Jump to content

my own little SON mystery


FanSoAp07

Recommended Posts

  • Members

first of all, how has everyone been?! Anyway...

Is King the poster formerly known as KingReilly??!?

if it is, WHY ON EARTH would he CHANGE that name?! That name is like *the name* and should be no other. I have a porblem with this. My favorite poster ever can not just change his name without asking me. Ugh, this is wat I get after leaving a couple of months. BTW, New Olreans is doing just great! Lots of excitement down here. Tne French Quarter is open for business so come and down & help us out!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

LOL! Wow, I def. have missed you, Fan Soap!

Yep, it's me. I had to remove the Reilly from my name when I realized he up and lost his damn mind and became, officially, a lazy, self-destructive hack!

Hehhehe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Community Posts

    • I hear what your saying regarding Carrie Brady's place on the canvas. There is no arguing that. As I think I was saying poorly above, Karen was introduced during a transition period very early in Riche's run (as was Jagger). There were a lot of things that happened during that period that feel very against the soap opera grain. For example, David Langdon, Monica's ex and Dawn's father, arrives in Port Charles in a medical story where Monica inserts herself with the intention of telling David that Dawn was their daughter. David dies suddenly and Monica never reveals this information to David. This feels very untraditional. Similarly, the whole Joseph Adkins arc with Bobbie writing to a murderer and the women of Port Charles all fawning over his book is not something I felt was the type of story soaps in 1992 did. Similarly, introducing a character like Karen without any family ties and anchoring a younger part of the story with another outsider Jagger wasn't how things would typically work (effectively) on the soap.   I think my issue with the idea that Brenda had a direct goal is that is all there was to her. She had nothing to her outside of that in early 1993. Jagger had wanting to find his family. Karen was working to get into medical school. Brenda had Jagger, who only wanted her when he couldn't have Karen. Even Ruby called Jagger out on this. Brenda's point of view was so limited. The fact that she nearly gets bested by Jenny Eckert of all people in a confrontation in March, 1993, is pretty wild given how milquetoast Jenny is.  I can see why you would think Karen was taking a middle of the road approach to things. It might not have been presented well, but her pursuing her career and going to college was going to come first. Working at Kelly's and maintaining her grades was going to come before her romance with Jagger. With Rhonda around, meddling in her life, Karen definitely had more reason to be conflicted. Rhonda saw Karen's relationship with Jason as the key to Karen's success, both by marrying into a wealthy family and by building a network of connections in Karen's career field.  Having watched some of her "General Hospital" run, I would like to at the early years of Karen's run on "Port Charles" to see how that all this continues in terms of her characterization. I think Karen remains very passive romantically deferring to Courtney Kanelos, who was just a much stronger adversary for Karen than Brenda was based on where Brenda was in her journey given that Courtney had Neil which tied her to the entire Scanlon clan. I do remember Karen having some outbursts, but I vaguely think that Shayne's Karen could also be pushed to her limits and she would fire back. This just wasn't her modus operandi as it was for characters like Courtney and early Brenda.  In Brenda's defense, I think part of the issue was the underdevelopment of her character. I think there was an intent on either Levinson's (or Riche's) part to craft Brenda as a "poor little rich girl" type who had no moral compass because her father was a business tycoon who ignored her and had loved Julia's mother more than her mother. If this was true, and the intent to solicit sympathy, or least empathy, for Brenda, it wasn't played enough for this to be effective. Brenda rejected Julia both in terms of her role as a parental figure and any sisterly advice she gave.  I would even go further and say that the issues I have with the Brenda/Karen rivalry were inherit to Bill Levinson's writing. By comparison, if you look at what was being done in the other female rivalries, the issues were mostly consistent. Jenny and Julia, for example, had the potential to be interesting but Julia was so passive and Jenny was sound brash and unfeeling that there was no one to root for. Also, the rivalry between Tiffany and Bobbie took Tiffany into a very narrow view with her solely trying to secure custody of Lucas at the cost of everything else including her friendship with Bobbie and Tony as well as her marriage to Sean. I'd be curious to see if Levinson had similar issues when he was at "Loving," but I'm spacing at the moment.   
    • Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka talk new show, ‘Drag Me to Dinner’ l GMA  
    • Jimbo & Alexis Spill Tea on Heidi's Drama (Unaired)

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Do these tournaments still test for COVID? https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/65794974?xtor=AL-72-[partner]-[bbc.news.twitter]-[headline]-[news]-[bizdev]-[isapi]&at_link_origin=BBCWorld&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_type=web_link&at_format=link&at_link_id=085D161A-01FB-11EE-91C3-39FFD772BE90&at_campaign_type=owned&at_bbc_team=editorial
    • What's truly Kafkaesque is how deluded he seems about himself and his views, and how when challenged to drill down in what he's actually saying about 'truth' and 'moderation' he just cycles back around to doublespeak. What he means is his desire to espouse conservative Republican views, but as someone who spent years working for Colbert and probably considers himself a liberal he can't fully admit that to himself or the entire game collapses. Same with his dancing around the topics of trans rights and his strange COVID beliefs - he doesn't want to fully articulate what he is trying to say. That would ruin things and make him realize he's just mouthing more of the same right-wing apologia as Joe Rogan and Dave Chappelle. Say what one will about the awful Zaslav and his sweater vests but at least he seems to know who he is. Licht is willfully clueless. And there were many valid reasons to fire Don Lemon, but being one of few prominent and outspoken gay and Black voices in media who could speak to what Trump and his kind are actually doing to people like him on-camera was not one of them.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy