12 minutes ago, ranger1rg said:

I'm glad to know MVJ reads online opinions, but this response is not it.

It doesn't satisfy anyone who has a problem with the money Leslie is spending. We KNOW that $1M was the INITIAL disbursement and that the funds grew over time. We were also told Leslie would get a check every 6 months -- and NOTHING was added that she'd get many millions in the next check.

Again, she has an irrevocable trust with a "fortune" in it. She has access to that money without having it in her hands. The writers didn't botch anything, people just don't understand how rich people live. These people aren't out buying properties and funding their business with cash.

12 minutes ago, ranger1rg said:

Then we got this spending spree, this ridiculous spending spree, that we're just supposed to roll with. "It's just a soap" doesn't work. We're already hand-waving a dozen things away because we understand the soap genre. There's no reason to hand-wave something that could easily be handled with a couple lines of dialogue.

It would be out of character for her not to go on a spending spree and it would also be unresponsible to show her managing her money well. They can address that at some point but right now Leslie is acting in character. We've had many characters in the same position who've lost everything due to overspending. The same could eventually happen to Leslie or maybe one day she'll get support that can help her manage her money.

10 minutes ago, MontyB said:

A decent dialog is fine. I think MVJ is open to it, but is stuff like this necessary:

 

You're right -- it's not necessary. But that's Twitter/X, a complete cesspool where people contact others directly to attack them.

The GATES sub on Reddit has also been tough on the Leslie Has Money stuff, but (from what I've seen) the bashing is not personal.

We see in this thread that not everyone agrees about this money situation. I think it's botched; others think it makes sense. That's OK. I'd add, though, that when there's a spotlight on a plot element like this -- that includes a lot of complaining -- it's a sign the show could have done better.

I can understand all that. 

I think the SPS money story just started and I have a feeling her spending habits will come back to haunt her down the road.  And her daughter Eva has cautioned her a few times to be careful about the spending even saying wealthy people are wealthy because they know to spend and invest their money.   

I think Jan's job is the same as Mona's... being the household manager for the house.. and @TaoboiI was also happy to see Mona/Jan having breakfast and gossiping about the going on's with the wealthy.   

I have a feeling that if Jan and Joey know one another, it will be revealed in a later episode.  With the aura of Doug's passing, you could assume that both Jan and Joey were distracted by Vanessa's grief to have any sort of reaction to seeing one another.

If Joey is truly someone from Jan's past, it would totally explain her conversations with Ashley and why she was so alarmed by Ashley's interest in Andre vs Derek.  To Jan, she views Derek as a steady and stable guy that had a good job and seems like he would value the person he is with.   

Now rather Joey is the father of Ashley, or was a man from Jan's past pre or post Ashley's dad will be revealed.   If Joey is the father of Ashley, it also would explain why Jan kept Ashley so sheltered and protected.. and why Ashley seemed a bit awkward and lacking in social/romantic skills.

Comments on this board, and other boards, have made mention that Ashley asks immature in her interactions with Derek.. but it's possible that she was so sheltered/protected by Jan that it stunted Ashley in both social and emotional ways.

 

20 minutes ago, Soaplovers said:

I think Jan's job is the same as Mona's... being the household manager for the house.. and @TaoboiI was also happy to see Mona/Jan having breakfast and gossiping about the going on's with the wealthy.   

I have a feeling that if Jan and Joey know one another, it will be revealed in a later episode.  With the aura of Doug's passing, you could assume that both Jan and Joey were distracted by Vanessa's grief to have any sort of reaction to seeing one another.

We need our Have-Nots at least once a month for gossip, recap, and tea.  And maybe a Third?

 

Yeah, I'm still thinking of the look. But I guess we will see re: Jan and Joey. I can't wait to rewatch to be sure I wasn't imagining.

