Jump to content

Santa Barbara Discussion Thread


dm.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

That was her thought. But there is also a bit of nature vs nurture happening with Channing. At first, Mr. Wallace was presented as a jerk. He was an alcoholic who just abandoned his wife and child. Brick didn't know where his dad was. And they didn't really seem to have fond memories of him. The show gave him a redemption arc, but original Mr Wallace was a jerk. Perhaps Channing was partially genetics, and CC nurtured the bad nature already there.  I don't know that Brick, with his natural moral fiber would have been that ruthless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

While the French site's translation is still amusingly over dramatic, I really enjoyed their new thoughtful article about the day of Sophia's disappearance.  It put into perspective all of the information that was derived from the event during SB's history, and where all of the major players were at the time of the event.  I'm so glad that they keep updating the site, it is a great resource that I find myself reading at once a month.

http://santabarbara-online.com/Sophiadeath.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I believe the Wallaces began to reconcile for good at Amy and Brick's wedding. In all their subsequent appearances, they were always seen together.

SB had a real treasure in Dena Dietrich, who played Katie Wallace (Brick's legal mother). She was best known for playing Mother Nature in the Chiffon Margarine commercials in the 1970s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Unfortunately, I cannot advise to believe the articles about Sophia on this site. I don't know if this concerns to other characters that Lillian writes about, but a lot of about Sophia, her storyline and her men is fanfiction. 

I assume that she tried to unite the 1984 and 1991 versions in this article, but she had a wrong knowledge of the subject.

The version 1984. Eden was not on the beach and nearby. Marcello wasn't a casual beach runner. He is stalking the Capwell family and, in particular, Sophia. He is obsessed with revenge and takes Sophia away to hurt CC. Lilian doesn't know about it.

Channing never hated Sophia. He didn't part with her ring (which he took away from Lionel because considered him unworthy to wear it).

Ted didn't welcome his mother with open arms. He disowned her almost immediately because he was afraid that her comeback would affect his relationship with Laken.

The version 1991. Eden was not only on the beach, she was on a yacht. Moreover, she was not alone but with Channing. The kids heard Sophia's confessions that Channing is Lionel's son.  Lilian  doesn't write about Channing at all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is why I do not enjoy the later years, they retconned every story. And I don't like that.

I remember Mother Nature. She was so great in those commercials. Loved her. SB really wasted a great deal of talent. And I wasn't that crazy about Mr Wallace's redemption. I would have liked it if he hadn't gotten back together. Sometimes you have to live with the consequences of your bad decisions. And he should have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It make more sense that they were on the yacht, rather than on the beach.  It would be impossible for a little girl to see what was happening on the boat from shore, because a yacht that size would need to be miles from the beach in order to sail.  Although, one does wonder how they boarded the yacht without anyone knowing they were present?

Did Minx's baby switch prove that you can fool Mother Nature?

As for the characterization of the site as fanfic, I think we can forgive anyone for forgetting the details of a plot from almost 40 years ago.  It is still a great collection of magazine stories and character profiles, and I value the entertainment it provides.

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The answer is "no way" 

Please register in order to view this content

If you were impressed by Lionel's encounter with Channing in 1979 and how shocked Lionel was to learn in 1985 that Channing was his son, then everything that was shown in the flashbacks in 1991 doesn't make sense.

The 1984 and 1991 versions are mutually exclusive. The most glaring difference is that in the early version Lionel didn't know that Channing was his son until 1985, in the version'91 he found out about it back in 1969.

It's a matter of choice, the 1984 version or the 1991 version. Many Eden's fans, for example, ignore the 1984 version and believe that in her presence Sophia told Lionel that Channing was his son. I ignore the 1991 version and focus on the original one. They are incompatible.

Yeah, they have a great collection of magazine stories, interviews, photos, critic reviews of that years. Also Nicolas took exclusive interviews with actors in our days. The site has the accurate dates of the characters arrival and leaving. 

It's just not worth referring to this site as expert at  storylines. There are a lot of factual errors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I just watched these episodes. The idea to sue Minx belonged to the sensible Amy, although Wallaces were the most affected party. They were innocent and punished for nothing. The only consolation was the wonderful grandson Brandon. By the way, I was thinking about why they were never introduced to each other, Katie would be a wonderful grandmother.

The rest received their existential punishment or benefit, and everyone understood it (Sophia punished Lionel, Minx punished Sophia etc). And although this story was not personal for CC, and both boys were outsiders, he promised to punish Minx for kidnapping and fulfilled it. So it was  neutral CC who  became the instrument of retribution that Minx deserved. Full circle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You make great points, but I meant it would have made a great story to have Minx publicly shamed as a baby switcher and have the Lockridge family shunned from decent society. It certainly would have given Warren and Laken material; to see into their psyches. We would see ultimately if Minx felt true remorse for her actions or was only sorry that the cat was out of the bag. What might have been...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To be fair, Brick wasn't biologically related to Brandon.  He was the child of Channing and Santana.  Regardless of being switched at birth, it was still Channing, not Brick, that slept with Santana.

EDIT: I read your post again and realized that Katie would have been related to Brandon because she was Channing's bio Mom - got it.  Although, I don't know if Brandon knew that he was adopted at the time of Brick's wedding, so it may have been confusing.

I agree that Minx should have faced more fallout from the baby switch.  But, I am still left wondering if there was a scene where CC reacted to the whole thing, or was he incapacitated at the time of the revelation?

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It would be a revolution in soap storytelling. Soap operas don't describe real life, but reproduce archetypal and mythical plots in the form of real life. All these twins, amnesias, switching of children...
I don't mean that everything that happens in soap operas is based on myths but there's a lot of mythological stuff.

Of course, kidnapping in real life is a criminal offense. But in soap opera switching of children is a repeating mythical element. In the legends this is job of evil spirits, fairies and other unprosecuted creatures 

Please register in order to view this content

 And in SB the changeling baby was taken from a circus family not by chance. It was well done.

Minx performed the function of a fairy (and she would never regret what she had done). If she were tried for this, it would be the overthrow of the myth, as if the laws of real life were applied to a fairy tale. I like it, it could be fresh postmodern solution, but unfortunately, the authors did not think about it. Only Amy started talking, but as I said, Amy looked like a earthly "black sheep" in the fictional world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Holly's final big story was the Sebastian mess in late 2004.   Vanessa and Matt were promoted to regulars near the end and were heavily recurring prior to that starting around 2007/2008.
    • Keith has a softer presence, but it would have helped to see him be more aggressive or proactive in protecting them instead of standing around like a mannequin. A man the audience should be hoping and wishing gets back together with his wife. Nicole needs a new husband!
    • She needs to learn to be honest with her husband about her lusty interests because being sex positive only works if you're not cheating on your spouse.
    • https://x.com/JermaineRivers/status/1922782226317529409       https://x.com/JermaineRivers/status/1931204864136396907
    • Very disappointed in the writers in the way they are screwing with Nicole, Ted,  and Kat to make Leslie remain viable. So many holes everywhere.
    • Somebody brought this up elsewhere which emphasizes why this NuTed appears as such a weakling. Why is Kat doing what HE should be doing? And that's everything he can to rid him and his family of this crazy woman. Kat is doing all kinds of things she shouldn't do but now I understand her more. She can't count on her father to eliminate this woman because he's a wimp. He's been too busy inviting her into his home and serving her drinks and offering her invitations to birthday parties. WIMP!!!!
    • It's Men's Mental Health Month.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • This is (maybe) overly simplistic and nonsoapy, but Doug needs to go to Gamblers Anonymous, to deal with the addictive neurological excitement hits that gambling gives him - and which control his life. Vanessa needs to go to therapy to find ways to remain healthfully lusty and sex-positive, but to stay away from anyone who would demean her.
    • YT keeps commending GL clips to me. I discovered Kathleen Cullen was on in Christmas 1987. Was there any talk of making it permanent  or was this just a special visit? I wish they had made the visit permanent. I liked her chemistry with Grant Aleksander.  
    • I'm not sure it's as unpopular as you think.  I just think the show knew they were in a bind, and needed a proven couple for the viewers to invest in. Trying to reunite Vanessa and Ross had just failed in 87. I don't think Ed and Holly's affair was well received, as Simon and Garrett had a brother/sister chemistry. Enter Billy and Vanessa, who give you history and an out not to try and do a Josh/Reva/Billy triangle, which would've really wrecked the relationship between Josh and Billy. I'd have been ok with trying Vanessa/Ross again, and doing a Vanessa/Ross/Holly/Billy quad for a while. I hated Nadine. HATED. She had to be the most insufferable also-ran before ATWT's Julia Lindsay. This is where I wish I knew Roger's history better.

      Please register in order to view this content

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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