I am a fan and I don't agree that he was fleshed out very well AFTER the BE story which is what I said in my OP. I learned very little about Jared after BE that I didn't already know and that is on RC imo.

Well, what else were we supposed to learn about him at that point? Jared's entire origin story and character motivation was established in his first year on the show - his broken home, his absent father, his idolization of Asa, his choice between love and money for Natalie. All that was played out from 2007 to late 2008. That's what, ideally, should happen with a soap character: They're introduced, we learn about them, we learn who they are and why they do what they do, and they embark on stories or romances to push them in new directions. That's what happened with Jared and his romance with Natalie, renouncing his conman ways. The only problem is after that, OLTL couldn't get any more stories greenlit for Jared and Natalie. Would that have changed if we had learned Jared was born a woman or secretly a bigamist as well? I think Jared's character was what it was and was explored; the problem was not more exploration of Jared, it was lack of new stories being approved by the network.

This is a good point but I feel focusing on Nick and Amelia came at the expense of focusing on Dorian and Viki's feud during the Mayoral race. We saw one debate and very little of their campaign touching upon the heart of what makes Dorian and Viki work. I never advocated for Kish to be isolated but I don't understand why they could not have been drawn into Dorian and Viki's fued. I also didn't understand why both Dorian and Viki have to be pro-gay to win the election?

Firstly, we know why Viki wasn't on very much: Brian Frons. Viki is always downplayed in virtually every story they have given her since Paris, immediately after which, let's remember, Frons allegedly tried to fire RC. But Dorian, I thought was on plenty. As for the other question: Why wouldn't both Dorian and Viki be pro-gay, though? And as per it being an election issue, yes, they played up the issue of "the gay vote," but "the gay vote" does exist. IIRC, OLTL admitted at the time that there was creative license applied in making the GLBT vote such a pressing issue for Viki and Dorian, and one can certainly find fault with that license if they want to. But on a show with a starship from Heaven and an underground city, I found nothing so horribly unbelievable about slightly playing up a social issue in relation to a political storyline; I thought it was very progressive and daring for OLTL to say that this one issue was very important to Llanview - which is a fictional city anyway. This is fiction - why not do it if it sends the right message to the audience?

Fine but why did Moe and Noelle have to come to Llanview. That is the part that is overkill and I don't feel it added to the fabric of the community in any way.

Why did Wanda come back with Joe? Why did Roxy stay on in Llanview with Nat? I mean, YMMV on the characters but this is not the first time we've had such people crop up and stay around on the periphery. I don't mind them, but that's me.

This is why I raised the thread. I used examples that came to the top of my head but yes, I'd like to discuss this issue in depth because it is largely ignored and I see the same thing is happening even in this thread.

Higley was bad. You'll get no argument there. Higley had 2 black actresses on contract.

The difference between her and this regime is she might as well have only had one. Layla did nothing but support Evangeline and Adriana. Oh, and they sang songs for no reason. Until the Kish storyline, there was no reason I could support for Tika Sumpter, lovely though she is, being on contract. She showed her stuff last year.

RC had 2 as well and I liked his stories that he wrote for Rachel and Layla but there is a point of distinction that I noticed as an black viewer. For every point you raised about how Higley viewed Evangeline it was apparent that she loved writing for Evangeline.

Oh my, yes. How she loved. I say that with all sincerity, and all dismay.

I don't feel like RC ever did fall in love with writing for Layla or Rachel. He is on record as saying that he wrote more diversity to address the concerns. I have to say as a black viewer it bothers me.

He said he wrote more characters of color to address the diversity issues on the show and in daytime, which is just the same as any writer in daytime has done over the years, including Agnes Nixon; that's not the same thing as saying, "I only did it because people were complaining, I don't really want them here." Agnes has made very similar statements over the years as to why she created Carla, or why AMC pushed Angie and Jesse - they saw a problem, saw the complaints and addressed them with solid characters. That doesn't mean Agnes doesn't love Angie and Jesse.

RC's sexuality is immaterial to me and the points I'm raising. In fact, I countered SOAPSFOREVER's point by saying that I feel that more people are inclined to give him more leniency because he rose up through the ranks and was the conduit of praise early on.

