15 minutes ago, victorlord75 said:

I think soap writers are always incensed if viewers either find out or figure out their next move.  Nothing new there.  In GH's early days, the plan was for Audrey to die from lymphoma, but it got leaked to the press.  So, the pissed off Hursleys changed direction.  I think Henry Slesar was probably the best writer at throwing viewers off track, but I think Slesar had said something about throwing "blue herrings" into a story, because sharp viewers too easily sniffed out the "red herrings"!  But, coming back to the issue here, yes, I agree, a writer should stick to the story they meant to tell and have the guts to follow through, because I think in soaps, a coherent framework is key.  My personal sticking point with Jelly is that "Paul is the serial killer" garbage.  The sad point with that one was, there was no plan to begin with.  They started the story and then tried to pin the killings on a character they chose later.  That is not forming a coherent framework, and definitely, no way to write a mystery!  But, that's last year's news.  They better not screw up the Valentin-Anna connection, or I will litter this thread with as much Jelly hate as Jonny litters it with his Jelly love.

What are "blue herrings"?

Johnny

Look not to burst your bubble but ABC Disney does not let anyone have free reign especially in Daytime that they dont give two [!@#$%^&*] about

 

And its hard to read praise for them when it comes from Joutrnalists who never look at GH, The Good The Bad and The Ugly

1 hour ago, cassadine1991 said:

What are "blue herrings"?

In mystery stories, writers will install "red herrings", or a story point or event to throw a reader off track in a whodunit.  Mr. Slesar said that since his viewers were wise enough to catch the red herrings that he would throw in some blue herrings that would make his mysteries more difficult to solve for viewers.  Sigh.  They don't make them like him anymore.

I liked that guy they brought in to play Spinelli temporarily yesterday.

18 hours ago, victorlord75 said:

In mystery stories, writers will install "red herrings", or a story point or event to throw a reader off track in a whodunit.  Mr. Slesar said that since his viewers were wise enough to catch the red herrings that he would throw in some blue herrings that would make his mysteries more difficult to solve for viewers.  Sigh.  They don't make them like him anymore.

 

But how is a blue herring different from a red herring? It sounds like a blue herring is the seeming denouement of a story but not, that there's one final twist.

3 hours ago, Darn said:

 

But how is a blue herring different from a red herring? It sounds like a blue herring is the seeming denouement of a story but not, that there's one final twist.

I think the difference between the two was ease of sniffing them out by the viewers.  Mr. Slesar knew that his viewers figured out a red herring when they saw it, but he threw those in as any mystery writer would.  He then threw the blue ones in to throw viewers off his trail, and quite often, the tactic worked.  But notice, there was a plan.  I do want to point out something else though.  Mr. Slesar in no way underestimated his audience!

A blue herring is just another red herring. That's it. 

 

Slesar was was just saying he wrote better red herrings. Truth is, there's no difference between the red and blue.

Nice to see that Tonja Walker is playing the lady in red, though we don't know who yet.  She was looking good!

1 hour ago, ranger1rg said:

A blue herring is just another red herring. That's it. 

 

Slesar was was just saying he wrote better red herrings. Truth is, there's no difference between the red and blue.

I suppose you are correct.  I didn't look at it that way, but there is still no denying that Mr. Slesar respected his viewer's intelligence.  I don't think any character written under Mr. Slesar's watch would have held a knife to their spouse's throat ruthlessly,  gotten off free and clear for it, and then be made out to be a hero.

Why are we being subjected to Thanksgiving's episode?

It was a great episode just fantastic to watch 

2 hours ago, slick jones said:

Why are we being subjected to Thanksgiving's episode?

Nathan Varni ‏@nathanvarni  7h7 hours ago

#gh update due to final Prez press conf, we're going to move today's episode to tomorrow 4 all so our fans won't miss out! Thank you!

On 1/17/2017 at 3:49 AM, victorlord75 said:

I liked that guy they brought in to play Spinelli temporarily yesterday.

 

It reminded me of how much Spinelli really is just Bradford Anderson using catchphrases. I was mostly happy to see Blake Berris, looking very handsome.

 

I was pleasantly surprised to see Felicia when Maxie was getting ready for her wedding. Naturally Nina (painted into that way too tight banana peel dress) got all the dialogue she should have had. 

I did laugh when Obrecht was sitting down and referred to Felicia as the "Aztec".

It was nice to see Mac, Felicia and Robin. Mac, Felicia and Robin surrounded by so many awful and unnecessary characters. Dr. O calling Felicia Aztec was funny. Maxie marrying a log of wood The baby Leo drama was meh. But Ned and Olivia F do have chemistry. True GH characters appear sporadically only to occasionally be thrown some crumbs. What do Jelly have against Lucas? Lucas should've been at Maxie's wedding. Naxie wedding was dull and lackluster.Blake Berris was ok as Spinelli. Olivia J is back she should've stayed dead.

Edited January 19, 20178 yr by victoria foxton