ATWT: December Discussion

[Saving ATWT]

Goutman and Co. have, especially over the past two years, totally trashed the show. Remember when they recast three members of the teen set (Jade, Maddie and Lucy) last Christmas? Why have there been four Craig's in five years? Why cry over budget yet never ask Roger Howarth to take a pay cut? I actually love Roger's version of Paul but his pay proves they had enough money for Martha--and, yes, she did leave over the issue of a paycut. How did World Turns go from a 2.3 HH rating in 2007-08 to a 1.9 HH rating 2008-09?

I agree with Khan in regards to his Carly ideas. In many ways Carly is Lisa 2.0 and Jack is Bob without the stethoscope. In the late 1990's this was so glaring but, then, TPTB pulled away from this vibe. I'd dare to also compare early Julia to a young Kim. I thought Carly was destined to marry 8 times and get rich. In fact, I think ATWT is the only soap in which the lead vixen isn't loaded with cash. I've always thought Lisa and Carly should have had a stronger relationship--almost like mother and daughter. Carly could have gone to Lisa for advice in a manner like Katie does with Nancy.

Ruxton was right bout the Lib/Parker stories. Also, who the hell would name their daughter Liberty! Her name is almost as painful as her character and that's saying a lot.

ATWT is nothing but wasted potential. I'm still just hoping someone, such as Lifetime, picks up the show. If it helps, I'd take the head writer post for free ;-)

[DRW50]

I think Maura's talents always suited Carly more as a misunderstood heroine, or antiheroine, than a vixen. Early Carly had the pout and the sneer but there was a vulnerability about her which made her more sympathetic and more complicated than Rosanna, who was the poor little rich girl, and who suffered from overexposure. I cared about Carly and wanted her to find some sort of happiness.

Broderick and FMB spent a lot of time trying to make Carly a vixen but again I didn't think this worked. Their overly complicated stories rendered Carly into some sort of joke -- Lisa married 8 times, but she didn't marry 3 men in one year. Making her the bad girl compared to Julia also did not work for me because I thought Julia was a vapid twit. Kathryn Hays had a great deal of strength and control which drew you to Kim. Annie Parrisse...she was good at playing the psycho Julia, at least in small doses, but then, it's easier to play a psycho than a heroine.

[rcsnj]

Sorry, but Lynn Herring and Stuart Damon are not hair models in any respect. They're talented actors who have entertained viewers for many years -- actors who were thrust onto our screens by desperate writers who simply don't have a clue how to write.

[P.J.]

Talent is in the eye of the beholder. However, I wasn't targeting Damon. I found Lynn Herring utterly annoying in the role of Audrey. And that story was shoved down my throat for three months. The only "talent" I saw was her ability to wiggle around in her high heels. Among the ABC "hair models", I'd include Howarth, Wilson, Pinson, Shriner, Brown, March and Lindstrom. The only true "catch" I found was McClain, who impressed me with her ability to be a bitch, when her reputation was built on playing the heroine on AMC.

[Saving ATWT]

I've got to say that Roger Howarth has good hair. As for Pinson, b*tch is wearing a wig!

Question: Why is everyone so down on Howarth's Paul? I like watching him interact with Babs and Emily.

[Soapsuds]

He just isn't Paul. He doesnt have any qualities the previous Pauls had. Even John Howard(model Paul) I personally liked. I just can't see CZP and AH being parents to Roger Howarth. Roger H just sucks the life out of Paul.

I am sure others like PJ have insight on why Howarth isnt Paul.

[DRW50]

I don't think they ever brought him on to be Paul. I think they wanted him to be Todd Manning, only this time Todd could do sex scenes and wasn't a rapist. All the angst and the twitchiness was Todd more than Paul. I was disappointed because I hated the idea of Paul needing to be "edgy" or "dark." Few things bore me faster than when a soap thinks a man needs to brood or shout or act like a brat to be interesting. ATWT did this with Paul and Craig and Dusty and it just helped turn the show into a very cold, dark, depressing place.

[P.J.]

IA---I hated the abrupt rewrite of Paul from Scott Hoylrod's portrayal to Roger Howarth's. Sheffer retooled Paul into a dark villain---prone to mood swings, great cruelty and made him an amoral vortex. I can admit, there are times Howarth manages to imbue the character with humor and caring--but it's usually reserved to scenes with children. Personally, I thought it was one of Hogan's biggest mistakes---and the BS explanation that "the writers" weren't interested in writing for SH's version...when they had no trouble writing for Howarth---ever. To me, it's much more interesting to see a "good" person lose their way and fight their demons than to recast and "shade" the character so drastically.

[EricMontreal22]

Carl's spot on that they essentially hired him to play Todd with a new name--often I'd actually blame the actor, and I do think Roger is overated and not very versatile butin this case he is playing the role exactly as they wanted him to

[Saving ATWT]

Wow...everyone really does have strong feeling on Roger Howarth. See, I wasn't a big fan of the previous Paul so the shift just wasn't as jarring. Also, I have no problem seeing the son of Babs and James as being a dark, brooding, edgy guy: if James was Marland's gothic masterpiece well then shouldn't his son be neo-gothic. I remember Marland's Paul but he was basically a kid and a member of the goodie goodie Hughes family. I do remember Paul being under the care of super-shrink Dr. Michaels due to all the James trauma.

I tend to like slick, dark, sleezy charactors. Kind of ashamed but I find Roger sexy! I'm probably the only one here who actually likes Mick Dante. He was great today with that calling the cops on Meg thing. I swear, he really did sound like Emily.

[DRW50]

I thought what made Paul more interesting was that he didn't become a brooding wannabe type. He was a good person with some dark impulses. When Marland wrote for Paul, Paul was in a tortured fling with Emily, who made him a man, so to speak. Then when James tried to rape Emily, he killed James. This was all angst which worked effortlessly because it was such a contrast to the nice person Paul wanted to be. When someone is moody and dour and crazy all the time, then everything just blurs together. It also diminishes James, because there's no longer any push and pull.

[Saving ATWT]

I still see Paul as having the same push pull. Examples of this would be: what he is currently doing for Meg; his urge to pass on James' money and allow Henry to take it; the women in his life--with the exception of Emily, they all make him want to be a better man. He gets drawn to the 'light,' for lack of a better term, only to ruin things because of his insecurities and need to control. The writers suck but they have made this somewhat clear. Also, I still fell the push/pull between him and James. Over the summer, James did everything in his power to bribe Paul yet Paul never gave in.

I feel like people want Paul to be a clone of Barbra circa 1985: a wounded doe discovering self-empowerment who's gonna wash that James right out of his hair. I found the charactor of Paul to be a bit smothered at about the time he flipped his last name to Ryan.

[Actor87]

P.J.--I'm with you 110% on this. Scott H. was the only Paul I've known besides Roger H. and...in short: RH is NOT Paul; SH was...but, as PJ said, they got bored writing Paul as a good guy with demons, so when Sheffer took over, he re-tooled Paul to be a demon with good guy tendencies....which is soooo not Paul. Paul worked his whole life NOT to be like his father, but that's exactly how he's become. I find it ironic that JP/CG/co. blamed it all on a brain chip once they realized the reinvented-Paul had run its course.

I don't know what brought this reply about. I'm too lazy to click back to page 9 and see, but......A-FREAKIN-MEN, Peej!!!

As for the Christmas Eve epsiode, I thought it was wonderful. A little cheesy at times, but overall...pretty darn good. "We were supposed to have forever"---Best. Line. Ever. !!!!!!!!........*ahem* And then we jump forward to the Christmas Day episode that, without Hensley, Hubbard, and Widdoes, would've royally stunk!!! Those 3 were the only ones that made that episode for me. The writing wasn't on course like it has been. If I didn't know better, I woulda thought the actors were acting out a high school play....both acting-wise and dialogue-wise. NB, VH, and JS aren't going to get away with phoning it in much longer. The actress that plays Faith is usually pretty good, but even she looked like she was reading from a teleprompter.

The beginning of Monday's show seemed like it was the continuation of some marvelous Friday cliffhanger, but....it wasn't. Was anyone else put off by that????? I caught myself trying to remember if I had skipped an episode.

Tom Pelphrey went a little overboard (go figure) with Mick's phone call to the cops. Waaaaay too dramatic for my tastes. And what's up with the quivering hands thing he does whenever his nose starts bleeding?? Sheesh! *eyeroll*

The rest of the episode was pretty good. P.J.'s gonna hate me, but I really enjoyed the Janet/Jack talk. They pointed out all the flaws in their relationship and both made commitments to work on them. Maybe it was the writing, but I could totally see Janet's reasoning behind kissing Dusty. Her husband spent Christmas with his ex-wife instead of her...his wife. Call me crazy, but....I'm starting to actually feel bad for Janet. And Jack....oh boy, he's a wreck. He can't even look her in the face because he knows that he'll never love her as much as she wants (or needs) to be loved by him. I don't know; I just can't put it into words. Basically, the Jack/Janet talk was superbly written and superbly acted.

Damian: *eyeroll* He won't stop until he has Lily so mortified of Meg that she locks herself in a panic room. Ugh.... Get him off my screen. Seriously.

Oh, and despite how much I loathe Craig, I do have to say that I love their scenes together just for the sole purpose of listening to Carly's venom-filled quips to Craig and Maura West's sensational screen presence while doing so.

[P.J.]

LOL...Dusty, I hate you so much, it's the only reason to explain having to be up at this ungodly hour within minutes of you posting! However, I forgive you for liking the Jack/Janet talk. I'll okay anything that gives Janet enough rope to hang herself and destroy her shredded marriage. I still hate Pinson with her whiny over the top "emoting" and her fake tears running down her face. And I'm not sorry about it either.

And I could listen to Carly bust Craig's chops all the live-long day. Moreover, I adore that Maura's finally been given the go ahead to stop putting up with Craig's BS. There's something different in her tone yesterday that just warms the depths of my inner Carjack soul.

Re: Howarth's Paul...I don't have a problem with him being "darker" than he was under Hoylrod. But, I have a huge problem with the rewrite that his childhood was tortured and awful. Babs was overprotective--but she wasn't BSC until she got burned. So a "child of Babs and James" should be essentially a good person battling his inner demons. Howarth's never played that.

*sigh* Le Carjack...VIVA LA CARJACK!! I'd argue Jack was nearly as hurt by the thought Carly dismissed him as Jan's "confession" she smacked up on Dusty. And where is Jack again....that would be worried about Carly.

[DRW50]

Yes, the Paul history rewrite also bothered me. This was at the same time as Dusty's history was rewritten, and when, in a blatant attempt to throw a pity party for Allison, we had to hear all about how Susan was drunk throughout Allison's childhood, which never happened.

If you have to rewrite this much history then why do you even bother to bring in old characters, why not just dump them and create new characters?