FrenchBug82

My problem with the entire story. He may not have belonged in jail for the murder of Peter but he has murdered dozens of people. He should be in jail regardless.

Maybe I was projecting but my impression at the time - which tracks with what I thought about Carly - was they were intending to set them up as the "end game" in term of rooting interest and make their separation romantic and have Ava's usual scheming be an obstacle on top of the existing one about Michael. But that the audience didn't really buy it, the way they didn't buy into the expected Carly/Ava dynamic. So while the ending was just an easy lazy way to write them off it was probably the plan they had at the outset (not for them to leave, but for them to end together) and it didn't happen until the end because Carly didn't gel the way they expected and, insufficient writing be damned, Lisa Peluso was selling the hell out of Ava/Paul. But you are right about his chemistry with either. Joseph Breen did a good job with the paralysis and the Louie story but his heart never seemed to be fully into either pairing for some reason. I know he used to have a website where he shared the story of how he got fired because CBS found out he was HIV+ (which you would think should be a bigger better-remembered scandal in retrospect) but did he ever give an interview where he just talked about his work in soaps? I wonder how he lived his Loving years.

As we have established I like Gizelle, but I audibly cackled when they somehow (a coincidence, I am sure, right? Right?) edited Gizelle on-screen when the on-screen text read "Lies" and then "Drama"

Oh yeah I totally get how it happened that they became overlooked but it is a shame. I don't think either of them are particularly resentful and seem to be doing fine. But I do love them I remember being fascinated by Carly at the time - not in a good way necessarily but I thought it was captivating to see a story ostensibly built around the traditional good sister/bad sister dynamic where surprisingly they were writing the GOOD sister as very unlikeable to the point we are rooting for the "bad sister". I'd like to think it was clever writing (since CQ was a good actress so it couldn't have been her) rather than bad writing that lucked into a dynamic that could be tedious to watch at the time but admirable in retrospect. Of course now I suspect it was the latter - and I hear you that it didn't make for fun viewing when the show didn't quite notice Carly wasn't very pleasant to watch and used her more than they should have I never cared for Paul for a variety of reasons - some shallow but the main one being my personal allergy to anything mob-related on soaps. Immediately loses the rooting value of a character. But it gave LP good material at times and interesting character moments for Ava and Kate so I look back at it with indulgence.

Everytime I rewatch those old episodes, I am reminded what gems Christine Tudor and Lisa Peluso were. Loving was low-rated and generally poorly regarded but it is a shame the broader soap community doesn't treasure them the way they do other leading ladies of defunct shows.

I am not going to lie here: I know this is being said mockingly and inferred to be awful (which, yes, probably would be). And I know people have a complicated relationship with later-years Carly. But boy is there a part of me who kinda sorta wonders what magic Maura West could have done with that kind of storyline. Also, we mock what "would have been" but: Cleo.

Another item to vindicate AlexElizabeth's earlier point about too many things that we should at least get a closure scene for are happening off-screen.

Yes. Thank you for the important factual correction that had escaped my mind when I heard "shipment". But the rest is exactly as you said; we agree on the underlying point

Oh they emphatically were not above doing that and that's why I stick to my belief their "experience" didn't balance their bad judgement in the numerous ways they mishandled SB.

I think the first part of that sentence leaves the door open to a lot of grossness regardless but point taken. I had forgotten they had written that plot point to try and minimize the fact a crime organization does crime, which wasn't a bad call. But the things that ring in our head when you hear a mob boss talk about "shipment" is not importing keychains or fresh apples.

Or he may have been around Beecroft in some capacity or have heard and handled the fallout of Beecroft's behavior at the time, even if not in a professional capacity. I think the core of my point - and where I think you were on the right track - is that he possibly could have had first hand knowledge this is true in a way he doesn't have with most record-settling done in previous hangouts.

Hunter King has plenty of talent but Summer has always been and is written horribly. One minute she is a raging scheming spoiled B, the next she is the ingenue we are supposed to feel sorry for. She is a villain a minute, a whimpering victim the next. Some consistency in the characterization (which is the writers' fault) would at least a character that is so far unsympathetic to the hilt because whether she is nice or naughty, she behaves in an unlikeable manner. And we are not talking about the character changing (she "used" to be spoiled but now... or something). She literally switches from one to the other depending on the need of the storyline and there is no thoroughline that explains why she would. Seriously after some of the plotting she's done, the whining she is engaging in regarding Tara is ridiculous. The Summer that handled Lola and slept with Billy would not take this lying down. The Summer who plotted with her mother to take down Sally - for barely a coherent reason - just a couple months ago should not be feeling sorry for herself. And she certainly should not be written as if we should feel sorry for her. The show cannot have it both ways re: Summer. And they are trying to have it four or five different ways IMO. But my overall point was that both Kyle and Summer come off that they are both too young, too immature, too inconsistently characterized for all their storylines to be so "adult-y". High-powered executives? Marriage? A previously unknown child? They BOTH look and act as if they should be in college partying but the show makes them play house. So my point was that at least having some characters mock the disconnect would go some way towards acknowledging the problem. But they have invested in those two as the "leads of the next generation" and I don't think it is working, no matter how attractive and decent actors they both are. The characters as presented right now suck - and that's before we get to the plots they are given which suck even more.

I'll admit that while I am still not sold on the acting choice of playing Tara with that calm cold flat affect (potentially sociopathic?), the "Oh sweetie" cracked me up. Honestly, I wish more people would openly mock characters like Kyle and Summer who are playing make-believe adults and actually are in way over their heads. It would make it almost tolerable that most other characters seem to take them seriously. A little bit of self-aware humor would do the show some good. You can't play everything that straight when the writing is that boring.

