Jump to content

GH: July 2021 Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 377
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Regardless of who Howarth plays, he's never going to be as good as he was in the 90s as Todd. The problem is that he's gone the smirk route for so long, that's all he plays.  

 

This.

 

Alcazar is another mob story that GH doesn't need. Robin Christopher is retired from acting and at most might do a fly by for Lila Rae if they ever bring her back (or even remember her).

 

Where is Robert? Was the last time we saw him the Sean tribute? With all the Alexis/Shawn stuff going on, one would expect the District Attorney to be involved.

I think the show should have taken a prosecution against Judge Carson for her racial bias. "She is removing herself from the bench" falls way too short. I know it's a minor character, but the story shouldn't just be wrapped up in a bow..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, we really don't need Todd back. At this point Howarth would just play him the same exact way he plays Austin and Franco. I was just watching 90s Todd clips yesterday and I honestly can't even wrap my head around the fact that it's the same actor who's on my screen now. He just acts foolish now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Roger's feelings about the role seem pretty clearly delineated in his recent podcast interview for Slate re: the rape storyline. I've always assumed he was just happy to be playing literally any other role than Todd even if it wasn't a huge challenge and he's cruising/phoning it in, and it seems I was right. I think he is still clearly sensitive and talented, I thought he did good work on OLTL and GH when he returned as Todd from 2011-2013, and if OLTL were still around I wouldn't say no to seeing Todd again someday in a limited capacity, after a long, long break and a lot of thinking. But you can never showcase a serial rapist as a regular frontburner lead (or with Victor Jr., leads) of a soap opera today. It's just done. And as for Austin, if he was playing this role in 2013 it would be one thing. Today he's on his third character. It's not cute and it's not GH.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This show likes to nod to “social issues,” but never really delves into them the way that soaps can. Maybe that’s the best they can do in this day and age, given Patrick Mulcahey’s commentary on soaps avoiding things that would ruffle the feathers of core (read: white, older, and conservative) viewers.

Edited by Faulkner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Please register in order to view this content

 
 

I will say that some of the existing creatives appear to want to do more but just can’t. They’d have more freedom in a streaming environment (if they were released from the current internal structures, that is).

Edited by Faulkner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Of course. But there's still plenty of talent to purge in front of and behind the camera.

Disney has owned ABC since the mid-90s. There were issues at that time, but the dramatic decline of the show in the 21st century is not new. The show has been mostly [!@#$%^&*] with occasional bright patches for almost 21 years. It is not "Disney," it is most often the own creatives' and at times the network's choices.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I compare it to this: AMC did a sex trafficking storyline in 2013 and then Y&R did it shortly thereafter... compare both of those stories. These soaps airing during the daytime and having to answer to sponsors, et al, is what's preventing these stories from going where they should.

I just meant with all of the changes Disney has gone through these past few years. Plus, in one of her exit interviews, didn't Shelly Altman say she wanted to tell stories, but the higher-ups nixed them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Yes, I think that is the most likely situation.  TPTB were unhappy with the offer(s) they got from the tourism board in Finland, and decided the trip was going to be too expensive for P&G/NBC to finance alone.   I would also speculate a similar situation occurred a few years later with the planned location shoot in Egypt, which was also cancelled after the storyline had already started, and changed to Arizona.  
    • What else? #May4th

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • In my usual account on my most used video hosting site with the video title  DAYS 1-8-15 Will & Paul Sex This is an edit I began when I was first teaching myself to edit & at that time I couldn't make it do what I wanted it to do. I pulled it up & finished it this morning. 
    • Or Megan is shot as retaliation for Dave's unpaid gambling debts...while Julie confesses she's the biological mother of Special Guest Star Barry Bostwick's little boy.
    • 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.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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