Jump to content

We Love Soaps' Take on GH


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

You are absolutely spot on, and Vee is really confusing me right now. I thought I was healing.

FrankenRon have absolutely no interest in long standing GH characters. If the character was not created by them, they don't even bother. Its just a matter of meeting guarantees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ding ding ding. Episode guarantees is all it is. And they clearly 'save up' the guarantees and then have the characters on for days and weeks on end, hence them disappearing again. Instead of, you know, balancing them. I DO understand the budget/schedules, etc. but they could do a lot better of a job than they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't know what you mean, but if it's about the way I view the show I stand by it. They did a lot of good when they came in, and they also did (and still do) a lot of bad. It's not a matter of absolutes, and it never has been for me, and you know that, everyone knows that. You don't have to agree with me but it's how I feel.

And they do have an interest in those characters - the issue is that it's through an extremely narrow lens. According to them and the way they see things, their take on how to utilize those people is the only take that works, their usage of them is the only usage that is available and feasible, and if you don't accept that you are being ungrateful and unreasonable given the state of daytime today. You are expected to accept plot-driven dialogue and story and de-emphasized characters, functional dialogue and more recently, prioritizing a handful of unpopular characters because at least they're giving you Monica/Felicia/Lesley/Kevin/Lucy, etc. on a semi-regular basis.

That is the problem. It's not that they don't care about most of these characters. It's that they have so internalized their way of doing things, as well as internalizing the near-universal praise from the soap press that has put them inside an ego bubble of their own making, that they refuse to acknowledge that there's anything wrong with it. They think they are doing the only thing that can be done, and they are now unable and unwilling to conceive of a better way.

Loving a show to death, loving its characters and feeling you are infallible in how you run that show and those characters can easily be as bad as not caring about them at all. That is the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I liked the article. It reminds me of Reilly's work: it eventually gets old. I imagine that if Reilly had stuck with DAYS beyond 1997, the SHOCK and AWE stories would've become stale, old, and always trying to out-do the previous one.

P.S. To Mike: Krista Allen stunk as Billie ;) heehee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's a dated article and that particular stan pulled pieces from an article they had written previously.

The only thing I will touch on is that yet another "journalist" failed to explain why Carly and FrankenTodd are not working. The same people are Todd Manning, Luke Spencer, James Stenbeck, Roger Thorpe, Ric Lansing fans. Why are they afraid to say the writing stinks? Why is that so difficult? A relationship forming after a rape literally saved GH, so I'm not getting this outrage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The writing does stink. But Franco is also not Luke Spencer, or Roger Thorpe, or even Todd Manning. He's a serial killer who got Carly's son raped. They could have Harding Lemay in an oxygen tent writing the show and that pairing wouldn't work - and he wouldn't do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There is no writing that can make Franco work. It isn't just Michael's rape, how about how he strapped Lulu to a bomb and yet nobody remembers or even cares. Luke would have killed him by now (if that was Luke). And why did Sonny forget about the rape?

Plus an actor with a shred of versatility would help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We did this tango before, so I will just say a despicable man is a despicable man! How can you embrace a man who viciously gang rapes a woman as a romantic lead and yearn for him to be with a woman but struggle with a man who orchestrated a rape? That makes no sense to me at all, Vee.

It's either a writing issue or it isn't. You can't pick and choose because the writing is awful. He's either irredeemable disgusting filth or he isn't. Harding Lemay or moRon Carlivati.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sure I can, and I'm not the only one. I can and I did and I will continue to do so, but it's not just me - evidently, so has at least 90% of the viewing audience who took to any of those other characters but cannot tolerate NuFranco. When even Daytime Confidential won't back Ron up on that, and they'll back virtually anything, what does that tell you?

Of course [insert soap criminal here - Roger, Todd, Luke, etc.] is a foul person for what they did, whether it's rape or murder or all of the above - there are lots of antiheroes on soaps. But the best of those types of characters are developed and well-drawn, their crimes are measured and weighted against any and all future story choices or future character evolution, how they come out of the abyss or straddle the line - that's why they succeed where characters like Franco fail. So yes, I'll be that hypocrite, and I have decades of company. There's also the issue of what the character's crime is. Franco is IMO a step beyond any of those best examples for a number of reasons, but the biggest is the nature of the character - he is a gleeful serial killer - along with the choice of subsequent story - pairing him with the woman whose son he got raped, whose friends and family he terrorized. It's the nature and the writing.

You can't say it's just a writing issue and that if we had gotten a proper story this thing would've taken off when there's no other serial killer character that comes to mind who has subsequently been paired up romantically on a soap opera, let alone with the parent of the child whose rape he facilitated. It's the writing and the character. It's Franco. It would never have worked. There's a reason even Laura Wright, who can and will sell anything, can barely bring herself to refer to the character as who he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Gleeful serial killer vs a gleeful rapists? I can certainly see the difference.

Not once did I say Francly could have taken off, but we will never know because there was no writing to back this pairing up - only chemistry. My point was and has always been is that you cannot distinguish one despicable man from the other. And a anti-hero? You did not go there.

Not finished, so I will be back in a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But I can distinguish between those characters, and I do, and so does everyone else! There's reasons why Luke and Roger Thorpe, Jack Devereaux, Todd, even the '90s Sonny Corinthos, etc. were popular characters and success stories, and why Franco is not. Saying we can't distinguish between any one of them is the same logic that led to GH foolishly re-hiring Roger Howarth to play Franco, who they envisioned as "Todd-esque" - thinking one size fit all.

