FrenchBug82

Do we know why Chanel was recast so soon? I mean PW was doing decent and had been well-received. Is there some BTS tea here because it feels odd?

I am speechless at what KKL is wearing. I do not personally have a problem with it but that's a strange thing to wear in a public interview.

Not only does it make zero sense for Jason not to tell her - she has been plenty understanding until now - but I am even more offended that Britt doesn't almost immediately figure it out. She was there with him during his run. She knows about the issues about Carly and the org because they talked about it somewhat. And she is a smart cookie and a former schemer herself. OF COURSE she would figure it out. Not necessarily on the spot but as soon as she had time to sit down and think, Britt as we had established her would get it. And the drama could still unfold: she could still be pissed that he was doing it and pissed he didn't trust her enough to tell her and pissed he was willingly to break her heart for his job or whatever. Go ahead; tell your sorry. But, as I feared when they started teasing Britt/Jason, they are defanging and dumbening Britt in order to turn her into Jason's heroine.

Interesting. I do remember they put them in the same orbit then but I don't recall the chemistry jumping at me the way it did with Marcus. But hey not complaining. Would have been interesting.

Zarf/Zoe's boy name was Freddie Luper. Did they ever explain on-screen why she had chosen "Zarf" as her stage name for her music? A backstory of some sorts?

They had shared a few scenes and they were fine but I wonder if they would have gone full-bore on Nikolas and Ava if Tyler C. was still in the role.

He is not one of the original Four.

Never understood why they did that too - another example of a couple being central to stories for years and being dumped as an afterthought in a throwaway sentence. Honestly, I still think he'd go back. But I hear you: he was probably rightfully pissed.

Why is that?

This is completely gratuituous but for anyone that has followed JPS on social media and knows his sense of humor, this joke felt like it was an ad-lib by JPS (I know they can't improv on set but sometimes during the process)

I guess my bias against that story is that while Hank Cheyne was a gorgeous man and likeable enough actor, I just can't wrap my head around him being at the level of an Ellen Wheeler or Anne Heche or any of the actors in the Love clan - be it AS or PS. So I project that onto the character not fitting in.

My take isn't as dark as yours but this sums it up. I am not giving up because the raw material is there. I have watched soaps long enough to see eras at certain soaps where a good third of the characters were awful creations that either bored or irked the audience. The current cast at B&B is almost entirely fine - to the point where the problem is more we are frustrated they are underused rather than wanting to get them off our screen. I have seen soap era where the stories were a-pal-ling, stupid, insulting, history-retconning-in an-offensive-way. Thats not the case here. Almost every plot is fun on paper and has moments - the baby paternity switch story has Vinny for it, Quarter has had nice chemistry, Thomas in a cage is a time to enjoy Justin getting a turn in the spotlight. Heck, Y&R right now is galling because *nothing* happens. There are no stories and no moments. I couldn't tell you anything fun or memorable that happened in the past 12 months. I can give you quite a few B&B items! I have elaborated earlier on my frustration with the writing and I stand by them. I can be infuriated by the completely missed opportunities. But at least I can spot a ton of opportunities. That's more than I can say for other soaps at other times (including YR right now). So no, I am not giving up and I am not throwing BB in the bin. I still think it is a fun show worth being a viewer and at times a fan off. I just want Bell to do better - and as frustrating as he has been, he does have it in him.

Well, if that spared us that twist, I'd say that's one way in which we all benefitted from her taking over the role.

I very very strongly disagree with the idea that GH is anything like that and has been in recent times. The state of each show is completely different. I may not always agree with how certain things are paced but boy, they are telling a lot of stories and things are moving (well except for the Mike/Sonny story but that's supposed to be a very slow burn).

I am going to ignore the lampshade motive here and just go with enjoying Ciara-when-she-doesn't-like Ben. I'd KEEP that Ciara who stands up for herself instead of the damsel-in-distress act.

OK I get what you are saying now. And I concur. It does feel the creative leeway they are getting to do nothing mostly comes to they are within budget and ratings are stable so who cares?

