Skin
-
Posts
3,919 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Skin
-
-
4 minutes ago, Vee said:
If that was your point, then yes, you made it - he was a character who had a strong effect on the canvas, like many others.
I think that's my point, I wasn't looking to 'deify' anyone, so much as just connecting a couple of dots together from a few overall trends. EJ was a unique character in that I genuinely couldn't find another character like him unless I went back an entire generation prior to his debut, coincidentally his rise to prominence occurred at the same time Days went through a tonal shift, changing the narrative direction of the show. After that you can make of it whatever you wish and draw your own conclusions.
0 -
16 minutes ago, Vee said:
If you want to talk about a similar antihero on this specific show then yes, I suppose you could make a case for that.
I'll quit while I am ahead, when you get a response like this, that's when you know you've made your point.
0 -
Yeah despite commentary to the contrary there were definitely moments on the show where EJ was a major machination to plot where he fed story of multiple players in Salem, and it was like that for like 7 years. There were definitely moments where it felt like he was involved in way too much at times, but the soap liked putting him in the thick of so many things, as a lynchpin. It makes me think they knew what viewers were interested in watching, and just went hog wild. When I look at what Days was in 2003 - 2006, and then compare it to what Days eventually became post 2010, it just feels like a completely different show. I remember Days in 2003 and 2004 and it was a hot mess, compared to what Days was in like 2012 and 2013.
EJ was often ubiquitous, even appearing in stories where he really shouldn't have been involved at all (every time he was involved in the whole Steve/Patch stuff, or he shared scenes with Bo and Hope it honestly felt like overkill). That Mayor storyline with him and Abe was ridiculous, along with having him involved so heavily with Will (more than even his own father). But the soap liked him being an agitator to Safe, and giving Nicole stories so that was that.
I really can't think of a character who was like him in that he straddled the line of 'good/evil' like he did on the show, yet still received warm reception from fans and the audience, enough to still want him to either win or have a happy ending. You would have to go back a generation or so to find maybe Tony or Jack who came on the show in the 80's for that similar reception. I hesitate to find an equivalent of a male lead who played the role of anti-hero so effectively that he popped in all of his scenes regardless of context be it dramatic, romantic or humorous.
0 -
15 hours ago, j swift said:
The emergence of Jake and Brady in business sets up some interesting story potential for EJ. The recent Susan shenanigans, and her subsequent exit, means that DAYS won't need to deal with EJ's odd origin story. Also, given Clyde's part in EJ's exit, it sets up some story potential for Ben, aside from Ciara
Yeah, this sort of speaks to the element I was thinking about before when I mentioned that EJ was influential enough to create like three clones of himself that impacted the canvas after his departure in 2014. Jake, Chad and Stefan essential played the role 'EJ' would have played if he was still on the canvas, more or less. They are EJ just with different names.
Overall this sort of implies to me that Jake, Chad and Stefan weren't used effectively -- or it implies that they weren't able to capture the show with the same fervor JS did in a similar role. If EJ is still needed to deal with this much story on the table, and resolve so much it just underscores the value and importance of the role, and getting the right actor to play it. It makes me think they really were underprepared on how to handle the show when JS left.
0 -
I’m of the opinion that EJ likely wouldn’t work without Scott in the role. He in so many ways made the character plausible and ultimately made so many of his storylines bearable. It says volumes that within a few years so many Days storylines ended up involving him as a crux point, either as an antagonist, point of conflict or an accelerator of other stories.
People may hate EJ but I think his role on the canvas was pivotal in maturing Days beyond ridiculous “New Salem” storylines and the dried and busted love triangles between Nicole, Brady, Chloe, Shelle and whatever other nonsense existed, prior to him, and Sami in drag, mooning over Austin spreading epigenetics lies because she can’t stand her sister being happy or some other nonsense mess.
His influence on the canvas is pretty obvious, which is why the show had like three clones of him in some shape or form since his exit with Chad, Brandon Barash’s character, and that Tyler Christopher role. All of them are in some way EJ-lite because he was able to transition the show beyond the regular paint by numbers Days dynamics.
I’m not terribly interested in this return just because I don’t think Days is a suitable soap any longer, and it feels like this return will diminish what the character was for the better part of a decade.
