FrenchBug82

I personally would argue that if reconciliation there must be, it don't think it will be on Bravo to take the first step. Considering how her "career" is going maybe she'd take the gig but she is the one who lit that bridge on a raging blaze so I can't blame Bravo for not being interested in engaging until she crawls back to them. Vicky started to burn the bridge and... then pulled back. I don't think Nene has backed down at all although I do not know what she has been up to recently. Have we heard anything recently about her "lawsuits"?

Because I am slow-witted... Am I reading between the lines correctly that when she says "all" her co-stars, LW is implying she is not happy with the criticism of SB and IR, right? I do find it funny that she endured what I imagine was a torrent of bile towards her boyfriend when he was on the show but now is when the negativity is too much.

Delighted about Dorinda. Extremely unhappy about Phaedra.

Wheeler was one of the people I was thinking of when I was wondering out loud how much the problem with dying soaps was the quality of the producers. She did make a horrible no-good awful castastrophic call with Peapack and the style change but it was clearly intended as a Hail Mary to save the show. I generally hear that she was a decent person and loved soaps. So the question in my head is always: if she hadn't worked under the constraints she had with the crashing budget, would her record have been as bad? Was it inherent bad judgement or was it the fact they were no good answers to the show's problems? I dunno.

Maybe this also has to do with the timing of when they film the VTs, aka later when "where it is all going" has become clearer and they can retrospectively reshape the narrative with their commentary?

Whaaaat? Lord have Mercy on our Souls if this rumor has any truth to it. I wouldn't be mad if but I would be extremely mad for them to

Of course American soaps are conservative. I mean, I take responsibility for the fact the point I was trying to make completely and utterly crashed and burned - and hurt a fellow poster in the process - and I am not going to belabor this particular conversation but my argument really really wasn't that soaps aren't conservative. Of course they are.

Well I certainly very much apologize. I certainly didn't intend to be condescending, nor did I do it knowingly. I wanted to make the last point because I thought it was important to remind *ourselves* of the narrative framework the show works under that doesn't have to be from a place of conservatism - there is plenty to say on how poorly GH writes its openly gay characters but that's a different conversation. But there is nothing wrong nor dopey about your opinion. I feel very bad I gave you the impression I thought otherwise and again I apologize.

Hey, feel free to enjoy the chemistry you feel if you feel it. Far from me to yuck your yum. But let's be blunt: the reason Michael and Chase or Spencer and Cam are not going to be paired is not because GH is too conservative. It is because they are straight characters.

I think the lesson here is that everyone wants to boink NC and since they can't, they want to see whichever character on-screen they identify the most with boink NC. So suddenly everyone spots gay chemsitry with another twunk and thinks he should go for cougars. What a coincidence that this conveniently overlaps with the largest demographics watching the show ;-)

Yes! That's what I have said! I realize I am not intimately familiar with the mechanics of sets but why couldn't they have an empty room kind of set where switching around the furniture and the stuff on the wall can make it look like different offices for different purposes. I mean, we'd clock it's the same room but if it is neutral enough it at least would make more sense than this hotel nonsense.

It is telling because because it does feel we are reaching the point where they are clearly planting the seeds of Dorinda's return but also because she picked a picture where three of them look absolutely stunning and Ramona looks terrible. Shady!

No need for Google! As I said a few hours ago: I am just trying to play Devil's Advocate to provide a broader perspective on the way we - and I include myself in that - sometimes approach decisions made by EPs particularly on a failing show

Isn't there a bit of a chicken and egg issue there though? Is it that soaps on their last legs end up in the hands of less than capable people for some reason or that soaps on their last legs do not have the resources, money and support for a producer to be able do the job in a way that would make them look capable? It is hard to be a great producer when even keeping the lights on is a struggle.

Out of curiosity why does the cast of AS1 look wrong to you? At first glance it strikes a decent balance to me but I don't have strong feeling about it (yet?). Is it because you don't like the people they picked or is it something broader about the potential dynamics of those specific choices?

