FrenchBug82

Verbal exchange is not quite the same as what I meant. It is entertaining but it is different from having an equal keeping you in check in the audience's mind. Trading verbal barbs is fun stuff but it is easy. Having an enemy who knows your number and is not afraid of you and can look at you in the eyes as an equal in the audience's esteem is quite another thing and is important for the show's balance. Erica was Erica. She was quite an unsufferable person if you think about it. That's why Mona was so important in humanizing her and I think the rivalry with Brooke was helping in a similar way. Which brings us to this. I agree. I only mentioned Brooke because Brooke way outlasted Barbara and we were talking about her disappearance in the last decade of AMC. By that time, every woman who went up against Erica, verbally or more rarely otherwise, you always felt that if there was something at stake other than verbal sparring, Erica would wipe the floor with them. Brooke was her equal in intellect and accomplishments. And fan affection, if not fame. I am not the most objective person to ask because I never cared for Maria at all. But, obviously, no. Only reason to me she could even be mentioned in this conversation is because the one unforgivable thing Erica ever did was at Maria's expense so that gives her, in theory, moral superiority over Erica. But in terms of intellect or charisma, Maria has nothing on Erica - or Brooke IMO. She was "likable" (not to me but broadly speaking) but that's not enough to go up against complex layered characters. Maria has things going for her (again not to me but broadly speaking) and she was strong - but I never got any depth from her. All I will say is try to picture any other character mentioned here deliver the lecture Brooke gives Erica about Bianca in the video shared a few comments up and you can't think of any other "rival" that would have enough weight for Erica to listen. Picture Krystal or Annie or Greenlee or Maria. You'd just roll your eyes. Erica would just have to reply who do you think you are with contempt and the audience would probably side with her, despite agreeing with what is being said. Erica couldn't do that with Brooke, at least not from the audience's POV. She could say the words but the audience knew who Brooke was and Brooke had earned the right to lecture/advise her.

I don't want to be unkind but I notice a pattern of Alan announcing surprising gets that end up not "being able to make it" on the actual date, a mere week or so after the announcement. Once, OK, things happen. But this isn't the first time that the unlikeliest announced participant ends up not participating.

THAT's the story I want to see. Writers don't understand how much it undermines love stories they are trying to sell us when a loved on doesn't spot it quickly. Imagine if Xander had a look at what KriSarah is selling and immediately goes "What have you done with the real Sarah?". I am not a Xander/Sarah fan and I would immediately stan the relationship. THAT is romantic. It is one thing when the relationship isn't one we are supposed to root for. I mean John and Marlena were the end game so we could enjoy the Kristen/Susan switch because, actually, it underscored that John didn't belong with Kristen when he couldn't tell the difference. But when it is one half of a couple we are supposed to like who falls victim to that stuff, it undermines my belief in their connection forever.

