FrenchBug82

Yep. 1982-1983 Dr. Lynn Carson played by Donna Pescow who you might remember if you grew up in the late 80s as the mom from "Out of This World". I may be wrong but I think the first gay man is ATWT's Hank Eliot although people usually credit Ryan Philipp's Billy on OLTL. He didn't start out bad at all. I liked him when they were in separate tracks slowly building up to us wanting them together. But yeah he was so wooden and unappealing by the end. I initially thought it was me because I didn't like what I was hearing of his off-screen activities but nope. It was him. Chandler M. was tuned out by the end too but to be fair they were giving him nothing of interest. I think his charm and layers still peeked through. On the list of BTS things I wish I could hear, the entire sage of GW, how he was cast, why his acting was so uneven, what his relationship with his costars really was like and why, etc is on my top 10. Based on his post-Days choices ('em tattoos!), he was probably a... character.

It is undeniable that it is unfortunate for a fourty-year veteran of the show to be let go and not in a very classy way but it is also true that the character of Paul has been uninteresting for twenty of these fourty years and that DD has been reacting to his various downgradings in unpleasant unclassy ways which makes me think that he wasn't super exciting to be around when working during these past few years. It is human to react that way and I am not entirely throwing stones at him but show business is a tough cruel business and it always surprises me when actors don't know that a poker face is the best way to react to setbacks, even when you have plenty of room for legitimate grievances. When you close a door in entertainment industry, it stays closed. It is not like he is needed.

That is actually a very interesting question. This kind of subtext is what shows SHOULD be doing more of. That's what soaps have an advantage over primetime: they have the time. So, instead of cheapening one of the most interesting relationships in daytime by ludicrously trying to make them mother and daughter, I wish smart writers had used the begrudging relationship between Jill and Katherine in later years as a springboard to explore earlier stuff. Instead of the usual "He left you for me" insults, imagine if their softening relationship meant that now instead Jill made your very point: Why are you still so fixated on him all these years later considering how he treated you. It would work both in terms of exploring Katherine as you said and her switching from bragging of being the mistress to expressing Katherine's POV would have been a subtle but telling shift in their relationship without forcing a cheap motherly bond. Alas, that would involve producers having faith the audience would be invested in character layers and exploring the show history and subtle writing and there shall have been no such luck

From the get-go they were pretty bold with a lot of the gay stuff that involved Will. Never Sonny which I suspect has to do with FS. If you remember Will's first kiss scene, it was very clumsy but it was a pretty passionate fake kiss. I read it as subtext of his gayness coming out first through sexual desire before falling in love properly with Sonny later but even if it wasn't the intent, it still was a lot more aggressive than you'd have expected.

Y&R usually goes awry when they stunt-cast. But when they cast actors for their own sake, they have a solid track record.

Actually we are not disagreeing: maybe building up Bianca as the new lead was intentional or it happened organically but we do seem to agree that the end result was that it relegated Erica to a place that wasn't a good fit AND overshadowed her when the dynamic could have boosted her. As for Bianca, yes. Riegel leaving and back and forth definitely killed the momentum of these extraordinary first five years. I wish soaps had a better track record of holding on to their stars but to be fair, the fact she was open to coming back often for short stints as needed shows that it was more personal reasons that made her reluctant to stay on full time But by 2005 when she first left the entire show was poorly written so there was no saving Erica from it anyway.

Why is he whispering everything in that weird breathless voice? Why? Why does no one over there tell him it is a bad choice? And if he is deluded into thinking whispering sounds threatening then why does he do it when he is supposed to be loving? And if he thinks whispering sounds loving, why does he do it when threatening?

I know Kish is popular on this board but I disliked the Kish story very much and a very significant portion of fans (not least of which the soap press) hated them because the story started SO preachy. It was tedious overcompensation for the criticism they got for writing Daniel and it felt just going overboard the other way for me. Then when they tried to spice them up with regular soap stories, they involved them with the hated Stacy Morasco and that didn't help their cause. I will have taken them of course because it is not because they are gay characters that I have to like them and I am happy about "representation" but I am always surprised how the story is told around this board. I am glad people have fond memories of them but they were *not* unanimously well-received among fans, including by fans you should have expected to support them, like me, which is part of why they cut their losses after not too long. Now "sources" telling the press they were to blame for poor ratings, THAT was homophobic. But the characters being written off was not necessarily. They weren't well thought-out, I am sorry to say.

