FrenchBug82

I managed to cringe SO hard at those ten seconds of Ben and Ciara as Romeo and Juliet and I am not even a Ben/Ciara hater.

Also, I am so bored with R&J being overused as the stand-in for any relationship that faces tragedy and obstacles. Sorry but R&J's family feud is a very specific circumstance that doesn't apply here.
Find new literary references, writers.

8 hours ago, Mitch said:

But then AMC who had a more conventional "hunk" guy play a gay guy, and who got much more publicity out of it then ATWT, also had a boring generic guy so it was baby steps. And really, Luke and whatishface bored the HELL out of me and gay viewers were acting like they were HOT and so so interesting. I think the only actual "sexual" gay character was GL's Olivia, but we all knew she was hot to trot and was bi and was a woman so I can see the suits thinking THAT was okay as she fullfilled their fantasies.

Obviously don't want to stray too far away from ATWT on the ATWT thread but as a gay man AND a fan of soaps, I think soaps have been given a sometimes unfair hard time on how they write their gay characters - particularly gay men. They were mostly reflective of their times and their audience and while we can discuss whether they should have been bolder, earlier, we underestimate how the small steps strategy ended up working for them.
 

Anytime a show has tried to give a gay character something else than a very conventional relationship, fan reaction - in the gay community - has been very aggressively offended. While I disliked the OLTL Paul murder story and I understand why people were bothered by making his "gay" secret his motive for killing, I was pretty excited with OLTL's Daniel because here was a gay character that was *something else*. But I was fairly alone in that. Truth is most LGBT viewers wanted to see characters *like them* on-screen and weren't ready for their small representation to be as messed up and potentially unlikeable as some of the straight characters.
We see it from today's eyes where TV shows have started to give us a richer tapestry of LGBTB characters but I think we underestimate how much the hunger at the time was simply to see gay characters fall in love and settle and break stereotypes by being "boring". I think a gay character bed-hopping the way straight characters do would be received, fairly or unfairly, as an offensive stereotype.

So I honestly don't think ATWT has too much to be ashamed about on how it handled its gay characters *for the times they were respectively written*. They didn't write anything outwardly offensive (like AMC's Bianca constant victimization) OR fall too far in the other excess of becoming extremely preachy (like OLTL). Luke and his loves were mostly boring but Luke was boring and the show was pretty bad by the time he became a major character so in a way the fact he was an average character was a small victory in itself.
And boring as he was, he still managed to be one of the few "newer" characters that I wish I had seen what had happened to them over the course of the 11 years since.

36 minutes ago, detroitpiston said:

Yeah I associate Peter with the downfall of the show. A completely unlikable scoundrel 

Well, I am not entirely there. Peter was unlikeable for sure and it is absolutely true he never was given enough layers to justify bringing him back after being evil - contrarily to the way they managed to keep Kimberly around for instance.
But JW, irritating as his acting ticks can be, had great chemistry with a lot of people and the Michael/Peter dynamic was one of the rare bright spots of the later seasons for me.

Howeer I believe that Amanda getting together with him after he tried to kill her, no matter the excuses or how much time had gone, was out-of-character for her. Early Amanda doesn't forgive, let alone that kind of stuff.
I didn't think Peter was necessarily the downfall of the show but I do think it was the beginning of turning Amanda into something... different than she initially was. She had managed to be the core of the show while being a bitch and she had managed to have a lot of rooting value while being a bitch. It is unfortunate the writers didn't trust her to continue carrying the show without softening her (writers make that mistake often; see Days' Sami) and turning her into a romantic heroine and a victim. The focus should have stayed the other way around: not as a protagonist with an edge but as an antagonist with rooting value.

7 minutes ago, te. said:

I've said it before, but if CTS couldn't or wouldn't do a cameo, they should've just had Billy knock on a door in Atlanta and had a stand-in with blonde hair being seen from behind opening the door. 

Yes! But it would have been even fine not even going to that trouble and just showing him landing in... Atlanta. Not even saying a word about Allison. But fans of the show would have gone Hmmmm and that would have been enough to give a bit of comfort to the fandom. 

I know Melrose Place was never known to go for the subtle route but watching the cool trailer for the incredibly disappointing series finale underscores how much they screwed the pooch by not using the enormous library of plots and characters they had to at least give fans just a bit of satisfaction.

7 hours ago, carolineg said:

the core to me was always Billy/Alison ending up together for so them to just fade away was sad.  From the first episode on that was endgame to me so it's weird it didn't happen at all.

