Jump to content

AMC: Babe Spoiler from TV Guide Canada

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I know I'm going to be tarred and feathered for saying this - but Alexa really redeemed that character by the end. I would have been perfectly content had Babe been written out when she left... and hell, maybe we'd never see her again, but at least the possibility was open.

Instead, they recast on an impulse with a girl who, while not horrid, is SO not Babe. They strung her along for a year with ZERO story... and now they're just going to kill her, giving David and Krystal all of... what? Six months of story? At the most.

I know Babe is hated by many fans still for the baby switch stuff. And I don't disagree. But this just strikes me as shock value at its lamest. I'm not angry because she's a "legacy character", because SHE IS NOT. Hell, I'm not even really a Babe fan at heart. I just think it's really a lazy move. A death for no other reason than it makes you look bad to recast a second time. It's kinda like firing one actor and recasting the character you're going to turn into someone's "unabortion" with a different actor, and then once you do it, push him to the backburner until you end up phasing him out and--

--oh wait. Never mind. ;)

ETA: I'm posting this NOT as a Pratt hater. I've actually enjoyed the last few weeks very much. I swear. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

ZendallFan, I totally accept that as your opinion. Like I said, I know I'm in the minority. I guess I'm speaking more from a character standpoint than a "baby switch" standpoint. You can't deny that Alexa didn't work her ass off to try and save the character (the fact that you didn't accept it is a fault of the writing, not the actress). Heck, Alexa even says as much in that quote. And she is connected with Jamie, JR, Adam, Krystal, Tad, and (most importantly) Bianca, in so many positive AND negative ways.

I guess I see a lot of potential should Alexa ever want to return. Even WITH all the awfulness of the baby switch. A character like that could EASILY be altered through future story into a bitch and villain, if it's ever needed in the future.

I guess my point is that we're going to get a death that will only provide short term effects... but won't really serve the show in the long run. I don't disagree with what you're saying... I guess I'm still optimistic enough to think about the possibilities ten years from now, when (soras-ed) Little A is sixteen or seventeen old, and his mother (i.e. Havens) wants to return.

Having said all that, I'm really not trying to pick a fight. I'm the last person to defend the Babe Carey character. The writers really nailed her coffin as early as her FIRST WEEK ON THE AIR, when she slept with two brothers for no other reason than she was horny. LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Community Posts

    • I think I've heard of this before but I'd definitely like to know more, lol. Probably in the Classic thread if that's preferred by people. I've never been big on Cari Shayne's Karen. But yes, Carrie and Christie Clark have always had me. Like Kimberly as Robin on GH or Erin Torpey on OLTL, there is a core of lived experience with the actor evolving from child to adult and a quiet intelligence in their presence there that makes the character rise above any poor writing IMO.
    • I hear what your saying regarding Carrie Brady's place on the canvas. There is no arguing that. As I think I was saying poorly above, Karen was introduced during a transition period very early in Riche's run (as was Jagger). There were a lot of things that happened during that period that feel very against the soap opera grain. For example, David Langdon, Monica's ex and Dawn's father, arrives in Port Charles in a medical story where Monica inserts herself with the intention of telling David that Dawn was their daughter. David dies suddenly and Monica never reveals this information to David. This feels very untraditional. Similarly, the whole Joseph Adkins arc with Bobbie writing to a murderer and the women of Port Charles all fawning over his book is not something I felt was the type of story soaps in 1992 did. Similarly, introducing a character like Karen without any family ties and anchoring a younger part of the story with another outsider Jagger wasn't how things would typically work (effectively) on the soap.   I think my issue with the idea that Brenda had a direct goal is that is all there was to her. She had nothing to her outside of that in early 1993. Jagger had wanting to find his family. Karen was working to get into medical school. Brenda had Jagger, who only wanted her when he couldn't have Karen. Even Ruby called Jagger out on this. Brenda's point of view was so limited. The fact that she nearly gets bested by Jenny Eckert of all people in a confrontation in March, 1993, is pretty wild given how milquetoast Jenny is.  I can see why you would think Karen was taking a middle of the road approach to things. It might not have been presented well, but her pursuing her career and going to college was going to come first. Working at Kelly's and maintaining her grades was going to come before her romance with Jagger. With Rhonda around, meddling in her life, Karen definitely had more reason to be conflicted. Rhonda saw Karen's relationship with Jason as the key to Karen's success, both by marrying into a wealthy family and by building a network of connections in Karen's career field.  Having watched some of her "General Hospital" run, I would like to at the early years of Karen's run on "Port Charles" to see how that all this continues in terms of her characterization. I think Karen remains very passive romantically deferring to Courtney Kanelos, who was just a much stronger adversary for Karen than Brenda was based on where Brenda was in her journey given that Courtney had Neil which tied her to the entire Scanlon clan. I do remember Karen having some outbursts, but I vaguely think that Shayne's Karen could also be pushed to her limits and she would fire back. This just wasn't her modus operandi as it was for characters like Courtney and early Brenda.  In Brenda's defense, I think part of the issue was the underdevelopment of her character. I think there was an intent on either Levinson's (or Riche's) part to craft Brenda as a "poor little rich girl" type who had no moral compass because her father was a business tycoon who ignored her and had loved Julia's mother more than her mother. If this was true, and the intent to solicit sympathy, or least empathy, for Brenda, it wasn't played enough for this to be effective. Brenda rejected Julia both in terms of her role as a parental figure and any sisterly advice she gave.  I would even go further and say that the issues I have with the Brenda/Karen rivalry were inherit to Bill Levinson's writing. By comparison, if you look at what was being done in the other female rivalries, the issues were mostly consistent. Jenny and Julia, for example, had the potential to be interesting but Julia was so passive and Jenny was sound brash and unfeeling that there was no one to root for. Also, the rivalry between Tiffany and Bobbie took Tiffany into a very narrow view with her solely trying to secure custody of Lucas at the cost of everything else including her friendship with Bobbie and Tony as well as her marriage to Sean. I'd be curious to see if Levinson had similar issues when he was at "Loving," but I'm spacing at the moment.   
    • Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka talk new show, ‘Drag Me to Dinner’ l GMA  
    • Jimbo & Alexis Spill Tea on Heidi's Drama (Unaired)

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Do these tournaments still test for COVID? https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/65794974?xtor=AL-72-[partner]-[bbc.news.twitter]-[headline]-[news]-[bizdev]-[isapi]&at_link_origin=BBCWorld&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_type=web_link&at_format=link&at_link_id=085D161A-01FB-11EE-91C3-39FFD772BE90&at_campaign_type=owned&at_bbc_team=editorial
  • Create New...

Important Information

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