Jump to content

ranger1rg

Members
  • Posts

    3,086
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ranger1rg

  1. 17 hours ago, Althea Davis said:

    Ok, so I will have to say it. Tanner was insanely bad in the last couple of episodes and anyone could see it.  But Bold has always had male actors that are at the level of porn-acting. Bold thrives with male actors so cringey... when they always had some of the best ladies to compensate. 

    I just think they could have somehow... changed the dialogue a bit, so that Tanner won't sink in it, like he did. They gave him stuff, that they knew are going to look absurd. So I again blame the writer. Not the actor. They should have knows his limits. 

    Also I don't see a reason to start comparing actors. If someone says that A can't act... it's kinda petty to start talking about B. This is focus-changing and a technique to make something stop looking so bad. But in 2024, It makes even more apparent that A can't act and that you are defending them. There is no reason to defend. Nobody is attacking him. We all like him and his body and face. And we all know Tanner is here because he is a great looking man and has charisma. But I completely understand @Liberty City's opinion and the others too. I myself was scared to say it, since here we have something like a cult following and I don't want to trigger people, who are easily triggered. Never my intention. 

    But IF YOU WANT TO compare - KKL has never been Susan Flannery, but she can act circles around Tanner Novlan. That little tear from the left eye has legends written about it. She has survived for nearly 40 years in the business *most seasons acting in more than 200 episodes a year - lead storylines*and has had moments where she has ACTED near the level of the greats. She is not the most consistent one, but she rarely gives the level of cringe Tanner gives... or Ronn gave.

    Tanner could have played a perfect Thomas Forrester, if Ronn Moss was still around, they would have looked so related.

     

    So there's no reason to compare, but let's compare??? OK then.

    I think the problem is saying Tanner (or any actor) can't act based on particular scenes. I agree that TN wasn't good with the heavy emoting. The faceplay didn't work at all. Still, I think he's a good actor, and he's proven that over the years.

    I also disagree that there's no acting in commercials.

    Look, I love KKL, but if I isolate her scenes with Thorsten Kaye, I can make a case for calling her a bad actor. I can call out the lack of chemistry and not blame it all on her. I can call out her not selling the romance and for not making a bland script work. I can call out her sing-song voice and her vocal fry. I don't do any of that because KKL is more than her scenes with TK.

     

  2. 10 minutes ago, carolineg said:

    Here's the thing-Eva La Rue is a decent name for a soap.   She has had a very successful career.  I am not expecting her to be the most woke, articulate person in the world on a local tv news interview.  I can see why it could be taken offensively, but I really don't think that was her intent or goal.  She's giving a view on a fictional character, not her own personal views.   I had my objections to this casting and this role, but even I don't see why there is an outcry here.

    I literally said I don't want to cancel LaRue or near it.

    I don't think this is that big a deal, but it was brought up here for discussion, so I commented on it. We've discussed even less important topics with a lot more outcry than this. I think words matter, and all I'm saying is that Eva LaRue stepped in it during that interview.

    If GH is going to tackle gay issues and relationships, I don't want some sugar-coated bullsh#t. I'm fine with Natalia being homophobic. That's real, that's life.

    But don't set her up as anti-gay and then feed me some line that she's just upset her daughter didn't share everything with her.

    This goes beyond what Eva LaRue believes in her own life or believes about her character. I'm hoping we get clarity when Mulcahey takes over and that GH doesn't take the easy way out.

  3. 1 hour ago, janea4old said:

    This is the Eva LaRue article on soaphub
    https://soaphub.com/general-hospital/news-gh/eva-larue-says-her-gh-character-natalia-is-not-homophobic

    Soaphub is quoting from this ABC Channel 7 Chicago
    interview here; which hopefully everyone can see at this youtube link unless it's geo-blocked:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xwfoBpRSQM

    That You Tube interview (from ABC Channel 7 in Chicago) DOES NOT "exonerate" Eva LaRue, and the Soaphub article DOES NOT distort what LaRue said.

    In the interview, LaRue says her character "will be struggling with her daughter's sexuality." Sounds like homophobia to me.

    Yes, she goes on to attribute that to a number of things, including her question as to whether Blaze's sexuality is a response to her being sexually assaulted by a man. Sounds like homophobia to me.

    LaRue also says part of it might be attributed to Natalia's (her character's) ego. Sounds like homophobia to me.

    She mentions Natalia is a "conservative Latina mom" TWICE. She never says it's a shock that her daughter would have premarital sex.

    Eva LaRue is either protecting her character -- because she knows how awful homophobia is -- or she's ignorant and clueless as to how her explanation sounds. I don't want to cancel LaRue or anything near it, but I sure wish she was more woke when it came to sexuality.

