EricMontreal22

I do think some of the gratuitous elements, particularly in season 1 will be seen as a slight mistake, but certainly for this genre (if there even are many examples of this genre) I think the show will be remembered as one of the best examples. Of course it depends on how it will play out--if people are unhappy with the final seasons that could play a part, but.... I'm not even sure where it would sit genre wise. There hasn't really been an epic fantasy series with such a huge cast and production before as well as a sense of gravitas--and certainly it compares favourably to historical soapy shows like The Tudors. Personally I think the actress brings a lot of sympathy to the character that I didn't always feel in the books, especially in the early books.

I wish she would move on to a new song--it's been too long IMHO to try to gain buzz with Woman's World.

Wha? Then why give us scenes of him licking his lips while staring at Wyatt's body?

Cutting was a throwaway line, but I'm sure it was meant to be key and will be played up. I think we are meant to think Jeffrey really does care about his job and Wyatt--but the lip smacking scene could prove me wrong. I may be just prejudiced to thinking how Tyler Perry will deal with any gay character--

Torrents.

I've piked on you about this show (and the online ones) before But you didn't say the vintage Y&R comparison--someone else did on here in one of the first few pages (I swear, but am too lazy to look.) On another forum, whenever anyone says anything bad about the show, a group of peple who LOOOOOOVE it reply that they are hypocrits because t's just as good as vintage Knots and Dynasty (to which I'd say vintage Knots had far more relatable and better writing and vintage Dynasty was aware of how great its camp appeal was--and both for primetime soaps looked spectacular.) But I definitely agree with you. Between scenes going on too long and--as you mention with the Hannah and her son scene, but I find his in most of hte scenes--the pauses between each line of dialogue, even when they should be quick comebacks, Perry has zero sense of how to direct this. I think in this case he probably is striving for the sorta hypnotic way people talk on Bill Bell soaps--he has said he was obsessed with Y&R as a kid--but he's going about it all wrong, because that style doesn't mean you take a long beat between every reply. I wonder if at one time tis was an attempt to write a daytime soap and then they decided to just invest weekly? Because the writing so far is as repetitve as Reilly's writing which, as you say, can work in a daytime soap, but it seems ridiculous to be even more repetitive than most daytime soaps when you are weekly. I do think Tika makes Candace work (she genuinely seems to boh care about Amanda genuinely and her brother and be a completely manipulative bitch, something that is more in the performance than the writing) and Hannah is good actress too, although I find her "'po' black God-fearing matriarch" who hates her demon daughter and worhips her agelic son a bit too cliche even for this genre, and John Schneider seems to realize he's playing camp and have fun with it. Mrs Potts understudy lady looks the part as Katherine but has weird line delivery--which with such weird dialogue doesn't help. Why doesn't Wyatt just become a male model or go into porn to support his habit? I know super buff, hot half naked men who still have all these issues are nothing new to soaps, but I seriously get no sense of him being a heroin and everything elese long term user with no prospects who has bizarre "quirks" that the others barely blink an eye to like taking off all his clothes. Perry sorta has little quirks for each character (Amanda is sweet and dumb and look she CUTS!) and I think he thinks that makes their characters complex but otherwise they're pretty blank. And Jeffrey is beyond ridiculous (I really picture Perry telling him to lick his lips like some hungry dog when he lusts after Wyatt's body--who does that!), not even realizing that as soon as he literally turnshis back, Wyatt has gulped down every glass of champagne on the table. I could talk about this show all day.

I think OWN constantly reruns them. I had just better not here any nonsense about it being better soap than the online soaps

I'd actually like to hear your thoughts on it, Vee. As I've made clear, I think it's awful but in a sorta mesmerizing, brilliant way--but obviously that's not the intention, and I don't mean to belittle those on here who love it, or who have said it's a true return to vintage Y&R style daytime soap (poor Bill Bell....)

Nah, I think the Walkers are faily God-less. (Everything-less.)

Ah, so ghost Reva is the storyline soap books call "astral projection Reva?"

