Jump to content

Soap Opera Digest Best & Worst for 2000


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Yeah, I feel the same.

And while I love MM (Beemer was nothing special back when I watched), I felt like she was also a part of the reason why Belle felt too old. They went from a baby face Kirsten Storms to a mature looking Martha. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

 

Well MM is far too close to Alison Sweeny in age so it is weird.  But she looks like John/Marlena and does decent work.  Belle is just overall a mess of a character.  I know they wanted Shawn/Belle/Phillip to parallel Roman/John/Marlena, but Belle basically comes off wishy-washy because the history was never there for her to bounce back and forth between the two.  And John/Marlena still drive story so it's silly for their only biological child to not be on the show full time.  Also, they aged Claire way too much even though I truly enjoy Olivia Keegan and she looks spot on to be Belle's kid.

Beemer is fine.  Nothing special but nothing horrible. 

That being said I will always prefer Kirsten as Belle and Jason as Shawn so it's a toss up.  I would 100% prefer Shawn/Belle to Sarah/Xander and their whining.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think Shawn and Belle are both pretty uninteresting characters on their own but they were "uninteresting" in the way Bo and Hope are and I think they were supposed to be written in that vein - or at least that was the case when they were younger and played by Jason and Kristen. I don't think they would have been written off back in 2007 or whenever if the original actors had still been in the roles despite how underdeveloped the characters are. Aging them so quickly and then aging their kid (though I do also love Claire) have definitely been big problems

 

I think Philip is the most viable character from that group because they bothered with things like flaws and motivation when it came to him. With Shawn and Belle, the writers pretended they had perfect childhoods and perfect parents and obviously stuff like that is detrimental when it comes to creating interesting characters long-term

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Part of the problem has always been Shawn/Belle were endgame before we even knew them.  MM has much better chemistry with JkJ. I don't have a problem with Shawn D and Belle having perfect childhoods because it mostly seems like they were raised just fine despite devil possessions, back from the deads, and kidnapping lol.  It's not like they were Sami seeing her mom and fake dad banging on a conference room table so I'll allow it.   But they do fall into the uninteresting category because they don't have any faults or any true character traits.

Phillip is by far the most interesting and viable because he has grey areas in his personality that Shawn/Belle aren't really allowed.  And JKJ is a great performer.

Claire is the best thing to come out of Belle/Shawn and their relationship.  Surprised they didn't give them more kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think I see more of a similarity to Shawn/Caroline/Victor too - one of the things they tried to do with Shawn/Belle/Philip, without much success because the show didn't have any nuance, was have social class be a component. Belle spent her marriage to Philip pining for Shawn and then once they were together the difference between being with someone 'blue collar' and someone who had private jets on demand became more stark. I can't remember if they ever resolved or addressed that tension properly. And now there isn't really any point because I'm pretty sure everyone on Days has access to a private jet 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I never thought of it that way.  Interesting take.  But would it matter to Belle already having access to her Daddy's private plane?  John and Marlena are rich.  There was never a shortage of money for her.

I never truly bought someone like Victor would be that into Caroline so it was never a viable triangle to me even if obviously it's a canon. 

I really always equated it to Belle being fickle like her mom even though obviously that take has come and gone since Marlena's been with John for years. 

But I can see your point about Belle being accustomed to a certain lifestyle and Shawn just wasn't providing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, that was the thing - she was used to that kind of lifestyle. Her and Philip were of the same class (in so much as Days had some small sense of class structure back then) while Shawn was not because his parents just had regular service jobs. But like I said, this was always something Days would briefly reference and attempted to focus on when she was cheating on Shawn but not with any due diligence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I never fully grasped Belle's cheating.  I don't feel like they ever gave a true reason for it outside of her mourning her dad's "death"
She's never been given the depth Marlena or Sami had.  Heck even Carrie.  She's always been a good girl with some bad tendencies.  

Belle's never had any sorta of growth at all.  She's good with her family and fine with Shawn but she's almost a blank canvas with her emotions.  And we've never had any indication she had a bad childhood except for the fact it kinda was for the first 5-6 years of her life.  But the show doesn't say that.   I have never even heard Belle talk about the facts of her conception or face it.  She must know but the show doesn't even give her that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Belle is blank bc the writing at DOOL is subpar and Martha Madison is the acting equivalent of rice paper.

 

But the affair with Phillip was hot, and why did they need to make it about something else? At the time, based on what was onscreen, I believed it was the oldest reason in the world - she was bored in her marriage, was hot for Phillip and wanted to fućk. The truest motivation soaps too often try to avoid today for dumb puritanical reasons.

 

With the right actors and a better writing team that adult Chloe/Shawn/Belle/Phillip quad could've gone years.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Lol  I think MM is fine.  I just think John/Marlena's daughter needs more motivation for an affair than a quick [!@#$%^&*].

She's such an important character that they never developed well.  But I don't think they developed Shawn d that well either.  Chloe/Mimi/Phillip are much more well rounded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They didn't, no. The writing was never there for Shawn or Belle even when Cook and Storms first started - it was always crap. At least Shawn now can be defined by his job.

 

As for Belle, what's so common or unrealistic about her having a profound sexual pull to Phillip as well as complex history, and being bored with her life? It happens to men and women everyday. It happened to John and Marlena, albeit for much more complex emotional reasons, but at core there was always the sexual need as well. There is a reason their defining moment is [!@#$%^&*] on a conference table.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I mean it's not unrealistic in real life for Belle to do that .  But I wish John/Marlena's daughter had more motivation due to her conception and life circumstances.   Like go with the flow and make true parallels.  John/Marlena had legit reasons for banging.  I don't think Belle ever did even if it was hot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Shawn and Belle, IMO, suffered ever since being pre-destined as teens. It's clear the writers have/had no idea how to write for them once Cook/Storms left. And - to me - Beemer and Madison have no chemistry. And they were tied down with a kid WAY too young.

 

And Martha Madison, who seems like a lovely woman, just seems miscast as Belle. She is too old for the role. Maybe not now with said kid now in her 20s herself (!), which is another mistake as great as Olivia Rose Keegan is, but she was, even when initially cast. Of course, after the disaster that was Charity Rahmer, Madison looked like Meryl Streep. But the point stands.

 

Oddly, as he was born in 1987, Shawn seems to be around the right age. Maybe because the show aged him by small degrees and, so, it did not feel as jarring. (Don't forget, after little Scott Groff came tween Colin O'Donnell before Jason Cook, so his aging seemed almost natural for a soap even if still accelerated.)

 

Long way of saying SORAS screws up EVERYTHING.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Finland seemed such an odd choice for a location shoot. ATWT went to Greece and later Spain while GL had Tenerife and there were others in that timeframe. But Finland not being a known tourist destination or offering the tropical/sunny atmosphere usually associated with location shoots seems off brand. Maybe they were negotiating a deal with a tourist association and it fell through.
    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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