Jump to content

GH: O’Connor/Van Etten OUT! Mulcahey/Korte IN!


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Soaps also exist to entertain, to instruct, for escape, to illustrate & model behavior, to challenge attitudes or norms, ... And, in fact, I do see Shakespearean aspects in some soaps at some times. Just yesterday FB Memories presented me with an opinion I'd written about Carly, Kristina, Sonny, Nina & the Haunted Star 2 years ago yesterday & the action was driven by Shakespearean confusion & classic misunderstanding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 650
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

The truth can be accurate and hilarious at the same time, I guess.

Thank you. I fully understand that every kind of material will thoroughly engage some folks and totally turn off others. I loved the work of Irna Phillips, Agnes Nixon, William J. Bell, Pat Falken Smith, Harding Lemay, etc., but intimate, character-driven and adult  drama is not everyone's cup of tea. I mean, some people actually chose to watch Hey Vern, It's Ernest! and Beavus and Butt-Head. C'est la vie, as they say.

It's curious that you are so ready to relegate soaps to the "lesser-than" category. As someone who was around to see the soaps' earlier years, I'd counter than many of the legendary writers of the genre gifted fans with stellar material, often on a par with or equal to the dreck that primetime television foisted upon us.

It's difficult to believe such a petulant and unsupported retort was even offered.

All traditional, network programming exists to sell advertisers' products.

It does not preclude artists working within television from doing their best to produce quality entertainment. There is a plethora of evidence available to support the contention that superior TV exists.

Yes, even among the beleaguered soaps.

Edited by vetsoapfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We all may regret that I am going to say this but here goes ... 

NBC's intent was for PSSN to be for everyone. The only reason it became a show, mostly, for young people is because that is the only demo that strongly & consistently watched it. James Reilly did not set out to create a soap for children. And, there were "grown-ups" who were fans too, even if they were a niche. Heck, all soap fans are niches! 

And, to attempt to drag this, kicking & screaming, back on topic, Janet Di Lauro has posted from SoapHub the 7 things she thinks the new writers should do. It just made me think that should be the meme for the weekend. Everyone should name their 7! It would be very interesting to see what items might create a possible consensus?!! 

To be fair, here's the link https://soaphub.com/general-hospital/news-gh/jason-return-7-key-moves-new-head-writers/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Isn't that when the truth is the most fun?!! 🫨

Yes, you're right. On Jan. 10th there would have been no way he'd have seen a script yet. I recall someone suggesting that he was concerned around that time that he didn't have a script yet but that didn't exactly make sense because there was plenty of time before his first tape date. So there was no reason for concern. (Ref: 1-22 date Mulcahey/Korte named.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The attempts in today's episode to bring heart forward, as well as the Jagger vs. Sonny history was nice... but I cannot help but feel like Mulcahey would have packed it in more and we'd have felt something more worth while. Also, Michael & Willow are not the Holden & Lily of General Hospital, and the attempts to sell them as such (intentional or not) needs to STOP!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The abject miscasting of the "new Jagger" is a detriment to the effectiveness of the story, however. What a curious choice of actor for that particular role.

Please register in order to view this content

Trying to manufacture chemistry between prospective romantic partners on screen is just uncomfortable when it's forced. Either chemistry is there or it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The actor is objectively decent enough, just NOT as a Jagger recast. Shades of Kassie DePaiva taking over for Mia Korf, Wesley Pfenning being cast as Alice Frame, Susan Batten taking over as Connor Walsh, Roger Howarth following the wonderful Paul Holroyd as Paul Ryan. 

Why not just cast this new guy in a new role? He will never be Jagger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I find it hard to believe that they actually watched the same version of "Steel Magnolias" that I did. Are we sure they didn't watch the horrible re-make?    