That scene was interesting and Schneider tried his hardest to make it work--it had potential--but it had a number of WTF lines (mainly from Kathryn.) I mean even the whole lipstick on the underwear thing would make sense, except the sorta "clever" bitchy lines Perry wrote for it were WTF crazy (at least for me.) And the direction with a prolonged beat between every "quick" comeback didn't help. Wonder if he will feel guilty when inevitably it turns out Kathryn has whatever illness Hannah had and recognized in Kathryn.

Progress was the wrong word, but I can't think of a better one lol (still, it's not like early Christianity--or even later--was not without its even more hypocritical sacrificial lambs and violence.)

Vanguardian, have you been watching or just reading recaps? Because I have only seen one episode of Generations--years ago--but the dialogue must be ATROCIOUS if this has better writing. I do have to wonder about Perry--so he really honestly does write and direct everything he claims to? Talk about being overworked. I have no idea why he wouldn't just take the money and credit and hire decent staff writers--though his dialogue is so over the top bizarre and random I expect he does think it's clever. Frequentsoap--people seem to feel differently about this show, some genuinely seem to love it, some think it's unwatchable. For me it is--so far anyway--a show that's so completely awful it's good. It's genuine camp (genuine because I really believe Perry feels he's telling some deep human truths here.) I admit, while it feels more like a daily soap, if it was a daily soap I'd probably get bored with it quickly or only watch every so often--but as a weekly show it's fun enough to tune in for. I suspect that soon (Wiki has 6 episode details up) it will have some really over the top Perry moment to liven things up.

BTW some lighting guy who works with Perry, apparently, wrote this open letter to him about the lighting--I did notice that even on my slightly too bright tv, the black actorsrs often faded into the shadows. I love moody dark soap lighting, but I agree this could be done better. Dear Mr. Perry, You may remember I have worked with you on "Why Did I Get Married", "Why Did I Get Married Too?", "For Colored Girls", "Good Deeds" and "House of Payne: Heartbeat". For "Haves" may I suggest bringing up the lighting values? Overall, it is too dark. Many of the scenes had such bad shadows that we could not see the eyes of the talent. I was watching it at a friend's house on a Sony 50" LCD HDTV via AT&T Uverse so I know there were issues with the show's production values. As you know, sometimes HD television is just too sharp. May I also suggest you take some of the edge off by using a bit of diffusion to give the show a touch of fantasy? (Just not as much as they use on NCIS! LOL) Thank you. Terry Thomas Atlanta, Georgia USA › Director of Photography › Cinematographer › Character Actor › Stills / Specials Photographer

Found and watched episode 3. I still find it hypnotically compelling--and very much like watching Passions (with much darker lighting...) back when it started. But not very good. The dialogue really does have to go--so many WTF lines (the underwear on the ground line springs to mind--or simply all the times people will say something like, in reply, "Maybe". LONG beat then the other person says "What do you mean by 'maybe'?" LONG beat. "Well..." etc) The scene in the office between the men (including the ridiculous actor who played the detective) was like pulling teeth, and had me in stitches it was almost brilliant for how drawn out it was. Or the scene with Hannah and hot druggie guy, where he was trying to get her to buy drugs and kept changing his tone abruptly. I paraphrase "I like to be up early as it's the only time I can be alone" (said sweetly.) Suddenly angry: "I WANT BREAKFAST!" Sweetly: "My back is killing me..." Seriously, if I were Hannah I would think he was on drugs at the time. And Amanda is just a trip, period. I'm surprised she managed even a year in law school. And Katherine! Bizarre lines and bizarre line readings. I looked up the actress and her most major pro experience was as an understudy for Mrs Potts in Beauty and the Beast on tour, and understudy Mrs Morrible in Wicked on tour--makes sense, she seems to play this role as a bizarre mix of the two. Lovely singing voice though--I wonder if we'll get a gospel number from her? The whole show is like watching a bizarre bunch of aliens (which was true of Passions too but I quickly got bored of watching that show on a daily basis.) I also love how in every episode people complain about how Jeffrey isn't beside underwear model apparently on heroin though not remotely looking it--not even having melodramatic shakes or dark circles around his eyes--and then they quickly send one or the other away to talk to him by himself leaving the other alone. I seriously don't think Tyler is in on the joke--but some of the better actors are. Schneider and especially Sumpter (who manages to give SOME energy to her scenes despite the direction) seem to be, anyway. Is this set for 10 episodes? How far in story can they get? It really is paced like a *slow* daytime soap, not a weekly show. Anyone who feels that the pace is too slow on the online soaps now that they're just an hour a week, really needs to watch this. Brilliant. The spoilers through episode 6 on the wiki page promise tons of excitement ahead.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Haves_And_The_Have_Nots_(TV_series)#Cast_and_characters

