Vee

I don't see any point in recasting Lois now when Olivia is essentially the same character, sadly. Lisa auditioned for the Lois recast in the 2000s and clearly should've gotten the part. I love Lisa Lo Cicero and I like her chemistry with Wally Kurth so I tolerate the whole thing because I like Olivia in doses and with him, but except for a few days early in Carlivati's time pairing them up where Olivia and Ned directly discussed Lois and the similarities in background of the two women, the Lois issue has never been really addressed. That being said, if Olivia left town (or got back with Johnny Zacchara - I liked them together) and LLC came back a month later playing Lois instead, I'm not sure I'd complain. Roger Howarth gets to do it all the time! Jane is clearly willing to do part-time stints as Tracy so I say keep on bringing her back. She's gold. And you can find a way to make the schedule work for VM.

It's not about good business. Frank has a show he wants to put on and stars who can command more power and loyalty than him or his preferred favorites, or can't be controlled, do not factor into it.

They often say Lucky skypes with the kids or whatever. That's about it. They should've redone a David Hamilton-type suburban mystery with Franco and Liz's kids. Have one of the boys kill him and the others help him cover it up. Instead Franco will be venerated by them for years to come and they've had Hudson West (who should be on contract, BTW) and William Lipton acting their absolute hearts out mourning the serial killer, and I bet no one ever has a serious, honest conversation with Elizabeth about Franco and who he really was ever again.

Yeah, I think that's honestly all of it. Roger quit OLTL for ATWT about a month into Frank's tenure as EP. They spent years trying to get him back. The early scenes RH had with Ava and the Quartermaines in 2013 were honestly the highlight of his entire misbegotten tenure as Franco, and they couldn't be really enjoyed for any chemistry he had with the actors (especially Maura West) because again - it was fuckin' Franco. If they absolutely had to have Roger on the show as someone new it should've been Jimmy Lee's son eight years ago instead of the serial killer, something people were talking about and suggesting even back then, BTW. But today it's too late, AFAIC. Making us sit through Howarth #3 and Easton #4 is just contempt for the audience.

It's also, inescapably, the fact that Vanessa and Jonathan are still major GH stars with primetime success but whose footprints have never really vanished from the show. They do not need the show but are still very beloved by the audience. If they returned on contract it would fundamentally destabilize the show Frank has built now which caters to his OLTL alumni stars Howarth and Easton as well as a handful of young and (in the words of Soapdish) "peppy and cheap" white kids. What would become of Drs. Austin Gatlin-Holt and Hamilton Finn, the anonymous and indistinguishable Willow/Sasha duo, James Patrick Stuart's inexplicable continued starring role as Billy Joel-loving stable boy Valentin or the Starr Manning cosplay hour with Eden McCoy if both Brenda and Lucky return to GH?

VM is bigger than Frank and his interests, has a healthy ego and doesn't need the show, so he's intimidated by her and the fact that he can't control her. That was clear given her commentary in 2013. Same with Jonathan. I assume that's why he hasn't bothered with either of them. Look how many rounds he went with Genie before grudgingly giving her a contract. Frank's usual strategy for dealing with difficult people is to ice them out, give them happy talk, promise them big story coming and then go dark and cut them loose. Or, offer them recurring (like he tried to do with Genie and Stephen Nichols) and say take it or leave it. He can't do that with VM or JJ. Anyone he can't keep under his thumb or control the terms of their engagement he doesn't want around, or tries to marginalize.

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.