 

22 minutes ago, Soaplovers said:

If Joey is truly someone from Jan's past, it would totally explain her conversations with Ashley and why she was so alarmed by Ashley's interest in Andre vs Derek.  To Jan, she views Derek as a steady and stable guy that had a good job and seems like he would value the person he is with.   

Now rather Joey is the father of Ashley, or was a man from Jan's past pre or post Ashley's dad will be revealed.   If Joey is the father of Ashley, it also would explain why Jan kept Ashley so sheltered and protected.. and why Ashley seemed a bit awkward and lacking in social/romantic skills.

Comments on this board, and other boards, have made mention that Ashley asks immature in her interactions with Derek.. but it's possible that she was so sheltered/protected by Jan that it stunted Ashley in both social and emotional ways.

 

It really would explain Ashley. And even when she has driven me crazy with her antics, I do remember in the back of my mind, how Jan has mentioned often how sheltered Ashley is. And now that you wrote that, that (Andre vs Derek) does add a new layer to the potential of Joey and Jan knowing each other. No wonder Jan has been so anti-Andre. 

38 minutes ago, Soaplovers said:

Now rather Joey is the father of Ashley, or was a man from Jan's past pre or post Ashley's dad will be revealed.   If Joey is the father of Ashley, it also would explain why Jan kept Ashley so sheltered and protected.. and why Ashley seemed a bit awkward and lacking in social/romantic skills.

Comments on this board, and other boards, have made mention that Ashley asks immature in her interactions with Derek.. but it's possible that she was so sheltered/protected by Jan that it stunted Ashley in both social and emotional ways.

That is exactly what I've guessed from some of the scenes between Jan and Ashley -- last month or the month before -- that Jan was previously involved with an exciting but dangerous man who nearly destroyed her; and as a result, Jan went overboard in protecting Ashley.  Don't know if the man was Joey or someone else, and don't know if the man was Ashley's father or not -- but regardless, Jan's past with him influenced how she raised Ashley.

Edited September 27Sep 27 by janea4old

3 hours ago, Khan said:

I need some (more) characters and families on the show who are have-nots.  Soaps are nothing without characters who are all about the come up (@All My Shadows).

I think Eva and Leslie fill that role to a point, but Leslie just came into money (from Barbara, the Florence Ballard analog of Anita's old girl group) and is also a villain. Ashley and her mother also are in that zone, but are deathly boring so far.

I do suspect they may try for an Agnes-style kooky pairing of previously homeless June and lovelorn Dr. Ted though. Agnes loved her some hobos, hookers and carnie folk! And I honestly won't hate it because they do have chemistry. If crazy June can just stop babbling in tongues, handing people bills of Candyland money and crashing out every few weeks about how 'the underpass is where I lived, and I liked it there!' I'll give it a chance.

Edited September 27Sep 27 by Vee

7 hours ago, Chris B said:

People keep talking about $1 million but when she is securing loans, she's able to secure it based off what's in that trust, not the $1 million. This is what rich people do all the time. 

No sir, Leslie will have no luck at all securing a bank loan using trust assets as collateral, because she obviously holds no ownership interest in the trust assets.  The assets of the trust belong to the trustee, not to the beneficiary.  No one (aside from possibly some shady, high-risk loan shark) will grant Leslie a loan under those circumstances.  

Bank loan officers are savvy enough to understand that if the trustee misappropriates trust assets, there will be no future distributions to the beneficiary, and the bank's loan will go into default.  After a lengthy lawsuit against the beneficiary & the trustee, the bank will likely receive pennies on the dollar, which won't even cover the bank's legal fees.  Not worth the risk to the bank.  

ALSO, in the case of the trust Anita established, if another child of Barbara appears on the scene, Leslie's share of distributions will be instantly diminished by 50%.  If a third child of Barbara should appear, Leslie becomes a 1/3 beneficiary, rather than a 100% beneficiary. Again, not worth the risk to the bank.  

