19 minutes ago, j swift said:

Jenny, Decker, and Edge Jerome are all examples that a character needs more than a unique haircut.

I actually found Edge to serve the purpose he was intended to on the show.  

Decker was nothing special, but it seemed more like an actor issue and an issue with being able to cast Dawn correctly than a bad character in theory.  I think the idea of Decker was better than the execution of it all.

Jenny was just boring.  Just a run of the mill young, blonde heroine.  The Senator backstory didn't help add any excitement.  I think they could have found an actress with more spunk than Cheryl Richardson.  I didn't seem like Jenny was unpopular with the audience-she just wasn't memorable enough to keep long term.

Outside of maybe the Monty run, Paul and Jenny always struck me as Riche making do with what they had while trying to right the overall show. Same with Bill and Holly (or even Karen and Jagger to an extent IMO - trying to find a way to reengage the youth audience, which succeeded). They were vaguely appealing people and had some chemistry so Paul and Jenny were it. Once they got a clearer vision for the show with Labine and reacquired Luke and Laura, you could cut a lot of stale or milquetoast couples. Though IIRC both Sabato and Cari Shayne chose to leave, it did feel appropriate there too since both Brenda and Robin were ascendant. I can't see Karen and Jagger fitting in for long. Like Jenny and Paul they were surplus to the revamped canvas.

Ironically GH is populated almost entirely by those kind of placeholder/timewaster couples today, or some who are vaguely inoffensive. Though I'd argue many of them are even less popular or exciting than Paul and Jenny or Bill and Holly. But will FV cut them? No.

In other news, this should be reposted in here from the BTG thread per its content:

Is MVJ referring to the very brief Garin Wolf era or the advent of FV and RC?

Edited December 20, 2024Dec 20 by Vee

19 minutes ago, Vee said:

Is MVJ referring to the very brief Garin Wolf era or the advent of FV and RC?

I would assume so? Her last tenure was from April 7, 2008 – January 10, 2012 (air dates), so her final episode was the day after Shelly Altman assumed co-head writer with Wolf via the credits. And I believe her first screen credit for The Bold and the Beautiful was January 16, 2012. My question is: was it toxic with the writers or with Jill Farren Phelps at that point?

Except she exited right as Frank and Ron were arriving. It was a matter of a couple weeks. Wolf was almost certainly axed or known to be out well before she quit. So it's a question of whether it was Wolf and JFP or FV/RC IMO.

Edited December 20, 2024Dec 20 by Vee

20 minutes ago, Vee said:

Except she exited right as Frank and Ron were arriving. It was a matter of a couple weeks. Wolf was almost certainly axed or known to be out well before she quit. So it's a question of whether it was Wolf and JFP or FV/RC IMO.

Yes, but Frank Valentini's first credited episode wasn't until February 1, 2012, so there was almost a month between Val Jean's last credited episode and Valentini's first. So, I'm more likely to wager the exit came from the previous regime(s), not the incoming regime, especially since the "writer" is on the Beyond the Gates writing staff.

And, I'd wager it was a six-to-eight week distance from Val Jean leaving GH and joining B&B to what aired. The appointment of Valentini & Carlivati was announced on December 1, 2011, which would mean⏤from my point of view⏤it is likely Shelly Altman, Jill Farren Phelps, Garin Wolf and that crew that was the toxic situation she left.

Plus, Val Jean's transition to The Bold and the Beautiful was announced in October 2011, which was ahead of the incoming changes.

28 minutes ago, Liberty City said:

Plus, Val Jean's transition to The Bold and the Beautiful was announced in October 2011, which was ahead of the incoming changes.

Fair enough.

I still think killing off Dawn was a mistake, as Jennifer Guthrie seemed to have some fans and even if that wasn't enough to keep the character, there was no real story in killing the character. It just seems like Monty trying to make a statement. 

You could say the decision paid off with Emily's arrival, but given how ill-used that character was, I'd still say it wasn't worth it.

18 hours ago, Vee said:

Outside of maybe the Monty run, Paul and Jenny always struck me as Riche making do with what they had while trying to right the overall show. Same with Bill and Holly (or even Karen and Jagger to an extent IMO - trying to find a way to reengage the youth audience, which succeeded). They were vaguely appealing people and had some chemistry so Paul and Jenny were it. Once they got a clearer vision for the show with Labine and reacquired Luke and Laura, you could cut a lot of stale or milquetoast couples. Though IIRC both Sabato and Cari Shayne chose to leave, it did feel appropriate there too since both Brenda and Robin were ascendant. I can't see Karen and Jagger fitting in for long. Like Jenny and Paul they were surplus to the revamped canvas.

Ironically GH is populated almost entirely by those kind of placeholder/timewaster couples today, or some who are vaguely inoffensive. Though I'd argue many of them are even less popular or exciting than Paul and Jenny or Bill and Holly. But will FV cut them? No.

 

I do struggle to see where Jenny/Paul or Jagger/Karen could have fit long term.  Obviously there was no way Bill/Holly could survive.  Jenny/Paul could have been involved in the Lois/Ned romance and obviously Jagger/Karen would have been involved in the Stone story and most likely the Sonny/Brenda story as well.  Both couples stories just reached a conclusion and a happy ending (until they came back and it wasn't).   And, yes, I think Jenny/Paul and especially Jagger/Karen are more popular than 75% of the couples on GH.

