FrenchBug82

OK I am not gonna lie, I though that overalls outfit was fun. I can't imagine anyone real actually wearing that out but I liked it.

Yes but my main gripe is that producers have tried to become "contemporary" has either meant story gimmicks (like inserting the Internet everywhere in the 2000s) or lessening the visual quality in order to feel 'realer" or more modern. The best way to be more modern and contemporary would be to address the world as it is in stories. Whether it is on race, sexuality, "social mores", writers still write characters as if it is the 1960s in many ways and it turns off young people. No need for hip camera angles. Just write good story that resonate in the world that we live in today - not the conservative rural Americana of the 1950s that is still so pregnant in our collective imagination. The interesting thing about The City is that while it did try innovative things visually speaking (and while I do not like the shakyish camera work, I do think American soaps should move away from the traditional sets and copy British soaps that have a real-life setting that look more like primetime in terms of staging like the City did), it did try to be modern story-wise as well. First soap transsexual character that I know of - which in the 90s was quite something. I do think the cast was too white. It is never good for a soap in general but while it might be believable in a small mid-America town like Corynth, setting a soap in New York and having a mostly white cast rings wrong. Having superstars lead the black cast still does not replace having a real rich tapestry of characters of color. Modernity would have to come to terms with the fact we are moving fast towards being a minority-majority country.

This. Not only must it be addressed, as everyone said, but it could actually make the story MORE interesting if they played that beat honestly. An exploration of why Sally is interested in an older man - daddy issues? gold digger? bitterness after bad experiences with less mature men her age (see B&B)? Or just happened- and an exploration of Jack - his track record with women, what he is looking for - is that his relationships never work - is he afraid of aging etc SO MANY BEATS that that alone could make the story interesting because it wouldn't be about the story it would be about them as characters and the subtext. Which is what good soap is. So expect it not to be even addressed.

At least 30 Rock made it a joke that it was exactly what they were doing.

While I think the emphasis was more on the fact she was her friend, I am pretty sure Victoria brought up the age difference between Victor and Sabrina back when it was a thing

That's what annoys me with the current storylines. A lot of people are taking well-deserved shots at Carly and Jason, except it is the one time where they are actually innocent so it is clearly intended for them be victimized rather than the comeuppance they ought to go through at least once. I don't particularly care for MB and I dislike Sonny but I think one reason he might be more "attractive" as Mike is because Mike is a warm friendly guy vs the unsufferable tough menacing antihero shtick that they seem to think is appealing when he is Sonny. It is funny what not spending one's time threatening and intimidating folks, waving weapons around, smuggling drugs or ordering murders can do for someone.

Well she was married to his father and is sleeping with his brother. It helps build bonds.

I never liked random characters getting singing abilities and it being shoehorned into storylines on any show for any decades they started doing that stuff. Whether performer is talented at singing or not is besides the point: I am here to watch a show, not singing AND GH actually has a ready-made showcase for their actors who want to sing with the Nurses Balls. So stop wasting my time by bursting into songs.

I am in the minority that I liked Shadam the first time around (back when MM was playing him) despite baby-stealing and all. But what gets me in the current SL - along with everyone else - is that she HAD moved on. She spent years with barely any interaction between them and when it was it was reasonable ex conversation, not anything resemblance temptation, let alone the kind of magnetic obsession they are struggling with right now. So that she can't control herself to save her marriage now - she was in several relationships since then without Adam being an issue and he was happy with Chelsea without Sharon being in the picture - is stupid, regardless of what one thinks about whether their relationship made sense in the first place.

Oh look at you making a funny assuming there is an end game or even a plan to whatever merry-go-round they are trying to keep the Black Cast Island busy with. You are too nice.

LOL Fair enough. But still better than a show like Y&R where I don't know where the next generation of characters is going to come from.

That's an EXCELLENT analogy I had never thought of.

I will have to dissent on Sonny's kids. I loathe Sonny with the heat of a thousand suns but I think it is good that shows are having babies made so that next generations are replenished with legacy characters - even if Sonny is crappy legacy. You have got to think ahead and even if there is a glut at first sight, it might prove useful once some actors leave in the future etc that there is enough to keep the core going.

