Jump to content

B&B: Week of Nov. 5th Discussion!


Recommended Posts

  • Members

That's really interesting because I didn't pick up on that -- and that's probably the point. All shows this week have been seamless in terms of quality of dialogue and pacing and tone. And acting! If this is Kay Alden's work, then all I can say is that the Bell-Alden-Mulcahey-Esser-Kelly-Deveney-Stick-Shaughnessy partnership is coming up trumps. UTILIZING B&B's history and assets and vets -- both in front of screen and behind the scenes -- is the Golden ticket, as far as I'm concerned.

I especially loved Thursday with the Logan pow-wow. OMG I love those Logan girls grouping together! I loved how Donna said:

Look, I've had a close-up view of the Forresters. And you know why they keep coming out on top is because their boundaries include each other. Everybody tells everything. And when there's a crisis, they--they react as a unit, I mean, a totally dysfunctional unit, but it keeps 'em strong and keeps 'em together. Now why can't we do that? In--instead we just-- we go off to our separate corners, and we lick our wounds. (Sighs heavily) We've never learned to rely on each other that way.

Brooke: Well, there is a reason for that.

Donna: Okay, so you can stop punishing Stephanie, but not Daddy? And Rick should be told... and Storm. There's safety in numbers, Brooke. I mean, look at us. We're all on the verge of--of having the lives that we want. But if we don't stand together, then--then she's just gonna knock us down one by one, like she always has.

Stephen: Look, this isn't working for me. I'm not gonna sit in the kitchen while you all decide how much of a father you're gonna let me be.

I mean, there's just so much depth in that snippet of dialogue alone! Donna making the distinction between the Forresters and them. Bringing in their history to propell the plot.

Meanwhile, Felicia's pulling a Stephanie on her dad in order to get him to drop Donna. When Nick referred to Felicia as "a chip off the old block," he was absolutely right.

It's funny. This is only a half-hour show (well, 19 minutes actually!). No fancy train crashes or Metro Court explosions or anything like that. Literally, Thursday's episode took place on two sets: Eric's office and Brooke's living room. And yet I was getting so much more enjoyment than a lot of half-baked Budget-blowing Sweeps stunts. It was rewarding to watch because it had something for the long-time viewer and the newly-tuned in.

And P.S.: I still think Donna and Eric have a quite sweet and touching chemistry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 22
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

They've won me over about two weeks ago when Donna suggested for Eric aka "THE BOSS" (what an awesome marketing campaign!) to take the spotlight because he is the heart, vision and soul of Forrester Creations.

Quoting MrSmartypants why Felicia should mind her own business and keep out of parents life...

Your mother is bee-yotch and your father hasn’t been happy in years. Let him live a little.

:lol:

The writers are truly working magic these days and Donna is prme example. A slut with a heart. It even rhimes. LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wow, more brilliance by B&B on Thursday!

Seeing the Logan sisters together and united (despite the fighting) has been exquisite.

Also seeing Patrick Duffy and DeVry on the credits again was surprising, but nice. I guess you can't have enough suspects, can you?

More brilliance by John McCook: "What, you think I read Aristotle in the toilet? I'm not that smart, you know!" :D :D :D

Other lolities were Stephen being in DALLAS before he came there, lol.

And Patrick Duffy's acting was marvelous! I really enjoy him, I hope he sticks around for a while!

BUT... I AM a little uncomfortable with the crazy pace B&B has settled upon once more: Come on, do you HAVE to have only one storyline featured in an episode?

Where's Ashley? Where's Rick and Phoebe? Where's Ridge, and Jackie, and Clarke?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I didn't much like Friday's episode. I am really disappointed with all the crazy pace that the show has picked up again (no doubt to make it to some major event during November sweeps). I also don't really like all the campy, Gone with the Wind type of dialogue that they have. Y&R used to do it brilliantly, but B&B is not there quite yet.

The raven thing was fun but stupid, as well as the fact that it wasn't even explained how Stephen found Stephanie (except if they live at the same hotel and Stephen saw Eric leaving).

