Members MarkH Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 Et tu, JP? Seriously, though, I'll fully admit that the beat of Sharon's being broken has been played explicitly; Nick's not so much. But this raises a whole different question for me...too meta for the episode thread. But did soap viewers really stop doing textual analysis? I can't watch a show, movie, read a book without thinking of characters' underlying motivations, unstated goals, self-delusions, the influence of their history. Maybe it was too many English lit courses in my youth, but I'm always looking for the symbols and themes and I'm definitely trying to connect the dots between where characters have been and where they are now. Surely we all do this, right? So then NONE of us saw Nick get therapy or treatment for his grief. ALL of us have seen him act out of grief--including fully up-end his life (bringing him to where he is now). Just because the writers aren't FEATURING that part of the story, does it make it any less true for Nick? Regardless, I don't agree that Nick used Sharon as some sex-doll without regard to his (or her) feelings. ======= Episode talk (I finally saw Tuesday's show during the 6 am SoapNet broadcast). I enjoyed that a number of stories seemed to get a kick in the pants...and there were a few nice moments too. 1. It was interesting that Nick told Phyllis to take her focus of Sharon, and put it on their relationship. More interesting that he promptly bonded with Faith and Sharon at Trumbles...and that Phyllis paid absolutely no attention! Go Red! Nick seems to be tolerating it in Phyllis a little -- like when he tacitly approved her to go over to Ashley's. He's become Desi to her Lucy...which is how I'd love to see this couple be, long-term. I'm not claiming that this is a good baby switch story (even though I love 'em, but no question that Sheila-Lauren DEFINED the art of the babyswitch two decades ago). Still, I loved the warmth and the irony of Sharon and Nick bonding over their baby. And better late than never that someone is finally being smart in Adam's story! 2. Badly staged or whatever, it was nice to see Ashley finally pursuing that purple 'fragment' of her memory. WHAT I DIDN'T EXPECT -- and very much enjoyed -- is what a nice additional Neil was to that. One of Ashley's problems this summer is that no one believed her. Even her family thought she was crazy. Neil brought a very different perspective. He knows Ashley is smart, and he knows she is sane. By reinforcing that for her, he strengthened her...and empowered her to keep on pursuing this mystery. And with that --WITH THAT HEALING MOMENT -- I'm now more fully on "Team Nashley" (or whatever their name will be). Very nice moment. 3. Too little too late, but I am enjoying the Noah-Abby bonding. (I'm even enjoying how familiar Abby is with Nick...if we start to see her as a bona fide family member, it might help. Sad how the Carlton's are utterly forgotten). This could have had the feeling of early Billy-Colleen (Tom-Fonseca) scenes... Although Hayley Erin is eminently replaceable, I am sorry her character will be so islanded. But that will probably help her gravitate to Ryder... (JT-Colleen redux??) 4. "So you're the man who sold the rat!" Perfect line! And CLB had such fun saying it. I also didn't mind "All right, how did we get from a couple of hippies doing yoga on an ashram to an evil mind-bending cult?" And this was also very cute, IMO Kudos too to not having Lauren suffer her headaches forever without medical attention. Now that we have ruled out "medical causes" (did they do a tox screen? for mercury perhaps??), we can see this story unfold. Daisy's constant "herbal tea" certainly seems to pack a punch! It makes no sense, with her history of psycho-susceptibility (Shawn Garrett, Sheila) that Lauren has NO radar where Daisy is concerned. I understand she is now being "poisoned" or something, but really.... I find Michael is not aggressive enough in isolating Daisy. Daisy has too much potential to do harm...I don't understand why Michael is not containing the threat a little better. 5. Alas, poor Jana, you never lived up to your potential. There is no question in my mind that Jana spying Daisy-Ryder together (and overhearing their connection) means this character is doomed. Oh well, I actually wouldn't mind seeing Rikaart play grieving widower... 6. I enjoyed that they put in a natural, human piece of business when Phyllis and Neil were converging in Ashley's "cyclone" Those four lines spoke volumes...and it is what would happen in the real world. Nice nod to continuity and basic realism. 7. My favorite part of the preview was Rafe talking to Sharon. I wonder if she'll listen. It seems unlikely.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JackPeyton Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 Yes. 100%. Listen, we dont need to be treated like idiots and talked down to, but if that was the story then they missed not only a huge beat, but the story itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cat Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 I think Nick lives in the moment, like a kid. When he's with Sharon, he is in the moment and is all "I love you!" And then he leaves and goes to Phyllis, perhaps even intending to do the right thing and tell the truth... and then she says or does something and he's no longer in the moment he had with Sharon. He's in the moment with Phyllis. A lot of it is projecting those past intense moments he shared with both women on them then and there. He is unable to anticipate the future, unable to anticipate which woman he should be with going forward. OMG. I love Eileen Davidson. I am such an Ashley fangirl. And I loved the way she did not back down from confronting Adam. ED has been playing the hell out of this maligned SL from Day One. She has given it her all and, honestly, if the SL was solely down to her, she would have saved it by now. I also loved her mentioning her conversation with Nikki at the hospital (that seems like YEARS ago!) and remembering the extraordinary frenemy chemistry that MTS and ED share. And Neil and Ashley was a lovely scene. I loved the way Ashley tenderly held his face and then gave him a kiss on the cheek. And seeing Neil in non-Lily, non-PSA mode was equally as enjoyable. These two might be considered filler by TPTB but, like Nikki & Paul, if they only knew what potential they have here by pairing these two gems together... Hayley Erin and Kevin Schmidt are very good in scenes together. I honestly think she is getting better. Next to Yvonne Zima, she looks like Michelle Stafford. Speaking of, I thought HE performed well in her scene with Stafford. Tracey Bregman + Contract. NOW. I wish I could care. I like Emily O'Brien and all but... the Fishers/Four Mouseketeers have exhausted me and I don't care what happens to Jana. Or Kevin for that matter. Hearing him bitch about having to get up early for work... at a time when people are scrambling around IRL loooking for any kind of job which will help pay the bills and offer some health coverage... it really struck me as insensitive on the part of Y&R. Kevin bitching about the upwardly-mobile job Kay Chancellor threw his way? Really? And I'm supposed to root for his lazy ass? If he doesn't like it, he should go back to what he does best, which is looking shifty and sprinkling some cinnammon on my capuccino. And, no, PLEASE no greiving Kevin! I know Rikaart has the chops but this will become All About Amber, Michael and especially Gloria on no time. In addition, the threat of that Silver [!@#$%^&*] Chipmunk emerging from Kevin's shattered psyche in order to help him get through his grief just does not bear thinking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 Oooh. That is good! Yup. I'm thinking Nashley has more legs than Pikki. (I hate those couple names -- hate them -- but they make me laugh). Truest words! I didn't think about the insensitivity. Honestly, I connected more with the authenticity (i.e., that's how many young folks I know -- albeit younger than Kevin -- talk). LMAO at the bolded part. Okay, you sold me. No dead Jana! Or more to the point, no grieving Kevin! Or let Kevin grieve off screen. Rumor has it the padded cell will be vacant soon.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cat Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 Ooooooooooooo, naughty! Don't say anymore, otherwise you'll get your ass beaten by angry spoiler tags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 No spoiler--I promise!! Just wanton speculation. I promise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cat Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 LOL, I know. Was just messing with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members YRBB Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 Mark, keep on trying to justify. You can come up with as many stories/ideas as you want, but the truth is that the writers do not have any of that stuff in mind. At all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JackPeyton Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 random OT... Tracey E Bregman is gonna be in Rebas new video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lovely_m Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 If Jana does die maybe Kevin will marry Mac like in Billy's nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 This show is such a mess.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 Oooh...I think you may have figured out the next story beat...I wondered why Jana was missing in Billy's dream? But that will turn into a JT-Mac-Kevin triangle (which is interesting, given the old Colleen issues)...since they seem clearly to head toward a Mac-JT romance (at least that's what I'm seeing...and liking so far). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 Not challenging you--really. But I really want to know my answer to the question above. You SAW Nick profoundly damaged (both by Cassie's death...and by his 'doormat' treatment by Victor). Even if the writers aren't saying it explicitly everyday ('oooh, Nick, you're so damaged'), why do you not see this as part of the backstory/subtext that informs Nick's current choices? I'm really interested in this. In all other literature/drama, we certainly wouldn't ignore the backstory. Why--just because the writers aren't signalling it--do we assume the backstory isn't important here? I'm just very interested in the interpretive filter that folks are bringing to their soaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 Um, no more triangles... This awful writing team doesn't know how to write them or when to stop them. Especially when Mac, who would be at the center of it, has been directionless as a character with no personality and purpose since she came back. Mac has not been a defined character with any layers since she was brought back, and Clementine has no chemistry with Rikkart. She has some spark with Luckinbill, but the girl DOES NOT EXUDE ANY SEXUAL CHEMISTRY. This is why they'll never see her as any romantic lead and this is the excuse they'll use to marginalize her further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 The problem with the backstory is that it can vanish on a whim no matter how we use it to interpret. For instance, last year we learned that Sharon had been stealing since she was a teenager, and that her breakdown was caused by Brad's death. Then we learned her breakdown was actually about Cassie's death, not about her teenage problems or Brad, and that everything would be better if she had a baby. Then we learned that she didn't need the baby after all. Are we supposed to apply any of our knowledge of her past to this? Or with Billy. The people who run this show now truly do seem to believe that Billy barely knew his father, Billy was dumped at birth by Jill and grew up all alone, with only the Abbotts as distant relations. This flies in the face of his actual history on the show. So how can we think about Billy's backstory when the show has rewritten all of it anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.