Howarth came back from CBS ready to work. Regardless of his material on either show I think he's always been very present and committed to the work on OLTL and GH since his return, and as a result I think he's always at least diverting to watch, moreso than he'd been in years. I think the Franco folly is on par with Dylan McAvoy now, and is more the work of the execs and writers than Howarth.

Steve Burton has been phoning it in since at least 2003 and is a dreadful actor today,

Roger Howarth should be in the thesaurus under "phoning it in". I used to think he was really good and was happy when he returned to OLTL and when Todd came to GH. Then I got a load of his Franco. He is Johnny One-Note, incapable of playing anything except this one character. If he played Hamlet he would play him like Todd with the smirks and the ridiculous attempts at being irreverent. If he played Dracula he would play a Dracula who smirks and is pleased with every dim-witticism he uttered. If he played Hellen Keller he would sign smugly. He has nothing to offer except this one shtick that is out of place with every character except Todd; the problem being Todd is all he can play.

Steve Burton is just a limited actor. He is not as good as RH but that is not saying much. He is ok at comedy as the straight man exasperated by the silliness around him but soaps offered him very few opportunities to shine. GH did offer him the occasional chance to do some entertaining comedy work though. As a dramatic actor he has nothing.

I don't think Roger phones it in on GH. I believe he is just not as good as his stans want the world to believe he is, Craptini included. Roger is very one note with a few instances of delivering good stuff. He has never been great and never will be. He just happens to have played one of Daytime's lovable rapists so fans will follow him anywhere and love anything he does. They think the work he did on the bridge was phenomenal. I hear his return to OL was very corpse like, but I think that was largely due to Roger only being there because he was trying to fulfill the terms of the agreement in place and really didn't want to be there.

Roger was OK on OLTL. I appreciated that he was somewhat restrained. I think his hamming and tics on GH are unbearable. I also think a middle-aged man trying to be "cute" is annoying as hell.

Roger seemed happy enough BTS. I didn't think he phoned it in at all on the new OLTL, and I thought he was a lot more grounded. The material got very piecemeal near the end, though. I think he does his best with Franco and the writing on GH, but the character is never going to work.

He's a limited actor, but what he is good at he is generally pretty good.

Edited October 7, 201312 yr by Vee

Roger was OK on OLTL. I appreciated that he was somewhat restrained. I think his hamming and tics on GH are unbearable. I also think a middle-aged man trying to be "cute" is annoying as hell.

If anyone, young or old, has to try to be cute then they aren't. It is just something you happen to be.

I agree with the mass that it's the same thing on two different shows. Both are shoved down our throats in boring, stale ass roles and both are limited actors.

However, I could've cared for both had they been placed in differ roles/written differ too.

I would've cared for Dylan had they paired Sharon with Dylan (who had chemistry) & made him her savior instead of Nick & Adam. Pairing him with a beloved character could've helped. Along with them originally addressing this Nikki long, lost crap (we all know it's going to be Dylan by now) upon his arrival on the show.

With RH's case, had they not retconned Alan's history with that Franco crap and just made him Jimmy Lee's son, we would've possibly cared.

Two retconned characters that really serve no purpose but could of had there been an intelligent writers writing the show.

I agree with the mass that it's the same thing on two different shows. Both are shoved down our throats in boring, stale ass roles and both are limited actors.

However, I could've cared for both had they been placed in differ roles/written differ too.

I would've cared for Dylan had they paired Sharon with Dylan (who had chemistry) & made him her savior instead of Nick & Adam. Pairing him with a beloved character could've helped. Along with them originally addressing this Nikki long, lost crap (we all know it's going to be Dylan by now) upon his arrival on the show.

With RH's case, had they not retconned Alan's history with that Franco crap and just made him Jimmy Lee's son, we would've possibly cared.

Two retconned characters that really serve no purpose but could of had there been an intelligent writers writing the show.

Pairing Dylan with Chelsea was a por choice. She is relatively new herself. As you said, they should have paired him with Sharon. The fall out of him being Nikki's son would have been better because she hates Sharon.

In what cartoon world is the roided goiter "better looking" than Roger Howarth?

I'm saying.

Depends on the lighting, camera angle, etc. From some angles, Howarth looks like Wayland Flower's puppet, Madame.

One person's Madame is another's Captain Chunk...

Depends on the lighting, camera angle, etc. From some angles, Howarth looks like Wayland Flower's puppet, Madame.

OMG, you're right! I'll never be able to see him the same way again.

It surprises me that people think Howarth is a bad actor. His technique may have atrophied over time, but his Todd from the 90's was incredible and very believable. He truly was a monster that terrorized Marty and that's one of the reasons why I couldn't watch Todd's redemption story. That man loved to humilate, degrade and assault women who he felt superior to. He was too real. The man was a great actor. I would not call him at all limited.

Simply put, the hate towards RH is simply sour grapes from those who are pissy that their Guzafied pet is/pets are no longer front and center.

Oh, I think there's plenty of reason to resent Howarth's presence on GH at the moment.