Jump to content

Santa Barbara Discussion Thread


dm.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

I agree with you there, but that storyline seems in keeping with daytime's obsession with turning rapists into anti-hero love interests. Although, the Dash storyline went overboard even for that. The Dash stuff was so unnecessary because Gibbs and Grahn had real chemistry. Why ruin it? It was so odd to me. I will never understand SB's obsession with rape storylines. While I'm glad Marcy Walker got her emmy, I could have done without the rape storyline. The identity of the rapist made it even more icky (being vague for those who may be watching the story on yt). Was there one female character on SB who was not raped?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think we can add Kelly Capwell to the list of women who were never sexually assaulted in Santa Barbara.  She was kidnapped quite often, but never raped. 

 

Of course, given my Kelly-was-a-secret-serial-killer theory - i.e. most of the men she was coupled with (Nick, Pearl, Ric Castillo, Craig Hunt, and Justin Moore) "disappeared" from SB without a goodbye scene, she may have been more of a menace than a victim.

 

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I went and read the French Santa Barbara site and it clarified that Kelly was raped, but Eden who had also been kidnapped by Peter was not raped ( sorry for the confusion)

 

I still think Kelly was doing something to drive those other guys out of town never to be mentioned again....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I think I've seen this before. This time something stood out. Doris Hursley died around the time "Santa Barbara" was beginning and there was all this animosity between the first family and the second family of Frank Hursley, a lot of it with Bridget Dobson at the center. Also, Frank dies in 1989, which I believe was during the big fight NBC over control of the series. I wonder how this effected the writing. I know Mason, the product of the first marriage, is treated very well by the Dobsons and that Bridget had half-siblings from both her mother and her father. I am curious how much of this drama bled itself into the show's writing. 

 

On a different note, I noticed Eric James (the actor best known for playing Jimmy Boswell on "Bright Promise") commented on the article. The Boswell family also seems to be a complicated. In the episode descriptions I've seen, Jimmy was also in love with Ann Boyd, the woman his father Tom was seeing. The daughter Marion sounds a little bit like a daddy's girl who seemed to capitalized on Jimmy's attraction to Ann in order to separate Tom and Ann. James has been vocal about his criticism of the series as the cast was promised it would be very relevant to then modern society, but it seems after some initial modern situations the show focused on complicated romantic and family entanglements.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

For those of you that remember the Dobson's brief return, what did you think of the stories they developed? I felt they started off pretty strong and reset a lot of stuff (Mason for example, Santana's return), but the stories didn't have the magic of the earlier ones for some reason. Still, there work is 100X better than what we're getting today on the last 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the Dobson's return was hampered by a loss of continuity, as well as the exit of Marcy Walker.  They made a point of saying in SOD upon their return that they had not watched the show because it was too painful.  As a result, the progress that characters had made in their absence was lost and it seemed like the story was going backward rather than forward.  For example, much has been made over the Capwell dinner party scenes.  It is a very well written and acted episode, but the plot comes out of left field. 

 

Mason decides to put CC on trial for his "crimes" against the family, and in turn brings back Pamela and eviscerates Sophia.  However, CC and Mason had resolved their differences in a scene the prior year.  In fact, for most of Terry Lester's Mason, (in the year prior to the Dobson's return), he and CC did not have a lot of interactions because he was being plagued by Gina and his alternate Sonny personality.  Gordon Thompson's Mason arrived two months before the Dobson's and did not have the history with CC to carry those dinner party scenes.    

 

Mason also knew that Pamela was a mortal threat to Kelly, but still brought her out of the asylum. So, it seemed like Mason had lost his memories of recent events, rather than plotting to have a family coup against CC.  I've always thought that by 1991 Gina deserved much more of Mason's wrath than CC.

 

Also, the month before their return at Christmas, Eden received a necklace/jewel from Robert Barr which began her memories of being a jewel thief and her eventual exit storyline.  However, none of this is referenced in the dinner party scenes, where Eden appears to revert back to her bratty/father's girl issues of before her wedding to Cruz.  There is a blink-and-you-missed it closeup of Eden with crazy eyes when Mason is going after Sophia, but it doesn't amount to much.  They also never explained why Robert Barr would want to revert Eden back to her jewel thief persona or why he would give her the necklace.

 

Even the dinner party table was new and had never been in that place on the set, before or after that episode.  And Kelly is inexplicably living in the Capwell mansion which she had moved out of months prior.  Finally, it defies logic that Mason would still be angry at CC after a year when both he and Eden had near-death experiences resulting in a Christmas episode about how happy they were to be reunited as a family.

 

So, their return, for me, seemed like a chance to produce the types of stories that they wanted to do before they were locked out, but ignored everything that had happened in the interim, which seemed to please them but was not necessarily in the service of the audience.  I think it is especially true of the time period, when fans were less informed of the behind the scenes changes and it probably came across as jarring, rather than a re-set.   

Edited by j swift
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

    • I believe Cecile was intentionally used for comedic elements maybe twice. I mean, start with her being royalty from where? Tanquir!!! LOL From the first moment it's a gag, isn't it? And, her kidnapping Cass? I mean does a serious character do that? Well, literally, if you go another way & it's horror, sure. And, what you describe, a food fight, yeah, it's going to be played for laughs.
    • Y&R 1976 Pt 2 Bill is overjoyed when Jill arrives home with grandson. But Kay is furious and checks into legal action, only to find that there are no grounds (the check was returned). Brock Reynolds, Kay’s son from her first marriage, convinces her she can be the baby’s godmother and provide for him out of love.  But just as she’s starting arrangements to do this a legal petition arrives stating that Phillip Chancellor Foster is a rightful heir to and is now claiming his share of Phillip Chancellor’s estate. Jill has to do this, as the Foster family’s finances are now more precarious than ever. In fact, Liz, unable to get her factory job back, has secretly started working for Kay as her housekeeper. Jill explains to Kay that she has to do this for her baby’s sake but will drop the suit immediately if Kay puts it in writing that she will provide for them. Kay, however, retorts that Jill is the one who can’t be trusted—after all, she went back on her agreement to let Kay have the baby. Despite her attorney’s advice to work out an out-of-court agreement, Kay — insists on seeing this through. When Jill takes her little son to Phillip’s grave -on the Chancellor estate, Kay runs her off the property. In court, the geneticist testifies that Phillip could have been the baby’s father, but that Brock could have been, also. Jill then testifies that Phillip was the only man she was ever intimate with, and then only once; that Phillip decided on an immediate divorce from Kay and marriage to her, Jill, so that his baby could have his legal name. But Kay’s lawyer brings up the “dead-man statute,” which holds that conversations with a deceased person are not admissible as evidence because he can’t defend himself. When the  judge upholds this statute, Jill comes close to being held in contempt of court.  Brock takes the stand and substantiates Jill’s testimony that although he and Jill lived together for a time before her marriage to Phillip, they were never initimate. But the judge rules in favor of Kay; little Phillip’s claim is rejected. Jill emotionally tells the judge he has denied a child a decent life and a man  his dying wish.   Brad is told by Dr. Snapper Foster,his brother-in-law that his condition, nephritis of the optic nerve, is stable. The optic nerves are still swollen, but since his headaches have stopped he should continue his cortisone treatment. Brad is still firmly insistent that Leslie not be told.  From the moment they meet, Lance and Laurie charge the air around them with static. They find each other arrogant and egotistical, but when Lance needs a date for his trip to London, he calls Laurie, and she accepts. The pilot of Lance’s private plane cryptically suggests that Laurie turns his boss on because she seems turned off by him. This seems to hold true for Laurie, too. By the end of their London stay, Lance and Laurie have come to a better understanding of each other. Lance tries to tell her that, with talent of her own, she should not be jealous of Leslie. She tells him she has a book coming out, but it won’t be published under her own name. She explains further that she was an outgoing child and her parents didn’t understand that she needed as much attention as the introverted Leslie did. (Laurie has always felt she existed in Leslie’s shadow. Les is married to the man Laurie wanted, and is a successful concert artist, with the fame and recognition Laurie has tried so desperately to achieve. Laurie’s first book, a sexploitation novel, was a failure, and this new book is a novel based on Leslie’s nervous breakdown and recovery—something Leslie is trying to put behind her.) Gwen Sherman, now Sister Magdellen, will soon take her final vows, but still feels God holds her past against her, because nobody could possibly believe that a prostitute could be pure enough to become a nun. She finds her accidental meetings with Greg Foster (they were once in love) increasingly meaningful to her, and she begins to dream of Greg holding her in his arms. Finally, in torment and uncertainty, she tells the Reverend Mother she’s leaving the convent. But on the day of her release, Greg arrives with one of the convent orphans unconscious in his arms.The boy had fallen from a fence outside. When the  boy, Ramon, who had not spoken a word since his arrival, comes to, asking for Sister Magdellen, Gwen sees this as a sign from God and accepts her vocation. She will take her final vows and then enter nurses’ training.  Stay tuned...
    • I was just about to compose a post where I mention this period AW reminds me of JFP's  time on GL (1993-95) where it just reeked of cynicism and desperation. OR ATWT during Black and Stern. The common denominator is P&G. They allowed this stuff to go on.
    • I think the first 4-5 years have many strong spots, some beautiful writing, and I didn't find it that hard to watch, but one of the main issues with the show for me - and this just gets worse - is many of the characters we are told to root for I find extremely unlikeable. 
    • I don't see the people who were brought into AW around 1986 as being that different from JFP, but I don't feel like going back and forth either.
    • Agree to disagree. I think they cared. I think at times fans underestimate both the creative types & the execs. Certainly there can be specific times & specific people when ego & hubris are huge issues. But, basically, and most of the time the people involved very much want things to work. I'm not saying you don't have your Brian Frons or even your JFPs & your Susan D. Lees. We know at the end Chris Goutman had lost his way.
    • Pure bull, those scenes were.ere! The whole Liam story is going to end in disaster, just like Brad's other stories.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Joey and Vanessa's scenes are boring. Get Vanessa away from him. Anita and Eva scene was great too! Lots of good scenes in today's episode.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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