Jump to content

OLTL: Discussion for the week of January 17


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I'm not sure that you're supposed to be rooting for Joey or for Natalie. The show has never exactly given these characters special treatment. Joey has been humiliated and emasculated for years, and that is no different this time, where he whines, pouts, is seen as a twit by Clint, and then Cookie Cutter comes in and is the hot, edgy guy who is supposed to have all the spark with Aubrey and Kelly. If fans love Cutter and see Joey as a loser, that just means the show gets to do what they enjoy doing, which is to write even more stories about peripheral characters who have no real past and no characterization beyond how they fill out a pair of boxers.

Natalie has lied for many months, with John and Jessica both presented as the innocents. Marty has been crazy, but they built up to this for quite a while, and she's going to get psychiatric help. I think the story was about making Brody, Marty and Natalie look bad, to give story to characters who cannot drive story themselves (John and Jessica). When the truth comes out I will be shocked if either of these ladies has John. I think he will be freed up for Inez or some other cipher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Back to points made by Vizion and Carl, I also don't feel as though Joey is being written and acted as rootable. It's hard to root for someone who comes across as an easy mark. He seems weak, but worst of all, kinda stupid, and we shouldn't be screaming, "Joey, you big dummy!" at the screen, that's not Joey. That's Inez. :P Vizion, I see what you're saying as far as the traditional reversal where Aubrey falls for Joe for real, Kelly and Cutter fall for each other despite their original intentions. I just don't like the idea of Kelly showing weak will and falling for Cutter against her better judgment. I feel like it's just going to be more silly Ally McBeal hijinks. She is just so damn neurotic sometimes it gets on my nerves.

That's just it, of the four he (legacy character be damned) is the one I see them getting rid of first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's very clever though - they know how to play this game. All the soaps do, especially ABC soaps. They bring in a member of a core family and make sure no one cares about them. Then they can say, "See? Fans don't want this person around." And that means more of a chance to bring in wannabe alpha males who have no ties to the canvas yet are shoehorned in at every turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Yes, I think that is the most likely situation.  TPTB were unhappy with the offer(s) they got from the tourism board in Finland, and decided the trip was going to be too expensive for P&G/NBC to finance alone.   I would also speculate a similar situation occurred a few years later with the planned location shoot in Egypt, which was also cancelled after the storyline had already started, and changed to Arizona.  
    • What else? #May4th

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • In my usual account on my most used video hosting site with the video title  DAYS 1-8-15 Will & Paul Sex This is an edit I began when I was first teaching myself to edit & at that time I couldn't make it do what I wanted it to do. I pulled it up & finished it this morning. 
    • Or Megan is shot as retaliation for Dave's unpaid gambling debts...while Julie confesses she's the biological mother of Special Guest Star Barry Bostwick's little boy.
    • Finland seemed such an odd choice for a location shoot. ATWT went to Greece and later Spain while GL had Tenerife and there were others in that timeframe. But Finland not being a known tourist destination or offering the tropical/sunny atmosphere usually associated with location shoots seems off brand. Maybe they were negotiating a deal with a tourist association and it fell through.
    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy