Jump to content

AMC: I'm so confused!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 18
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

After reading through it, they are just being dramatic little divas.

They are upset bc Zarf/Zoe was this HUGE storyline and the show was focused all on him during the month of Decemeber and then the first week of January when he came out to Bianca as Zoe...and then ever since then, the show has focused more on the Satin Slayer and Zoe/Zarf has taken a backseat (minor backburnered)....at least the progression of him turning into Zoe 100%.

Hope that makes sense, but they just want to see more of his transgendered part of the storyline, and not just him being a suspect on the outside of this other huge storyline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Whew!

THank God. I knew there had to be some sort of misunderstanding since Zoe IS in the opening titles, and that carries a lot of weight.

By the way, I disagree that BWE is about watching 'trainwrecks.' It's about people who appreciate something different than you do! And I'm one of them. AMC, due to Zarf/Zoe, is no longer the whitebread, boring, run-of-the-mill soap I thougth it was just last year. I'm HOOKED on this show because of that hook, Zarf/Zoe. Don't get me wrong, I've discovered great characters like Bianca, Kendall and the incredible coupling of Ryan and Annie that keep me interested -- and this Satin Slayer story is just blood pumping, intrigue every second (except when they show the mother of Zach, who, when looking and winking at child Zach looks like SUCH a child pedophile -- NO mother acts that way, people) -- but Zarf/Zoe hooked me. So I'd hate to lose that hook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Um, they featured "Passions" because it was FUNNY. They featured "Brokeback PASSIONS" because they LAUGHED. That's different from ordinary, whitebread soaps. They're over-the-top and yes, out there, and THAT'S why the show was featured. Because you don't expect to see that sort of thing on daytime soaps.

As for Zarf's meltdown, which they featured, it wasn't poorly acted, it wasn't poorly written and it wasn't poorly directed. But they featured that too. It's DIFFERENT. To them, yes, it was funny, but you're more likely to end up on BWE if you're DIFFERENT and turn heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, in a bad "Isn't this absurd?" way. BWE latches onto the absurd in soaps, it can't just be different, it has to be ridiculous.

And I disagree on any of that being well-acted of written or directed. Nothing on AMC is any of those things anymore, sad to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sorry, Darn, but if BWE were on when "Days" told its possession story, which was well acted and loved across the nation, that story would make it.

It's different and yes, on some level, weird, but that doesn't make it BAD.

AS viral video has shown to us all, there is a market for the weird, the different, the parody, the "trainwreck" even, if you will.

You're confusing that, however, with being bad or lacking quality. Even parodies can have high quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, they can however this Zarf tale and Passions do not. Yes, BWE would have shown the possession story and for all the reasons I stated, because it's soaked in the absurd, not because it's good. Clearly you and I have different tastes and perceptions of what BWE is all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, you were wrong when you said both of those things you mentioned don't. Art isn't objective. It's SUBjective. I'll agree that "Passions" isn't at its highest quality, but it has had very high quality and been "the best soap" of 1999 and 2000 and 2001 by several magazines and media shows. I'm not sayin gthat makes them right above everyone else but it does show that art is SUBjective.

People don't miss trainwrecks. They watch car accidents but they don't miss not seeing them. BWE posted a heartfelt entry about the loss of "Passions." A show that will be missed, which was like crack for many because of its bizarre incidents. You hear people say they can't NOT watch even though nothing happens on the show, but if nothing truly happened, they WOULDN'T watch. It's not the typical soap opera. Hell can be in your closet, girls can be turned into blocks of ice, a doll can come to life...there's something to that, and it lassoed the hearts of millions over the last eight years.

THAT'S not a trainwreck. THAT'S not a car accident. People genuinely see something worth sticking around for in this show. They don't drive by and forget that wreck they just saw. They come back for more.We can agree that JER hasn't given them much to come back to (the show's best years were early on) but to write the WHOLE show off as something bad and wrong and shameful, that's wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You can't call how I feel wrong. I've been dismissing Passions as stupid and insulting for 7 years. It is to me and always will be.

And for the record I disagree with basically everything in this post but in order to not be accused of adding nothing to the conversation yet again I'll just let it go.

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.



  • Recent Posts

    • That's a bit murky since that happened during a writers' strike. Assuming Kristen Marie had a 2-year contract she left about when her contract would have expired and Sharlene and Josie showed up right before that. Lemay was officially credited as HW from September 1988 but it seems very probable that his anticipated tenure influenced events that happened during the strike which started in April. 
    • I've seen so many posters over the years who are bright, creative, well-versed in soap history, and who care deeply about the integrity of the genre. I'd put the shows' chances in their hands a lot faster than I would allow any of the "usual suspects" to take control of the dramas they've already helped decimate. When I returned to university in the 1980s, I created a bible for a new soap and presented it in my screenwriting class. It was in reaction to how badly I saw the network shows being butchered at the time. The creative process was thrilling; a total joy, and I still smile when I remember the positive feedback I received from the professor and my fellow students. I was used to seeing written commentary from professors on my work. This one wrote me a long, complimentary note on the final page of the bible, but also graded it 97%, A+. I was beaming ear to ear for days!

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Thanks. I do wonder if Rose was meant to be more given the caliber of actress they hired. I remembered Sara and Peggy staying longer as they were still on when Soapnet started their repeats. I wonder if that was part of the reason they brought Jake's brother in. 
    • Speculation about Missy Reeves' potential evolution on basic civil rights doesn’t change my opinion of her. My view is shaped entirely by her public social media presence—which I find unpalatable—and I have no interest in learning more beyond that. I simply liked Jennifer’s hair and dress. That’s as far as my admiration goes.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Cheryl was gone before Lemay came back but I agree with your thinking that he would rather a character from a family he introduced to the show than a family he did not originate.  I remember reading somewhere in the early 90's probably after DS left as writer, their was an either a writer or a producer who made a comment that their intent was bring the McKinnon family back to AW.  Would have made sense for the newer viewers from the 80's.  Much like Lemay's attempt to bring the Frames back from his writing in the 70's in his 1988 return
    • DePriest left in January 1988. According to the AWHP, Rose last appeared nearly a year before in February 1987 while both Sara and Peggy appeared as late as October 1987.
    • Annie was not brought in as an antagonist for Reva. Reva wasn’t even on the canvas when Annie first appeared in late 1994. 
    • The speculation……….very entertaining. 
    • I had forgotten that several Days stars came out strong against Melissa. Good for them!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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