FrenchBug82

Poll numbers released in the past few days:

Biden approval, registered voters:

Quinnipiac: 33%

Reuters/Ipsos: 45%

Politico/Morning Consult: 44%

Economist/YouGov: 45%

First let's all notice which one we all heard of in the media and which ones we didn't.

Second another reminder that even the best pollsters (and as Vee said Q's numbers have found consistently lower numbers for Ds in the first place) sometimes find outliers. It is the law of statistics. Sometimes a bad sample or a weird variation. It happens.
That's why one should NEVER overreact to a single poll, especially if the reason we notice it is because its numbers are spectacularly different from every other poll until then. Sometimes it means something but most often it doesn't. Biden is not widely popular but no freakin' way is he at 33%.

Third the narrative is that Biden is unpopular but historically low to mid-40s is actually not bad and mildly unpopular at best.
The media is committed to a narrative until they are bored of it. Right now it is INFLATION! rather than the fact the economy is going gangbusters and BIDEN UNPOPULAR! despite his numbers are better than Trump's ever were.
It is irritating because the coverage loops back in and influences people's perception of reality but the wheel turns and they will get tired of that narrative like they did every other previous one.
And the HUGE gap between the negative perception of the economy in polling and the actual reality - masked by covid frustration, true - is too wide to last forever. People are going to pick up on the fact the economy is the best it has been in thirty years and inflation, always a temporary pandemic-related worldwide problem, is going to slow down soon enough.

The only question is whether the frustrations over a couple of Senators blocking the Democrat agenda feeds discouragement at "Democratic fecklessness" (unfair but an eternal storyline) and lets the fascist crazies back through.
Likely? Probably, sadly, based on historical patterns. Certain? No.
There is a lot different this year from past years - remember how certain people were the Rs would take back the Senate in 2010 in a horrible year for Dems and then Republican picked a whole bunch of crazies as candidates and the Ds held on. Look at the cast of losers that are running in Republican primaries this eyar and tell me they are not potentially throwing away some winnable races.
And Trump is a wild card. Let him campaign; see what this does for Dem turnout. Youngkin managed to hide his true nature; they won't be able to do this in a national cycle.

In any case, the atmosphere is not great for Dems but the fundamentals aren't nearly as bad as one would think based on the doom and gloom. It is only matters though if the doom and gloom doesn't become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

33 minutes ago, Kane said:

For anyone interested, I recently finished a complete watch of 1993 and did episode counts as I went. Top 5 are Lisa Peluso (168 episodes), Laura Wright (141), Jessica Collins (139), Jean LeClerc (133), and Dennis Parlato (132). Full results are posted here.

That's pretty neat! Your blog is pretty cool too. I can't believe it passed me by until then. Great work!

I am only surprised by Jeremy being so high. But I never gelled with that character so I guess I was tuning him out

4 minutes ago, ironlion said:

Now that were back down the the Hope vs Steffy/Taylor vs Brooke rabbit hole again, maybe it's bad writing but I thought Hope & Steffy made peace at Steffy's wedding. Now all of a sudden she's getting territorial about the Logans versus Forresters again? This is why Hope shouldn't have been Steffy's maid of honor or whatever, especially considering that the latter slept with her husband. 

I hear what you are saying if this was real life but think of it as Brooke/Stephanie. How many times did we get moments of peace between them in between all-out warfare? Plenty!

That's why I said I liked the fundamental relationship between them. There are enough bonds to keep them in each other's life that they want to get along but the fact is they don't and the baggage between them personally and between their immediate family inevitably puts them at odds time and time again even when they are trying not to.
It is complicated and it is not black and white and neither of them is innocent and when the tension flares up again for an organic reason other than Liam, I find it interesting to watch.
 

I think RN is a good looking man, even as a daddy, and we shall see how it works out chemistry-wise but I think the age gap is definitely going to visually be a lot more jarring than it has been with Burgi.

41 minutes ago, Soapsuds said:

PAS is the ideal gay boyfriend/husband. And yes he was good on GL playing straight.

We are veering away from the Burgi topic but Amelia Heinle is in the scene so I feel I have enough of an excuse to post shirtless PAS having great chemistry as a straight man.

48 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

I like it too and right now it comes out of their parents’ fraught relationships, which is the way it should be. Not drippy Liam.

That said, Steffy needs a good slap from time to time.

I tend to agree but it is weird to see those clips on YouTube and the consensus over there is very much anti-Hope.
I get the Logan women have a team of rabid haters but for all the problems with the writing of Hope/Steffy/Liam I always felt that at least he had been good at portraying both of them as making bad choices: they both went after Liam when he was married to the other for instance.
So it is weird to me to hear the Steffy fans use the Brooke insults on Hope without any self-awareness. Do they not remember how that triangle started?

23 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

JMW serves bitchface better than almost anyone. I wanted Hope to smack Steffy.

I actually like the tense complicated relationship between Hope and Steffy. It is interesting and it works ... when it is not about Liam.
 

Just now, Faulkner said:

Lol stahp. PAS is good at selling the hetsex. Not sure even he could melt the iceberg that is AH.

We gay ones already knew about him all along and yet he still was in two straight VERY popular pairings on two different shows - and a third successful - if doomed -  one with AH.
I mean they were decent enough with each other and outside of BM and Michael Weatherly (who is obviously not a an option for at least three serious reasons), he was the only one she ever had some believable sparks with. So who knows?
Not that it is an option since I think PAS is happy on his farm with his man but it is fun to think about.
 

58 minutes ago, Franko said:

Detouring off topic for a moment, but assuming money and interest was there, this could be a fun way to celebrate B&B's 35th (or 40th) anniversary. A week of visits from Forrester and Spectra's "former models". Kim as a Cheryl Tiegs type, Kristian Alfonso as "Brooke Shields", etc.

A bit like Days did for Greta's coronation where they invited a gazillion of big name soap stars from other soaps to be two-line extras as guests of the ceremony.
 

This thread had spoiled it already but it is confirmed Sarah is coming back. I am ambivalent about the character but I love LG and I am glad she is well again enough to go back to work.

31 minutes ago, Khan said:

(Which would be true, because Heinle has chemistry with virtually no one.)

I don't want @Khan to make fun of me ;;-) but this is why I sort of still prefer Billy Miller in the role. Whatever one can say of his acting style and all, he is the only actor she had atually believable and interesting chemistry with and I bought them as star-crossed lovers.
I have a LOT of issue with Jason Thompson as Billy but the main one would be that I see no spark there at all which makes all the Billy/Victoria stuff feel even more tedious.

AH used to have a pretty neat chemistry with Paul Anthony Stewart back on Loving. I'd definitely would not mind having that tasty dish back acting on soaps if Y&R wants to create a new role. 
 

23 minutes ago, RavenWhitney said:

I find it hard to believe that Sony would can Burgi if he was fully vaccinated and boostered. 

While my first instinct was to appreciate the transparency on his part, the more cynical me who woke up this morning figures that in Hollywood, people only tell a story that makes them look a bit bad if the real story makes them look really bad.

I have no proof but I am pretty convinced his "breach of Covid protocol" was either a lot more severe in context that he says here or that it wasn't the first time or that there were other factors to which this became the last straw.

Remember the wife's commenting on his firing being "slimey"? In his carefully-spun story, he doesn't present anything that could justify her feeling aggrieved. So there is clearly something else.
 

16 minutes ago, Soaplovers said:

Alan picks the oddest times to interrupt.  I could understand if the conversation was not flowimg, but it's always when a guest is telling a story

YES! As I posted on another thread about the Cynthia Watros interview, the problem is not even that his comments are inane, it is that he gives them IN THE MIDDLE OF guests telling anecdotes. It is as if he either is not listening at all or he doesn't understand the anecdote being told and how wait for the kicker works.
And some actors*resses keep going but some get distracted or are polite (or get discouraged) and never finish some of their stories.

