FrenchBug82

Never quite understood indeed why Bell chose to sully a character that had built so much goodwill and an actress everyone had recognized as having potential for a quick plot point that made no sense. But I guess the answer is in the question. What Y&R is doing with her is more bizarre. I don't think she is "ruined" but she is not building up to be the kind of significant presence that she deserves to be. Better writing could remedy that but alas I don't see it coming on the horizon. That being said, remember how horrible Summer has been written as behaving at times and yet here we are they are clearly wanting her to be our younger leading lady. So not all hope is lost with Sally if serendipity leads her in a good direction. It is Emmy-nominated Courtney Hope now. Surely they know what they have and understand the potential they are not tapping into.

There was room for them to have her grow bitter into being a bitch to Summer considering that Summer and her mom went after her for no reason from Day One and ruined her relationship with Jack. Except that for it to work, it would have required subtler writing AND that the show wouldn't feel the need to prop up Summer and Summer/Kyle. Unfortunately the latter means Sally has to be the villain rather than a battle between two strong-willed women who are equals and neither of whom are perfect. I don't like the way they are going with this either: if you wanna emphasize the bitterness, set it up properly. If you want to emphasize the ambition, set it properly: her early scenes on B&B were stellar in that regard in incorporating the OG Sally in young Sally's dreams. You *felt* where she was coming from and you accepted her latter choices. Here they are not giving anything to the YR audience to understand her.

That's probably the variable I hadn't thought of. It is the actors/show who pick who they submit for what category! And just like some of the "supporting" are sometimes actually leading characters who don't want the competition of the Big Beasts in leading, I bet some of the strangest "guests" are strategic submissions by shows/actors who figured they have a better shot at "guest star" even if it stretches the spirit of the category.

I'd have to assume, based on the mix-and-match of real guest stars, temporary recasts and short-contracters that the "guest star" criteria is probably the amount of episodes on a specific and narrow period of time. Like someone who did twenty episodes over a month and nothing else would be a guest star whereas someone who did twenty episodes over the entire year would be considered recurring and thus probably eligible for supporting? I dunno.

From the intentionally crude talk to the "vow of silence" everything Leah does screams "Pay attention to me". She wants to be the center of attention but is not self-confident enough to let it happen organically so she contrives various lame ways for people to pay attention to her, even if it is negative attention. Frankly, it is annoying in general and it comes off as particularly pathetic when she is surrounded by half a dozen other women who are as much attention-seekers as she is and yet have the natural charisma and self-confidence to make it happen without being obvious about it. That's what Leah is: obvious. And it is not fun to watch.

Mike Manning would definitely have made a lot more sense as a guest star nom than that doctor noone remembered (no offense to the actress). LA will have other chances, I bet.

That's what strikes me too. As I said above, I don't think any nominee is *bad* at acting per se but there are tons of nominees where I went: "Why this year?" I think it would have been good for B&B to extend the addiction story rather than go back to the infinite Liam triangle but from the POV of Emmy showcase, JMW definitely got enough material to justify being up there and she was one of the least surprising nominees. And I don't know if it is unpopular but I am with you on MCE. Don't think her stuff was Emmy nom worthy although I guess, referring to ranger's point above, at least she had enough story that I get why they decided to reward her, even though I don't think it was necessarily warranted. Compared with the randomness of some others, I guess I will take it as a case of "different strokes".

Taylor/Darla was by the time the show was making stupid choices left and right. Making Taylor into a drunken driving killer was character assassination the character has never gotten back from. I disliked Saint Taylor but that's what the character was. The post-second-resurrection Taylor was just destroyed for the sake of story (I remember reading that was HT's wish to make the character "more interesting" and I guess it did but it also made it trash). However Macy's death - while not a great move long-term - was during the entire Thorne/Brooke saga, the last time the show took the time to play EVERY beat of a story. Every character's reaction and every consequences. Something that seriously lacks today where things happen at breakneck speed and no one has time to react to anything. Instead we get the principals play the same scene over and over.

I think they mean that the gap about the style of soap and the kind of writing between AW and SB was larger than, say, between AW and Y&R on one hand, or SB and Days of Our Lives for instance. Which holds, although obviously thankfully soaps usually have a distinct identity (although late 90s AW's crime/medicine/fantastical-plot-by-an-archvillain formula felt very General Hospital by the end)

Honestly not even quite sure what Tamara Braun - who is a lovely actress - did to justify her being nominated. To be entirely fair, though, unlike other shows, Days producers *really* don't write to showcase their actors for Emmys. Every other show has scenes and episodes that scream "Emmy reel" for this or that actor and that's not something that Days does *at all*. On the contrary when their actors have big scenes, they often seem to edit them over several episodes or write them in ways that undermine their potential as a showcase. It is strange. Unpopular opinion on that note: I don't really think Deirdre Hall's lack of career noms have been really snubs. That's one tough category she was in and I never felt she belonged there over any of the other ladies who were nominated each year. She had some good moments here and there but never anything that felt like WOW she should have been nominated for an Emmy although, to be fair, neither did Susan Lucci (who was probably nominated because the losing streak's fame in pop culture tickled the people voting for the Emmys) I will also be honest: as much as I enjoy the fact Cady earned one more nom for three months work than Missy has been able to snag since 1992, her nomination as well as Kim Delaney's is probably more because the panel recognized their names than anything they really did on the show. It is particularly striking for Delaney whose character on GH so far has been a big pile of nothing. But still, if it gets Cady in full time, a job well-done.

