Jump to content

ALL: Who or what is a "vet"


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I am not contradicting myself at all. I am saying there is no hard and fast rule for what makes a vet imo. Big Alice has been on the show years, probably more years than Heather, but she is not a vet. Vet of what? Maybe if they revived Santa Barbara NLG would be a vet on that show, but there is nothing vetty about her on GH because her character is so of the modern era. I would challenge the notion Maurice Benard is a vet because he defined the current GH all his tenure. As I said, I define a vet as "I know them when I see them"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

AWWW Come on Now, Nancy Lee has been in the industry for years she is a Daytime Vet and been on GH since 1996 she is a vet of GH. If Alice has been on 10+ years, recurring or not, she is still a vet. Obviously you know Nancy when you see her, you named another show she was on....you know them when you see them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The first thing I look for is was this actor on during the show's glory era? In GH's case this is pretty easy to figure out, so therefore despite only being on the show a few years Rick Springfield is a vet. Bradford Anderson, who starred on the show longer, is not. Then if the answer is no but they were still on a long time, I go to "were they on the show before the current GH was born? In this case the current GH is the mob era. So Sean Kanan qualifies as a vet as does Steve Burton perhaps. Then just to be sure I ask myself "are they most associated with an era that is not the modern one?". So Jonathan Jackson, a contemporary of Nancy Lee Grahn, is a vet thanks to his years of absence. Rebeca Herbst not so much because her tenure is most mired in the 00s as is Grahn's. They are current, Jackson is a throwback to the past, therefore he is a vet and they are not. Kanan is a vet because he is of yesterday, Burton perhaps not because he defines today. It's not a scientific way of looking at things, but it works for me. For DOOL the glory era would be the 90s and before, for GH it is the 80s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Years ago I would have said 10 years makes a vet, now I see the number as closer to 20 as so many people make it to 10 that it is sort of meaningless. That said for certain shows there are actors who I'd consider vets of that program even if they were on less than 10 years if it was a short lived soap opera (like Sunset Beach, Passions, Santa Barbara, Ryan's Hope, all of these lasted less than 15 years...)

That said I think there are show vets and industry vets, tho some people are both. For example Lucci or Slezak are both AMC and OLTL vets respectively and industry vets. For example someone like Judi Evans I'd see as an industry vet, and not a Days vet as while she's been on that show on and off within a 25 year period, she's also well known for her prior roles on GL and AW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So would you guys consider someone like Vanessa Marcil a vet? She certainly hasn't played the character for ten years collectively, but created it twenty years ago and was the only actress to play the role and was the lead young heroine in her age range in her heyday? Or someone like Eva La Rue, who was quite popular but wasn't on the ten year minimum? Or Jonathon Jackson, who wasn't the only Lucky (or most definitive in some fans eyes), but started the role as a child? These are roles that are harder to define as meeting the criteria as vets, but certainly deserve consideration amongst the likes of KA as Starr and CK as Lily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Daytime vet or specific show vet?

A show-vet has to IMO been on the show on contract for over 10 years.

A daytime vet........? It is IMO bigger to be a Daytime vet than a specific show vet, so I'd say the person has to have been like 20 years on daytime TV to be a Daytime vet. ;)

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.   
    • What if they were originally cast as Vanessa and Doug's twins and then were moved to Samantha/Tyrell when the show decided to delay introducing the twins? It's a shame they didn't stick with the original plan. BTW, does anybody have any new speculation on what Martin's secret will be? Brandon is hinting nobody is guessing it. Initially I thought it would be something where he was drunk and killed somebody or something like that but now I'm feeling like maybe it wasn't completely his fault. I don't get the vibe they're going to take him in a dark direction anymore.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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