Jump to content

ALL: Who or what is a "vet"


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Based on the conversation I'm seeing in another thread, I'd be interested in hearing definitions of what people mean when posters talk about soap veterans. Actor? Character? Time on screen/off-screen included?

Personally, I only count actors as vets, not characters and I don't count any actor who started since 2000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

A vet to me is someone who has at least been in the same character for over 10 years. Even with breaks.

Example.

Cameron Matheson was a vet of AMC (He'd played Ryan since 1998) with a small break. Even though I couldn't stand him. He had still played the same character for a long running amount of time.

Alicia Minshew was not a vet. She played Kendall for only 9 years when the show went off.

For GH.

Mo Benard (Sonny) is a vet. He's been in the same character since 1993.

Laura Wright....Is not a vet. She's only played Carly since 2005. Even though there's been other Carly's before her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What's a vet?

Someone who has been acting for many years?

A Daytime vet?

Is a Phil Carey type vet, who was in the business for decades and did more than just soap the same as a LW vet, who's only done soaps for a solid 20 years? There's no comparison. You have Geary who's done quite a bit in and outside of Daytime. What has Jane Elliot done outside of GH and other Daytime shows?

You have veterans: Phil Carey, Tony Geary, Eric Braeden, Susan Flannery and then you have Daytime veterans, the previous mentions and then the LW's, Jane Elliots, Roger Howarths, Robin Christophers, etc.

IMHO, there's a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Webmaster

I also agree with the 10 year (non-consecutive) cut off based on actor, not character. If you've been playing the same character on the same show for 10 years or longer, you are a veteran. The way I base this is due to the Teacher's Retirement System of NYC. In that system, once you've been deducted in pay for a full 10 years (not including breaks), you are vested and no more deductions will be made by them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It depends on whether the actor or character is being called a veteran. If the character is called a veteran, then the time the actor has been in the role matters less to me than how long the character has been on consecutively.

In that context, I would consider Carly a veteran. I would not consider Steve Webber a veteran, as he's only been around off and on a few years.

(I would consider him an abomination, though.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Personally I consider Carey, Wright and Elliot all to be soap vets. I look at soap vets similar to the way I look at theatre vets. I don't care all the much about the character they played as I do about the fact that they work(ed) in the genre.

I don't entertain the concept of veteran characters anymore. I did once but no longer. Iconic, yes but veteran, no.

I agree. Of course that begs the question of how valuable is "vet" status in the current soap climate. I could make the argument that being a vet has become a liability but that's best left for a different thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Webmaster

Honestly, Kristen is a daytime veteran. So is Kirsten Storms. Even Farah Fath. The one's who aren't are those who have been in the industry or on a show for less than 10 years. Despite what people may say of Alderson, she's essentially the new generations Kimberly McCullough - being that she grew up on a show and has reached adulthood. Therefore, she's a vet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

KA is definitely a vet. She's also screwed once GH goes off the air but still she's a vet.

I think of her more as the new generation's Kassie De Paiva in that she thought she could warble and chew scenery in the same role for the rest of her life and has never tried to stretch herself or work on her craft.

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

    • Imagine the possibilities if Mary was the politically correct moral center of the Loves and clashed with Donna over her snobby socialite tendencies (once the re-recast was done).
    • Show starts soon. Wonder if we will get the Voice saying "The role of Ted Richardson is now being played by Keith Robinson" and if they'll update the intro
    • I initially thought BTG was going for the Duprees being (somewhat) like the Kennedy family- wealthy and politically influential. And Martin's accident being like how Chappaquiddick (Link) caused Ted Kennedy to cancel his plans to run for president in the 1970s.  (He ran in 1980 but didn't get the nomination). But now it seems to have more layers that that, so I have no idea.
    • The episodes uploaded today by the YT channel have been done through the end of November 1985 and what a mess we have in the Liza/Sunny/Hogan/Lloyd/Estelle story. I think it would have been easier to gradually bring Hogan/Sunny back together.. maybe even addressing the toxic situation and trying to work through it.   Unrelated to all that, I see that Gary Tomlin has attempted to reset the show to where it was when he left at the end of 1983.  He really seems obsessed with regressing Wendy as a character after the progress/evolution of her character post 1983.. with her sleeping with her mother's new boyfriend.   Based on what I've watched of the show online... the one consistency was the mother/daughter relationship between Stephanie/Wendy... and even though Stephanie was recast, I think violating that relationship was a mistake. I can see why Tomlin didn't last long in this stint as head writer.  
    • Please register in order to view this content

         
    • Please register in order to view this content

    • I don't think that would be the reason tbh. Thinking about it, it's probably storyline related - I could see bio mom / dad eventually turning up (or maybe it's June as speculated) and wanting the children back. I could also see it being a part of the fall-out of Martin's secret being revealed now that he's backed down from a presidential campaign - his and Smitty's ability to be parents comes into question, which the bio parents use. They might've wanted the kids to be at a age where they could reliably speak for themselves what they prefer, but also have enough memories of their bio parent(s) not doing a good job. I'd also think that they might want to avoid having the image of this gay couple keeping a mother away from her small children, as it might skew the viewer to sympathise too much in one direction. 
    • Something self-defense is my guess, and I have a feeling maybe he was protecting someone close to him and the optics looked bad so Vernon/Anita covered it up (my guess maybe he was protecting Vernon/Anita).
    • If Reginald had had more dimensions he probably wouldn't have been killed off and Carl might not have been brought back to fill the international supervillain role. I think though that the Loves were also severely damaged by the way Nicole and Peter were made iredeemable and written out. I definitely feel that loss more than the loss of Reginald, primarily since they were good characters to begin with and were only ruined during this period.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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