That is sort what I am getting at. I understand we have an emotional connection to these actors in a way we do not with producers so it is easy to automatically want to side with the former but we have to allow for the possibility all these stories of "being mistreated" and "hurt feelings" at least partially come from a place of long-time veterans Norma Desmond-ing themselves into being more difficult than we imagine. And in truth even with the most veteran-worshipping producer, it is hard to have those characters be as front-and-center as they once were. It is not that they can't write stories for the older generation - they can and they should have done it way more rather than treat them as background props. BUT they are now competing for airtime with two or three generations of characters and they are not the stars anymore. It is the natural flow of things. And if they cling to their former glory, we know how some older people can become ornery and some of the tension might also come from that. I know not what kind of person Goutman is but I do know it often feels too easy to lay everything we disagree with on a show at the feet of the producer - it is their job to take the incoming and I am sure they are well compensated for it - and caricaturing them as unfeeling money-obsessed dont-care-about-the-show without ever allowing for all the factors an EP has to juggle. An example is LB. Sure, there is evidence she was treated unkindly (not inviting her back for the finale is high-level BS) BUT I'd argue there is evidence some of her requests might have been unreasonable. At the point of her failed contract renewal, the show was struggling and I can't imagine they were doing well financially (it didn't look it on-screen). One can easily imagine her sticking to her guns for what money she wanted and a torn producer deciding that the extra cuts they would have to make to continue being able to afford her weren't worth it. Not because they didn't want to keep her: but because what she demanded forced their hand to decide whether they wanted a specific actress so bad that they should get rid of two or three sets or two or three other supporting characters. It is a tough call but not necessarily an evil one. Same with an actor complaining about story. When SB told them he hated they were writing Craig as a cartoon, he was right. But do we want actors' opinions to dictate stories? For every time we agree, how many times has an actor come to producers with a stupid idea? I hear the idea that actors know their characters the best and yet they are actors, not writers and they don't always see the big picture. I can see a writer hearing an actor bitch and moan and go "Thanks for your input but no thanks" without being a monster. There is a pretty fair point to make that ignoring actors is the healthiest way for writers to handle that. Again: I am speaking more generally than Goutman whose reputation I believe. When there is smoke from enough actors there is fire. But I tend not to read everything that was done in those last twenty years with the same What Monsters reaction as other fans. Long list of mistakes and things I would have done differently. But I allow for the fact I do not know everything and a lot of things were done probably had a rationale that wasn't just "Let me screw over this miserable show". People can screw up while trying to do the right thing

Whatever I think of these characters, this is what makes it potentially good soap: no one is technically wrong in this scenario and everyone just tried to make the best of it and it STILL leads to hurting each other and messing up. C/J genuinely think that this is what Sonny would have wanted and maybe it would have been what he said what he wanted if he had been asked in a vacuum. But once you live it and SEE it when you are alive, it feels completely different and while you may rationally think it was not a betrayal, it would be human to become jealous and paranoid and end up resentful. And inversely characters placed in an impossible position might end up resenting him for being angry at them that they did what they could when he disappeared. It is unfair and it easily snowballs from there. That's what soaps do best because that's life: when a story is powerful because there is no good or evil. Just flawed people trying to make the best out of the stuff Life throws at them and having to handle the fallout.

I am SO NOT surprised some of the GH actors are unvaccinated and of course we can all bet on a few names. I am curious who of the people she is specifically working with it could be though or if she meant in general.

Indeed but that's why I think they are setting things up like her calling him Daddy: specifically because Jason would/will give it all back in a heartbeat and they can't quite go there with Carly and Jason as they are (rightfully) investing in the Britt pairing. So they need to set up small character beats that can fester resentment even if Jason bows out easily and gracefully. Imagine Sonny hearing Donna calling Jason "Daddy" after he is back: that is a good trigger for him to start resenting Jason and some actually decent material for MB in a "I have lost a year and my daughter forgot about me" Emmy reel scene kind of way. Add in maybe Carly having admitted feelings for Jason and even if Jason rejects all that and stays loyal you can easily imagine with a man with Sonny's ego slowly stewing as he becomes jealous and irritated of the small reminders of what almost happened in his absence. I mean, it is all classic soap and that is something I give huge kudos to the current writers that they have been doing extremely well for the past 18 months so I figure this is where they are going - and where they should go because it is wringing good psychological drama out of nonsense campy soap storylines like back from the dead!

