Soaps are primarly about sex and adventure which doesn't leave room for vets.

No.

Edited September 16, 201114 yr by All My Shadows

Thank you.

Thank you.

Soaps have historically gone through characters like tissue. I question what a canvus of vets can get you in demos aside from cancellation. Many of us may enjoy these characters, but the average viewer isn't interested in a 64 year olds sex life. Lucci was young once, made ratings climb, but I'd love seeing some new talent on all shows.

As I've said, soaps should get the ax after 20 years

Yes, because all soap characters are there to have sex and go on adventures.

Again, no. You mistake the intent of these shows.

Many of us may enjoy these characters, but the average viewer isn't interested in a 64 year olds sex life.

And I doubt they're all that concerned about a twenty-four-year-old's sex life, too.

so is it politic now to add Katherine Kelly Lang to this list?

I'd say so. (Seriously.)

Anna Lee, Leslie Charleson, Jess Walton, Jackie Zeman, Melody Thomas Scott, Katherine Kelly Lang, Hunter Tylo, Rachel Ames, Denise Alexander, Victoria Rowell, Tonya Lee Williams, Judith Chapman

I don't know if I necessarily agree with your comments about older vets being useless and not being worthy of leading story. I can think of a lot of great moments where veteran characters/actors were used and were amazing in those storylines. Erica Kane reliving her rape in 2003, Luke Spencer pulling his son off of a respirator in 2005, Erika Slezak's work in the Heart of the Lord storyline and her resulting work as Viki for the last decade or so. These were all phenomenal stories and they were all leads in them.

I will agree with you on one thing though soaps should definitely have phased characters out once they've full filled their usefulness in terms of story. I've felt that way about soo many characters for so long and I don't understand why soaps continue on with a character even after they've proven their usefulness and continue to clog up the canvas with characters who are virtually useless. They just become plot contrivances and they wind up doing things that are completely out of character and diminish who they were originally meant to be. I can think of at least four characters off the top of my head who could have been written off a certain soap 7 years ago yet they and their group still persist on this show and are still going strong. Why?

Bingo its not the vet use IMO. GH is a perfect example. Why the hell are CArly. Sonny and Jason still the center of the show 15 years later and its not like they are long term characters who's airtime was balanced with other leads in the past(Luke, Laura in the 90's well Alan, Monica, Ned, Lois, Felica, Brenda and the list goes on all shared equal screentime and story) where there are new and interesting stories for them. THese are characters they have told the same story for year after year 5 days a week while younger potential characters on that show have come and gone who could have certainly stepped in and transitioned into stories with them. Its the same thing with AMC and their airhogs. Its not that people hate Greenlee or Ryan or Zach its that these characters and only these characters have been non stop in FB stories for years while othr younger potential characters like Frankie Hubbard for example site around and wander the hospital. And it burns out story for these characters so people get sick of them. I think the shows at one time did a far better job of transitioning in new talent and melding them in with the old, using the vets to help solidify these new and upcoming characters and slowly transitioning the vets to a more supporting role as the younger cast members got more prominent roles. Now the vets are just tossed aside and the new characters shoved on screen 5 days a week.

George Reinholt - once dynamic soap hunk who may or may not have been a holy terror at AW - and considering what some soap studs have gotten away with and kept their jobs. Not looking like a soap hunk when he came back for the 1989 AW cameo sealed his fate.

Maeve Kinkead - seeing Vanessa Chamberlain go from a savvy, witchy businesswoman to a pill addicted house frau, just so Pam Long's new characters can take center stage. Same with Jerry Ver Dorn for the period of 1984-1985.

Robert Colbert as Stuart Brooks Y&R 1983- the character just faded away as his daughters were all off the canvas. No goodbye, no Stu retired to Florida. You would never imagine that happening to MacDonald Carey's Tom Horton.

Where was George In The AW 89 Cameo, Ive seen it on YT but cant find him???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jAu_Ol6RbA&feature=BFa&list=FLNEnwk1pvnNWCT3Fn9r49Eg&lf=mh_lolz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djW63yz95G4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQBlaJ-NutQ&feature=related

George was in all these parts?

He wasn't in the first part - I just posted that if anyone wanted to see more of Alice. He's in the last two.

Those Rachel/Alice scenes at the end get me every time

Edited September 18, 201114 yr by CarlD2