EricMontreal22

Gregory Abels has a ton fo recent reigonal theatre credits. It's funny, soap actors used to talk a lot more irelevently about their work and roles back then, I can't help wondering how much of this was defesnive (if the interviewer isn't taking your work seriously why should you in your answers) and how much genuine.

dc, where are those articles from? Gotta love the interested yet condescending attitude of nearly any soap piece back then. Ron Harper had quite the career--he still works fairly regularly--but before Heart (ten years or so) was even Paul Newman's understudey in Sweet Bird of Youth (and was on Generations) "Diana: But if its just for a day or so, they announce the switch. They don't mention anything if its a permanent switch. " Interesting, on the ABC soaps anyway they always did until very very recently.

Of course Cruel Intentions' screenwriter/director, Roger Kumble was responsible for Prep/Cruel Intentions 2....

HAHA if this promo they show in Canada doesn't turn you off Sylph then you're a stronger man than I am That guy looks like he was auditioning for the Conan O'Brien character of his intern brooding Twilight-esque vampire (Do guys like this actually exist in anyone's REAL high school? They didn't in mine...)

It's being massively hyped here in Canada now that MuchMusic has picked it up. I assumed it was an American attempt at Degrassi but with a more specific focus.

Well do they need to have so many ones that seem to be men with captured and tortured women? I dunno, some might argue that visceral thrill you get isn't necesarily good

