GL/A Momentary Panic
Rthrquiet
recall seeing Holly. Is she in the pictures in the opening sequence? I would
hate to think the show had plans to get rid of Maureen Garrett (and it would be
especially strange with all the Roger references that have been dropped into
the dialogue lately).
Michael
Sarah
Holly is in the opening credits (with Billy I think).
That said, I swear that recasting Roger and recasting Alex are two
COMPLETELY different animals and that a Roger recast, is something I
just can NOT get behind, especially without any knowledge of who is
taking Rauch's place.
sarah
"sarah says" - The Serial Bowl for the new millenium
http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/16094
Darn
>From: Sarah sarah...@juno.com
>Date: 10/7/2002 7:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3DA215...@juno.com>
>
>Rthrquiet wrote:
>>
>> I was panicking today after I watched the opening credits because I
>couldn't
>> recall seeing Holly. Is she in the pictures in the opening sequence? I
>would
>> hate to think the show had plans to get rid of Maureen Garrett (and it
>would be
>> especially strange with all the Roger references that have been dropped
>into
>> the dialogue lately).
>
>Holly is in the opening credits (with Billy I think).
Billy and Buzz.
Darn
http://pub18.ezboard.com/bsoapslut
http://www.generalshmospital.com/
http://dimwitt.tripod.com/snark.html
http://whoswhoinsalem.com/main/
Rthrquiet
>>Holly is in the opening credits (with Billy I think).
>
>Billy and Buzz.
>
Thanks to both of you for the reassurance. Come to think of it, I didn't notice
Buzz in the credits either, but it hadn't hit me yet.
Speaking of Buzz, did Justin Deas have plastic surgery? I'm thinking he's a
no-plastic-surgery kind of guy, myself, but today when he showed up on screen I
thought he looked significantly younger, certainly better than I've seen him
look in years.
Michael
Michael
Shawn Hill
: Rthrquiet wrote:
:>
:> I was panicking today after I watched the opening credits because I couldn't
:> recall seeing Holly. Is she in the pictures in the opening sequence? I would
:> hate to think the show had plans to get rid of Maureen Garrett (and it would be
:> especially strange with all the Roger references that have been dropped into
:> the dialogue lately).
: Holly is in the opening credits (with Billy I think).
: That said, I swear that recasting Roger and recasting Alex are two
: COMPLETELY different animals and that a Roger recast, is something I
: just can NOT get behind, especially without any knowledge of who is
: taking Rauch's place.
We've been discussing this on the gl newsgroups I'm in, and there's
definitely two camps. I'm on the side that thinks Roger is too vital to
the show NOT to recast, and would like them to try. I pity the poor actor
they choose, he's going to have to be a powerhouse on Joan's level to make
it work at all.
They're not going to get David Canary from AMC, but they need someone that
good. They'd better be very careful.
I don't want to read about Roger's death on the show. Zas did that story
on OLTL.
There's a difference between the on-camera world and the behind-the-scenes
stuff. That boundary shouldn't just collapse in this case.
Shawn
FAC Babs
>>>>>>>>>>*<<<<<<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<*>>>>
"I AM the power of peace in my family.
There IS no other . . .
I have NO regrets" --Orlena (Claire Bloom) Grimaldi,
to the Virgin Mary
*<<<<*>>>>*<<<<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>>>*<<<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>>>*<<<<<<<<
sh...@fas.harvard.edu Shawn Hill
Sarah
>
> Sarah <sarah...@juno.com> wrote:
> : Rthrquiet wrote:
> :>
> :> I was panicking today after I watched the opening credits because I couldn't
> :> recall seeing Holly. Is she in the pictures in the opening sequence? I would
> :> hate to think the show had plans to get rid of Maureen Garrett (and it would be
> :> especially strange with all the Roger references that have been dropped into
> :> the dialogue lately).
>
> : Holly is in the opening credits (with Billy I think).
>
> : That said, I swear that recasting Roger and recasting Alex are two
> : COMPLETELY different animals and that a Roger recast, is something I
> : just can NOT get behind, especially without any knowledge of who is
> : taking Rauch's place.
