I wish characters could stand alone and not be so dependent on pairings

[Ryan]

I too wish characters could stand alone and not be so dependent on pairings. That's part of the reason why I prefer John & Marena (though I like them) apart. When they're together, Marlena becomes just an extention of John. Everything she is becomes about him and it's disgusting.

[DavidEvanSmith]

I think that couples are ONLY interesting if the individual characters are well established FIRST. That's what creates the conflict that keeps the couple compelling. The best couples are the ones that, if separated, can still function without their mate on the canvas.

I would say that OLTL's only current, surviving supercouple is Todd/Blair, because of their outstanding dysfunction and inability to make it work. Both characters are so layered and flawed that we all logically know they won't work, but it's the fights and the conflicts and the immaturity and the insecurity that keeps us watching them. It's human. It's relatable.

Jessica and Antonio, by and large, was a flop, because where was the internal conflict? External forces are a staple in soaps (in Jessica/Antonio's instance, Keri Reynolds, RJ, Nash) but it's the internal conflict in the couple that makes them interesting, the cracks in the facade. Jessica/Nash far outshone Jessica/Antonio because Jessica finally had flaws through Tess, obstacles that introduced Nash in a good way, and the conflict for Nash would be whether he could let go of Tess and love Jessica, etc. It's when all that inner conflict ended that the air came out of Jessica/Nash's relationship, and now Nash is dead.

That's why it kills me when they put characters like Cristian and Sarah together, because Cristian isn't strong enough on his own to make a pairing work, and Sarah hadn't been established enough on the canvas for her to bring anything to the pairing either. So where could it possibly go? Chemistry alone can not sustain, you need to be able to pull a story out for these characters.

Outside forces work to keep couples interesting, but outside forces only work when they are more passive and bring out the INNER conflicts in the characters. I think that's why I liked Gigi/Rex/Adriana so much because Gigi really didn't DO anything to actively break up Rex and Adriana. And if Gigi wanted to, she probably could have, but it would have made Gigi a totally different, and probably less likable character if she used her son to drive a wedge between Rex and Adriana. But the way the story was told, Gigi's presence brought out new and more entertaining flaws in Adriana, which led to the collapse of Rex/Adriana because she was too insecure to trust in their love. Again, it's human, it's relatable. Who can't relate to trust issues?

Now, with Marty, Chambers wasn't strong enough in the role, IMO, to keep Marty on her own, and yet didn't possess enough chemistry with anyone to make a pairing work. Any pairing with John was more reliant on Michael Easton's chemistry and being established in the canvas. BUT with Susan Haskell in the role, she has been through a few successful stories with MANY leading men (Andrew Carpenter, Todd Manning, Dylan Moody, Patrick Thornhart) and the circumstances and chemistries were all different, but they all worked because Haskell can work all those levels and layers. I primarily want to see her in the Starr/Cole/Todd/Blair story, because that's where all the history is and we were cheated out of that once by getting Chambers in the role, but I think she might play well off of Michael Easton's John as well.

I am nervous that the picture that helped relax Marty was one of her with John McBain, rather than a picture of her with her son, Cole. That sends me the message that they're selling Marty as a package with John, and not as a mother to Cole and a character in her own right. But I'm reserving judgment until I see how it all plays out.

I tried to keep it OLTL since that was the inspiration of the thread.

[JackPeyton]

^I agree.

well except about cc. she is amazing.

[DavidEvanSmith]

Don't get me wrong. I do think Chambers is talented, but I always find her consistently miscast. Marty is a really flawed character who has been through so much trauma and Chambers seemed very unincumbered by demons. The last time Haskell's Marty appeared on OLTL, testifying at Todd's rape (of Blair) trial, there was so much inner conflict and layers and you could see that just being in the room with Todd still affected her, especially at a rape trial. And it's not to say that if Chambers had been the original Marty and been through all the original storylines she wouldn't have been able to nail the layers, but I think without that history, Chambers didn't have what she needed to play it this time. Plus she looks way to hispanic for me to buy her as Irish Margaret Saybrooke.

