ranger1rg

I agree, but I'm not one to let things go 😂. I'll continue to ask for explanations and point out absurdities. YMMV 😆 -- Derek texting Naomi and Jacob to go to the hospital was INSANE. I mean, that's nuts. -- Yes, Ashley was her usual annoying self, but it's hard not to see Derek as the [!@#$%^&*] here. -- And what's with all these arguments right in front of the main deal at the hospital? Last week we got Nicole, Ted, and Carlton, and now we get a repeat with this. It's ludicrous. -- We get to see other staff at the hospital but just about never see another patient. -- Naomi is hard to take. She is so brittle in her arguments it's unreal, and I want Jacob to dump her. -- This "softer side of Leslie" doesn't really work for me. It all seems performative, and it never lasts. -- Besides, why is Leslie acting like she and Eva lived under a bridge overpass for decades? Wasn't Leslie married to a good guy who was a decent stepfather to Eva? Did I miss something? -- I agree that Vernon and Sharon are planning a surprise for Anita. It stretches belief, though, that planning requires Sharon to travel to Vernon and book a hotel room.

I agree with you guys on the pacing and lack of balance with the stories. I had to laugh out loud today. Holden and Claire have chemistry and are hot together, but seeing them wrapped in all those sheets was hilarious 😂

That's fine. If you don't want to respond to your drive-by comments -- or can't -- that's cool. You have a blessed day, too! 😘

How is the role clownish? At first you blamed the writing for "doing a number on her." Now the role is "clownish." She's playing a talk-to best friend, so I don't get your point.

It really is. In a discussion of "bad actors on daytime," Cady McClain is your go-to? I think her performance is an acquired taste. I can understand not liking it, because I was one of those people. Still, even when I didn't enjoy it, I never thought of her as a "bad actor." I just had problems with her take. But we're not getting a take from AA. Every scene, every emotion, is the same. He hurts every scene he's in.

-- I think the directing was weird in the Alex/knife scene, too, but I'm willing to wait it out to see if we get a reason for that. I hope it was intentional and not just bad directing. -- I'm not sure Cwikly and Ford are doing enough. It's all better than Carlivati's DAYS, but that doesn't make it good enough.

I wish I could give this show that much credit. This insta-bond is ridiculous, but I don't think B&B finds it unusual. -- The whole setup and reveal when Remy walked into the room played better on paper than in execution. -- Christian Weissmann did a nice job breaking down in those scenes, but seeing the others just stand there -- getting their one line each -- was awkward as hell. -- The payoff didn't make up for the absurdity that Remy would walk into that room never having talked to Deke in advance. It doesn't work unless Remy is going to be a nutjob.

So who is the worst actor on daytime, in your opinion? Or anyone who's worse than Alex Alegria? i don't see how the writing for Cady McClain is bad. If you don't like her performance, it's on her, not on the writing. She has made specific choices for that character, none of them dictated by the writing. I'm on record that I now enjoy CM's accent and tics and over-the-top camp -- after disliking it for months. It's ridiculous, but it's also entertaining and so much fun to watch.

I'm going to need set decorators to do a better job on this show. The Dupree foyer and living room set is nice, but all of a sudden it's looking cluttered and messy. There are tables EVERYWHERE.

TV alert: Drew Garrett, who played Michael before Chad Duell, had a nice role on Law & Order:SVU last week.

Jesus. I could not disagree with this more. The guy is a terrible actor who has not improved one iota since the show premiered. He drags down every scene he's in, and he can't play funny, light, romantic, or serious. At this time, he's the worst actor in daytime. It's not the writing.

We don't. I do not want that, and I don't know why so many people think this is a good idea.

It's bad.

Honestly, that was my concern when Deke met Electra and it was played like a chemistry test. This effing show already has a horrible history with gay stories/characters, and turning Deke bisexual would be disgusting. Now, if they want to have Will start oogling Deke, I'm down 😂

Back. At. You, @Maxim So true. The other soaps would love half the attention and interest that GATES gets.

I appreciate that, @Taoboi. My criticism is meant to be constructive, so I'm glad to know you see it that way. I really like this soap -- regardless of how much "complaining" I do. I just think that when little things are cleaned up, the most important elements shine brighter. Our discussion over dialogue/writing styles is an example of that. I realize that some people aren't happy with my posting style, but I just don't feel like typing "I feel" or "I believe" before everything I say so that others know it's my opinion -- and not necessarily some factual final answer. We're all giving our opinions here, so I don't feel the need to do that. I do enjoy reading others' views, and I've learned plenty from other longtime soap fans. It's also why I've asked another poster here "What's wrong with the breakdown?" multiple times. I'm not trying to argue but I think criticism should come with an explanation. This board became so much more enjoyable when BTG hit the air, and it's a great respite from "real life." P.S. I enjoy your posts, too! We're never going to agree on every single thing, but you help make this board a good time.

Huh? You said "Same thing for Nathan. Nobody is up in their arms because a 16 year old boy is not a virgin. (but yeah he's a bad guy)." My point? That isn't why anyone thinks Nathan is a bad guy is NOT because he's a guy who's not a virgin. It's because if what he SAID about Samantha to other guys -- the way he locker-room talked about her like she was nothing but a piece of ass. THAT'S why he a bad guy. And I don't know why you think we're supposed to "care" about Nathan in this instance anyway. Never thought you did. Again, not my point. I'm on record that soaps don't do enough envelope-pushing. I'm on record that Naomi should have mentioned abortion. The truth is that I'm critical of BTG for one thing or another every day. I know some people here get annoyed with my nitpicking. Still, I don't think that has anything to do with this situation. It's not "pushing the envelope" to have Martin and Smitty tell Samantha that sex is a beautiful and natural thing and to go for it. I'll give you the point about the phone. But no, Samantha was not treated like she committed a crime or a sin. You're using loaded words that a 16-year old would use when arguing with her parents. LOL Let's not. You're acting as if we should just ignore the decision to undress and have sex on the couch in the family living room. Thanks for admitting age plays a factor. Because you think it was OK to have sex at 16 because of the age of consent omits too much context for me. And no, I don't want to change any laws. No one here suggested Nathan would be in legal peril if he had sex with Samantha.

That is not why people see Nathan as a bad guy, and you know it. I don't see Tyrell as uninterested in sex at all.Does he have to talk about sex to show he's "interested" in it? "Let them live their life"? Sorry, that's not parenting, not without context. And yeah, we all know teens have sex, but sex between teenagers adds a lot more to think about and worry about. No one will argue with "Sex is a basic human need and a human right," but this story isn't The Handmaid's Tale. You're leaving out all context that these teens are 16. Clearly, you're never going to agree with the vast majority of us, and that's fine. I will never understand this "They literally have a right to" have sex, though, because it again omits all context. Yes, we all know that saying "no" to kids leads them to rebel. That tale is as old as time and will forever be true. That doesn't mean parents should just accept their 16-year old daughter having sex on the living room couch with a boy she barely knows. Do Martin and Smitty have "supporters" for their position? Yes, BUT.... I broadly support their "position," but I do think Martin was heavy-handed in his words and punishment. I give him some grace, though, because it would not be easy for a parent to deal with this. Besides, it's a soap, and a perfect solution here eliminates the drama. And no, that's not why soaps are in decline. I don't even know what to say to that. You wrote "...it’s slanted in favor of Martin’s parenting and Sam being portrayed as a sinful, manipulative, immature brat. When in reality her desire to have intimacy is perfectly normal and should be fulfilled. It makes me really uncomfortable." I don't think it's slanted at all. I believe most of us simply agree with Martin's position even if we think he was too harsh. How was Samantha portrayed as sinful? Those are your words, but no one here is calling sex "sinful" and neither is the show. Manipulative? I don't see that either. But immature? Completely. What she was about to do -- have sex on the living room couch -- is not intimacy. Very few parents would accept that logic. I don't expect you to agree with any of us. I simply cannot ignore the age factor here. She's 16. He's 16. "Protected, consensual sex" can still make babies. It can still mess with the emotions of a 16-year old. Would you see this differently if Samantha and Nathan were 15? 14? If so, that shows the ages of these characters matters.

Perfectly said. I'm on board with ALL of this.

It's distracting to me, too. The Samantha actress is good. She may pass for younger than 30, but no way does she pass as 16, and it takes me out of the story. The Nathan actor doesn't look 16 either. It makes me wonder if they cast with an older actress because of the storyline dealing with sex -- as if they were afraid to approach it with a "real teen." The defense can't be that this has been done forever with shows like 90210, the OC, etc., but that's a different world than a daily soap.

I assume you mean lusting. Regardless, these are disagreements with the writing. I'm already on record as having problems with the way Samantha is moving and with the things she says. That being said, we can only go with what we're given. So far, Tyrell's "relationship" with Jessica is in the sweet stage. Should we have seen him lusting after her as soon as they got together because teens hook up in real life? I say no. That's not Tyrell and it's not Jessica. We'll have to disagree on this. I know teens have sex at 16 and even younger. I'm not prude and I don't think they're bad people. But that's not what I'd want for my daughter or my son. Even protected sex leads to pregnancy, and a sexual relationship is also tougher for young people to handle. Their brains are still forming, and they aren't emotionally capable of handling all that comes with it. And? Even if I agree with you, that doesn't make your argument that this girl should be having sex. If anything, it reinforces her immaturity.

At least you didn't bury the lede. She's 16. You do make some good points, but there's context -- and in that context, Samantha makes really poor choices, and there's nothing mature about her thinking. Is some of this double standard? Yes. But to make that point, you can't use Tyrell as an example. We've seen nothing to indicate "no one cares" if Tyrell kisses or has sex with his girlfriend. I don't see Smitty or Martin as supportive of Tyrell having sex at his age with a girl he just met.

I eye-roll constantly when I read recommendations for roles on soaps. People mention actors who are never going back to soaps or going to do soaps in the first place. Either that or they mention an actor who's now 85 years old. Yeah, I don't think Michael B. Jordan will be joining Beyond the Gates.

Trevor Donovan was interviewed a few years ago and says he was fired from DAYS just 5 months into a 3-year contract. He blames "panic" on camera, not the show. https://soaps.sheknows.com/days-of-our-lives/news/649106/why-was-trevor-donovan-fired-as-days-of-our-lives-jeremy-horton-panic/

It is insane that GH isn't capitalizing on Gio & Emma, but that's typical for this show. EVERY possible relationship is slow-walked -- every single one. It's a constant tease with every couple, and it's maddening. Either we see them so infrequently it's absurd or a hundred obstacles are thrown in their way. If we get an exception to the rule (see: Carly & Brennan) it's a couple we don't care about. We know soaps, so we don't expect instant connections and love stories, but no other soap does what GH does -- to its detriment.