>
> We've been discussing this on the gl newsgroups I'm in, and there's
> definitely two camps. I'm on the side that thinks Roger is too vital to
> the show NOT to recast, and would like them to try. I pity the poor actor
> they choose, he's going to have to be a powerhouse on Joan's level to make
> it work at all.
It's not the trying that worries me, it's the failing, falling on their
face failing as Dennis did when he took over. Destroying Roger beyond
the point of repair is WORSE than killing him off screen IMO.
Also, as much as I LOVED Michael, I guess I disagree Roger is vital. The
guy was gone for nine years and the show wasn't hurting. Sure, he brings
a lot to the show, but he can also take over the show and his last few
stories were pretty bad. Sometimes, returning characters, in integral
ones, can be VERY bad for a soap.
> They're not going to get David Canary from AMC, but they need someone that
> good. They'd better be very careful.
They aren't going get anyone that good, even if they get someone good,
David's actually the only other person I can see as Roger. They might
get a fabulous actor, but it won't work if they can't have the same
charisma and panache as Michael or David (i.e. Hunt Block for Scott
Bryce) and it will never been an overwhelming success.
> I don't want to read about Roger's death on the show. Zas did that story
> on OLTL.
Agreed, but why is it one or the other? Can't he have HIS happily ever
after and we can be done with it?
And on top of that, just in a matter of principle, I don't really think
it is fair to Michael's memory for GL to try to propser from the
character HE made famous after they dumped him like an old dishrag!
Donna L. Bridges
<anuvug$r85$6...@news.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn Hill
<sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>We've been discussing this on the gl newsgroups I'm in,
What newsgroups are there besides this one that talk about GL?
--
DonnaB <*> 8^>
"It is not so much the example of others we imitate as the reflection
of ourselves in their eyes and the echo of ourselves in their words."
- Eric Hoffer
Shawn Hill
: Shawn Hill wrote:
:>
:> We've been discussing this on the gl newsgroups I'm in, and there's
:> definitely two camps. I'm on the side that thinks Roger is too vital to
:> the show NOT to recast, and would like them to try. I pity the poor actor
:> they choose, he's going to have to be a powerhouse on Joan's level to make
:> it work at all.
: It's not the trying that worries me, it's the failing, falling on their
: face failing as Dennis did when he took over. Destroying Roger beyond
: the point of repair is WORSE than killing him off screen IMO.
I think Dennis did a good job, especially in his scenes with Holly. He at
least made Roger's exit with Amanda believable, and helped a lot in
ruining (finally!!) her marriage to Fletcher. I'll forever be grateful for
that.
: Also, as much as I LOVED Michael, I guess I disagree Roger is vital. The
: guy was gone for nine years and the show wasn't hurting. Sure, he brings
: a lot to the show, but he can also take over the show and his last few
: stories were pretty bad. Sometimes, returning characters, in integral
: ones, can be VERY bad for a soap.
But not NOW, not for this soap. Not with Holly and Ed both in town, and
Alexandra back around, and Lewises like Billy and Mindy just waiting to be
beefed up and brought on. Not with Blake still suffering the effects of
being his daughter.
Not with (dare I hope) the possibility of Vanessa showing up again now
that Maeve's enemy Rauch won't be lurking about the studio.
Maybe, just maybe, you don't need him when you've got Edmund, but Edmund's
proven enormously hard to hook up with anybody but a girlfriend.
:> They're not going to get David Canary from AMC, but they need someone that
:> good. They'd better be very careful.
: They aren't going get anyone that good, even if they get someone good,
: David's actually the only other person I can see as Roger. They might
: get a fabulous actor, but it won't work if they can't have the same
: charisma and panache as Michael or David (i.e. Hunt Block for Scott
: Bryce) and it will never been an overwhelming success.
You have zero way of knowing that. There's been a lot of water under this
particular bridge.
:> I don't want to read about Roger's death on the show. Zas did that story
:> on OLTL.
: Agreed, but why is it one or the other? Can't he have HIS happily ever
: after and we can be done with it?
Roger, for one, should NEVER be happily ever after.