First let me say how much it gets to me when characters we are supposed to root for talk about a "delivery" problem and I know they are talking about drugs. Or when the mother of a character refers to killing people as the "line of work" of her daughter's boyfriend as if that wasn't vile. I just don't understand how that makes characters rootable. I get that's not a new problem and most of us are used to it but I still cannot. (...) That is my main criticism of the show right now. They do seem to fast-forward a few beats I wish we had gotten some satisfaction with. Peter's death and Cyrus' upcoming exit (pending potential twists) feel a bit subdued compared to how much they were built up and how many people they were enemies with on the canvas. Carly and Britt's scene was too short and oddly written. Either you want Carly meddling and being "jealous" and you need her to go in for a lot more subtle venom than just one sentence and then letting Britt talk. Inversely Britt's reaction felt more to establish her being giddy in love than standing up for herself to Carly, which felt a bit off-character to me. I am starting to worry they are saccharinizing her for the sake of that pairing. And 100% agree on Michael. I don't mind that they wrote Sasha out of the quadriangle but they quickly went from 100 to 0 and this was an interaction that should warranted at least a scene. It is the Sabrina syndom: we spent SO MUCH time on Sasha/Michael that, regardless of whether I particularly care, it feels disrespectful that they act as if that past connection is irrelevant. Heck, in the context of the mess with Chase, there could have been a slight note to play of Michael "What if I made the wrong choice?" and then if they want to prop up Wichael, then having him realize during the conversation that no, despite the hurdles, it is for the best and he wishes Sasha well. You know, even a bore like current Michael could have character development through a simple scene. I like that the plots are soapy and I am mostly happy with the action BUT remember writers: soaps are soaps because they have the time to play every beat of a plot. Let us savor characters reacting to a piece of news, like Carly stewing over Jason/Britt or Michael being wistfully awkward about Sasha's pregnancy.

I didn't comment on this because people seemed to think there was potential there and it is all too long ago that I don't remember clearly enough but, yeah, it is one of these things that do not make sense if you have any sense of history. And it is quite a sin for writers to ignore history when the show is less than a decade old.

I was going by what DRW50 said earlier in the thread about having first-hand knowledge of the ladies involved. Let's rephrase my point and say he may have had first-hand or contemporary knowledge of Beecroft's issues at the time enough that he was comfortable this was the truth. I obviously have no way of knowing but I think the underlying point of what his motives might be in the context of him seemingly making an exception here stands.

There have been many moments where I definitely have been frustrated with Alan and clearly some reunions he derailed with poor moderation but we should still give him credit that he is doing them, setting them up, etc. views or not. Also, and this is not a complete defense of him, but it strikes me that the fact he let her get deep onto Beecroft might because he indeed was there and saw that it was true so he was comfortable with it. Whereas other gossip he cringes at because he wasn't there, can't vouch for it and is concerning about defaming people who can't defend themselves. Not in a legal sense but that's probably where the caution is. Actors are still people and some people might be settling scores in a way that is unfair and he might not be OK giving them a platform to do that if he can't verify the info. Plenty to criticize him for though but I did want to present some positivity because I am still glad they get made.

That's a very interesting comparison actually. While Gina still had serious moments with RW (particularly early on), she did devolve as mostly a comedic character - like Cecile did. That's why I love this forum! Had never thought of the parallel but it is right on!

"We'd still be on the show if you hadn't called me a racist" has so many layers of delusion, entitlement, white fragility, blame-shifting and not-taking-responsability that I can sort of see why she would vote for Trump.

Yeah the preaching is a bit much - and I say that while still agreeing with her 100% and while having thought for years that Ramona's shitty politics deserve to be called out. That being said, I strongly - VERY strongly - suspect, nay know, that it is the producers who put her up to this AND are choosing to include every single of these conversations in the edit. Everyone can decide why they want to do that - overcompensation, much? - but I am not yet at the stage where I think this is Ebony being *that insufferable person* and more the production using her to make points but not knowing what a light touch is which in turn makes her look like that's all she is about. They film a LOT of material, no doubt a lot of which is redundant. They are making a choice here.

It does feel that Sonny's death should have been a moment where we got to see Brenda.

It was obvious it was a short-sighted mistake the minute we found out about it. I'll accept a story where their memories and personalities were switched and it is Adrienne who is alive just because.

The problem is not whether Austin will be a good character or not. It is not even whether RH will bring something fresher to the role than he did in his most of his non-Todd roles. It is that you cannot have the same actor play three different characters BACK-to-BACK, in the span of only a few years and expect the audience not to be pissed off. And doing it after you did it with another actor too! We suspend disbelief ALL the time, sometimes because we want to when it is fun (a dead fan fave is resurrected in a dumb story!), sometimes because we have to because we understand what medium we are watching and we understand sometimes things need to be stretched to work. THIS however is asking us to suspend disbelief to the wazoo in a completely unnecessary and borderline insulting way. I am not a RH-hater by any means; but there are a gazillion of out-of-work actors who could have played this role, been considerably cheaper to the show btw, would have rocked it and allowed us to give Austin, whoever he is, a chance. This is stacking the decks against him before he even started because sorry but no.

You can see the Rachel cut. I mean how more 90s can it get. I guess ridiculously overdone hair is a signature of American soaps. One of my favorite unspoken running jokes on the French Canadian parody of American soaps "Le Coeur a ses Raisons" is their valiant efforts to make everyone's hair (read: cheap wigs) as increasingly awful as they possibly can get.

Carrie's hair in the 90s was... very 90s.