Jump to content

B&B: Week of March 2, 2009


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I think would be a mistake to put an established straight character like Owen into a gay storyline. In fact, I think B&B would be the worst possible vehicle for a gay storyline. It's much more of a Y&R thing, don't you think?

But why wouldn't the actors permit it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I think Y&R could have done a gay story at one time (not with the people currently running Y&R), but I don't think B&B would know how to write a gay story. They'd either have a social issue plot ending with the character disappearing after a few months, or the character (if he's male) would fall in love with Brooke, Katie, or Donna, or (if she's female) Nick or Ridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

How is Owen an established straight character? We know nothing about Owen other than that he's a former P.I. who came to town because he knew Marcus' mom was loaded. Why would it be out of the realm of possibility to assume that Owen was pursuing Donna in an attempt to get ahold of some Forrester cash, but secretly wanted some Rick action?

I'm still not convinced ole Bucky doesn't have a little sugar in the tank, either.

Alot of actors are concerned with being typecast post-gay role. Especially if it's one of the first roles you've ever played. And it could be someone's own personal issues with playing such a character.

It could be a "family thing," but I was always under the impression that Bell Shows didn't have gay characters because the one lesbian story Y&R did try to do in the late 70's nearly killed the show's ratings. It has nothing to do with whether they are card carrying Republicans.

That blind "It's a Family Thing" statement is loaded and could make one assume the Bells are homophobic. Which, if they are, then I'd rather have that come from quotes in interviews interpreted by the reader than blind speculation based on their personal politics(stuff we only know only from the surface).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

IMHO, bell shows dont have a gay char because they like to mix and mingle and weave a group of people in romantic story lines, if they made a char gay they would have to bring on a few new gay char;s for that person at some point and idk, i just dont see it. however, the easy way out of this is bisexual, but soaps dont seem to understand this.

they could make a char bi, bring on a gay person for them, and have them fall for a str8 friend and whatnot.

idk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I didn't mean to imply that the Bells are homophobic. They are not.

What I meant to imply is exactly what you stated above, the lesbian storyline from the 70s nearly killed Y&R and from then on Bill Bell was adamant that it never be tried again because the reaction he got was soooo negative that it nearly cost him his show.

The Bells may be Republicans, but it certainly doesn't mean that Republicans are homophobic, Gerald Ford wasn't and I'm sure many, if not the majority, aren't as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Damn....I'm watching Tuesday's B&B right now and what was even worse than Uncle Rick and Steffy in post-coital bliss was seeing Steffy's unbelievable "walk of shame."

I know the show is trying to sell glamor, but come ON! Where is Steffy's jacked up hair, makeup, clothes, and forgetting her cellphone?

I only wished I looked half as put together as Steffy after leaving some dude's house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Cheryl was gone before Lemay came back but I agree with your thinking that he would rather a character from a family he introduced to the show than a family he did not originate.  I remember reading somewhere in the early 90's probably after DS left as writer, their was an either a writer or a producer who made a comment that their intent was bring the McKinnon family back to AW.  Would have made sense for the newer viewers from the 80's.  Much like Lemay's attempt to bring the Frames back from his writing in the 70's in his 1988 return
    • DePriest left in January 1988. According to the AWHP, Rose last appeared nearly a year before in February 1987 while both Sara and Peggy appeared as late as October 1987.
    • Annie was not brought in as an antagonist for Reva. Reva wasn’t even on the canvas when Annie first appeared in late 1994. 
    • The speculation……….very entertaining. 
    • I had forgotten that several Days stars came out strong against Melissa. Good for them!
    • That would have made sense. Did all these characters get dropped when DePriest left or had they already been dropped?
    • The other issue with Missy: in June 2020, she "liked" some social media posts by Candace Owens -- things Candace said that were against Black Lives Matter.  That is described here https://tvline.com/news/melissa-reeves-racism-days-of-our-lives-instagram-controversy-2894568/ I don't know if that was ever resolved.
    • She appeared onscreen not long after Rose Livingston and Sara Montaigne, and we found out that Sara was Rose's estranged daughter. I wonder whether Peggy might have been part of that family group -- or else they were just juggling a few different potential mysteries so that they could develop whatever seemed to be getting the best response from the audience. They didn't do anything much with Rose and Sara really either. Maybe Rose would have become more prominent if Rachel and Mac had split up over Mitch, or if Sara had really flourished. In some ways I can picture Cheryl being affected by MJ's prostitution similarly to how Josie was distressed by finding out about Sharlene. But I can also see that Josie as a Frame being involved with Matthew would have different stakes for Rachel and Sharlene than Cheryl being involved with Scott. I do think the solution for Cheryl would have had to be a badder boy than Scott -- either a real bad boy who would do her wrong, or the kind of bad boy (not Chad!!!) who is essentially misunderstood and other people just don't understand. Cheryl would also have been better off with some friends her own age. Matthew and Josie benefited a bit from having other teenagers to interact with.
    • Sally Spencer was a decent actress, but the writing destroyed the "M.J." that Kathleen Layman had built. Layman had a quiet strength about her, and she and Osburn really felt like sisters. Spencer's character should have been either an unmentioned sister, or maybe Jake's that grew up close to Kathleen, M.J. and the rest, but was away for a few years before joining the force. Kristen Marie was o.k., but I always got a mousier vibe from her. Being pigeon-holed with Scott for most of the run hurt things for her, as well.  The Loves were also underserved between Rhonda Lewin and Philece Sampler. Philece would have been better as Nicole. Thank goodness Anne Heche  showed up for the next round of auditions. Christopher Holder was mediocre as Peter, but given a shot, I think Marcus Smythe could have stuck around for a while.  I would have had Peggy Lazarus be a Frame -- possibly an ex-wife for Vince with an agenda. Smythe and Hollen had  a fun chemistry that could have kept the two around.. Bringing recasts for  Cheryl and Ben back mixing it up with other Frames. Corys, Lawrences at the time might have kept all the families stronger. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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