Jump to content

OLTL: Patricia Mauceri speaks about her firing


Recommended Posts

  • Members

The point is that when the story was done, in the '90s, Eli was being discriminated against and looked down upon because "gay=HIV" was the prevailing stigma of the era. Carlotta saw past that, and took him in. This is not the first or last time she's done that with wounded birds and objects of scorn from conventional society, Marcie, even Mark Solomon, I believe. To suddenly claim in 2009 that Carlotta, of all people, is against homosexuality like Patricia Mauceri is the height of hypocrisy and character revisionism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I wonder if most of the people commented in this thread have been watchers of OLTL and if you've seen the new Carlotta in action. Having now seen the scenes, myself, of what the new Carlotta was given, I have to say she was written completely out of character. It wasnt so much that she was accepting of a gay son but that she was so quick to beleive Cris was gay. She always suspected it? Um when? Cris has always shown an interest in women. Carlotta thinks that Cris being gay explains why he and Jessica broke up? Um really? It wasnt any of that history with Will and Roxanne? I didnt get why she wouldnt believe him when he told her that he was straight as if she was so happy to have a gay man in her life to go shopping and decorate with her. WTF? The writing was just plain bad and wasnt believable considering the history of all the characters involved. I can see why PM would have spoken against what they gave her

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It was poorly written and would have benefitted from more reflection, but this gay story has been on too much of a fast track anyway. That said, homophobic PM could have played along like everyone else did. I can't see why she would have had a problem with this. She is an actress on a soap. Not a writer. Anything can happen for her. Frankly, it sounds to me like she's dealing with some kind of dementia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I hate Perez Hilton but holla to this post.

Fox News is so painfully obvious in their reporting it's pathetic.

Patricia Mauceri refused to do her job. She got fired. Why is everyone arguing over whether or not the "gay" head writer and "gay" executive producer had the right to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Your character will do whatever the writer says it will do. She wasn't playing Dungeons and Dragons, getting to role play a character and lead it down the story based on her decisions. There really is no way to slice this except she objected to portraying someone who was not critical of homosexuality, and her reasons are she is critical of it herself. But who cares about her and her backwards religious beliefs? Is OLTL now some reality show where we need to know her innermost thoughts? If Carlotta is an axe murderer, a cannibal, a terrorist out to blow up the Banner, or just someone who wears plaid a lot, it does not matter. It's all the same and all she was asked to do was say some lines, content being immaterial to her ability to say them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Did we really need her to publicly admit that? Didn't everyone know this already who looked at the original item with common sense? Not you, but some around here will go through the most twisted contortions in logic before they will ever admit this woman (and that putz from Y&R) is nothing but a hate monger who hates homosexuality so much she couldn't even tolerate fictional homosexuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The gay storyline was bigger than Patricia Mauceri's token rare appearances. She was collateral damage in order for OLTL to tell a gay storyline. I see her being quietly killed off off-screan and then not mentioned again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Whoever that was in the Diner, it wasn't Carlotta. Not a single "Dios Mio" was uttered. It was a disservice to the fans not to have left the backstage drama backstage. They should have written Carlotta as off visiting Adriana or Antonio & Jamie and brought on SS as some Vega or Delgado Aunt who was taking care of the Diner while she was away. It's never a good idea to twist the character to fit the plot, even if it's well intentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've watched Carlotta since her debut. I saw nothing so out of character. First of all, the scene was a simple, quick broad gag bit; it's not supposed to be that deep. If you don't like the gag, that's fine, but let's not try to make it more than it was. Secondly, I could buy the gag - Carlotta's long-held neuroses over her sons' luck in love extrapolated into a wild conclusion that that was why he had never had made it work with Jessica, or Natalie, or Sarah. This is far, far from the first time Carlotta Vega has jumped to wacky ideas to explain things involving her boys or their women. Who can forget Carlotta's endless obsession with Keri Reynolds' credit level? Carlotta's main function in at least the last decade has been as a talk-to and foil for her children and their love interests; she is constantly obsessed with them, constantly brainstorming and getting ideas as to how they can improve their relationships, or picking at them when their romances are rocky. For Carlotta to get the wrong idea and have an "epiphany" about a cure-all for her boys' troubles is not new for her.

It was Carlotta. She loves her boys, and she always thinks she knows best or has it all figured out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was just going to post the same thing. I don't think this issue has ever come up for Carlotta.

For the record, I'm not opposed to actors fighting for the integrity of their characters. I think the genre suffers when there's no consistency and everything appears to be plot driven instead of character driven. It's akin to watching a 'variety' show with its various skits than a continuing daytime drama.

The problem I have is that PM is saying that she and Carlotta are the SAME. Carlotta is a Christian who is opposed to homosexuality because SHE is. That bothers me. Surely there have been other storylines involving Carlotta and her boys that raised PM's hackles because of her religion. Why is this one so different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Carlotta has always been represented as a warm character who takes in all sorts of wounded birds and outcasts. Her faith is a testament to the best of her religion's aspects, not the worst. Mauceri's complaints are bullshit.

Bigotry in a character should never be honored because the actor is a bigot. As a hypothetical, what if Scott Evans had refused to kiss the gorgeous Tika Sumpter because he suddenly decided both he and Fish had a problem with people of color? What if Trevor St. John hadn't wanted to romance Renee Elise Goldsberry? What if Hillary B. Smith didn't want to play opposite Nathan Purdee? Oh, but that's different, of course, whereas this is religion and the gays. Same old double-standard. Everybody shuffle along, you know the tune.

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

    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

         
    • @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.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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