Jump to content

Support characters


Recommended Posts

  • Members

It's always been my belief that a soap should have one character or couple who's above it all and to whom the other characters can go when they're in trouble. Examples would be Bob and Kim Hughes (ATWT), Tom and Alice Horton (DAYS), Joe and Ruth Martin (AMC), Dr. Steve Hardy (GH), and Maureen Bauer (GL).

In light of that, I think it's time Ridge and Brooke (B&B) became such a couple. I don't know how old the guy who's playing Ridge now is, but Ronn Moss (bring him back!) is past 60 and Katherine Kelly Lang is in her mid-50s; it's time for them to settle down and let the younger characters get in trouble.

By the same token, why wasn't Ed Bauer (GL) ever allowed to be such a character? You may recall that it was the discovery of Ed's fling with Lillian that caused Maureen to storm out in a huff and get herself into a fatal automobile accident--a storyline that some fans think was the beginning of the end of that show. Or was Ed having a midlife crisis? At any rate he should have been allowed to settle down and maybe the writers wouldn't have had to concoct that storyline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

That was likely the plan for Ed, but Peter Simon left and the show had no real interest in recasting, sans a few appearances in 1997.

I think supporting characters were once integral for soaps - Nancy and Mike Karr must be among the best of any soap - but soaps today are so empty, they have less and less relevance. They also don't know how to write supporting characters in ways that do not have blatant writing agendas (like Maggie on DAYS).

A Y&R with any future would have sidelined worthless old Jack and Victor to those roles a decade ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

On Days, Maggie served this function beautifully from 2009-2010. She took in Melanie and Mia, the Hortons rallied around her when Alice passed, she coped with Mickey's death, and she even got the surprising little romance with Victor. Then it generally went to hell when they made her Daniel's mother.

Caroline Brady is functioning pretty effectively in this role. I still think having her switch Parker's paternity test was OTT, and the motivation they gave onscreen was really weird, but other than that, she's generally a talk-to who has an interesting POV on life, such as when she advised Will on how to save a marriage after infidelity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think it depends on the character. Edward Quartermaine worked best for me when he was in the thick of shady business. Katherine Chancellor was too strong a character to be just a supporting talk to. I don't want John Dixon to not be himself. The risk is forcing the older characters into nothing roles. Peter Simon quit because they didn't have anything for Ed anymore.

I think the older characters can still be in story and have a piece of the story, I just don't enjoy them only being used to propel the current cast of twenty something's. Plus we saw Alice and Tom on Days a lot! We saw Steve Hardy! We saw Myrtle and Joe on AMC and Kim and Bob. Until we didn't, and all the shows suffered. One of the best things ATWT did was have Katie and Nancy bond.

When I was 16 years old, I was just as invested in the Marlena/John affair as I was in Carrie/Austin/Sami/Lucas. I loved how invested Alice was in Hope and Bo's relationship. I knew on GH when Steve Hardy was there no matter how bad the news he was going to deliver, he was going to do it with so much empathy and respect. Just like I loved that Edward was a bastard!

It's hard to fit that talk to/stable core of a show, and not have it seem like it's a pair of older actors and you just don't want to write for them anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the concept of the older tent pole characters who are wealth of insight for the young guns (because they'd already been there and done that) went out with the concept of each soap having a large community of different types of characters. Now, the scope in each show is just so narrow that no proper time would be spent on character-based scenes like that. It's always plot-plot-plot, and there seems to be no one willing to slow things down to get the most out of a wide canvas.

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

    • No idea if this one had ever been up before or what the exact date is, but it's always good to look at/save the new AMC content while you can. If you're here for the drama there is some delirium with Adam and Erica about 10-12 minutes in.

      Please register in order to view this content

      @Vee @Jonathan @Maxim @All My Shadows @alwaysAMC @Contessa Donatella @Soaplovers @DemetriKane @dragonflies @AMCOLTLLover @Khan @Paul Raven @slick jones @Wendy @DeeVee @j swift @EricMontreal22 @AmandainNC28655 @Wilsoky @Franko @Liberty City @robbwolff
    • I think there's a story to tell in someone who always believed in honesty and integrity being emmeshed in so many lies, but I agree that it wasn't very well laid out over the last few months. I think if I was more invested in Lois, I would have more of an issue than I do. Few can hold up against Jane. This is one of those cases where I think mentioning who already switched babies or have long-lost children would just take away from the fallout. If Lulu wants to drag Brook Lyn for hypocrisy there is probably still time (if the show bothers). I don't think anyone would claim these are the best GH episodes ever. It may be very lowered expectations at play. But I do think that scenes like yesterdays were some of Tracy's best, as she is a character who is often not allowed that type of moment.
    • You would think that, wouldn't you? I'd almost think they needed the money to get Robert Newman back, but they also had to know Larkin wasn't going to stick around and play second banana either. I don't get what the writers thought they were doing with Calla. Long liked using actors from Texas, but other than Alex/Bev McKinsey, the characters she wrote for them seemed blah.
    • Bo has a bad history with kids named Zach. (too soon?)
    • Christie said in her interview this week that she recently started taking acting classes again, and has been doing some work in England, so that helped her to jump into Carrie for this (as well as it being all so familiar, it really was home.)
    • Andrea Barber aka Kimmy Gibbler did have a few scenes with Drake too, when he first came on. Christie came in the middle of that storyline 
    • Carrie, as played by Andrea Barber, was at Bo & Hope's wedding. She was the flower girl. The ringbearer was Zachary Parker, the little boy that Megan tried to pass off as her and Bo's son. Andrea's Carrie was at Tony & Anna's real wedding (Aug. 5, 1985). She appeared for the last time on March 21, 1986. Christie's Carrie debuted on April 14, 1986. It appears that Carrie remained in Salem, just off-screen, during that near-month. Christie picked up with what Andrea had been playing, apprehension over John.
    • I don't think she is. I think she just created some really boring characters and for some reason doesn't know what to do with them.  But let's say that she is being force to write these characters that she doesn't like or want to write for.......that's a really bad sign that the creator of the show is being told what to do from the very beginning.  With so many EPs, I was worried there could be too many cooks in the kitchen, too many people giving notes - all those EPs are representing companies who have a stake in the show.    Canada continues to be one episode ahead. Thursday's US episode is another lacklustre episode, even with Leslie in it.  We'll see if Friday or Monday's episode in Canada will be a repeat. 
    • Like a lot of soaps, once relatives left, they kinda dropped off the face of the earth and out of conversations. I don't know why writers do that. If they just don't want to confuse viewers, or don't think it matters, or want the liberty kind of revise history to make their stories work. After Josh left in '84, he's barely mentioned. Even when Billy's railing against Kyle and refusing to accept him, it'd be the most natural thing in the world to say "Kyle's NOT by brother, JOSH is!" and I don't think he ever really says that.  The only writer I can recall who didn't do that is Doug Marland on ATWT. 
    • IIRC, there is a line during this time period where Reva says something like Marah is her first-born child, which fans were not thrilled with.  Dylan makes a few appearances through the rest of the show (and a much later recast that isn't really worth talking about, with a face that is familiar to you). He will make one briefly during 1997, if you get that far.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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