EJ also just feels like something of a bit of a by gone era, and towards the end he just felt like the half of Sami, she was reluctant to really recognize. The darker villainess that really came into her powers in the end by acknowledging who she was warts and all. Sami was playing pretend with Lucas, Austin, Rafe and all the others. While with EJ she was just herself, and he wanted all of her any way so she never had to play pretend and be Fake Carrie or Fake Belle for him to love her. I don’t think Ron will really get that, so it’s a bit of a moot reunion.
0 -
I remember reading that Britney's breakdown was the most covered celebrity news story of the oughts' outside of Micheal Jackson's death, which I think says everything about America's culture of celebrity and how exhausting it is. They really are sort of the equivalent to the royal family. The media tear down culture is ravenous for red meat and the way that the press treated Britney was and always will be deplorable. I've always wondered if that was the reason why some stars choose to disassociate away from the media attention, outside of when they have a project to promote.
0 -
On 3/30/2020 at 10:38 AM, BetterForgotten said:
It's sad she was never really able to regain her 99-04 spark again. Even before her recent troubles, her career has been on a downward trajectory - these last two albums were huge flops. She's so irrelevant to the current pop scene that she may never be able to make a significant mark on it again, especially as she pushes 40.
Though, I guess other than Beyonce, no one from her generation of pop has really been able to sustain a career with much momentum.
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.
On 3/31/2020 at 2:07 AM, Skylover said:Yeah, I can't think of any Beyonce tracks since Drunk in Love which were that big. But I'm not a fan, I don't follow her. Her Lion King album flopped though.
THIS. I feel like P!nk is so damn boring. She had so much life and energy in her early albums. It like she got scared of getting old and decided to conform to age norms just releasing bland ballads in order to stay relevant. Her material is so cringeworthy.
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.
0 -
1 hour ago, Cat said:
also BB had really strong sexual chemistry with just about every woman on the show -- with the notable exception of Julie Marie Berman. That anti-chemistry was ROUGH
That was oddly enough the only pairing I ever liked for her. Dante and Lulu weren't it, and neither was her pairing with Logan.
0 -
Stephen Martines' Nikolas and Jacob Young's Lucky fit the bill here at GH. They were half-brothers.
James Scott's EJ and Chandler Massey's Will on Days was also a bit awkward in that EJ was at one point Will's step-father.
This was a bit different and not sibling related but depending on your mileage Alexa Havins' Babe and Eden Rigel's Bianca, weren't supposed to have sexual tension but in text story would have made more sense if they did. Bianca would eventually fall in love with a Babe proxy, in the form of her twin sister Marissa Tasker.
None of these characters should have had any sort of sexual or romantic energy to them but they did.
0 -
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.
0 -
I am sensing a theme here with all of Marvel's new television series in that the best and most important episodes are the ones right before the season/series finales. The same theme popped up on WandaVision where stuff really started to get interesting in the episode right before the end, and it's really no different for Falcon and the Winter Soldier series.
One thing that I will say in favor of FATWS is that they have done an admirable job in connecting all three central storylines together and investing enough in making people care about all three plots. I didn't love Sam's family story with the boat stuff but the macro stories fit perfectly: Falcon's story in becoming the first Black Captain America in the context of the 2020's and in reflection of Walker's America is genuinely thoughtful, the Winter Soldier trying to find his place in society post brainwashing and defining himself as a person outside of Steve is poignant, and the story with Karli as the central antagonist is provoking even if it's not necessarily nuanced or cerebral enough to get at the larger factors of radicalization and what's happening in society today.
With WandaVision the only real story was centered around Wanda's identity and her resulting grief. SWORD as a whole largely fell flat. I don't feel that here at all, and even the side expositions with Zemo and Sharon feel worthwhile, even if they are a bit glossy and feel like they were added just to pad the series a bit, for lack of a better term.
That scene with the Sam and Isaiah was so beautiful constructed that it almost justifies all the missteps that I feel the series has had with Karli as the antagonist of the series.
Those hard truths are just so critically important, and you really understand the divide between who America thinks it is (Steve Rogers) vs. who America truly is (John Walker), at the end of the day.
The fact that Sam tries to find out what Isaiah did wrong "to deserve" his treatment is harrowing but I appreciate that the writers let Sam look bad here, because it's needed. It's not Isiah who did anything wrong, it's that America is unwilling to see itself as Black, which is underscored so completely with the John Walker storyline. The country would much rather promote a white symbol even if underserving, than let a black man have the shield and confront what that means about American identity.
