1 hour ago, Vee said:

I lost interest when they got rid of Virginia (Dominique Jennings). Insane.

 

Virginia was insane and so was the decision. I get that the character needed a comeuppance and for everyone to find out about her schemes, but they could have kept her on. I know Dominique Jennings turned down the offer of being recurring.

SUN did more recasting/retooling in its first 6 months on the air than Passions did in its first 6 years!!!

Sunset Beach was the prime example of a show making idiotic decisions out of fear. Every time they made a decision in the hopes of getting ratings up they made the wrong decision (which I suppose is like any other soap now that I think of it). SBeach could have been such a great soap and I think it was hitting its stride around the Gabi/Antonio/Richardo/ stuff. Virginia and Francesca were great villains and Eddie Cibrian was a major improvement over Hamilton. I even liked Amy. Was it the network or the producers making these idiotic decisions? I can understanding Jennings' firing since the soap press lambasted the show for the storyline, but getting rid of someone as charismatic as Stabile and Guerrero seems lunacy. 

I remember reading in SOD I think that Nick Stabile wanted out and Volunteered Mark to be killed off? Was that not true?

I mean, SuBe was pretty much concieved to be a 90s Aaron Spelling prime time soap, but in the daytime. Once it didn't take off in the first nine months they desperately tried to make it more traditional soap opera, including ditching characters, trying to introduce more family elements, dropping the glorious Tim Truman theme song, making production values more in line with "traditional" soaps and then bringing in James E. Reilly as a consultant.

 

Personally, I preferred the show before they tried to "daytime soap"-ify it.

5 hours ago, te. said:

I mean, SuBe was pretty much concieved to be a 90s Aaron Spelling prime time soap, but in the daytime. Once it didn't take off in the first nine months they desperately tried to make it more traditional soap opera, including ditching characters, trying to introduce more family elements, dropping the glorious Tim Truman theme song, making production values more in line with "traditional" soaps and then bringing in James E. Reilly as a consultant.

 

Personally, I preferred the show before they tried to "daytime soap"-ify it.

Same with me and there was that brother they gave Cole, Leo who did nothing for a year but look good

I was watching Sunset Beach then but I have no recollection of Leo at all. I recognise the actor's name but not the face. 

2 hours ago, chrisml said:

I was watching Sunset Beach then but I have no recollection of Leo at all. I recognise the actor's name but not the face. 

 

I think he was briefly part of the show's younger set, but was only on for a few months before being dropped.

He literally had no storylines and was only there to prop up the younger set / add to the Deschanels.

 

I've kind of wondered that if the main problem with the youth set was that the focus groups kept pointing it out as a problem, except they wouldn't fix the actual problem (ie fire Randy Spelling) and kept trying to reconfigure it around him, which led to Adrienne Frantz being blamed / fired, Leo appearing and doing nothing etc.

17 hours ago, chrisml said:

I was watching Sunset Beach then but I have no recollection of Leo at all. I recognise the actor's name but not the face. 

I don't recognize the face nor do I remember his storylines.  However, his brow makes him a passible bro to Eddie Cibrian

I thought the show was teasing an Emily/leo/sean story...but than the show opted to keep that dippy Amy on...and decided to drop Leo..and keep Amy and her male sidekick.

 

Also, the show was kinda isolated with little to no interaction

Did Randy get Adrienne fired. That recast of Tiffany was horrid

7 minutes ago, John said:

Did Randy get Adrienne fired. That recast of Tiffany was horrid

 

I don't think he personally got her fired, but I suspect that "focus groups" reacted negatively to their storyline and since they couldn't actually fix the actual problem (ie fire Randy) they put the blame on Adrienne Frantz.

23 minutes ago, Soaplovers said:

I thought the show was teasing an Emily/leo/sean story...but than the show opted to keep that dippy Amy on...and decided to drop Leo..and keep Amy and her male sidekick.

 

I suspect they wanted a love triangle where neither Leo or Sean were the "bad guys" and actually having Emily conflicted when it was finally unveiled that Amy had schemed to break them up in the first place, but I suspect they knew that Randy would lose that one with the viewers so instead they opted to focus on having two really  bad guys (Amy + her sidekick) and ditched Leo all-together.

42 minutes ago, te. said:

I suspect they wanted a love triangle where neither Leo or Sean were the "bad guys" and actually having Emily conflicted when it was finally unveiled that Amy had schemed to break them up in the first place, but I suspect they knew that Randy would lose that one with the viewers so instead they opted to focus on having two really  bad guys (Amy + her sidekick) and ditched Leo all-together.

 

That’s how it was being foreshadowed on screen. Leo and Sean became friends, and Leo started getting feelings for Emily in secret. Amy figured out that he liked Emily and wanted his help to break them up, but Leo had morals and did the opposite by becoming a thorn in her side. At this point, Brad was a spare part. 

 

Sean was the problem, or more specifically, Randy Spelling. He was horrendous in the role. If they had pushed a quad, Emily/Leo would have been the more popular couple for sure. But they wanted Sean/Emily to be end game, so they dumped Leo, and moved Brad into his role by having him catch feelings for Emily. 

 

And so the boring, tedious quad laboured on and on and on. Amy was whiny, dull and drippy and a pain, while Brad was a simpering sidekick. Sean worked best within his family. The only decent thing about their storyline was Mrs Moreau and Annie getting involved. Amy and Brad had no development throughout their stints. 

 

Leo had potential, but was dumped en masse at the same time as Francesca, Virginia, and Jimmy, while Tyus was dropped to recurring when they had a head writer change.

I liked that Emily was Bette's daughter.. it gave Bette more dimension as more than just Olivia's sidekick or Annie's quirky aunt.  I don't recall if Annie or Emily interacted all that much... I could see Annie being annoyed at Emily for being a goody goody.. yet being the protective cousin when Amy/Brad were mean to Emily.. and I could see Emily being resentful that the love she wanted from her mother was given to Annie and wondering if her mother had wished that Annie were her daughter instead of her.

 

Lastly, I kind of liked the Annie/Maria friendship.. both actresses played off each other well.. and it was the one time that Maria was likable and had some personality.  It was nice to see Maria being a conscience for Annie... and it was nice seeing Annie encouraging her friend to be more pro-active.  I still recall one scene where Annie/Maria were hanging out.. and Tess was there for a minute.. where she and Annie eyed one another (like one schemer recognizing a fellow schemer).. and after Tess leaving.. Annie asking Maria what her deal was.. and that she got a bad vibe about Tess.. with Maria laughing it off.   

 

The show had potential.. but just didn't know how to balance the traditional soapy qualities with the audience of the late 90s that were into faster pace/edgier fare.