Oh and might I add while I much preferred yesterday's performance from JM I don't think today's was far behind. With that said JM can stand to be better at times when it's obviously called for (am trying to make that sound as little as a backhanded compliment than it probably does). He has mentioned in an interview he's a better actor since being around MS, I so don't see it. I would think aybe he needs to put more emphasis on himself and not his screen partners, in any even his best work to me was the scene where Nick revealed Summer's paternity to Sharon. That's a personal classic between SC and JM for me.

Edited May 23, 200916 yr by classicmoment

Oh and might I add while I much preferred yesterday's performance from JM I don't think today's was far behind. With that said JM can stand to be better at times when it's obviously called for (am trying to make that sound as little as a backhanded compliment than it probably does). He has mentioned in an interview he's a better actor since being around MS, I so don't see it. I would think aybe he needs to put more emphasis on himself and not his screen partners, in any even his best work to me was the scene where Nick revealed Summer's paternity to Sharon. That's a personal classic between SC and JM for me.

I think he's evolved nicely, and he does what is called for. I hated him for his first decade on the show. Loathed him. A pretty boy who in no way seemed like the cultured, Swiss-educated son of Victor Newman.

For me, it was Cassie who made me invest in him. The first moment where I thought "Oh, there's something there" was when Noah "died" shortly after birth. Then, in small scenes where he was trying to become Cassie's father. And then, of course, during the death and aftermath. And finally, in the relationship with Phyllis.

I am trying to understand what SOD continuously puts him or Eric Braeden on the cover. Do these two really move more copies than anyone else. SOD's editor, Lynn Leahey, said "they sell a lot of issues for us". But does this mean Joshua, specially, is one of the two most popular Y&R characters in terms of magazine sales??

If yes, it would suggest that he enjoys substantial popularity with the broad soap-magazine-buying public.

Chloe needs a friend and that's Amber.

Mackenzie & Chloe would work much better.

No, they suffer because most of the other's lack of acting skills.

That too.

But mainly Amber.

He has a tendeny to get very pink too.

Mackenzie & Chloe would work much better.

No, make that a hell no. I don't want Mac's tediousness rubbing off on Chloe. Mac and Billy are already making Chloe pathetic. I love Amber and Chloe's snarkiness. It is fun and entertaining. Let St. Mac go find herself a saintly friend.

Edited May 23, 200916 yr by Ann_SS

I think he's evolved nicely, and he does what is called for. I hated him for his first decade on the show. Loathed him. A pretty boy who in no way seemed like the cultured, Swiss-educated son of Victor Newman.

For me, it was Cassie who made me invest in him. The first moment where I thought "Oh, there's something there" was when Noah "died" shortly after birth. Then, in small scenes where he was trying to become Cassie's father. And then, of course, during the death and aftermath. And finally, in the relationship with Phyllis.

I am trying to understand what SOD continuously puts him or Eric Braeden on the cover. Do these two really move more copies than anyone else. SOD's editor, Lynn Leahey, said "they sell a lot of issues for us". But does this mean Joshua, specially, is one of the two most popular Y&R characters in terms of magazine sales??

If yes, it would suggest that he enjoys substantial popularity with the broad soap-magazine-buying public.

Which further validates the point, there is obviously something there. Sure his screen partners can help bring out the best and worst in him, sounded to me like he under-estimated himself quite a bit. I thought much of his best work did not inclue Stafford (if we are not counting sex scenes). It's not an attack, maybe she did help who am I to say my observation is that there is: 1) the opportunity for growth overall and/or 2) the opportunity do his best or simply better at times (JMO) Overall I like the guy as Nick so its good to me as opposed to bad

Which further validates the point, there is obviously something there. Sure his screen partners can help bring out the best and worst in him, sounded to me like he under-estimated himself quite a bit. I thought much of his best work did not inclue Stafford (if we are not counting sex scenes). It's not an attack, maybe she did help who am I to say my observation is that there is: 1) the opportunity for growth overall and/or 2) the opportunity do his best or simply better at times (JMO) Overall I like the guy as Nick so its good to me as opposed to bad

I agree. Stafford can elevate her scene partners. Heck, I even tend to think she elevated the Bug back in the past.

I don't want Mac's tediousness rubbing off on Chloe.

Amber's shrillness has already rubbed off on her.

Mac and Billy are already making Chloe pathetic.

Desperately forcing men into marrying her made Chloe pathetic way before Billy/Mackenzie.

It is fun and entertaining.

It's petty & childish.

Especially when neither of them are in no place to be judgemental.

Let St. Mac go find herself a saintly friend.

Mackenzie's never been a saint.

That's what insecure skanks like Chloe & Amber project on her.

Overall I like the guy as Nick so its good to me as opposed to bad

Morrow does well against strong actresses but he's not a leading man.

Rauch's gotta push him cause Bergman, Case & Stafford are acting circles around him.

In other words, Stafford likes to be lazy. I agree. When she tries, she's awesome, it's just too often that she doesn't try very hard IMO.

I don't see laziness, the writing has not been the best for Phyllis until recently, Michelle has not had the material to sink hr teeth into, and she has still managed to perform excellently. IMO

I don't see laziness, the writing has not been the best for Phyllis until recently, Michelle has not had the material to sink hr teeth into, and she has still managed to perform excellently. IMO

It doesn't matter if the writing isn't up to par, her job is to act. If she can't do that without phoning it in regardless of the quality of the material, then she is lazy. Many actors act the hell out of throwaway scenes, Stafford's acting in 2007 and 2008 shouldn't be excused for how dull it had gotten.

Pratt is a good writer? Hell no.

Hell, yes!

He's butchered AMC beyond recognition.

No, he didn't!

No, more hairdo discussion!

No, more hairdo discussion!

Who shall we discuss now?