FrenchBug82

Problem is Ingo is almost certainly far from alone. And it almost certainly includes some big big big names (cough Steve Burton) that are unfirable. So how do they set a mandate if they are not ready to make it have teeth? And how can they fire one without firing the others? That's their dilemna right now. I am disgusted but I can see how it would be a tough call to make, even if they are full-on on the vaccination side (which they might not even be).

It'd probably be a Robin C/Matt Crane twofer and I'd be SO there for it.

I have heard of the three B&B ones (Jacqueline M Wood, Jennifer Gareis, Aaron Spears) and someone mentioned Coloma earlier. Who else? Let's make a list and know who's who.

it had never occurred to me until now but it is funny how Brad did the same thing to both Rick and Thomas: after writing them as generic romantic lead of the new generation for a while, suddenly decided to turn them into a**h***s after a recast for no obvious reason. And then backtracking.

I saw Jacqueline Wood mentioned. Who else?

I do wonder if they got along but I have to imagine for him to last in the role of her love interest she probably didn't mind him because she would have had the power to get him canned or written away from her right off the bat otherwise. But to me the statement read half about herself and half about his character. It is generally pretty easy to find something generic to say about the personality of someone who passed, even if you weren't fond of them. I don't know... She's Joan Collins so I take it with that in mind but reading that in the mix of all the other lovely tributes I thought it was a bit weird.

In his defense, he does a lot of these so it is inevitable he may invite people that we don't necessarily care as much as we do others. If he had an opportunity to interview, say, Victoria Windham and he went with those instead, then, sure, that would be bad judgement. But if he is looking for people to interview and those three happened to say yes because he knows them, it is better than no interview at all. Why not?

Am I the only one who is cringing a bit at Joan Collins' Instagram post on Michael Nader's passing? She spends most of it talking about the character he played rather than, you know, *him*.

I got some blowback when I defended him against the "bad actor" monicker a while back but I stand by my idea that if a director actually took the time to direct him and sat him down about those actings choices, he could actually pull it off. There is something in his brain that tells him that playing a menacing villain has to come with this affected speak and body language (maybe overcompensation from feeling miscast?) but there was only one Charles Keating. I was so hoping this break would somehow short-circuit his worst habits. But between him, WL, RH it is clear directors are focusing on blocking and not much else in terms of performances.

If you are an actor and your character is going to be written as disappeared for a few weeks, would seem like a good time to go on vacation!

I am going to cling to the hope that some of the "liking" activity is more Laura-Wright-style "I love my coworkers" stuff without necessarily endorsing the underlying message. There are people like that - I find them short-sighted and they are enablers but some people genuinely want to be "tolerant" and "supportive" in a genuine if misguided manner. I am not going to lie: the amount of people in every walk of life - soap, other entertainment fields I am a fan of, show business, my work, my life - that I have been discovering are absolutely selfish trash every day through this covid nightmare is getting to be so dispiriting. At this stage I would settle for them keeping their mouth shut and being trash in silence - even if that makes me an hypocrite and technically I probably should want to know.

Thanks so much for sharing! I am loving this gossip

I am out of touch on my gossip because I didn't know about either those hookups.

I also think that it wouldn't have quite fitted Janet even admitting she had lost her mind again. She suffered so from having to deny she was Amanda's mother for so long... I think she would have been too sensitive to the cruelty of separating a child from her mother in that way. At least in a universe with good consistent writing.

I was thinking of him while watching old episodes just a few weeks ago. I am glad he has rebounded from the tragedy in his life and is still around. I still say casting Mark and then wasting him in a non-storyline and then disppearing him within months - even after they had gone to the trouble of borrowing Lauren Koslow from Days - was a wasted opportunity.

I swear looking at the 50 second clip where she barely has a line has more spectacular acting (the pain! the fear!) in her silent face than whatever it is he is doing here as an AAAAAHctor.

Looking back at yesterday with ya'll's comments, I hear what you are saying. Playing Devil's advocate though, I would argue that there was no way for the storyline to last much longer without damaging Chase's "good guy" character. He would have to continue the deception around his ability to walk for a long time AND the only way the storyline would become more "dramatic" would be to have his stewing in anger lead him to doing revenge things. Which is not what we want Chase to be. So, yeah, the scenes were probably a bit underwhelming and that's on the writers but the fact not much came out of this storyline is probably better long-term for the likeability of Chase's character. And also, maybe I am too naive, but maybe the writers had picked up on the fact Willow/Michael were not well-received by the audience and kind of wanted to get that out of the way quicker than they had initially intended. That's another theory.

I honestly don't get it either. Not to mention it wouldn't make Eric very sympathetic. But I struggle to find another explanation for some of the recent plot points otherwise. I know we love to rag on Bell's writing etc but while I have plenty of gripes about his bad pacing and his not really diving deep into characters' motives, his plots almost always at least make sense. Eric's 180 is really weird and too sudden to be on the up and up. But I am merely speculating and kinda hoping I am wrong. I'd take bad writing that makes little sense over bad writing that makes a beloved character into some kind of a**h**e for, as you say, no obvious reason.

Because I am an incorrigible optimist, I will say this: between Drew being alive, Liz/Finn's "guilt", Maxie and the baby secret and now the Nina/Mike thing, there are a lot of directions in which a Peter return can yield good story. And I shall simply hope someone had a talk with him about his acting choices while he was away although that "positive response" comment doesn't fill me with hope that he used that break to reflect on what went wrong and try to remedy it. But just like with Austin, I can't undo the decision that was made to bring him back so I am going to wipe the slate clean and give it a chance to work.

Agree. That's what I said that *as soon* as the rumor started about an upcoming Quinn/Carter affair many months ago. I fully agree that it needed to be establish then to make *some sense* of Quinn's actions (I mean, Carter is hot but she had been happy with Eric so that was a sudden turnaround). I actually don't mind them addressing erectile dysfunction; it is a problem and it is interestingly realistic for a man of Eric's age married to a younger woman. No vomit emoji for me; I think that's a good plot point. But sadly because B&B doesn't do anything topical and character-based, I suspect that is a plot point because Eric is faking the reconciliation for whatever reason and this is his excuse not to sleep with the wife he is secretly still mad at. Which brings up the question of why he doesn't use it now.

I am not quite sure I'd understand demoting Luann if Dorinda is back and Ramona stays, let alone if Bethany is lurking around. My main theory, if there is any truth to it, is that she pissed off producers some way and I go back to what ya'll have speculated: that she was the one leaking, on the reunion and against Eboni. Maybe it backfired. The only explanation I can think of.

I will say it: I do like that they are challenging the usual assumption that if it is not mentioned otherwise, then a character is straight. Have everyone "come out" with their sexuality either way. It is a healthy if a bit heavy-handed at times way to normalize all variations on the sexuality spectrum.

On the other hand, it sets up a nice little conflict between him and Brooklyn whenever they finally move on to these two as the next endgame post-Willow. So you know, while I question some strategic decisions the writers are making (Austin's mere existence, Peter's return), I really can't hate on the very cleverly soapy way the show is being written right now.

Nina has a gift for seeing un-dead people.

I thought it might be it at first but the lack of fanfare, goodbyes, homage from LW on social media... All the things you usually get from someone when they leave told me ... otherwise. We will have a blessed few months with RH, Peter and Sonny out of Port Charles stories. Sigh.