I appreciated this joke for more reasons than the obvious, which was that it was amusing. It was also a subtle way to be progressive (by bringing up "pronouns") without being preachy or even explaining it but still self-aware enough that it can laugh about it without mocking transsexuality. That was a good moment. That's how soaps can become more modern without being in-your-face about being "modern", which often leads to heavy-handed stuff.

At the risk of being controversial, may I also suggest part of the reason for the fact Erica didn't really get any moments to shine in later years is because Bianca, particularly Eden Riegel, stole a lot of her thunder by being intensely likeable, a constant center of stories and a superior actress to Susan Lucci, who can be so uneven. I mean, I rewatched some of the pregnancy scenes on YT last night and as I said, I love the story and what it explores about these women but Riegel just owns any scene, even by just being so appealing. I don't mean that as a slight to SL who is still a star but I really feel that Bianca, once she came on sorased, really became the core of the show which made Erica's behavior seem less acceptable. That Absolutely Fabulous dynamic added to Riegel's acting and the choice to focus several umbrella stories in a row around Bianca kinda defanged Erica for her own star turn. And of course in the very last few years everything was s**t so there was no good moments for her or anyone else.

I know people are conflicted about Bianca's rape and all but I do think the subsequent events around her pregnancy, the feelings it evoked in Erica from her own past and the impact on Kendall was all interesting and well-done, if polluted by all the padded-on extra plot-driven storylines (the marriage, the murder etc). In itself though, it was compelling.

You mean, former serial killer has trouble with being controlling and being respectful to women's psychological and physical space? You don't say. But here is the thing: if it was intentional and they chose to revisit his psychology in an honest way, tying this reaction back to his past, it might actually be interesting. I'd love to see Marlena confront him about it and him reckon with how much of who he was, he still is and be conflicted about it. That's a character-driven story and even with a serial killer, you can write good drama out of it. But that's not it. They are writing it because they think it is romantic. That his impatience is out of love and we are supposed to swoon he misses his Ciara or something. That a woman who does not remember her man is not herself. Bite me.

I hear you but this is exactly a reason why soaps are having so much difficulty: we complain when all the gays are domesticated but we also worry when LGBT characters are overly sexualized and "predatory". For a cautious producer, it does feel like they can't win. So they don't try. I want more representation and that does include "bad-acting" characters and, yes, at times flamboyant characters because some of us are like that and it is OK. What can't be is no representation or limited caricatural representation. But I am fine with a variety of LGBTQ characters including different facets of the human experience and we are never going to get anywhere if we overreact to anything that resembles a trope. Because, let's be blunt, 90% of characters in soaps, regardless of gender or sexual identity, are tropes. I will give an example: Adam on Y&R slept with a man for his own purposes. Do you think it is better for LGTBQ representation that that has never been mentioned ever again and that he has never been described as bisexual - let alone used that aspect of him for story - or that they explored it even in the context of admittedly a scheme that used his (gay) one-time lover for his own purposes? Personally, I would have loved this to be a proper story and a part of his subsequent identity, even if Adam is fundamentally an antagonist, rather than a forgotten footnote they quickly backed away from.

Everyone hates this story for good reasons but you gotta admit that moment was pretty awesome campy soap.

I love Jill and Jess Walton but at this point it is a moot point since she doesn't want to be on the show full-time anymore. She will just pop up to prop up some stories needed but they won't use Jill to drive stories anymore. I don't fully agree with the harshness of your diagnosis on the character; I still think up until the last few years where the entire show went to hell anyway she was a great character, if different from her beginnings. Where they lost me though is when they kept writing this incredible bond with Cane - who she is not related to and who CONNED her into believing he was her dead son for a long time - and would not play her as actually involved at all with her own biological sons, to the point of siding with Cane at times against them. That was unforgivable writing.