Daytime Emmys always had head-scratchers even when they had ten shows to pick from so with only four left of course there are going to be digging deep to find some of those nominees. That being said, I don't see any outright bad actor in this year's nominations - some really random picks for sure but nobody who is embarrassing like has happened in the past. So the above comments are way unkind in IMO Jacqueline Woods is not my favorite and would never be a leading lady nominee were this the 90s but she is a solid actress, did a good job with the addiction storyline and is an Emmy fave. Her plastic surgery choices have nothing to do with it. NLG is also wonderful and well-liked and deserving. Someone like Kober is a bit more of a puzzler but it is not like he is a bad actor - the character sucks. Similarly I am not sure what Darin Brooks or Tamara Braun did this year that was worthy of a nom but both are good actors. Etc.

The fact that Days has such poor luck at the Emmys even with four shows left is... something. But Cady being nominated actually pleases me. If Days producers don't get the idea by now, I don't know what else to say.

GH having three of the five leading ladies noms is pretty sweet - especially considering Maura could have easily been up there too and LW has had many nods under her belt as well. So fascinating to think back of the Pratt/Guza vision for the show and realize that GH now has the strongest "women over 40" lineup of all the soaps. Talk about irony. I am happy for JPS as well. The less said about the Emmys that MB and SB being again nominated in the leading men category the better but good for Dominic. And Kober... no words. Quite the acting tally for GH overall. Yeah it is not that Y&R has never done it - it is just that it is a different type of villain from the kind of kingpin - Cyrus, Archer, Peter to name the latests - that GH does. They are more psycho/manipulators. And they haven't done any in a long long time and I blame Victor for it - you can't have a proper villain with suspense if Victor is ALWAYS going to come out on top. See what happened with Chelsea. Anyway this is the GH thread. I do think GH relies TOO MUCH on having one villain everyone battles against, particularly when they always end up tyring back to Sonny/Jason.

I don't think it necessarily says anything other than the tone of those shows is different. Days and GH have been "adventure/crime" based for decades. B&B and Y&R never featured much of that kind of story and I for one am glad they kept a distinctive voice. Now, GH is TOO enamored of that plot device (the umbrella villain of the year story as I like to call it) while Y&R could use a strong antagonist instead of letting Victor Newman eat up everything and win every time but that's another story.

And there is Taylor and Darla. And there is Macy's first "death" with Brooke in the car.

That's the essence of a frenemy. There is a hint of both: the underlying comment certainly recognizes that Gizelle is the victim in this which she wouldn't do if she genuinely hated Gizelle (Monique used it as an attack for instance) and yet there is shade because, well, that's what they do. I continue to say this relationship is one of the key ingredients of Potomac's success.

Ah... A good RHOP trailer drop ... When everyone can go back to assuming Gizelle is responsible for everything that goes on before we have even seen a minute of what actually happens. Joy. Nene (urgh) is probably the Housewife that has gotten the more "mainstream" play but I'd argue RHONY is the franchise that has been referenced the most in pop culture. Seeing aside the mere fact RHOC has created the genre so it has that going for it, I think the fact so many shows, writers, etc are based in NYC means they have more of an investment in the NYC personalities - and probably run into them socially - which is why they make it in a NYC-based show like SNL more than, say, Atlanta

It is funny because while I do remember Nathan making really s***y choices, I do not recall having ever seen him or thought of him as a villain. Unsympathetic at times for sure and less upstanding that he had initially established him to be but making mistakes and mishandling situations in a human way. I may be misremembering but it felt more like a story of a good guy making really piss-poor choices rather than "villainizing". I think killing him off rather than sticking with him and trying to redeem him was the mistake. I don't think he had crossed any lines that couldn't have healed with time.

I am probably going to be the only one but I thought Felicia Wagner was Robin Mattson on this photo for a second there.

Is he wearing... track pants with a dressy shirt?

I dunno. I don't think they are eating the show now and I don't think we can complain about the shows not respecting and celebrating history on one hand and resent younger-generation characters having stayed for the long haul. The writing for Sharon has been awful 90% of her tenure but I still care for her if only because she is a long-time character. Nick has always been the boringest of characters and I do agree Morrow - who CAN act as he proved during the Cassie storyline - is comfortable doing the bare minimum and never tried to give his character more layers. Here is the thing though: being Victor's son gives Nick an angle to be a part of the show. Even as a dull unremarkable dude, he STILL could be of use as a point around which other more interesting characters interact. How about a real gold-digger? Unfortunately, and that's the ONE thing I do blame Morrow for, his insistence on working with Stafford's Phyllis completely hems in the one thing he could be of use for despite his unremarkableness: a leading man for romance. Does not require much acting to pull off. On the other hand, Case has mostly been a trouper but boy do they just not know what to do with her. Which is ironic considering much they actually do with her.

They were all very green at the time, in all fairness. I don't think I would have bet a nickel then Nick or Sharon would still be on the show 26 years later (!) or that Eddie Cibrian would be something of a C-list celebrity.

I am trying to fight the self-righteousness in the animal lover in me but all I see here is a glamorous version of a rescue. The dogs are all very clearly easily adoptable - which is great! - but I am afraid this is one of these things that are going to set up false expectations for people trying to adopt a shelter dog. I will give it a go because: doggies! But I can tell I am going to be frustrated that the process of dog adoption is going to get the reality TV sanitization treatment and mislead people.

The preview for next RHONY is really cementing that Leah is desperately and clumsily attempting to create screentime for herself with fake stuff. "I am going to take a vow of silence today". What kind of attention-seeking dumbness is that?

And yet appropriately mediocre and unremarkable, a good summary of her tenure on the show.