4 minutes ago, MoTheGreat said:

 

AH is the problem!! She didn't have chemistry with Thad either.

Even Tammin Sursok had more chemistry with Thad

19 hours ago, MoTheGreat said:

 

AH is the problem!! She didn't have chemistry with Thad either.

 

Lol you know that is the only pairing of AH's Victoria that I actually liked so you know it's bad that her pairing is unbelievable. Billy and Victoria have never been viable as a couple. Thompson is the first Billy I've liked since David Tom minus some of Miller's early work before he got the ego. (I did feel bad for Burgess Jenkins but that is another story.) 

47 minutes ago, soapfan770 said:

Thompson is the first Billy I've liked since David Tom minus some of Miller's early work before he got the ego. 

 

I liked Miller before he got with AHVictoria. I felt like he had to be extra(ego) to make it work. & it still didn't work.

I missed alot last week....but what is this trash with insta-drama with Scott somehow missing....and Paul the bearer of great news (sarcasm) again....just awful.

7 minutes ago, Fevuh said:

I missed alot last week....but what is this trash with insta-drama with Scott somehow missing....and Paul the bearer of great news (sarcasm) again....just awful.

 

There was absolutely no build up. None. 

1 minute ago, ajsp35801 said:

 

There was absolutely no build up. None. 

Thanks....I was wondering if I missed something...it felt like I was....I guess not.  LOL.  How are you supposed to care about any of this when it just....happens?

1 hour ago, Fevuh said:

Thanks....I was wondering if I missed something...it felt like I was....I guess not.  LOL.  How are you supposed to care about any of this when it just....happens?

First, there kinda was build up.  They were mentioning him within the last 2 weeks or so.  Lauren couldn't get a hold of him.

Secondly, incidents like this do happen out of nowhere in the real world so don't act like this is phony.  Its not.  If there were 'build up' to Scott's perdiciment the impact, which there is, wouldn't be as great. 

 

I'm finally understanding what most of you posters here mean by 'build up'.  'Build up' to you guys really 'Being coddled.'   On a side note I finding that many of you guys aren't even watching the show regularly or you guys are fast-forwarding.  Does it ever occur to you guys that you gotta actually watch all it?  The scenes you guys call 'boring' are the ones that tend to be the most important because they offer support for the framework of the story.

 

Too clarify, when I talk about build-up  I'm talking about the supporting scenes before the action starts.  Not, however, the situation specifically affecting the character Scott.  So, yes, there needs to be build up in the sense that the audience needs to be reminded of what he is doing, which did happen.

1 hour ago, Fevuh said:

Thanks....I was wondering if I missed something...it felt like I was....I guess not.  LOL.  How are you supposed to care about any of this when it just....happens?

 

They are relying on long term fans love for these characters to sell stories. 

16 minutes ago, allmc2008 said:

First, there kinda was build up.  They were mentioning him within the last 2 weeks or so.  Lauren couldn't get a hold of him.

Secondly, incidents like this do happen out of nowhere in the real world so don't act like this is phony.  Its not.  If there were 'build up' to Scott's perdiciment the impact, which there is, wouldn't be as great. 

 

I'm finally understanding what most of you posters here mean by 'build up'.  'Build up' to you guys really 'Being coddled.'   On a side note I finding that many of you guys aren't even watching the show regularly or you guys are fast-forwarding.  Does it ever occur to you guys that you gotta actually watch all it?  The scenes you guys call 'boring' are the ones that tend to be the most important because they offer support for the framework of the story.

 

Too clarify, when I talk about build-up  I'm talking about the supporting scenes before the action starts.  Not, however, the situation specifically affecting the character Scott.  So, yes, there needs to be build up in the sense that the audience needs to be reminded of what he is doing, which did happen.

 

I don't think expecting the show to provide writing that could make drama more impactfully prior to drama occurring is being coddled. I call it writing a complete story myself. Jill's heart disease story was a similar example. It'd been more impactful if she'd been on with  the symptoms prior to her crisis   

Edited February 20, 20179 yr by ajsp35801

12 minutes ago, ajsp35801 said:

 

They are relying on long term fans love for these characters to sell stories. 

Well and here - I don't even know the character of Scott.  I didn't watch for around 8 to 10 years, but started again 3 years ago.  But if he's been a character on the show, I've not seen him.  And I don't think he's been on recently so that all adds up to - I don't really care if he's alive or dead....there's no emotional investment because I've not seen him.  It would be another thing if it was a character we know that went on vacation to Mexico and were taken hostage or disappeared because then I'd care.  But this....drama happening over some phone calls just falls flat.

1 minute ago, Fevuh said:

Well and here - I don't even know the character of Scott.  I didn't watch for around 8 to 10 years, but started again 3 years ago.  But if he's been a character on the show, I've not seen him.  And I don't think he's been on recently so that all adds up to - I don't really care if he's alive or dead....there's no emotional investment because I've not seen him.  It would be another thing if it was a character we know that went on vacation to Mexico and were taken hostage or disappeared because then I'd care.  But this....drama happening over some phone calls just falls flat.

 

Scott was born in late 80's or early 90's. I don't remember which. Lauren sent him away as a kid.to hide him from Sheila Carter.  But he's never been a fully realized adult character...ever. He came back for a brief stint about 13 years ago think. 

But shouldn't fans look into their show and know about other relatives

Scott was born on screen on March 1991. I think the child was seen as a toddler until 1994. Lauren moved to Los Angeles in 1995 and she randomly mentionned her son. I don't think the kid was ever seen on B&B. He was only played as an adult by Blair Redford from August 2005 to January 2006 in the infamous Sheila return. He was not mentionned much since.

4 hours ago, ajsp35801 said:

 

There was absolutely no build up. None. 

 

I feel like this can be used to describe most of the active storylines right now. Save it because you're going to have reason to use it again.

OK. I was home and watched 15 minutes and turned it. So why are they moving Lauren into a new story, when the Fenmore's story has plenty of legs? Has Lauren been to the hospital (or did that happen off-screen)? I'm completely baffled. I know they're trying to bring in some much-needed new MALE blood into the show, but it's perplexing. In the meantime, all this airtime for Ravi, while Noah is being celibate - even though Chelsea, Chloe and Hilary could use some real action - even they are one-nighters. Not EVERY hook-up has to lead to some type of romance. Heck, even Ashley and Phyllis could be thrown Noah's way - they would be more believable than the Ravi nonsense.  

5 hours ago, cassadine1991 said:

But shouldn't fans look into their show and know about other relatives

 

Only students of the genre do that. The average viewer does not watch any TV in  that manner. My mother, who has watched off and on since the show debuted and steadily for the past 20 years, asked me who Scott was. 

Edited February 21, 20179 yr by ajsp35801