I don't know why GH is so adverse to doing this for their couples now especially when the material is spent.  GH could have written off Sasha/Brando years ago with their child and gave them a happy ending instead of saddling Sasha with years of torture.  It's absolutely acceptable and needed to decide a story/romance has reached the end and cut the characters when it's over. 

22 minutes ago, carolineg said:

I don't know why GH is so adverse to doing this for their couples now especially when the material is spent.  GH could have written off Sasha/Brando years ago with their child and gave them a happy ending instead of saddling Sasha with years of torture.  It's absolutely acceptable and needed to decide a story/romance has reached the end and cut the characters when it's over. 

I think ultimately it just comes down to inertia, Frank being too wedded to most of his own hires/friends, and the belief in maintaining meager survival by not rocking the boat or changing too much by believing their core audience is Facebook seniors who fear change and require the most bland stories and characters possible. Which was not a belief system in 1994.

30 minutes ago, Vee said:

I think ultimately it just comes down to inertia, Frank being too wedded to most of his own hires/friends, and the belief in maintaining meager survival by not rocking the boat or changing too much by believing their core audience is Facebook seniors who fear change and require the most bland stories and characters possible. Which was not a belief system in 1994.

Wendy just came in with such a clear vision of what she wanted the show to become and was involved, but in a collaborative way.  Frank has no vision except to stay under budget and stay on the air for another day.  It's just boring.  Even JFP and Guza had a vision-although often it was a poor one.  There was something they were trying to accomplish besides the bare minimum of keeping the lights on.

1 hour ago, Vee said:

I think ultimately it just comes down to inertia, Frank being too wedded to most of his own hires/friends, and the belief in maintaining meager survival by not rocking the boat or changing too much by believing their core audience is Facebook seniors who fear change and require the most bland stories and characters possible. Which was not a belief system in 1994.

What damn near killed GH in 1977 is what will kill it in the end anyway.

25 minutes ago, carolineg said:

Even JFP and Guza had a vision-although often it was a poor one.  There was something they were trying to accomplish besides the bare minimum of keeping the lights on.

As terribly misogynistic and depressing as their GH was, I'd take it back today over Frank Valentini's GH in a heartbeat.

Edited December 21, 2024Dec 21 by Khan

5 minutes ago, Khan said:

As terribly misogynistic and depressing as their GH was, I'd take it back today over Frank Valentini's GH in a heartbeat.

Honestly, I would too.  It's not a GH without flaws, but at least things happened and Guza always put on a decent sweeps event.

2 hours ago, carolineg said:

I do struggle to see where Jenny/Paul or Jagger/Karen could have fit long term.  Obviously there was no way Bill/Holly could survive.  Jenny/Paul could have been involved in the Lois/Ned romance and obviously Jagger/Karen would have been involved in the Stone story and most likely the Sonny/Brenda story as well.  Both couples stories just reached a conclusion and a happy ending (until they came back and it wasn't).   And, yes, I think Jenny/Paul and especially Jagger/Karen are more popular than 75% of the couples on GH.

I imagine Jenny and Paul had to have more fans than most GH couples now because the ratings were much higher at the time, but I do wonder if they ever had any real following. I've never heard of any. 

34 minutes ago, Khan said:

What damn near killed GH in 1977 is what will kill it in the end anyway.

As terribly misogynistic and depressing as their GH was, I'd take it back today over Frank Valentini's GH in a heartbeat.

I just wish those weren't the only options. GH lost its way such a long time ago. I'm glad the show is still on the air, and it still has more viable characters, somehow, than Y&R or B&B do these days, but it's been different shades of a ghost ship for decades now. 

37 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I imagine Jenny and Paul had to have more fans than most GH couples now because the ratings were much higher at the time, but I do wonder if they ever had any real following. I've never heard of any. 

It's hard to say because that era and the Eckerts are mostly widely panned, but I get the impression Jenny and Jenny/Paul were mid level popular.  I think they were certainly preferred to the Ned/Jenny and Tracy/Paul alternative.  It seems they were also heavily promoted.  Someone watching at the time could probably help.  I just think they weren't terribly unique and their romance was just forgotten over time especially since they weren't very connected to the canvas (outside of Dillon) for years and years.

4 hours ago, carolineg said:

It's hard to say because that era and the Eckerts are mostly widely panned, but I get the impression Jenny and Jenny/Paul were mid level popular.  I think they were certainly preferred to the Ned/Jenny and Tracy/Paul alternative.  It seems they were also heavily promoted.  Someone watching at the time could probably help.  I just think they weren't terribly unique and their romance was just forgotten over time especially since they weren't very connected to the canvas (outside of Dillon) for years and years.

I definitely agree they were more popular than those two pairings...I just wasn't sure either of those pairings were meant to be rooting couples.

It might be the extremely cheap sendoff they got (which got SOD's worst of the year, IIRC) that makes me think they weren't.