I am sorry but I am a gay man and the gay rewrite for Philip made me very angry. It was tacked-on and felt disrespectful to the audience. Whether they were tempted to do it back then (and sorry but I don't believe that for a second) they didn't and so it didn't ring true to do it now because we saw Philip and we know that wasn't his story. Only good thing about it is that it brought Nina back and Boy did Tricia Cast nail those scenes. TB? Not so much. I am obviously well aware of the conservative (temperamentally, not necessarily politically) choices EPs make. I am the first one to say it is obvious on race. However, I do think it is a tad unfair to be blaming this for the fact there is only a lesbian couple on the show at this time. That's already a huge win after such a long pathetic drought. LGBTQ characters are hard to write for because in a small cast where most everybody is straight, there are few romantic options for them other than the *other* LGBT character. In a cast of, what, 25, having both a gay couple and a lesbian couple can take out 4 characters out of the matchmaking possibilities for writers. So the fact they are not doing it is not just simply down to homophobia. I will grant you it should have happened way earlier than Mariah - that was down to conservatism. But now that they have gone there, I will let them write for her and her girlfriend without demanding a quota of male gay characters as well. I understand that once they are written in they can feel stuck in terms of story potential. I do think where the dime has been dropped was not making Adam explicitly bisexual or pansexual. It could have been just a single scene - that MM, for all the hate he gets, was enthusiastic about playing back then - and they could have still continued mostly pairing him with women for story reasons. But opening that door ajar on his sexual identity would have been cool. I am still hopefuly that one day that side of him might be revisited with a bolder writing team. As for B&B, yes. It is ridiculous that there has never been a gay character on that show. Ridiculous. I will give him he did a good job with the initial Maya story in terms of LGBTQ representation but no gay man in thirty years of a show set in the fashion industry? Dumb I will say that with an even SMALLER cast and even less time on-air, the concerns I mention above are even more valid but B&B but as Bell has proved with his expanding the black representation on the show, he can do it. It is not like he has been shy about telling the story he wanted to tell and then move on from the characters so he wouldn't be *stuck* with the characters the way another soap would be once they were written in. I do have concerns that if he wrote a gay character without a real story in mind it would end up a caricature or comic relief. But at the very least while a gay best friend acting as a sound board for Steffy or Hope would be lazy it would make sense and if the audience liked him, he could be expanded for story later - like Justin sort of has been.

Also. Not that I wanted them to keep JB to prop up SL of course, since JB and Brooke were fantastic on their own merits, but I also think getting rid of any character that could go toe-to-toe with Erica as equals ended up hurting Erica. With a character like that, having someone her own age and a similar affectionate relationship with the audience taking her down a notch or two from time to time is necessary so that she doesn't become insufferable. Krystal and Greenlee weren't exactly the adversaries that could do that effectively for the audience.

I am not sure what that means. RoHo was lazy on ATWT (but had been great on OLTL before that) but Maura West has always been a powerhouse even when given flimsy material. I do love when actors who worked together in a different show as different characters cross path now. It is generally a fail when EP are trying to recreate something (Stefan/Katherine, Carly/Alcazar) but when it is just incidental, it is a lot of fun. It is why I wish they would bring back Skye and have her run into JPS' Valentin. They had wonderful chemistry thirty years ago. I'd get a kick out of it.

Yes. As I said, on the merits, it is a good set but now it is a generic "modern mansion" set. There is nothing DiMera about it anymore. Which, ironically, I could have accepted if they had addressed it on-air. They could have justified the redesign by having Chad or any of them saying they *wanted* to get rid of negative Stefano influence or something. Still a shame but that would have justified the redesign on-screen (not acknowleding it at all is ridiculous) and I could have accepted the rationale as character development or something.

I tiptoed around it but yes. I think CK is part of the reason they are making... choices when it comes to the remaining black cast. In particular why Lily is paired with white men. I have no proof and I am not suggesting something icky. But it is clear to me the fact CK is "passing" is both helping her be in interracial relationships that have been off-limits when they tried with other characters of color (note too that an AA woman has been allowed to date white men but the outcry has been too much when they tried to pair an AA man with a white woman... enough said) but also hindering the show from going deep into exploring the AA experience more explicitly. Which brings us to this very good insight... Victor turning into an all-powerful all-knowing always-winning mustache-twirling villain is the best example since this is entirely Braeden's demand but I fully agree that it is a disease that has spread to most of the character writing. Sometimes to their self-detriment. Michael has been reduced to a annoying day player because they have gone way too far in incorporating ClB's jokey persona into the character when it used to be subtle wit as part of a layered character. It also worked the other way around: Billy Miller's personality was what made his version shine and when they switched actors, that character became a dull and dark a**. And they are making the same mistake with Sally. Everyone can tell Courtney Hope is a wonderful actress and a charismatic girl but they are relying on that to carry whatever nothing that is the story so far. That's not enough. They need to write characters.

