Members bellcurve Posted May 5, 2010 Members Share Posted May 5, 2010 JER was never doing satire with Passions until he realized people thought the show was an utter joke. He definitely wrote it mainly straight for the first couple years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catsmeouch Posted May 5, 2010 Members Share Posted May 5, 2010 Not really. The satire was there from the very beginning. JER was poking fun at classic soap tropes from the get-go. You're confusing "satire" with "spoof". Yes it does legitimize it. It proves that JER was right, that this is what soaps are all about and why they're dying off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeeeDee Posted May 5, 2010 Members Share Posted May 5, 2010 +1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catsmeouch Posted May 5, 2010 Members Share Posted May 5, 2010 -2 because you're wrong. You obviously don't know anything about Passions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JackPeyton Posted May 5, 2010 Members Share Posted May 5, 2010 Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bellcurve Posted May 5, 2010 Members Share Posted May 5, 2010 How so? Can you give me some examples? There was nothing satirical about Passions. Period. Reilly was good at crappy camp, but he was never a satirist. You're making it sound like Passions was a TV version of The New Yorker. Clever and subtle, Reilly never was. And for the record, I definitely watched the first three months and there was no attempt at making fun of soap operas in the very beginning. Reilly was hoping that his paranormal/sci-fi + romance blend would work on this show the same way it worked on DAYS in 95. Problem with that is a.) He didn't have a strong technical producer to reign his awful ideas in(say as much sh*t as you want about Bell-Trained Langan, but he made that sh*t work during Reilly 1.0) b.) He had a really green and weak cast and c.) Reilly proved that he was a one-trick pony. So soaps are all about outrageous incest stories, bad acting, promoting homophobia, and Catholicism? Really?! Reilly definitely made a point when he wrote Passions. He made it a point to drive his loyal viewers who actually watched this crap insane and he used Passions to project his own misogynistic, homophobic, religious views onto whoever was stupid enough to watch it. So yeah, Passions was legit. Legitimately a hot steaming pile of sh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JackPeyton Posted May 5, 2010 Members Share Posted May 5, 2010 Hi, do you remember that Passions was cancelled... twice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bellcurve Posted May 5, 2010 Members Share Posted May 5, 2010 Apparently not. And to say a sh*t show like Passions set the "tone" for the modern daytime drama is just bull. Sunset Beach did in three years what Passions did in its nine years on the air 10X better(except for, maybe "Love is Ecstasy" which was just a very off the chain track and musical number). I liked Reilly 1.0 at DAYS and I really expected Passions to just be a darker, more intense, higher budgeted DAYS. Man, was I wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted May 5, 2010 Members Share Posted May 5, 2010 I hated everything Reilly wrote for DAYS; therefore, my expectations for PASSIONS were low. Nevertheless, I gave it a chance. Trouble was, after just two episodes, I couldn't stand it anymore, b/c the acting was just that awful. Back to Jeff Branson: after watching yesterday's Y&R, I'm wondering if he's a Ryder recast. They sure left that plot point open-ended, didn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lovely_m Posted May 5, 2010 Members Share Posted May 5, 2010 I can't see them doing that, even if Bethel wanted to leave. Tptb seemed more enamored with the actor rather than the character. He would more likely be a Chance recast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AmandainNC28655 Posted May 5, 2010 Members Share Posted May 5, 2010 When I first read this I too wondered if it was indeed a Chance recast. If so, he will once again be paired with one of his leading ladies from his AMC days Liz Hendrickson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted May 5, 2010 Members Share Posted May 5, 2010 That lovely story where Jonathan beat Maggie and controlled her. For today's Y&R, that's hot stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted May 5, 2010 Members Share Posted May 5, 2010 Yeah, except, instead of a brain tumor, we find out Nina's long-lost son, Howie, has been masquerading as Chance and holding the real Chance hostage w/ help from David Kimble's kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bellcurve Posted May 5, 2010 Members Share Posted May 5, 2010 The actor is not the problem with the Chance character. I know alot of people like to blame Driscoll for how awful the chance character is, but he can only act what is written. They haven't given him anything remotely interesting to play. It's like Coop 2.0. If they gave Driscoll another beat to play, I'm sure he would be able to play it. Jeff Branson would not be an upgrade. He would be just as boring because they don't want to write anything remotely interesting for this character. Unless they decide to turn him into a psycho overnight. Honoring history that's all "by design." Even if it was on another show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted May 5, 2010 Members Share Posted May 5, 2010 Wow, a psycho veteran. Y&R really would be stealing from ABC with that type of story, wouldn't they? They can do the Nik/Mary/Emily story for Chance and Chloe. It even had a doppleganger... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.