As for this idea that there's no unplayable characters, I believe that to be false. I don't know how someone can expect an actor to play a character that has no clear vision.

+1

It doesn't mean a character will forever be unplayable, or always has been, but unless the writing somehow takes a turn to define the character, there are times an actor can't make something work. A character flawed in conception -- or ruined by a particularly heinous turn -- sometimes just never works, or doesn't work until a drastic overhaul takes place.

Often I find that parts of a character can work, but as a whole, it's a mess. I found Rick Hearst's Ric pretty good in two totally separate instances -- when he pulled that Panic Room [!@#$%^&*] on Liz, and when he and Alexis were happy together -- but there was no throughline to the character, so Hearst was left to play moments rather than a full life.

B&B is a strange show. They waste anyone and everyone, aside from about four or five people. It doesn't matter how talented you are.

So then I take it it's the same old story? He is just too talented and the soap is not smart enough to see just how much of a talent he is?

So then I take it it's the same old story? He is just too talented and the soap is not smart enough to see just how much of a talent he is?

Have you seen how B&B tends to write for actors? They just drop stories and bring people in for no apparent reason. Anyone and everyone.

IDA with all of these. I dont think theres a such thing as an unplayable character, whatever that term is supposed to mean. A combo of the right actor and decent writing is whats needed. Ive enjoyed all those characters at some point except Marissa

I agree. I think there are useless characters, overexposed characters, defunct characters, and even disgusting characters. But I don't think there is such a thing as an Unplayable Character.

Three things ruin a character IMO, and unfortunately they are the three things most often demanded by fans.

1. Extending a character long past their natural shelf life. Some characters - no matter how well loved - should just end.

2. A character enters a relationship and fans won't allow for another pairing. Just look at any SuperCouple from the 80's for examples of this one.

3. Characters having babies. This was the big thing that ended Carly (GH) as an interesting character, as well as a few others on the OP's list. As cute as Emma is (again GH), she was the final nail in the Scrubs coffin.

I cringe every time I see a fanbase call for any one of these three events for their favourites because inevitably, they are major stops on the road to oblivion. There is a reason why the "Happily Ever After" happens at the end of a story - there isn't anything else to tell after that.

Then again, the fact that quatermainfan finds him uninteresting disproves of your theory that he is interesting. 1:1.

Read what's there, please. I didn't have a theory either way. I was speaking about subjectivity.

No character is unplayable. It is the actor who becomes cringe worthy.

GH's Ric Lansing is a perfect example. He started out with a great story and that should have been the end of it. Rick Hearst, for all his fans talk about how much talent he has, is invisible on screen, and of course he fell flat. I imagine his fans on B&B are at this moment saying things like "B&B just doesn't know how to use his talent. He is being wasted!" And undoubtedly that is what they will say about Rick Hearst on every show he appears on from now til the end of time. His talent is worthless because he is as uninteresting as it gets.

He was popular and well-received during his Guiding Light days as Alan-Michael. Aside from his brief DAYS run in the late 80's, his GL years is what put him on the daytime map in the first place, so he can't be *that* uninteresting.

I should mention Jana. The only reason she is still there is probably because of Emily O'Brien. What a huge mess of a character she is.

I just read on another board the current issue of SOD is reporting that O'Brien has just inked a new multi-year contract with Y&R.

Rick Hearst also impressed a lot of people with his turn as crazy-ass Matt Clark on Y&R.

No. Personally, he's never worked on this show. The only thing that was remotely interesting about him was the hopeful return of Kristen and Carrie feeling like she "knew" him under JER. When those possibilities went to hell, EJ was completely useless to me.

Agreed. I just think he can't be redeemed, at least in my eyes. He raped Sami. He did SAW-like weird crazy torture to Steve Johnson for some reason, and then POOF! he becomes the DiMera with morals. I don't buy it. Never did, still don't.

As for this idea that there's no unplayable characters, I believe that to be false. I don't know how someone can expect an actor to play a character that has no clear vision.

in taht case I think the word unplayable is the wrong term to use and pointless would be more fitting. Any character is playable. Some are just so pointless, that they arent worth trying to do anything with. As far as the no clear vision, again that part has to do with the writing and a good writer can give an unfocused character a vision

Edited November 19, 201015 yr by Cheap21

It's not that they are unplayable. It's that they are so underdeveloped that they can be played by anyone, including Charity Rahmer.

in taht case I think the word unplayable is the wrong term to use and pointless would be more fitting. Any character is playable. Some are just so pointless, that they arent worth trying to do anything with. As far as the no clear vision, again that part has to do with the writing and a good writer can give an unfocused character a vision

The question is why they are pointless? Someone like Kelly Cramer, on paper, should not be pointless at all, yet generally she has been a black hole.

Something happens to make them damaged goods and it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to get out of that.

Another was Kimberly on Ryan's Hope. She was a nightmare from almost the start. Was it the writing or the actress? I'm never sure.

The question is why they are pointless? Someone like Kelly Cramer, on paper, should not be pointless at all, yet generally she has been a black hole.

Something happens to make them damaged goods and it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to get out of that.

Another was Kimberly on Ryan's Hope. She was a nightmare from almost the start. Was it the writing or the actress? I'm never sure.

I get what you're saying and agree.

The question is why they are pointless? Someone like Kelly Cramer, on paper, should not be pointless at all, yet generally she has been a black hole.

Something happens to make them damaged goods and it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to get out of that.

This is your originail definition in the opening post:

You know them, you cringe at them, sometimes the actor pulls it off, but generally no matter who plays the role, something is off, or it is a miracle that the character holds together as long as it does. There is just something wrong almost every step of the way.

IDA about that in terms of Kelly. She is only pointless now after GT returned. The way Kelly is now has not been the case throughout her near 15 year run. I thought she did great with the character when she created it in the 90s. I wasnt a fan of the character but Heather Tom brought osmething to the role as well. The character has had varying degrees of success under differetn writers played by different actresses. She was just brought back in a very lackluster fashion when she simply wasnt needed and it didnt help that for weeks after her return, they failed to justify why she neded to return. Thats kinda what B&B did with Amber, who returned this summer to nearly 3 months on the backburner. Its not bc she was "unplayable"; the writers just didnt know what to do with her. She's finally being written and she's working.

The way Kelly is now has not been the case throughout her near 15 year run. I thought she did great with the character when she created it in the 90s.

I thought this pretty much started with Kelly a few years into Gina's run, although I was not fond of her from the start, so I'm biased. But the herky-jerky, schizo type of writing which Gina has had on her return is basically the same as she has had from somewhere around 1997 or 1998. The men come and go, most of them failing as love interests. Kelly mourns for her old days, Kelly wants to be fun again. This started around like 1998 or 1999. What can you say about a long-running character when the show has to repeatedly admit that their high point as a character was her first six months on the show?