: And on top of that, just in a matter of principle, I don't really think
: it is fair to Michael's memory for GL to try to propser from the
: character HE made famous after they dumped him like an old dishrag!
He's an actor, not a writer/producer/owner. Roger belongs to to P&G, and
Zas knew that from the start. Superman's original creators have passed
away, too, but we've still got Superman in multiple media.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on 8 Oct 2002 16:08:48 GMT in Msg.#
:>We've been discussing this on the gl newsgroups I'm in,
: What newsgroups are there besides this one that talk about GL?
Sorry, I meant listservs, I get a little sloppy with the nomenclature
sometimes.
Shawn
Donna L. Bridges
<ao0cj9$1bs$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn Hill
<sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Donna L. Bridges <shall...@rcn.com> wrote:
>: In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on 8 Oct 2002 16:08:48 GMT in Msg.#
>: <anuvug$r85$6...@news.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn Hill
>: <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>:>We've been discussing this on the gl newsgroups I'm in,
>
>: What newsgroups are there besides this one that talk about GL?
>
>Sorry, I meant listservs, I get a little sloppy with the nomenclature
>sometimes.
No problem. Just wanted the NGs to be listed if there were new alt NGs
for GL that weren't widely known!
--
DonnaB <*> 8^>
"For fast acting relief, try slowing down." - Lily Tomlin
Sarah
>
> Sarah <sarah...@juno.com> wrote:
> : Shawn Hill wrote:
> :>
> :> We've been discussing this on the gl newsgroups I'm in, and there's
> :> definitely two camps. I'm on the side that thinks Roger is too vital to
> :> the show NOT to recast, and would like them to try. I pity the poor actor
> :> they choose, he's going to have to be a powerhouse on Joan's level to make
> :> it work at all.
>
> : It's not the trying that worries me, it's the failing, falling on their
> : face failing as Dennis did when he took over. Destroying Roger beyond
> : the point of repair is WORSE than killing him off screen IMO.
>
> I think Dennis did a good job, especially in his scenes with Holly. He at
> least made Roger's exit with Amanda believable, and helped a lot in
> ruining (finally!!) her marriage to Fletcher. I'll forever be grateful for
> that.
Well, that's the writer's doing, not Dennis', but it's an opinion, I
can't really argue with. Perhaps it was simply too soon.
> : Also, as much as I LOVED Michael, I guess I disagree Roger is vital. The
> : guy was gone for nine years and the show wasn't hurting. Sure, he brings
> : a lot to the show, but he can also take over the show and his last few
> : stories were pretty bad. Sometimes, returning characters, in integral
> : ones, can be VERY bad for a soap.
>
> But not NOW, not for this soap. Not with Holly and Ed both in town, and
> Alexandra back around, and Lewises like Billy and Mindy just waiting to be
> beefed up and brought on. Not with Blake still suffering the effects of
> being his daughter.
>
> Not with (dare I hope) the possibility of Vanessa showing up again now
> that Maeve's enemy Rauch won't be lurking about the studio.
I do NOT like the idea of going back in time and doing the same stories
over and over and using Roger as a complication the Holly/Ed redux is
DEFINITELY the same story over and over.
And of course then there is a little problem of what about Amanda?
> Maybe, just maybe, you don't need him when you've got Edmund, but Edmund's
> proven enormously hard to hook up with anybody but a girlfriend.
Only because they don't know what to do with Edmund or half the women on
this show.
> :> They're not going to get David Canary from AMC, but they need someone that
> :> good. They'd better be very careful.
>
> : They aren't going get anyone that good, even if they get someone good,
> : David's actually the only other person I can see as Roger. They might
> : get a fabulous actor, but it won't work if they can't have the same
> : charisma and panache as Michael or David (i.e. Hunt Block for Scott
> : Bryce) and it will never been an overwhelming success.
>
> You have zero way of knowing that. There's been a lot of water under this
> particular bridge.
I have logic on my side here. No, I can't know, but I have seen a lot of
tough recasting and this is the toughest of tough.
> :> I don't want to read about Roger's death on the show. Zas did that story
> :> on OLTL.
