What Goutman did was shitty. I still would support Martha’s position, because there comes a point where you have to take some kind of a stand with these shows. It is still a business. The consequence has always been the network may not budge and you could lose your job.

Denise Alexander just wanted some time off in 1984. But the show had a custody storyline they wanted to do with Mike. And they threw tons of money at her, and when she reiterated all she wanted was a break, they (ABC Brass) got mad and killed the character off. GH did let Tristan do what she wanted a couple of years later, he took several months off with a promise to return. IIRC it was when Anna became the head of the PCPD with Burt (Mr. Big). So again, they treat the men differently.

You really cannot win on either side with these corporations. All the workers and talent can do is decide their line in the sand and stay true to their own needs.

3 hours ago, j swift said:

Agreed, but my point was that either decision about the paycut may result in the loss of representation by agents and managers (e.g., Ari Zucker), and then you have even fewer options.

A lot of soap performers do not have representation like other media. Beverlee McKinsey wrote her own contract, and that was back in the 80’s-90’s. They may have  lawyers look at the legalities, but many of the vets don’t need agents because they are not looking for other jobs, and as soap contracts have become less lucrative all those expenditures by the talent have been cut. Judi Evans on DAYS being an example of someone no longer paying managers and agents when she left full time acting.

Many vets being interviewed after being let go or their show being cancelled have mentioned they don’t even have agents anymore.

If Kelly Monaco still had full representation what are they doing for her? She hasn’t been acting outside the show in over a decade as far as I know. 

Edited October 11, 20241 yr by titan1978

Yes I agree, many soap actors have no need for agents etc.

It really is a case by case issue.

Another aspect is when a popular actor decides to leave in the midst of a popular story, leaving the show in the lurch. But people tend to take the actors side (fair enough). But any talk of loyalty goes by the wayside.

eg If Kelly Monaco had decided to leave at some point it would be fine, but if she's fired it's all terribly unfair in some people's minds.

Or when Martha left ATWT the first time in the midst of being part of a front burner couple ,they had to recast and make adjustments. Often those recasts don't work out and the show suffers. 

I also wonder if Goutman took a pay cut as well.

Just some points for consideration.

Edited October 11, 20241 yr by Paul Raven

 

Edited November 15, 20241 yr by John

I HATE that they killed her off in such a definitive way that leads little room for Sam to ever be back.  If Kelly returns, it will be as a new character

2 minutes ago, Cheap21 said:

I HATE that they killed her off in such a definitive way that leads little room for Sam to ever be back.  If Kelly returns, it will be as a new character

Yes, but don't you see that is exactly why they did so. I mean besides the fact that they wanted to give Sam a death that had some meaning. But there is a whole totally different narrative to this whole thing. Neither version of events has any proof, examples that could be verified, nothing of the sort. But, we'll call it Version D. In it Disney made the decision & their decision was based on something Kelly did. All on her. Version D contains nothing about Billy Miller, pettiness, retaliation. In it Frank is blameless, having absolutely nothing to do with any of it. Also it has nothing to do with paycuts or reduced guarantees. It is strictly about Kelly, Disney, employment contract, a warning from Disney, some mysterious rule that was broken, then same rule broken again, at which point, it became the straw/camel, etc. But, as I said, no proof on anyone's part. To sum up, it is one royal mess. I have no independent knowledge of any of these things. If anyone does they are not saying so. I would estimate that about 40% of fans believe this Disney version while Kelly's fanatical fans very loudly & very often proclaim her petty version. I do not offer this alternate narrative to complicate things but that may be the result.

 

1 hour ago, Contessa Donatella said:

Yes, but don't you see that is exactly why they did so. I mean besides the fact that they wanted to give Sam a death that had some meaning. But there is a whole totally different narrative to this whole thing. Neither version of events has any proof, examples that could be verified, nothing of the sort. But, we'll call it Version D. In it Disney made the decision & their decision was based on something Kelly did. All on her. Version D contains nothing about Billy Miller, pettiness, retaliation. In it Frank is blameless, having absolutely nothing to do with any of it. Also it has nothing to do with paycuts or reduced guarantees. It is strictly about Kelly, Disney, employment contract, a warning from Disney, some mysterious rule that was broken, then same rule broken again, at which point, it became the straw/camel, etc. But, as I said, no proof on anyone's part. To sum up, it is one royal mess. I have no independent knowledge of any of these things. If anyone does they are not saying so. I would estimate that about 40% of fans believe this Disney version while Kelly's fanatical fans very loudly & very often proclaim her petty version. I do not offer this alternate narrative to complicate things but that may be the result.

Yet you wrote this word salad to muddy things. You always talk like you have insider knowledge yet deny it in the same breath. It's weird. Stop that.

The timing of that video release is interesting lol..I think her exit is unfortunate but she was parked to the side for so long it honestly doesn’t feel like the show lost much with her absence.

2 hours ago, Contessa Donatella said:

Yes, but don't you see that is exactly why they did so. I mean besides the fact that they wanted to give Sam a death that had some meaning. But there is a whole totally different narrative to this whole thing. Neither version of events has any proof, examples that could be verified, nothing of the sort. But, we'll call it Version D. In it Disney made the decision & their decision was based on something Kelly did. All on her. Version D contains nothing about Billy Miller, pettiness, retaliation. In it Frank is blameless, having absolutely nothing to do with any of it. Also it has nothing to do with paycuts or reduced guarantees. It is strictly about Kelly, Disney, employment contract, a warning from Disney, some mysterious rule that was broken, then same rule broken again, at which point, it became the straw/camel, etc. But, as I said, no proof on anyone's part. To sum up, it is one royal mess. I have no independent knowledge of any of these things. If anyone does they are not saying so. I would estimate that about 40% of fans believe this Disney version while Kelly's fanatical fans very loudly & very often proclaim her petty version. I do not offer this alternate narrative to complicate things but that may be the result.

 

I have no idea waht you are talking about

16 minutes ago, Cheap21 said:

I have no idea waht you are talking about

Given how convoluted this entire thing is & how much misinformation is out there I am not surprised. 

Example: How many of you have heard that Kelly was blamed for standing up for Billy Miller when he was fired? Problem: Billy Miller was not fired. He left of his own accord. 

Darn, I'm not an insider, never was, still not, and I have not posted any insider information. I tried to make that clear with what I said & how I said it. 

 

2 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

I'm not an insider, never was, still not, and I have not posted any insider information. I tried to make that clear with what I said & how I said it. 

 

1 hour ago, Darn said:

Yet you wrote this word salad to muddy things. You always talk like you have insider knowledge yet deny it in the same breath. It's weird. Stop that.

^ this

2 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

Given how convoluted this entire thing is & how much misinformation is out there I am not surprised. 

Example: How many of you have heard that Kelly was blamed for standing up for Billy Miller when he was fired? Problem: Billy Miller was not fired. He left of his own accord. 

Darn, I'm not an insider, never was, still not, and I have not posted any insider information. I tried to make that clear with what I said & how I said it. 

 

Donna...

Saying you aren't an insider, yet continuing to post information that is neither factual nor verifiable outside of your own comments is the very definition of what Toups and I have been talking to you about for MONTHS!!!!

First and foremost, Billy Miller was fired. His mother said so and Kelly has said so. So your claim otherwise, is contradicted by people who would know and your version is not verifiable by any trust source.

2 hours ago, Contessa Donatella said:

Yes, but don't you see that is exactly why they did so. I mean besides the fact that they wanted to give Sam a death that had some meaning. But there is a whole totally different narrative to this whole thing. Neither version of events has any proof, examples that could be verified, nothing of the sort. But, we'll call it Version D. In it Disney made the decision & their decision was based on something Kelly did. All on her. Version D contains nothing about Billy Miller, pettiness, retaliation. In it Frank is blameless, having absolutely nothing to do with any of it. Also it has nothing to do with paycuts or reduced guarantees. It is strictly about Kelly, Disney, employment contract, a warning from Disney, some mysterious rule that was broken, then same rule broken again, at which point, it became the straw/camel, etc. But, as I said, no proof on anyone's part. To sum up, it is one royal mess. I have no independent knowledge of any of these things. If anyone does they are not saying so. I would estimate that about 40% of fans believe this Disney version while Kelly's fanatical fans very loudly & very often proclaim her petty version. I do not offer this alternate narrative to complicate things but that may be the result.

 

If we still had the capability to Edit I would delete this.

2 hours ago, Contessa Donatella said:

Yes, but don't you see that is exactly why they did so. I mean besides the fact that they wanted to give Sam a death that had some meaning. But there is a whole totally different narrative to this whole thing. Neither version of events has any proof, examples that could be verified, nothing of the sort. But, we'll call it Version D. In it Disney made the decision & their decision was based on something Kelly did. All on her. Version D contains nothing about Billy Miller, pettiness, retaliation. In it Frank is blameless, having absolutely nothing to do with any of it. Also it has nothing to do with paycuts or reduced guarantees. It is strictly about Kelly, Disney, employment contract, a warning from Disney, some mysterious rule that was broken, then same rule broken again, at which point, it became the straw/camel, etc. But, as I said, no proof on anyone's part. To sum up, it is one royal mess. I have no independent knowledge of any of these things. If anyone does they are not saying so. I would estimate that about 40% of fans believe this Disney version while Kelly's fanatical fans very loudly & very often proclaim her petty version. I do not offer this alternate narrative to complicate things but that may be the result.

 

The above is the only time I have ever seen anyone say such B.S. "Version D"? Stop posting this nonsense. This is another example of what Toups and I have been constantly telling you NOT to post as you are NOT an insider. You find things written on social media and take whatever you get and proclaim it as fact. This is not.

Here's what I know, it wasn't corporate that stepped in and said "Fire this 21-year veteran." 

Just now, Contessa Donatella said:

If we still had the capability to Edit I would delete this.

And this is why I removed the ability. People can not continue posting something, and delete it after being called out, only to pretend they didn't do what they did. Had I not removed the feature, I wouldn't have seen this latest mess.

Thank you for confirming why I made the best decision on the "edit post" matter.

6 minutes ago, Errol said:

Donna...

Saying you aren't an insider, yet continuing to post information that is neither factual nor verifiable outside of your own comments is the very definition of what Toups and I have been talking to you about for MONTHS!!!!

First and foremost, Billy Miller was fired. His mother said so and Kelly has said so. So your claim otherwise, is contradicted by people who would know and your version is not verifiable by any trust source.

When I looked into Billy Miller's exit online what I found out was that he wasn't. I realize those two individuals have said he was. I imagine that Billy Miller told his mother that he was & I have  no desire to challenge a grieving mother. 

I have never deleted anything I posted. This would have been a first. 

Edited November 15, 20241 yr by Contessa Donatella

Exhibit A: The definition of "Dig Up".

I have blessedly had Donna blocked for ages, but the fact that she's still allowed to post here after what happened with a certain recent tragedy amazes me.