I don't remember anyone giving a [!@#$%^&*] where RC had come from in the ranks. I certainly didn't. In fact, at the time his HW announcement was made I suspected he would be a hack because he was coming from the existing creative team. IMHO it's a rare thing when anyone from the existing writing staff is a boon to any soap as a HW.

This is what I'd like to discuss. I'm not interested in the cliques or personal biases. I think it's time to critically examine the show's material on a story by basis and discuss what's working. Of all the times to scrutinize the show, I think now is the time.

I was under the impression I've been doing that all along, and I doubt I'm alone.

Edited March 18, 201015 yr by Vee

I think part of it has to do with the fact that his story is what some can relate to or dream of relating to someday; an obvious long time fan works himself up through the ranks at OLTL and becomes Head Writer. This is unlike Sheffer, Higley, Pratt, etc. who most people feel went from soap to soap, treating their position as HW more as a way to gain a paycheck than anything else. Add the fact that his first round of stories (Which had everyone praising him and his work) were derailed by the writers strike, he of course gets the sympathy vote from many.

My biggest gripe with Ron is that he misses some of the most pivotal and most important beats in a story and from there it seems to go off track or is quickly wrapped up with no true lasting affect.

Edited March 18, 201015 yr by MichaelGL

That's definitely where I feel Nelson Branco is coming from, with his "OLTL is the BEST SHOW IN DAYTIME" bullshit. He's just hot for the head writer and executive producer and wants to screw them, both. And, of course, there are people who suckle from Branco's tit and ingest the same "love" for OLTL -- without realizing how blind and biased it is.

Since you brought it up it is probably true. I don't see the Ron appeal. He is fugly at best but Frank V. is hot!....LOL

As for why Ron isnt critized...I have no clue. I dont think it has to do with him being gay though.

But come on now, Ron is criticized constantly. He's been getting hammered plenty for stories people either disagree on or uniformly hate (JESSICA) for several years now. The honeymoon ended a long time ago. Now, if the question is, "why do some people STILL like RC's work?" or "what possible ulterior motive can they have for still liking RC's work, since actual enjoyment is simply not possible?" then I will leave you guys to those burning questions.

For me, and I suspect others, there is no ulterior motive: Not his career (which I definitely don't want, despite my flights of fancy - daytime is a dead industry) or his sexuality or anything else. I just like, and liked, his work, flaws and all. That's it. Simple, unmysterious. If that is not enough to justify my liking it, I sincerely apologize. But criticism - there's been plenty of that in the last couple years, I assure you.

Well, what else were we supposed to learn about him at that point? Jared's entire origin story and character motivation was established in his first year on the show - his broken home, his absent father, his idolization of Asa, his choice between love and money for Natalie. All that was played out from 2007 to late 2008. That's what, ideally, should happen with a soap character: They're introduced, we learn about them, we learn who they are and why they do what they do, and they embark on stories or romances to push them in new directions. That's what happened with Jared and his romance with Natalie, renouncing his conman ways. The only problem is after that, OLTL couldn't get any more stories greenlit for Jared and Natalie. Would that have changed if we had learned Jared was born a woman or secretly a bigamist as well? I think Jared's character was what it was and was explored; the problem was not more exploration of Jared, it was lack of new stories being approved by the network.

I never said anything had to change. But this character's growth arc was premature. Characters evolve during the course of their journeys which always gives the audience a chance to learn more. I wanted to learn more about Jared's character's business background and though I did understand where his drive emanated from, I also felt there was more to be done to fortify his relationship with Charlie. They spent very little time together prior to their weddings and I also felt that they could have brought on other women from his past that he dated to give another perspective on his romantic life.

Firstly, we know why Viki wasn't on very much: Brian Frons. Viki is always downplayed in virtually every story they have given her since Paris, immediately after which, let's remember, Frons allegedly tried to fire RC.

I understand that Frons has restricted ES's airtime. However, creatively RC can't figure out how to come up with different ways to use her within the supportive role that has been approved of her? That's on him isn't it? I don't know but I feel its necessary to ask the question instead of accepting that this is how it has to be.

As for the other question: Why wouldn't both Dorian and Viki be pro-gay, though?