      Please register in order to view this content

      Oh dear lord, did you have to remind me of that?!! That was definitely not Sally Field's finest hour, and Abby (Maura Tierney's character) was surely one of the most depressing characters ever written for tv or film. I'm not sure she cracked a smile even once during all her years on ER.  
    • I always thought Lois was such a unique character and considered her supporting her first run.  She was in a lot of different places on the canvas, but I don't think she had more focus than Brenda or Robin at her peak. With Ned basically out of the picture Lois doesn't quite have enough ties on the canvas to make her relevant and the show has done very little to give her new relationships and friendships.  She's stuck in the Q mansion most of the time. Oh, I agree it's a problem across the board for GH.  The only stable couples on the show are Brook Lynn/Chase and Portia/Curtis.  Unseen Olivia/Ned and Kevin/Laura are happily married I suppose.   Eventually I am sure Liz/Lucky and Dante/Lulu will get their romance, but is there any other couple that's even rootable?   I can't recall an era when Jason, Carly, and Sonny were all at such loose romantic ends at the same time.   Which is fine.  However no other romance besides Willow/Drew is being focused on.
    • https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/shortland-street-fears-speculation-grows-about-shows-future-amid-industry-struggles/T2GECWXTI5AD3AMEV46YYYUE6E/ Still a big cloud over whether the show will get another year.
    • I had hoped they'd pair her with Michael Knight. They had a nice chemistry and he's been one of the better random castings on GH. When it comes to Gio, I found the scenes with Dante to be overdone. It's obvious they're trying to set up conflict for the reveal but I don't think that was needed. It actually made me less excited for the reveal and killed any interest I had in Dante and Gio forming a bond.
    • He also lost the woman he was going to marry, under very sudden circumstances. They are probably surprised Rena has wanted to stay. I think Lois works OK in her current capacity, if they allowed her to have more of a point of view, a bit more life of her own, and not just the reason for Gio's paternity being hidden. The character always felt very thin to me and on paper this dynamic with Tracy, Brook Lyn, Gio, visits from Gloria could be better for her than how overly centered she was on the canvas the first time around. But as of now she could be better used.  Somehow the show that was revived due to supercouples seems completely alien to romance. The older cast has this hardest but even with tiers who are younger or middle-aged, they've really dragged their feet about Liz and Lucky, they have contorted themselves in trying to figure out how to pair a man with Joss, Kai and Trina barely get focus...and others I struggle to remember. They also blew up Sasha/Cody so now I guess we're meant to be waiting to see if she finds true love with Jason? The show is so hesitant and when you are this hesitant it means you are incapable of writing romance.
    • I agree.  Rena doesn't seem to mind the lighter workload and seems happy though. Strangely, a lot of the veteran cast are without viable love interests-Sonny, Nina, Lois, Jason, Tracy, Alexis, Carly (Brennan doesn't count).  The show lacks serious interest in romance.
    • I just can't wait until next week when we can go back to a full weeks worth of episodes. 3 episodes and a mid-week gap has been so difficult to deal with, especially in light of how good the show is.
    • I always hoped they'd change Parker's paternity back to Phillip.  I guess it doesn't matter since Chloe is off the show currently.  I don't recall Holly or Maggie mentioning Parker, so it's not they are close to him. 
    • I’ve reached the summer of 1998.  Until now, my impression has been that the show has steadily improved since the great quality dip of 1994, reaching as high as 8/10 in 1997. Sure, I could complain about a few things in 1997 (Claudia got wasted after her initial storyline; Thorne’s feelings for Taylor were a bit too sudden; the storyline where Sheila lived with James and Maggie while pregnant got rather boring; Mike periodically revisiting Sheila despite being on the run from authorities), but overall it was a very strong year.  I liked the Thorne/Taylor/Ridge triangle, the mystery plot about who shot Grant, the sham wedding to trap Sheila, Stephanie/Eric/Lauren, and Clarke manipulating his way back to working at Forrester. I even liked the Greenland storyline with Eric/Lauren/Rush, although I had expected to hate it. Maybe 1996 tops 1997 in raw soapy excitement (especially as Sheila got a chance to interact with a larger canvas of characters), but certain problems with overall storyline cohesion puts it somewhat below 1997 for me. Unfortunately, early 1998 has turned out to be a bit of a speedbump, perhaps on par with 1995 levels of quality: - Maggie’s character really got trashed after James left her to be with Sheila, and the early 1998 storylines where she imprisoned Sheila in the house from Psycho, or installed those wires and mikes and such in her house to make her think she’s going crazy, were total GARBAGE. So much so that the latter storyline (and Maggie with it) pretty much disappeared into a limbo.  - I have mixed feelings about the twins plotline with Lauren. No way did Rush survive being shot with a crossbow through the chest, and the romance between Lauren and Rush’s good twin brother Johnny was rather dry to me. I did however enjoy the camp aspect of Rush taking his brother’s place to be with Lauren, and Eric rescuing her. But it doesn’t appear like Bell cared too much about the Johnny/Lauren romance beyond the twin storyline gimmick, and it too disappeared in an unsatisfactory manner (come on, why not hire Johnny’s actor for just 5 more episodes for an arc where he realizes Lauren is not over Eric, or JUST SOMETHING?) - Clarke wormed his way back to FC in late 1997, which had exciting storytelling potential, but then he disappeared almost entirely. Sad to see my favorite character wasted in this manner. Does he get anything interesting to do between now and the Morgan saga of 2000-2001? - The Thomas saga was entertaining in 1997, but it got stretched out too much, and made some of early 1998 tiresome, with Ridge having to decide YET AGAIN which woman he wants to be with. On the plus side, I like the plotline of Thorne being neighbors with Macy and Grant, and we’ve finally been introduced to the SORASed Rick/Amber/CJ crowd. The Stephanie/James/Sheila triangle is also starting, and it makes me excited (I remember seeing some if it in my childhood). I know Sheila, Grant, and James are all leaving soon, which I honestly kind of dread - between them and Clarke’s near-absence, it feels like herd is going to get culled too much in the near future. But I know there’s the familiar 1999-2002 to look forward to.
    • LOL - this is a perfect description, and that's what I loved about it! May be a bit campy, but it immediately caught my attention in a good way.  I'm not familiar with the Fishing Trip storyline, I'll have to look that up. I've noticed that about Josh, which has made him less attractive to me overall. He just yells a lot when he's not happy. Wow, Reva was married to HB!  LOL - "Always... eventually, and again"
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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