FrenchBug82

Especially since by that time Blake had been completely defanged in turn.

See I didn't remember that the timing coincided and I am surprised because I would have been pissed if I remembered. Let me just say that was not a good trade-off LOL I saw recent photos of Buxton and she looks great but yeah indeed it looks like she has moved on from acting.

Chelsea is one example I think about when I am tempted to say an actor or actress sucks because their character is subpar and I bite my tongue. Because it really shows how the magic for a performer sometimes comes from finding the right role and often the writing is to blame (which is true for recasts as well when recast actors get blamed for the writing changing the character rather than their portrayal). KdP is a superb actress but Chelsea was a huge dud. Casting good actors *in the right role* is as important as casting good actors. It is also true, dare I say it, for Kim Zimmer. Reva was hers. I am not sure I was ever impressed by anything else I saw her do.

I don't know much about contracts but the way she tells the story of the extra two years sound... weird. Could be that they negotiated an extension of her contract if they let her out early of the first one to do The Princess Bride (and it would have been a fair deal for her rather than lose TPB altogether) but "They added two years because I was gone four months" is an oddly passive way to tell it as if they forced her. Is there a backstory there I am not familiar with?

Here is another one: On B&B Bell re-signed Sarah G. Buxton to a new long-term contract, brought Morgan back, set up the Venice story and... dropped it - and her altogether - after just a few weeks. Even by Bell's short-attention-span standards, the completely lack of climax and payoff to the story he had taken weeks to set up and the abrupt nature of its disappearance means this was a last-minute U-turn for... reasons we will never know* * which is too bad because I love Sarah G. Buxton and Morgan vs Brooke would have probably been more interesting than Taylor vs Morgan

Well, if you like a show you like to interpret the characters but I think you have probably the truer point: that the Shapiros had no clue what they were doing and were making things up as they went along. On the other hand trying to find a coherence to their stories may be giving them too much credit, sure, but it is still fun to try!

When investigating the above question, I found this oral history with tidbits I had never heard before: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/melrose-place-oral-history-marcia-cross-heather-locklear-grant-show-darren-star-look-back-1016500 I didn't know that Laura Leighton was older than Josie B. and that Andrew Shue wasn't the original Billy. But my favorite wtf-I-have-to-rewatch-the-show-to-spot-this detail:

No one is ever "completely" responsible for the downfall of an entire show and no doubt there was network interference/sabotage. But the fact she showed good judgement in this particular instance does not excuse all the awful calls that were on her - and that she still defends! Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time and even the worst headwriter/producer has good stories and makes good decisions. The judgement on her is based on a broad look at everything she did.

Do we have a sense of who it was initially going to be?

Seems he is teasing a departure rather than a return

It is indeed funny that as well-known as the story of how Heather Locklear's bitchy Amanda arrival "saved" Melrose Place is, few people remark on how this tracks exactly with how Abby's arrival's on Knots Landing marked the shift of the show - first towards more outright soapy storylines and then towards a less self-contained episodic format. I don't think it made the immediate difference in the ratings in KL than it did in MP but, creatively, the parallels between the two shows in that way are very striking.

It surprises me that they would openly acknowledge they are firing an actress - a 16yo girl! - because she gained weight! And gotta love (that's sarcasm) that spin that her weight gain causes cameramen problems somehow? Because fat people are harder to film? Stupid and offensive.

Soaps infamously - and logically - drop storylines all the time. Most of the time for legit reasons: - behind-the-scenes (HR issues with a performer or between performers, performer abruptly leaves, change of headwriter or producer) - creative issues (story does not work or audience rejects the story) What I was interested in bringing up were stories that were clearly either seeded or started and disappeared without us ever getting an answer as to where this was intended to go and why the direction changed abruptly. One I am thinking about what when Maura West's Diane married Victor on Y&R. They rushed the marriage, spent a LOT of time showing the terms of the prenup and started showing Victor acting bizarre and controlling (I remember a creepy scene around a necklace he wanted her to wear)... They were pretty clearly setting the stage for a story there (and maybe two stories as they really insisted she would get nothing unless the marriage lasted a year which hinted this would be a later plot point) and then... nothing. The very fact of the marriage was dropped in a hot minute and almost entirely memory-holed six months later. It was very abrupt and very weird and we never really found out what the storyline was supposed to be about. On Another World, around the time Carmen Duncan took over as Iris returned from Australia, another character with an Australian accent popped up (was her name Sheila?) in a different storyline and it seemed like too big a coincidence. But the character went nowhere and we were never explained what the initial plan might have been. On Days, there was once a phone call where Victor said Daniel must never know who his real father was - that was after we had learned he was Maggie's. Nothing ever came of that, did it? What other stories do we remember were hinted at and planted seeds for and just completely dropped and never mentioned again without the reason why ever made public?

It is funny because I have been trying to get my mom (who only started watching soaps after she retired a decade ago) to give Melrose a chance with always the caveat that S1 is a bit hard to get through before you get to the "fun" parts. She always asks me if she can skip it and just get the lowdown from me but I have realized over time that having watched S1 did impact my approach to the show later in one concrete way - besides the overall fuzzy feelings of familiarity with the OGs. While I think Allison/Billy were still clearly written as the end game all the way to Season 4 and you'd still get that you are supposed to root for them if you skipped S1, one relationship that I think would be incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't seen S1 is Jane and Michael. If all you have seen of them is everything from the Kimberly affair forward, there is no way you could wrap your head around either character or their choices regarding each other (and later reunion). But having seen them interact as the young married couple - and they had chemistry then - did make BOTH characters feel more sympathetic and make the weird way they continued to be in each other's orbit - sometimes willingly, sometimes not - more interesting IMO. Yes. That was my problem with the Parezi story, which I hated. Not Sabato Jr. But the fact it made NO sense based on the backstory we had gotten so far. And that's without even mentioning the later Eve retcon as well.

