Jump to content

GH: June Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Members

There is no justification for Luke has become. Why would Lucky regret raising kids that are not biological his? Does Mac regret raising Robin, Maxie and Georgie? Children are not responsible for the circumstances of their conception. Loving a child can never cause regret unless you are man without a soul like Luke. Besides Lucky is a young man who still may have his own biological children with Liz or with another woman, not that I think that he would love them more than Cameron and Jake. Bet Luke would have no interest in his biological grand children. Anyway this is all a smokescreen so that TG can spew his hatred all things Luke and Laura and their offspring. Hell, Luke doesn't even like Lulu that much more than he likes Lucky. She is too judgmental and clingy which seems conveniently forgotten for plot purposes. All Luke wants a clone like Boba Fett. It is embarrassing to watch. On some level, GH knows this which is why they are trying so hard to whitewash the criticism and make Lucky back down.

Nikolas and Rebecca are creepy and repulsive. No more words needed to describe that relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 268
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

He may not but Liz was wrong for creating a smokescreen in which Lucky felt responsible for the child and thought that the child Liz was carrying was his. Now Lucky was tricked into loving said child because his mother lied to him and he was duped. He was tricked into loving a child that wasn't his and now he feels responsible for said child and it was wrong for Liz to put him in that position.

Why is it expected for the other spouse to love children that aren't there's biologically? Especially as a result of cheating? Why are they expected to HAVE to support children that aren't their own? Especially when the paternity was lied about?

I think that is unbelievably unfair to have Lucky expect to love and support these children that he really doesn't have a legal obligation to. Of course now that he and Liz are back together and now that her lies are exposed and she is out of Jasonland and she loves Lucky again which means Lucky has to love Liz and all of her baggage and support them and love them, clothe them, etc. but if they were to seperate he would still feel obligation to those kids. He would still love them and that's the point I think. He is trapped. The trap with Jake was made all the more worse because he loved Jake and thought he was his.

Lucky also doesn't legally have rights to any of those kids.

They are never going to let Lucky have his own kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think Lucky has felt trapped. He has always been close to Cameron and even when he was not with Liz, even when they were barely civil, he told her he'd always be a father to Jake.

Luke didn't say, "I feel sorry for Lucky, he has to raise children who don't have his DNA/he has to raise a son he was tricked into thinking was his," he said Lucky was a failure because he's raising other men's children. At least this explains why he no longer has a relationship with Bobbie -- she must also be a failure.

Lucky is the whipping boy for various Guza favorites, even if he does have a kid, they'd just turn this against him. Look at how much good it did AJ to have his own child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Lucky doesnt care if Cam is his. He is his father, in every way that matters. Its one of the few good thing about his character, IMHO.

as for Jake... thats just a mess.

But whatever, as soon as KMC leaves and the show kills Robin they will go forward with Liz/Patrick and they will raise the boys and emma. We all know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Really? I don't like Will on DAYS, I find the actor completely stiff and boring. New Michael, on the other hand, is really good. Drew Garrett just fit right in on his first day at GH. He can cry on cue, and he has really good screen chemistry with his acting partners on the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's hard to be excited about new talent on GH because the writing is so bad the talent almost always flickers away in favor of mannerisms and phoning it in. At one time, Tyler Christopher was a good actor. So was Maurice Benard. Steve Burton had his moments.

Now that GH has their next generation of misogynist tantrum throwers at center stage, I wonder if they may finally be easing Sonny or Jason out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, let's just hope Drew Garrett isn't another Julie Marie Berman, who started out with so much promise and was quite good, but then became lazy, horrible and over-exposed on this show.

Garrett has a really natural presense on screen though, and I like that he's not the typical looking soap teen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I dont find him stiff and boring at all, esp in the past month i think he has relaxed and come into his own and his growing a lot from day to day.

Thing is Bermans till has it, she even pulls it out from time to time. But shes just sooo lazy all the time.

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

    • The last five or so episodes of season 8 after the Jean Hackney story ended were pretty strong with the Laura/Val friendship breakdown, Ben's PTSD with Val trying to help him, and the start of Jill realizing that Val was as much of a threat to her happiness with Gary as Abby was. I always thought that the Jean Hackney story should have ended at mid season at the latest... and then deal with the fall-out because seeing Ben/Val switch roles with Ben in mental decline instead of Val would have been interesting to explore.  And seeing Val and Laura's friendship suffer also was interesting and should have been explored especially with Karen caught in the middle and Abby both intrigued and amused at the conflict that she didn't cause. However, season 8 was the only Latham run season where Val was well written.  
    • Well, she's not in there sweeping the floors at the end of the night, and you don't bring in an award-winning producer to just sit on their backsides (or hey, maybe you do!). Again, without knowing the specific capacity she's in there working as⏤and it seems as if we are not going to at the present time⏤it's hard to speculate/discuss. I would interpret she's in a role that either would not require being credited, or she's, as others have speculated, is back and not receiving credit for the work she's done. That'd be like saying, per the WGA, all writers must be credited, but as we've seen by those who've worked as fi-core, they don't always receive credit. 

      Please register in order to view this content

       And, if my research is correct, per the DGA, you can request not to be credited for work you do. I could only assume the same would be for the PGA, as well.
    • When Anita read Barbara's letter, it started out with the viewers hearing it in Barbara's voice as Anita read silently. And then Anita saying the next portion aloud while Barbara's voice continued simultaneously. And then ending with Anita alone saying the last part aloud. Excerpt from interview  (link to full interview) The rest may be spoilerish -- Only the nonspoiler part here: I love the idea of reading that letter,” shares Tunie. “And at one point in the script, I think it said that my voice joined her, and [Anita] started reciting the letter from memory because [she] memorized this letter. I suggested to Steve Williford, our director, ‘What if it’s like that moment in Hamilton when Hamilton is writing the resignation letter to George Washington, and then he starts saying it too, and then Hamilton’s voice fades away, and then it’s all George. What if we do something like that?’ And he was like, ‘Oh, my God! I just got chills. Let’s do it!’ So, we did it.” I understood that it worked really well, so I’m really happy about that.”  
    • I think MVJ and Guza made a good team in the launching of the soap, and I'm hoping that the rotation of all stories and characters is maintained once he officially departs from the credits. And so far, Ron C's breakdowns have been decent... but they pop only when he's paired with a good script writer like Jazmin.   I hope once Guza leaves officially... that MVJ is able to reign in Ron C and the dread Jamey G.
    • I read that, but my interpretation was that she is uncredited because it is in a non-production capacity.  In others words, she's not secretly producing, or writing, as some had speculated prior to the confirmation. Her likeliest position would be in a post-production consultant capacity. I assume we agree on this?
    • Errol already confirmed she is back at Y&R and in a non-producing role; this alludes to she is not credited for the role she has.
    • I don't think Lisa served a purpose after the serial killer storyline. The writers never gave her anything to do but be Vicky's nemesis. Joanna Going deserved better. Another example of a character taking over the show and then the writers not having a longterm plan for the character.  Exhibit B: Sally Spencer. Such a missed opportunity. It really angers me how they misused her. She could sing and act and they just threw her away in that sexist nonsense storyline. Once the story was over, they wrote her off. The McKinnons should have lasted for years. I will give the show credit for how they introduced Sandra Ferguson as Amanda. I thought it was expertly done. She comes in and she immediately connected to RKK's Sam. She has chemistry with Matthew and she has realistic conversations with MAc and Rachel. That's how it is done. 
    • Great points, and it has not completely vanished. Leslie on Beyond the Gates fits the trope (she's still not over that Ted lovin' two decades later), though I will say there does seem to be an effort to make her more complex.
    • I understand why people speculate, but I have to say it doesn’t sound very plausible that Jill Farren Phelps would be working at Y&R in any uncredited role. CBS daytime shows are tightly bound by union contracts and corporate oversight, and that kind of informal arrangement would be a major liability in 2025. Before the mergers of SAG-AFTRA and the two WGA branches, it may have been easier to hire someone quietly or off the books. But those days are behind us. With digital payroll, tighter pension tracking, and increased scrutiny from legal and compliance departments, it’s just not the kind of thing anyone can get away with anymore. Most union members, especially producers nearing retirement, would not risk their eligibility or benefits to take an uncredited role. The Producers Guild of America is also very clear about crediting. To even receive the PGA mark, a producer has to be verified through a formal review process. According to their credit certification guidelines (source), "only individuals who performed a majority of the producing functions on a motion picture or television production" are eligible for credit, and those credits must be official and recorded. If someone is functioning in that capacity, they are not supposed to be uncredited. Studios that are union signatories, like CBS and Sony, know better than to skirt those rules. If anyone has a legitimate, primary source confirming that CBS is hiring someone like Phelps in an uncredited production role, I’d honestly be curious to read it. But without that, this just feels like rumor—not reality.
    • I keep thinking about the persistent trend of eroticizing mental illness on Guiding Light. Sonni and Annie were never more compelling, or more attractive to the show, than when they were manic. It played into a recurring theme: strong women undone by their unhinged reaction to sex. The writers were likely inspired by Basic Instinct and the broader wave of neo-noir films in the late '80s and early '90s, where female sexuality was often equated with instability. The result was a crude portrayal, not just of mental illness, but of womanhood itself. Both Sonni and Annie were introduced as sharp, capable women, brought in specifically as formidable antagonists to Reva. They were logical and composed, standing in contrast to Reva’s emotional volatility. That difference made them threatening, but not especially “sexy”—until desire became their undoing. In a very male fantasy, their strength unraveled the moment they slept with Joshua. As soon as they got a taste of Lewis lovin’, they spiraled into scheming lunatics, willing to torch everything to hold on to him. It was part of a larger trend in the culture. Fatal Attraction, Single White Female, and The Hand That Rocks the Cradle all traded on the idea that female desire was dangerous, barely held in check, and always teetering on the edge of madness. Looking back, it's a pretty grim trope. And while it's not completely vanished, I'm grateful we don't see it quite as often today.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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