FrenchBug82

I know, right? I mean, I know that blonde hair is yikes but for all the things one can say about Gizelle, that's one beautiful woman so that is surprising to me. I guess Telfar ain't a fan, like ya'll lol

What other storylines of the past do we look back at as racially offensive? I know TLW had concerns at the time about Drucilla being a stereotype but it turned out to be in the service of a great empowering story so I would have a tendency to let it slide. I was back in France at the time so some of the context was going above my head in a way that it doesn't now that I am older and American.

Yep. That was a very animal-like pose (cue the "wild boy of the jungle" trope). Even back then I had flagged Luan's meekness as the usual trope about submissive Asian women but I had not remembered until now how icky the way Keemo was introduced was.

I hesitated to bring it up in the "Racial Representation in Soaps" thread, especially after being reminded of it after seeing the commercial but in hindsight some of the "street boy"/kid-in-the-wild imagery was somewhat problematic IMO.

One advantage of never actually giving people's ages on the show is that it is very vague how old those Sorased kids are. They don't need to be explicitly Sorased to be in practice. Look at Victoria: how old is she supposed to be. It is VERY unclear. She was Sorased in the 90s but she was born on-screen in 1982 and frankly her current version could easily be 40yo without raising my eyebrow. In practice, she has been de-sorased and roughly matches her "real" age.

Why am I not surprised that as soon as there is drama, *rumor* starts to be that Gizelle must be responsible somehow (apparently nothing happens in Potomac without Giz's involvement nowadays) and people start taking it as gospel? Based on a "maybe" sentence in a random Instagram post. Also, making up false affairs is bad and, if indeed it is false, whoever done that, I disapprove. But "Briefing against other cast members"? They ALL do it. In every franchise. Come on now.

Interestingly, regarding ED, Y&R's Ashley is a very popular interesting beloved character who actually has never had a really popular pairing. Her most memorable partner was Victor - and most of the audience wanted him with Nikki as the endgame - and her longtime relationship with Brad was never considered a hot romance. She's had plenty of men: how many do "we" really remember (well, besides the real obsessive fans like us)? Similarly while ED had some chemistry with DH on Days, Kristen and John was never the endgame. So ED is a powerhouse actress but, once she was in the role, wisely or not, based on name recognition or not, the right way to use her was to use her as a character actress NOT as a romantic lead. Because fairly or not, as great an actress as she is and as wonderful a career as she's had, she has never really exhibited great chemistry with anyone on-screen and that's not what she was known for. As j swift wisely said, casting ED should have been intended as a way to mature Kelly into different storylines. If they were going to keep playing her roughly the way she had been all along, CG had done a great job with it and there was no need to change. Most of the time, when a recast is miscast, it is because it changes the nature of the character (see the Santanas). In this particular case, however, she was miscast because they *didn't* adapt the character.

Sometimes I wonder if soaps being reluctant to refer to some events of the past doesn't have something to do with not wanting to remind the audience of how often stories seem to "recur". As people who buy the DOOL continuity and suspend our disbelief, we see potential in the fact three generations of women were raped and how it can help shape some nice interesting scenes. For a more casual executive, this tidbit might sound both ridiculous ("let's not remind the audience of it") and actually potentially offensive ("Let's not point out the fact most of our female leads have been written a rape story at one point or another").

I don't disagree here; Bell has also been using Sheila as a basic criminal villain when he brought her back the last couple of times instead of a nuanced character that he actually had developed really well when he first brought her over from Y&R. But at least her last appearance was merely basic and didn't insult the future, the way the Y&R tale did. It wasn't offensively bad or characters-destroying. It was just: Really? That's what you wanted to do with her? Which I would say is my complaint with most of Bell's latter-day writing. I can't say I have been outraged by how bad and offensive anything has really been - I don't recall being angry the way I was when he tried to pair Ridge and Bridget for instance. It is just... repetitious and Really? That's it? It is nothing destructive or offensive but it is just uninspired which I suppose can happen when you have been writing a show for as long as he has. It is just surprising that the other writers that he brings on do not seem to be given the leeway to go in different places with the characters.

I agree; that's why I started by saying I hear what they were saying before nitpicking the specific characters used as examples. I do think the *ensemble* would need a new character that is really radically different and would upset the apple cart completely for the entire dynamic of the show. Unfortunately I don't see who, what, how (well I do know it can't be played by an actor, however talented, who already played three other front-burner characters on the show). But I hear the underlying complaint that we have not had anything new and groundbreaking and completely different in forever and I think that might explain the feeling of stagnation. But that's not easy to do - even a real tall order - and GH is actually doing pretty well with what they have, especially compared with how much the other three shows have been spinning their wheels of recent times.

I am sure there is always things to disagree with; soaps are such a subjective matter. But I do take your kind words to heart; I really do. I'm glad I started becoming more active last year after years of silent reading. Thank you!

