Jump to content

All Soaps: The Killing of Legendary Characters


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Death happens in real life, unexpectedly, but on soaps sometimes it can hurt the show. Which ones have hurt a show in the long run? Has there ever been a death of a legendary character, one who's rooted in the fabric of the show, where it hasn't hurt the show as much as other's would have thought? Would the now reversed death of Phillip Chancellor III be an example of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I agree that Maureen Bauer's death really hurt Guiding Light, but it wasn't the death of that show. In all honesty, at that point in time, Guiding Light still had over 50 years of history to draw from and appoint a new matriarch. There was Nadine Cooper (who of course they destroyed), there was Vanessa Chamberlin, Holly Thorpe, they could have certainly brought back Nola Rearden sooner and did more with that. They could have turned Beth Raines into the new matriarch, Beth Chamberlin is certainly a very competent actress. An impact is often felt when the death of a legacy character takes place, but the show must still go on and with a strong writer, a new successor will rise up and take the place of it's predecessor.

In regard to Phillip Chancellor III, his death had a real impact on the show which drove story for years. Katherine once said to Jill, "You will never escape me." Katherine was responsible for the death of Phillip II, the love of Jill's life. Jill blamed Katherine for the death of her son, Phillip. There was an irony in that story which held true to that sick bond between Kay and Jill. Something that would keep their rivalry going for decades to come. That when Phillip IV was old enough to learn the history between those two women, he would see how his father really died and understand the cause of his death and the deep rooted hatred between his grandmother and Kay. Maybe it would have been better for Phillip to fall into a coma and when he woke, he left Genoa City. But that wasn't the path Bell chose and maybe Bell thought it was a mistake to kill off Phillip III, but it did not hurt Y&R. I personally believe that the death of Phillip III should have never been reversed. Furthermore, Bell wrote strong women, and Nina, Kay and Jill were and still are strong women. His death allowed us to see them develop into a more stronger role, the widowed mother and wife (Nina), the damaged mother who lost both her husband and son (Jill), the woman who took away his father and carried such deep regrets (Kay).

As for General Hospital, Georgie's death was unnecessary, as was AJ Quartermaine's, Emily Quartermaine's, Stefan Cassadine, Kristina Cassadine, Justus Ward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A big pet peeve of mine is killing off legendary characters, only to have them return as ghosts soon after killing them off. Alan Quartermaine, John Abbott & James Stenbeck are three of the more recent examples.

Also, if you're going to kill off legendary characters, please don't insult our intelligence and bring them back 20 years later - i.e. Jesse on AMC and Phillip on Y&R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

killing them doesnt bother me. like losing Georgie on GH for example was a big loss, but it could have been okay if the death was done right (not like it was..) the fallout was played for every beat (the start of it was then they dropped the ball with everyone but Maxie, and even now they have moved her past it) and they have other like characters around (they didnt. and losing Emily a month before didnt help)

Its all in how its done.

I dont think anyone on any soap is untouchable actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think anyone should be "safe" but it has to be done well or else the show will suffer. If shows were written properly it shouldnt matter but when they put their eggs in the same basket with characters then take a chance and kill that character off, the show suffers for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think killing off Stuart Chandler will hurt AMC in the long run. AMC has a short supply of characters like him. I think TPTB have killed too many characters in recent years and a lot of those deaths have been very short sighted and the fall out has been poorly done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

^^ I bet you anything they did that so they don't have to pay DC twice. Apparently, since he is credited twice, he must be paid twice as per SGA rules. I read that once. I bet other people's nose were out of joint they didnt get twins. Watch Pratt bring on a second Luner... twice the actress that doesn't disagree with him :) That'll show all the others right? LET THIS BE AN EXAMPLE TO THE REST OF YA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thank you it really pisses me off when they KO them but I have to look at a friggin' ghost what is the point dramatically its asinine

I agree that people die in real life but this is a drama, fiction many deaths of core characters alienate viewers and are senseless plot points that lead nowhere

GH has not and probably will never fully recovered from the quick deaths of Emily/Alan/ Georgie all in the same year.

When a core character dies it should mean something there should be serious drama around them prior to their demise. Not just some sweeps stunt,

which most of them are. I'll never get over them koing Georgie then handing her storyline with Spinelli to Maxi. It was more than obvious what was going on here. Prior to that Georgie was literally pouring the their fav whom was being highly marketed coffee at Kellys. I knew then she was on her way out.

Emily is a very much needed character IMO and there is a big hole in the show with her gone that Rebecca can never fill for me.

These dramas are about old (history) as well as new characters being introduced for me. There is so much that they give the bum's rush to and waste my time with their newbies while I'm still waiting for old story to play out.

Can it hurt the show? Absolutely IMO most of the deaths do why kill off popular characters?

It doesn't make sense.

