Members stenbeck212 Posted February 28, 2008 Members Share Posted February 28, 2008 I don't understand the notion that DAYS will be received with open arms on another network, because all it will take is the cancellation of another show to make it happen. What I do know is that ATWT has been actor-proof for years. Eileen Fulton Left, Liz Hubbard left, and many others, including those in the recent mass exodus. What can't survive is the banal plotting. It's not going to matter that they have a #3 spot in the ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JamesF Posted February 29, 2008 Members Share Posted February 29, 2008 The Lesli Kay thing is so f***ing annoying. We sit through the insulting rewrite of Felicia's terminal cancer because LK was too good to let go. Okay I could get past that. But now Brad's whining that he can't utilise her the way he wants to right now? Every episode is repetition. We're seeing the same scenes and stories over and over again and he can't squeeze in time for a Felicia related B plot? Give me a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kendall Posted February 29, 2008 Members Share Posted February 29, 2008 Well ATWT is #3 in the Ratings despite losing Dusty, Rosanna, and Craig so it's not on its last legs. As for Days moving to CBS to take ATWT place? Your kidding me right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AddictedToSoaps Posted February 29, 2008 Members Share Posted February 29, 2008 I seriously doubt that CBS or ABC will cancel one of their own shows regardless of their quality for DAYS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dave4CBS Posted February 29, 2008 Members Share Posted February 29, 2008 Ah,let's not go there.Martha has been one of my favorites since she first come on.I wonder if if all she wants is more input as to how Lily should be played then I can't see why TPTB can't give it to her. After all,they let CZP have her way with her oral cancer storyarc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members boldfan01 Posted March 1, 2008 Members Share Posted March 1, 2008 QUOTE (Chris B @ Feb 28 2008, 06:09 PM) Oh yeah, a REAL big story, lol. Remember TV Guide magazine reported that Felicia's cancer would return and this time she'd really die. Susan Flannery was apparently VERY upset and told them not to do this. My guess is that this crossover is to keep Lesli Kay happy in case they need her in the future. With Susan Flannery's exit looming, chances are they will definitely need her. Did anyone ever really see that TV Guide report? I remember when this started showing up on the boards, but I looked in TV Guide and didn't see a darn thing about it. Then the posts about it on B&B's official board mysteriously disappeared. I can't remember anyone other than the original poster who actually saw it. I do agree that the crossover is to keep Lesli "in the Bell family" in case they need her. Now that Susan Flannery has gone public with her desire to leave in a year or so in that Australian interview, Brad is probably thinking ahead. And I really don't see a Stephanie recast since Flannery IS Stephanie. So given all the times they mention how like her mother Felicia is, she's the logical choice to take over the "protective" role in the Forrester family, although the writers have to lose the moments when they make her seem like a whiny child to position her for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sheilaforever Posted March 1, 2008 Members Share Posted March 1, 2008 LK was also supposed to be paired with Will DeVry by February. He hinted at in a chat at B&B official board. Then, the writer's strike happened and I assume Kay Alden thought the timing wasn't right and stalled the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeeeDee Posted March 2, 2008 Members Share Posted March 2, 2008 If they were smart B&B would let Eric & Stephanie retire & let the Forrester kids (Ridge, Kristen, Thorne & Felicia) duke it out over FC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rocket Man Posted March 3, 2008 Members Share Posted March 3, 2008 It's hard to write for a 30 minute soap when you have six major characters on-screen dominate-wise week after week(Steph, Eric, Brooke, Taylor, Nick & Ridge). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JamesF Posted March 3, 2008 Members Share Posted March 3, 2008 My beef with that way of thinking is that the show managed to balance perfectly well for the first 11 years or so. There is no acceptable reason not to write for the rest of the cast other than laziness. If the episodes I'd seen for the past few weeks were fresh, new and non-repetitive I wouldn't be so bothered but we're seeing the same thing over and over again without giving people like LK a look in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bakedghoti Posted March 3, 2008 Members Share Posted March 3, 2008 I don't think so. brad bell is lazy to write for the other characters or stretch his imagination. the show was on the upswing when eric/donna's affair first began since it looked like majority were being utilized. putting fifi in y&r is a terrible decision. she belongs on b&b! however, rather than lose lk to another soap, b&b should just lend her to y&r then. but if/when they bring her back to b&b felicia shouldn't bring amBARF with her! but brad bell is to blame for felicia being deported to y&r in the first place! where's the rivalry with donna? where's the romance with storm or det. baker? i'd rather watch felicia try to 1. steal head designer of fc away from ridge, 2. battle with donna and 3. romance storm, than have felicia on y&r! stupid stupid brad bell!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bakedghoti Posted March 3, 2008 Members Share Posted March 3, 2008 Giggle! Unprofessional, thy name is nelson branco! what a horribly crude, trashy article! He says he's f-ing van hansis and jake silbermann! no one needs to know his sexual fantasies, even if they are phrased in the form of jokes! and that silvermann music video was not funny. Not. at. all. the constant name-dropping on his website is getting really sad, and pathetic. but the article proved how typically biased he is as a soap reporter. thank god for michael logan, marlena delacroix, the new ew online soap article, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JackPeyton Posted March 3, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 3, 2008 first off, the "i'm fu**ing (inster name)" is hot right now. go right here at SON to out OT zone and you will see. and once again, if you do not like his articles why do you read them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bakedghoti Posted March 4, 2008 Members Share Posted March 4, 2008 just because something is "trendy" it doesn't mean it's funny or tasteful. people who usually jump onto trends can't think for themselves. case in point: the week after THE michael logan calls john hensley's (holden) performances as "soulful", nelson branco interestingly calls jon hensely and hansis performances as "soulful". how utterly unoriginal. I think the betterr question is: why you constantly need to defend him? to answer your question: any person in the public eye is open to criticism, especially someone who uses his "column" to: 1. offend people with his crude jokes 2. pretend to analyze soaps but actually show a lot of favoritism/bias 3. continually blur the lines between reporting and fanboy worshipping 4. unabashedly push luke/noah to further his gay agenda 5. out actors/writers to push his gay agenda 6. attack/insult actors, reporters, writers, websites, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cat Posted March 4, 2008 Members Share Posted March 4, 2008 LOL, JackPeyton = Nelson Branco? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.