A NY Times article by David Jacobs on creating Dallas and Knots (which he does compare, after my comments lol, to thirtysomething) from 1990: TV VIEW; When the Rich And the Powerful Were Riding High By DAVID JACOBS; David Jacobs is a writer/producer, whose series ''Paradise,'' a western, is on CBS. Published: April 15, 1990 I am trying to create television for the 1990's. I'm not sure I'll be as good at it as I was 13 years ago, when I didn't know anything. Tapping into the pulse of the times is easier to explain in hindsight than to plan. When I created ''Dallas'' and its spinoff, ''Knots Landing,'' in the late 1970's, I did not anticipate that they would still be on the air in the 1990's, the second and fourth longest-running entertainment series in TV history. Nor could I have imagined the scale of ''Dallas's'' success. A hit and a curiosity on every continent, ''Dallas'' at its peak seemingly transcended entertainment and became a worldwide sociological phenomenon. Even as the phenomenon was occurring, I was hard put to explain what made the show, if not a symbol of the 80's, at least a singular expression of it. The centerpiece of ''Dallas'' was the character of J. R. Ewing. Dramatically he was neither hero nor villain but a combination, the villain-as-protagonist. He wasn't created that way. In the first draft of the pilot script, J. R. was a more conventional bad guy. It was the hero, Bobby, whom I thought was more freshly conceived: player and playboy, the apple of his father's eye, likable but immature. The way I saw it, we would watch Bobby become more responsible and mature after his marriage to Pamela Barnes. The development executives at CBS, however, wanted Bobby to be more conventionally heroic from the onset. I found the reconceived, less-flawed Bobby dull. Ordinarily having a dull hero at the center would prove fatal for a TV series. In the case of ''Dallas'' it probably ensured the show's success, for it created a void for the talented Larry Hagman to fill. Hagman played J. R. with the righteousness, charm and confidence of a hero. From the beginning, the character was so seductive, so watchable, that the producers and writers responded by making J. R. the one who made things happen. J. R. might not have been ethical or even decent, but dramatically he functioned as protagonist rather than antagonist - the hero. J. R. Ewing's appearance on the global TV screen coincided with the beginning of the Reagan Presidency, and J. R. was a man of his times. Like his 70's counterpart, Archie Bunker, who gave voice to prejudices and attitudes that were no longer socially acceptable but still widely felt, J. R. proved unexpectedly appealing. His unapologetic commitment to self-interest, his unabashed belief in the corruptibility of others linked him to a generation that would soon be told that greed was O.K. and read on bumper stickers that Jesus wanted people to get rich. In the mid-80's, a ''Dallas'' clone briefly replaced ''Dallas'' as the world's most-watched TV drama. ''Dynasty'' was a better expression of second Reagan Administration values than ''Dallas'' because, while ''Dallas'' was about the quest for money, ''Dynasty'' was about the things that money could buy. In ''Dallas'' money was a tool, a way of keeping score. In ''Dynasty'' money was an end, the grail that was the goal of every quest. ''Dallas'' was fairly modestly mounted: Southfork was big but no mansion, and now and then the characters wore jeans to breakfast. ''Dynasty'' was perhaps the most extravagantly produced series in the history of episodic television: the sets were more opulent, the wardrobe more expensive, the life styles more ostentatious - the characters dressed for breakfast and wore jewelry with lingerie. During almost any other period, ''Dynasty'' would have been regarded as more vulgar than ''Dallas.'' In the mid-80's, however, ''Dynasty'' was widely viewed as the classier of the two shows. As it happened, both ''Dallas'' and ''Dynasty'' faded as the Reagan Presidency faded. Indeed, ''Dynasty'' could not survive the changing of the guard. It was gone by the end of George Bush's first hundred days. Among these pioneer serials, only ''Knots Landing'' remains healthy in kinder, gentler America. Its continuing popularity is due in part to dramatic factors: ''Knots Landing'' has always been the least formulaic of the prime-time soaps. When the series started, the characters all lived on an aggressively middle-class cul-de-sac and had manifestly middle-class problems as commonplace - and overblown - as any on ''Thirtysomething.'' As the decade progressed, they became richer, their environment glitzier, the stories more melodramatic. But through it all, its characters retained their fundamentally middle-class underpinnings. Though Valene published a book and came into money, she remained a country girl. Karen became a TV personality but by projecting her real, off-screen personality: she remained the nice, smart, cause-oriented lady next door. Even the reigning villain, Greg Sumner, is not exactly a villain - he's a good man gone bad, a one-time idealist who took an expedient shortcut. This, finally, is the difference between ''Knots Landing'' and its genre-mates. The other prime-time serials offered a peek into a world that was rich and corrupt and populated by an unhappy bunch; I suspect that viewers found some satisfaction in their misery. ''Knots Landing'' ushered viewers through that same world, but because its characters remained down-scaled and multidimensional, viewers felt that they were along for the ride. The pleasure of watching ''Dynasty'' and ''Dallas'' and ''Falcon Crest'' was voyeuristic; the pleasure of watching ''Knots Landing'' was vicarious. ''Dynasty'' and ''Dallas'' and ''Falcon Crest'' were about Them. ''Knots Landing'' is about us. The continuing strength of ''Knots Landing'' and the success of two other dramas, ''L. A. Law'' and ''Thirtysomething,'' suggest that viewers these days are less interested in the rarified regions populated by the rich and powerful than in drama with some basis in their own reality. Still, I'm not sure that these shows are as expressive of their time as ''Dallas'' and ''Dynasty'' were once of theirs. The characters and format of ''Knots Landing,'' ''Thirtysomething'' and ''L.A. Law'' are modern, but it's easy to imagine the same shows existing, updated, in other times. I don't think that ''Dallas'' and ''Dynasty'' would have had a prayer of succeeding in any other era, save perhaps the Harding or Coolidge Administrations.

And a review by the same critic of The City--oddly this piece reads less like a review, than a fluff piece LOL TELEVISION REVIEW;From Ashes of 'Loving' By JOHN J. O'CONNOR Published: November 13, 1995 Daytime soaps are known to be bizarre occasionally, but nothing beats the machinations that have gone into "The City," having its premiere on ABC this afternoon at 12:30. The new series emerges from the ashes of "Loving," which for several years has remained, despite periodic doctoring, at the bottom of the daytime-drama ratings heap. "The City" is the multimillion-dollar alternative to simply putting "Loving" to sleep, so to speak. Some major "Loving" characters from the fictional, rather stodgy town of Corinth, Pa., have already been eliminated by a serial killer. A dozen or so are moving to "The City," set in a grand loft in lower Manhattan. The show opens to the sounds of congested traffic, shouting motorists, snarling cabdrivers and the wailing of fire engines and ambulances. Adding to the frenetic beat are zoom camera shots inspired by the MTV school of art direction, especially as used in "The Real World." Stodgy no more, friends. At the center of this urban landscape is Sydney Chase, married to the world's third richest mogul and the hurricane force behind his communications conglomerate Chase International. Smart, gorgeous and, of course, venomous if need be, Sydney is played by Morgan Fairchild, whose mere presence in daytime coaxed a good many ABC affiliates into signing up for the series. Ms. Fairchild won't disappoint fans of her cool-with-a-wink sophistication. It's worth the effort just to see her entrance, stepping out of a helicopter dressed head to toe in white Versace. "Give us your poor, your tired, your wretched," an announcer intones in a commercial for "The City." Sashaying into camera view, the ultra-fashionable Sydney pleads, "And please get them out of my way." Here, at last, is a heroine for the Contract With America crowd. The transformation of "Loving" was overseen by Barbara Esensten and James Harmon Brown, formerly head writers on "Dynasty." They and Jean Dadario Burke, the executive producer, aim to bring daytime drama into the 1990's, away from the stilted upper-middle-class living room image that still prevails today. They are not the first innovators. On-location shooting is fairly commonplace today, and the element of glitz has long been exploited in shows like "The Bold and the Beautiful." But the insistent urban beat of "The City" and its constantly thumping visuals add a new look and sound to daytime. Now it's a matter of juggling plots and characters, all of them brought under the single roof of Sydney's SoHo loft building, which she will now have to share, thanks to the treachery of an Australian tabloid weasel (Corey Page), with the new Wilder Modeling Agency. Beautiful people, ex-drug dealers, scheming photographers, altruistic doctors, even a young homeless woman brought up by nuns. There's a little something for just about everyone. Sydney, you're on. Take it away, girl. THE CITY ABC, today at 12:30 P.M. (Channel 7 in New York.) Created by Agnes Nixon, Barbara Esensten and James H. Brown; Jean Dadario Burke, executive producer; Laura R. Rakowitz, producer; directed by Robert Scinto, Joseph Cotugno, Casey Childs, David Pressman, Nancy Stern and Andrew Becker; written by Mr. Brown, Ms. Esensten, Dana Herko, Bill Levinson, Tom Citrano, Ron Renauld, Kirk Aanes, Tony Lang and Millee Taggart; music by Scott Schreer. WITH: Morgan Fairchild (Sydney Chase), Corey Page (Richard Wilkins), Catherine Hickland (Tess Wilder), Amelia Weatherly (Steffi Brewster), Laura Sisk Wright (Ally Rescott Bowman), Philip Anthony (Bernardo Castro), T. W. King (Danny Roberts), George Palermo (Tony Soleito), Randy Mantooth (Alex Masters), Lisa Lo Cicero (Jocelyn Brown), Debbi Morgan (Dr. Angela Hubbard), Darnell Williams (Jacob Foster), Alimi Ballard (Frankie) and Philip Brown (Buck Huston).