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

    • According to the French Santa Barbara site the Andrades had a house in the early episodes.  I thought I remembered scenes in their home. The Andrade house
    • I always wondered if the Andrades lived at the Capwell Mansion?  Certainly they could've had a living room in their space or wherever they went on days off. But, I felt like it was never clear whether Santana visited Rosa when Kelly and Eden were young, or if she actually lived in the servant's quarters (one hopes modern developers have found a euphemism for that space).  I always imagined that Rosa, Santana, and Reuben lived with CC up until Channing was murdered, and then they found their own place because the kids were mostly over 18 (and Santana was pregnant). I like the idea of Rueban and CC being close until Santana got pregnant.  And then Reuben would've hated the adoption of Brandon.  Which would have meant he hated CC, and would've only continued to work for him to try to get info on whatever happened to his grandson. With regard Ava Lazar, having recently rewatched the pilot for the millionth time, I find her captivating to watch, but her line delivery is so dull. 
    • I liked the original 4 family set up.  The families were all different from each other and were intertwined.  They should have been given equal airtime. I felt that Lockridges were perfectly cast with the exception of Laken.  She should have been quickly recast.   I liked all 4 of the actors cast as the Andrades and wish they would have been given better writing.  I really thought Ava Lazar (Santana) would have been one of the breakout stars if she had not been replaced. My only issue with the casting of the Perkins family was Robert Alan Browne as John and as much as I liked Mark Arnold he was the wrong actor to recast Joe Perkins. And of course it was ridiculous how badly they screwed up the casting of CC. The other Capwells were well cast.
    • This late 1976 stuff doesn't sound as bad as it has in other versions I've read (weekly recaps from Jon-Michael Reed and SOD synopses). I am surprised that there is a variation of Ian - Meg - Arlene - Tom playing out this late in the game, but it doesn't sound half bad. Ian's involvement with Beaver Ridge and how it impacts Rick and Cal's future also intrigued me  more than I expected. Even the Carrie - Betsy connection having Carrie watch Suzanne while Ben is visiting was a nice surprise. I feel like this all falls apart pretty quickly with the arrival of Mia Marriott, Michael Blake, and a slew of other half baked characters under Upton.  
    • Too bad she ended up on Y&R. Actress Valarie Pettiford might've been "Sharon" because she sings too and does it pretty well.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • @NothinButAttitude thanks for sharing the rough draft. I had bought "Shadows on the Wall" from Kathryn Leigh Scott's website probably 20+ years ago. It's a fascinating read into a very different version of what the show could have been. 
    • @Efulton That's the quote I was refering to. In the bible, at almost the beginning, Rueben and C.C. were compared as being similar as two fathers wanting everything for their children, or something along those lines. I do think the Andrades were intended to have more of a role, but they never even garnered a family set (just Santana's apartment). In 1991, they added the Capwell kitchen which seemed to be a domestic space for Rosa, but clearly not solely Rosa's. I feel like I remember Rosa confronting Santana about her feelings for C.C. being an attempt to recreate her grand fantasy with Channing, Jr. in the kitchen, but more likely that was the bedroom Santana was redecorating (C.C.'s master suite) utilizing the designsshe had envisioned for herself and Channing, Jr.  
    • On the French Santa Barbara site Ismael Carlo did not hold back about how he felt about the Dobsons. http://santabarbara-online.com/index2.htm How did you start in Santa Barbara ? My recollection is that I auditioned for the role. After a couple of weeks of contract negotiations I was told that all was in order and that I would start work in a couple of weeks or so. But that's when the sh*t hit the fan. In her high petulant way she (Bridget Dobson) commenced to tell me how all her South American workers were beholding to her. How she treated them, "like children". I said to her, "I'm not a child". She got upset and started to cry. I told her that if she did not want me on the show, all she had to do was break the contract and pay me. It never happened. The Dobsons, who were the producers, where a pair of what you would call in your country aristocrats in their minds. I almost quit just before I started. But like any actor at the time I stuck it out all because of the work. I don't think I will ever sell my soul again. I was also able to perform with the lead actor and director in a production of his: Romeo & Juliet. I played Papa Capulet.
    • It's kismet – I was just thinking about Azure C the other day and revisited some of the press from that era. Reading it now, it’s undeniably cringeworthy how often the articles emphasized that the actress was a cisgender woman. It wasn’t framed as a critique of The City for not casting a trans actress—it felt more like a reassurance to viewers that, yes, the storyline involved transgender themes, but they weren’t actually going to show anything. ABC ran an ad in TV Guide that teased that Azure would confess her past – that she “was once a he” – to her love interest Bernardo (similar to the onscreen headline in their tabloid). Rather than focusing on thoughtful representation, the press framed the twist as a dramatic surprise for audiences, to capitalize on shock value.  It was clearly not treated like other social issues had been on ABC Daytime.  They were usually more respectful, and pedantic toward the audience, where this was just about revealing a secret. Of course, the irony is that the only actual protests came from GLAAD over ABC's ignorance, rather than anyone from the right, as they had feared.
    • Having seen what Long did with Mason and Julia on SB, I can't see Long ever being able to write a fun/lightweight story for Nola and Quint. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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