One of the fundamental problems I have with GH is exemplified by this Franco murder mystery. I imagine we are supposed to "feel bad" for Jason for being wrongfully accused of Franco's murder. But he IS a murderer who has murdered plenty of times and still walks about free. He has very seriously considered killing Franco - and not in a fit of pique but as a rational decision that he found acceptable and ethical Even if SB were a likeable and talented actor and Jason an interesting character (which... not), Jason SHOULD be in jail. So the intended pathos of being wrongfully accused is totally lost.

I know that's not why she is leaving but playing this crap would certainly endanger *my* sanity.

I am passably irritated that Peter Bergman's distaste of the story seems to have been an obstacle to mentioning Jack has another son and presumably grand-children at this time. Asian grandchildren of a core family! What a easy lay-up to improve diversity on the show. So stupid. I kind of understand why they can't really bring Keemo back - since he had a rule against dating anybody who had dated his father (his ostensible reason for going back to Vietnam was finding out Mary Jo had dated Jack) he couldn't be in any relationship in Genoa City. They're all relatives or exes of his father. But I hope we get Jack's grandkids at some point. I didn't like the Vietnam retcon but it is part of Jack's story now, like it or not.

The Photoshop on that first one. LOL Amazing that that blow-up picture stayed on the wall all that time - if I were dating someone who had a picture like that on their wall, it would have to go before they get a second date.

SC is a likeable guy as far as I can tell and he can act and he has a sense of humor so I am sure he 100% endorses what everyone is saying about Liam. But the writers have kept him VERY employed for many many many years now - a lot longer than 90% of the actors that Bell hires and then gets tired of - so I don't think he would have much of a case to sue . I know you are joking but it is worth reflecting that the regular paychecks must be sweet for a young actor like him, no matter how infuriating the material. He was certainly good on GH but at the outset I would not have pegged him to become one of the most resilient part of the revolving-door B&B cast, especially since he doesn't look like the kind of leading man Bell usually casts. I do think the show would be helped by being more self-aware about the absurdity of Liam's behavior and drawing the audience in in the mockery. Even when they give it a try like with some of what Hope said, they have to include stuff like ranger quoted that just completely overshadows every bit of satisfaction we could get from him being called out. ed out.

Especially a lot of straight men are surprisingly uncomfortable with vajajays and don't really want to go down and look at it from up close. I guess it is easier not to notice that it is not the same VJ than breasts and a p*n*s.

The parallel with The Bachelor is interesting because I do think part of the fear is not just antagonizing the "80 white women" (lol) but also opening a Pandora's Box they can't control. The minute they start tackling this, other issues regarding *their* own behavior and choices become more fair game. VR's criticisms, their writing choices, the personal bigotry of some of their white cast... It is really a hornet's nest. At least right now they have the excuse that they are avoiding it altogether. Ironically, the minute they try to do better, they run the risk of *everything* being litigated, including things they don't want to try and change.

Well I for one am sick and tired of a certain section of the population deciding what we can or cannot talk about. One of the main issue around race in this country has been that white people have determined what could or could not be said, talked about and the frame within the conversation could happen. Enough. ALL soaps are avoiding those topics lest they offend them; I reiterate that is why there is a wide open lane for at least one soap that will be honest and interesting and tackle hot topics without worrying about offending this or that. Those folks can move to the other scaredy-cat soaps instead and let sane people of the 21st century have one.

I don't think there is a plan for a twist. I do think that leaves the door open to revisit this once Finn is out of the picture in a few years. I wouldn't have been mad at that at all if they had established it from the get-go. Making him Eric Sharpe now would feel a bit too contrived.

It is weird that, once she was recast, the writers decided to mostly reduce Victoria to whiny love interest because that's 1) not what Victoria was initially when played by Heather Tom 2) Amelia Heinle has played somewhat bitchy characters before and can do it very well. No they wouldn't. But that's why soaps are dying. This isn't Kansas 1950 anymore, writers. There is a huge audience waiting for stories that tackle the real world. More than the audience of disgruntled bigots who would tune out.