NY Times Loving Review! (it's an interesting read although not a very good review) TV: 'LOVING,' NEW ABC SOAP OPERA By JOHN J. O'CONNOR Published: June 29, 1983 THERE is a new soap opera in television town. It's called ''Loving'' and can be seen weekdays at 11:30 on ABC, representing the first new ''daytime drama'' that the network has commissioned in eight years. One of the architects of the plot is Agnes Nixon, the so-called soap queen whose successes include ''All My Children'' and ''One Life to Live.'' Credit is also given to Douglas Marland, who, as head writer on the project, is clearly in charge of ongoing developments. ''Loving'' remains true to the basic construction that is the hallmark of all soap operas. Instead of a hospital setting, through which can pass a variety of sterotypes, the new show revolves around a university campus situated in a geographically vague Northeastern town called, of all things, Corinth. Moving right up into the 1980's, the heroine is a television news anchor named Merrill Vochek, product of a modest family background but obviously destined for bigger things. She is described in one network release as ''idealistic, caring and ready to fight for what she wants out of life.'' The going, needless to say, won't be easy. In a special two-hour television movie that launched the series Sunday night, Merrill found evidence of a prostitution ring involving students at Alden University. Unfortunately, her initial informant was later found dead in a motel room. Scrawled across the bathroom mirror in lipstick was the message: ''Whores Must Die.'' A classic bit of soap dialogue was exchanged between the two investigating policeman: The first: ''What a waste, huh?'' The second: ''You telling me?'' Details of the prostitution business were kept rather hazy. It seemed the recruits were poor students who could not exist solely on skimpy financial grants from a work-study program. But the very subject was a signal that ''Loving'' is going to tackle ''serious'' stuff. Reportedly on tap for future plotlines, for example, are explorations of alcoholism and AIDS. More to the point, the prostitution gambit provided a vehicle for introducing most of the major characters. Merrill can move easily among different groups of people. She is having an affair with her childhood sweetheart, Douglas Donovan, the boy next door who is a model of innocent goodness. Douglas is the kind of guy who, when finding Merrill and his mother in the family kitchen, can exclaim, ''Well, my two favorite women in the world!'' Merrill loves Douglas, but not quite enough to marry him. Meanwhile, Douglas's brother, Mike, is a cop who is not necessarily impressed with the powerful and their ''fancy shindigs.'' At the other end of the social scale, there are the Forbeses. Roger Forbes, son of a self-made millionaire, is a former Congressman with Presidential ambitions. He becomes the new president of Alden University. Someone helpfully notes that a similar position didn't hurt the careers of Woodrow Wilson and Dwight D. Eisenhower. In the process, Roger bumps to the lesser position of dean Garth Slater, one of the more slimy villains to grace a soap-opera stage in recent times. Roger and his wife have two children: the beautiful but dangerously scheming Lorna, and the handsome, athletic Jack who, in addition to running around in skimpy shorts most of the time, happens to be adopted. Sunday night's movie also included the one-time-only characters of Roger's father, Johnny, and his former love interest Amelia Whitley, secretary to the university president. Scorned by Johnny, Amelia was desperate for revenge and, as it turned out, she was the organizer of the prostitution ring. After finally killing Johnny, she was hauled off, one hopes to an appropriate insitution. Giving this utter nonsense a modicum of interest was the casting. Johnny was played by Lloyd Bridges, Amelia by Geraldine Page, who kept lurching about wearing crazy hats and puffing on odd cigarettes. Faced with a hopeless situation, Miss Page evidently decided to unveil her own special impersonation of a Russian empress. As the writers would have it, on the special and on Monday's first episode of the series, idealistic Merrill and rich Roger are falling in love with each other. She has qualms because he is married. He is determined. Daughter Lorna is watching carefully, eager to make trouble for everybody in sight. Meanwhile, son Jack is falling for delicate Lily, daughter of the abominable Garth. Finding her alone in the garden, Jack says, ''Hello, there.'' Smiling shyly, she responds, ''Hello.'' This pregnant exchange was followed by a commercial break. Returning to the story, Lily reveals, ''I want to be a concert pianist some day.'' Still waiting in the wings to be introduced are Merrill's brother, a priest, and Douglas's sister, a star college athelete. In case anybody missed the point, an announcer at the end of the first episode boomed on rhapsodically about ''the warmth of the Donovan family, the mystery of the Slater family, the conflicts of the Forbes family - the passion, the power, the drama of 'Loving.' '' What the world needs now, especially the world of soap opera, is a good, unvarnished sense of shame. The one note of interest in this entire enterprise is struck, against formidable odds, in the solid performance, at times suggesting a wicked parody of Jessica Savitch, of Patricia Kalember as Merrill. Joe Stuart is the producer of ''Loving.''

