Jump to content
Key Links: Announcements | Support Desk

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.  

31 minutes ago, Vee said:

I loved Todd in his day, but they are never going to frontburner a serial rapist on this show again in the 2020s nor should they. It's over.

 

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
Posted (edited)

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
1 hour ago, MichaelGL said:

TBH the Judge Carson story should've been a bigger deal, but instead seemingly ended in such a anti-climatic way. 

It reminds me when TJ was "Arrested offscreen" at Wyndham's and Sonny dealt with it. I'm like why didn't we get this story on our screens for at least three to four months starting with the "robbery." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Forever8 said:

It reminds me when TJ was "Arrested offscreen" at Wyndham's and Sonny dealt with it. I'm like why didn't we get this story on our screens for at least three to four months starting with the "robbery." 

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

Which is why they should all undergo the same mass purge of stale talent and creatives and move to streaming if soaps want to survive, which they clearly don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Vee said:

Which is why they should all undergo the same mass purge of stale talent and creatives and move to streaming if soaps want to survive, which they clearly don't.

 
 

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
2 hours ago, MichaelGL said:

TBH the Judge Carson story should've been a bigger deal, but instead seemingly ended in such a anti-climatic way. 

I agree. I was so looking forward to that leg of the story...and then...le sigh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
12 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

 
 

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).

I genuinely believe it is the overpowering control of the Disney name right now, which is a shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

 
 

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).

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

2 minutes ago, Liberty City said:

I genuinely believe it is the overpowering control of the Disney name right now, which is a shame.

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
15 minutes ago, Vee said:

Which is why they should all undergo the same mass purge of stale talent and creatives and move to streaming if soaps want to survive, which they clearly don't.

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.

1 minute ago, Vee said:

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.

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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