Jump to content

OLTL: Discussion for the week November 2


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Probably, yes. Renee has become all but irrelevant and if Pat complained about the writing Renee could easily go the way of Larry Wolek.

I think one of the problems is there aren't a lot of "beloved" characters left on OLTL in the sense of someone with stature who could oppose gay marriage believably, without looking like a complete hypocrite or an ass. You don't have anybody like Vince Wolek or a Larry Wolek who was basically a decent person with a quiet life. I guess they could have dragged Clint back out of the homophobe box, but in the end the story didn't seem to be that much about the politics of gay marriage and gay marriage probably won't be an issue in the future. Even if OLTL is on in a year or two years, I will be surprised if Kyle and Fish are still there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I agree about rushed and cartoonish but I think being about newbies is probably one of the reasons it kind of worked. Having few ties to the biggest toxic waste dumps on the show meant there was at least some viewing alternative. I also don't mind that they didn't bother to try to manufacture ties or make an old character return as gay, because old characters who return usually end up dead or written out after a short while, unless they are Todd/John props.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think anyone said that Cole and Markko needed to be juvenile homophobes.  I don't think they even needed to be swept into the s/l at all, to be quite honest.  And if they had to be included, they could have been simply neutral or apathetic, having no strong feeling one way or another.  If anything, I think that is probably closer to how young people view the issue today.  Teenagers may be more generally tolerant than they were twenty years ago, but I don't know any who go off on gay-supporting tangents the way that Starr and Langston do, or bother sitting around having round table like chats with their BF/GF's over homosexuality the way those four have this past week.  It was so fake.  I'm sorry, but it was.  They came off like a very plastic, glossily PC educational film strip, and another unnecessary prop for the story.  I have no reason to think that Cole or Marrko (or any of the kids) would be adamantly pro or anti-gay.  I could see them all being either on the fence, or indifferent.

But the way this s/l was set up, you couldn't be indifferent.  The way this was set up, you had to be a 100% gay supporting zealot.  Or damned to that fleeting group of bigoted cartoonish naysayers, who in the end got the kiss off from Roxy.  IRL, it tends to not be quite that black and white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's exactly how they were.

They expressed their feelings about & support for gay marriage but also expressed their disapproval about the way Dorian, Nick & Amelia were going about it.

That's about you & the people you know.

There are people who feel strongly about civil rights.

The "indifferent" people were the ones behind the barricade with the signs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And how is that an example of what you quoted me talking about being neutral or apathetic, having no strong feeling one way or another? If they expressed their support of gay marriage, then that's choosing a definitive stance. Their disapproval of Dorian's scheme is pretty much a separate issue, but in the end you see that they still went that mass gay wedding, didn't they?

And there are people (who like I said) have no dog in this race, but are tolerant of and cordial to other people based on one-on-one (or general) interaction. Again, Starr and Langston came off like a GLAAD-sponsored After School Special.

Then they weren't indifferent. No, the "indifferent" people like John (who doesn't slight Fish for being gay, but also doesn't go out of his way to cheer him on it) tended to their own business, went on about their lives and didn't bother to show up in support or protest. I imagine that the "indifferent" people probably cared more about about the *other* platform issues in this mayoral campaign (although I have to wonder if there were any, certainly doesn't seem like it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

simply saying you support equal rights is far from marching and protesting. There are various levels. They didnt go out of they way to say they support same sex marriage, and showing up at a mass gay wedding doesnt mean much. We had a gay pride here a few months ago and plent of people showed up to see what it was all about.

Thing cole came off exactly like you described. tolerant and cordial. he didnt seem to really be passionate about it. starr and langston were passionate about it tho, and i didnt find that unbelievable. there are tons of teens out there who are heterosexual who openly and passionately support LGBT rights.

i dont think cole or markko would have been involved if it wasnt for starr/langston/dorian. john is very indifferent, and while true cole isnt because he did speak up about where he stands on it, he isnt very far off from indifferent about it. Again, there is more than just against or indifferent or in support of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Markko & Cole WERE neutral.

They supported gay marriage but they weren't advocating for it or against it.

No.

That's their opinion on an issue.

Actively advocating FOR or AGAINST an issue is taking a definitive stance.

It's not.

Their disapproval was directly linked to the issue at hand.

For Langston & Starr.

Which makes their opinion irrelevent.

Starr & Langston came off like young people who were enthusiastic about a cause they believed in.

Had Clint been at the ceremony dressed in pink THAT would have been a GLAAD-sponsored After School Special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Maybe it depends on whereyou live--living in a fairly major city I do think most guys my age or younger, who are going to ollege or university, are more or less comfortable with gays. Marko and Cole weren't planning on going to the wedding--theyw ent cuz of their girlfriends. Marko's in film school where, like all arts depar4tments, there would be more arts people.

I do agree showing more active lack of support would be more realistic but it seemed obvious (and i have many probs with this story) that wasn't the direction theyw ere ever going in. That said soaps, including OLTL 15 years ago (and to a tiny amount a few years back with Marcie's bro) have covered that so much already it seems to me. Most gay storylien son soaps do have them up against characters who don't approve0--AMC in 97 did a good job of showing some fo their "bad" characters were pro gray rights and some fo their good characters more close minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Exactly, just because I think these two are unrealistic doesn't mean I want to see them throwing the other F word around or Markko dumping Langston once he got her in bed or Cole telling Starr to get an abortion or not caring what she does with the kid because it's basically her problem. I don't think these guys are realistic portrays of 18 year olds, but I'm ok with that. If I want that reality I'll watch HBO or volunteer with a youth group. When I'm watching daytime TV I'll take the sanitized version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But why? Because they are heterosexuals who dont have an issue with homosexuals?

I cant belive that people dont know there are plenty of straight teenage males out there who dont care if someone is gay. There are even tons that support it. Look at groups like the Gay-Straight Student Alliance. But again, Markko and Cole were not out advocating for the gays, they just didn't seem to really have an issue with it. I mean, the majority of my friends are straight guys 18-22, an none of them care if a person is gay or not. Some of them are pro-gay marriage, some are not. Some o go out and rally and support the LGBT community, some do not. I think it was a goo realistic portrayl of young guys of today. Of course some have issues with it, and not all are accepting and understanding, but not all are against it either. The only reason they went to the weddings was because of their girlfriends. I seen lots of guys at Pride events with their girlfriends.

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 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.)
    • Andrew sure has hard nips.
    • 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.
    • Okay, why are Paulina and Abe sleeping like that?!  I'd take a screen grab if I wasn't lazy, but come on.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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