2 hours ago, Taoboi said:

Now...GOOD.

 

Regardless of the several people who mentioned that Luke DID exist and that the Hawthornes were probably a bigger family (how else can you have a second family introduced and it has seen like the writers might go that way due off of the first scene between Anita and Elon where we got family info in the first place?  But we all know I lean toward the Hawthornes being the next major family to come onto the show for a middle-class family but I digress...), people were really running with 'it's a retcon' narrative. Nitpicking to nitpick.

 

Thankfully, I figured...since I read the NEXT WEEK synopsis...that Elon would be popping up for 1) more clarification which is standard old school soap when introducing a family member and 2) to get interaction between the newest member of the family so the audience can get a feel for it them and warm up to the new member...which is also an old school soap thing. 

 

So . 

Lol. I don't think believing that Luke/Izaiah could've been a retcon was nitpicking at all. It was an honest belief or assumption to make. The irony of it all is that Izaiah is the character that the audience never knew existed until very recently. He came out of nowhere. This, along with Luke being mentioned a long time ago with no further mentioning of his character until now, is what caused people to wonder if there was a shift making them one and the same.

Edited October 29Oct 29 by Vanguardian53

2 hours ago, Taoboi said:

But we all know I lean toward the Hawthornes being the next major family to come onto the show for a middle-class family but I digress...), people were really running with 'it's a retcon' narrative. Nitpicking to nitpick.

There was never any indication of any retcon whatsoever lol. Because the show never made it explicit who all of the Hawthornes were or named them. It's a wide open book. Therefore Izaiah isn't a 'retcon' either. This show is less than a year old, we just didn't hear Izaiah mentioned before. That's not retconning just because we haven't also seen some other brother.

The imaginary show in folks' heads don't count as canon.

Edited October 29Oct 29 by Vee

1 minute ago, Vee said:

There was never any indication of any retcon whatsoever lol. Because the show never made it explicit who all of the Hawthornes were or named them. It's a wide open book. Therefore Izaiah isn't a 'retcon' either. This show is less than a year old, we just didn't hear Izaiah mentioned before. That's not retconning just because we haven't also seen some other brother.

The imaginary show in folks' heads don't count as canon.

Oh, there was from me just glancing around. I believe one of them you have on ignore.

 

Otherwise, I feel the same as you. There was plenty of room for other Hawthornes for that very reason. So no reason for anyone to say retcon. And yet...? 

6 minutes ago, Vee said:

There was never any indication of any retcon whatsoever lol. Because the show never made it explicit who all of the Hawthornes were or named them. It's a wide open book. Therefore Izaiah isn't a 'retcon' either. This show is less than a year old, we just didn't hear Izaiah mentioned before. That's not retconning just because we haven't also seen some other brother.

The imaginary show in folks' heads don't count as canon.

Exactly. All this retcon stuff has me SMH.

Why would it have mattered if anything was retconned or not? Is this really important? If it works with or without it for the better then who cares? Retconning is not new to the world of soaps. 

Edited October 29Oct 29 by Vanguardian53

1 hour ago, Vee said:

There was never any indication of any retcon whatsoever lol. Because the show never made it explicit who all of the Hawthornes were or named them. It's a wide open book. Therefore Izaiah isn't a 'retcon' either. This show is less than a year old, we just didn't hear Izaiah mentioned before. That's not retconning just because we haven't also seen some other brother.

The imaginary show in folks' heads don't count as canon.

Preach. 

1 hour ago, Vanguardian53 said:

Why would it have mattered if anything was retconned or not? Is this really important? If it works with or without it for the better then who cares? Retconning is not new to the world of soaps. 

We’re just pointing out people jumping to the conclusion that the writers forgot about something that they clearly didn’t and then suddenly calling it a retcon despite the repeated proof of none the sort throughout the duration of the show.

9 hours ago, ranger1rg said:

What happened on the show today was entertaining, but for me a lot of it was clunky in execution and dialogue.

Lots of unnecessary exposition that was unnatural.

That final scene with Smitty announcing 'Samantha Richardson Smith!' Really?

12 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

Lots of unnecessary exposition that was unnatural.

That's the B&B/Bell-esque house style they have not yet fully shaken.

I do think a lot of dialogue scenes have gotten deeper, smarter and more dynamic over the last month or two since the kidnapping, as they've begun mixing things and people up more. But they still have got to break more from what MVJ learned at B&B IMO.

OTOH I could be way off; B&B has a doggedly loyal audience despite my finding it unwatchable, and BTG has garnered an all-new and seemingly very dedicated online/offline audience. It's broken containment to the normies outside of diehard soap fans, and the fact that it is a Black-dominated soap is no coincidence re: that outgrowth. So maybe they figure if that part ain't broke don't fix it. But I would, lol.

Edited October 29Oct 29 by Vee

3 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

Lots of unnecessary exposition that was unnatural.

That final scene with Smitty announcing 'Samantha Richardson Smith!' Really?

I kind of see what you mean and I'm not even one who usually references these things. The Hawthorne scenes, and make no mistake, I fully support this family and their expansion on the show, but the scene with the three Hawthorne men almost came off like a skit. I was chuckling a little bit. It even looked like they had smirks on their faces while delivering dialogue. Somehow I didn't feel the supposed tension between Elon and Izaiah either. Izaiah's behavior is so laid back that I couldn't quite envision him as some uncontrolled wild child repeatedly spending time in jail. So I guess he got his act together cold turkey? Also, the sudden referencing of some "boo" by the name of Yolanda? Anyhoo.......

Edited October 29Oct 29 by Vanguardian53

Is Lamon Archey still on Days ? They should cast him as Luke 

 

34 minutes ago, Rmodelboy said:

Is Lamon Archey still on Days ? They should cast him as Luke 

 

He is recurring there and can stay there.

45 minutes ago, Liberty City said:

He is recurring there and can stay there.

He's bad ? Lol

59 minutes ago, Rmodelboy said:

He's bad ? Lol

He’s not bad at all. He’s actually quite good. I’d love for him to join BTG if Days has no use for him.

Writers:
Jamey Giddens
Jazmen Darnell Brown

Director:
Sonia Blangiardo-Goins