Thank you for the thoughtful answer and the reason I ask is because I feel exactly the same. I remember the negative reaction among the fans but looking back an attempt was made to actually tell a groundbreaking storyline and it was more thoughtful than the gimmicky rationale behind it so I don't see it nearly as negatively as the audience did then. There were quite a few layers of tapping into people's misconceptions about gender vs sexuality here that were richer than a soap at that time would usually have the balls to have, even if the EP's motives were icky. And it is another of these cases that illustrate my theory I mentioned quite a few pages earlier where fan protectiveness around Bianca ended up making the fans reject many Bianca stories that on the merits could have worked.

Admittedly, Kiara Barnes choosing to leave is out of Bell's hands but it boggles the mind he would choose her learning about Quarter from Paris to be her last scene rather than write an extra episode where she confronts them and THEN leaves LA in a rage or whatever feelings he chooses for her reaction. I don't get it. Again, I am less dissatisfied with the plots themselves than most of you but the pacing, framing, staging and follow-through of each storyline is just bizarroid. He spends episode after episode of character idly speculating about what might happen. And then when the plots untangles, he chooses to barely write any scenes where the characters react to what DID happen. It just happens and then move on to the next plot point.

To be entirely fair, they can't make it happen if they don't have the money. I agree with other commenters that they could use the money they have better - other shows do with similarly meager budgets - but having to forgo some "nice to have" scenes like big cast-gathering party scenes because of money can't be laid down at their feet as if it is their choice.

And I don't think they have the budget just to get a lot of the cast for a large group scene that is more set-up than plot anymore.

Agreed. Now I understand that the fact she landed another job probably forced changes in the original plan but this still should have played out with a tinsy bit more twists and turns and drama. This is instead by-the-numbers.

Looking back what did people feel about that storyline then? And now?

Not to finesse this point because I understand why some people felt she *looked* too young because she did look young but I think the idea that the math doesn't work because Philece was 33yo and Donna had to be 35yo is kinda nitpicky. The overall idea is that she looked younger than her age which created a visual problem but because her real age was very close to Donna's it could stand to reason Donna too might have looked younger than she was. I think we all agree that Donna of the AS years was a superior character. The question is how much is it down to Philece being miscast. AS is a spectacular actress; no doubt about it. She could play the layers of icy bitchiness AND vulnerabilities perfectly. And my coda is that I believe PS could have but the writing for Donna during her tenure was heavily focused on the latter. So while there is an argument her natural warmth would have made it hard for her to play the other full Donna, she wasnt really given the material to prove us wrong Even the great AS, when the victim period of Donna was unfolding a bit earlier in the mid 80s, didn't have much chance to exude the other part of Donna's personality. She had the longevity that she had established it so could have a period where it wasn't the focus. PS being new couldn't afford the writing to be off-balance the way it was during those years and perception quickly set in. In the end, it was for the best that AS came back and the show was better for it. But I don't think the purely academic question of whether this recast was doomed from the start is as settled as conventional wisdom will have it.

Yes to all that and it kinda confirms what I believe: that the writing was two-thirds of the problems. Donna's storylines were weepier at that time, they were going for a softer Donna. It had started before the recast but sometimes we forget that TPTB might take an opportunity to push a character "change" when writing for a recast rather than the actor being the one unable to play the original version. It is true that Philece excuded a very warm natural energy that didn't quite track with AS's more icey bitchiness BUT if she had been given more snobby lines and such she would have been able to build up that part of the character and I bet it wouldn't be as jarring. However once they made Donna a mother, I guess they wanted to lean in on the motherly thing (made WAY worse with the Mikey storyline). And there was no way PS could play those storylines bitchily! As for age: Philece was 33-34 when she started so it is indeed not impossible to believe she was a mother to 17-18yo if she had them at 15yo. AS was 5 years older though so that made it a smoother leap of faith. Philece did look younger than her age but as PS said in one of the interviews, in real life, the math worked out.

It has been accepted as an article of faith for as long as I can remember that while Philece Sampler was a wonderful actress and a lovely person, she just didn't fit as Donna. She even acknowledged that many fans felt that way in one of the interviews of her I binged on today and she seems to think that was down to AS having made such an impact with her portrayal. But I'd be interested to hear why ya'll thought that. Admittedly watching those years back, I see Donna being somewhat different but in a way that seems to me in sync with what the writing was for the character at the time. So what did we think that she, as an actress, didn't embody that AS did? That couldn't put simply put down to the writing or to nostalgia for the OG? I have thoughts but I am curious to hear everyone else's.