FrenchBug82

I am sure they could have found a way to introduce a clingy ex for Bobby without coming up with this incredibly convoluted story that completely changed the character, from his name to his entire personality. Unfortunately all I could find was this: https://www.welovesoaps.net/2013/09/robert-kelker-kelly-interview.html Which is ... not helpful. On the other hand this was interesting albeit leaning a bit too much on the JFP spin imho. Does not explain NBC wanted him so much.

Probably an unpopular opinion but while I disliked the Heaven Can Wait story a lot, I initially liked RKK as Bobby Reno. Not in any way shape form enough to justify to fire anyone to get him, let alone Alice B., but I liked the rough but sensitive blue-collar thing he had going. A bit cliche but it worked (problematic as he is, RKK can act) and he and JB had decent chemistry. It helped too that I disliked Jake/Vicky. It is when it turned into the ridiculous Shane mess that they completely and utterly lost me. I don't know if I ever knew or forget but why did they completely change the story and who he was? That possibly can't have been the intended story all along since the Ryan-as-a-ghost story does not make sense if Bobby wasn't intended to be Bobby at the beginning. So what happened? What possessed them to do that?

I have been thinking about it a lot since I read your post yesterday and I really think you might be right. On top of the unwelcome Peter and Cyrus returns, the Chase/Willow/Michael reveal also certainly felt rushed. I know it was probably a good thing that it wrapped up quickly but still didn't feel like this was where the setup should have led to in terms of "one episode and done". And we are on standby for how the Jax/Nina/Sonny thing turns out but if Nina ends up just telling Sonny next week, that will also feel like the story was cut short (I mean, it went on for a long time but that would be a strangely mundane way to unlock it). So I think your theory holds that after six months of hands-off there might have been some additional cooks in the kitchen for these later summer episodes.

It is funny because you can recognize his distinct way of speaking and the direct line with his current speech pattern from today but you can hear the German-ness of his accent a lot more than you can now. Thanks for sharing. The pie moment was fun.

I had never heard this and I have been trying to wrap my head around it but... I can't. I mean, one of the major problems with Frankie's death is that we SAW as much of it as they possible could show us short of seeing her actually gurgling and turning blue, down to that goddamn begging. I can't possibly see how they could have written a remotely plausible (even by the loosest plausibility standards of soaps) story as to how she could be Frankie. Of course this is the show that cast two different actresses as characters we had known for fifteen years to be identical twins so... The other reason I am skeptical is that that would have been the exact Kathleen/Cass/Frankie story of a few years prior, wouldn't it? Repeats are not unheard of but that would be quite on the nose. Of course if that had been the plan I would have accepted because I love AB (although history has proven that you can't recapture chemistry twice) and while I love Lisa Peluso and Cass/Lila had fun chemistry, they didn't feel like an "endgame" couple to me. But I would be surprised if that had been anything more than a thought bubble thrown out there as a Hail Mary to save the show

Well, I took it for what it was: an excuse to spend time with characters and actors that I adored. That's where the fun laid and where the "moments" could be found - in watching them do their thing and their chemistry. But almost none of the actual plots worked for me and the script (dialogue) itself was actually quite bad at times. But I expected it because those reunion TV movies never really work and I knew coming in we weren't going to get masterful subtle Knots Landing plotting in two two-hour movies with almost the entire cast to use and some cameos to hammer in.

This is where hiring a good actress really pays off. It would be really easy for the story to go in the wrong direction or Nina to come off as extremely unsympathetic. People might still judge her obviously but having someone selling the hell out of this acting-wise is what makes the storyline worth it for me. There has to be a twist coming because that would be a somewhat underwhelming way to wrap this part of the story. Why have Peter and then Jax find out if Nina just ends up telling him herself shortly thereafter without the fact Peter and Jax know having any real storyline consequence? I have been defending the show against accusations it is "soapless"; I sure hope they don't immediately make me eat my words!

Maybe they are hoping to use the reunion to clean up the damage a bit? I am not sure how, granted, but maybe if they openly address the issues the audience has had with the season (a big IF since it would require Bravo, the producers, Cohen and the Housewives to do some introspection... good luck there), people will not be left with nearly as bitter a taste in their mouths? Btw last season I know Dorinda's firing was announced before the reunion aired. But was it announced before it was filmed? I have had a theory that they wanted to see if Dorinda managed to clean up after herself at the reunion - by being contrite - and when she mostly stood her ground against Tinsley, for better or for worse, that's when they decided there was no salvaging her for the time being and went with the "pause". But it all depends on the timing obviously.

I am actually not meaning this to be as shady as it is going to sound but as someone who has been in the US for twenty years and still has an accent: since he is going all right-wing nationalist IRL in a way that may be a bit contradictory for an immigrant, isn't he trying to force himself to lose his original accent?

Because even a show running on all cylinders (which GH is not) would have down time. The show had a great run until the Maxie/Peter reveal, then a bad few months after that, then it had a really great run in late spring/early summer and it has since lost momentum again. All in 2021. It is cyclical! I am not trying to defend all we are seeing though. I am simply disagreeing with the specific point that the show is soapless. It is not going great but it is not because it is not trying to be a soap. Whether it is good soap is up to the eye of the beholder but it is soap. Sonny/Nina to talk about the current front burner storyline is undistilled soap story. Over at B&B "story" is Eric can't get it up and gives permission to wife to continue cheating with her lover. That's... not soap. Not vision. Not even a story Hence my nitpicking that "soapless" criticism because I think it is unfair considering how others are not even trying (I mean... Y&R... come on!) But I agree: I have not enjoyed August/September GH too much so far (and probably even less than a lot of fans since I am not nearly as enthused by Spencer/Trina so I don't even have that going). But I see them trying to be a soap and so I grant them more leeway to have "down times"

Oh don't get me wrong: there are problems with the writing (and some of the big decisions like casting Howarth again). But it is not a lack of effort or vision or "soapiness".