When are Dorian and Viki ever on the same side of any issue? These characters are the ying and yang and should never really find themselves in agreement on issues. Correct me if I'm wrong but would not the dramatic impact have been greater to have Viki and Dorian painted as a Liberal versus a Conservative? Creatively, this is where I feel this argument fails me. There were many approaches RC could have taken here even if he wanted to further expand the gay rights same sex marriage issue. There are same sex marriage issues in terms of medical coverage. There are same sex issues in terms of inheritance laws. There are same sex issues in terms of the military. RC is a lawyer so I'm assuming that he is capable of determining some legal issues that would have successfully pitted these two candidates against each other while vying for the gay vote.

And as per it being an election issue, yes, they played up the issue of "the gay vote," but "the gay vote" does exist. IIRC, OLTL admitted at the time that there was creative license applied in making the GLBT vote such a pressing issue for Viki and Dorian, and one can certainly find fault with that license if they want to. But on a show with a starship from Heaven and an underground city, I found nothing so horribly unbelievable about slightly playing up a social issue in relation to a political storyline; I thought it was very progressive and daring for OLTL to say that this one issue was very important to Llanview - which is a fictional city anyway. This is fiction - why not do it if it sends the right message to the audience?

The question isn't the lack of believabilty. On the contrary, I think the issue was very relevant and I do not have a problem with soaps covering social issues. It's one of my favorite aspects about OLTL. How progressive and daring is the story really if there was no one who could challenge the positive message they were sending? It's a soap opera and one of the hallmarks about any story is watching good overcome evil and I don't think the protesters were representative of that viewpoint. I do wonder if maybe there would have been less backlash if they had presented an opposing viewpoint. It's a question that I think bears dicussion. And before we bring up Carlota, I actually believe Carlota's response was the right one given her character's history but I thought they could have done more with Mayor Lowell there.

Why did Wanda come back with Joe? Why did Roxy stay on in Llanview with Nat? I mean, YMMV on the characters but this is not the first time we've had such people crop up and stay around on the periphery. I don't mind them, but that's me.

I don't mind periphery characters. I often feel like RC has too many peripheral characters. Was it really necessary for Moe and Noelle to have a wedding last year? It was only 3 days out of the week but we have many instances where the peripheral characters have random stories.

The difference between her and this regime is she might as well have only had one. Layla did nothing but support Evangeline and Adriana. Oh, and they sang songs for no reason. Until the Kish storyline, there was no reason I could support for Tika Sumpter, lovely though she is, being on contract. She showed her stuff last year.

TS was peripheral under Higley and RC as well for the most part as well. He made her a supporting player to Adrianna, Sarah and Talia and then the strikers allowed her to go off and support Dorian. RC used her well under Kish but he seems intent to keep her as a periphery as well. I don't get the feeling that RC loves writing for her.

Oh my, yes. How she loved. I say that with all sincerity, and all dismay.

We're on the same page on Higley believe it or not. I can't explain it any other way but to say that it was nice to see a black character adored by the writer. It's not like that happens very often.

He said he wrote more characters of color to address the diversity issues on the show and in daytime, which is just the same as any writer in daytime has done over the years, including Agnes Nixon; that's not the same thing as saying, "I only did it because people were complaining, I don't really want them here." Agnes has made very similar statements over the years as to why she created Carla, or why AMC pushed Angie and Jesse - they saw a problem, saw the complaints and addressed them with solid characters. That doesn't mean Agnes doesn't love Angie and Jesse.

I feel Agnes loved writing for Angie and Jesse. I feel Bill Bell loved writing for Drucilla Winters. I don't feel like RC loves writing Layla or Rachel. Maybe this is irrelevant but I think that is something that needs to happen. We need a writer who will fall in love with writing for a black character as much as the writers love writing for Viki or Dorian. I know this is a pipe dream but that's what I'd like to see.

I don't remember anyone giving a [!@#$%^&*] where RC had come from in the ranks. I certainly didn't. In fact, at the time his HW announcement was made I suspected he would be a hack because he was coming from the existing creative team. IMHO it's a rare thing when anyone from the existing writing staff is a boon to any soap as a HW.

I remember reading a lot of comments from critics at the time who felt that it was better to promote a writer from within rather than reshuffle writers from various shows. RC had a lot of praise from the actors first who felt that his promotion was a very good thing for the show because he knew the history of the show and characters so well.

