FrenchBug82

I am too young to have seen the Slut of Springfield fountain moment on-screen when it aired. But when I did end up seeing it, years and years later, after hearing of it so many times for so many reasons (Iconic! The acting! etc.) over so many years, I was thoroughly underwhelmed. I get Reva and Kim Zimmer's popularity because her charisma shines. But I don't get why *that* scene stuck to people.

No question whatsoever that this would be the case. I always rag on modern soaps for going to the opposite extreme and completely sacrificing the kind of long-term storytelling and play-every-beat aspect that make soap a distinct and wonderful genre but their fundamental diagnosis: that current audiences need a faster pace isn't wrong. I think today's soap get it wrong by playing things as fast as primetime - which basically throws away the one advantage daytime has over primetime which is time - but some legendary runs like Lemay's AW or Bell's Days/Y&R would drive people mental today.

Karen's dress is WAY too short. I don't think the dresses otherwise are bad but the hair displeases me on most of them. Gizelle's blonde is WAY too blonde. And all I see with that pulled ponytail on Askala is ears. Ashley would be my pick overall.

Whatever one can say about LW as Carly - I like her but I know her take on the role grates others - THIS is the kind of storyline she excels at. Ironically, I was thinking that original Britt - the bitchy antagonist of the Patrick story - was perfectly believable as a potential CoS. But writers fail to see if you shave off a character's personality for the sake of one storyline, what in turn can be done in other storylines changes. Seriously. When Ava needled Carly on Jason and then Nina had that line about timing and Sonny walking in on Jason/Carly right before they could consummate, I thought OK They are still trying to build something up here: they keep playing Sonny/Nina so clearly they want to go there and they are finally hinting that the Jason/Carly stuff might bug Sonny enough to justify... Oh look Sonny and Jason just had a "mature" conversation where 75% of the drama has been squeezed out of already. OK Then.

Because I try to keep things positive, I will say also that I am actually glad that Sally finally has a story - even if it is C-story - that makes sense with her past (very Spectra of her) and where her motives and actions are clear. I am in no illusion this can last but it is a relief to know the potential of the B&B character can translate, which was hard to see with the muddled mess that was the writing for her until now. It is not extraordinary writing but it is a Sally I *get*.

That's a smarter way to put what I meant and YES I fully agree. Indeed you could tell he had loved OLTL and GH for a long time and was inspired - for better or worse - by these universes. I just don't feel any love or inspiration from his Days work.

I hadn't thought of it this way but that actually makes sense. And I guess they felt they could get away with playing it light since the baby wasn't really dead. But it still reads so tone-deaf and icky, even as I enjoy well enough the underlying story.

A LOT of the Emmys post-2000 - nominations and wins - are name recognition. Particularly in the leading categories

I mean, if he wants to write a soap that doesn't take itself very seriously, fine, I am open to it. But there are ways to do it and there are *ways*. He can do it without being lame and/or disrespecting the audience and the character. Beyond Salem was fluffy, silly and funny and still managed to celebrate the characters and respect the audience and tell an acceptable story. So it is not like he can't wink at the audience and STILL do something decent soap-wise. But on the main show I am not feeling a vision or a sense of purpose or tone or inspiration from the show as of late. It is meandering with a couple of headline-grabbing ideas that could work if he didn't play them as cheaply (narrative-wise, not budget-wise). When he was writing OLTL or GH, I didn't love all he did, far from it, but I had a sense of what he was trying to do with the shows. I am very confused what his DOOL is supposed to be conveying to the audience. Which brings it back to what you said: he doesn't seem to actually like the show he is writing for.

OK So I am super relieved that it wasn't my imagination. I hadn't remembered that comedic tone at all so for a minute there I was worried I was overinterpreting a series of episodes. Such a strange choice. That said I think the stories themselves are good - albeit with the caveat that knowing how a lot of them will end/be retconned softens the emotional frustration.

I have been getting lost in October 2001 episodes just because... and while no one cares, I have some thoughts. - I had mostly associated the Todd-makes-Blair-believe-Jack-died story with KdP's tour-de-force performances at the key points of the story (that live performance still dear to my heart) but I had completely forgotten how much the immediate aftermath of it was played almost as... comedy? It is very jarring tonally. Involving David obviously had to bring that comedic touch but a lot of it plays as a Feydeau farce with people shuffling people out of a room right before someone else enters. RH is playing it very broad, the writers are introducing silly side characters (the Mexican nuns) and even the dialogue for Blair feels unnatural - if I didn't know the story I would actually think Blair knows and is intentionally saying things to make Todd uncomfortable. She actually doesn't and it is the writers making her say weird things to make Todd uncomfortable but it comes off... odd. - Also, TW being gay was an open secret, at least in a lot of the gay community - I don't know how much already back then though - but it is funny in hindsight to see how many inside jokes the writers were putting in the scripts about it. - Finally, I wasn't following fan forums back then so I don't know how people felt about the story then - I think the fact Jessica still ended up being Viki's daughter certainly saved it for me - but I had also forgotten that horrible Natalie was ... kinda fun?

Every time the folks of Knots Landing have done events, interviews, Q&A (and Mills/Van Ark/Lee still do events together regularly) the question is asked of them and they say they have no clue and can't get an answer why. Huge mystery there.

Did anyone ever explain what the thought was behind this... choice? Surely, they could see how it looked the same way we did!

I don't know how unpopular this would really be but co-signing this to the moon and back. I do think that while Dallas was obviously a ratings juggernaut and therefore better know, "critics" and most people watching both would concur that KL was a leaps and bounds a superior soap content-wise. I agree that I don't hate the last few seasons of Dallas the way I hate the last season of Melrose. And one reason is this incredibly unpopular opinion: I actually liked Kimberly Foster as Michelle. And while the characters in his family were mostly a miss, Carter McKay was a pretty decent villain and his first season umbrella story was actually fairly solid.

That's why I hate when soaps do stories about movies, the music business, or show-business in general. It always end up looking and sounding so lame and unrealistic - which is saying something!

Is that the sword fight? Coz I want to see Alexandra handling a sword. If we are doing time travel and cloning, let's have Marj Dusay as a samurai. I'd have watched that.

I am easy

That's another game I wish there was a "scientific" way to count and play: what is the record for two female characters having gone to bed with the same guys? I know AMC Brooke and Erica became something of a running joke in that regard but I would bet on B&B Brooke and Taylor.

It is weird they don't pop up more often. PD does it on Y&R so she is clearly open to doing one episode at a time to advance story. But I guess Chloe has no story to advance. I am personally of the opinion no character is ever "played out". They may not inspire the current writing regime but with so many layers and history, inspiration can turn a character into something interesting again. Clearly hasn't happened to Chloe or Phillip or Brady in a while. But look at Lucas: the writing for Lucas has been atrocious for 90% of his time on the show and when he was written out we can't say he was missed story-wise (I still missed him but he wasn't essential to stories). And yet with a writer that wanted to play him it has worked so beautifully!

In all fairness, I am attracted to almost all these men too.

I realize I am indulgent toward Marj but that's why, as horrified as I was at the time and still am by this atrocious scene, I do not put the blame entirely on her. Everything - from the stage direction to the acting of everyone else - is just messy and over-the-top. I have to conclude it was the choice and instructions of the director, presumably to express chaos but it came off... very badly. I don't know who directed this but I'd put it at their feet, mostly.

I can't imagine anyone would ask her straight-up. I have to imagine - and I think the timing bears that out - it may have been out of osmosis - maybe subconscious - with Charles Keating. These things do happen when you spend a lot of time with someone. It would be ridiculous if she had made this as a conscious acting choice for Rachel but it may have been something that came up out of doing a lot of work with him. Just speculatin'. It is not just her accent: her acting style definitely changed in the last eight-ish years of the show along with her accent and her styling. Her affect became very much very wealthy woman joining a pot-smoking commune where they meditate and spend hours talking about the artistic value of a rock I don't know VW personally but watching her social media leads me to the conclusion that basically for the last few years she just played Rachel as a weathier version of herself.

Obviously I don't know the sequence of events. It could very well be that Frank was strongly in favor of it all along and all but if I know anything about business - show business in particular - is that they only do the right thing when there is more upside than potential downsides. It is only because the tiff was public that the potential downsides - losing cast members - were outweighed by PR concerns enough that higher-ups would go along with it. The fact the other soaps didn't - and I am sure there are also executives there who feel strongly about mandating vaccines - is a tell for me. Usually suits prefer not to rock the boat, certainly not out of something as "flimsy" as the health and well-being of employees or morals.

She left in early 2008.