Jump to content

GH: May 2024 Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Was that his real life wife in the scene with him?

5.21.2024

HW: Elizabeth Korte & Patrick Mulcahey

BDW: Chris Van Etten

SW: Stacey Pulwer

DIR: Jillian DeDotte

I say make Charlotte Gibson currently a SW, the new HW. 

Positions held[edit]

All My Children

  • Script Writer (1997-2001)

As the World Turns

  • Breakdown Writer, Headwriting Team (2002-2005)

Days of Our Lives

  • Breakdown Writer (2006-2008)

General Hospital

  • Script Writer (June 30, 2016 – present)

Guiding Light (Hired by David Kreizman)

  • Breakdown Writer, Headwriting Team (October 2005 - August, 2006)
Edited by John
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Yup.  Robin/Jason didn't have love scenes for years because of obvious reasons.  They weren't overtly hot like, say, Sonny/Brenda, but they had passion and love and tenderness that was visible and you believed their love.  It's not impossible to do.  JS/AS just seem overtly against even showing that undercurrent.  Perhaps it's out of respect for their partners.  I am truly not judging anyone for their beliefs, but at some point the line has to be drawn.  This just isn't the job/pairing/lifestyle for you if that's how you want to portray yourself on camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don’t think it’s a fireable offense if the EP/network didn’t outline these expectations before contracting these actors. It’s on the EP for catering a role to an actor’s preference and the limitations that entails. 

But if the expectations were outlined to the actors and there is no specific clause in their contract against it, then yes, I do consider it a fireable offense to not play what’s written - at the end of the day, it’s network TV, not porn. 

I don’t think the characters should have to mirror the actors personal beliefs if it’s not consistent with who those characters are, but I don’t excuse the EP/network from this if this is a limitation they’ve gotten the show into and now have to work around. 

Edited by BetterForgotten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'll be honest, I think it should be.  No one should be forced to do anything, but at some point the job might just not fit your needs anymore.  Many soap stars have been fired for less.  

I could see if it was really objectionable content, but two married fictional people faking a fictional love scene for a few minutes does  not cross that line for me.

But at least there would be a free role for GT to take if AS gets the boot!  

Please register in order to view this content

Edited by carolineg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I, personally, don’t care one way or another if AS is fired or remains for the record. 

I don’t particularly think she brings anything unique to the table and I think BLQ can be played by a dozen other actresses sufficiently. This has nothing to do with how she plays love scenes however. 

Edited by BetterForgotten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But, that opens the door for an HR shoot in the #MeToo era. It's just too messy and too uncomfortable for me to justify firing a female actor for refusing to film love-making scenes. Clearly, the job fits her needs without doing the love scenes, otherwise, I do think she'd quit of her own choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I get your point.  It does makes sense and it is a slippery slope with all of this.   I think I'd have more sympathy if AS was newer to the business or didn't know how soaps worked.  She does and chooses to openly speak out about how she basically dictates the character of Brook Lynn.   To me it's still crossing the line of an actor having too much say in a character vs. a modesty issue.   I misspoke.  The job perhaps fits HER needs at this point, but not the shows.

I think the show could do a lot better with casting Brook Lynn, but GH has many more pressing problems at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Why?

I...tend to agree. 

This is a tricky situation, especially in the post-#MeToo era.  For better or for worse, love scenes have become an intrinsic part of the storytelling on soaps, so to have an actor or actors refuse to participate in those kinds of scenes on ANY grounds is, well, frustrating, lol.

But, on the other hand, if you fire an actor simply because they won't do love scenes, or because they won't show even a modest amount of skin, you're opening up yourself and your show to lawsuits.  Plain and simple.

IOW: as boring as JS and AS/Chase and BLQ are, we're kind of stuck with them, with how the writers have to write for them, and even with how they choose to play - or, rather, NOT play - even the smallest moments of affection between them, until something changes.

I agree with all of this.  I, too, respect how JS and AS feel, but you can't tell me that it's not tying a lot of other people's hands at the show.

I know that if *I* were HW, I'd be hesitant to write for them AT ALL - let alone something as potentially salacious, say, as an infidelity story - for fear of how they think their kids will respond to the material down the road.  (As if my job was to worry about their kids' emotional well-being, lol.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, there really isn't a "right" answer on how to solve this situation.  I wouldn't outright fire either of them because their beliefs aren't wrong or awful.  I think in less than a year Brook will get pregnant and the show will end up "running out of story" for both characters and let them live happily ever after off screen for awhile.

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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.



  • Recent Posts

    • Were those reasons to do with having younger children on set? Other shows seem to manage. The ageing up of the kids has been one of the mistakes the show has made.
    • I agree.  Lemay was supposed to start in early 88 and we saw some of the writing on the wall with character reference from the past.  Notably, the core families Frames, Cory, Matthews.  The stupid Reginald Love was wrapped up.  Not even a year later Mary was written out of the show along with Vince and the McKinnons who came and left .  The previous writers tried to introduce a new family that never aspired with the viewers.  1988 was focused on the 25th anniversary of show in 1989 and suspect why Lemay was asked to come back in 88.  Prior to 1988, the storylines were so DOOL stupid.
    • That's true. He may have ended up keeping her on a recurring basis, like Dr. Michaels on ATWT. I'm trying to remember if GL had a similar long-running therapist.
    • Oh in terms of ratings I think it would have been in a dicey place probably even before then. I mostly was just thinking of if the show could have carried on creatively. 
    • Even if by some miracle Knots Landing continued, 1994/95 it would have been killed by ER.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Assuming that Marland had been allowed to write the Carrie story the way he'd envisioned, Millette would've been involved in the story. And she might've played a role in Andy Norris' return (if the speculation on that had ever materialized, and Marland loved bringing back bad boys) But he doesn't seem interested in Sara's personal life. And the women of Springfield could only be analyzed so much.
    • This better be something, because as I said, so far it's just cliches and stereotypes -- the story we've heard a thousand times about the homeless person who doesn't want a home and prefers to live on the streets.
    • @rsclassicfanforever thank you very much for the recent uploads of season 13 containing some episodes that were skipped or glitchy on YouTube!  I had a look at 3172 though and there is no audio for most of it? Would you have a copy with complete audio? Fingers crossed! Thanks again! 

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I like Margaret well enough in what I've seen of her as Paige - she is green but she has real star power.  I agree about the actor who plays Brian. He's...mostly just there. Not bad but not great.  My main issue is with the guy who plays Owen. He's just not appealing to me. I can believe Nola being obsessed with him, but he's draining to watch.  I'm surprised people objected to the quasi-incest elements as it wasn't anything that new for soaps.  Speaking of Kim, here's a rare episode of an anthology show she did called The Evil Touch.

      Please register in order to view this content

       
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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