I will just say whoever wrote this line needs to be promoted to the front of the pack when it comes time for the next Avengers film, I've never heard words given voice like this, so much that when you actually hear them in a context setting in the MCU they ricochet throughout everything that ever played before it, masterfully and much needed:
QuoteIsaiah: Man, that's why you're here? You think things are different? You think times are different? You think I wouldn't be dead in a day if you brought me out? You want to believe jail was my fault because you got that white man's shield. They were worried my story might get out, so they erased me. They erased my history. But that's nothing new, they've been doing that for five hundred years. Pledge allegiance to that, my brother. They will never let a black man be Captain America. And even if they did, no self-respecting Black man would ever want to be.
Between this show and The Boys, I really haven't seen media successfully deconstruct the American identity so fully and thoughtfully. It gives me hope that at least some people in Hollywood understand what is happening at a core level of American society, even if most people within America don't.
My one quibble with this show is that for all of it's great work and understanding of racial dynamics and it's impact on people from a socio-political and cultural perspective, I still feel like they aren't able to successfully underscore the reason for Karli's rise in support. It just comes off in a really clumsy way, whenever she is featured.
There's this insignificant narrative that she is a leader because she represents "the forgotten people", or because "the government doesn't care about us", and that's like not it. That's like 20% of it on a very surface level. Which is interesting because this isn't the first or even most notable time this subject of revolutionary leaders and uprisings have been incorporated into larger shows most recently. Game of Thrones for instance had this same problem, not too long ago, where they really didn't seem to understand the audience appeal, and what the popularity of these thoughts mean at a larger sociological level.
The Game of Throne writers for instance also seemed blind to what made Daenerys the "it factor" character for the series, and even now they still use her likeness as a flagship of the show even after the disastrous execution of the 8x05 episode. What this tells me is that they still don't understand why it created as much backlash as it did, and don't understand the polarized reaction in just making her Stalin with breasts instead of bridging the nuance of what she means as a revolutionary icon/figure within the series. I think the same thing is happening at a weaker level with Karli (I don't get the sense the fan reaction really understands her other than being a stepping stone to Sam's ascension to the Shield, and a counterpoint to his peaceful/diplomacy first nature), but mostly in universe.
The reason why Karli and individuals in her position are so successful is because of the radicalization that is happening in the world, and because the people outside of the 1% feel powerless. They have no voice, are disenfranchised and left at the mercy of governments, with no community or protection. Their requests are denied or ignored and so the only way to create change is through becoming equally violent in a world that only prioritizes power, and causing reaction through violent escalation.
The reason why fans bought into the cult of Daenerys was because fans saw the 'good guy' Starks get slaughtered by the Lannisters, and the in universe just let it happen.
The reason why people bought into the cult of Daenerys is because she witnessed slavery, and was the only person who actively did something about it. She saw inequities and paid them back the pain that they inflicted on the down trodden. She vengefully paid back injustice with a justice for the innocent that was more in line with righteous anger, indignation and fury.
I am sort of left to assume that Karli is doing that as well in these broad strokes as a of wayward Robinhood figure and that's why she has global support. But it's all surface level puddle depth that I feel like I am doing a lot of heavy lifting to get there in plugging in the dots for the writers.
Zemo mentions that Karli is a supremacist, and I don't know if I necessarily agree. She feels like something notably more recent in phenomena than that of Nazism and White Supremacy. She feels like a sort of Che Guevara, modernist figure. Karli herself isn't important, she is largely a tool, a symbolic figure. The government nations are hurting people, and they want an instrument that rights the playing field, because the world leaders ultimately aren't doing their jobs.
0 -
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
On 12/18/2018 at 4:53 PM, DRW50 said:
I grew to enjoy the US version, but I do know times change. I just don't know why they need to have a reboot.
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?
0 -
13 minutes ago, All My Shadows said:
I almost want to compare soaps to anime. I don't watch anime, never have, really know nothing about it, etc. But people who know and watch anime, really know and watch anime, despite it being a completely foreign world to someone who's never watched. That's basically the position soaps are in - except anime's popularity is way way wayyyyy more widespread.
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.
0 -
On 4/6/2021 at 1:57 PM, kalbir said:
I thought Lil Nas X was going to be a one hit wonder after Old Town Road. His Billboard Hot 100 history is 2 #1s, 1 Top 5 (Panini), and 2 Top 40 (Rodeo, Holiday).
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
On 4/10/2021 at 10:41 PM, j swift said:
Also, (with even more respect of your opinions) I reject all arguments that the reason soaps don't produce well rounded LGBTQIA representation is because they are afraid of online criticism by gay fans. Soaps have won GLAAD awards and gained popular media exposure for doing the least amount of representation possible.
The same argument would never hold water when applied to other types of minority representation. Black and Latinx fans would not accept poor examples of their culture played out on screen and neither should gay soap watchers. We should always strive for more respectful portrayals of our experiences and we should never accept the idea producers don't demand gay characters because they are afraid of backlash from the LGBTQIA community. Gay fandom has never received the respect we deserve and our loyalty has never been rewarded with proper consideration of what we want in terms of plotlines. 60 years later, networks still only care about 18-34 women who buy laundry detergent, but that doesn't mean that the gay audience should just take the scraps that we're given because we still get some entertainment value out of the occasional shirtless hunk or bitch fight.
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.).
0 -
17 hours ago, FrenchBug82 said:
I know people are conflicted about Bianca's rape and all but I do think the subsequent events around her pregnancy, the feelings it evoked in Erica from her own past and the impact on Kendall was all interesting and well-done, if polluted by all the padded-on extra plot-driven storylines (the marriage, the murder etc). In itself though, it was compelling.
I consider the Cambias storyline the last great Kane storyline, in that it beautifully dovetailed the tensions, character moments, growth, trauma and pain from one generation to the next. That thunder storm episode where Erica flashes back to Richard Fields raping her, Kendell caring for her through her flashbacks, and those moments coinciding with Bianca's eventual rape by Micheal is transcendent film making regardless of the format. It was McTavish at the height of her powers really.
No storyline from that moment forward involving Kendell or Erica ever resonated in the same way again. Bianca would have further heights with the Babyswitch. But I always felt that the Cambias story was Erica's last peak, and Kendell never sparked as strongly nor as powerfully after the murder trial storyline wrapped.
I don't really consider that storyline "Erica's" as she was essentially supporting Bianca's main storyline, and overall the Michael Cambias storyline was much more an umbrella story rather than one Erica led. But it's probably the last great thing she was apart of as an essential portion of the story-telling.
0 -
21 hours ago, FrenchBug82 said:
I hear you but this is exactly a reason why soaps are having so much difficulty: we complain when all the gays are domesticated but we also worry when LGBT characters are overly sexualized and "predatory". For a cautious producer, it does feel like they can't win. So they don't try.
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.
21 hours ago, Faulkner said:Similar to how distasteful it was that OLTL made its first post-Billy Douglas gay male character a serial killer.
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.
0 -
6 hours ago, Lust4Life76 said:
That's a great articulation on how I felt, as others have suggested, about Erica Kane in the mid-90s! It was like would she just stop marrying everyone for a moment and enjoy her sobriety and enjoy herself without having to revert to antics she had literally outgrown in the 70s and 80s...?!
I make no bones about the fact that Erica (to me) was a very tiring character, especially towards the end of the shows run from about 2000 onward. I know that's blasphemy on this board but I don't care. Her last real storyline was probably the Betty Ford clinic one after that she just felt so unrelatable in so many aspects, and it felt like the entire universe just sort of fell to its feet to help her whenever the occasion arose. Men desired her, the world couldn't get enough of her, and everything she ever wanted was just within arms reach. It was her own self-sabotage that stopped her from gaining true happiness with Jackson (her tenth marriage, lol). It was exhausting, because it felt like everyone existed just to make her succeed, make her happy and give her everything she wanted. I really think moving her into a more matrilineal role was where she needed to be. Giving her a long lost son I think would have helped as well (we saw shades of this with Ryan and Leo both). Josh came too late - honestly, and was to disconnected to her that it didn't do what it needed to do.
I vastly preferred when Anna, Vanessa, Maria, Angie and Janet led story over Erica, as they just felt more realized, and felt like real personalities that shaped and moved the show forward in realistic ways. It just felt like the show was transported into an alternate universe when ever Erica was on-screen, and that Erica to a lot of writers was after a certain point just wish fulfillment. She would get whatever she needed to support her vehicle at whatever time she wanted. Movie star career - check, Perfume line - check, Television show host - check, Vegas dancer - check, so on and on.
