6 hours ago, titan1978 said:

The name dropped Mike a couple of times over the years, I think he came up during that dreadful Rick Webber returns story. And Laura had at least some scenes with him and Blackie during her 1983 return story.

I am not a Stamos fan at all. But when they get around to Leslie Webber’s tribute, I wouldn’t mind Blackie making an appearance. I know he bitched about just being a prop for the 50th, but maybe this would be different. Kin should be invited back for that one too.

My fear is that they will not make a huge event out of that one because Laura is very much marginalized right now. I watched a bunch of Ryan Chamberlain stuff from the beginning recently, and she was so front and center in everything when the consistent fan outcry got her back on contract. Now she barely had scenes with Lucky, which didn’t help his return at all. It’s been a couple of years since they really made Laura a priority.

And I don’t think Amy’s death was ever mentioned until Frank and Ron got there. I recall it being another cruelty from JFP- she fired her, then nothing when she died. Although maybe they did a total card in memorium, but no one talked about her.

I've gone from being vaguely annoyed by Stamos as a child (on Full House) to finding him outright repulsive in recent times, but given how many from Leslie's life are gone, I do wish they'd bring him back for a day if he's willing (no singing, please). Ditto for Mike.

As you said, I do have a feeling Leslie won't get as much, as she was not an active part of the canvas in a very long time and the show will also need to have a memorial for Robert. 

By the time I started dipping back into GH again, Laura was about where she usually is in my viewing (sort of...there, and when she is around it's nothing I care about [like Heather's poisoned hip]). I feel bad for her fans as they have had to deal with a lot of disappointment.

7 hours ago, carolineg said:

 I could see someone like Blake Berris working as Dillon.

I've always liked Blake. He got hosed by DAYS so many times, it would be nice to see him get a chance.

7 hours ago, carolineg said:

I thought SC was a great Dillon.  Obviously he won't return.  GH needs to go outside the box to find a new Dillon and not cast dull hunks like Robert Palmer Watkins.  Dillon has always had more depth than the Nathans and Chases.  I could see someone like Blake Berris working as Dillon.

Please no to Berris. Never him. And I liked Robert Palmer Watkins and would not complain about a guest appearance for the memorial episodes (especially for the sake of flashbacks). Honestly, I am peeved about Scott Clifton's alliance with The Bold and the Beautiful, because he should be back at GH, and it is a shame that it is unlikely Bradley Bell was willing to share him for two days of shooting, etc.

8 minutes ago, Liberty City said:

Please no to Berris. Never him. And I liked Robert Palmer Watkins and would not complain about a guest appearance for the memorial episodes (especially for the sake of flashbacks). Honestly, I am peeved about Scott Clifton's alliance with The Bold and the Beautiful, because he should be back at GH, and it is a shame that it is unlikely Bradley Bell was willing to share him for two days of shooting, etc.

I mean, I am not even shipping Dillon coming back lol.  I just want better casting if they do decide to go that way.

Lovely that there is a whole Maxie story with Nathan that Kirsten Storms opted out of because she has to move for 5000 years or do whatever.  GH should just fire her.

2 minutes ago, carolineg said:

I mean, I am not even shipping Dillon coming back lol.  I just want better casting if they do decide to go that way.

Lovely that there is a whole Maxie story with Nathan that Kirsten Storms opted out of because she has to move for 5000 years or do whatever.  GH should just fire her.

And Maxie is probably what Nathan fans, however many there were, would have been interested in. I suppose Frank must have arranged it in a way where his history with Maxie won't matter until whenever Kristen is able to return. If this is really Nathan.

4 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

And Maxie is probably what Nathan fans, however many there were, would have been interested in. I suppose Frank must have arranged it in a way where his history with Maxie won't matter until whenever Kristen is able to return. If this is really Nathan.

At this point I don't think it's fair Kirsten gets all these passes on when she feels like she wants to work.  She's never claimed mental illness or substance abuse so at this point she just seems lazy?  Deciding when she wants to work, what she wants to wear, how she styles herself, etc.  

I would have recast years ago.

People move all the time.  It doesn't take 6 months.  And, yes, I have moved across country before.

Edited September 24Sep 24 by carolineg

3 minutes ago, carolineg said:

At this point I don't think it's fair Kirsten gets all these passes on when she feels like she wants to work.  She's never claimed mental illness or substance abuse so at this point she just seems lazy?  Deciding when she wants to work, what she wants to wear, how she styles herself, etc.  

I would have recast years ago.

People move all the time.  It doesn't take 6 months.  And, yes, I have moved across country before.

I agree (I probably would have just written Maxie and Spinelli out for good, as some have suggested), but you know how Frank is.

I am pretty frustrated with the situation, especially as she had a very strong comeback last year. Would I let her go, not yet but if she can't commit to being there ASAP, well...

Just now, DRW50 said:

I agree (I probably would have just written Maxie and Spinelli out for good, as some have suggested), but you know how Frank is.