I think it is time for a confession. I didn't like Deas' attention-seeking acting style and Buzz did nothing for me. But I recently started watching the very very beginning of Ryan's Hope on YouTube and young Justin Deas... I would have.

Sorry for the typo. Would have been much funnier your way though! LOL

You are correct. She was born (and passed) during November Sweeps 1994

Nadine to Jenna at the 7 minute mark.

I have one word to settle this for you: threesome.

I love Joan Collins and all but her version of her relationships with her co-stars always seem to vary with time and goes back and forth depending om whom she is talking to. And she likes to say everyone she has ever worked with hated her. Not to say JF may not have disliked her, who knows, but considering how he reacted every time writers tried to shake up Krystle and Blake, I really feel he was very invested in making sure that relationships was never challenged. So part of me continues to think it was mostly an acting choice. But I do love your psychological explanation of Blake - which ironically buttresses up his choice to play him without any lingering affection for Alexis because she reminded him of his initial inadequacies. I don't agree with this because I think this gives too much credit to what Alexis represented - that you describe beautifully - and not enough to her real character flaws. She was a narcissist and that means I don't think she ever fell in love in a traditional romantic sense. But the idea of her looking for a partner is ironically closer to what I had in mind - almost as if she was looking for a deal. A deal that might be rooted in affection and enjoyment of each other, sure, but not the kind you find in through-thick-and-thin passion traditional soap opera love. More a community of interests. I don't think she was madly in love; she saw him as a worthy partner and pleasurable companion which is more based on her assessment of her own needs and wants - as fitting for a narcissist for whom success is more important than emotional relationships (see: her children) So I agree with your assessment of why it didn't work with Dex: because the deal she had in mind didn't fit his behavior after they got together.

"Lots of lie I can believe but enjoying Buzz in bed? No way" is hell of a line to have gotten away with in daytime in 1993 (on several different levels) but I hollered.

Your post was perfectly understandable as it was. And truth be told I initially thought that punctuation was a choice for emphasis so I didn't realize English wasn't your first language. Ignore whatever that unnecessary response was. Your post was fine Being victimized is a frequent trope of LGBT characters on soaps but it made sense of the son of *Lily* to have inherited the dude-in-distress genes. That said, while Van Hansis was never a mind-blowing actor or even charimastic the way Chandler Massey is, I thought he was solid and I never had any issue with his acting. Considering some of the planks of wood he has to act with, that's high praise.

Yeah. That's where I am at too. Her true love was herself. She enjoyed the company of men and their attention/adoration and even the games Dex and her played with each other but I doubt it ever resembled anything we would recognize as "love". The one thing that I think was missing for the entire run of the show IMO was a proper look at what really united those two in the past. At no point whatsoever did it seem plausible for me that Blake could have been in love with her - even if she was softer when she was younger - and it struck me that Forsythe chose never to play even a hint of lost affection or regret - probably because he was so committed to K/B that he didn't want to open a door there. The amnesia story was an attempt to go around that but even then it never quite made sense as it seemed more based on nostalgia than feelings. All in all it was a pretty massive question mark considering how much revolved around their defunct marriage.

OK I hate to be placed in a position to contest this because 1) I agree with you; things can change AND soaps are a good place to force the change even by being a bit ahead of the viewership 2) It shouldn't matter. The bigots can go to Hell. I don't think it should matter that there are some vocal racists when producers create stories and I think there would be MORE to gain in viewers watching than to lose. As often, black women are very underestimated as a powerful audience. Catering to them could give a powerful boost to ratings that more than balances out the white Karens who would decide to go pout. BUT the comparison with Bridgerton is very misplaced because the audience for a Netflix or primetime show is not the same audience as for a daytime soap. Soap producers are targeting the very narrow demographic slice that is still watching soap and it is a very different audience, more conservative on average. Yes, I agree that they are being TOO cautious by being overly scared of losing even part of that audience because they feel they can't afford to lose any at this stage BUT while it is callous, it is not ridiculous. It is a penny-pinching overly cautious short-sighted logic but it is not an absurd one. It is just tht soap producers are not known to have a great record thinking beyond the next couple of months when it comes to the interest of their show. And sometimes protecting the next couple of months hurts long-term - like, and we go back to agreeing, in this case. I wasn't obsessed with Reid but one thing you said that rings very true to me is that Reid was the rare gay character who entered the scene - gay. For narrative purposes, especially when a character is a legacy character, I understand why soaps are fond of coming out stories but it does feel having LGBT characters who are not troubled, struggled, guilty or rejected is a nice change of pace.

I think in both cases it is what the writers/producers THOUGHT the audience wanted rather than what the fanbase wanted. And my ickiness with the Paul couplings is even stupider than this: it is not the "Uncle" part; it is the fact he slept with both Will and Sonny. I know it doesn't make it incestuous but I am thinking of how I would feel sleeping with two ex-husbands and it feels... weird. But OF COURSE I have that issue with the fact everybody has slept with everybody else in those towns. It is just that back-to-back made it weird for me because as a gay man I guess I identify with their choices more.