FrenchBug82

I am very scared that they are going to simply turning her into Annie - as brilliant as CW is at playing that stuff. But if hating Carly gives Nina some meat as a character, I am all for it.

Broadening the conversation, the utter inconsistency of runs for a same HW - great once, middling others, terrible here and there - is a reminder that a HW doesn't write alone. If it was down to them, you'd see more consistency. The producing team on one hand and the writing team under them on the other clearly - as examplified by all this - have a huge influence on whether a run is good or bad. It might go both ways btw: maybe a run was good because producers vetoed the bad ideas and the writing team pitched great stuff. And then the HW gets a bad run because the producers let them run free and the writers under them are not that good or not comfortable pushing back. Or a HW has a bad run because a producer vetoes the good ideas and the breakdown writing team is not gelling right but gets a good run when everyone is rowing in the same direction. My personal sense is that the former is probably closer to the truth: bad runs tend to happen to HW later - it is generally her first few ones that are highly praised. By then they have a reputation and people under them probably don't dare push back or be too bold in pushing things. And producers trust the track record and don't oversee the writing as much. Also, as time goes by, a lot of people upstairs don't seem to care to micromanage as much which means a HW with bad judgement has more leeway than in the 80s. Either way soaps, like most businesses, need a clear line of authority - meaning one headwriter - but a strong team under them. It goes to finding good writers, nurturing them, listening to them. And a producer that is discerning about how they manage the writing. It is easier for fans to sum everything up with who was HW at the time but I really think that misses a lot of the real dynamic that makes for a decent or terrible show.

Ironically, overcoming drama is what turns a soap couple into an "it" couple. If we root for them to get back together after rows, fights, secrets, lies, cheatings, you have it made. Having it all be easy and smooth is... not the way. I continue to say that while I could buy the underlying story of rivalry, the way it has been set up is making me not care that much. I need them to have a real good soapy reason to hate each other, not just "dislike each other on sight".

In isolation this is true but the pattern of Days turning its young attractive decent-acting and popular male leads into criminals is abysmal and short-sighted. As far back as Nick as the stalker.

I have literally loved every English-language soaps I have watched so maybe I am too much a fan. LOL There are storylines I do not connect with (science-fiction is a no for me) but there has never been a soap that has instinctively repulsed me. Even Passions where there was a lot of science-fiction but the soap beats were still fun, even when poorly acted. French soaps (I am originally French) on the other hand make me very uncomfortable. The production values are below cheap.

That is true although, for the actor himself, he might read it as him/her not being able to pull off the role even with their best acting and it hurts their pride. That's what Ramsey gets at in his admittedly way too convoluted response: if he is an actor, he is supposed to be able to handle everything that is coming at him. TR's comments, coming as they did in the midst of big scenes that unfortunately WR kinda whiffed on (and I say that as someone who doesn't mind his acting 80% of the time) read as a read even if TR didn't intend them that way. What TR said was all true and I think he was more intent on calling the show out. But it is a reminder of the golden rule of "speaking truths": - Does it need to be said? - Does it need to be said by me? - Does it need to be said by me here and now? I think this was off-base on the latter point. This commentary was true but with the character still on-screen, there was nothing to gain even if we fans enjoyed the T. Here is a thing I know we GH viewers are not used to so maybe we missed it: how about both women have good points and grievances AND are completely making the situation worse? How about there is nobody to root for or against but a very complicated situation being messy because real people don't always react wisely to tough calls? I like that story - at least so far - because it is indeed, as many above have said, easy to side with one one scene and then realize the other has a point the next. That's good writing. If they manage to add Ava to the mix later, I might thoroughly enjoy this as good soap stuff. And additionally: Carly is a shrieking harpy but that's the way she is written. LW is giving them exactly what they want and she is doing a good job at it. I have problems with the character and the writing choices but not with her acting.

Can I point out that one reason this really works is not just the one-liners but because Barbara is actually right about the name? That's good writing where not everything is black and white and the antagonist can actually be the one that makes a reasonable point. That makes the scenes more interesting. For someone for whom this is a bit earlier than what I am familiar with, what drama are we talking about? And how do you see it spilling on-screen? I get the Krystal hate, I really do. But I don't think introducing another actress in that age range with no established ties was a bad idea. Injecting an outsider can sometimes help. Of course, on the other hand, it is a real shame they completely lost the plot for Brooke for so long because she should have continued to be the other anchor of the show vs Erica. Julia Barr is a wonder and I will never understand what happened there.

I am excited to hear how RG talks of her experience on Loving. Have not heard her talk about it before.

I wish soaps would learn indeed that it is a more compelling story to see a real layered likeable human falling in love and competing for half of supercouple than whatever caricatures of evil vs supercouple-we-are-supposed-to-root-for writers go for 90% of the time. I hate that they think the audience is so simple-minded that we can't deal with anything other than the spoilers being evil, crazy or unlikeable (including turning established characters into this when needed) and would not accept "It is complicated" as a story.