Exactly.  A nice little happy ending until Kirsten figures out...whatever.  That's a satisfying conclusion to the character arc.  Bringing Nathan in when there's literally no Maxie is stupid and undermines the Spixie pairing which I actually like.

2 minutes ago, Vee said:

I am pretty frustrated with the situation, especially as she had a very strong comeback last year. Would I let her go, not yet but if she can't commit to being there ASAP, well...

I would let her go.  She's a liability that makes her own rules at this point.  I am sure she's probably a nice person, but she can't reliably show to act and it's not even like she's on that often.  Plenty of women would kill to have her job.

Would your job ever let you take 6 months off to move?  

Edited September 24Sep 24 by carolineg

11 minutes ago, carolineg said:

I would let her go.  She's a liability that makes her own rules at this point.

I agree with most of that. I think at the end of the day with Kirsten it's always been about the things they explicitly don't talk about - her mental or physical health or other long-rumored issues, and GH and FV feel responsible for her (and might consider themselves liable if they did terminate her). It's been this way since before Frank got there. When he did take over she was on another long break, and he almost let her go then.

I don't know what is the right or wrong choice at this point. If not for her remarkable comeback onscreen in the last year I would say fire her. I've said to fire her more than once myself in the last ten years. I do think her taking off for six months is unacceptable after so many ups and downs, especially when (once again) I don't feel she or GH are being transparent about the reasons.

Edited September 24Sep 24 by Vee

21 minutes ago, Vee said:

I agree with most of that. I think at the end of the day with Kirsten it's always been about the things they explicitly don't talk about - her mental or physical health or other long-rumored issues, and GH and FV feel responsible for her (and might consider themselves liable if they did terminate her). It's been this way since before Frank got there. When he did take over she was on another long break, and he almost let her go then.

I don't know what is the right or wrong choice at this point. If not for her remarkable comeback onscreen in the last year I would say fire her. I've said to fire her more than once myself in the last ten years. I do think her taking off for six months is unacceptable after so many ups and downs, especially when (once again) I don't feel she or GH are being transparent about the reasons.

I agree there are probably health issues that we don't know about and GH could be liable for firing her.  It's the transparency that bothers me the most.  Please just say you are struggling or there are other factors in play.  No one needs a time break like that to move and to pretend like that's acceptable irritates me to no end.  And they are still paying her to not be on screen!

Go find Jen Lilley at God's channel or Molly Burnett .  It's not like KS is a Sarah Brown performer.  She's likeable at best and isn't willing to commit to the minimum requirements like showing up every day.

I could understand, perhaps, if she was truly a single parent, but from my understanding Barash has always had full custody of the girl and is an active parent.  He's married and stable.  KS doesn't need to roam around Nashville for 6 months to, Idk, find a daycare or school for her child.

Edited September 24Sep 24 by carolineg

47 minutes ago, carolineg said:

I mean, I am not even shipping Dillon coming back lol.  I just want better casting if they do decide to go that way.

Lovely that there is a whole Maxie story with Nathan that Kirsten Storms opted out of because she has to move for 5000 years or do whatever.  GH should just fire her.

Honestly, Dillon should have returned when Chad Duell exited as Michael. That would have been the perfect time to reintroduce the role and fill the void left by Michael's absence. Hell, even Rory Gibson would have rocked it in that role.

As for Kirsten Storms, it is very clear Frank Valentini has a soft spot for her, and outside of medical issues, this is the first time [to my knowledge] she has requested any specific time off. And, it is worth noting, despite stating she was still on contract, since exiting, she has yet to be credited with the contract cast.

2 minutes ago, carolineg said:

Go find Jen Lilley at God's channel or Molly Burnett .  It's not like KS is a Sarah Brown performer.  She's likeable at best and isn't willing to commit to the minimum requirements like showing up every day.

While I would welcome Jen Lilley back, she has made it very clear: she will never step foot onto the set of GH again after her last time there. And considering Valentini's distaste for pinch-hitters, Burnett would be out of the running for a recast. If anything, they could have/should have pulled a DAYS and alternated between Storms and Nicole Paggi, considering Paggi's recent stints whenever Storms has been unavailable, and once Storms was settled in Nashville, she could return to set and resume filming.

37 minutes ago, Vee said:

I am pretty frustrated with the situation, especially as she had a very strong comeback last year. Would I let her go, not yet but if she can't commit to being there ASAP, well...

I credit that to Patrick Mulcahey restoring the role in writing, and it clearly pushed Kirsten Storms to recommit to the role after years of bullshït with Peter August/Austin Gatlin-Holt.

Paggi sucked.

1 minute ago, Liberty City said:

As for Kirsten Storms, it is very clear Frank Valentini has a soft spot for her, and outside of medical issues, this is the first time [to my knowledge] she has requested any specific time off. And, it is worth noting, despite stating she was still on contract, since exiting, she has yet to be credited with the contract cast.

Not to be contrary as you know I love you, but having to literally go on "medical leaves" for extended periods at time isn't exactly requesting time off, but c'mon.  Wasn't one medical leave for a frickin rash?  Or skin ailment?   Almost a year off for endometriosis is also excessive from personal experience.