While we will agree to disagree on whether the writers intentionally or not stopped writing for the OGs, I 1000% agree with the above sentiment. That Billy walked in the sunset with Jennifer of all people, a relationship noone cared about, seems particularly insulting. Even if they couldn't get CTS to do a cameo by then, they could have simply written that he was "joining her" in Atlanta and leave it to the audience's imagination to root for them to get together. We got CTS for the finale... how did they not even nod to it for early fans is just puzzling. Such easy fanservice.
But Billy is the perfect example of why I stick by my opinion that the writers had gotten bored and stuck with the OGs: while the very early Sam/Billy stuff was alright IMO, the dreck that was their marriage lasted incredibly longer than the runoff to his departure. Similarly, Sydney's storyline drought lasted an entire season long - until the better late Craig stuff that was clearly intended to tee up her departure, ironically. I could go on.
Of course, your reply could be that if the writers didn't know what to do with the OGs, they should have changed *the writers* rather than the characters and I'd agree! It is not like it would have been impossible to give them fun stuff to do. But something had to give by that point because a show can't run on eight cylinders for three seasons in a row before the engine starts to hurt.

Maybe I am misguided but Knots Landing seems to be a rare primetime show where groups of cast members still seem to meet regularly.
CmC and BD on one hand and of course the three ladies (DM, JvA, ML) seem to hang out quite often for people who haven't worked together in thirty years. It is nice to see.

On 2/3/2021 at 9:27 AM, carolineg said:

  I really don't think the producers thought they would lose 5-6 characters in a year or so and should have tried to keep at least Sydney (LL) and tried harder with Alison or Jake.

That's the key moment the show lost its balance for sure although I personally still very much enjoyed S5/6 contrarily to a lot of fans. Only S7 was a chore for me to sit through and only my love for Jamie Luner made it fun at times (although I believe Lexi was SO much more interesting when she was written as complicated in her first season than as simply the later-times relentlessly-bitchy antagonist against Amanda which felt like a poor attempt at reproducing Savannah's Peyton).

Anyhow I disagree with your point inasmuch I actually don't think the producers really knew what to do with the OGs anymore by the time most of them walked so I seriously doubt hanging on to them would have done much good.
They clearly hadn't known what to do with Sydney for at least an entire season - LL is so brilliant that she made it work but she was reduced to being comic relief rather than the layered character she initially was. As others have said, that Allison/Jake pairing just didn't work and stayed stuck in neutral for most of its run. They hadn't known what to do with Matt, well, his entire time on the show. And the Billy/Sam/Jennifer triangle lasted longer than most relationships in the early seasons.
I think the point is best proven by Jane's later return. I loved Jane and JB but honestly did anything interesting happen to her after she came back? It was nice to have her on but the show didn't get better for having her back.
I think they just had exhausted the amount of material they could - several personality changes included - and while the show would have been more comforting had it been mediocre but with familiar characters rather than mediocre with unknowns, it would still have been mediocre.

I think ultimately the show's problem was it treated its first few seasons as a sprint - and definitely won that - but that wasn't sustainable. 

6 minutes ago, amybrickwallace said:

Wow, I never knew that. Yikes.

I know neither of these folks personally and it could very well be that he is horrible but I have been around long enough to know former romantic partners are very very rarely the best witness of someone's character. Breakups can warp people's perceptions of people and interpretation of events that until then were not problematic.
Take the gossip with a grain of salt, me says. Anybody who knows a divorced couple knows as much.

On 1/21/2021 at 8:50 AM, ReddFoxx said:

I liked Lindsay too. The character was a unique villain and Hickland played her so well.

Color me three.

I like CH and Lindsay very much. It is unfortunate that the character's immediate family was mostly unpopular performers and characters because it didn't give HER enough grounding in Llanview to survive as a character in the long-run but she had a great run when she was there.

I seem to be in the minority here but I am really upset about Julian leaving. I get that he was written as a secondary character for a while but I love WdV and I think it was more due to the writing than the character. But they have written him in a corner so they clearly have wanted him out from before the quarantine.

All the other names mentioned in this thread can indeed be trimmed out.

On 11/3/2020 at 11:06 AM, KMan101 said:

I agree. Laura is a pro. I wasn't trying to imply she'd freak out or cause a public scene. She never would. I probably could have phrased it better, lol.

It wouldn't be unheard of for long-time actors who are known as "pros" to quit on a tantrum when their significant other is fired so you are forgiven for speculating.

PMV on Another World infamously did that and immediately regretted it. People make bad choices when they think with their loins.

6 minutes ago, Mitch said:

And after seeing that poor little Marty had to put his pants on and hang his head in shame!

 

 

To be fair, Marty's butt is *literally* how he got the role.

And we shall leave it at that.

3 hours ago, allmc2008 said:

Well!!!