>
> : Agreed, but why is it one or the other? Can't he have HIS happily ever
> : after and we can be done with it?
>
> Roger, for one, should NEVER be happily ever after.
Actually, I think he should, everyone is happier that way. I know I am.
> : And on top of that, just in a matter of principle, I don't really think
> : it is fair to Michael's memory for GL to try to propser from the
> : character HE made famous after they dumped him like an old dishrag!
>
> He's an actor, not a writer/producer/owner. Roger belongs to to P&G, and
> Zas knew that from the start. Superman's original creators have passed
> away, too, but we've still got Superman in multiple media.
Poor parallel Shawn and you know it!
They fired him because he was sick and then took it out on the show and
the character when they were trapped with a poor imitation and then
tried to pretend the character ever existed. IMO, they deserve what they
get for screwing him!
Shawn Hill
:> least made Roger's exit with Amanda believable, and helped a lot in
:> ruining (finally!!) her marriage to Fletcher. I'll forever be grateful for
:> that.
: Well, that's the writer's doing, not Dennis', but it's an opinion, I
: can't really argue with. Perhaps it was simply too soon.
It was too soon, and it was very difficult. But Parlato was handsome and
suave and he had some chemistry with Maureen. As almost everyone does.
:> Not with (dare I hope) the possibility of Vanessa showing up again now
:> that Maeve's enemy Rauch won't be lurking about the studio.
: I do NOT like the idea of going back in time and doing the same stories
: over and over and using Roger as a complication the Holly/Ed redux is
: DEFINITELY the same story over and over.
Trying to recapture old magic is one thing. Working on unfinished business
is another. Holly and Ed are already magnetic when they're on the screen;
a good Roger could make it even better (certainly better than Holly/Buzz
or Holly/Billy, two "new" ideas that didn't work at all).
: And of course then there is a little problem of what about Amanda?
He dumps her, he breaks up with her, he cheated on her, she left him, he
locked her in a cave, he's drugged her and taken all her money, she fled
town with Blake's little unborn half-sister when he became violent again,
the possibilities are endless.
:> Maybe, just maybe, you don't need him when you've got Edmund, but Edmund's
:> proven enormously hard to hook up with anybody but a girlfriend.
: Only because they don't know what to do with Edmund or half the women on
: this show.
They're figuring it out slowly, but I don't know if you can have an Eddie
without Richard or San Cristobel.
:> : They aren't going get anyone that good, even if they get someone good,
:> : David's actually the only other person I can see as Roger. They might
:> : get a fabulous actor, but it won't work if they can't have the same
:> : charisma and panache as Michael or David (i.e. Hunt Block for Scott
:> : Bryce) and it will never been an overwhelming success.
:>
:> You have zero way of knowing that. There's been a lot of water under this
:> particular bridge.
: I have logic on my side here. No, I can't know, but I have seen a lot of
: tough recasting and this is the toughest of tough.
:
:> Roger, for one, should NEVER be happily ever after.
: Actually, I think he should, everyone is happier that way. I know I am.
Happy that he just goes off and stops causing trouble and is happier with
Amanda in a marriage made in hell, away from his family and the
Spauldings? That stretches my credibility.
:> He's an actor, not a writer/producer/owner. Roger belongs to to P&G, and
:> Zas knew that from the start. Superman's original creators have passed
:> away, too, but we've still got Superman in multiple media.
: Poor parallel Shawn and you know it!
I don't think so. Roger Thorpe is every bit as imaginary as Clark Kent;
should they never make another Superman movie after what happened to
Christoper Reeve?
: They fired him because he was sick and then took it out on the show and
: the character when they were trapped with a poor imitation and then
: tried to pretend the character ever existed. IMO, they deserve what they
: get for screwing him!
They do, but we don't, and Holly doesn't. We deserve an interesting story
well told with the characters we've come to love. They can't bring Zas
back to life, or redress the tragedy of his illness now. But Roger is
fictive, and I don't believe recasting him is a slap in anyone's face.