I was under the impression I've been doing that all along, and I doubt I'm alone.

So then to continue, what do you think RC needs to do from this point? I admit I am at a loss. Every character and story that I was pulling for has been compromised and I blame the higher ups for much of it but I don't think RC is immune from bearing some of the responsibility.

Edited March 18, 201015 yr by Leia

My opinion of Carlivati's work? It's extremely derivative. How many times does he have to go BACK to things that have already been done? 1968? Mendorra? Rapemance? Mitch Laurence? Bo & Nora? 17 Again? I understand using history -- but it seems, to me, that he's being lazy. He's just taking stories that have already been told, and telling them again with his own spin all in the name of "using the show's rich history." That is the same as just continuously dropping names and references into stories and saying "See? We're using history!!" But if you look at the actual stories he's telling -- separate from the historic foundation created from others' work -- do you think they'd be able to stand on their own?

This!!!

I never said anything had to change. But this character's growth arc was premature. Characters evolve during the course of their journeys which always gives the audience a chance to learn more. I wanted to learn more about Jared's character's business background and though I did understand where his drive emanated from, I also felt there was more to be done to fortify his relationship with Charlie. They spent very little time together prior to their weddings and I also felt that they could have brought on other women from his past that he dated to give another perspective on his romantic life.

A lot of this is going to be a case of tit for tat and simply difference of opinion. I thought they'd well-mended Jared and Charlie's relationship by last year. I can see bringing in an old flame but I don't think that relates to learning more about his personality, which I thought was well-defined.

I understand that Frons has restricted ES's airtime. However, creatively RC can't figure out how to come up with different ways to use her within the supportive role that has been approved of her? That's on him isn't it? I don't know but I feel its necessary to ask the question instead of accepting that this is how it has to be.

I think he's used her a number of different ways, but except for Paris, they have all been supporting roles as deemed necessary by ABC. In the past, she figured out that Bess had switched the babies, and was the central negotiator to end that standoff, which I enjoyed a lot. So there are different roles. Slezak herself has said in her fan publication that RC is powerless to give her more than what she currently has without network approval.

When are Dorian and Viki ever on the same side of any issue? These characters are the ying and yang and should never really find themselves in agreement on issues. Correct me if I'm wrong but would not the dramatic impact have been greater to have Viki and Dorian painted as a Liberal versus a Conservative? Creatively, this is where I feel this argument fails me. There were many approaches RC could have taken here even if he wanted to further expand the gay rights same sex marriage issue. There are same sex marriage issues in terms of medical coverage. There are same sex issues in terms of inheritance laws. There are same sex issues in terms of the military. RC is a lawyer so I'm assuming that he is capable of determining some legal issues that would have successfully pitted these two candidates against each other while vying for the gay vote.

Yin and yang is one thing but I simply don't believe, and I don't believe RS does either, that Dorian would be anti-gay or conservative. So then the question becomes portraying conflict without one woman being for gay rights and the other against; I thought they had the right idea on how to do that, but we'll have to disagree. In terms of debating the merits of same-sex marriage, I call boredom. OLTL did that once before, in 2004, with Michael and Marcie, and it bombed horribly. It was Kathy Brier and Nathaniel Marston screaming at each other for weeks, with nothing resolved and no point. It was a lecture made of lip service from half-interested writers and no one cared, myself included. My feeling about the latest story was, it's 2009, we've moved past that, why continue to 'debate' like FOX News if the show would rather just take a stand and stick by it? Agnes Nixon could've debated the Vietnam War in AMC in the '70s, but instead she (and Rosemary Prinz) chose to simply let Amy Tyler and Ruth be antiwar, and felt it was the right thing to do.

How progressive and daring is the story really if there was no one who could challenge the positive message they were sending?

I think it's more daring if there isn't always a challenge, if there isn't always a "reasoned debate" with bigotry. Nobody showed up on Star Trek to wag their finger at Captain Kirk for employing African-Americans, Russians, and Asians on the bridge; it was simply accepted that this was the way it was in the future, and Gene Roddenberry made people deal with the idea by removing the debate and presenting a different paradigm. OLTL has done 'pro vs. anti' many many times on many, many issues, gay rights included; no one can say they haven't done due diligence over the years. Simply constructing one anti-marriage character yet again seems tired and rote to me. Instead, with the election story, they did something more dangerous and risky, which was say, 'this is right and we're doing it and only displaying conflict within that moral landscape, deal with it.' OLTL can debate other social issues some other time, but what they did here was IMHO very transgressive. It didn't work for everyone, but it worked for me, as I was tired of watching the same gay conflict play out on soaps with one bigoted person on one side and one saint on the other, with all the regular characters in-between.

