FrenchBug82

Thank you. That was my point. There are performers I would, there are plenty I wouldn't. But it is crazy to describe anybody on that show as unattractive. It sets a very unhealthy standard for real life and the rest of us on one hand and it is amazingly unkind to AG who is a real person with feelings. You wanna celebrate Rey's physique? Great. Be my guest! No need to belittle AG or anyone else in the process. Only times actor's appeareance can be criticized IMHO is when it is for things they have control over: hair/makeup/clothes or plastic surgery. Otherwise it is just... uncool and unnecessary.

Remember what I was talking at length just a few days ago about Bell does not know how to do fallout? He just wants buildup and PLOT and then doesn't quite how to write the aftermath His utter inability to write properly what should be gimme scenes of various characters reacting to the altered paternity test is proof of that again. He didn't realize the "fun" of the storyline shouldn't be in the reveal Finn is the father itself but in the various reactions to it. And he can't even give us that properly.

I can only speak for myself but I 100% would accept soaps cutting budget in clothes hugely by reusing the same clothes -as real people do - if it allows for better budget for other visually important things like sets that don't look like papier-maché et decent camera work. British soaps dress almost all their characters in non-descript Old Navy type stuff and it doesnt hurt the show in the slightest. Granted American soaps have a lot more socially-high characters that require better clothing than generally gritty working-class British soaps but I would have Reva doing every scene in that pink suit if it had saved money for a proper stable camera.

Because we spend so much time criticizing WR's acting choice I'd like to stop and take the time to offer appreciation for Kirsten S'. These scenes are a bit jarring because his affect is very different from hers (I blame, again, the director for not trying to harmonize them) but taken in isolation she delivered her calm coldy determined performance very well and I thought she was very good

It is interesting because, while my journey to soaps is complicated by the fact I grew up in Europe where the US soaps we had over there - of which AMC was not - were several years earlier (so while I was born in 82, I technically started watching many shows from their mid-80s output), when I later emigrated, the Natalie-in-the-well storyline is the first thing I ever heard about All My Children.

I wonder how that story ended up back in YR, whether it is a coincidence of bad ideas happening to different people or whether there was a writer in common. Anyway thanks for the info. Had never heard of it

Yes. I have been banging that drum for years that soap directors seem to have gotten so focused on blocking for the technical side and fancy shots so they can bring of a visual style that they forgot they also should have a role in molding the performances and directing it Without rehearsals it is hard to know beforehand but the minute the first segment is done and you saw an actor try this kind of stupid performance trick, you need to immediately tell them to dial it down the rest of the scene.

When was that floated? In 2006-2007 the Young and the Restless did that exact story of infamous on-and-off villain Sheila Carter getting surgery to look like a character she had only tangential interactions with prior (Phyllis) and impersonating her to get revenge on the ones that did. Which fit even worse with YR than it would have with AMC. Reverting Janet back to crazy Janet was an insult and they made it a cruel one by having her kill Trevor. I enjoyed having KC back because I like KC and she looked like she was having fun but it was abysmal and there was no subtlety or layers to what was being written and, I am afraid, played. Janet was being used as a plot device.

This is why I think it is important to distinguish personal behavior from business decisions. Lord knows there are SO many creative decisions that I find galling from the last few years of ATWT but budget considerations have to be excused. Sometimes you have to make tough calls that gut part of the show in order to save the whole (we sometimes forget that about why some "vets" are not used as much - they probably cost more than the latest teen character). What I don't forgive Goutman for is his personal behavior towards the show and some of its actors. There is a level of contempt that is not acceptable.

I have been rewatching the 1991 episodes on YT at the moment so it is fun that the conversation ends up back here. I had completely memory-holed that so many of the Aldens had disappeared at some point. I knew some had gone and came back but not all at once. I thought there was something unique to PS that might have led him to being fired. I know nothing of the demons you speak off but it sounds it was more all of them at the same time. And on the Ally/Matt note I just realized LW had good chemistry with all her romantic partners on Loving because I kinda rooted for all her pairings - even when it was supposed to be "obvious" she wanted to be with Casey I liked her and Cooper as well.

On the other hand, she wasn't going to influence the writing and if they wanted to keep her - and it was a big get at the time - she could have continued playing her the way she wanted. Which she kind of did. But it is exactly the kind of fussing and overthinking and maybe "bothering" producers and writers with your "vision" that sounds very JvA and that soap TPTB have no patience for. So it probably all, along with the hours etc, meshed up to what I was saying about her not having expected the daytime industry to work so ruthlessly. It is not like it is uncommon pattern for people used to other medium coming onto soaps after all and it is perfectly legitimate! It is a tough rhythm and even great actors can have a tough time keeping up. I think soap fans genuinely underestimate the very pedestrian or pragmatic motives for a lot of the BTS things that happen and influence what we watch

OK I feel like I am abusing now and you can ignore my questions if this is too much but this is an interesting rabbit hole so let me ask... what? I feel I must have read it at some point and yet it doesn't ring a bell. Stephens didn't leave by choice?

And even Grant... I mean Charles Grant gave him a lot beyond the paper but if you think about how much we knew about Grant, it is not much.

