yeah completely boring and completely forgettable. Scratch that, the only reason why she isnt completely forgettable is bc Tina interrupted her wedding by coming back from the dead with a baby in her hands. That is one of the most memorable moments in OLTL history. The look on Kate’s face was priceless. Really that’s her contribution to the show and what most take from her.y

She was dull but it's interesting to watch her because she isn't a simpering character. She loved Cord, she wanted Cord, but when she realized he wasn't going to love her, she moved on with her life.

This is a good scene where she basically tells him to snap out of his pity party if he wants to actually get his child back.

Entertainment Lawyer is reporting this as facts too.

http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2010/04/some-inside-details-on-nicollette.html

Entertainment Lawyer is reporting this as facts too.

http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2010/04/some-inside-details-on-nicollette.html

Very interesting little tidbit there. If it's true, I have no reason to believe it's not, I hope she gets her $20 million.

She was so mental and scary in that role, it was spooky, you really can't say: OMG, she is so fun!

It was all really unhealthy.

Ummmmmm... Wasn't that the point of her? I admit as a teen, that's what turned me off of Melrose. The soap opera drama felt MEAN spirited--and Kimberly especially encompassed that (I mean a villainous psychopath who suffered all these ridiculous forms of abuse stemming even to her childhood). I admit, rewatching reruns on tv as an adult I kinda see her appeal more now--is it because I've become more cynical and jaded? I dunno...

I do think DH's first season will hold up but I do see Sylph's point--the actual mystery was, in hindsight, a mess and doesn't really make sense. Yet I think the actual episode to episode stuff was really quite strong. Bt yeah, the show has outsold it's welcome--to me the main prob is every character's story arc now just seems like a redundant, lesser version of one we already saw. And what I don't get is characters audiences seem to want to see more (and maybe this is just cuz I know more gay viewers but Andrew and even the pretty lame gay couple spring to mind) are always treated as comic relief or C level players at best, forgotten for dozen of episodes at a time (this is true too of characters I could care less of, but am still shocked at how they're treated, like Julie who seemed like she'd be pivotal this season but was inexplicably swished off to boarding school, or Bree's daughter). The writing reminds me abit of how Pratt wrote AMC, at the time it's often entertaining enough but there's tons of setup, and never any really satisfying pay off.

Very interesting little tidbit there. If it's true, I have no reason to believe it's not, I hope she gets her $20 million.

I KNOW nobody will agree with me on here, but even so is it worth $20 Million? Yes she was on a hit show and was let go, and the situation sounds awful and to her favour, and yes people make ridiculous amounts of money on these shows. But she always had to have it in her head that she could be let go at any time--it was obvious to all us viewers she was never one of the main characters (even if she shoulda been). And people on here point out she has a LOT of moolah already and doesn't need this amount of money so it's more to make a point. Wouldn't $5 mill make the same point and yet make Nicolotte seem less of a risk for future shows to hire? I just feel that the ridiculous numbers of so many recent similar lawsuits sometimes to more damage to the complaintaint even when they are obviously in the right.

yeah completely boring and completely forgettable. Scratch that, the only reason why she isnt completely forgettable is bc Tina interrupted her wedding by coming back from the dead with a baby in her hands. That is one of the most memorable moments in OLTL history. The look on Kate’s face was priceless. Really that’s her contribution to the show and what most take from her.y

I agree the character was dull, but the character WAS popular, and it was solely because of Marcia. I'm not a big fan, but she did build a positive reputation in the role--and that's no small feat considering what a role it was.

Absolutely--Cherry's hatred was obvious in the way he wrote for Edie and how he kept either sabotaging her or not showcasing her. Everyone kept telling him to use her and, yet, he refused. And he ended up killing her.

The thing is... Again, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but this is his prerogative. I frankly never really bought when the other housewives all accepted Edie (though I found MUCH more ridiculous when they later one by one turned their backs on her in the most juvenile schoolgirl way and we were meant to understand why...) As a writer, I think he has the right to "hate" a character and to want the audience to hate her too, even if they don't. The way he executed it was largely crap, and the way he treated Nicolette frankly, sounds, inexcusable, but I have no prob with a writer having an "agenda" for a character (I fund it a bit ridiculous when fans complain about writers having "agendas"--I think they should.)

I thought Edie had a very interesting relationship with Susan that could've been explored better. Susan treated EDIE bad and all Edie wanted was to be her friend. I wish Susan got called out on her [!@#$%^&*] more often. And don't forget the flashbacks that showed how nice Edie was when she moved in, but everyone treated her like crap and pre-judged her. There was so much great story to tell.

Very interesting little tidbit there. If it's true, I have no reason to believe it's not, I hope she gets her $20 million.

What reason is there to believe it is true?

I dont much care one way or the other, but its a he said she said with everyone pretty much defending Cherry and nobody backing her up.

What reason is there to believe it is true?

I dont much care one way or the other, but its a he said she said with everyone pretty much defending Cherry and nobody backing her up.

I have not heard one thing supporting Cherry, except from ABC whose a co-defendent in this case. You can't even take the rest of the cast into the equation, the only situation any of them are going to tell the truth is if they are subpoenaed into testifying.

The fact that ABC confirms that she filed a complaint back in 08 gives her some credence, the fact that she was fired 6 months later gives her a little more. As well, lawsuits of this nature are expensive to do, I do not think she would invest her time and money in something she knew wasn't going to be successful in court.

And the $20 million question. Tort law (the form of law Nicollette is using) is tricky. The point of it is to restore the injured party to the state they were in before the tort occurred. The problem with Nicollette's case is that it's an unpredictable situation, sure $20 million sounds high...but she's shooting high so that a jury (which is what I'm sure she's after, a big 'ol fashioned jury trial), even if they reduce her claim, will still award her substantial damages. That's how tort law works, you shoot really high and see what happens.

What reason is there to believe it is true?

I dont much care one way or the other, but its a he said she said with everyone pretty much defending Cherry and nobody backing her up.

why would the cast say anything against him? They are still emplyed at ABC. It would be a nightmare to work in to involved themselves in this mess. While Cherry couldnt get rid of them, he sure could reduce their airtime and screw over their characters. Besides Eva Longoria on E! last night did mention something that she knew they had problems but wouldnt allude to it. Dana Delany also looked a bit suspicious and tried not to say anything. I dont beleive they saw any assault, but they probably had suspciouns that something was up

Edited April 8, 201015 yr by Cheap21

I thought the only bad season was season 4. Overall I thought the show has been overall good since the reboot last season.

I agree. Season 4 was effed up and maybe season 2 was a let down but everything else has been holding my attention.

ABC is allegedly offering an out of court settlement after Sheridan's lawyers made it clear that they would subpoena the cast and crew:

http://perezhilton.com/2010-04-20-abc-wants-to-settle-with-nicollette-out-of-court

What reason is there to believe it is true?

I dont much care one way or the other, but its a he said she said with everyone pretty much defending Cherry and nobody backing her up.

I'm wondering why it took her this long to file a lawsuit?

I'm wondering why it took her this long to file a lawsuit?

Exactly.

Im also old school i guess, innocent until proven guilty. Im not saying shes a liar and it didnt happen, i see no reason to belive one side over the other to be honest. I hear abc is just going to settle it, not surprising be it true or not.

Same here JP

There's a joint statement from the DH ladies in the new TV Guide, Marcia, Teri, Eva and Felicity say this in response to the lawsuit:

"It would be irresponsible of us to let the public believe that being a part of this show from it's inception has been anything but a blessing.....We would never characterize our set as a hostile environment. It is, in fact, the opposite"