BTG: August 2025 Discussion Thread 

49 minutes ago, alwaysAMC said:

I guess that leaves Jan/Ashley/Derek/Mona/Laura as the only 'have nots'?

And Randy is a "have not".

Even though Doug was a cardiac surgeon who would have had a large income until he quit ...  I noticed last week that Doug reminded Vanessa that he didn't come from money (unlike her).   That fits since Doug and Randy grew up together.  Curious if Doug has any "have not" relatives.

Edited August 18Aug 18 by janea4old

20 minutes ago, GLATWT88 said:

there is a lot of work needed in terms of daily story development and progression. 

I think the Derek story would have worked better a little further down the line. I think Shanice being his PT might work into them getting closer. 

so much work needed in how stories proceed. i just looked, and late in thursday’s episode, the kids tell martin and smitty that they made up their minds about seeing june — which felt like kind of a cliffhanger. but nothing — not in the next episode (friday) or today. and what’s going on with bill and haley?

instead, we get derek, which, as, as pointed out above, could have waited. i do not understand why they want to have so many stories going on simultaneously. they’re blocking story momentum.

i’m finding it frustrating. not sure how much longer i’ll still around. may just take a look after checking the recaps. 

She's not wrong.....

 

 

What I find truly perplexing is where did the, "Vernon might be Leslie's father" thing come from? 

There was nary and I mean nary one single solitary mention of Vernon at all. Peaches never mentioned him. 

Edited August 18Aug 18 by MontyB

Vernon never met Barbara either, someone posted a clip on Twitter where he and Anita were talking about Barbara and it confirmed he'd never met her at all 

 

7 minutes ago, dragonflies said:

 

Oh wow, I forgot he didn't know she existed. 

These folks on the internet are too much with these theories. 

Edited August 18Aug 18 by MontyB

They don't pay attention, most don't lol 

18 hours ago, janea4old said:

It's a big deal for me -- I don't want villains to profit.  I just don't.  I feel there's enough horrid things in the world, that I want to escape to drama where things get intense but the villains ultimately pay.   I *need* to see the heroes win sometimes.

BUT, many of the rich people have admittedly done nasty things (or we have SEEN them do them), and they have yet to pay. For example, Vernita helping in the Martin secret drama, Anita treating all the other Articulettes like ish, Bill cheating on Dani and his role in the Martin secret story, Joey Armstrong doing his mob ish, Vanessa conspiring with Joey and cheating on Doug... etc, etc. Right now, the only rich people paying for their duplicity are Martin, Ted, and Doug. Why not let some have-nots get away with their ish for a change? 

19 hours ago, Vee said:

This is a soap opera. Antagonists are always gonna be there. There are far worse than Leslie on daytime.

What would these folks do if they grew up watching Roger Thorpe or James Stenbeck like I did? Personally, I think they made the story actually interesting. 

16 hours ago, Taoboi said:

Same. I'm sure she will have one. No way for anyone to be on her side in the audience until she takes some Ls. 

Laura was a fine and sympathetic character, and I do like her - but, I don't KNOW her. Right now, my real hatred for Leslie comes from the despicable way that she treats Eva (who remains ever-loyal to her). I'm an Eva stan, so, for that, I can't get behind Leslie for any reason. 

and those characters PAID for the things they did

People find characters rootable cause they pay for the things they do.

No one wants Victor Newman who gets away with everything and is basically teflon

I never watched whatever soaps the characters Roger Thorpe or James Stenbeck were on.  So I cannot speak to that.

But if they were longterm villains, I wouldn't have enjoyed it.  On Days, Joe Mascolo was a great actor but I didn't enjoy the Stefano character at all.  On Y&R, I loathed Sheila Carter.  Constance Towers is a powerhouse but I loathed Helena Cassadine.

We all view things differently and I'm not going to tell anyone what to enjoy or not.  That's what makes a messageboard discussion fun.

I want to be entertained, but personally I don't find villains entertaining at all. I find villains very aggravating.   I don't mind villain arcs if the villain pays eventually.  But I never want to see a longterm villain hanging around.  That ruins the canvas for me.

But I do understand that some viewers are entertained by villains. We're all different.

Edited August 18Aug 18 by janea4old

Roger Thorpe from Guiding Light was an antihero when he returned in the late 80s. his  actions were explained by both the show and the actor. I wish   they would explain the why with Leslie. That is why the character is not working for me as well as she could.

Wait... is Peaches really sick?   Or did she hear about the inheritance and decided to glom onto Leslie now?