Vee

I still have it somewhere. It was quite a read, and watching the evolution out of some of the bible's concepts into some backstory (B. Hanscomb) or other characters (Ned Calder? etc.) who were much hyped in the early months of the show and then never really appeared or came together was also intriguing.

We've posted a lot of this, but here's a decent round-up:

RIP.

I don't think Nate Cohn is inherently a bad actor, but his piece last week was unbelievably tone deaf and ignorant about the actual real repercussions of Georgia voter suppression. So of course, by trying to mitigate the massive blowback from that piece he is now digging deeper and trying to highlight 'election subversion' while framing it as an 'analytically distinct' problem from the effect of the new GA bill itself (it's not). In attempting to be sympathetic to his critics he once again descends into condescending pedantry which refuses to deal in the actual political realities involved. His long, rambling thread is below. This is what happens when numbers people get high on their own supply. Just say you were wrong, Nate.

Not enough people will believe it, no. The polling and public reaction is against them. That's why McConnelI is squawking so loud - because what Biden is doing is working. Manchin didn't ruin the last bill and he won't ruin this one. So much of what he's doing is just tacky posturing.

Kate Mulgrew (Mary, RH) is interviewed for her upcoming role in the Nickelodeon animated series Star Trek: Prodigy.

But Nina is the heavy in that situation. Not a romantic leading man.

I remember people absolutely roasting Ravi on this board mere days in. I always liked the actor and got what they were going for. Was it flawlessly executed, no, but I think the relationship with Ashley often worked. I think he was meant to be a stepping stone to putting her with someone like Graham, which clearly did not pan out, but I may be wrong. I agree with others that Sussman actually gave the Cane character a new future and role and Goddard ran from it - we've talked about it before. She made him interesting as a classic heel. But the actor, his fanbase and ultimately the network couldn't take it.

Lord. This hire would be one thing if they hadn't spent the last decade or so forcing the show to be the halfway house for other ex-ABC stars. Now it's just tiresome.

Nobody is saying it's okay. That storyline doesn't change the fact that a serial rapist is no longer welcome to be added to the show as a leading man, let alone from another show. And the reason Franco was killed now is because FV lost protection from the network because of executive turnover recently as well as the changing sociopolitical climate over the last decade, particularly in recent years long after Howarth was cast as Franco. You can complain and call it hypocrisy but the fact is those things are real world events that have created this result, and they are valid reasons.

Of course what Nina does is a form of rape. And nobody is thrilled with Sonny or Jason either, John. But while those choices are bad and we'd all like to make major changes to the larger fabric of the show that doesn't change the facts with Todd, a rapist from another TV show. Many of us may want to get Sonny and Jason out of the frontburner star positions too, but the fact is the two mobsters who have been on the show for almost 30 years are not going to be as immediate a concern for the network as frontburnering a serial rapist or a serial killer, both recent characters, one from an entirely different soap opera (and Todd's history as a rapist was always a central part of his character constantly invoked in story). You can say you want Todd back. Just admit it. But it's just not appropriate or realistic in this day and age to bring him onto a soap opera, let alone one he has no business starring on.

They already did encounter Todd. And Todd did well on the show in a lot of ways, IMO. But the fact is there is a TV landscape pre-MeToo and one after it, and Todd no longer fits.

I think they're just deeply uncomfortable with the party that so many of their sources, friends, editors, etc. belong to being actively named as the party of voter suppression and Jim Crow. They want to believe in the classic myth of the old school 'fiscally responsible' Republican being the true standard bearer of the party when it's just not anymore. They don't want to face that or what this is, so they try to gnatfuck the details and pretend it's a both sides debate, like they tried to do with Trump for so long until it was far too late.

Several of us have already suspected it has to do with a) changing management above FV and b) the advent of MeToo.