Jump to content

GH: September Discussion


Recommended Posts

  • Members

are we talking actual popular pairings or just ones you prefered?

because she was super popular with JJ's lucky. Ric. Jason.

She also has a pretty big fanbase with GV's Lucky and her and Zander were also popular.

wtf does ingo have to do with anything? By the way - he had what, three really popular pairings? Brenda, Sky, and i guess Alexis?

He and Carly have a fanbase, i love them, and hes got fans with other pairings but i wouldnt say really popular ones.

is Bh a chem magnet? no. Nobody on Gh really is to be honest, but shes a good actress who tries hard to sell any crap they give her and she has had chem with every man they have paired her with, save JY's Lucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 228
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Good points. I had not considered the role that the network and executives may play in pushing specific couples and stories onto the soap mags. I took the soap mags' comments made to Roger Newcomb at WeLoveSoaps about how they choose who is on their covers at face value. The soap mags tend to repeat covers that sell well so I still think that coverage in the soap mags gives some indication of the popularity of a character or couple in the wider audience though it is not definitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

what could have been...

10-26_044.jpg

10-26_053.jpg

10-26_055.jpg

10-26_108.jpg

10-26_116.jpg

10-26_117.jpg

However, that was @ three years ago, back when Laura Wright joined the show and L&L2 were about to get married and honeymoon on a luxury train.

Now, though? Guza is *never* going to show Lucky this way again. Not only because GV looks so damn HOT on those caps, but because Guza knows fans would probably rather see some Love in the Afternoon rather than Sonny doing his "you're dead to me" speech to Carly/Brenda/Alexis/Olivia/Kate/take your pick.

Greg Vaughan is being punished. For asking he could have more work. For asking to be put on recurring so that he could audition elsewhere. For daring to audition elsewhere (at DOOL, for one thing).

If L&L2 are never going to happen, though, then I still stick by my feeling that the Liz/Nik kiss was hot. It's all subjective, I know. I don't see why Liz/Rebecca Herbst is being slated so badly, though. She certainly isn't anywhere NEAR the Anti-Chemistry that is Lulu. Or Spixie. And one kiss and Liz is the whore of Babylon? Are we forgetting the fuckfest that was JaSam's reunion two weeks' ago? Jason has no reason to feel aggreived whatsover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But no one has come on here to tell us these people are chemistry magnets. When and if they do, I have no doubt many people will voice their strong disagreement. As you say, it's subjective, although I would argue that it is not completely subjective. For whatever reason, there are cases where a huge majority see the chemistry (Luke & Laura, Bo&Hope). I don't think GH has any couples like that right now though and I don't have much hope they ever will under this writing regime.

Liz isn't a whore, but she is about to screw Lucky over again with his own brother, right after lying to him for nearly a year about Jake being his. If she doesn't want him, she needs to stop screwing with him and let him go once and for all.

Has anyone said he does? If so, I missed it, but Jason himself even said Liz has the right to be with whomever she chooses. He's concerned that Jack will be hurt if Liz and Lucky part ways in a nasty manner, but I think that's a legitimate concern. Not that I care much about Jason's concerns myself, but it at least made some sense. Who knows, maybe Jason will ultimately claim his child, since many fans seem to want that to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am a bit curious as to how someone can know whether or not a certain couple is liked beyond their fan base. How can you tell whether or not the general audience also likes a certain couple?

I have never been a fan of the character Elizabeth but there have been times when she's come off as very sympathetic...most specifically during her rape s/l. The writing and acting of the story of her and Lucky getting together was terrific. Since Jonathan Jackson's departure the writing (and sometimes portrayal) of Lucky has been bad to awful.

Viewers attitudes toward Elizabeth as well as the other characters depends on how emotionally involved in the show they are. I tend to think that online there is this heightened emotional aspect that someone who isn't invested doesn't experience.

The basic formula for soaps has been to put couples together and break them up and maybe put them back together again. Had I never ventured to an online soap site I wouldn't know that all this possessiveness and obsessive behavior existed over soap couples. The idea that this or that couple was broken up or destroyed to make room for some other couple being so painful is kind of sad because soaps are supposed to work like that. The storytelling is not about eternal soul mates (even if some people want to believe that). Since groups of viewers wear their soap viewing hearts on their sleeves and open themselves up to manipulation by the writers or Brian Frons, etc. then they will continue to take all of this too personally.

All I ever looked for was decent writing and acting. I don't care who gets thrown together if the writing supports the union and as long as the acting doesn't drain the energy out of a scene. Sure I would have preferred them to let the whole Lucky and Elizabeth thing go when they stuck him with her sister. I didn't think that writing was in line with how loyal Lucky was previously written to be but I would have been over it if the writing had improved for Lucky instead of declined.

As far as I am concerned, Jason and Elizabeth didn't flop. In order to do that they would have to have been in an actual romantic relationship with writing that supported it. Two seconds here and there repeating how they couldn't be together does not a relationship make.

Jason was always depicted as so loving and dedicated to Michael. He was willing to pretend to be Michael's father to keep him away from the allegedly "evil" AJ. Now there's this horrific writing that finally makes him a father after all these years, only to have his son's safety used as the reason he can't be part of his life. Since they had no intention of writing a proper romance with Elizabeth, they should not have given them a child together. The one night stand and "we still can't be together but maybe one day" speech would have been sufficient.

The pairings are not and have never been the issue. I can sit through those if the writing is good enough (although Ned and Alexis' sister was extremely gross to me). The writing has been an issue for years and even though I check back now and then to see if anything has changed, they lost me as a viewer on the basis of the writing. I passed the habitual viewer stage awhile back. My idea of romance is not between a man who threatened to kill a woman and the woman he threatened to kill. There's nothing captivating about that kind of writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Do you really expect to see Jason apologize on this show? Maybe you somehow missed the memo (or should I say edict), but Jason Morgan is never wrong. Jason came as close as he ever comes to pursuing someone when he told Sam that he wanted to go to the carnival and that he wanted to go with her. I was shocked he even gave that much. It's almost like Jason is acting like a soap character right now. Almost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Liz's stories are always like a bad parody of a soap heroine. Poor Liz is always so tortured. She is forced to make the difficult decision in spite of what she wants. She stayed with Lucky because she was afraid he'd relapse. She split with Jason (before they had any real relationship, meaning the show could continue to treat them as the Peter Pan of coupledom) for the sake of her children. Now she is splitting with Nik - a relationship which came out of nowhere and seems to be based on Nikolas leering at her and looking like he's going to put his hand up her skirt - because...why again? Oh, she doesn't want to hurt Lucky. And then when Lucky finds out the truth, he will be the idiot and the villain, and Liz the long-suffering saint.

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

    • 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.
    • Elements of it were silly, but it was a small price to pay to get Zas back. I should say there's a difference between in town and out of town returns. It's understandable for Roger to skulk around town in a bad wig and clown suit when he's in Springfield and running the risk of bumping in to people he knows.  Taking us out of town to find someone always has a short shelf life. Then it usually becomes about another character knowing X is alive but determined to keep them out of Springfield. Like Alan discovering Amish Reva. I don't know how long it went on, but it was probably twice as long as necessary.
    • Elizabeth Dennehy complained on the Locher Room about how ridiculous so much of the writing was for Roger's return. She laughed at so much of Roger's antics and how it was hard for her to take them seriously. Probably another reason she was fired as she didn't play the game.  
    • Only thing I enjoyed was Abby / Olivia, etc., and the addiction storyline. Otherwise, I could do without the season.
    • Right? Vanessa had a ball gown for every occasion.
    • Roger's return storyline may have been silly but Roger's return was what lead to GL's last golden era.  It was the combination of Roger's return and Robert Calhoun becoming EP that got GL to finally hit it's stride after some really bad years. It will always disappoint me that the ratings during Robert Calhoun's run didn't reflect the quality of the show.
    • He also gave some of the best episodes, like the episodes surrounding Doug's death. The problem with Days was that Ron had a horrible vision from he top. I don't feel the same for MVJ and nothing that has happened in all these months suggests she doesn't have a handle on the show. Now if it becomes an issue I'll acknowledge it, but I'm not seeing it so far.
    • Jean Hackney was awful and that lead to Ben's exit story which sucked. I liked Ben/Val together. Val's love for Ben was that of a grown woman moving on with her life and Ben's love for Val made him willingly decide to raise another man's children as his own.
    • It wasn't just a GL thing, it was an 80s thing. Opulent party scenes on soaps were very big back then. Even in regular episodes where people are just going to dinner they're dressed up like they're going to see royalty.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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