Shawn
Lynne726
suave and he had some chemistry with Maureen. As almost everyone does.<<<
But, there was a lot more to Roger than handsome and suave. There is that "it"
factor. Zaslow had "it". It's just like there's a lot more to successful
younger actors on soaps than just being a hunk. It takes a lot more to make a
character successful and popular, IMO. The intangibles ... chemistry with
co-stars, for example.
If it didn't take more than handsome and suave, soaps would be overrun with
success stories, and characters like Roger wouldn't be missed.JMO.
Sarah
>
> Sarah <sarah...@juno.com> wrote:
> : Shawn Hill wrote:
> :>
> :> I think Dennis did a good job, especially in his scenes with Holly. He at
> :> least made Roger's exit with Amanda believable, and helped a lot in
> :> ruining (finally!!) her marriage to Fletcher. I'll forever be grateful for
> :> that.
>
> : Well, that's the writer's doing, not Dennis', but it's an opinion, I
> : can't really argue with. Perhaps it was simply too soon.
>
> It was too soon, and it was very difficult. But Parlato was handsome and
> suave and he had some chemistry with Maureen. As almost everyone does.
If you think that is all it takes to be a good Roger, you don't really
know the man. How long have you watched this show????
> :> Not with (dare I hope) the possibility of Vanessa showing up again now
> :> that Maeve's enemy Rauch won't be lurking about the studio.
>
> : I do NOT like the idea of going back in time and doing the same stories
> : over and over and using Roger as a complication the Holly/Ed redux is
> : DEFINITELY the same story over and over.
>
> Trying to recapture old magic is one thing. Working on unfinished business
> is another.
Well Holly and Roger IMO ARE finished business as are Holly and Ed.
> : And of course then there is a little problem of what about Amanda?
>
> He dumps her, he breaks up with her, he cheated on her, she left him, he
> locked her in a cave, he's drugged her and taken all her money, she fled
> town with Blake's little unborn half-sister when he became violent again,
> the possibilities are endless.
You mean all the excuses are endless.
> :> Maybe, just maybe, you don't need him when you've got Edmund, but Edmund's
> :> proven enormously hard to hook up with anybody but a girlfriend.
>
> : Only because they don't know what to do with Edmund or half the women on
> : this show.
>
> They're figuring it out slowly,
Where do you get the idea they are figuring out what to do with
Edmund???
>
> :> : They aren't going get anyone that good, even if they get someone good,
> :> : David's actually the only other person I can see as Roger. They might
> :> : get a fabulous actor, but it won't work if they can't have the same
> :> : charisma and panache as Michael or David (i.e. Hunt Block for Scott
> :> : Bryce) and it will never been an overwhelming success.
> :>
> :> You have zero way of knowing that. There's been a lot of water under this
> :> particular bridge.
>
> : I have logic on my side here. No, I can't know, but I have seen a lot of
> : tough recasting and this is the toughest of tough.
> :
> :> Roger, for one, should NEVER be happily ever after.
>
> : Actually, I think he should, everyone is happier that way. I know I am.
>
> Happy that he just goes off and stops causing trouble and is happier with
> Amanda in a marriage made in hell, away from his family and the
> Spauldings? That stretches my credibility.
But it calms my soap :)
> :> He's an actor, not a writer/producer/owner. Roger belongs to to P&G, and
> :> Zas knew that from the start. Superman's original creators have passed
> :> away, too, but we've still got Superman in multiple media.
>
> : Poor parallel Shawn and you know it!
>
> I don't think so. Roger Thorpe is every bit as imaginary as Clark Kent;
> should they never make another Superman movie after what happened to
> Christoper Reeve?
Well they probably shouldn't (although the will and it WILL tank). But
your ORIGINAL parallel was about the creators of a character who sold
the rights to have the character's story made. Michael Zaslow IS Roger
Thorpe and no matter how hard one will try, no one will fill those
shoes.
> : They fired him because he was sick and then took it out on the show and
> : the character when they were trapped with a poor imitation and then
> : tried to pretend the character ever existed. IMO, they deserve what they
> : get for screwing him!
>
> They do, but we don't, and Holly doesn't.
