3 hours ago, KMan101 said:

And what was most funny to me in SSM's interview on TVLine she even made mention of not having enough younger men. So, what do you do? Get rid of one that you have? I mean .....

 

You do when they're tainted and as bland as that guy was.

1 hour ago, Darn said:

 

You do when they're tainted and as bland as that guy was.

 

Well, yeah, but the overall point remains, lol.

1 hour ago, Darn said:

 

You do when they're tainted and as bland as that guy was.

Agreed. Getting rid of Travis was definitely a good choice.

 

I'm sure SS will usher in some new younger male characters in the future. 

He should have been Billy. Pairing him with awful recast Victoria was his undoing. Shame!  Hope he pops up in primetime.

It's unfortunate that a younger guy was let go considering the canvas, but if the writers don't care about character, what's the point. I mean we never did find out why Travis ended up in GC in first place. I was hoping he'd be tied to one of the Baldwin/Fenmore, Williams/Blair or Chancellor families somehow. 

The point being, they COULD have invested in him. It was just an example of how she said they don't have enough but yet you axe someone you could have fixed or changed or developed better? I just don't always agree with coming and axing people just because they were from the other regime. Not that that was this case, but on other soaps and this soap we've seen many get dropped that could have been taken in a better, more interesting direction. He was eye candy and not the greatest actor but better writing would have gone a long way.