The New York Times is littered with articles and reviews of Peyton Place, from the 60s on. Sadly, I no longer have a subscription to them and for non subscribers most of the older articles, including 80% of these, will only let you see the first paragraph. Does anyone here have a full subscription? Oh and one paragraph I can see confirms what was said on here about Girl from Peyton Place being planned in 1965: A.B.C. Plans New Show on 'Peyton Place' Theme; Actress Will Be Shifted From Original Series in Fall Schedule By VAL ADAMS February 5, 1965, Friday Section: business financial, Page 63, 650 words " The Girl From Peyton Place," a spin-off from "Peyton Place," and "Gidget," a comedy series, will be among the new television shows next season on the American Broadcasting Company network. A few ones that you can read all the way through: A great recent piece about the show when the DVD sets came out last Summer, with quotes from Parkins, etc is HERE A negative review of the 1985 Next Generation tv movie is HERE I'd love to be able to read all of this 1965 Suds for All Seasons article: "IRRESPECTIVE of any possible influence on the gross national product the nighttime television serial has made its mark -- and the mark could grow larger. Last week the Columbia Broadcasting System decided to present a twice-a- week evening serial that will be a spin-off from its daytime soap opera, "As the World Turns."" Or an article about integrating the town "Will the Blacks say too little too late?" Or a review the week it premiered: "ALLISON, Constance, Betty, Mike Rossi, Rodney, Catherine and Leslie, seven frustrations with but a single thought, ushered in a new television era last night, soap opera in the evening."

Reading articles about the 80s primetime soap boom (post Dallas), it's interesting many say the reason that after PP finished it took so long to do another full on nightime serial wasn't so much that PP fell so far in the ratings, or the flop of those other serials like The Searchers or Executive Suite, but that PP had been such a dismal failure when it came to attempts to sell it into syndication. This is why, David Jacobs says, he was told with Dallas and Knots to have at least one self contained storyline in every single episode--into their third or so seasons.

For some reason that opening makes it feel like a sitcom to me, lol. It's funny, those opening shots don't look like Peapack to me

I had to wiki Ruku, but that makes a lot of sense for me--for any of these shows that have even 200+ episodes, let alone 10,000. (Isn't it funny how DVDs now seem like clutter when before they were a miracle compared to VHS--I always wonder about a Dark Shadows fan who has all the commercially released video tapes and how those must stack up to the DVDs...)

A couple of Time Magazine articles on primetime soaps. The long August 1980 cover story on Dallas; Who Shot JR (I knew that Jacobs created Knots Landing first but couldn't sell it so created Dalas, but didn't realize he only supervised Dallas for five episodes before going full on to his baby, Knots--there's also some great stuff about the story team) HERE Season of the Night Soaps has brief bits on Dallas, Knots, Dynasty, Midland Heights and a hated miniseries version of East of Eden (by Dynasty's Robert Shapiro) that they say owes more to the soaps than Steinbeck. from 1981 HERE A piece on the glamour bitches of these shows, from 1985 HERE

I find it wallows in the violence a bit too much as well. Call me a violence prude, but it's like gore porn.