I do like Chambers, I even cast her on my soap, Beyond the Horizon! But I would have preferred her on OLTL as Tea Delgado, not as Marty.

[R Sinclair]

I hate the fact that characters can't be used in non-couple stories and are backburnered until the next chemistry test. There are so many other stories to tell with characters if they're well-developed or if the writers can come up with a good storyline.

[JackPeyton]

^IMHO, had the writing been the way it should had been CC coulda rocked it.

but i also will confess she is one of those actress' i will defend no matter what (and have no shame about it!)lol.

but i do see what you are saying.

[TC]

Pretty much agree with all of your post, including the CC love and that she has been woefully miscast more than her fair share. When I first saw her on SuBe, I pegged her as a career soap actress even if I felt SuBe's days were numbered.

You're not the only one who thinks she'd have made a better Tea Delgado. I believe I've said that a few times myself.

[JackPeyton]

i *never* thought of her as tea. i could see it tho.

[TC]

This is the essence of what I was trying to say when I started this thread. Thanks for articulating this point so well.

[JackPeyton]

R Sinclair is amazing like that.

I honeslty think one could post a lot of 'ummm' 'ya see' 'and' '....' and R would be able to figure it out and sound amazing.

[Kstaff]

It's my ongoing frustration with Days. Take the never-ending Ejamicus triangle (please!!!), or Sami in particular. Sami's whole existance was to scheme for men. She's never really had an opportunity to stand alone. Ditto Belle. Shawn was hurriedly recast, in my opinion, just to keep Shelle alive, but I honestly think that was a mistake. I think this is one of Days's biggest mistakes, along with catering to fanbases, which, I guess, can go hand in hand, since many of the fanbases are couples fanbases.

[Khan]

If that's true, then it's a very recent phenomenon. Back in the '80's, OLTL had three "supercouples" - Cord & Tina, Bo & Sarah, and Jake & Megan - but they were spread out over the latter half of the decade, and not at the same time. (I don't count Bo & Delila or Max & Gabrielle since, IMO, those were extensions of larger triangles (and though they loved each other, Bo & Delila didn't end up together); and I hesitate to include even Jake & Megan, since that pairing was more early '90's.) There were Llanview-ites hooking up, sure, but only one couple at a time were what you'd designate a "supercouple" (unlike DAYS around the same time, when one scene with one supercouple was followed usually with another).

It's the same old argument, I'm afraid; as much as GH's Luke & Laura did to make soaps more legitimate to "mainstream" audiences, they also harmed the industry, perhaps irrevocably. No longer could writers develop nuanced, psychologically fascinating characters that could generate story entirely on their own. Now, as soon as a newcomer hits the canvas, he or she has to be chemistry-tested with everyone else.

[DavidEvanSmith]

You can't leave Viki & Clint out of that list! I think that was Viki's last supercouple. Viki & Joe before them, it seems, from everything I have read.

[Khan]

Yes, you could make the argument for Clint & Viki as a supercouple, but I always thought of them more as a tent-pole couple, even if they were often surrounded by turmoil.

[Juliajms]

I've liked Todd and Blair, but I can honestly say, the conflict and inner struggles can get played out eventually. That's why a good balance of internal and external obstacles is need for a good super couple to last long term. In the case of T&B (much like S&C), I'm so tired of the inner struggles that a long break would make me very happy. I'd love to see both Todd and Blair with someone new.

When it comes to Marty though, I'm almost glad that her focus isn't going to be Cole. BB is such a weak actor that I hate to think of Marty's primary purpose being to support him. I'd rather see her in a story with Todd and a romance with McPain. I agree with whomever said they should have kept Ramsey for Marty though. At least for awhile.

Personally, I find ATWT's Carly and Jack one of the best examples of a working super couple. I think they have kept that couple viable for years with Carly's lies, Jack's self righteousness and a good mix of people and circumstances getting in the middle.