I'm only mentioning this, because I serve as trustee for four different trusts and have years of experience dealing with it.  The trust document is clear that I as the trustee can utilize the trust assets as collateral for a loan, which I've done on several occasions -- such as to pay property taxes, make a large repair to a building, or to advance a distribution to a beneficiary who's in desperate need of cash.  The bank's happy to give ME the money, because I'm the trustee, and as such, I'm the owner of the trust assets. I've seen various beneficiaries go to the bank and try this with zero success. 

A bank will typically only lend money to a borrower using assets owned by the borrower as collateral.  Leslie's got NO collateral; the trustee holds the collateral. 

The show failed in its research of this issue.  All we can do is shake our heads & realize that writers often don't understand what they're writing.   

8 hours ago, MontyB said:

A decent dialog is fine. I think MVJ is open to it, but is stuff like this necessary:

 

It's not necessary, but it's also not rude lol again, have I fallen into some alternate soap fandom universe where people haven't spent the last 25 years being very blunt and honest about what's on screen?

Re: "constructive criticism." I might stand alone on this, but it's not a viewer's responsibility to provide "constructive criticism." We can certainly choose to be in-depth with our feedback, and spaces like SON have been built on (mostly) healthy discussion. But in the bigger picture, we ain't part of the production team. We ain't sitting at a table with TPTB and "constructing" this show with them. Sometimes "This sucks" is all an average viewer can say in response to a story/character/scene/episode/whatever, and that's perfectly fine. TPTB can let that get stuck in their craw, use it as fuel to re-evaluate, or (and this is my suggestion), roll along and understand that you can't please everyone. That said, I don't see a problem with what MVJ tweeted, because AFAIK, it was a general statement put out there to the general fanbase. I like that because it does show that she's still a writer who pays attention and cares about how things are landing with vierwers. When it becomes an ultra-defensive back-and-forth with individuals because not everyone loves your show, then it's about time we get you ready for bed, champ (Ronald David Carlivati).

PS, I'm only here because @Khan so graciously tagged me in reference to an opinion we share. I've seen maybe an act or two of the show since I said I needed to take a break from it. Glad y'all are still enjoying it.

2 hours ago, Broderick said:

No sir, Leslie will have no luck at all securing a bank loan using trust assets as collateral, because she obviously holds no ownership interest in the trust assets.  The assets of the trust belong to the trustee, not to the beneficiary.  No one (aside from possibly some shady, high-risk loan shark) will grant Leslie a loan under those circumstances.  

Bank loan officers are savvy enough to understand that if the trustee misappropriates trust assets, there will be no future distributions to the beneficiary, and the bank's loan will go into default.  After a lengthy lawsuit against the beneficiary & the trustee, the bank will likely receive pennies on the dollar, which won't even cover the bank's legal fees.  Not worth the risk to the bank.  

ALSO, in the case of the trust Anita established, if another child of Barbara appears on the scene, Leslie's share of distributions will be instantly diminished by 50%.  If a third child of Barbara should appear, Leslie becomes a 1/3 beneficiary, rather than a 100% beneficiary. Again, not worth the risk to the bank.  

I'm only mentioning this, because I serve as trustee for four different trusts and have years of experience dealing with it.  The trust document is clear that I as the trustee can utilize the trust assets as collateral for a loan, which I've done on several occasions -- such as to pay property taxes, make a large repair to a building, or to advance a distribution to a beneficiary who's in desperate need of cash.  The bank's happy to give ME the money, because I'm the trustee, and as such, I'm the owner of the trust assets. I've seen various beneficiaries go to the bank and try this with zero success. 

A bank will typically only lend money to a borrower using assets owned by the borrower as collateral.  Leslie's got NO collateral; the trustee holds the collateral. 

The show failed in its research of this issue.  All we can do is shake our heads & realize that writers often don't understand what they're writing.   

Some might say-'but it's a soap'. Yes and we sometimes have to accept coincidences and other contrivances to move the story along. But when the writers do stuff that is not necessary to get from A to B then I think they should be taken to account.

We already have to accept that Leslie is Barbara's daughter who happened to have a one night stand with Anita's son in law. The twist about the trust fund was interesting.

Having Leslie suddenly have a windfall and her going on a spending spree is in character, but to have her seemingly be able to spend millions instantly stretches credibility.

Quite possibly she will be brought back to Earth and discover the money is drying up. That should be addressed but like a few other plot points it may come along later than it should.

53 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

Having Leslie suddenly have a windfall and her going on a spending spree is in character, but to have her seemingly be able to spend millions instantly stretches credibility.

I find it "entertaining", but only because I suspect Leslie will soon have a financial awakening that causes her to crash & burn.  This storyline is in no way reflective of real life or how "rich people live". 

Assuming the Jarvis family owns a "modest" $5 million mansion, the bank carrying the mortgage will expect Leslie to put approximately 20% down at closing ($1,000,000).  That's every cent Leslie ever had!  She'll have nothing left for renovations.  In fact, she'll have nothing left to buy Ramen noodles with, until she receives her next trust distribution.  

But as we know, Leslie told Vanessa to "double my offer". If she offered $10 million for a house that appraises for $5 million, the bank holding the mortgage will expect her pay approximately $6 million at closing.  She obviously doesn't have access to that type of money; nor does she have any method to acquire an additional loan for the down payment. 

Meanwhile, she's also purchased a condo for Eva, and made various financial promises to Peaches.  Plus, she's got a hotel bill to pay.  Not to mention, she threw $50,000 in Ted's face on day one, plus she's (theoretically) had to pay-off that $50,000 credit card bill she owed for the wigs.  On top of THAT, she has a substantial monthly bill at the country club, and in a matter of months, the board of directors will be looking for Installment #1 of the multi-million gift she's promised to the club for the new building to be named in her honor.  

I think we have to view this as "dark humor" that's leading to financial disaster.  If Michele Val Jean believes there's any semblance of reality in this storyline, she's sadly mistaken, and she takes the viewers for financial ignoramuses.

The only possible "out" I see for Leslie in this "negative net worth" scenario is a bail-out from Joey Armstrong, which of course will make Joey the de facto beneficiary of Barbara's trust, until his loan to Leslie is repaid in full, which could take years & years.  (And that's assuming Donnell McBride doesn't take Joey to the cleaners first, per the previews for next week.)  

Edited September 28Sep 28 by Broderick

13 hours ago, Broderick said:

I think we have to view this as "dark humor" that's leading to financial disaster.  If Michele Val Jean believes there's any semblance of reality in this storyline, she's sadly mistaken, and she takes the viewers for financial ignoramuses.

16 hours ago, Broderick said:

A bank will typically only lend money to a borrower using assets owned by the borrower as collateral.  Leslie's got NO collateral; the trustee holds the collateral. 

The show failed in its research of this issue.  All we can do is shake our heads & realize that writers often don't understand what they're writing.

 

Thanks for the information on trusts. The show could have avoided all of these problems by simply not showing that $1M check and adding that Leslie would get a payout every 6 months.

It is possible that the writing will address this later. We've seen this before on BTG. But that's the problem -- I'm seeing too many plot elements get addressed "later." 

 

15 hours ago, All My Shadows said:

It's not necessary, but it's also not rude lol again, have I fallen into some alternate soap fandom universe where people haven't spent the last 25 years being very blunt and honest about what's on screen?

 

You're right about social media complaints about the soaps, but when a big name in the genre like MVJ speaks, she's going to get A LOT more attention than the average soap viewer. She has every right to speak out, but I do not think it was wise.

She wasn't rude, but she's clearly irritated and she's posting after midnight. All she did was draw more attention to the plot device.

 

13 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

Some might say-'but it's a soap'. Yes and we sometimes have to accept coincidences and other contrivances to move the story along. But when the writers do stuff that is not necessary to get from A to B then I think they should be taken to account.