Exactly. It's like that with all soaps on DVDs--even releasing a best of set would surely make them some profit? Re PP--well I don't think Shout! could afford to license 500 or whatever episodes without knowing it would sell--btu it has put them in a bind. It just seems mean spirited of Fox not to release it (I was hoping Shout or someone would pick up Knots Landing if indeed they aren't releasing anymore--the way they're now doing Facts of Life since the major label dropped it--but I guess that won't happen). I'm shocked they haven't come down on the sellers of those complete DVD sets then (and thank god the quality is decent--I've heard horrible things about the semi fraud company--who goes by diff websites most of them with TVDVD in the title--who advertise cheap complete sets of Knots, Dynasty, etc) So Fox owns Return to PP as well? Some of the Return plots do sound hackneyed even by soap standards, but I still wanna see it. I know the producer said that they always felt like the "dirty little show" next to One Life to live (funny as only a few years later One Life ws seen as very non traditional) which was a family soap and that they should have been allowed to retool as more of a family centric show. Which is odd cuz PP, for all its shocking qualities at the time--and I know it was shocking (called by Carson a "Television orgy" etc)--really feels pretty "family" based at heart. Honestly, I think I'm so used to modern soap conventions (and modern attitudes, though I thought I was pretty good at relating to the dated society stigmas) that that didn't even cross my mind! At episode 59! (thanks for posting the airdates )

To be fair the Let's Be Like Melrose Place symptom hit Beach harder than The City or PC--Spelling specifically created a daytime show he thought would be the equivalent of Melrose, but in the daytime. That was why Charles Pratt Jr was involved in the creation (I never got why Josh Griffith was though) since he was MP's main headwriter during its top years (and created many of Spelling's flop attempts at a new Melrose), why they had the moody original opening credits (which I prefered) etc. In hindsight they seemed to realize this was at least partly a mistake--so they took those two weeks or whatever (when we got all the flashbacks) to retool the show--out went the film process look, most of the location scenes (which I loved), some of the cast (god remember how awful some of the original characters were--the runaway girl, the original Cole and Caitlin, Ryan Spelling of course, the pacing, etc... and the over reliance on the Internet... I did though like the Asian doctor who was quickly replaced) Still even at its worse, SuB looked brilliant compared to Passions. I actually really liked the DePriest period myself, but that was also when I was around to watch it the most. It was a good mix of camp I thought (something DePriest seems to have been doing since her first soap opera she created--Where the Heart Is) The show has been repeated in the UK and elsewhere a few times--I don't assume Spelling or whoever ownes it charges THAT much for it? (I know the first 12 eps are on DVD in Germany--do they have the English track?)

Interesting--I haven't seen her name in the era of Peyton I'm at right now. I know Dynasty's Pollock's biggest success was their ratings surge at Doctors in the 70s. (I always kinda forget that the Doctors had a few eras where it was VERY popular)

So with my comment on not thinking of thirtysomething as a true soap--do people have any discussion/definitions for what makes a primetime soap and what doesn't? Would you agree with Sylph that any character based serial on primetime is a primetime soap? Or do you agree with me that there tends to be some other element that truly makes it fit the genre? or? I admit I go back and forth (I do hate that people who watch, say Six Feet Under which Alan Ball actually said in all seriousness WAS a soap and essentially Knots Landing in a funeral home, like to distance themselves from the soap label out of snobbism) Also--to what degree have primetime soaps been written (or even created) by writers with prior daytime soap opera experience? It would seem, on the outside, a nobrainer to hire a daytime soap creator to write your primetime soap, but this doesn't seem to be all that common. Peyton Place of course used Irna Phillips early on to help setup the show, though she didn't do any writing once production began (and she came on after ABC turned down the first pilot). Some of the other writers involved with scriptwork, Mathilde and Theo Fero, Robert J Shaw, etc, all had background with primetime shows but also involvement (before and later) with daytime soaps. None of the major late 70s-early 80s primetime soaps were created by Daytime soap people--David Jacobs created Dallas and Knots (and a number of flops) but never seems to have worked in daytime soaps, Falcon Crest's Earl Hamner was famous as a novelist and creator of The Waltons but not soaps, Richard and Esther Shapiro behind Dynasty, didn't have a soap background either. But I think a number of the writers on the shows did-the writers most credit for making Dynasty into a campy hit were Eileen and Robert Mason Pollock who essentially (as Chris Schemering points out) took every soap opera cliche they had used more subtly in daytime, and upped them to a ridiculous degree and at a ridiculous speed. While the big 90s Spelling primetime soaps--90210 and Melrose were created by Darren Starr, it was the much loved on here (lol) Charles Pratt Jr who was known for Santa Barbara, who wrote Melorse's top years as well as creating many of Spelling's flop followups (Models Inc, Titans...)

