Skin

I remember someone stating that the usual shelf life of a popstar is about a decade, before they lose prominence. The Soundscan era kind of created the impression that female led acts had more longevity than they normally do with the extension it gave to artists like Mariah, Celine, Madonna, Janet and Whitney -- but the decade rule of law tends to hold true at large which is what you see when you review other female artists from the 70's to today. Paula Abdul, Donna Summer, Tina Turner, Diana Ross, etc. were only able to capture the Zeitgeist for about that time. It's rare to have it for longer than that. Britney lasted about 15 years total, which is about what Janet was able to accomplish. The concept of a Madonna is pretty rare, but I think a lot of people overpraise Madonna's longevity as if she is still racking up hits today, when that time has long passed. She hasn't had a solo radio hit since 2002, and she has only had 3 top 10's since she released Music, and two of those were from heavy features of by the moment artists (Justin Timberlake and Nicki Minaj). If Britney wants another comeback, she and her team will have to do something about increasing her social media presence (think the likes of tik tok, and playing the Spotify/Apple Music playlist game a bit better). Several of Britney's songs have gone viral on the platform most notably Gimme More, Circus, Criminal and Toxic. That's the main challenge for her today, she hasn't created a platform of streaming. But Britney isn't alone in that, a lot of artists from the early 2000's are even less prominent than she is. Look no further than those female acts who followed Britney in the 2000's and her peers -- Jessica Simpson, Christina Aguilera, Mandy Moore (they lasted maybe 6-8 years of prominence), along with the 2005 'it girls' -- Kelly Clarkson, Fergie, Nelly Furtado (less than a decade) and then again in the late oughts --- Katy Perry, Lady Gaga and Ke$ha (about a decade). All of them have had limited success and burnt out within a decade. But even with Britney's lack of relevance beyond 2013, she's accomplished a great deal, she was so far ahead of everyone else from her earlier successes that it pushed her years ahead of everyone else. It's now becoming apparent that Taylor, Adele, Rihanna, and Beyonce are starting to get close to her because Britney hasn't really been been active in the last 8 years. Britney hasn't been in the same career-focused mindset as she was from 1998 - 2013. The potential is there, but she needs to put forth effort again. She basically took a decade long hiatus, and the world moved on from her. I don't think the comparison to Beyonce is all that sound though, at least not apples to apples. Beyonce is a hybrid artist, she falls back a lot on Destiny's Child, Jay-Z and urban music platforms to really sell her music -- she's not preoccupied with pop success, and hasn't been since 2010. Which is why I think it's sort of odd to compare Britney to Beyonce. They are different artists with different platforms. Formation was Beyonce's last solo hit, her last number ones were features with Megan the Stallion and Ed Sheeran, her last pop hit was during the I Am Sasha Fierce era (Sweet Dreams). Lemonade was a massive success, but albums are pretty much all but dead now, so don't look for that success to be replicated again. P!nk has faded quite a bit too. Her last album "Hurts To Be Human" flopped, and she has also been focused mainly on touring. Her last top 10, was Just Like Fire a soundtrack in 2016 from a box office bomb. P!nk also never hit the career highs Britney had. At their peaks P!nk was selling fractions of what Britney sold.

I am still astounded that an Anglo-Saxon caucus exists in the Republican party, so baldly and freely. I shouldn't be, after everything else witnessed in the past decade or so but I am.

Yeah, the most meaningful stories from QAF was the violence that the LGBTQ+ community experiences (Justin's bashing), living with AIDS/HIV (Ben), intolerant families (most of the cast experienced this), testicular cancer (Brian), and then the same-sex marriage and human rights stories (all of season 5). There were other stories that also happened within the show which I think we thoughtful and provoking during it's time. I think QAF doesn't get a lot of credit for advancing a lot of those (unpopular) topics during the Bush years (2000-2007). It would be interesting to see a series that tackled these topics that are these equivalent's to the community in 2021.

Wow. Good on Netflix I guess but that's a big leap of faith that audiences will be willing to stick around for the series for an additional three years.

Likely due to name recognition which will separate it from a sea of content that viewers have to wade through that isn't recognizable to the main demographics. A lot of times people call the series a reboot, when it has little of the same trappings that the original series had. I feel like what made QAF so successful is that it was less a show about gay men, than it was a same sex soap opera that women enjoyed watching a lot. It was also somewhat topical and heavily political in the later seasons, that sort of caused the series to have a bit of an identity crisis from season 3 onward. I wouldn't be adverse to seeing how Mike, Ben, Hunter, Justin and Brian ended up. But honestly all of the characters were sort of played out by the end of the series. I think this show needs to define what it's scope is in order to be successful. If it's just going to be a bunch of love triangles, sex scenes, and hook-up culture it's not going to survive. That's more or less what QAF was in it's first two seasons. I think what made it progress was the more political, culture, social-economic discussions they started having around season 3, and what they ended the series on. I don't really trust the reboot to do that, and engender meaningful conversations of what that now looks like in the gay community in 2021. I guess my question with this is -- what would make this different from Looking, which also had a similar premise but ended up ending after two seasons and a film?

I remember someone used to compare soaps to comic books, and I agree with that statement. They have a long history and canon that just dwarfs that of typical television series. Soaps have 30-40-50-60 years of history and continuity that they have to keep straight, and they often can't. Which is why they play fast and loose with the rules. The problems soaps have, are the same problems comic books have had for awhile now.

I learned not to count one hit wonders back in 2005, when I thought Rihanna and Ciara would both be one-hit wonders with Pon De Replay and Goodies. Now a days it's all about finding the right producer, sound and getting people talking.

It comes down to the medium. Lead Actor and Actress was virtually synonymous for a long time as "Outstanding Veteran xx in a Drama Series". The way the committee would vote meant that anyone who didn't have seniority or at least years under their belt to ensure the votes to be in the category was going to be left out of the competition. They needed to have tremendous show buy-in in order to take the lead spot. This is why the Supporting categories were so stacked as basically those veteran actor/actress slots were only reserved for a few upper echelon of cast members who the show would back. Leaving supporting for everyone else who was over 26. This is essentially why the Younger Actor and Actress categories were created. Older and more senior actors didn't want to compete with newbies, thus the 25 year marker was created to thin out the pool of contestants to make the other categories reserved for older and more established actors.

I feel like my statement didn't go through appropriately. I said that producers may see a lose/lose situation if they produce a gay storyline, that may not initially be popular with their viewers, and then get criticism from the same audience that they are trying to court because it's not "enough" or is not "executed in the right way". Instead of acknowledging that there are many different ways of expressing sexuality, instead there is a mortarium on the gay experience and what should be shown on screen, that has to pass a purity test that is extreme in that even the most well liked soap character would never pass. There is a reason why a lot of gay characters aren't allowed to be messy, and it's because they want to do right with a positive portrayal, but eventually that winnows down story-telling opportunities. As such it may be seen from a producers point of view as being more trouble than it's worth. That's arguably different than casting minorities and taking a color blind approach to casting similar to Grey's Anatomy and Shonda Rhimes practices of increasing diversity by number if not necessarily by practice or cultural cognizance. Even that form of diversity has been under fire recently, with many minorities expressing that Shonda's way of increasing diversity if "flawed" or "performative" and doesn't go deep enough. So that's another aspect that is being challenged on the race/ethnicity front. Doing a one to one comparison with being LGBTQIA and being an underrepresented minority is not a one to one thing, when it comes to the conversation of representation. You mention GLAAD, but I also believe you are elevating GLAAD's response, which is limited. GLAAD is a body that can provide awards/recognition, but it doesn't exactly bring in revenue. GLAAD is more a marketing aspect of "acclaim" than something tangible that means something to production companies and television networks where ad revenue and Nielsen ratings are the be all end all of audience sentiment and popularity. Getting a GLAAD award would mean very little if soap audiences rallied against the story in question and if even LGBTQIA+ audiences hated the story. Again, a lot of squeeze for little juice. Add to this fact that in a world of cutting costs there are only 20 or so open slots where characters can be on contract and seen, and how a same-sex character limits romantic storylines (a bread and butter for soaps) and this is why you likely get producers, brass and network executives questioning the return on investment from such characters, and why you only get a landmark gay character every half a decade (Bianca, Luke, Will, Lucas, Oliver, Kristina, Paul, etc.).

I definitely think this is the reason why they have one gay character on the canvas and basically just pair them with one other love interest and have that be the "status quo" for multiple years at a time. Producers "can't win", because even if they get conservative audiences that hate LGBTQ+ stories, and then you have LGBT+ fans who feel that the characters aren't being presented in the right way. It's easier to just not try at all because it feels like the bar is so high to reach, meet and maintain. Not only are the writers/producers islanding the characters by limiting the love interests prospects, they are now limited in how they can be portrayed as only saintly characters or angels, with no bad qualities associated to them, otherwise the writing can be deemed problematic. I actually think the Sonny/Paul/Will and Luke/Reid/Noah triangles were good for Daytime, and felt progressive, even just notionally. Paul/Will was also an interesting pairing. I thought Kish was great for OLTL, the only problem to me was that they sort of came too late, and then dismissed them after about a year of story, which seemed wrong.

I liked Ryan during his initial run on the show from 1998 - 2002, and also for the first part of his return in 2003, under the Cambias murder umbrella storyline. To me he exhibited a similar vibe as Trey, Leo and David from that time period, and was a natural successor to the likes of Jackson and Edmund in being a corner stone romantic interest who elevated his leading actress. I agree with the sentiments that he gives off a Jax vibe, as I think that was sort of what they created him for. He was a Prince Charming/Savior type to the often troubled Gillian, Kendell, Annie and Greenlee. I personally don't blame Mathison for the failure that was Rylee, he sparked well enough with Gillian, Kendell and Annie that I have a hard time seeing him as the problem. Greenlee as a character just had a sort of anti-chemistry with a lot of men, and Ryan was one of an endless string for her. I agree with this. I think Cameron was able to make a lot work, he was just islanded with Greenlee as his focus for much of his second tenure. Had they leaned into virtually any other element for him from 2004, I think he would be more fondly remembered than he is today. He had real value with the Kanes, his business stories were serviceable, and I think he mixed well with most of the cast. Unfortunately from 2004 onward, the character was so closely tied to Greenlee, it sort of drowned everything else out which ironically coincided with when he started to become more and more front burner on the show (2004 - 2011).

I agree. I also felt that the story was a bit rushed, which I think was more to due with the plotting of the first few episodes. A lot of time was wasted on the Lord Berbrooke plot line, and then there was a rush to have Daphne and Simone marry, when more could have been teased out between Prince Friedrich. From "An Affair of Honor" onward the show fast forwards by light speeds, with several beats and plot lines raced past. There were probably behind the scenes impacts to this -- they only had so many episodes to order for the first season, contracts were only for 1 season, etc. But the first 8 episodes honestly could have been 2 seasons. The season finale could have been Daphne and Simon being married, after an extended love triangle with the Prince, and the second season could have been Simon and Daphne's marriage problems. Once the mid point of episode 4 hits, the show's entire pacing is just off.