It is the conversation equivalent of laughing halfway through someone telling you a joke. 

I am never connected live during those but I wish people in the chat would tell him "Let her finish". If he is not aware he is doing this, maybe that would end up cluing him in.

1 hour ago, Darn said:

Speaking of Danny, he and Chris are terminally boring. They have 2 topics of conversation, David and how great they think each other is.

YES! And I didn't even really feel any chemistry at all. 

The only time Danny was ever interesting was with Phyllis and we were supposed to root AGAINST that couple.

47 minutes ago, slick jones said:

Please stop with pushing Ass-ton on the women of Port Chuck!

Oh, and as for the Man-bun

 

It does feel interesting to me that he has been on the scene since MAY and besides the scenes establishing who he was he has had literally zero story of his own.
They have screen-tested him with several actresses but the more salient point is that they have actually not pulled the trigger on any of them despite having plenty of opportunity.
And besides his supporting role in the Leo story, that could have easily been any of the medical characters, they have actually not used him to drive or advance story at all.
We see him and he exists but he is not even a supporting player. He is at Spinelli-level in terms of story importance.

It is interesting because if they really wanted to push him on us, that's not how to do it. It seems to me that using him so little is either them realizing they have to move cautiously because the very idea of RH on a third role is so poorly received or them recognizing it is not working at all. They are giving a cushy job to RH where he shows up but doesn't have to do anything of value but they are not, all things considered, shoving him down our throats.
I know how I expected this to go when he showed up and how much Franco was used and overused and actually oversold, and I am actually relieved here

4 minutes ago, Vee said:

And saying these shows shouldn't shake things up because it might offend more old women in Florida or wherever and lose a few more eyes isn't offering a solution, it's just asking for more of the same.

I 100% agree with that.

And I am on the side of them needing a circuit breaker too so I think we agree.
I guess I am more a scaredy-cat than you are but your point does make sense that treading waters like they are now will lead to their death the same way a ill-conceived reboot by a writer who doesn't like soaps might.

Fair case.

1 minute ago, Vee said:

Who cares? It's not like these shows are worth keeping on in their current state.

I knew you'd say that lol

I know you feel that way and I am very depressed by the state of Y&R in particular too but I honestly would be heartbroken to lose the remaining soaps, even mediocre as they often are these days.

As cringe as OLTL for instance often got in its last years, do you really think we are better off with it being gone altogether? 
I still see what they could be and I don't want to give up. But maybe I am clinging to false hopes and it won't ever get better.

I honestly understand why you feel the way you do but I am coming from a place that when a show is gone, it is gone forever.

2 hours ago, Melroser said:

Is there really anyone beating down the doors these days wanting to be a headwriter on daytime? I have a feeling that part of why we're stuck with some of the writers we have is because no one else wants to do it. There are too many people's hands in the mix to be able to write. Daytime needs to lessen the reigns and give an experience writer (whether primetime writers or even suspense/romance novelists) a chance. It's just going to get worse if they don't, so why not take a chance?

There are different sides to this though.

As interesting as a circuit-breaker with a Harding Lemay-type who is coming from a completely different area of writing, the remaining core of fans would react very negatively to anyone who doesn't share the love of the genre that we do.
And chances are: they wouldn't and the potential downside of that are as dramatic as the potential upside.

What I am more interested in is that these writing teams feature a lot of writers. Why are so few being promoted and the headwriters tend to be people who have been headwriters before. I realize there might be additional skills needed but shows need to farm potential future HW better indeed.

And rewarding mediocrity with job security certainly isn't helping on any of those fronts.

29 minutes ago, TVFAN1144 said:

I didn’t follow this show much after the 80s but I read a synopsis of the Donna character.  She was quite the cougar it seems with Mathew Corey and Jake?

It is funny to hear it put like that coz I had never thought of the Jake dalliance as a cougar moment although it technically was.
The focus was more that it was her daughter's boyfriend and I don't recall the age difference being even mentioned. Also, and that's my personal opinion, but I always tought Tom Eplin looked older than he was (or rather that his character was supposed to be) - and Anna Stuart looked younger - so the ten-year age difference didn't read on-screen that much imho.
Matt on the other hand was clearly a cougar relationship and played that way.

1 hour ago, Forever8 said:

I do wish they would bring on Ian Buchanan as James with a recast Mary to add to the mix too.

I like the show very much right now so I don't want to complain but yes, my main issue with current story is that it is weird for Sheila to be fixated on Finn while Mary is out there - and if I remember correctly, alienated from her mother at the time she exited.

1 hour ago, Forever8 said:

Sheila talking to herself in her hotel room is something I'm over. Why isn't she trying to get Steffy to relapse on drugs instead of getting Brooke to drink again? 

This is weird too but in defense of the show this isn't the first time Sheila get obsessively sidetracked into getting revenge on a character that is secondary to what her main purpose supposedly is.

I wouldn't dare speculate why but it is pretty clear that from the way it was announced - an Instagram vid by the actor himself rather than a statement by him or the show - and the wording he chose "I am done with", something happened and this wasn't planned.

2 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I notice that Charles Grant (who I did think came across better onscreen than Lau at AW) also seemed more bloated and low-key there compared to some of his earlier or later work.

He was a lot heavier on The Bold and Beautiful (96-98) so while I don't know what he looks like now, I had always assumed it was just that as he got older, his metabolism was that of a thicker man who slowly got thicker.
And even though I liked Amanda/Evan on the first go, neither roles really recaptured why he was so appealing on EoN. Sometimes magic only strikes once.
 

4 minutes ago, Khan said:

Between the stiffness and the extra pounds, it truly seems like LL was miserable on that show.

Did he ever discuss his time at AW? I have read bad reviews of it so many times in the past thirty years that I have to wonder if there was something else going on in his life or something BTS that explains it.

Why does the Devil dress Johnny as a pimp? I am half-expecting Chloe to get a PTSD attack if she runs into him

14 minutes ago, Vee said:

It is, yes.

But the social change is ready, and the shows would find a more blended audience with what they lost on new platforms like streaming. The networks and shows don't care because they don't care about evolving the genre or their shows; they just want to keep them onscreen marking time for as long as possible. Y&R especially is coasting on past acclaim, it's a dead cell. The only show vaguely attempting to do more for the future is DAYS, and they're not exactly delivering great quality.

I'd even surmise that social media might HURT Days there.

See: the reaction to Beyond Salem. Which was great fun and all and got a good reaction online but probably ends up encouraging RC in his worst instincts and masking the need for better more interesting stories for the gay characters, for example.
Same with the possession or the Lisa Rinna/ED reunion. It gets good buzz but it is not a substitute to good long-term writing. So in that sense, social media hurts if they confuse buzz with good audience response.

I think the Luke death is more directed at traditional media than social media but it is a similar miscalculation of courting buzz and publicity at the expense of storytelling.

19 minutes ago, Vee said:

Gay story and Black story on soaps is still few and far between today, because outside of DAYS they don't cater to the more coastal online contingent much; they cater to red state demographics.

That is 100% accurate but I think it has to do with executies catering to the lowest denominator for fear of antagonizing even a small part of what is left of the audience.
They are afraid to move in any direction because there is so little audience left that they are afraid offending even a small chunk of it would be the end of it all. They don't see the potential upside of being bolder in telling stories about other demographics; that they could gain more with black and modern young audiences that they would lose with conservative housewives.
It is unfortunate that social media, in that sense, has not managed to drive that point home. But that shows yet another way that social media in itself cannot move things if the underlying social change is not ready. And it doesn't, sadly, seem to be yet in the business offices of soap studios.