Yeah that was just to establish Hope as a surrogate mother for Douglas but it was dumb. There were ways to get Caroline out of the picture in terms of raising the child temporarily. And killing off a character we followed for years off-screen is a waste.

Anyone remembering Victoria's many arguments with Nina over Ryan knows Victoria is not above real conflict. I am fine however with this aspect of this storyline and Lily/Billy are fine. I just don't care about what Billy has become and there is nothing for me to root for in any of his pairings. It happens that the rewrites coincided with the recast but just like for Victoria, I don't blame the actors. But the writing choices have sucked the fun or originality out of those characters. At the risk of being controversial, I wish the racial aspect was part of the subtext here. It is GREAT that Y&R is putting interracial romances together and that it works and that they are sticking them out. But it is silly for the characters never to mention it. Has anyone ever remarked on Lily's tendency to date white men? I don't care as a viewer and I wouldn't care if she were a real person but it seems to me there would be a very interesting subtext to play with a good writer. This is where I feel VR's point about the importance of having writers of color rings particularly true. In the right hands, there could be such a rich interesting vein to mine for character layers here, especially for a character like Lily who doesn't have many. Not as a main plot but as a subtle unspoken subplot. What does this say about Lily? Does it say anything? Does it matter if it says something? Such wealth of difficult but interesting things for writers to write in between the lines. Probably too hot to touch but I keep thinking how we could not picture Sherwood's Lily dating Billy and there is a real cultural and social subtext to touch on.

On one hand, it is a lovely set on its own merits (better than other shows' attempts at modernizing old sets). On the other, part of Stefano's charm and menace was the fact he was a sophisticated old-Europe "Gothic" man. This modern redesign completely loses that and completely loses Stefano's spirit. Maybe it is time, I don't know, but it bugs me a little.

It occurred to me that no one is running a second paternity test. But because Vinnie admitted he tampered with it everyone simply assumes that means the result was wrong and Finn is the father. But did we get a clear explanation of what Vinnie did other than make sure Liam came out the father? If I missed it, my speculation might off-base but I am pretty sure they stayed vague as to what exactly he did. Because otherwise, if it is not a straight-forward sample switch, this leaves the door wide open for Bell to revisit this later once Finn has served his purpose and is out of the picture and he wants to sell us on another round of Liam/Steffy. Tampered with it could simply mean Vinnie wrote down Liam without running the test properly or something. It doesn't mean it was wrong; it simply means he made sure it had the result he wanted. He told Finn he was the father, granted, but that still leaves a pretty huge loophole that he made the assumption, just like the audience, or that he told Finn that to get rid of him in a situation where he was being threatened or was trying to justify himself to Thomas, and he actually doesn't know. Just like when I need to see a corpse to believe a character has been properly killed off, I need me a second paternity test to be sure. I know I am being far-fetched but I have watched enough soaps to spot a loophole.

YES! While I ended up trimming it to focus on the directing issue - my current obsession - the initial version of my post above also had longer thoughts on how WL is young and green and even an actor who gets a lot of praise early learns and matures and gets better as he gains experience and insight on acting. TP is hella good example - I still am not a fan but he is definitely a good actor and has reined in his worst instincts from his GL days. I am not worried: when someone has the raw talent, casting director spot it, hire them and use directors and castmates to mold them. I wish GH took more time to do that - and they probably do but here his scene partner was someone he had never worked with before so he probably could not give him notes.

This is my reaction too. Which makes me think that people probably have it right to speculate it might have to do with her rather than the show. I didn't care much for Sarah as a character but I love LG. She gave great life to B&B's Caroline even in the fact of ridiculously inconsistent writing and I hope to see her again on Days or any other show that scoops her (don't get me started on B&B killing her character off off-screen long after she had already been written out but that's another thread).

I detect a pattern here... (see some of my earlier posts).