It was definitely this, honestly even in the 90's. Billy Douglas for all of his earth shattering firsts, was front burner for a couple of months for a huge summer story, and then by Christmas he was all but gone from the canvas before being quietly put on a bus to college never to be heard from again. This was a character that was written to have pretty strong connections to the Buchannan's and Reverand Carpenter. Even Marty Saybrooke was heavily involved in that story as an instigator. Bianca and Luke on AMC and ATWT seemed the most purposeful, but they lacked what the other had in excess. Bianca had wealth in terms of story, but no meaningful love interests. While Luke had multiple love interests but was often relegated to B or C list territory when it came to airtime. Will was well done from the beginning but was sort of sanitized for audiences, to be as unthreatening as possible. They even had him have a daughter with Gabby prior to him even touching Sonny to show the audience that Will was a male lead for Days. The transgender storylines on B&B (Maya) and AMC (Zoey) weren't much better proving to be quite messy, and uneventful. Daytime will never get a QAF or a Looking kind of representation, or a Hollyoaks or Emmerdale. I think like a lot of soaps the best is behind us. Morgan would have been a perfect opportunity character to be gay. Having him come into open conflict with both of his birth parents (Carly and Sonny) for being gay and finding solace and support in his siblings, and step parents would have been a strong story. It could also create some additional tension, and an extra dimension to the Jax and Sonny rivalry, and maybe even give some conflict between Carly and Brenda/Alexis where Morgan develops a stronger emotional support outside of his biological parents than in them. It also could have created an interesting reverse Jason moment, where as instead of driving himself into the mob, he goes the more morally acceptable route and becomes a sort of moral center character that denounces the mob mentality. Sort of like an Emily/Robin/Georgie/Lucky character. I think one of the problems with Daytime is the fear that once they label someone as gay, that cuts off romantic potential for many other characters. This is something Daytime has problems navigating. It's like they sort of have to pair the spares to create a pairing that is meaningful, and the characters are sort of shackled to each other the entire series (Luke & Will), or there is a will they or won't they, with a straight character, which is mostly just ship baiting (Bianca & Maggie).

I disagree that Ryan killed her character, Kendell was still viable all throughout 2002 and 2003 when she and Ryan were more or less on and off again. Ryan is actually her last interesting or inspired pairing, and him leaving her at the motel, as he rode off in the rain with his motorcycle is one of AMC's few iconic images from the 2000's. The Rendall pairing had vestiges of what made AMC really spark in the late 90's to early 00's. Ryan leaving her, and them reconciling is a testament to the growth her character faced during that period and is pretty much the best Alicia ever was in the role, along with the Micheal Cambias murder storyline that ran during that time period. That's the truly last time I can recall Kendell being a great or magnetic character in her own right, and when it felt like she was leading story independently. The Greenlee worship, was a subcomponent of her relationship with Zach. Kendell needed a forever BFF Girlfriend and Greenlee fit the bill, because they needed to have a comparable couple Zendell could double date with, and that was decided to be Rylee. Once Kendell was settled down with kids she ceased being Kendell, and all of her storyline's and autonomy went out the window. She was just Zach's wife. It says volumes that after Zach was paired with Kendell she was his damsel in distress until the show ended. She was locked and vacuum sealed as an appendage to his drama. Never did Kendell have as many comas, injuries, nor was she so constantly and consistently victimized and in peril as she was when she was with him. So much for the strong, fiery, independent woman that they were trying to craft Kendell into back in 2001-2003. All this to say it would serve Kendell as a character to be wiped of Zach and all of his associated drama if this reboot happens. It would certainly serve SMG's Kendell better in being a fleshed out and fully realized character.

Zach killed the character of Kendell and the sexiness of the character. I get the idea that they wanted to pair her with a long-term love interest. She was the equivalent to Pine Valley's bicycle/welcome wagon for most male characters but tying her down for so long really killed the growth of the character, and the stories she had from 2004 until pretty much the end of the series. The weird thing is that there were pretty obvious exit pathways to end the pairing, so I have to think the network executives and hire-ups liked them as a couple. They could have easily paired Zach with Maria, Dixie, Greenlee, Liza, or a number of other women during that timeframe.

It's interesting to me that the family hasn't issued a statement on not providing Meghan with the mental health resources she asked for multiple times? The racism charges has huge implications, but there is something deeply unsettling about the fact that the BRF didn't let her seek help when she needed it. To me that is just as egregious and just as sinister. I would have wanted them to say something about that. The fact that they only mentioned the racism comments is telling. They don't see any problem with the fact that they refused to provide Meghan with protection and help during her time of struggle.

It may be helpful to understand what exactly it is you take issue with regarding this interview? Because right now, it's kind of a tough road to understand your point? Meghan's interview didn't go out of the way to place blame towards anyone in the royal family, in particular. The bombshell of racism and colorism aside for Archie, she mostly just expressed and talked about how she didn't have help, support, or security and protection from the royal family and that she dealt with suicidal thoughts. I don't see what in particular could be argued as defamatory to William and Kate? It seemed to me that Meghan was taking aim at the institution in question, not particular members of the family. It was clear she shut that down in the first few minutes with Oprah, that she wasn't going to individually single out everyone in the Royal Family.

Yes. The portions around mental health, wellness, and well being are another example of BRF not making the right choices in providing those resources and support. Especially during a global pandemic. Those are damning reports. Harry and Meghan saying they would have stayed if they gave her protection and support is really bad.

That is another thing I find interesting. They take it as a slight against the Queen personally more than anything else. Everything else is kind of ignored, they just see it as this young entitled couple being mean to Grandma.

I kind of disagree with this, at least in my opinion I feel that Harry and Meghan are the ones who are the underdogs here, while the BRF has often been seen as holding all the power. I really just listened to them, and I feel I was pretty impartial overall. If anything I think people are predisposed (in the UK at least) to hate Meghan. I really didn't care one way or another, until I started seeing the overt displays of anger by the British people about how Meghan was a terrible person who couldn't you name it (dress, be presentable, do her duty, care for others, do her bit to the royal family, etc.). That made me skeptical and curious, and I figured I would watch out of curiosity. As such I kind of disagree that everyone's minds were already made up. Even to this day we still get British tabloids saying that Meghan is doing "damage control" and is Beelzebub, and Harry is stupid for liking her. It's like they have a never ending press machine to drag her and him through the mud. There are still endless comparisons made to make Kate look better by comparison. The power play here was never in Meghan's favor. It isn't in Harry's either. If people like them, it's in spite of the media narrative and powerhouse PR of the BRF.

I disagree the colorism and racism expressed here is a bit of a game changer (at least in my view) in that it made the covert and implicit overt and explicit here. The UK as a whole tends to presuppose that they as a nation are beyond racism, and that classism is the problem, issue or culprit and that they are more advanced as a society than the US is. This chinks that particular armor. Especially when Oprah and Megan together hit on the topic concerning Archie's skin color. They know how damaging that information is. That's not something that I think the BRF will get away with. It's one thing to speculate, and quite another to have it confirmed in broad daylight like that. I agree with this, I think audiences will be unsympathetic to the fact that the BRF hasn't changed at all since Princess Diana 24 years ago. That's a long time to be on the "wrong side" of history. I've noticed more and more people from England coming out of the woodwork lately talking about how Diana was horrible, though, which makes me think the English are regressing and circling the wagons now that Harry and Meghan have left. I also agree completely that the British Royal Family serves a role not unlike that of the President of the United States, in that the BRF is a symbol of British pride and nationalism. I used to think it was a good thing to have a Queen in that it seemed there was a separation from pride from country (Queen) and politics (whatever political party you favor) instead of having them enmeshed in on another. In the US the President is a symbol of both nationalism, nation pride, and politics. In this a lot of American's view citizens not supporting the president as wanting America to fail. However it looks like now at least, the British Royal Family is protected in a similar way. There initially was a lot of talk when Meghan was first announced and married Harry, that she could "modernize" the Royal Family. It's interesting to note how that never came to pass.

I agree with this, I personally thought the finale was amazing for what it was but it could have used an additional hour at least, likely 2 for all that they wanted to pack into it. I think the pacing for the series as a whole was a bit off. They wasted 2-3 episodes on sitcom stuff, when what people really wanted was the House of M backdrop that came at the tail end of episode 3 and most of episode 4. When we finally got to the mythos of "The Scarlet Witch" as a concept, the series had a little under an hour left and it was over. I get that Feige thinks that 6 hours is the "perfect spot" for the MCU television series, but if that's the case, they need to space it out a bit better. "The Scarlet Witch" concept as a whole deserves at least 2 episodes in it's own right to really digest and grasp. If you integrate the Scarlet Witch mythos, the needed exposition, and include Agatha and Wanda's showdown, that's a solid 2 episodes. Wanda dealing with the outrage of the entire town could have been extended both her coming to realize she is hurting people, while at the same time bringing down her alternate reality and having to atone for it. Those beats alongside her losing her family -- that's an additional episode right there. Vision v. Vision and the resulting Sword drama is also another episode in itself, which is needed to really pay off the season. Darcy just disappearing was weird and the SWORD stuff overall just felt short-changed. Did anyone else get the sense that Wanda didn't really remove her kids from being, and that she just sent them to a pocket dimension somewhere to exist and she could just keep an eye on them? The series finale overall just felt very hopeful, which was such a strange contrast to the 8th episode, which was filled with despair. I totally got the sense that White Vision would come back to Wanda eventually, and that she could pluck her kids back into existence whenever she wanted to again. Agatha getting brainwashed was delicious just desserts as well.

This performance has peaks and valleys, portions of it are really sad, while other portions just seem overly done, had Lucci just picked one emotion instead of going all over the map I think this could have been a devastating reel. 00-:45 is a perfect encapsulation of loss :46 -1:26 psychological break / I'm not ready to say goodbye, anger towards anyone who will take her away from me 1:26 - 1:45 Mother is now alive and trapped in the coffin? Too many transitions. Had Lucci played one emotion straight or made one transition this would have worked. But she flips too much within too short of a timespan and it becomes overwrought.

Minshew's Kendell was still being formed her first two years in. It felt like she was chasing SMG's ghost, or trying to redefine the character in her shadow. AM's Kendell reached her zenith somewhere around 2003, with the Micheal Cambias storyline as a character who felt independent and fully realized, but it still wasn't quite the same. SMG's Kendell was a force of nature, AM's Kendell was a long lost dog desperate for Erica's approval. Once Kendell was "accepted" into the Kane family AM's Kendell ceased to really be a character. Anything past 2004, wasn't Kendell anymore, but a non-descript soap heroine that had Erica's DNA, and so she had to lead the show. The writing and narrative for Kendell also suffered from 2004 onward. Minshew was a romantic leading actress, I don't think she worked as a soap bitch much either, but that could have been because Budig had that market thoroughly cornered during her tenure there. If Llanview is a thing I would love to see Billy and Joey apart of it. The Vegas should also be a main stay of Llanview, if that's a thing. So much can be mined from Christian and Antonio. I also wouldn't mind a return or a revamp of the Christian and Jessica story, and their star crossed love story. That would likely play well with socioeconomic and class tensions and a grittier soap story.

If Sarah Michelle Gellar comes back as Kendell I am watching. She was a Firestarter during her early years on All My Children, and a crazy powerful dramatic actress. Her Buffy, her Kendell and her Katherine are all iconic characters in their own right, and she excelled at playing the emotions for all that they were, and always went beyond the writing to make her characters work, shine and penetrate through to the audience. I'll take her over watery Minshew every day of the week, and twice at supper. Minshew could play romance but that was it. Her fake coughing crying fits and Vivian Leigh voice overs were weak tea, compared to what Gellar could produce at the drop of a dime, which was always insane given that she was a teenager at the time. I loved how much SMG's Kendell hated Erica, it made the show so interesting, and her seething, palpable rage was captivating in a way Minshew just never was. SMG's Kendell was Carly, before Carly was even a thing. I agree with this. Reboots are a huge thing nowadays, with Buffy and Cruel Intentions not being picked up Sarah doesn't have a lot of opportunities to land in terms of reboots. Crazy to think that All My Children would be the project to raise her back up to notoriety again. Everything comes full circle.