While I hear what you are saying, I am not sure I agree with the point you are making applies to the characters you are listing. Now until the amnesia story I fully agree that Sonny's place on the show was a bit off because his "status" kind of cornered the writers. But the Mike story kept him busy for a while and now this, so it is not like they are running out of ideas. I do think his days as a lead are numbered but they are not quite at the drought yet. Olivia has been a second-tier character for almost the entirety of her run. Which is fine! We need those! But none of her story read "front-burner" to me even when they were playing out. I am glad she survived and I like her and Ned. But she has always had a weird place on the show. Not burnout as much as a likeable but disposable character that managed to endure. Maxie is clearly not lacking for story. Now, is this the right kind of story for that character? No. They shifted the character onto something different from what she was supposed to be, as discussed often on the forum. There are questions HOW they are going to make her rebound from the Peter story although the baby drama will keep her busy for a while. But so far I don't think it is a character burnout rather than a character being changed to keep her in story. That version of the character is not as interesting but it has life in terms of story. Dante indeed has had a weird run since his return. I continue to think Lulu's exit was weird and was probably decided, for whatever reason, after they signed him back. So he has been in limbo. But the potential is still there and while I am not over the moon over Sam/Dante, I am looking forward to all the layers of a drama that are peeking out over that quadriangle with Britt and Jason. Finally, yes. I agree that Sam has character burnout. The Jason pairing sucked the life out of her - although I'd argue it happened almost as soon as they got paired up and she just became "Jason's other half" vs the more interesting character of the beginnings. And even THAT pairing ran out of steam. Let's see where the Dante pairing takes her but I haven't been interested in her in forever and I don't think the writers have either.

The fact they are very conspicuously having no clue what to do with him is another sign for me, along with the weirdly rushed and poorly timed way her exit story came about, that LG's Sarah's exit was a last-minute decision/off-screen issue that they had not planned for. To which I will simply reiterate I hope LG is OK and I am going to cut them some slack on the way Xander has been floating from story to story without landing on anything interesting so far.

I think the latter is indeed the most immediate reason. Even without Maxwell, I don't think Cohen OR Carole would be interested anyway But the Maxwell thing is why it is neither in their nor in HER interest for her to be in the public spotlight at all. So we can be sure that even if they reconciled - and it has happened with others who left bitterly - I doubt she'd be back on-screen. As for Clooney, his slowing career predates the Epstein stuff He had stopped taking on almost any projects from a while back - around time he got married, I'd say. Why would he? He is rich, happy. Lives in Europe. Never got the vibe from him that acting was in his blood the way some other actors give the vibe they want to keep working until their last breath. He just lives la dolce vita.

That is one of the extremely rare times where I forgive a retcon that didn't even bother trying to explain itself. The latter uses of Sheila on Y&R, particularly the Phyllis stuff, was atrocious and I am fine with it being retconned into oblivion.

Unpopular opinion: while Nancy Frangione was a wonderful presence and pulled it off beautifully, I didn't like that they turned Cecile into basically comic relief. Richard Bekins is giving me strong Benedict Cumberbatch vibes here.

Of all the ways the Keemo story was an insult to Terry Lester's version of Jack, making the entire first section of this Jack story about Cricket is one of the most on the nose if you know what I mean.

I of course am most interested in grey characters but just the same way we need villains to advance story at times, any show needs genuinely good characters, even if it means they are slightly boring. That's why I had a high tolerance for Carrie back in the day or for the snoozey Belle/Shawn coupling. We cannot have everyone have enormous baggage. There needs to be balance. So I am fine with them establishing Tripp as a bland but likeable good guy leading man. Not everyone can or should be a villain and I prefer slightly boring to recycling serial killers, if you know what I mean.

I think the Ghislaine Maxwell connection means we are not going to ever see Carole again on TV, Bethanny or not. Fairly or not, I don't know but that's way too radioactive.

Lemay's theater style of lengthy scenes was lovely because often the dialogue was well-written and it did help establish relationships - I much prefer it to the too-quick plot-driven style of today - but it could drag even with just 60 minutes. It needed more characters and more material and there is no way one man could pull it off consistently.

In all fairness even the most brilliantly written show could not sustain 90 minutes a day.

I am speechless and beyond thrilled my question yielded such a fascinating answer. I bow at your feet. My memory of 90s Curtis was entirely of his latter-day antagonist turn against Dinahlee/Tucker and I had completely blocked out the 1993 runs even though I remember other things from that time. And it is not like it was a good memory either. Thank you so very much for the insight!

You know, we have had plenty of moments with him that were incredibly cringe-worthy and some laughing "Come on!" at some of his choices. But here it actually bums me out because I like the underlying story of the Maxie/Brooklynn baby switch. It has plenty of interesting layers, entangles lots of people and has potential. And I see KS definitely working hard to sell it which I appreciate. So... it really sucks that an important element of the story is giving us this crap. It was one thing when his acting was in the context of the Peter saga, when he was the center of the story: the story was awful and the character was awful so the bad acting was just another cherry on the turd cake. It was not a missed opportunity; it was just part of why the entire thing was tedious. But now it is bad acting in what could be a good story and it is just depressing.

I had completely forgotten about that Curtis. I was so taken aback I didn't recognize him at first. He definitely looks like he could be the son of the then-Clay but I watched some of the scenes posted in the past few days... and he was not very good, bless him. Anyone know the backstage story of how/why they went through two Curtises for 40-50 episodes in 1993 before luring Marcantel back?

Sutton feels like someone for whom actually getting a diamond vs being a friend of might turn out to have been a bad move IMO. Bravo would never hired Evelyn. Cohen probably sees the VH1 shows as "downmarket" versions of his shows and why would he try to import a reject from there? Not to mention the thirst quotes about wanting to do the show is the best way for producers to roll their eyes (cough, Tori Spelling, cough). Wanting it without looking like you want it is an important skill to have.