Jump to content

AMC Babe: ENOUGH ALREADY


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Thanks for these excellent points AMS.

I appreciate that you can see the hypocrisy in how Kendall is excused for her actions. Some on here I can understand and they are nice about it when they discuss it, but some are just not nice about it. I respect that but I hate when others can't respect those who see this or just don't care.

Neither one of us are trying to defend Babe or turn this into a Kendall vs. Babe situation - just trying to show one is no better than the other. Both are victims of bad bad bad bad writing too. But I am sick and tired of both of them evenly.

Anyway I am through with the discussion. Babe will always be hated rightfully so while Kendall will always be excused - but Kendall is turning many fans off of AMC too. Some fans just can't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I'm still wondering how this became a Babe vs. Kendall thread :huh:

When is Kendall excused for her actions? She's constantly called on them, UNLIKE Babe, who wasn't even called on wanting to take Little A and run with him AGAIN.

Anyways, can we steer this back to being a Babe thread, she can be defended on her own merits(or lack thereof), and other characters's sins shouldn't have to be brought up to make Babe's look better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's what I was wondering.

RANT ON!

People claim they're not defending Babe or turning it into a Babe v. Kendall issue, but at the same time want to point out Kendall's flaws and how much screentime she gets in comparison to Babe?! That's talking out of both sides of your mouths, people, come on! If anything, certain people may not be defending Babe, but sure took advantage of the opportunity to turn this into a Kendall: ENOUGH ALREADY thread. Obviously, the poster who created this thread isn't as bothered with Kendall being on every day as they are with Babe. It's an Anti-Babe thread. Let those of us who hate the whore-ible character ENJOY the thread. I mean, really. If you're not defending Babe or participating in the bashing, then why bother posting? Start a spinoff!

It reminds me of Zach v. Ryan wars, or taking it way back to the Hayley v. Gillian wars during the late '90s. You bring up one in a specific thread, and instead of people simply defending the character that's being bashed, they bring in another character altogether and start tearing them down to make the bashed character look better -- and then talk about, "all we're trying to do is..." and wonder why people are so "mean" and get hurt when their opinions are not embraced. To some posters, people are only "mean" or "rude" when they disagree with them. If the same mean, rude posters wrote things with the same conviction about a topic they agreed with, and NOT CARE WHAT ANYBODY SAYS, then it's nothing but "Word! Word! So much Word!"

RANT OFF!

What irritates me is that most shows that feature ensemble characters in separate storylines DON'T MENTION THE OTHER CHARACTERS THAT DON'T PERTAIN TO THEIR STORIES! In a more ideal world, Babe may be on every damn day, but characters in scenes before and after her scenes aren't all talking about her. But that's not the case. You get a Babe scene, then the next three scenes after that, SOMEBODY is talking about Babe. Or, somebody's rambling about Babe in the first two scenes, then get a BABE SCENE, then next scene is another scene talking about Babe. It's just too fcuking much! And it's not scenes with people talking about Babe. No! It's scenes where the point of the scene is to get someone singing the demonic praises of Babe!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Correction. When something is posted on Discuss the Soaps, the topic almost always veers from what originally tended to be, but as far as I know, as long as the topic stays somewhat close to what it originally was, it's okay.

Now, if the original poster intended for this to be a Babe-bashing thread, there's a whole board here at SON dedicated to posting threads about how much you love or hate a particular character. I rarely post there because I don't really enjoy posting pages upon pages of posts about how much I hate something, but it's a very useful board for many people who just want to rant.

I don't know who turned it into a Babe vs. Kendall thread. From the way it seems, it was you, R Sinclair, who were the first to even mention the phrase "Babe vs. Kendall" in the thread. Kendall was mentioned by psychofan first, but that she was commenting on how she likes Babe and Kendall as leading ladies. Then SteveFrame mentioned Kendall, saying that he put Kendall "right up there with her," 'her' being Babe. The rest of that post was pretty much comparing Babe and Kendall's current domination of the show to back when the canvas was more balanced. AMC Zendall Fan told Steve that "Kendall is on a lot, but she's not in every single freaking storyline." Steve responded with "Kendall doesn't miss it by much. Like I said I want both put on a lot less. I hate Zendall. I hate Babe/JR together and I hate Babe/Josh together. To me AMC's biggest problem is the fact that they let these 2 ladies be the whole focus of the show and let everyone revolve aroudn them as if they are the sun." Nowhere in there did he try to start a Babe vs. Kendall war.

But then good old R Sinclair started the whole process of pitting Babe against Kendall in post #28 in this thread by explaining why it was okay for Kendall to be on almost everyday (you know, Kendall has "paid dues over the last five years to become the leading lady of the show," despite the fact that she's been a leading lady for most of those five years). So if anyone wants to blame anyone for turning this into a Babe vs. Kendall, point the finger at R Sinclair.

Oh, and I have to ask, AMC Zendall Fan, because I didn't see this earlier. You said that Kendall is on everyday because she has a big fanbase? So it's entirely okay to let fanbases decide who is on everyday and who does what on the show, right?

And besides, this thread is about Babe being a character who is past the point of overexposure on the show, not just a random Babe-bashing fiesta. Well, she isn't the only one! If we're going to talk about characters who get extremely way too much screentime, don't get upset if someone mentions that Kendall falls into the same boat. And whether or not one has no problems seeing Kendall everyday shouldn't be a factor into it. No character should be seen in all about 30 episodes of a soap in one year, no matter who it is. It's called balance and both Babe and Kendall are in terrible violation of it.

The main point of it all is this: Babe is not the only character who is on too fricking much. She's not the only problem! And Ryan isn't her only conspirator, either. I don't care what ANYBODY says, but Kendall and Zach rank right up there with the both of them on the hierarchy of Stop-Hijacking-My-[!@#$%^&*]-Show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You think I'm going to argue with that? I wholeheartedly thank you! Please, go ahead... GIVE me autonomy on a silver platter. Give me the complete power to cause threads to completely change their focus with a single post (never mind the fact Steve Frame brought up Kendall twice before I even posted my comment -- I'm a glory hog).

:rolleyes:

I DONT CARE WHAT ANYBODY SAYS!

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

    • Too many returns, that's when you know a show has run out of ideas and doesn't care anymore.  Zoe annoyed the sh!t out of me most times, but the Kat/Zoe storyline will always be iconic and close to my heart (that's the era I first started following the show in near real-time), and probably the only storyline in 21st century EastEnders that had long-term value for the characters involved during their initial run together. However, after all this time and the writing choice that Zoe never wants to see Kat again, I think that ship has sailed and I don't know that it makes sense to revisit it at this point. 
    • Former EastEnders star Michelle Ryan is reprising her role as Zoe Slater on the BBC soap following an absence of over 20 years.  It’s been reported that Zoe will return to Albert Square later this year and that she’ll take centre stage in a dramatic new storyline involving her family.  The news comes amidst news of other big returns, which include Max Branning (Jake Wood), Tanya Cross (Jo Joyner), Shirley Carter (Linda Henry) and Ben Mitchell (Max Bowden), who will also be back in Walford later in the year.
    • I actually love the new fashion.
    • Admittedly, I was a latecomer to ATWT (first becoming a regular viewer in 2000). But I really liked KMH's Emily. I thought she was a very specific kind of neurotic professional character, and I loved her prickly relationship with MM's Susan. I will say I don't think the show did her any favors after Hal died, stranding her in storylines with several of the show's dullest characters: nu-Paul, nu-Meg, and nu-Dusty. I actually quite liked one of her last major storylines, when she discovered she had a grown-up biological son with Larry named Hunter. But then Hunter just sort of disappeared, and the story fizzled out, which was pretty typical of the late Goutman years. 
    • I know the fashions have gotten mixed reviews but I actually like what the new costume designer is putting the cast in. It feels more modern and the more tacky pieces I feel make sense for rich people. They're buying for the brand and the price and we often see celebs in things like this. Especially for a character like Nikki, I feel the more over the top (and tacky), the more realistic it is.
    • Well, her staff pointing out the movie connection never seemed to stop Long from using those plots.  She was right about Vanessa--she needed a man who loved her, which she'd never really had up to then. But as others have pointed out, Long borrowed heavily from Taming of the Shrew to get it done. (which while I kinda disputed that, I get more now, having watched Kiss Me Kate a few times since.)
    • "Holly had her share of the blame..." NO, she did NOT. WOW. That's what you get for trying to be fair and giving these people the benefit of the doubt! The Rita rape episodes do not seem to be available. It sounds like Calhoun thought it was not dramatized, but it was. I saw it when it aired. Yes, it's close to 50 years ago, and memories aren't 100% reliable. I also know that Zaslow reportedly complained that it was written too much like a seduction and that's why the Dobsons portrayed Holly's rape differently. Maybe it started like a seduction and she rejected him and that's when it turned violent. I don't remember that part, if it exists. What I do remember is that Roger threw Rita so violently to the floor that she hit her head. They showed him coming at her from her point of view and he looked all fuzzy. It was an act of violence, not a seduction. Rita kept it a secret until it looked like Roger might be acquited, and then finally admitted it. She didn't make it up, it definitely was not a ploy.
    • I was actually referencing another scene between Roger and Alex, which I think is right after they marry.  But yeah---I'm not really impressed with Calhoun's reasoning. Or the "both recall it wasn't unprovoked" line. Wasn't Holly trying to leave him when he raped her? Oy vey.
    • I know we have discussed the location of Bay City in the Another World thread and the fact that originally Irna conceived of it as being the real Bay City MI, and it was later writers that treated it as a fictional Bay City [probably IL]. This article seems to suggest that that idea was well-established by 1981. I wonder when it started.
    • Desert Sun, 22 December 1983 Guiding Light’ writer looks for fresh ideas By TOM JORY Associated Press Writer NEW YORK (AP) - “Guiding Light” has been a daytime companion for millions since 1937, starting on radio and switching to TV after 15 years. Can anything new, really new, ever happen to the Bauers or the Reardons or any of the other folks in Springfield? “I get really upset,” says Pamela Long Hammer, principal writer for the CBS soap opera since March, “because I’ll come up with this neat scenario and someone will say, ‘That’s like “Strangers on a Train.’” “I think, ‘They keep stealing my material.’ “The way I figure it,” she says, “there are only so many stories in the world. It’s the characters who keep the show new and exciting. All of our stories come from them: I don’t come up with a plot, and then work a character into it.” Continuity is important. Someone out there surely knows all that’s happened, to everyone on the show, in 46 years. How about Miss Long Hammer? "Nope. I care about what our core families have been doing,” she says. “I’m always interested in what happened to Bert Bauer (played since 1950 by Charita Bauer) 20 years ago, but as far as going back and reading scripts, no. “Others on the show keep track,” she says. “I’ll suggest something, and be told, ‘You don’t remember, but five years ago, they had this terrible fight. They would never speak to one another now.”’ Miss Long Hammer, a former Miss Alabama who came to New York as an aspiring actress in 1980, began writing for daytime television while playing Ashley on NBC’s “Texas.” She eventually wrote herself out of the story. Her staff for “Guiding Light” includes nine writers, among them her husband, Charles Jay Hammer, whom she met while both worked on “Texas.” NBC dropped “Texas” after two seasons, and episodes from the serial currently are being rerun on the Turner Broadcasting System’s cable-TV SuperStation, WTBS. Gail Kobe, who was executive producer of “Texas,” now has the same job on “Guiding Light.” And Beverlee McKinsey, who played Iris Carrington in “Another World” on NBC, and later in "Texas,” will join the Light” cast of the CBS soap in February. Miss Long Hammer is reponsible for the long-term story, which can mean looking ahead 18 months or more. Staff writers deal with specifics, including the scripts for individual episodes. She says she draws on “imagination and instinct” for the “Guiding Light” story. Often, that involves inventing new characters. “‘I look at Vanessa (Maeve Kinkead), one of our leading ladies,” Miss Long Hammer says. "What could make the audience care more about her? “Then I think, ‘Why can’t she find a man she can love, who will also love her?’ Voila, here comes Billy Lewis (Jordan Clarke). “Another example,” she says, “is Alan Spaulding (Christopher Bernau). All of a sudden, he’s got a sister no one ever knew about. “They come complete,” says Miss Long Hammer of the serial’s characters, including the new ones. “We know who they are and where they came from long before the viewer gets all that information. That’s one of the most interesting things about daytime, the complexities of the characters.” The writers make a big effort to keep the show contemporary, and four of the leading players are in their late teens or early 20s Judi Evans, who plays Beth Raines, Kristi Tesreau (Mindy Lewis), Grant Aleksander (Philip Spaulding) and Michael O’Leary (Rick Bauer). “Guiding Light,” longevity notwithstanding, is a moderate success by that ultimate yardstick of the industry; ratings. The show is behind only “General Hospital,” “All My Children” and “One Life to Live,” all on ABC, and CBS’ “The Young and the Restless,” among soaps. And Miss Long Hammer says she’s convinced writing is the key to even greater achievement. “When I say I love the characters, it’s not a light thing,” she says. “I think what the audience senses is an enthusiasm and an energy among the people who do the show.”
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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