In all fairness, almost the entirety of the character of Ted was down to Todd McKee being so damn charming. Because otherwise, correct me if I am wrong, but I remember him being written as a pretty generic not-very-bright romantic-lead-type most of the time, without the kind of layers they allowed someone like Eden.

I do not have any personal knowledge of the internal dynamics at ATWT but worth pointing out that it can be both be true that an EP fought to keep some of the veterans on the show while not giving them front-burner storylines. His argument could have been that keeping them around helps the tapistry of the show and avoids a PR disaster while not thinking they are interesting or young or whatever enough to be carrying storylines anymore, which in turn might have been offensive to said actors who were kept as potted plants. The alternative could very well have been for them to have been written out altogether which would have saved money.

The thing I like about this is that I think it is intended to set the stage for real bitter tensions between Jason and Sonny when he comes back (took over my wife, my business, my kids!) and as someone who dislikes those characters and that codependent relationship steeped in violence at the expense of others, I might have some schadenfreude-type enjoyment out of seeing them at each other's throats for a while

I am not a fan of Steffy's even though I recognize JMW's talent but I have to say I actually don't mind the idea of the storyline. Whether Steffy is the female center of the new generation has been, whether we like it or not, settled a long ago - if only because to her immense credit JMW has stayed on the show and built that longevity. It is of course a bit forced to have Steffy be the one to read her Emmy reel... I mean riot act to Sheila of all people considering how many other characters have more direct grievances, but I would have accepted it. If, as I said before, the Finns-mother storyline seeds had been plenty early enough that it was a really shocker of a twist instead of a feeling of a last-minute idea to bring Sheila back. Even a random shot of someone lurking outside of Finn's window six months ago and a brief conversation with Finn's parents looking guilty while he was wondering if he was the father of Steffy's baby would have sufficed for this sudden twist to be more acceptable to me. Instead, it feels engineered, forced as you said, to give the show a cool moment - which admittedly this was - but it misses on a lot of the potential emotional ramifications. I'd add too that the timing would have been more fun if this had happened before the Eric/Quinn renewels and Sheila had been the one to unveil the Carter affair for instance. Considering Q/S past interactions, this would have used Sheila in a naughty way without pigeonholing her back into evil right off the bat. Oh don't get me wrong. Their first crack at it was a mess writing-wise but the idea still holds and the character has enough interesting connections to have potential. She was also interesting because like Thomas, it was never clear whether she was bad or good or bad at being good or trying to be good but being bad or... You get my drift. I like those kinds of characters that are all shades of grey for understandable reasons. And being raised by Sheila really feels like it would mess you up in some ways. That will never be a plot point with Finn. And finally, and that's a minor gratuitous thing, but it might warrant a Barbara Crampton cameo and I'd enjoy that.

A small thing I did enjoy. I really really used to like the chemistry between Muhney's Adam and Phyllis. Not a romantic chemistry but the way they were playing off each other as "I know what you are and I have your number" was very interesting. They haven't used that thread too much since so I enjoyed seeing traces of that in today's scenes. Count me as a no on the Sally daughter thing. Soaps can write interesting layered relationships between women without making them insta-relatives. Enough of that trope; I still have PTSD for when they thought making Kay and Jill mother/daughter somehow made their relationship more rather than less interesting. I don't mind Phyllis being completely over-the-top obsessed over another woman for basically nothing - after all there is quite the history of being a her not-always rational dog-with-a-bone over all kinds of women on the show from Christine to Diane to Sharon. What really bugs me is how few people are reacting to her nonsense with WTF Chill! and are instead going along with it. The entire charm of Jack/Phyllis was that he used to be amused but not impressed with her antics and Nick used to not see much of that side of her. In both cases the current madness should freak them out. Even Danny could see how irrational and obsessive Phyllis was being and if you are writing your male characters as less savvy than freakin' Danny, you have a problem.

Rinna is bothered that Garcella is throwing "little darts". Meanwhile she has been throwing poisoned arrows at her "friends" for years. Roll the montage of the coke dinner comment, the faking Lyma disease, the Denise threesome. etc.