That's a pretty good 2nd week, isn't it? I was looking at the imdb forum for this show, and while there's a ton of people who hate it, I had forgotten just how much of Tyler Perry's audience seems to automatically watch and love everything he does. He really does have a built in audience (and, my feelings on the show aside, I know a number of people on here who like it are not usual Perry fans, so was not trying to imply that.)

Oh, I can agree with that--that's not what I meant. Part of it is simply overtaking the old ways and sorta progress, I think (if that makes sense.)

Agreed re your last comment. As for Dany, she still is seperate and not personally connected (except through lineage) to all the complex politics between the Westeros crew.

I always forget to read these--but thanks for the heads up. That's probably literally when I started taping the show daily right after Xmas break--I had watched closely for a good 7 months before, especially with Natalie in the well, but would only catch half episodes when I'd rush home on my lunch break from grade 6--never thought to tape it... I guess they're working up to the Will storyline--interesting to see Megan McTavish, Hal Corleyand Richard Culliton as associate head writers.

This is a big part of my problem too. THe chracters still feel very much like character types--which is why it almost feels like a parody of soap archetypes to me. Yeah, soaps often work on archetypes and often their basic motivations are spelled out earlyon, but Perry is excessively lazy about it. They really do need some more settings--I felt like the PP soaps felt clausterphobic or current DAYS, but so far after three episodes, the poor maid's house and then endless similar looking rooms in the mansion get old. But maybe my thoughts will change after the third episode--I still can't find a torrent. I hope whoever (sorry "tyler Perry") is directing stops that odd disembodied head technique.

I only finally clued in that the reason the one maid reminded me so much of Pilar on Passions... is it's the same actress.

I admit, despite all my bitching I find this show oddly hypnotic--like early Passions... I haven't seen episode three because torrents aren't up yet (it just aired didn't it? Vanguardian you prob will hear more discussion later...) What killed me direction wise in episode two especially was all the two-header scenes where we'd get a close up of one person talking right into the camera, then an awkward beat, then a close up of the other person replying, another awkward beat, etc. I dunno if this is typical of Perry (I still don't buy he's writing and directing everything that he's credited as doing) or not...

They are that. I also think they're decent TV actors--meaning I'm not sure I could see thm in many roles, but for these roles, for myself, they work. (Dany's actress got some good noticies this spring in Breakfast at Tiffany's on Broadway, though she got some negative ones aswell and the show itself was almost universally disliked.) And Ann, that's obvioously a very good point about Edmure, and one I didn't even think of.

Would he even make it through the night? The whole group as being destroyed. (I honesty can't remember if he's in the books later, so that' not a spoiler.) You;'re right about the songs and Blackfish, of course. In terms of Blackfish--it just seemed odd to add him there, but your explanation makessense. I guess it took him a long time to find an approprite pee-tree....

I think it's been more than clear too, but I had read some of the books before the series started. But one thing, as has been pointed out, Jon and Dany re the two sorta on either end of the outside--seemingly fighting for a greatergod han all the in-wars and back and forth fighting between the Westeros groups. Ironic that so many critics think both fo these actors are the worst in the show (something I don't really agree with, I think they are both more than fine for their roles.)