I actually did relate to it a lot at that age. OKOK maybe not specifically--at least not to Mike (God Ken Olin was dreamy back then) and Hope, but I think you can still relate to the emotions, etc (if that makes sense) not to mention I could to Melissa's lack of direction.

I adore thirtysomething--I got into it in reruns when I was 19 or something, lol. I still have it on VHS, but maybe I should get the DVDs now that I'm about to turn (gulp) thirty. But... I'm not sure it's a primetime soap. 10 years ago, I would have argued it was, I've since changed my mind. There's a quintessential difference between something like thirtysomething and Knots landing--which deal with people the same age, with similar backgrounds and some of the same problems. That's why I call the Herskovitz/Zwick shows domestic dramas--also of course they next to never had cliff hangars although the episodes weren't fully self contained. That said all three of their major shows--thirtysomething, My So-Called Life and Once and Again (which of course shared a villain with thirtysomething--and how frustrating is it that the third and last season of O&A still isn't out) are some of my all time fave tv--even the lesser works they were involved in, like Relativity and their flop webseries 1/4 Life had stuff to recommend them. I'm still pretty upset their pilot last year wasn't picked up and that it's not back up this year, as people said it might be. But the irony is when I was a fan of MSCL as a teen online, and people on the forums would tell me to wait till I was in my thirties to watch thirtysomething as I wouldn't relate to it--they were pretty much wrong--I got it (well when I was 18-19--maybe I wouldn't have at 11 when I was still trying to save "MSCL" in its original run lol) SFK if you are giving it a chance though--and I really recommend you do, keep in mind it took 4 or 5 episodes to find its voice. The pilot, is exactly what the critics at the time who hated the show described it--the characters seem whiny, self absorbed, etc. But by the fourth or fifth episode it's pretty much wonderful. (In hindsight Once and Again had a pretty annoying pilot too--with the meet cute between the parents, etc, but it found its tone soon after--only MSCL had a pretty perfect pilot). I do remember being 7 at a motel in the rain with my parents and the only show they had on their tv reception was thirtysomething--and I thought it was the boringest thing EVER. LOL (I like the Big Chill a lot but I actually think thirtysomething is far less self absorbed than Chill is, LOL)

The sorta skipping elfin quality? Are you calling me homophobic I actually don't think his music's too good--it is a LOT like Scissor Sisters--the mix of disco hommage with Elton John hommage--but he doesn't want to alienate the middle aged mothers and young girls so doesn't even have a bit of their edge or sense of fun (I mean he did a single that was a song to overweight girls and how beautiful they are which is a good message but the song was so simplistic random that it seemed insulting to me). I don't think hes' a very good songwriter.

LOL Why would I like huim? The funniest was the revelation that in his press profile all interviewers were told to not ask about his sexuality. And then he came out as "bi". LOL Puhleeze!

There is a difference though, I think. This came up a while back when I was discussing my love for the Herskovitz/Zwick domestic dramas--they're serials yet they don't feel like "prime time soaps". I did--it seemed to be Fox's attempt at a Knots Landing in the post Melrose era.

Vamp Diaries is way better than I ever expected--if only the ouldn't kill off a new character every single ep. Damages is kinda overated, IMHO, but Sylph is dead on--it's a legal soap. It has very few procedural qualities. The flashes inform the narrative--are a part of it. I don't even understand your comment