Soap Hoppers: The Soap Actors And Roles Thread
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Recent Posts
-
-
You know what is a great way to stop these unclear "rumors"? Just stop posting them and then back tracking with words like "apparently". Anyhow, I didn't find the Tracy/Lois scenes as good as I hoped. -
By Contessa Donatella · Posted
Jason, in thinking this over, I realize that we look at this space, differently. To me it is a potentially collaborative space. Now that I've realized this, what I should have said, "I'm having a problem because what I'm seeing is not matching up with your descriptions. Maybe these files I just got are misdated. Maybe it's something else. I will keep you posted. Meanwhile this episode, its edit, is ready, even though I might have to issue a corrected date later. But, people can enjoy the performances now. -
By Contessa Donatella · Posted
Thank you for the constructive suggestion. -
But how is it "apparent" that she signed a new 3-year contract? Your wording had a voice of authority -- as if you knew it was true. A better way to post about it? Say you read online that she signed a new contract, but have no idea if that's true. -
This interview actually reminds me a bit of Kim Zimmer’s press during the infamous clone storyline on Guiding Light, or Deidre Hall during the possession story on Days. All three were seasoned daytime veterans who made it clear they valued airtime for their characters, not just being part of a romantic pairing. It seems that idea was part of the pitch behind these bigger-than-life plots. They all took big swings in their performances. When I read Kim Zimmer’s memoir, I thought she captured it best — she wanted to be respected for being willing to take those risks. To paraphrase her, she knew it was ridiculous for Reva to think she was pregnant after menopause, but she still threw herself into those scenes and made them real. That’s what really struck me about Victoria Wyndham’s interview too. She responded like a real person. It felt like she was telling Michael Logan that she knew Justine — and a geriatric pregnancy with twins — was totally preposterous, but that she still deserved credit for trying to keep the show alive and entertain the audience. And honestly, I think that's more than fair. Logan is looking for a reductive answer for who is to blame. And, she's telling him to accept that they were all well-meaning. Which is not a defense of bad storytelling. But, I understand that she's frustrated because she interpreted Logan's critique as a lack of commitment, and she wants him to know that she was committed! (maybe not for the best, but committed). -
By Contessa Donatella · Posted
Fine, you only had to say so. It's not a problem to me NOT to post this. I have no idea what this means. -
By Contessa Donatella · Posted
Oh, really? I think we're really getting close. What does "apparently" mean to you? To me, it means that this is something I think has happened but not something I absolutely positively know to have happened. When I use a word like "apparently" as I have here, I am doing so by intent. Can you think of a better way to communicate that? -
Wow...I was not expecting a montage. I know SilkPress did not!!! Poor Eva. Lol. Funnily enough I missed that. -
By Contessa Donatella · Posted
For the record, VW thought having the twins at their ages was absurd & who wanted that story, was some group of fans, who wanted her & Carl to have a chance at having children together. Not any fans that I knew of, but supposedly they existed.
-
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.