Jump to content

GH: Discussion for the Month of April


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I guess it depends on the point of this story. We have been expected to do nothing - for months now - but point and laugh at a mentally ill woman. That's the entire story. This is after years of RC/FV coming up with any reason possible to have Bree Willamson playing the same character on OLTL. No matter what - even when she was almost raped by her own father - we were supposed to point and laugh at Jessica. Why is this a story? Nothing will change with Sonny, so it's just Ron writing bad parodies of soaps yet again.

It's like cheap cotton candy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

And I keep hearing about this great mentor relationship with John/Starr, and so on. John doesn't give a [!@#$%^&*] about anyone but himself. He never has. It's kind of hilarious how the show didn't bother for even a month to pretend that he ever gave a [!@#$%^&*] about Cole. Now he has this dead sister he can pretend to care about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

See, this is why I'm not fond of DID/split personality stories on daytime. Because they don't have the budgets of movies or even most prime-time shows, they have to resort to the one-alter-talking-to-the-other-in-the-mirror trick, which is cheesy and tired, IMO. Especially as one alter urges the other not to do something and the other says, "Tough! I'm doin' it and YOU CAN'T STOP ME!".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What does budget have to do with anything? How else would it be done? Ive seen DID stories be done like this on primetime as well. I have no issue with the mirror trick. The camp factor came in Connie trapping her in a mirror with Kate banging to get out. Just Kate looking at a mirror and interacting with her is fine enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If you have a good enough actor then you can see them transition all on their own. You don't need gimmicks. Kelli, like Bad Acting Bree, just can't make it work.

I think they also assume viewers won't get it so they need some chuckles. The last years of Viki/Niki were terrible for that reason. If you watch the 1995 DID story, none of the alters talked to each other in mirrors or cages. At most they spoke to each other in Viki's mind. I think there was a mirror scene once.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djIRhlfASO4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This DID story has been going on for weeks now and this was the first time the mirror trick was used. Its been mainly in Kate's head till now and I think it was purely to have a visual representation of Connie "locking" her away.

IA that KS is a weak actress and the way she symbolizes Connie coming to the surface is the "epileptic seizures" (as R Sinclair calls them) and her stupid facial expressions. I said before that GH would be best to just tell her to stand still in place for like 2 seconds and have sound edit in a musical cue to denote to the audience that she has changed bc she's god awful at doing that on her own

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You're right. I think all their stories tend to start off with just voices and then go to this. Beyond some visual need, I wonder if it's also someone on the show realizing how talentless some of these actors are. It's so similar to OLTL's last years - RC/FV zero in on bad actors and bad writing and directing make them even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think Kelly Sullivan gets a bad wrap. Not that I like her as Kate or think shes great but is she really any worse than the rest of the mediocrity on this show. And I do believe a lot of its directing and FV. It's too similar to how Bree acted on OLTL with her DiD stories.

And I like Robin Mattson but I always thought Kate Collins Natalie was played less cartoonish and more well rounded. Maybe it was the writing KC got vs RM but then I have a very low tolerance for extended runs of OTT crazy characters. Particularly when they start off cartoonish at the onset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Really? Do you mean Janet instead? KC’s Natalie wasn’t cartoonish but her Janet most certainly was. She was the epitome of cartoon soap villain and a complete joke. RM played the role a lot more subtle, and cunning. KC was just so over the top with the theatrics and she was written more comedicly whereas RM’s Janet was portrayed more sadistic. RM got to play the more well rounded redeemed Janet. KC's Janet was almost cuckoo crazy her entire stint

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think its writing and directing. Rc plays all his story points as parodies. If you enjoy that type of writing it's no issue. DH is a show that's sort of thrived on that type of writing for years. Me I just think there's a line where parodies should not cross rape being one.But that's me.

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

    • Elements of it were silly, but it was a small price to pay to get Zas back. I should say there's a difference between in town and out of town returns. It's understandable for Roger to skulk around town in a bad wig and clown suit when he's in Springfield and running the risk of bumping in to people he knows.  Taking us out of town to find someone always has a short shelf life. Then it usually becomes about another character knowing X is alive but determined to keep them out of Springfield. Like Alan discovering Amish Reva. I don't know how long it went on, but it was probably twice as long as necessary.
    • Elizabeth Dennehy complained on the Locher Room about how ridiculous so much of the writing was for Roger's return. She laughed at so much of Roger's antics and how it was hard for her to take them seriously. Probably another reason she was fired as she didn't play the game.  
    • Only thing I enjoyed was Abby / Olivia, etc., and the addiction storyline. Otherwise, I could do without the season.
    • Right? Vanessa had a ball gown for every occasion.
    • Roger's return storyline may have been silly but Roger's return was what lead to GL's last golden era.  It was the combination of Roger's return and Robert Calhoun becoming EP that got GL to finally hit it's stride after some really bad years. It will always disappoint me that the ratings during Robert Calhoun's run didn't reflect the quality of the show.
    • He also gave some of the best episodes, like the episodes surrounding Doug's death. The problem with Days was that Ron had a horrible vision from he top. I don't feel the same for MVJ and nothing that has happened in all these months suggests she doesn't have a handle on the show. Now if it becomes an issue I'll acknowledge it, but I'm not seeing it so far.
    • Jean Hackney was awful and that lead to Ben's exit story which sucked. I liked Ben/Val together. Val's love for Ben was that of a grown woman moving on with her life and Ben's love for Val made him willingly decide to raise another man's children as his own.
    • It wasn't just a GL thing, it was an 80s thing. Opulent party scenes on soaps were very big back then. Even in regular episodes where people are just going to dinner they're dressed up like they're going to see royalty.
    • Just started the May 27 episode and first thing I see is that Willow got an ugly haircut since hte last time i watched   I dont have the context for how everthing went down but I know its all Lulu's fault which make her a bish for what she did to Gio
    • I'm pretty sure he was. But point taken. GL really had a thing for masked and costumed balls/parties in the '80's. Everyone looks fabulous, but those poor costume designers.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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