Additionally, it definitely felt like Erica was playing younger than her actual age, and her "rivalries" with Greenlee and Kendell were poorly executed, structured, a bit laughable and diminished the "grandeur" of who Erica was supposed to be. At the same time the writing team didn't seem to care enough about Brooke to make her a true competitor. It always felt to me, like the writers gave Erica the edge in the rivalry between her and Brooke.
0 -
21 hours ago, FrenchBug82 said:
So let me get this straight: they finally tease Lumi back again but it turns out only to set up an EJ return? There is not giving a fanbase what they want - fine they write the show, they make the calls - but then there is being actively cruel to it.
I don't see any fanbase being satisfied until Alison signs a multi-year contract again. As such all of Sami's ships be they Ejami or Lumi are virtual non-starters, because Alison will be gone by the end of this year. There is nothing to "set-up" because she's already out the door. All that she can accomplish at this point is short-term teases that will only frustrate audiences.
I don't see what the pay off with this is, unless its to set EJ up as the next Stefano or firmly plant some trees for the series over the next 3+ years, with the rest of the Sami set children Johnny and Sydney.
0 -
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.
20 hours ago, DemetriKane said:I agree on his B-list leading man quality.
Ryan was a decent character...All his other pairings had potential Liza, Kendall, Annie, and Madison...I was always intrigued on his Quest to become the next Adam Chandler and being Erica’s surrogate son. If they kept writing to that I could have seen him become a beloved character.
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).
0 -
On 2/18/2021 at 4:34 AM, Huntress said:
I finished season 1 last night. While the show was definitely worth watching and the overall look is stunning, the story was a bit too thin and superficial for my taste.
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.
0
Days recast
in Discuss Previews and Spoilers
Posted · Edited by Skin
Aww thank you! Yeah I just don't have it within me to argue on soap messages boards anymore, I'm not young enough, so the back and forth gets tiring to me. But I am more than happy to throw my thoughts on what I see as running commentary on soaps giving how long I've watched them.
I meant Days specifically. I really can't find a character like EJ who shifted Days in a similar way outside of like Stefano who became a caricature villain in the 80's, Tony who was just as much a caricature, and maybe Jack who seemed to fit more or less what they wanted EJ to be and transition into. All of which again are generations removed from when EJ premiered.
While we can say from a macro context that JER was canned, and that was the reason the show changed course in terms of narrative and story trajectory from an in-context show stand point the soap doubled down on EJ spinning story for the better part of 8 years, and multiple head writers kept that paradigm in place until Scott left. Am I saying he is as impactful as a Sonny or a Luke on GH? No -- not at all, I don't think he was even close. But I do think we was something like a Todd to OLTL, a Bill on B&B, or a Zach/Ryan on AMC. In that I do think EJ changed the course of the show in the decade he was on.
Ultimately I think we are more or less saying the same thing, just in different ways. I agree that the Sami and EJ dynamic made them both pop, I personally see their 'peaks' in terms of storylines, impact and ubiquity to the show in the 2000's and 2010's as emblematic of their union and love/hate stories. Sami got a second life, and deepened as a character, due to EJ being casted a a 'villian' to finally make her a heroine like Carrie and Belle, when her previous pairings were never able to do that.
I had a bit of a chuckle earlier today when I thought about Ron doing the Two Todd Story for a third time, this time with EJ, if JS decided to return (not likely to happen, but I do wonder if he would tell this story a third time after doing it on OLTL and GH).
I agree, I know that fans like Bryan, and Lucas and all but there is a reason why the show always canned him in favor of more model level attracted love interests for Sweeney in the forms of Scott, Galen, and pretty much every other guy they could find in the 2000's to pry Sami away from Lucas. I don't find Dattilo attractive in the slightest, and the fact that they pretty much chose a male clone of AS for Will (Will really looks nothing like Lucas) tells me everything when it comes to Days casting department, and how they value and prioritize Lucas and Dattilo in terms of the narrative.
NBC soaps have always been the soaps that focus the most on looks, when it comes to casting, so I can see the producers at least partly looking at who looks the best and using that to inform story, as long as they can handle the memorization of the material.
Honestly I think if the show could rewrite Will's paternity and make him EJ's, Rafe's or Austin's they would, that's how much Lucas' legacy has been valued on the show.