Members DrewH Posted December 25, 2006 Members Share Posted December 25, 2006 I agree almost completely with that list of non-recastable actors. However, I do have a problem with Kristian Alfonso being on the list. Yes, Kristian has played Hope for 20+ years now, but I wouldn't necessarily call Hope an un-recastable character. She can be recast. She's not like Dee Hall or Susan Lucci or Tony Geary, and the other actors you listed. Those are un-recastable. Hope, not really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webmaster Errol Posted December 25, 2006 Webmaster Share Posted December 25, 2006 I suggest you wake up and realize that anyone can be recast. Anyone can take someone's role and make it their own. A couple of the people you listed were not even the original actors in the roles. I don't see you complaining that those actors should be let go so the originals can return to their roles. Just because you attribute such and such to a role, doesn't mean viewers in the next 15 years will. Susan Lucci has been on a show since it's inception, what makes her so special otherwise? Susan Haskell played Marty Saybrook during the whole Marty is raped in college storyline. The show recast her with a former Sunset Beach actress, who I can't see playing a rape victim on the show like Susan did. Point is, the show still recasted. It happens, deal with it and stop complaining to others that this and that will never happen because this person made such and such their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mason Posted December 25, 2006 Members Share Posted December 25, 2006 Um, yeah, OK. Honestly, I'm never going to change my mind (deal with THAT), so there's really no point in even trying to argue with some of y'all anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sweet_VeeVee24 Posted December 25, 2006 Members Share Posted December 25, 2006 I thought this whole topic was about Sheila donning Phyllis' features and being kept hostage by Paul... I personally won't have a problem with this storyline, simply for the fact that it hasn't aired yet. Once it airs, then I'll make my comments on whether it's going to be a good storyline, or be a waste... but just my own opinion says that it makes a lot of sense to have Michelle Stafford doing the dual role, since it is her character of Phyllis that is being impersonated by another character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DrewH Posted December 25, 2006 Members Share Posted December 25, 2006 Who's arguing that Stafford shouldn't play Sheila if Sheila actually had the plastic surgery. The thing Sheila and Brown fans are arguing about is the fact that LML is writing the storyline the way it is, making Stafford Sheila. Yes, Smith wrote the surgery angle, but LML concreted the now non-existant return of Brown on not only Y&R, but B&B. LML has to know that Sheila has a huge fanbase. Why would she do this? Like you guys said, we can't ask why and predict it's going to be a drab until it actually airs. I'm not having any hopes that's for sure. Reliquaries anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ryan Posted December 25, 2006 Members Share Posted December 25, 2006 Honestly, I'm not trying to write off her contributions. I happen to like Kimberlin Brown very much. I think she's a very good actress. However I'm not going to complain about something that I can't change. What's the point in me being mad that Kimberlin isn't being Sheila when I know there is NOTHING that I can do as a fan. I happen to love Michelle Stafford and I think she's a good actress. When I first found out months ago that Sheila had plastic surgery to look like Phyllis, I was unsure of what to think, especially since Kimberlin had played Sheila for so long. But I knew during her last scenes that Kimberlin would probably never return to the role. I can understand how you feel because I've felt the way you all are feeling. Don't think that I can't sympathize with the way you feel, however I am just to the point where I just accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ryan Posted December 25, 2006 Members Share Posted December 25, 2006 Let me just clarify, you don't have to accept the new actor in the role, but you do have to accept the fact that the role was recast. There's nothing wrong with remembering the "great" years that the previous actor had portraying the character if the new one doesn't work out. I'll remember all the great years Susan Haskell was Marty over on OLTL and won't let Christina Chambers' lackluster performance ruin the character for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SteveFrame Posted December 25, 2006 Members Share Posted December 25, 2006 I've come to conclude over 30 plus years of watching soaps that anyone can be replaced and that anyone can be fired. Ask George Reinholt & Jacqueline Courtney. Neither thought they could be fired or replaced. Both were fired. They were the best known couple in daytime at the time. They were AW's top couple and top draw. They fired both and successfully replaced Courtney as Alice with Susan Harney. She never reached the popularity level of Courtney but she was accepted and many like her better than Courtney. No one thought Robin Strasser could be replaced as either Rachel or Dorian, but it was proven wrong on both accounts. Victoria Wyndham replaced and made Rachel her own and was equally as popular on Another World. Elaine Princi replaced her as Dorian and was very popular with many fans. So popular that some fans protested when the show hired Robin Strasser back and fired Princi. Gillian Spencer was popular with fans as the original Victoria Lord, and no one thought she could be replaced. The actress who actually replaced her failed miserably and they brought in Erika Slezak. There is no doubt in my mind that even as good as Slezak is that she could be replaced as well if the show cared too. Even Eileen Fulton was replaced by Betsy Von Furstenburg for quite some time. Fans never fully accepted her but accepted her enough that she was not booted off quickly. Eventually Fulton was lured back. I felt Peter Reckell was the one and only Bo but I found out quickly that he wasn't. Kelker Kelly came in and was equally as popular as Bo. So I have just concluded that anyone can be fired or replaced. That's the reason over the years even though I have my favorite performers I have learned to love the character and not the actor the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SteveFrame Posted December 25, 2006 Members Share Posted December 25, 2006 Again I don't see where this even applies. There are hardly any actors/actresses who are replaced that the performer who comes on has the same bone structure, hairstyle, facial features, etc. Why there have been some characters that the hair color changed. Just look at Y&R's history with accepted recasts: Peter Bergman looks nothing like Terry Lester. Jess Walton in no way resembles Brenda Dickson or Deborah Adair the previous Jills. David Hasselhoff who successfully replaced William Gray Espy as Snapper looks nothing like the predecessor Same can be said for Victorial Mallory who replaced Janice Lynde And Michelle Stafford is not playing Kimberlin Brown - she is playing Sheila. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Southern Honey Posted December 25, 2006 Members Share Posted December 25, 2006 What don't you get about what we are saying? The idea of this woman being able to have surgery enough to look like Phyllis is retarded. We're not talking about recasts, which is what you seem to be focused on for some reason, yes people can be recast and look nothing like them, we're talking about how far in the realm of stupid it is to think that Sheila could have surgery enough to pass as Phyllis, not to mention she has barely ever interacted with Phyllis. It defies credulity, in fact, its MENTAL. It puts Y&R in fantasy land when it has always been thought of as the soap most grounded in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Chris B Posted December 25, 2006 Members Share Posted December 25, 2006 It's a soap for heavens sake! Any plastic surgery story is going to take a leap of faith. But it's not nearly as OTT as SORASing a character, IMO and thats done all the time. And AMC got raves for bringing back Kate Collins although her character had plastic surgery to look like Robin Mattson. All I care about is the story and the acting, anyone who watches a soap and expects 100% realism is dreaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SeanM Posted December 25, 2006 Members Share Posted December 25, 2006 I'm looking forward to this story. I like MS, she will pull it off. I'm not so sure about the writers, but we will see. I can totally understand that the fans of KB are upset. But for me she was never that special, i always liked her, but i'm ready to move on. The possiblities for this Sheila/Phyllis thing are endless, thats why i'm happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Adam Posted December 25, 2006 Members Share Posted December 25, 2006 I am willing to give this a chance because Michelle can pull it off,but I was done with Sheila after last year.... why do we need to revisit this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Q Steph Posted December 25, 2006 Members Share Posted December 25, 2006 First off, to lapse into supercial territory, it's vey brave of Michelle not to wear makeup. She looks horrible. I suppose that is the general point tp deem Sheila as inferior to the starlets around her, physically as well. Moreover, Michelle is a great actress, but it won't be lof before the show starts to write "Sheila" as the true Phyllis whp first came to Genoa City. The choice for Paul to hold "Sheila" hostage is interesting given that Phyllis ran him over like roadkill. Regardless of how great Michelle is, she can't slavage this nonsense. It makes no sense and ultimately, it's revisionist Phyllis without having to sacrifice that bland pairing of Nick /Phyllis. Some actors asre synnanymous by the role they create and play. Susan Lucci is Erica Kane. Anthony Geeary is Luke Spencer. Kimberlin Brown is Sheila Carter and all her nuances. This story is a pathetic attempt to fuse two characters, Phyllis and Sheila, into one. It's going to fail. It's already a bomb of atomic proportions IMO because I've identified Michelle as Phyllis. Especially on Y&R where her character is such a staple. She'll never be Sheila to me. She's just Phyllis with no makeup, taunting Paul about his beloved Cricket who the show is now calling Lauren. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Q Steph Posted December 25, 2006 Members Share Posted December 25, 2006 I agree. Y&R has been a sci fi bore to watch these past few months. I can't sit through an entire episode. I read the posts to see if an epi is worth 5 seconds of my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.