However, the episode did have one of Stephanie's best moments: "Push me if you're man enough!" OUTRAGEOUS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This was indeed marvelous. Stephanie is really behaving JR like here - I seriously don't know why and which story they might be pushing at. :P

I also loved Friday's show even if it was a bit slower and unexpected with Eric's concern for Stephanie. THis character han't been written that good in a decade. For once Eric is not just the wimp but torn between his love/affection for Donna/Stephanie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, I'm wondering where they're going with this too, lol :D

Yes, Eric is terrifically written lately, who knew John McCook could be so engaging? He really does love Stephanie, but the way it's written and acted, you believe in his relationship with Donna. I don't care what anyone is saying, Donna is fantastic for the show and her relationship with Eric works. I wouldn't want to loose her.

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

    • I don't think that would be the reason tbh. Thinking about it, it's probably storyline related - I could see bio mom / dad eventually turning up (or maybe it's June as speculated) and wanting the children back. I could also see it being a part of the fall-out of Martin's secret being revealed now that he's backed down from a presidential campaign - his and Smitty's ability to be parents comes into question, which the bio parents use. They might've wanted the kids to be at a age where they could reliably speak for themselves what they prefer, but also have enough memories of their bio parent(s) not doing a good job. I'd also think that they might want to avoid having the image of this gay couple keeping a mother away from her small children, as it might skew the viewer to sympathise too much in one direction. 
    • Something self-defense is my guess, and I have a feeling maybe he was protecting someone close to him and the optics looked bad so Vernon/Anita covered it up (my guess maybe he was protecting Vernon/Anita).
    • If Reginald had had more dimensions he probably wouldn't have been killed off and Carl might not have been brought back to fill the international supervillain role. I think though that the Loves were also severely damaged by the way Nicole and Peter were made iredeemable and written out. I definitely feel that loss more than the loss of Reginald, primarily since they were good characters to begin with and were only ruined during this period.   
    • What if they were originally cast as Vanessa and Doug's twins and then were moved to Samantha/Tyrell when the show decided to delay introducing the twins? It's a shame they didn't stick with the original plan. BTW, does anybody have any new speculation on what Martin's secret will be? Brandon is hinting nobody is guessing it. Initially I thought it would be something where he was drunk and killed somebody or something like that but now I'm feeling like maybe it wasn't completely his fault. I don't get the vibe they're going to take him in a dark direction anymore.
    • Please register in order to view this content

         
    • I don't think some of Samantha's hairstyles have worked with the ponytails and bows making her look like an older adult wearing a 10-year-old hairstyle.    Bows work on Kat much better for Kat's age and personal style. We've known since the start that Eva was a hairstylist before she began working for Nicole.  I like that they brought that back, with Ted arranging for her to work at a high-end salon.  Yesterday's scene with Martin bringing Eva over for pizza with his family, and then Eva doing hairstyles for Samantha worked (for me). I did think that the new hairstyle that Eva created for Samantha was less "little girl" and somehow even though more mature, it made the actress Najah look less aged. Can't quite explain it, but she looks better now.
    • That backdoor pilot may have failed, yet one year later "Empty Nest" became a reality anyway, so it wasn't a complete waste of time. 

      Please register in order to view this content

      The show was completely revamped of course, but still....
    • Honestly, either 6-7 and 10-11 would've worked better. But maybe they wanted actors who wouldn't be held to child labour laws and needed them to be able to act, especially if they're (eventually?) going to go with their bio mama showing up (June??). 
    • I thought it interesting that in the Claybon/Manning youtube with Michael Fairman, Brandon Claybon said Samantha and Tyrell were initially supposed to be 6 and 7, but aged up for technical reasons, first aged up to 10 or 11, and then finally to 16 and 17.  (Not sure what "technical reasons" means but that's what he said.) Claybon didn't mention when this decision was made to change the ages of the children. No mention of when this happened during the process of casting/writing/preparation. Just speculating: I wonder if Najah Jackson and Jaden Lucas Miller were cast later than other recurring actors due to this change? - so maybe that's how they selected Ms. Jackson? 
    • Damn, there was a tiny pre-emption where I'm from and I missed the Kat/Nicole scene, according to recaps.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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