I'm sorry, how does having Roger back in Holly's life BENEFIT her???
> We deserve an interesting story
> well told with the characters we've come to love.
Sure, but we don't NEED Roger to do that.
> They can't bring Zas
> back to life, or redress the tragedy of his illness now. But Roger is
> fictive, and I don't believe recasting him is a slap in anyone's face.
And I do!
Dana Carpender
Shawn Hill wrote:
>
> Sarah <sarah...@juno.com> wrote:
> : Shawn Hill wrote:
> :>
> :> I think Dennis did a good job, especially in his scenes with Holly. He at
> :> least made Roger's exit with Amanda believable, and helped a lot in
> :> ruining (finally!!) her marriage to Fletcher. I'll forever be grateful for
> :> that.
>
> : Well, that's the writer's doing, not Dennis', but it's an opinion, I
> : can't really argue with. Perhaps it was simply too soon.
>
> It was too soon, and it was very difficult. But Parlato was handsome and
> suave and he had some chemistry with Maureen. As almost everyone does.
>
>
Agreed, but Parlato was almost too handsome in a way. Zaz, while
handsome, wasn't traditionally handsome -- there was a secretive quality
to his face that Parlato's broadly handsome face lacked. I found it
hard to see Parlato as a man with gears constantly turning in his head.
--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
Debbie W.
> camps. I'm on the side that thinks Roger is too vital to the show NOT to recast, and
> would like them to try. I pity the poor actor they choose, he's going to have to be
> a powerhouse on Joan's level to make it work at all.
>
> They're not going to get David Canary from AMC, but they need someone that good.
> They'd better be very careful.
...and I, for one, agree with you. I've always said I wanted to see Charles Keating
(ex-Carl, AW) in the role. I heard a rumor that they cast Michael Nader (from AMC) in
the role...but I've heard just as many people say it's not true.
Debbie W.
Debbie W.
> proven enormously hard to hook up with anybody but a girlfriend.
Have I mentioned the possibility here of an Edmund/India pairing? Someone on
Boarding_House suggested it...and I thought it was an awesome idea...especially
if, as speculated since the news of PR's upcoming departure, the mob is going to
be gone.
Debbie W.
Debbie W.
> her in a cave, he's drugged her and taken all her money, she fled town with
> Blake's little unborn half-sister when he became violent again, the
> possibilities are endless.
...or, even better, bring her back too!
Debbie W.
Debbie W.
I don't know about other newsgroups, but there are a TON of discussion
groups through a website called yahoogroups.com for ALL of the
soaps...especially GL.
I can put together a list of the ones I'm on for you, if you're
interested.
Debbie W.
Shawn Hill
: Shawn Hill wrote:
:>
:> Sarah <sarah...@juno.com> wrote:
:> : Shawn Hill wrote:
:> :>
:> : can't really argue with. Perhaps it was simply too soon.
:>
:> It was too soon, and it was very difficult. But Parlato was handsome and
:> suave and he had some chemistry with Maureen. As almost everyone does.
: Agreed, but Parlato was almost too handsome in a way. Zaz, while
: handsome, wasn't traditionally handsome -- there was a secretive quality
: to his face that Parlato's broadly handsome face lacked. I found it
: hard to see Parlato as a man with gears constantly turning in his head.
And yet many of us were able to see a familial resemblance in a young turk like
Sam.
Not that I think they should try to find someone who looks like Zas (that trick
only works for temporary fill-ins).
I agree Parlato didn't impart the depth to Roger that Zas did (how could he, in
so brief a time). Perhaps he's not half the actor Zas was.
But there are other actors.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
:>>>But Parlato was handsome and
Well, no doubt, no doubt. But, lightning can strike twice, too. That's really
what we're debating here, optimism or pessimism about the possibility of TPTB
NOT screwing up a new Roger.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
:> : Well, that's the writer's doing, not Dennis', but it's an opinion, I
:> : can't really argue with. Perhaps it was simply too soon.
:>
:> It was too soon, and it was very difficult. But Parlato was handsome and
:> suave and he had some chemistry with Maureen. As almost everyone does.
: If you think that is all it takes to be a good Roger, you don't really
: know the man. How long have you watched this show????
Since 1981 [generously overlooking your overheated hyperbole].
:> Trying to recapture old magic is one thing. Working on unfinished business
:> is another.
: Well Holly and Roger IMO ARE finished business as are Holly and Ed.
Never. Ever. Ever.
:> He dumps her, he breaks up with her, he cheated on her, she left him, he
:> locked her in a cave, he's drugged her and taken all her money, she fled
:> town with Blake's little unborn half-sister when he became violent again,
:> the possibilities are endless.
: You mean all the excuses are endless.
No, I mean there are many story possibilities.
:> : Only because they don't know what to do with Edmund or half the women on
:> : this show.
:>
:> They're figuring it out slowly,
: Where do you get the idea they are figuring out what to do with
: Edmund???
From the way they're trying him out in different scenes with different people.
I sense a real exploratory approach on the show right now, taking the time to
listen to the characters (Millie has talked about this in interviews) and try
some different combinations to see where things might go. Like breaking up
Phillip and Beth. Like Marina and Ben getting too serious. Like even the barest
possibility of a flirtation between Edmund and Cassie. Like something happening
with Tony besides Marah.
:> Happy that he just goes off and stops causing trouble and is happier with
:> Amanda in a marriage made in hell, away from his family and the
:> Spauldings? That stretches my credibility.
: But it calms my soap :)
And who on earth wants a calm soap?
:> : Poor parallel Shawn and you know it!
:>
:> I don't think so. Roger Thorpe is every bit as imaginary as Clark Kent;
:> should they never make another Superman movie after what happened to
:> Christoper Reeve?
: Well they probably shouldn't (although the will and it WILL tank). But
As usual, your optimism and enthusiasm shines through.
: your ORIGINAL parallel was about the creators of a character who sold
: the rights to have the character's story made. Michael Zaslow IS Roger
No, it was about a character that was created by some people, but went on to
great heights under other creative talents as well.
: Thorpe and no matter how hard one will try, no one will fill those
: shoes.
He's not the sole author of that text, and it is a castable role like any other
actor's job. You (or perhaps just we, or some of us) might be surprised.
:> : tried to pretend the character ever existed. IMO, they deserve what they
:> : get for screwing him!
:>
:> They do, but we don't, and Holly doesn't.
: I'm sorry, how does having Roger back in Holly's life BENEFIT her???
By giving her screentime and as many scenery chewing opportunities as possible?
Her storyline has always depended on Roger, has been at its best when she was
involved with him, and his absence from the show has allowed her to become
almost a forgotten footnote for years now.
:> We deserve an interesting story
:> well told with the characters we've come to love.
: Sure, but we don't NEED Roger to do that.
It would help.
:> They can't bring Zas
:> back to life, or redress the tragedy of his illness now. But Roger is
:> fictive, and I don't believe recasting him is a slap in anyone's face.
: And I do!
And there we are.
Shawn
FAC Babs
Keeper of the FACs
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Face it, Roseanna, you're fourth in line for my
father's affections, and that's on a good day!"
---lucy montgomery, Lucinda in training?
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
sh...@fas.harvard.edu Shawn Hill
Shawn Hill
:> We've been discussing this on the gl newsgroups I'm in, and there's definitely two
Charles Keating would be very interesting. And I've missed seeing him for quite
sometime.
Could he do something about the ponytail, though?
Shawn
Carol
>
>Sarah <sarah...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>: Where do you get the idea they are figuring out what to do with
>: Edmund???
>
>From the way they're trying him out in different scenes with different
>people.
>I sense a real exploratory approach on the show right now, taking the time to
>
>listen to the characters (Millie has talked about this in interviews) and try
>
>some different combinations to see where things might go. Like breaking up
>Phillip and Beth. Like Marina and Ben getting too serious. Like even the
>barest
>possibility of a flirtation between Edmund and Cassie. Like something
>happening
>with Tony besides Marah.
Not to butt in, but do you really think they're trying to "listen" for Edmund?