It's a soap opera and one of the hallmarks about any story is watching good overcome evil and I don't think the protesters were representative of that viewpoint. I do wonder if maybe there would have been less backlash if they had presented an opposing viewpoint. It's a question that I think bears dicussion. And before we bring up Carlota, I actually believe Carlota's response was the right one given her character's history but I thought they could have done more with Mayor Lowell there.

Again, my problem is that OLTL has had these opposing viewpoints many times - Billy Douglas' parents, poor Clint, Sloan, Michael, Nick Messina, and so on and so on. How much more does it need to do? Why tell the same story a million different ways?

I don't mind periphery characters. I often feel like RC has too many peripheral characters. Was it really necessary for Moe and Noelle to have a wedding last year? It was only 3 days out of the week but we have many instances where the peripheral characters have random stories.

I honestly don't remember them having a 3-day wedding. I may have blocked it out. But I don't mind a large cast of recurring players; I like the sense of community.

We're on the same page on Higley believe it or not. I can't explain it any other way but to say that it was nice to see a black character adored by the writer. It's not like that happens very often.

True, but in my case it was a "monkey's paw" type of deal. We finally had a black female on the frontburner treated equally but she was, IMHO at least, the most insufferable, overpropped, ridiculously perfect, can-do-no-wrong character imaginable. She was John, Rex, Jessica, you name it to me. And then she was the only black storyline on the show. No Rachel, no RJ, no anybody, just someone who I found incredibly annoying. It was like that episode of The Twilight Zone where the apocalypse comes, and Burgess Meredith finally has all the time in the world to read lots of books, but oops - his glasses just broke. Good luck.

I feel Agnes loved writing for Angie and Jesse. I feel Bill Bell loved writing for Drucilla Winters. I don't feel like RC loves writing Layla or Rachel. Maybe this is irrelevant but I think that is something that needs to happen. We need a writer who will fall in love with writing for a black character as much as the writers love writing for Viki or Dorian. I know this is a pipe dream but that's what I'd like to see.

I agree, but I don't think that invalidates the black characters we do have. Had, unfortunately.

So then to continue, what do you think RC needs to do from this point? I admit I am at a loss. Every character and story that I was pulling for has been compromised and I blame the higher ups for much of it but I don't think RC is immune from bearing some of the responsibility.

Neither do I. There's a lot that needs to be done. They need to acknowledge viewer disgust with Todd, John and Rex, and admit these characters' frontburner stories in the last few years are not smash successes. I feel pretty confident RC still doesn't get the picture on Todd, or Rex and Gigi. That's just to begin with. And they need to stop giving Jessica ridiculous mental illness storylines and focusing on rehabilitating her character, which has been broken since the recast. I could go on and on, and have before.

My opinion of Carlivati's work? It's extremely derivative. How many times does he have to go BACK to things that have already been done? 1968? Mendorra? Rapemance? Mitch Laurence? Bo & Nora? 17 Again? I understand using history -- but it seems, to me, that he's being lazy. He's just taking stories that have already been told, and telling them again with his own spin all in the name of "using the show's rich history." That is the same as just continuously dropping names and references into stories and saying "See? We're using history!!" But if you look at the actual stories he's telling -- separate from the historic foundation created from others' work -- do you think they'd be able to stand on their own?

So all he really is doing is copying and pasting stories. This doesn't make a good writer. Yes, he seems to get his ideas from previous writers which is lazy. I think it took a while for viewers to see that. Once they did they started tuning out.

My opinion of Carlivati's work? It's extremely derivative. How many times does he have to go BACK to things that have already been done? 1968? Mendorra? Rapemance? Mitch Laurence? Bo & Nora? 17 Again? I understand using history -- but it seems, to me, that he's being lazy. He's just taking stories that have already been told, and telling them again with his own spin all in the name of "using the show's rich history." That is the same as just continuously dropping names and references into stories and saying "See? We're using history!!" But if you look at the actual stories he's telling -- separate from the historic foundation created from others' work -- do you think they'd be able to stand on their own?