    Because this ain't it.

     

  4. Donna, I agree with your point about Eva LaRue's interview. It's part of that "Hate the sin, not the sinner" defense, and I find it pathetic and disingenuous.

    I'm not saying LaRue is homophobic or near it, but I think her comment displays a lot of ignorance. She'd have been better off saying that we'll have to tune in to find out. You cannot call your character "conservative Latina mom" and then give her a pass on homophobia.

    Not buying it. At all.

  5. 35 minutes ago, StevieM said:

    Watching that scene, it felt like Spinelli and Sonny's relationship had regressed.  It was like the show was ignoring a good part of the progress they have made, all so that they could give a quick history lesson in advance of Jason's return.

    Sonny had long since made peace with Spinelli and his oddities.  He sought out his help, independent of their shared connection through Jason.  He even counseled Spinelli at times, also independent of Jason.  And Spinelli was far more at ease around Sonny.  He reached a point where he felt he could approach him without fear.  He no longer called him "Mr. Sir" and I thought he even called him Sonny at times (although I could be wrong about that last part).

    I also would like to point out how incorrect it was for Carly to say that Bobbie "knew not to chase revenge.  My mom never gave in to her worse impulses, she rose above them."  That wasn't always true.  Bobbie gave in to her worst impulses on many occasions.    

    You've explained exactly what I'm worried about regarding Spinelli. I think we're heading for a regression, unless Mulcahey stops it in its tracks.

    Also agree completely about Carly's opinions of Bobbie. No matter that Carly as a child didn't know Bobbie -- it was still obvious to anyone in Port Charles that Bobbie could be messy and then some. I hate it when they rewrite characters as having no flaws/saintly lives.

  6. 1 hour ago, carolineg said:

    Spinelli doesn't bother me at all now.  He did back in the day.  It was truly a case of a very fringe character gaining a bit of a following and GH just ran with him as a main character.  I also didn't really like how Spinelli was clearly neurodivergent and the show just made him seem "quirky".  BA has toned down his acting choices and is much less frenetic these days.

    Agree about BA toning down his acting choices lately, but I'm worried this will end as he gets more screen time -- and when Jason returns.

    I rolled my eyes the other day when Spinelli and Sonny had a scene and we had to live through the "Mr. Corinthos" dialogue as Spinelli deferred like Sonny was royalty. Sonny is a legend and a god? No.

    I also don't want to go through months and months of Maxie and Spinelli finding every illogical reason in the book to stay apart. Yesterday, Maxie declared she loves Spinelli, and then immediately had to add "But is love enough?"

    GMAB with that stuff.

  7. 3 hours ago, titan1978 said:

    Can I just say this mentality makes me sad. I think she deserves privacy. We all do. I know lots of people, especially online, think this way. It just makes me sad for her and others that just because she is on tv that people presume she should have zero privacy, or chose to have zero privacy by having an entertainment career.

    I am not making this a personal attack, lots of people feel this way. For me, it’s sad.

    I do think public figures deserve privacy, but I don't think that applies to something like weight loss. If an actor loses 50 lbs., are we not supposed to comment on it in the name of privacy? If an actor gets a full-sleeve tattoo, is that too private to talk about? If a singer shows up at an NFL game to support her boyfriend, does she deserve privacy and no cameras on her?

    None of these are violations of privacy.

  8. 18 minutes ago, Vee said:

    It's gross that we're even weighing in on this (and I'm not blaming caroline, to be clear). Discussing Kirsten's obvious past issues and whether she's doing well enough to still be on contract with the show is one thing. Debating the merits or pitfalls of her supposed Ozempic intake on a daily basis and trying to gauge it onscreen from tape to air is another.

    I don't personally have a burning need to be at the center of every conversation in every single thread on the board that I will just float saying literally anything about a person to pull focus to myself. It's not worth it to me.

    It is not gross to weigh in on this topic. Even before drugs like Ozempic, people weighed in when a public figure experienced weight loss. That's human nature, just as it's human nature if someone gains a lot of weight, or.... I could go on with another dozen issues.

    Caroline mentioned that she hopes we don't forget about the rest of KS's troubles. I fully agree. If she loses weight, I hope it also improves other parts of her life. I want her to be happy and healthy.

    Even when I disagree with others, I enjoy hearing their points of view and learning. Caroline said we should think of Kirsten's other problems and not see Ozempic in isolation. She made a good point that neither Donna nor I mentioned -- even though we both agree with her. So yes, I learned something.

     

    And Vee, if you're accusing me of having a "burning need to be at the center of every conversation in every single thread on the board" and that I "will just float saying literally anything about a person to pull focus to myself," I don't know what to say. I'm not going to deny what doesn't exist.