That's where I am on the "It's a soap" thing. I can hand-wave regularly and be OK with it, but when I'm throwing back my head in disbelief, the hand-waving doesn't work.

 

 

41 minutes ago, ranger1rg said:

 

You're right about social media complaints about the soaps, but when a big name in the genre like MVJ speaks, she's going to get A LOT more attention than the average soap viewer. She has every right to speak out, but I do not think it was wise.

She wasn't rude, but she's clearly irritated and she's posting after midnight. All she did was draw more attention to the plot device.

 

My post was in response to the fan who tweeted saying that the Leslie story is stupid and why he stopped watching the show, not MVJ’s tweet. I agree with you, though, that it’s not always a good idea to defend story points on a platform like Twitter.

I fully agree with @All My Shadows. When I share a negative opinion, I’m shocked by how some people react as if I’m attacking their baby. Not talking about MVJ, since I don’t use Twitter, but regular people who jump to conclusions and get passive aggressive for no reason. If you were the ones actually writing this dialogue... I would understand the reactions... but you are watching the show like all of us... and this attitude is more off-putting than the actual soap-criticizing comments. It makes me hesitate to share my thoughts, as I dread defending them against the usually triggered. Who often have no real arguments to defend an issue, but just don't like negative comments. People have different tastes. If you love something and can’t handle criticism, that’s your issue. Don't try to make it ours. I’ve tried to be respectful to BTG always, calling it growing pains as an excuse many times, but the show is only 7 months old... and some episodes I feel like I'm watching a 20 year old soap that has been worn out. The dialogue is often shockingly amateurish. Don't even start me on couple of actors who should have been replaced MONTHS ago. I was extremely positive for the first 3 months, but now alarms are ringing in my head. I don’t think MVJ should go, but she needs new dialogue writers asap and maybe a new co-head. It could still be good. Critical comments mean we still care. That's why I love when @ranger1rg gives his 100 percent honest opinion. When I stop writing and saying my thoughts... that's when it means I'm done.  

37 minutes ago, Maxim said:

When I share a negative opinion, I’m shocked by how some people react as if I’m attacking their baby.

I imagine some people read my posts with all the bullet points and think "There he goes again," but it's just my opinion on an opinion board. This isn't some Reddit sub that's Good Vibes Only.

 

37 minutes ago, Maxim said:

The dialogue is often shockingly amateurish. Don't even start me on couple of actors who should have been replaced MONTHS ago. I was extremely positive for the first 3 months, but now alarms are ringing in my head.

I was really positive for the first few months, too. I did mention changes I wanted to see and things that weren't working, but we're now over 7 months and I've seen regression in some areas.

While I admire loyalty to actors, I don't understand keeping people who are just not working... in storylines that are just not working. Either replace the actor or end the story. And stop casting actors who are the wrong age for the part. Who thought sticking a Marla Gibbs/227 wig on Peaches would make her look old? Who thought 30-year old Najah Jackson (who is a good actor) was right for a 16-year old?

The main problem I see with dialogue is a lack of consistency. Characters speak differently depending on who pens the script. Some days we get no pop cultural references and slang. Other days? We're overloaded with them. I'm also not a fan of dropping in a cultural reference just because. A soap isn't 2025 because it mentions a pop star or overdoes the slang.

 I'm also frustrated when a storyline ramps up, gets really intense, and then disappears for weeks. Can that work? Yes -- but not for every damn story.

 

39 minutes ago, Maxim said:

Critical comments mean we still care. That's why I love when @ranger1rg gives his 100 percent honest opinion. When I stop writing and saying my thoughts... that's when it means I'm done.  

That's how I feel. If I didn't care about this show, I wouldn't share my opinions. Hell, I wouldn't watch the show.

@Maxim and I agree on a lot more than we don't, so we naturally appreciate each other's comments. I love his honesty because it's based on what we see on the screen. I do enjoy reading  comments from others who love everything -- every single thing -- because that pushes me to see the other side and question what I'm saying.