That is something ALL soap writers are guilty of however, I do concede that those are usually my least favorite stories.

However, I do think Kish, Paris, The BE Takeover, Nash's death, Adrianna's wedding, Lindsey's Woman of the Year, and Matthew's paralysis were examples of original stories that not only stood on their own but were very well-written.

A lot of this is going to be a case of tit for tat and simply difference of opinion. I thought they'd well-mended Jared and Charlie's relationship by last year. I can see bringing in an old flame but I don't think that relates to learning more about his personality, which I thought was well-defined.

I agree and I think that Jared is a case of a well-defined character who became so under-utilized that he was expendable.

I think he's used her a number of different ways, but except for Paris, they have all been supporting roles as deemed necessary by ABC. In the past, she figured out that Bess had switched the babies, and was the central negotiator to end that standoff, which I enjoyed a lot. So there are different roles. Slezak herself has said in her fan publication that RC is powerless to give her more than what she currently has without network approval.

I ca accept that RC can't use her more but he could give her more adventurous direction through her supporting role. Look at what he was able to do with Addie. They approved that.

Yin and yang is one thing but I simply don't believe, and I don't believe RS does either, that Dorian would be anti-gay or conservative. So then the question becomes portraying conflict without one woman being for gay rights and the other against; I thought they had the right idea on how to do that, but we'll have to disagree. In terms of debating the merits of same-sex marriage, I call boredom. OLTL did that once before, in 2004, with Michael and Marcie, and it bombed horribly. It was Kathy Brier and Nathaniel Marston screaming at each other for weeks, with nothing resolved and no point. It was a lecture made of lip service from half-interested writers and no one cared, myself included. My feeling about the latest story was, it's 2009, we've moved past that, why continue to 'debate' like FOX News if the show would rather just take a stand and stick by it? Agnes Nixon could've debated the Vietnam War in AMC in the '70s, but instead she (and Rosemary Prinz) chose to simply let Amy Tyler and Ruth be antiwar, and felt it was the right thing to do.

But this is why I feel that RC has a dose of rigidity here. A way to showcase the other side of the issue doesn't always call for making a character a bigot. On The Good Wife the other night, they had a pregnant woman who was an abortion rights advocate find herself needing medical coverage for a risky medical procedure. The insurance company did not want to cover it and they used her past history against her in a way that opened her character's eyes up to see the other side of the issue. I'm a pro-choice however I found that fascinating. I think the OLTL writing team was capable of doing more with same sex marriage issue than what Higley's team did.

I think it's more daring if there isn't always a challenge, if there isn't always a "reasoned debate" with bigotry. Nobody showed up on Star Trek to wag their finger at Captain Kirk for employing African-Americans, Russians, and Asians on the bridge; it was simply accepted that this was the way it was in the future, and Gene Roddenberry made people deal with the idea by removing the debate and presenting a different paradigm. OLTL has done 'pro vs. anti' many many times on many, many issues, gay rights included; no one can say they haven't done due diligence over the years. Simply constructing one anti-marriage character yet again seems tired and rote to me. Instead, with the election story, they did something more dangerous and risky, which was say, 'this is right and we're doing it and only displaying conflict within that moral landscape, deal with it.' OLTL can debate other social issues some other time, but what they did here was IMHO very transgressive. It didn't work for everyone, but it worked for me, as I was tired of watching the same gay conflict play out on soaps with one bigoted person on one side and one saint on the other, with all the regular characters in-between.

It was a different take but I wonder if having more layers to that story would have made it more appealing to the opponents.

Again, my problem is that OLTL has had these opposing viewpoints many times - Billy Douglas' parents, poor Clint, Sloan, Michael, Nick Messina, and so on and so on. How much more does it need to do? Why tell the same story a million different ways?

Well that's how it is daytime. It's up to them to tell the same story with fresh approaches.

I honestly don't remember them having a 3-day wedding. I may have blocked it out. But I don't mind a large cast of recurring players; I like the sense of community.

I like the sense of community as well but their wedding was in Las Vegas featuring Stacy, David and Dorian. I lost the thread of community there.