    I enjoy posting on this board. I think it should be ok to disagree with other posters. If I'm out there on a limb by myself, I'm fine with that. If you or others disagree with me, argue with my opinion or ask for an explanation without attacking me -- veiled or otherwise.

    I stopped snarking at you long ago. I have no desire to argue with you or anyone else.

    Errol and Toups, I apologize for this post. I know you must roll your eyes when "this happens." I had to respond, though. In the future, I hope posters who dislike my opinions or style or me will either DM me or put me on ignore.

  9. 15 minutes ago, carolineg said:

    I don't think there is any ill intent here with talking about Kirsten Storms and her weight loss.  I just think we are missing a larger problem.  If KS is thin and taking Ozempic everything is good right?  You don't physically see a problem on screen, but in general it's just a band aid on bigger issues.  

    I think that's something we don't know. We don't know KS well enough to know how much her weight plays into her other problems and state of mind. It could be just a band aid on larger issues, but it could also be part of a plan to help her with other problems and in other areas of her life.

  10. 2 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

    Duly noted. 

    If we'd never spoken about her at all, I certainly wouldn't be saying this now. But, as it stands I thought that good news should be shared. But, I completely understand & respect different ways of looking at it. 

    Donna, I'm again in the minority here, but I have no problem with your sharing the news of Kirsten Storms possibly taking Ozempic.

    Your post was positive and empathetic, and wasn't salacious or gossipy at all. You focused on KS's happiness. I don't see anything wrong with what you said or that you posted. If we shut down posts like yours, most of social media has to be shut down.

    KS is a public figure. That means she lives by the media and dies by the media. That's just life. The fact is, Storms gets mostly sympathy for her troubles, medical and emotional, and many media figures don't. This board has been kind to her, and you are included in that group.

    So yeah, you have a right to share that information without judgment that you're somehow violating some moral code. You said nothing wrong.

  11. 2 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

    I'm going to share something. I hope you don't make me regret it. Kirsten Storms is on a weight loss drug & is losing weight & she is so pleased & in such a good mood, that she is letting the support people do their jobs instead of ignoring them or fighting them & so that makes them very happy. And, in a few weeks maybe we will be able to tell onscreen. So, if you've been praying for KS, alter your prayer to help her keep this up! 

    I watched today's GH before coming to the soap board, and I thought Kirsten Storms looked thinner and less bloated, even though she was dressed in black. It's the best she's looked in a while.

     

    1 hour ago, Beachstorm said:

    So now we HAVE to like an actor because he's previously been good in his role? IMO, NAC has outgrown the Spencer role because he's a more dramatic actor now. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but I bet he's gotten too big for a soap opera, especially after his role as a creepy Menendez brother comes out. He will no doubt move on to bigger and better things than GH.

    I have always said I don't like NAC in the role.

    At least you admit you never liked NAC as Spencer.

    But "too big for a soap opera"? Uh....like others here, I'd love to see some examples of that. And no, I don't believe he went all "Shakespearean actor" on us.

    In addition, I do think it is NUTS that GH hasn't decided what to do with Chavez. That's just incompetent production as far as I'm concerned.

     

  12. 1 hour ago, Liberty City said:

    ... especially since I no longer feel positively about the promotion of Janet Drucker-Spellman.

    I don't think we've talked enough about this. I really thought we'd see more changes / hear about more changes by now. Instead, it feels and looks like business as usual. The POS is out of the building but nothing else has changed, and no one's supposed to mention it.

  13. 17 hours ago, Toups said:

    Look, I'm not going to do anything about people having stupid opinions.  It's up to you guys to not reply/talk to posters who aggravate you.  As I read the last 8 pages or so, I just kept saying to myself, "STOP REPLYING!!"  LOL.   Also, if you want to reply to someone, you don't have to quote them.  You can use: @[their name].   You can do that so people won't see the post of someone they put on ignore.  :)

     

    Toups, THANK YOU for this. Honestly, I've been dumbfounded by the complaints about other posters.

    When someone disagrees with us, I don't think going scorched earth on that person -- demanding s(he) be suspended or banned or whatever -- makes any sense at all. No one made vile/dangerous/insulting comments here, and I just don't understand the discussion at all.

    Then we got people complaining they had to see that person when he was quoted. I mean, GMAB. Just scroll on and ignore.

    I hesitated posting this, because I don't want to make this any bigger than it is, but I want you and Errol to know that you do a good job moderating here. In the past, I've been told to dial it back, and I have no problem with that. I think you both did absolutely the right thing in doing nothing to the "aggravating poster."

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy