4 hours ago, Vee said:

Chelsea roasting Tomas does get me every time. RhonniRose is still green but she's in rare form when she goes in on him (and again, I think she has good screwball comic timing that suits her better than dead serious story).

And she ain't wrong at all cuz she knows that man can't act ain't s#@$. She still has room to grow, but Rhonni really be nailing her scenes when Chels be going after him and Hayley. I also agree that she really does have great comedic timing. I wouldn't mind seeing more of that from her. 

Yeah, that next week promo looks great. And of course, Shanice is again in the thick of things at the nurses stand. And...Anastacia is back I see. 

 

So this Samantha story is going to be bigger than I thought. Cool.

8 hours ago, Rmodelboy said:

Today's episode has confirmed what I always thought.  Eva is not Ted's child.

So if Eva is not Ted's kid, then whose kid is she then? Alan's? I wonder how long is it going to take for that to come out. 

Edited November 1Nov 1 by MissPhoenixGirl92

3 hours ago, ranger1rg said:

So Madison went to Nicole to discuss Chelsea? Uh ... Isn't this hypocrisy in action? Madison has every right to be angry about Chelsea contacting her mother, but doing the same thing behind Chelsea's back is a choice. 

I thought it was because Nicole is a colleague and a psychiatrist, but she is Chelsea's aunt, too, and that's not right. That is the problem with having so many characters related to one another, though I do love the Duprees. 

I just wanted to punch Ted in the throat during that fight. But Nicole kind of dodged any responsibility for having that confrontation in public. Shanice was the best just lurking behind the desk all agog.

Is it just me, or does it look like Samantha is stuffing her bra to look more mature?

 

On 10/31/2025 at 8:00 PM, Liberty City said:

Normally, I am a fan of Zimmerman's breakdowns, but today, her work was giving the writer and writer². I am hoping it is just a one-off and not something consistent moving forward.

What makes a breakdown standout?
The only thing I can think of is when the flow of the show gains momentum till the last cliffhanger. That's a good breakdown in my book.

The little café spot that they keep using is cute. I really like it. And it feels quite casual, which is always appreciated.

Ugh I find it ugly and bland. LOL at the silhouettes in the background making up for the extras!

 

Samantha’s storyline makes me really uncomfortable. For a show that claims to be so feminist and progressive, this feels straight out of the 1950s.

She’s 16 and craving intimacy. She gets caught with a boy (mind you, her own age!) almost using protection—which, in my book, is a good thing!

Instead, she’s reprimanded and humiliated in front of him, as if some sacred boundary had been violated. Ugh. She wanted it just as much as he did.

All of my points were literally voiced by Samantha, but they were treated as “social justice warrior” propaganda and quickly brushed off—even by the show’s supposed heroine, Nicole.

It’s all so puritanical, misogynistic, and frankly vile. And now they’re trying to rationalize the whole thing by throwing Nathan under the bus, making him brag about his “conquest” to his friends. But here’s the truth:

Women talk about their hookups (and the size/performance) all the time.

Even if Nathan is talking about it—who cares?
It’s not a crime to have sex. Samantha shouldn’t be made to feel ashamed, period.

And meanwhile, you’ve got the two most heteronormative gay characters acting all high and mighty as if they weren’t ram**ng their b**ts every night  

Oh, and obviously no one cares if Tyrell kisses or has sex with his girlfriend—because he’s a boy, and apparently boys don’t get hurt. No trauma there.

Excuse my language, but this is just sickening.

P.S. I’m convinced it’s now an inside joke that Rowena is nowhere to be found.

PPS. I hate how you have so many offscreen characters being mentioned all the time. Yolanda, Deanna, Luke… that’s very Josh Griffith-y of MVJ and that’s not a compliment. 

Edited November 1Nov 1 by Aback

I don't know...like the specter of Dante Green...the name drops are there to set up for when characters eventually show up. Or IF they are going to show up. We know they got the mention. Which is quite old school soap. Versus whatever JG is trying at the moment. 

1 hour ago, Aback said:

PPS. I hate how you have so many offscreen characters being mentioned all the time. Yolanda, Deanna, Luke… that’s very Josh Griffith-y of MVJ and that’s not a compliment. 

Not really, no. Soaps have been mentioning relatives who have yet to appear since at least the Irna days.

3 minutes ago, Vee said:

Not really, no. Soaps have been mentioning relatives who have yet to appear since at least the Irna days.

Multiple at a time? And having an effect on the canvas as we speak?

8 minutes ago, Aback said:

Multiple at a time?

Yep. Nothing about seeding these people is unusual, Marland did it with plenty of Snyders he kept in reserve.

Exactly.

One thing is mentioning random relatives, another thing is them playing a role on the storyline while we've never seen them. I'm glad it was a thing in the 50s, though!

1 hour ago, Aback said:

She’s 16 and craving intimacy. She gets caught with a boy (mind you, her own age!) almost using protection—which, in my book, is a good thing!

At least you didn't bury the lede. She's 16.

 

1 hour ago, Aback said:

Instead, she’s reprimanded and humiliated in front of him, as if some sacred boundary had been violated. Ugh. She wanted it just as much as he did.

All of my points were literally voiced by Samantha, but they were treated as “social justice warrior” propaganda and quickly brushed off—even by the show’s supposed heroine, Nicole.

It’s all so puritanical, misogynistic, and frankly vile. And now they’re trying to rationalize the whole thing by throwing Nathan under the bus, making him brag about his “conquest” to his friends

You do make some good points, but there's context -- and in that context, Samantha makes really poor choices, and there's nothing mature about her thinking.

 

1 hour ago, Aback said:

Oh, and obviously no one cares if Tyrell kisses or has sex with his girlfriend—because he’s a boy, and apparently boys don’t get hurt. No trauma there.

Is some of this double standard? Yes. But to make that point, you can't use Tyrell as an example. We've seen nothing to indicate "no one cares" if Tyrell kisses or has sex with his girlfriend. I don't see Smitty or Martin as supportive of Tyrell having sex at his age with a girl he just met.