I knew Scott Bailey and Adrienne Frantz were married because I remember thinking it was so random when it happened. But it was a long while ago (2011). I am going to be catty and say I was surprised ... that they are still together (happy for them though!).

I personally disagree with this line of criticism. I have my problems with some of the choices made, obviously, but current GH by far is the soapiest of the soaps still on-air. I really don't get watching the Nina/Sonny/Carly/Jason/Britt story and not recognizing this is classic soap. One can happily criticize the way the story is written but everything in it is pure soap: from the convenient coincidences to the convoluted motives of each characters to the secrets being almost revealed but not because of further coincidences, etc... Same with Spencer/Trina and the fact he is Victor and the Esme secret. And BrookLynn raising Maxie's baby. And Peter being alive. Again: not necessarily *good* but totally soapy and they deserve credit for it. So I disagree that GH currently is soapless. It is not even a question of whether it is good or not (I think it had a few great months earlier this year that have slowed down of late, presumably in the runup to November sweeps) but they are trying to tell stories which is more than I can say for two if not three of the other soaps at the moment.

He is 31??????????? Holy F. I didn't realize. First he doesn't look it at all and... time flies. I feel old now!

She has definitely had really strong moments and her overall characterization over decades is to be commended (she built a really recognizable coherent compelling character over decades which I think is a skill of soap actors that is not celebrated as much as "good acting in a specific storyline") BUT she is not a 21-Emmy-nomination-good actress. Even accounting for her longevity the fact she is the MOST Daytime Emmy nominated actress with almost double the runner-up (Kim Zimmer with 11) is ridiculous and undoubtedly due to the storyline around her not winning. But she still definitely deserved a chunk of those.

It was pretty obviously intended to get a ratings boost by including another recognizable name in ED (and do that Real Housewives scene with Rinna) but why not? I personally think it is fine for actors to be included for small periods of time and then be not written for when they have other projects. That kind of flexibility allows for characters/actors to feel they don't have to "exit" if they want to do other things and it keeps a broad tapestry of characters on the show for the writers to play with so they don't feel like they have to write for characters even when they are not inspired. I mean backburner is a thing already but I think they should be comfortable taking it a step further and be OK with having more people on standby that they shadowburner when not needed. Some British soaps do that: they keep a lot of people around with a huge cast of character but you might not see some of them for six months while they are off on other projects and the character is just mentioned as being busy or whatever and can be brought back in an instant when available/needed for a story.

Surely when all this is said and done, there is a great compilation of the greatest BS gay moments that is DYING to be made on YouTube.

I agree. It is a hobby horse of mine that every soap needs at least a "good guy" and "good girl" that are maybe not as layered and complex but that anchor the rest of the more screwed-up characters around them by being normal and decent. That was my defense of Tripp too a few weeks ago. Or Chase on GH. Or why killing off Maureen on GL backfired so much even if she hadn't had much to do. And they don't have to be necessarily boring (Tripp is written boringly so far, I will grant that). A good person can be compelling and someone we root for. Not everyone has to be an anti-hero and it actually helps enhance the stakes of stories and make the "bad characters" pop. It is the same concept as "straight man" vs "funny guy" in comedy. Sami would never have been Sami - both as a character and in our minds - if it hadn't been for Carrie.

To paraphrase the infamous Twilight meme... Still a better love story than Ben/Ciara.

In all fairness, if I can play Devil's advocate, why are people tweeting AT GALEN that they dislike his character? How rude. Tweet what you want - people are entitled to dislike the character and criticize an actor and say so on social media - but if you are going to tag Galen in your negative opinions, then frankly I would block you too just because you don't understand basic Twitter etiquette. You wouldn't walk up to an actor and tell him: "Your character sucks. He is so boring". So why do people think it is OK to do online? Share your opinion on your timeline but if you go out of your way to make the actor see it and potentially hurt their feelings by tagging him, then you don't get to clutch your pearl when the actor is like "No thanks" and blocks you. If you can't be nice, why is it so hard to at least not send negativity and hatred towards people who are simply doing their job and doing their best to entertain you? Even if they fail at it, why be mean at fellow human beings for no reason?

I still can't get over BF in drag. I wouldn't have recognized him *at all* if I didn't know it was him.

Speculation only but looking at the cast, Y&R is the show that still have the most "headliners" from decades ago - and consistent headliners, not people they fired and brought back (aka people they showed were not necessary and therefore can afford to pay less) I bet their actors' budget is inflated in that way.

OK Then I was being mean-spirited. I withdraw my baseless speculation

That's the fundamental unchangeable problem with the Real Housewives shows. If you put women together who are not actually friends in a "group" because of the show, no matter how much effort they make, people artificially forced to "like each other" are going to end up not being able to fake it forever if there are no underlying ties or feelings.

This is purely gratuituous and I could 100% be wrong but anybody think maybe this is what FS didn't want to film?