That's very true. That's why I give Tamara Tunie allowance for her refusal to talk about the show, despite my frustration about it. I get it. BUT being in the public eye means faking it to an extent. How many movies have sets where everybody hates each other, bad things happen left and right and it is dysfunctional and awful? Probably a huge proportion. How many actors refuse to promote the movie for that reason or spend their PR tour talking about how much they hated it? How many even discuss bad experiences even years later? Very few and when it happens it is generally for movies thar are masterpieces and get BTS documentaries made. It should be the same for soaps. Even if you weren't happy there, there are easy ways for someone who became more famous later to give a saccharine content-free answer about how grateful you are for the opportunity and the fans you made along the way. And then next question. When someone like Meg Ryan refused to even entertain questions it was because she was ashamed of that work and as a soap fan, I am offended.

I don't think their careers quite track.With all due respect to Lucci who was great in her own way, McKinsey was a spectacular - read: better - actress. But while she had some mainstream fame on Another World, I don't think many people would ever know her name - unlike Lucci who had the drive and smarts to make herself known in many ways. McK was huge within the industry - probably proportionally bigger in her time than Lucci ever was, if only because the industry was different when she peaked - but Lucci is more traditionally famous.

I am not going to turn this into a bash-Wright post because I really don't have a personal investment in it, but the last interview I posted of her a few days ago did shock me in terms of open hatred for the show and disrespect for the fans. To get back to ATWT though, Moore has always shown appreciation. When she was "big", Meg Ryan used to ban questions about it altogether although I don't know if that's still the case.

Well to be fair, some of the things, as documented recently on the SB thread, Wright said about her time on SB were pretty cross-the-line horrible. Moore never spoke of it that way. Softening with time is good and I take it but there is a reason for which the bar is higher for Wright.

Yeah I never took her discomfort with her own work at having anything to do with the show. She speaks openly and warmly of her time on ATWT - get Meg Ryan to talk about hers and see what she says in comparison. But she is, like so many actors/resses, self-conscious, tough on herself. And even if we liked her work then, she has obviously grown as a woman and actress. Meryl Streep once said in an interview that she cringes when watching herself in "French Lieutenant's Woman". I mean even the most talented of performers are tough on themselves!

It is my understanding. And they didn't tell her so she was pissed because she thought they had a proper story for her AND she didn't think putting Cliff/Nina back together was fair to the character evolution they had tried to play. I don't know if she feels that way but while I can understand that logic at the time, giving fans closure that way was probably the right thing to do even if it wasn't great writing.

The host is a "huge daytime fan" but she doesn't know there are still four on the air every day? Urgh. This is why daytime soaps can't win.

I am not impressed by that argument. Actors who learn a play learn it over weeks, rehearse it to the hilt and then play the same play every night for months. A soap actor has a few days to learn many pages of script, no rehearsal or almost any and will only play that dialogue once. Not quite the same skill set. I am not defending cue cards; I think soaps should hire people who can do the above over giving them crutches. But the comparison with theater seems unfair to me.

As I said earlier, she was pissed she wasn't *asked* but that doesn't mean she wanted to do it. I don't think she would have - and certainly not for the long-term tenure that Jill Larson ended up doing.

Is there anyone who has worked at Y&R from another show and had good things to say about that set? Yeesh. I wonder if the mention that Braeden used cue cards earlier in this thread and Bergman being derisive of it had a part in their feud or was part of their passive-aggressive feud.

I sort of understand why she would have looked at the role of Drucilla as written when she came in with suspicion but I'd be counterintuitive and argue that Drucilla ended up being the much better stereotype breaker. Specifically because she succeeded at making something of herself while still speaking and carrying herself as a proud black woman. Not that Olivia wasn't proud - and I miss her and the Winters clan - but her character could be read as code-switching to succeed. Drucilla was unapologetically who she was and she did fantastic with herself, breaking a lot more stereotypes in the process. That's a bit of the parallel between the DS vs CK debate for Lilly.

It could even be that she would have declined anyway but simply wanted the "courtesy" of first refusal. Actors are weird sometimes.

But it is my understand she was really pissed they didn't ask her first when they brought Opal back and went straight to recast instead. That was long after of course but the story of why they did that if she was open to returning is an open question.

Dack Rambo's history of losing jobs abruptly is quite a thing to behold (setting aside Another World which is rather sad since it was linked to his AIDS-related decline). I have always wondered to which extent it was his homosexuality and to which extent he may have been a problem behind-the-scenes for a reason or another.

Yes. I have to amend my initial post as I had forgotten about it but Constance Ford is absolutely someone who was visibly and conspicuously reading cue cards. Check this scene: The acting is good but boy is she obviously constantly looking to the side at cue cards.

Inspired by Franceska James "revealing" (confirming?) that AMC's Ruth Warrick was relying on teleprompters, here is a new topic: which actors/actresses are known to have relied or rely on teleprompters to deliver their lines? Which ones do we suspect do so? Anyone ever caught a eyeline in the wrong direction? And do we have a problem with it? Only confirmed case I know of is David Canary but that's pretty sad because it was due to the beginning of his dementia. I once remember reading somewhere the cast of Y&R did it more than the others (back then at least) but I don't have any factual information. But the floor is open to those who know better