13 minutes ago, Lye-C said:

At the end of the day, soaps exist to sell products to housewives. It’s not Masterpiece Theatre or Shakespeare. 

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. 

The primary function of broadcast television is to advertise to viewers. 

There are a few things American has given to the world, that are unique, or once were: jazz, musical theatre, basketball, daytime soap opera ... 

5 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

🤣🤣😙🤣🤣🤣🤨🙃💁‍♀️😶⬆️This, I love! 

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

5 hours ago, Efulton said:

Well said!!!

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.🤷‍♂️

5 hours ago, Lye-C said:

Days was certainly not Masterpiece Theatre in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. That’s giving soaps too much credit!

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.

5 hours ago, Lye-C said:

Personally, I find only a truly unhappy person could not enjoy Buried Alive, The Possession, Carrie/Austin/Sami, Billie/Bo/Gina, Kristen/John/Marlena/Susan, and the Salem Stalker.

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

4 hours ago, Lye-C said:

At the end of the day, soaps exist to sell products to housewives. It’s not Masterpiece Theatre or Shakespeare. 

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 February 10, 20241 yr by vetsoapfan

11 hours ago, Lye-C said:

My favourite soap is Passions. It was for young people. 

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/

1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

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

Isn't that when the truth is the most fun?!! 😶🫣🙃🙄🫨🤞

11 hours ago, janea4old said:

He said that on Jan. 10, and maybe he hadn't seen the new scripts yet and really didn't know yet how his return was being written.

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.) 

Ignore. Ignore. Ignore.

This is the only warning.

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!

1 hour ago, Liberty City said:

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!

Yeah the Sonny/John "Jagger" stuff was the only thing i really enjoyed today and it was a great use of history

Port Charles was stupid to Kill off Karen

3 hours ago, Liberty City said:

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!

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.🤔

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.

The recast is just comical. I can't take anything done with him seriously because of the actor choice, nor do I care about Jagger returning period.

29 minutes ago, Vee said:

The recast is just comical. I can't take anything done with him seriously because of the actor choice, nor do I care about Jagger returning period.

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.

9 hours ago, Errol said:

Ignore. Ignore. Ignore.

This is the only warning.

I’m doing my best to ignore them but they are still trolling me. 

3 hours ago, Lye-C said:

I’m doing my best to ignore them but they are still trolling me. 

If you are ignoring them, you won't see their posts. And the same for them.

I get frustrated myself from time to time, but you have to walk it back always. It can be hard and frustrating, but you gotta do it.

43 minutes ago, Errol said:

If you are ignoring them, you won't see their posts. And the same for them.

I get frustrated myself from time to time, but you have to walk it back always. It can be hard and frustrating, but you gotta do it.

Ohhhh you meant the ignore function! Yes that does work unless someone quotes them.