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

    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • I'm screaming at those clips and gifs.  THIS IS PURE GOLD.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • That's always been my thought. I can't imagine that the show would play up the unseen AD so far in advance without them casting a *star*. After today's episode, I wonder if he'll somehow be connected with Diane. It was strange that Diane mentioned her very distant family today. I can't recall Diane ever talking about her backstory. Maybe he's her much younger brother?  It's also possible he's connected to Diane during her time in LA. Sally's already said she crossed paths with him. OC, I think Dumas is Mariah's mistake.... As a side note, it was good to see some mixing it up - Adam with Clare/Kyle and Sharon with Tessa.
    • Here's the place to share some memorable criticism. You don't have to agree with it, of course (that's often where the fun starts). Like I mentioned to @DRW50, Sally Field was a favorite punching bag in the late '80s and early '90s.   Punchline (the 1988 movie where she and Tom Hanks are stand ups): "It's impossible to tell the difference between Miss Field's routines that are supposed to be awful, and the awful ones that are supposed to be funny." -- Vincent Canby, New York Times. "It's not merely that Field is miscast; she's miscast in a role that leaves no other resource available to her except her lovability. And (David) Seltzer's script forces her to peddle it shamelessly." -- Hal Hinson, Washington Post. "As a woman who can't tell a joke, Sally Field is certainly convincing. ... Field has become an unendurable performer ... She seems to be begging the audience not to punch her. Which, of course, is the worst kind of bullying from an actor. ... She's certainly nothing like the great housewife-comedian Roseanne Barr, who is a tough, uninhibited performer. Sally Field's pandering kind of 'heart' couldn't be further from the spirit of comedy." -- David Denby, New York   Steel Magnolias: The leading ladies: Dolly Parton: "She is one of the sunniest and most natural of actresses," Roger Ebert wrote. Imagining that she probably saw Truvy as an against-type role, Hinson concluded it's still well within her wheelhouse. "She's just wearing fewer rhinestones." Sally Field: "Field, as always, is a lead ball in the middle of the movie," according to Denby . M'Lynn giving her kidney to Shelby brought out David's bitchy side. "I can think of a lot more Sally Field organs that could be sacrificed." Shirley MacLaine: "(She) attacks her part with the ferociousness of a pit bull," Hinson wrote. "The performance is so manic that you think she must be taking off-camera slugs of Jolt." (I agree. If there was anyone playing to the cheap seats in this movie, it's Shirley.) Olympia Dukakis: "Excruciating, sitting on her southern accent as if each obvious sarcasm was dazzlingly witty," Denby wrote. Daryl Hannah: "Miss Hannah's performance is difficult to judge," according to Canby, which seems to suggest he took a genuine "if you can't say something nice ..." approach. Julia Roberts: "(She acts) with the kind of mega-intensity the camera cannot always absorb," Canby wrote. That comment is so fascinating in light of the nearly 40 years Julia has spent as a Movie Star. She is big. It's the audience who had to play catch up. And on that drag-ish note ... The movie itself: "You feel as if you have been airlifted onto some horrible planet of female impersonators," Hinson wrote. Canby: "Is one supposed to laugh at these women, or with them? It's difficult to tell." Every review I read acknowledged the less than naturalistic dialogue in ways both complimentary (Ebert loved the way the women talked) and cutting (Harling wrote too much exposition, repeating himself like a teenager telling a story, Denby wrote). Harling wrote with sincerity and passion, Canby acknowledged, but it's still a work of "bitchiness and greeting card truisms." The ending was less likely to inspire feeling good as it was feeling relieved, according to Denby. "(It's) as if a group of overbearing, self-absorbed, but impeccable mediocre people at last exit from the house."
    • I tend to have two minds about Tawny (Kathy Najimy) fainting during Soapdish's big reveal. You're the costume designer, if anything, you should have known the whole time. I guess it's an application of what TV Tropes calls the "Rule of Funny." Every time I watch Delirious, I always want the genuine romance in John and Mariel's reunion at the deli counter to last longer. Film critics had their knives out for Sally in this period. I'll start a separate thread on the movies page.
    • I don't think so, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was Dumas this whole time.
    • Tamara Tunie was serving up grand dame diva fierceness.
    • Nick told Victoria that he and Sharon had married in England.  Victoria was shocked.  Then she realized he was kidding.  He confirmed it was a joke and they're platonic. I don't even know what to say about that.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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