I have said for many years that one way soaps have warped us is that they present the on-and-off again thing as romantic; couple meant to be together finding its way back to each other through difficulties; rather than what it is really which is toxic and abusive. This cycle of cheating on both Rachel and Mac and the fighting and on and off and on and off is so toxic. Those people should not be together. I don't think soaps have changed much in presenting that kind of behavior in a more honest manner but if this was real-life in 2021, I'd tell either of them to run far away from each other and find better spouses with more respect for them, self-control of their genitals and better match temperament-wise. So to answer your question: yes, Mac wasn't very likeable if you looked at his actions and, even after she was reformed, Rachel was also still a pretty toxic person to be married to. Their love story wasn't romantic; it was co-dependant toxicity.

This is key. It is not always linked to a man (but it is particularly offensive when it is) but soap show runners cannot fathom a woman being a sustainable character if she is anything else than easy-going/nice/victim/romantic lead I was JUST commenting on just that regarding Natalie on AMC who also started off fascinating and strong but clearly unpleasant at times and ended her run having suddenly become an angel from above (and a victim). But same with Sami on Days and so many others. Characters that start off ambitious or scheming never stay that way if they stay for the long run. That's why I was mentioning Knots Landing's Abby earlier. That was a succesful example of a "bitch boss" character staying who she is in the long run, showing enough vulnerability at the right point to be something else other than detestable but not losing herself to a man or to show-business refusal to portray women as something other than saintly, bitchy or crazy.

She is outspoken but she also knows where her bread is buttered. It doesn't have to be a grubby deal or a quid pro quo - but a subtle way for producers to show their appreciation that she doesn't turn the way those men treat her publicly into a bigger thing. She speaks her piece but she also is the one who turns down the volume after she says it is not cool. She says "Let's work it out in private". That's the mature professional thing to do and if I was her boss, I'd appreciate her being a team player that way. If she wanted, she could turn this nuclear because if that's the way they behave publicly, I bet the BTS stories could be career-ending for some of them. So giving her an Emmy reel is an easy way to pat her on the back - and while Alexis has certainly been supporting, NLG is a great actress that can carry an episode.

So let me get this straight: they finally tease Lumi back again but it turns out only to set up an EJ return??? There is not giving a fanbase what they want - fine they write the show, they make the calls - but then there is being actively cruel to it. Come the f on.

Because I am a gossip and I like to read too much into this, I'd like to think GH hyping a "Alexis special episode" is related to the BTS shenanigans and a way for producers to send a message or at least pat NLG on the back if she doesn't push back further on the bullying she is on the receiving end of.

An upside for me of having Todd back is that we would have to get Blair visits and I love Kassie DePaiva. The downside is that I don't know how you can write Todd Manning without having Starr around at some point and that can only lead to ugly dilemnas. I know we are way past that point in the discussion but there are no good options and Roger H. is not indispensable. Enough with this.

I am not sure I agree this is what defines an Alexis clone broadly speaking. Introducing an Alexis-like character does not mean mimicking every story beat. It just means introducing a very over-the-top-classy-wealthy bitch boss character. The particulars can differ. Iris was definitely a mild version of that when she came back as Carmen Duncan but I agree considering the timing I don't know if it was an effort to copy Dynasty or more being inspired by an archetype and using it when reinventing the character. Ironically, while I understand Dynasty had a bigger cultural impact, I think soaps would have done well to be more inspired by Knots Landing's Abby who was, too, a "scheming bitch" type character but who was usually motivated by her ambition rather than vindictiveness and was therefore a better model for a soap because she had a clear thoroughline.

I like her better brown-haired but either way she was a gorgeous woman back then.

Yes. Because he can't accidentally speak over someone or interrupt the flow of a great conversation he should have left alone to go on its natural course. One-on-one it is easier for him to know his timing, when to let his subject talk and when he needs to ask a new question.

Based on how everyone involved tells the story, that's an after-the-fact interpretation based on what we know because no one but her knew at the time these were her last scenes - and the writers certainly didn't know it when they wrote them.