RC does that often.

I agree, but I don't think that invalidates the black characters we do have. Had, unfortunately.

It does not invalidate them but it does compromise them. Imagine if the writers had fallen in love with writing for Layla or Rachel in the same way that they fell in love with writing for Kim.

Neither do I. There's a lot that needs to be done. They need to acknowledge viewer disgust with Todd, John and Rex, and admit these characters' frontburner stories in the last few years are not smash successes. I feel pretty confident RC still doesn't get the picture on Todd, or Rex and Gigi. That's just to begin with. And they need to stop giving Jessica ridiculous mental illness storylines and focusing on rehabilitating her character, which has been broken since the recast. I could go on and on, and have before.

To be fair, I know that you and a few other fans are willing to discuss this issue and I do recall that I've seen many of your posts on the topic at hand. It's the press and many others who seem unwilling or unable. It perplexes me.

I think Ron is a very smart, savvy guy who thinks outside the box. I hate that term, but I think it's pretty appropriate when talking about him. A lot of his ideas are great and fresh, and he obviously loves the show. He doesn't come off like some bored, bitter hack who's content with recycling stories. Daytime could use more people like him. The problem with the writing is in the execution and the dialogue. The pacing always seems off. There's very little build to the stories, very little obvious momentum that makes you want to keep tuning in. The dialogue is atrocious, some of the worst in daytime. I alternately cringe and laugh during some dramatic scenes. It doesn't help that the show has its share of horrendous actors front and center who are unable to elevate the dialogue to above the cringeworthy. These issues are obviously the fault of the breakdown writers and scriptwriters, but he should be held accountable for at least these issues.

Edited March 18, 201015 yr by LoyaltoAMC

But this is why I feel that RC has a dose of rigidity here. A way to showcase the other side of the issue doesn't always call for making a character a bigot. On The Good Wife the other night, they had a pregnant woman who was an abortion rights advocate find herself needing medical coverage for a risky medical procedure. The insurance company did not want to cover it and they used her past history against her in a way that opened her character's eyes up to see the other side of the issue. I'm a pro-choice however I found that fascinating. I think the OLTL writing team was capable of doing more with same sex marriage issue than what Higley's team did.

It was Malone's team who did the 2004 gay marriage "story." But I don't think the characters all have to be bigots; I just didn't see the point in once again setting up a 'he says/she says' battle over it.

I like the sense of community as well but their wedding was in Las Vegas featuring Stacy, David and Dorian. I lost the thread of community there. RC does that often.

Oh, now I remember. To be fair, their wedding was only an excuse to get all those characters there - and bring on Stacy, unfortunately. Moe and Noelle were just a device, not the story.

The difference between her and this regime is she might as well have only had one. Layla did nothing but support Evangeline and Adriana. Oh, and they sang songs for no reason. Until the Kish storyline, there was no reason I could support for Tika Sumpter, lovely though she is, being on contract. She showed her stuff last year.

The problem is there is no reward for a minority actor that steps up.

Had Farah given a Tika level performance the writers & the network would be falling all over themselves to make her a star.

Farah now is constantly subpar yet that hasn't stopped the writers or the network from pushing her like she's the second coming of Slezak since she hit Klanview.

And where is Tika?

Stuck in a backburnered, underwritten relationship with Klanview's go to hunk in reserve.

Edited March 18, 201015 yr by DeeeDee

A relationship which actually has some fan support and which I would like to see continue. But you're correct about the racist double standard at ABC.

The problem is there is no reward for a minority actor that steps up.

Had Farah given a Tika level performance the writers & the network would be falling all over themselves to make her a star.

Farah now is constantly subpar yet that hasn't stopped the writers or the network from pushing her like she's the second coming of Slezak since she hit Klanview.

And where is Tika?

Stuck in a backburnered, underwritten relationship with Klanview's go to hunk in reserve.

And today I am watching the view and what comes on a OLTL promo..featuring...guess who?? YOu guessed it.....Farah and her awful story with JPL. She is proposing to him...ugh...The other part is Jessica and the ridiculous high school story with Christian in it. No wonder this show is drowning. They are promoting the wrong stories. But to be honest what great stories do OLTL have to promote?? Can anyone name one??

Edited March 18, 201015 yr by Ruxton Hills