Jump to content

Another World Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Members

That's a big part of it. 

I think Charles is a better fit for Evan than Jack Wagner would have been. 

Mary and Thomas would have been fine, but then Catlin and Sally had their own writing issues. 

I agree there was no need for Amanda to get pregnant so early. Clearly Amanda had a hugely charmed life compared to most young women who have a baby, but there was always a certain air of absurdity knowing she was a highly successful businesswoman and a mother to a young child...and this was after finishing school, no college, IIRC. Even Lily Walsh had a slower path to the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 13.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Maybe if they had leaned into actual characterization instead of letting plot drive the whole story they could have made something actually interesting out of a spoiled princess too young to have a baby, but it seems to me transparent that they wanted to drive conflict by first of all making Amanda's lover Mitch (Mac's worst enemy!)'s brother and then forcing her into a shotgun marriage ... but of love. It would have been more interesting if she had had the abortion, or put the burden of raising the baby on Ada, or with or without the baby become estranged from Mac and Rachel in order to be with Sam. Amanda never had to really reckon with being spoiled and privileged -- she just took it for granted and built herself an implausible career at Brava.

I liked Christine Tucci as well because she was a stronger performer and I thought the writing was more willing to make Amanda look less than perfect.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Amanda pregnancy was a blunder.

Amanda and Sam were AW's best bet for a starcrossed supercouple. Young love destined to be turn apart by outside forces and misunderstandings .

Battling for years to finally get together.

Instead AW had them married and pregnant within a year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Amanda is not my cup of tea. That's all I'm gonna say. She's repetitive and childish. She acts like a brat with her parents and has this constant "I'm not satisfied or happy" look on her face. The actress is okay in my opinion. I'm not impressed by anything I've seen her do so far. But she's okay. 

BUT Amanda's repetitive scenes with Sam are the ones that I want to fast-forward the most. They just have 2  topics they like to talk about... and it's always "You are infringing on my right to be a powerful career woman! I need to be outside dating men for a job, so I can WORK and prove I'M NOT A RICH GIRL ONLY!" and he's like "You and your family are buying me a career and I don't want it! I WANT TO BE ABLE TO STRUGGLE and be poor and you guys ARE denying me the opportunity by giving it all on a silver platter"

This is their main storyline for me... and it's just annoying when it's the same every single episode. It's a fake struggle that I don't buy. These people are so spoiled by this point and have everything... don't make me suffer listening to them bicker how amazing their life is, so they are unhappy about that.

Just a personal view. I'm not saying THIS IS the situation. My view is also restricted, since I'm only 4-5 months into the episodes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Don't forget, ”I want to struggle, but I also want to live in this huge, fabulous loft, in a town with one art gallery, and allow my wife and child's fortune to be controlled by her wicked stepsister!” wa wa wa

Besides, what was Sam going to do to protect her?  Throw crayons at the guy?

The actual daughter of Rachel and Mac would've told him to go throw on his cutoff shorts, paint a masterpiece, and leave the business stuff to people who own at least two pairs of trousers. 

Please register in order to view this content

Seriously, though, at what point does Iris learn that Evan is Janice's son?

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I decided to do something like a resume post where I will state some positive and negatives from the episodes I've seen so far. Don't hate me. It's just a very primitive overall feel of things. You guys know I love this show, but now... I can also compare it to other shows I've gotten into and make some notes.

POSITIVES 

1. The writing. When it's good - it's AMAZING. The dialogue makes you bond with the characters. There is development and nothing happens JUST LIKE THAT. We see the glimpses of emotion, then we see it evolve and grow into something big. Love is not written like a fast-cheap-meal like most soaps these days... but a struggle, a path, a learning process. Example - Sharlene and John's emerging relationship is the pearl in the show for me. It's done perfectly for my taste. The writers really LOVE to write for them. They give them dark and light. Beautiful and troubling moments. They make them grow together, but also put distance between them. It helps that the actors are so damn good.

2. The acting. This show impressed me the most in the beginning by how realistic and NOT over the top the performances are. Vicky... Sharlene... Iris... I can go on and on. Even Rachel has some amazing moments. Even though I think they are yet to give Rachel some more powerful stuff. She doesn't have a storyline other than defending her family and being a hawk that watches over them.  Few exceptions - Donna Love - the recast actress. Not the real deal. Not my cup of tea, although I know she is good in other shows. Here... I find her incredibly 1 note.

3. The production values. The show is just beautiful. Yes, there are some moments where things are a bit cartoonish, especially when they are in costumes or having a ball, but overall Another World in this era (1988-1989) feels posh and sophisticated. The lighting is so flattering. So cinematic. If you don't know... you'll think you are watching a Hollywood movie at times. 

4. The music. I'm very drawn to the soundtrack of this show. I like how the dramatic moments have this drippy, slow, building suspense music, that is so 80s... but still tasteful and powerful. Music if very important for me. It can make or break scenes. 

5. The overall magic. It's just a symbiosis of things that make it work... Not all the time, don't get me wrong. The show has it's irritating and lacking moments. And that is something I'm going to delve in right now.

NEGATIVES

1. Slow pace in some episodes. Especially since Swajeski replaced Lemay. There are episodes that nothing moves. Nothing happens in terms of plot or action. It's just beautiful dialogue and that's it. That becomes a problem at times, especially for my husband who is prone to fall asleep when he is bored. He loves the show, but I've also woken him up plenty of times. He really starts drifting off at the 5th minute of Vicky and Jamie talking about how Jamie still loves another woman. I like slow pace. But compared to All My Children, where every episode something really interesting happens... AW is really slow at times. Again I'm talking about the particular period I'm watching.

2. Not good enough cliffhangers. The episodes regularly end on a positive note... and then the next episode has NOTHING to do with the ending of the last episode. I am not a fan of this technique. Some may like it. I'm not one of these people. I like a shocking ending or an ending that makes me want to tune in next time. People watching from a window happily in love is not cutting it most of the time. 

3. Too much LOVEY-DOVEY moments between couples. NOW... if there is a reason I desert this show in the future - this may be IT. I can't stomach seeing all these people constantly kiss and be happy together. It seems the show has this non-stop cycle of bickering and making up of couples. Of course, this is typical soap opera. But here in AW, compared to all the other shows I've seen - it's too much. Maybe the writers don't know what to do with some couples and that's why they write the same stuff every day. I get extremely bored seeing Amanda and Sam tell each other how much they love one another... when I know they will bicker in the next episode and then REPEAT that same stuff about love and caring again. At times the show is like a commercial for a dating service. Everyone seems so happy and merry, I get reflux. 

4. The show seems confused at times at where is going. That's a storyline-plotting critique. There are periods where I've felt that not only the pacing is wrong... but overall the storylines are not going anywhere. There are positives in this - you can build characters, write fascinating dialogue... but still. My husband starts asking - so... when is Iris going to do something. She's just talking about it and nothing is happening episode after episode. I always tell him - TRUST THE SLOW BURN. But still... sometimes it doesn't feel like a slow burn, but just... confusion. Still I consider it a slow burn and trust it. 

5. Felicia Gallant. The more and more I watch... the more I struggle to see how this character fits in the show. She's just like an odd man out... I'm not saying you can't have a character like this, but she is really out of place for me. Her storylines are not connected to the other characters as much... and she seems like an All My Children character that got lost in sea... and ended up in Bay City. I still love her... but... still - she feels like she doesn't belong in the show. Maybe that will change in the future. Maybe not. We'll see. And I'm also struggling to understand why her Joan Crawford wardrobe is always worn in kitchens and these incredibly domestic settings. I swear I remember seeing Felicia have breakfast in a MET Gala gown. It's cute... but I'm also... split about it. Can't decide how I feel. 

 

 

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

    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • I'm screaming at those clips and gifs.  THIS IS PURE GOLD.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • That's always been my thought. I can't imagine that the show would play up the unseen AD so far in advance without them casting a *star*. After today's episode, I wonder if he'll somehow be connected with Diane. It was strange that Diane mentioned her very distant family today. I can't recall Diane ever talking about her backstory. Maybe he's her much younger brother?  It's also possible he's connected to Diane during her time in LA. Sally's already said she crossed paths with him. OC, I think Dumas is Mariah's mistake.... As a side note, it was good to see some mixing it up - Adam with Clare/Kyle and Sharon with Tessa.
    • Here's the place to share some memorable criticism. You don't have to agree with it, of course (that's often where the fun starts). Like I mentioned to @DRW50, Sally Field was a favorite punching bag in the late '80s and early '90s.   Punchline (the 1988 movie where she and Tom Hanks are stand ups): "It's impossible to tell the difference between Miss Field's routines that are supposed to be awful, and the awful ones that are supposed to be funny." -- Vincent Canby, New York Times. "It's not merely that Field is miscast; she's miscast in a role that leaves no other resource available to her except her lovability. And (David) Seltzer's script forces her to peddle it shamelessly." -- Hal Hinson, Washington Post. "As a woman who can't tell a joke, Sally Field is certainly convincing. ... Field has become an unendurable performer ... She seems to be begging the audience not to punch her. Which, of course, is the worst kind of bullying from an actor. ... She's certainly nothing like the great housewife-comedian Roseanne Barr, who is a tough, uninhibited performer. Sally Field's pandering kind of 'heart' couldn't be further from the spirit of comedy." -- David Denby, New York   Steel Magnolias: The leading ladies: Dolly Parton: "She is one of the sunniest and most natural of actresses," Roger Ebert wrote. Imagining that she probably saw Truvy as an against-type role, Hinson concluded it's still well within her wheelhouse. "She's just wearing fewer rhinestones." Sally Field: "Field, as always, is a lead ball in the middle of the movie," according to Denby . M'Lynn giving her kidney to Shelby brought out David's bitchy side. "I can think of a lot more Sally Field organs that could be sacrificed." Shirley MacLaine: "(She) attacks her part with the ferociousness of a pit bull," Hinson wrote. "The performance is so manic that you think she must be taking off-camera slugs of Jolt." (I agree. If there was anyone playing to the cheap seats in this movie, it's Shirley.) Olympia Dukakis: "Excruciating, sitting on her southern accent as if each obvious sarcasm was dazzlingly witty," Denby wrote. Daryl Hannah: "Miss Hannah's performance is difficult to judge," according to Canby, which seems to suggest he took a genuine "if you can't say something nice ..." approach. Julia Roberts: "(She acts) with the kind of mega-intensity the camera cannot always absorb," Canby wrote. That comment is so fascinating in light of the nearly 40 years Julia has spent as a Movie Star. She is big. It's the audience who had to play catch up. And on that drag-ish note ... The movie itself: "You feel as if you have been airlifted onto some horrible planet of female impersonators," Hinson wrote. Canby: "Is one supposed to laugh at these women, or with them? It's difficult to tell." Every review I read acknowledged the less than naturalistic dialogue in ways both complimentary (Ebert loved the way the women talked) and cutting (Harling wrote too much exposition, repeating himself like a teenager telling a story, Denby wrote). Harling wrote with sincerity and passion, Canby acknowledged, but it's still a work of "bitchiness and greeting card truisms." The ending was less likely to inspire feeling good as it was feeling relieved, according to Denby. "(It's) as if a group of overbearing, self-absorbed, but impeccable mediocre people at last exit from the house."
    • I tend to have two minds about Tawny (Kathy Najimy) fainting during Soapdish's big reveal. You're the costume designer, if anything, you should have known the whole time. I guess it's an application of what TV Tropes calls the "Rule of Funny." Every time I watch Delirious, I always want the genuine romance in John and Mariel's reunion at the deli counter to last longer. Film critics had their knives out for Sally in this period. I'll start a separate thread on the movies page.
    • I don't think so, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was Dumas this whole time.
    • Tamara Tunie was serving up grand dame diva fierceness.
    • Nick told Victoria that he and Sharon had married in England.  Victoria was shocked.  Then she realized he was kidding.  He confirmed it was a joke and they're platonic. I don't even know what to say about that.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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