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

    • @TaoboiI ran into Dani’s favorite party planner again tonight

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I think they’re desperately trying to cover his awful tattoos. But anyway them being unable to style short kings properly has been a major pet peeve of mine for a while now.  I honestly don’t understand what some people expect from actors to even begin considering them for recognition. Let’s be real—awards mostly mean that an actor is respected by their peers and has some level of cultural relevance. Actual judgment on the acting itself? That’s often secondary—highly subjective and shaped by the times. I completely agree on both points. If you’re an actor or a dancer you shouldn’t get any tattoos (sorry not sorry). Tomas’ tattoos are ugly too. And regarding the couples- you’re completely right. These writers are unable to write romance.   Further comments: - Kat cannot be this dumb to keep tampering with evidence over and over again. And I’m officially not a fan of the actress—every time she’s in a scene with Leslie, she doesn’t seem intimidated at all. She plays it like comic relief, which is just too much, especially when paired with Leslie’s histrionics and over-the-top antics. Leslie is older, dangerous, and has literally been portrayed as homicidal—Kat should be at least a little scared. • I also didn’t like Kat playing damsel in distress with the hotel manager. It gave off the same weird energy as Dani with the cop. I would’ve much preferred the version Paul Raven suggested, with her sneaking in through housekeeping. • And yes, Dani again accused Hayley of faking the pregnancy—this time even specifying she might be using a pillow under her shirt. (No fake miscarriage being mentioned) I stand by my take: this is ridiculous writing. No one in the real world—except us, the chronically online soap watchers—would even think of such a conspiracy theory. Haley is no Beyoncé. • What in the world was Chelsea wearing in her hair the other day? And this whole thing with Madison is beyond cringe. Chelsea’s coming off as needy and toxic—basically like every other Dupree. • I’m glad the casino storyline is moving forward, but it’s still boring as hell. Honestly, I’d be so here for a plot twist where Vanessa and Doug take Joey out. • The direction and editing lately have been rough. Abrupt cuts, weird pacing… something just feels off overall. There’s a strange uneasiness to how it’s all coming together. • And finally: Tomas is too much of a saint. Where are the messy sluts when you need them? (Vanessa doesn’t count.)
    • I was watching some August 1987 episodes and they brought back so many memories. I had some thoughts: Lisa and Jamie were so dull. Lisa was such a nothing character. It boggles my mind that so much story was centered around her in such a short amount of time. Joanna Going is a talented actress, but the material was just not there.  It was so good to see Wallingford and Mitch again. I know there was talk about Felicia a while back, but these episodes reminded me how integral Felicia was for the show.  Sally Spencer was done so dirty. She is turning in superb performances in an icky storyline. I wish she had stuck around longer. She has chemistry with everyone. The McKinnons should have lasted longer. Spencer had some strong stuff with Stephen Schnetzer and Mary Alexander. AW waster such a talented actress by getting rid of her. Justice for Cheryl too. I also missed Ed Fry when he left. Sandra Ferguson was a star from the moment she came on. She was charismatic and just popped. She had immediate chemistry with RKK and blended in well with Wyndham and Watson. I'd forgotten about the teenage Matthew.  I have no memory of Peggy Lazarus. She must not have lasted long. Was the original plan for John that he was going to turn out to be the twins' real father?      
    • If the new and improved copies that @rsclassicfanforever has uploaded can be manually moved into the "by month, by year" folders, that would be awesome. I personally don't think it's necessary to keep the older versions (which either have Dutch subtitles hard coded on them, or are lesser in picture quality). That's a lot of valuable drive space that could be cleared. Just my view but can appreciate others may feel differently. The structure had been by month by year previously, so I think it would be easier to conform to that, where so much prior work to get it to that format has already been done. Hopefully you can "drag and drop" so the new copies are in the right month/year? Re Clips, I never look at them now we pretty much have the episodes in full. Appreciate others may use, however. Thanks for all your hard work here @BoldRestless!
    • Oh yes defintely, Josh Griffith repeats and repeats the same storylines.
    • Isnt’t this storyline similar to the Cameron Kirsten situation though? Sharon thought she killed him. He ended up being alive and Sharon was being tormented with thinking she was seeing his face everywhere and that’s how we got that iconic scene with her and Nikki in the sewers.   I understand in Mariah’s case this is different circumstances but it does seem like a play on that whole thing. Maybe I’m wrong. I just wish if they were going to make any character follow in Sharon’s foot steps it would be Faith. Mariah wasn’t even raised by her, and her personality is different. I would expect her to take a different path. I understand I could be completely jumping ahead because the storyline hasn’t even played out yet but we’ll see. 
    • Thanks again @Paul Raven Monica was completely without redeeming qualities at this point. I always found the whole Monica = Carly narrative regressive, as I don't think shows comparing characters so heavily is ever a great idea, but she's actually worse than Carly was. Was it the Pollocks who had Leslie have a miscarriage?  Giving her a child, especially by rape, was not a good idea, but a part of me wishes they'd committed to it just to see what story it might have had in later years.
    • @janea4old Your detailed explanation and delving into the psychology and motivations is no doubt the opposite of what we will see onscreeen. As @ranger1rg stated we will get a few scenes and some sketchy explanations. Like the adoption of Aria, most of it will take place off screen.
    • I'm suddenly fearful that DAYS is going to pull a Flowers-for-Algernon stunt and Bo's progress will be reversed.  While @te. is stuck on Abe's tiny bedroom, I can't stop thinking of the size of Bo's huge hospital room.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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