I don't know enough about the writing team shenanigans (but thanks to DeliaIrisFan for this fascinating expose) to comment on the role the writing team had in what I am about to say but while the Natalie-in-the-well story had a lot going for it, I never thought Kate Collins - who was wonderful as Natalie both in her calculating days and in her kinder latter days - did Janet very well. It was always too broad and obvious a character for me when she played it, even when the backstory attempted to give her layers. The latter returns of Janet (especially her killing Trevor) count to me as one of the vilest moments of late AMC (along with the unabortion and Dixie and the pancakes), but the MINUTE they said they were bringing back Janet but played by KC, I knew they were going to write her as the broad crazy stereotype rather than the layered complicated version of Robin Mattson.

Thank you for your extended explanation. That's the brilliant stuff that comes from this kind of community. I admittedly didn't remember some of these ickier plot points (I in particular was convinced they had managed to never write Clay and Stacey as sleeping together which bugs me in a way Stacey falling apart after Jack's "death" doesn't). They had clearly left the door open for Jack to come back at some point; do we know why they never did?

Yes! It has been driving me mad. Bell does this very often with outsider "spoilers" to established romances - where the "other guy" is so nondescript because his only role is to be the other guy. Think back of all the men Brooke has dated that weren't Forresters. There was never much to them

I am reading these fascinating and very long series of KL reviews and there is a line in the review of S11 (https://thatsallsiknow.blogspot.com/2016/11/knots-landing-season-11.html) that I think really speaks to the broader topic of this thread: "at the end of the day, Lechowick and Latham weren't at their best when they were empowered; they were at their best when they were humbled." That, I think, is a dynamic that is very common to the headwriters we are talking about - they are better when they are hemmed in - by their team, as I have argued, by audience reaction - for shows where that matters, etc. I think this is typically one of these cases (see Joan Collins on GL) of primetime stars who take a soap role without understand how relentless, fast-paced and exhausting daytime schedules can be. It is probably especially the case with JvA who I bet is a bit of a method actress who likes to overthink her scenes and stuff like this. There is no doing that here. I agree Gloria never quite gelled and I don't like comic relief Gloria but worth remembering how much the fanbase hated her when she was played straightforwardly (partly because by proxy she focused the anger for John being killed off)

Yes. I am a bit indulgent on this SL too because clearly behind-the-scenes stuff messed up what they had planned. Are we doing this, really? Those are two very attractive men. A gazillion things wrong with the show and this storyline but this isn't it. If we are going to criticize, let's question why Adam has become such a limp noodle of a character - both acting and writing are to blame.

I have mentioned it before when it comes to men swapping because, well, there are not two male organs that are similar in the world that anyone who has been intimate with the original wouldn't be able to immediately tell it is not the same person. But this applies at least to boobage too.

Yes! I mentioned it Friday because it made the scene with Maxie sound so ridiculous. Why is he whispering? What's that choice about? Anytime I want to defend WR because people are so mean to him, he just reminds me that, nope. And as I often say, I don't blame him entirely: actors SHOULD try stuff and even the best actor will sometimes attempt something that doesn't convey the way they were hoping but that's down to the director to say that whispering stuff isn't working and cut it out. That's what directors are for!

Maybe I am too easily-pleased but the fact she remembers Montega was a nice touch.

Can someone explain to me why the gaslighting was/is so unpopular. Granted it was thirty years ago but I remember being very interested by it at the time - it was not out-of-character for Clay and Stacey was a very likable character so you were rooting for her. Was it because people thought Stacey should have caught on quicker?

On one hand, I kinda like having random characters interact with each other. It is better to give them a Salem as a real town. On the other, it was so random that I am pretty sure this was one of these cases of the scene originally having been written for Gabi and someone else, that someone else not available to film it at that time for whatever reason, and them switching in Roman because JT was available at short notice.

Not going to belabor the former point because, well, if you are sure you can be sure, you will never be convinced that you can't be sure of anything you didn't personally witnessed. But it is worth repeating that MM is an excellent actress and very charismatic and her talents are not at all in question. I'd reckon some of her scenes around her mother will land her Emmy nom for sure. But I stand by my take that Amanda is not working - and more than happy to blame the writing. I mean the show has been bad about those kinds of romances before (Sharon/Victor is still one of the vilest moments in the history of the show for me) but I think it is highly doubtful they are going to try to sell us the story as a proper romance. Of course Sally has an angle. For me to accept it, and I really want to, they need to have the character and acknowledge the obvious, and I hope PB's ego can take it. I need to have people comment on how weird it is and Jack express self-confidence issues regarding being so much older etc. If they make the age difference an explicit point, then I can follow the story where it takes us. Hopefully not a triangle with Kyle but the new story seems to be taking him away from that direction which is a relief. And on that note, I think this actually helps the Sally/Jack story and make it easier for me to accept. I am not sure I'd feel the same way about seeing where it goes if we were ever to be treated to physical affection between them, if you know what I am saying.

Probably covid-precautions related. They generally try to keep them away from each other in a shot which can't be done for a fight. I never said anything about the conversations. I said Thomas being the one that reveal the paternity test switch is a more organic - although not "original" - way to redeem him than giving him a deus ex machina disease to make us feel sorry for him (the classic brain tumor plot) or save someone else in spectacular fashion (like they once did with Adam on Y&R where he saved I think Faith from something). It is at least character-based which is a more interesting development than a single plot aimed at wiping the slate clean. It is more of a process. So as far as redeeming strategy for a sullied character go, I'll take it. I'll take it a lot more over trying to make us forget what Flo did simply by making her a relative of existing characters. As if this had anything to do with anything.