All I remember from that era of male-butt-showing on butt was Mark Collier's Mike on ATWT.

2 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Before TIIC completely wrecked the show and the character by essentially studding him out, I thought Simon was one of the last truly charismatic characters to be introduced on the show, but like I said, the show found a way to ruin it.

I liked Katie and Simon well enough but the entire Lily/Simon love affair they started with just never rang true to me for reasons that shall remain unexpressed out of respect for Martha Byrne.
 

21 minutes ago, KMan101 said:

 

Donna Mills looks AMAZING. Michele Lee looks good too.

There is an implied read in here lol

16 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Sorry if you misunderstood my post, as I never meant to give the impression that Tune would 'spill tea'-- that's not even my impression of her

No need to apologize at all; it is on me that I took it to mean more than what you were saying. I am not going to lie: I love BTS gossip and I was excited at the thought since she *did* get screwed over which was doubly weird considering she had also a primetime career so you would have thought they'd try to capitalize on it. 
But she is a pro so you're right. She probably wouldn't.

8 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Did anyone actually use the word bitter? I'm actually trying to remember because I wouldn't call her bitter. I think if she declined the invitation she likely has a good reason. Her character was woefully under-utilized at a time when she had decades of experience with the show and had proved that she was capable of doing "meaty" stories. That final era was known for blatant disrespect of a number of their veterans, so I don't know how anyone can be confused by the possibility that Tunie may have felt disrespected and not wished to unearth those memories. Or maybe she may not trust the show's ex-publicist to give her the space (uninterrupted) to say what she wants to say.

Both your and the post a month ago had given me the impression there was more explicit knowledge that she would have harsh things to say. I mean, the way they treated her was BS but so was other veterans and it wasn't speculated other veterans would "spill T".

So I thought I had missed some fiery interview or something and I was interested. If it is just speculation based on the fact they didn't treat her very well, then: indeed they didn't but I hope we get to hear in an interview, spilling T or just sharing her experience like many of the other actors have, including some that were mistreated by TPTB over the years.
She is a wonderful actress.

On 9/22/2020 at 10:08 AM, Forever8 said:

I can see why maybe Tamara Tunie doesn't want to do a reunion....

You know it is funny because I have been thinking of TT a lot in the past month (and even rewatching her rape SL episodes) because Kamala Harris reminds me so much of Jessica.
The DA thing, the way she dressed, the mannerisms, the voice... I mean, I am sure it is just me but she has been on my mind.
So catching up with the forum and seeing TWO different people mentioning TT being bitter on the thread since I last read it makes me want to ask what the story is. 

What's the deal with TT and ATWT? Is there a post or an interview ya'll can point me out to catch me up on that because all these years I have missed that T and I am eager for it.

On 9/14/2020 at 12:42 PM, DRW50 said:

Michael Weatherly and Amelia Heinle really did have terrific chemistry. That the brewing conflict in Steffi is character-based and believable makes it more compelling.

I have always wondered if they were already together then - based on Friends' Joey's theory about actors with chemistry are the ones who want to sleep together but haven't yet.
Cooper could have been such a tedious ball of nothing if Weatherly hadn't been so damn charming.

13 hours ago, ranger1rg said:

Agree with you completely about CM and FS. God, they’re just terrible. Their scenes are some of the worst on television, and there’s nothing about them that spells “relationship.” It’s all smirking and grinning and mocking their dialogue, followed by just unbelievable talks of parenting.

I certainly don't think they are bad actors at all - they have proven that in the past.
But it is pretty clear that they had totally given up by then. Don't know if they knew already they'd be fired but even if it was just the stage where they simply hated the material (as they told the story on the podcast) and felt uneasy about their standing, you can see it and feel it on-screen and that's not fair on the viewers.

1 minute ago, KMan101 said:

People also have to remember I was younger when it hit. It was perfect for me at the time. I was so into it. But I get why people don't like it.

People tend not to give it credit that it managed to build a much younger audience for soaps that anyone thought could be achieved already by that time.

Considering how much hand-wringing there (rightfully) is even more now about the aging demographics of soaps, it always surprises me that not more people have tried to study why it comparatively caught the imagination of many young people at least for a while, despite being cheap and not particularly well-written.
I guarantee you that there is a cohort that came of age around that time that still remembers things about Passions, even if they didn't actually watch it. When was the last time a soap had mainstream watercooler moments?

23 hours ago, Darn said:

 

Naw, I watched it from the beginning too and it was always bad to me. Repetitive dumb dialogue, sitcom lighting, bad acting, terrible plots. It's the first soap I ever saw premiere and I was so disappointed. I spent a lot of hours in the summer of 99 trying to get into this show.

I think the thing that people liked about Passions was that it had a twinkle in its eye. It knew what it was - I mean the premise of the witch stuff was pretty much a giveaway this wouldn't be Shakespeare - but it had fun with what it was doing so the cheapness of it all was forgivable. It was charming trash.
But then the novelty wore off and people stopped judging it on a scale.
Because people started caring about the characters and taking the stories involving their favorite characters seriously, TPTP had to ramp up the rascally silliness to try and distract from the frustration fans were feelings. However, instead of being amusing the nonsense ended up just driving the show into the ground. They chose to try to artificially keep their goodwill longer than necessary rather than use it to pivot and build the quality of the show up.

But when I compare it with the other soap that was started around that time and that was similarly horrible and cheap-looking, Passions had heart that made it easier to root for, at least for a while.

On 7/29/2020 at 8:43 AM, Mitch said:

no directors ever pulled him back and the writing supported his worst tendancies...

(...)

I hope he does well as he seems like a nice guy who really respects the GL opportunity.

I was a bit harsh and petty. It is true that I have tremendous respect and appreciation for someone who still celebrates his beginnings and he does have talent.

And more importantly your point about directors is key. THIS should have been their job to channel his energy and talent in a more subtle manner. That they didn't and it ended up being too much was as much their fault as his. I fully agree with that.

23 hours ago, Alan said:

He has also made several references to his weight gain.

Setting aside the energy, I thought he looked good even thicker (and it is not even that bad).

18 hours ago, DRW50 said:

 

That was the plan all along, and the story MKA and Terry Lester signed on for.

Really? Seems so strange to me that they would kill her before Lucinda got to find out.
I question the writers' judgment in this case personally

1 hour ago, Soapsuds said:

Leslie had another son with Keith? The younger son looks like Leslie

 

I say that with all due respect but having the son in the background doing whatever and interrupting was just very distracting.
I mean, we all have family members who can't help themselves but at least Christine Tudor lovingly hinted at her husband to buzz off after five minutes of him trying to insert himself into the interview. 

Talking about losing characters early....

Was there ever a story for why Neal was written off so fast? I mean I know ppl said MKA only wanted to stay short-term but it feels so weird they would build up this big story of her being Lucinda's sister while building an unknowing rapport with her and then would kill her before we got some closure on that? That can't possibly have been the plan all along... 
 

I mean I suppose I don't want to read too much into it but between his fondness for writing women obsessed with a man and the fact he neglected to build female characters a life outside of their romantic life, I am starting to suspect there is something to my supposition that Reilly was a bit misogynistic, at least in his writing.
 

19 hours ago, Mitch said:

And sadly, after she left the Jenna/Roger take over of Spaulding took place, which Bev would have been great in.  Watching clips you cna see that they rewrote some Alex material into Van...(convincing Henry to lie about being Jenna's dad, etc.) I just wish they had  just not recast Alex and morphed Van into an Alex position as being head of Spaulding, etc.  They could have still had their boring Matt story but Van would not have been robbed of her power and not become the sighing woman later. They were so wedded to their formula of Mindy/Nick with the evil mother.

I am going to be honest: I know I am in the minority but I loved the Mindy vs Alex story up until the point Bev left. Yes, Alex was being vindictive but it seemed understandable and it was fun and well-acted by everyone involved and it led to one of my top 5 favorite scenes in soap ever which is Alex telling Billy in the restaurant (and that marvellous eyeroll when Fletch reads her the riot act for doing it).
The latter version with the recasts end up retreading the same soil over and over and over and being tedious. But I didn't agree with Bev on whether the story worked! I guess it is testament to her brilliance that she sold the hell out of that story even if she hated it.

9 hours ago, BetterForgotten said:

 didn’t see his work on Ozark, but part of me is glad he was snubbed as he always turned me off on GL and the hype machine around him at the time was too much and not warranted, IMO.

 

OMG Thank you SO MUCH for saying this. I thought I was the only one who was so annoyed and put off by the constant hype surrounding him. I mean, I am not as harsh as some of you on his acting but there is nothing that turns me off of an actor faster than everyone telling me He Will Be a Star.
And then he started acting as if he wanted to prove that He Will Be a Star. Not just presenting the material but everything felt like a casting reel for future projects. The "Look at me acting" acting style is not fun. At least Kim Zimmer's attention-seeking acting feels natural because, well, that's who she is. 
And the messiness around him sleeping with two co-stars also kinda left a bad taste in my mouth. I get that things happen and affairs of the heart can be complicated but since I was already pre-disposed to dislike him...
So, petty as it feels, I am kind of glad that the great predictions for him didn't really pan out.