57 minutes ago, Ryanc2 said:

Decided to tune back in but I did a time jump instead of starting off where I left off (around April). Starting at the July 15th episode. 
 

Right off the bat I am wondering why Martin and Smittys children look so old. 

Haha thats a running gag here, because it’s so obvious. The actress playing Samantha is like 30 in real life haha. My guess is they couldn’t find the right talent for that age, but who knows. The ages of the entire Dupree family seems off to me. I can’t imagine Nicole being a grandma to teenagers like that. 

The whole Martin and Smitty conflict over Smitty wanting to go back to work would have made more sense had their kids been 6 or 7 vs 16 an 17.  

IIRC the kids were originally meant to be small children but they aged them up to play them in teen drama. I think that was a mistake. You easily could've introduced a Samantha-like character as a cousin or something.

1 hour ago, Vee said:

IIRC the kids were originally meant to be small children but they aged them up to play them in teen drama. I think that was a mistake. You easily could've introduced a Samantha-like character as a cousin or something.

The teen drama has hardly been essential to the plot. What happened to the girl interested in Tyrell?

The actor playing Tyrell is good. Surely they could have found a girl the right age?

Or better yet child actors if they needed to have kids at all.

I think Smitty and Martin having kids is unnecessary. They could have been applying for adoption which would have given Martin more of a reason  to cover up his crime.

15 hours ago, Vee said:

IIRC the kids were originally meant to be small children but they aged them up to play them in teen drama. I think that was a mistake. You easily could've introduced a Samantha-like character as a cousin or something.

I don't think it was stated quite that way.  I think Brandon C said there was a change in plan for a technical reason and didn't elaborate.  He didn't mention storyline needs. 
Unknown what he meant, but I *speculate* that perhaps it was legal stuff due to school or tutors on set or other rules for child actors?
(however, he could have meant anything).

---

Editing later to add:  I found it, and my post didn't convey it correctly.

Here's what was actually said:

Michael Fairman interview with Claybon and Manning, May 8, 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeEVnfs_YNI
at about 6:02.

Fairman:  "Now did you guys know from the very get-go they were going to have two teenage kids, like how much did you know? And when did that all. . .  was that given to you?"

Claybon:  "Before, to be honest with you, the kids were younger. But, you know, of course, for technical reasons, they had to be a little older, it only made sense.  But from the beginning they were young.  I think they were maybe like 10 or 11, I think.  No, actually I think they started six and seven, and then it was 10 or 11.   And now they're 16 and 17."

Edited July 28Jul 28 by janea4old

7 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

And why hasn't our other great thespian Ben Gavin entered the discussion?

I think he's serviceable right now as the soap meathead type. I think he's improved somewhat once he's been paired with someone else but Ashley (who similarly has improved). Neither are really ones I'd recast at this point because they're really not important enough to the plot in the long run. Both are working a bit better now at least as characters. 

Same with Alegria. I'd probably just write him out (have him be the first on-screen death?). Claybon is more of an issue since they're giving him heavy material and is important to the canvas in the long run. 

3 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

The teen drama has hardly been essential to the plot. What happened to the girl interested in Tyrell?

 

My theory is that they might be aiming to have a possible custody dispute with the kids (June possibly being their mother?) and they realised that the kids would need some autonomy of their own in order for it to not come across as "evil gay couple steals destitute woman's kids". 

Edited July 28Jul 28 by te.

Listen, I'm quite used to bad acting in soaps, but Alegria is a whole another level of cringe. He makes Brandon seem like he came out of Lee Strasberg's class.

One thing I'm grateful for is that... BTG... is not DOOL circa Carl Ivati. We really don't need people just because they look good naked. BTG is better than this. In fact anyone who can't act... drags the other actors down in scenes together. Ask me - I've been there... Nothing worse than having to play with a robot on stage.  You can barely tolerate it.

I hope he is written out. No recast needed. I have no shame in saying this. Not everyone should be on screen.

Brandon... I would definitely keep. He is showing potential. Not perfect, but getting better.

Edited July 28Jul 28 by Maxim

Alex Alegria > Brandon Claybon EASILY!

22 minutes ago, Liberty City said:

Alex Alegria > Brandon Claybon EASILY!

That is a BOLD statement. Just curious about your take.

30 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

That is a BOLD statement. Just curious about your take.

Bold but I made it, and I stand by it.

Just now, Liberty City said:

Bold but I made it, and I stand by it.

And I’m genuinely interested. Not challenging it.

14 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

And I’m genuinely interested. Not challenging it.

For me, Alegria embodies what Tomas is to be. Whereas Claybon is swallowed by the material and is carried by his co-stars, much in the same way Marcus Coloma was on GH as Nikolas.

21 hours ago, Aback said:

Case in point: Tomas. Here we have this avid sci-fi reader (plot device alert) who was 100% committed just a few weeks ago, and now he’s bouncing between one sister and the other—and then back again—all within the span of a couple of episodes. There’s no clear motivation behind him, no consistency with what we’ve seen so far. And obviously, the robotic actor doesn’t help. (Oh, and by the way—I detest his ugly tattoos.)

We know what Tomas wants... He's a younger man, and like many (not all), he lives through his d&^k. He is an archtype, yes, but as a woman, I can attest that every generation is chock full of Tomases. It is actually factually accurate to portray a selfish, horny jerk that would have the ability to play two intelligent, worldly young women. 

8 minutes ago, Gatecrashers said:

We know what Tomas wants... He's a younger man, and like many (not all), he lives through his d&^k. He is an archtype, yes, but as a woman, I can attest that every generation is chock full of Tomases. It is actually factually accurate to portray a selfish, horny jerk that would have the ability to play two intelligent, worldly young women. 

I think the real drama will be when these two intelligent, worldly young women figure it out.   I don't think they'll react by whining (maybe at first, but that wouldn't continue). 
I think/hope that we'll see both Kat and Eva react in interesting ways that aren't the stereotypical reaction of a woman who has been played.  I have absolutely no idea how their reactions will play out, but I hope there might be some surprises and drama I want to see.

2 hours ago, Liberty City said:

For me, Alegria embodies what Tomas is to be. Whereas Claybon is swallowed by the material and is carried by his co-stars, much in the same way Marcus Coloma was on GH as Nikolas.

Thanks for responding. It’s funny: I agree that BC is way out of his element, but what’s funny is that he could conceivably cobble together a winning reel for the Daytime Emmys. Which shows how much that system is broken.