a lot since his GH days, to be fair; he's come a long way. But he was never exactly subtle, and that did not change at AMC or later when he returned to B&B. As for Georgie, both she and Emily were terrible mistakes to kill off. They could both easily be resurrected and then sent off-canvas til needed.

I had wanted to see Tony and Finola together for years - with the dialogue team Guza, Labine and co. had had in place for many years. They were almost all let go by Frank Valentini, or gone not long before. When it actually happened in 2012, the pairing was extremely poorly done by Ron and Frank. I didn't care at all. The writing would not have helped. He first came in with the Guza team still fully in place. Jacob Young was a very bad actor back then. (He also hasn't necessarily improved much vs. simply gotten very hammy and begun playing to his strengths instead, but people don't want to talk about that)

I would not call what Geary was doing in that period in 2001 or some of the lesser Guza stories 'phoning it in' - I thought his performances were often OTT and disastrous.