This! It is because it was problematic that it could be great story where not everything is black and white since he genuinely cared about her but it was still inappropriate. Instead they played it as straight-up romance. Of course, recast AL was stupid and killing off Colleen was even stupider. As for recasting AL for "weight issues": 1) even if it were true, how is it that they let it be known? Did they think it would make them look better rather than just recasting for no apparent public reason? 2) Particularly stupid when it could have been played with interesting parallels with her mom's story. Imagine the subtext! And later on a rivalry with Abby that mirrors their mom's dynamics! 3) I don't know how AL felt when uttering that line. Imagine what Beth Maitland must have felt about the line and when they fired AL for "weight issues". On so many levels, f***ed up for such a wonderful actress and loyal team player.

I have to be honest: I think JG's writing has sucked for a while but I actually don't think these rules are really the problem And some of them are actually bad and probably would make things worse. Let's see: -Never change a core character. (eg. Phyllis, Billy, Sharon) That is obviously a golden rule but has JG really done that? I mean, nothing is happening so nothing of late that is jumping at me whose problem is being out-of-character. Boring, stupid, etc... Yes. But I don't see how JG changed any of the examples you give. Sharon's character has been trashed beyond recognition but that long predates JG. Having her marry Victor is when the car careened out of the road for me and they have never really brought it back to a version of the character I recognize. Billy's current version is awful but, again, that long predates JG. All the post-BM writing has been awful (and some of it during BM but at least the charm of that version of the character masked some of it). And Phyllis is exactly who she always was. She actually regressed to what she was ten years ago compared to the GT version that had her mature a bit IMO. So I am not sure this is really the problem at the moment. It absolutely has been in the past but that doesn't seem to be JG's problem at the moment. He is not doing anything with the characters so he can't really be changing them. -Consult with the actors. (eg. Michelle Stafford, Jason Thompson, Sharon Case) That is an awful, awful, AWFUL advice on Marland's part. Stafford and Morrow being consulted is exactly how we ended up with every tired Phick renaissance. Eric Braeden being consulted is why Victor has become an all-knowing all-powerful always-winning mustache-twirling villain rather than a complex character with vulnerabilities. Actor feedback can be useful when a writer comes in because the actor might have some input as to what needs to be changed. But actors are not writers and people understanding what their place is and staying there is generally a good idea of any endeavor. -Don't introduce new characters too quickly. (eg. Ashland Locke, Sally Spectra) That is a good rule but I am not sure this entirely qualifies as a big problem right now. I guess I will grant you that, yes, we are seeing a LOT of Sally right off the bat (although the assumption that there is some audience familiarity because of B&B) but the biggest problem is that nothing is happening in that story. So we are not overdosing on them giving her too much to do. We are just seeing a lot of her. But that's fair enough a criticism in this case. Otoh I am not exactly sure how Ashland - who I have no interest in - is being introduced "too quickly". They have been talking about him for weeks long before he showed up. I mean I don't feel the problem is there was any rush; it is that again, whatever is going on is not interesting. If he is on every day in the next few weeks, we can revisit this but I would hardly consider this a good example of introducing a character too quickly. Just being introduced not very well. -Always read fan mail. (eg. the surrogate storyline) Again I am ambivalent about this. JG should definitely hear the general discontent about the lack of interest in the show. But as for your example, the surrogate storyline JUST started - so who knows maybe he has already started to write it out and it is being filmed - and it is clear it was sabotaged by the Chance firing. I am not sure what the fan feedback would have been telling them they don't already know and considering the delay between story airing and continuation of story being filmed even the most reactive headwriter would need a few months before they could course-correct. And I am not sure it is a good advice anyway. Audience reaction should be watched in various ways (and again I definitely agree fan dissastisfaction with the current course should be better heard "upstairs") but fan mail only rewards the most vocal fans and I would hardly consider "fan mail" to be wise and representative of the audience. See the abundant Cane fan mail they were getting which convinced them to rehire him and use him long after noone else but DG stans cared. See generally how supercouple fandom has sabotaged the writing for many characters by preventing writers from taking risks and breaking up couples that were tiresome together. And frightening them from taking risks by tackling topics that could risk a vocal reaction from some parts of the audience. Which brings us to.... -Be objective. (avoid personal or political biases) That is utter nonsense as far as I am concerned and offensive at that. Objectivity does not exist. We ALL have personal biases and a view of the world. The difference is simply between those who understand their truth is a subjective truth based on their personal story, circumstances, race, gender, sexuality, place of living, financial situation, etc. and those who think their values are the only correct objective ones and everyone else is biased. And making a choice NOT to address certain issues under the guise of "being objective" is as much political or personal bias as addressing them. "Avoiding political biases" is for instance how white folks have enabled the continuation of centuries of racial oppression by simply refusing to discuss issues of race. So a pretense of "objectivity" is simply a way for people satisfied with the status quo to protect said status quo by pretending those who contest it are biased trouble-makers. Pretending not to have biases is the privilege of those who are already in privilege. I am not having this Marland rule AT ALL. In any case, I am not sure what of JG's writing would be of bias, political or otherwise. I'd argue it is bland and unremarkable to the point where it looks like he is actually following that horrible advice.

I still would like the story of why they initially brought her back last year, only to have her sleep with Julian which never led anywhere, ended up writing her out after, what?, a couple of weeks, left the poor actress in limbo (if you followed her on Twitter, you know she didn't know whether they'd try to bring her back again) and THEN brought her back much later to much bigger effect. Clearly they had a plan that changed abruptly but I am glad it worked out in the end.

Someone mentioned it earlier and I think they have it right. The fact they chose AH - an experienced actress in soaps but quite low on the totem pole of name recognition or skills at the time - was partially motivated by money - and I bet that even after sixteen years, she probably still costs a lot less than three-time Emmy winner Heather Tom does. I think there are many reasons for which the shift wouldn't happen: HT is probably happy with her work load at B&B, AH is probably "part of the family" over at Y&R, the money trade-off probably wouldn't be worth it for them, etc. They probably would have swapped AH back with HT if she had rejoined after she left OLTL and moved back to LA. Now? It is AH's role until she decides to leave. They won't Tognoni her.

I'll be honest that none of the names listed as being floated for Victoria strike me as good choices. Good actresses for the most part but either too old or not just ringing right. As far as the AH or the writers' fault, debate: it is the writers fault first and foremost but AH made a conscious choice of letting her acting be carried by the flows of the river rather than give her character a thoroughline that resists the vagaries of the bad writing. Look at HT's Katie: Lord knows the writing is all over the place, the storylines contradictory with each other but you KNOW who Katie is and she doesn't waver regardless of the type of storyline. And Lord knows it is not on the page. It is entirely her that is carrying the character. The nothingness of the character of Victoria is in the writing. But AH is content to just play it without trying to characterize - unlike the way she did, as everyone points out, very well as Steffy on Loving, which was not really a well-written show either. She did bitchy vulnerable very well as that character and I was not surprised when they casted her because it totally fit within the realm of what Victoria had been. Except she is not trying. She is pulling a Nick. She acts what is written, enjoys the 9-to-5 job and cashes the check. But she is not trying to give it life. And that's on her. Not everything HT was written in her 13 years was good or interesting. But she sold the hell out of everything. Heck, since we were comparing her with PB, Lord knows Jack had has a lot of clunker storylines that made no sense but, say what you want about him, he always sells it 100%.

And ironically nobody has been harder on that story than PB himself who felt it was completely contrary to the character as had been established. I wonder if he didn't just resent the retcon based on defending his character but also because part of him understood that story as an implied criticism of his attempts at emulating Lester's portrayal. I think the reason the softening of Jack (particularly when it comes to women) works for me is because the passing of time can mature a man in that way. Some of the stories of PB's first few years (like Victor taking over Jabot) also helped make it make sense that Jack would change somewhat. So I bought it. And Jack is still an interesting character. Victoria nowadays is written as someone things happen to rather than a layered character. I could take a newer version of the character if there was some effort made to create a new version. But it is often so inconsistent depending on the story of the hour. The problem with today's Victoria is that I don't know and don't understand what I am supposed to draw from the portrayal. I am OK with some personality traits being more prevalent in one actress' version than the other but there is nothing right now that is being told to us about the character. She is whatever the latest writer needs her to be. I think AH can act but I am disappointed she has not been able to give us a consistent picture of who Victoria is even through the stretches of bad writing. It doesn't have to be HT's version but there has to be a thoroughline. Ironically, I think BE was a succesful recast inasmuch she did change the character by bringing her more warmth while still having a full realized portrayal of Ashley. She was not the dynamo actress ED is in terms of acting but you knew what she was portraying of Ashley. It was not necessarily the same character entirely - or rather she put the focus on a different side of Ashley than ED - but it was coherent and interesting (and I loved her chemistry with Victor). I'd compare it with what GT did with Phyllis. It worked for me because while it was different from the original it felt like it was merely her choosing to spotlight a different side of Phyllis rather than playing a completely different character and it was interesting and a fully composed character. She was playing Phyllis at a different stage of her life (like PB is playing an older Jack).

Well the ranch and Chancellor House redesigns were major disasters so I think both of them would have been fine staying as is. On B&B I can't think of any of their regular sets that has been "redesigned". The Forrester house, Brooke's house, the beach house, the offices at Forrester's are still the same decades later.

I liked early Natalie, who wasn't very nice, a lot more. I used to be so irritated when people would talk about her after her death, particularly when trying to guilt Janet, as saintly. She was nice by the end but she certainly wasn't a "gem" - which is how I liked her. It often irritates me how shows think complicated ambitious women have to be defanged to be likeable and viable long-term.

I agree with everyone's takes here obviously. I blame the problem with Victoria more on the writing - they clearly weren't interested in the complexities HT had brought the character - but it is clear that AH doesn't manage to transcend the material. She can act but the je-ne-sais-quoi is missing. I think something similar happened at the beginning of the TL-PB transition whereby some of layers were removed in the writing and Jack was written as a less complicated character but PB definitely can act and has had good chemistry with almost everybody so it hasn't bothered me. It is more a what-could-have-been than anything that frustrates me right now. Otoh Victoria still bugs me to this day because she could be so much more. That scene HT slaps Eric B.'s Victor. Could you imagine AH playing that at all? Not even playing it well - just them writing it, EB letting it happen and them selling it as believable and significant? You couldn't. It is ironic we are talking about this today because this is the 16th anniversary of AH's debut as Vicky in 2005. She has played the character for SIXTEEN years (vs 13 for HT). I can't wrap my head around it. I can count the number of stories of Victoria as played by AH that I remember and cared about on the fingers of one hand.

I don't agree with that; all the more since the award systems has always been completely messed up when it comes to soaps. Whether it is the Emmys or anybody else, judging based on one episode or two always leads to really dumb choices because the people who vote don't watch the shows. One good episode when you air five episodes a week 52 weeks a year is not a representative sample. And the writing skill for a soap should actually reward consistency over one isolated good episode - the same way I wish acting awards for soaps would reward steady non-showy subtle character work over years rather than one big dramatic scene. But I am still glad soaps are getting recognized even when it is the wrong one (and to be fair, none of the shows had stellar writing last year so Days is not necessarily the wrong choice in context)

Does anyone know the timing of their real-life romance? I think she was still married to John Hurley when they started frolicking around but I always had assumed it was after their characters had been paired up.

I happened to be looking at the Emmy records just this week and Maura is tied in fourth for number of wins with Heather Tom and Helen Gallagher (three wins). The first (Erika Slezak with six wins), second and third (Susan Flannery and Kim Zimmer with four wins) are all retired so she has room to move up the rankings. She is also tied at third in number of nominations (10) with Susan Flannery (who is retired), one fewer nomination than Kim Zimmer (who is also retired) so I wouldn't be surprised if she did move in second place within a couple of years. Catching up to Susan Lucci's 21 will be hard though LOL but her combined record (3 wins/10 noms) definitely puts her in the top four actresses of all times with Slezak (6 wins/9 noms), Zimmer (4 wins/11 noms) and Flannery (4 wins/10 noms) and, unlike these three, she is still active with room to add to her collection.