All I see is a once-great character reduced to stock villian, and put with the
one woman he was proven to have no chemistry with -Carmen. I'm surprised they
haven't fired DAM yet, Edmund has been rendered so useless.
Debbie W.
>
> Could he do something about the ponytail, though?
>
> Shawn
Yeah...leave it where it is:) I like it!
Debbie W.
Donna L. Bridges
Thanks, I know about many different places, whether fora or lists. I
was only inquiring because I thought he meant an alt NG had been
created.
--
DonnaB <*> 8^>
"1984 was intended as a warning about the evils of totalitarianism -
not a how-to manual." - Daniel Kurtzman
Shawn Hill
:>Shawn Hill sh...@fas.harvard.edu virtually pens:
: Not to butt in, but do you really think they're trying to "listen" for Edmund?
: All I see is a once-great character reduced to stock villian, and put with the
: one woman he was proven to have no chemistry with -Carmen. I'm surprised they
: haven't fired DAM yet, Edmund has been rendered so useless.
I think they would have written him off with Richard if they didn't see
the potential. When has he ever been much more than a stock villian? I
don't think Edmund has EVER been written very well. The only thing that
keeps him around is DAM, who is just such a good actor.
And he's proving very useful write now in keeping Cassie in trouble.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
Hee hee. Fair enough.
Shawn
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"I'm tired of being a spokesman
for every tired thing."
--amc, "blue and grey shirt"
--------------------------sh...@fas.harvard.edu
Donna L. Bridges
<Pine.OSF.4.44.021010...@is06.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn
Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Debbie W. wrote:
>
>> > Charles Keating would be very interesting. And I've missed seeing him for quite sometime.
>> >
>> > Could he do something about the ponytail, though?
>> >
>> > Shawn
>>
>> Yeah...leave it where it is:) I like it!
>
>Hee hee. Fair enough.
Well, he cut it off shortly after AW was over. Went without. Then,
grew a much much shorter one. I think that's where it is now, a much
much shorter one. But, I don't want CK saddled with the Roger recast.
Andrew Prine is still the best nominee I've heard mentioned. Although
David Selby is a very close second.
--
DonnaB <*> 8^>
"We must make sure that history never forgets the name Enterprise." -
Capt. Jean-Luc Picard - TNG "Yesterday's Enterprise"
Rthrquiet
> When has he ever been much more than a stock villian? I
>don't think Edmund has EVER been written very well.
Were you watching in the three months or so after Jim's death, when he was
mentoring Susan and getting her through the worst of her grief while
simultaneously seducing her stepmother Beth, winning over Lillian in the
process, and conniving to steal San CristoHell from Richard once again? He was
operating, and convincingly, on so many different, fascinating levels then that
I found him riveting. Shortly thereafter, however, he went back to stock
villain mode. But TPTB did seem to have a handle on it at that one (fairly
brief) point.
Michael
Shawn Hill
:>On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Debbie W. wrote:
:>
:>> > Charles Keating would be very interesting. And I've missed seeing him for quite sometime.
:>> >
:>> > Could he do something about the ponytail, though?
:>> >
:>> > Shawn
:>>
:>> Yeah...leave it where it is:) I like it!
:>
:>Hee hee. Fair enough.
: Well, he cut it off shortly after AW was over. Went without. Then,
: grew a much much shorter one. I think that's where it is now, a much
: much shorter one. But, I don't want CK saddled with the Roger recast.
: Andrew Prine is still the best nominee I've heard mentioned. Although
: David Selby is a very close second.
How old is David Selby now? He can be very rigid; I have a hard time
seeing the softer, sexier side sometimes.
And I don't know Andrew Prine ... what has he done?
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Shawn Hill sh...@fas.harvard.edu posted:
I do think his most interesting period was his involvement with Beth, I
was trying to put my finger on the parts of it I liked (I know he felt
remorse when she fell from that tower, though I thought it insane that he
put her in there in the first place). I'd forgotten about his friendship
with Susan, or his rivalry with Jim.
I think his scenes with Cassie are the best he's had since then.
Shawn
Donna L. Bridges
<ao4a9f$ebb$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn Hill
<sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
Not sure of his age, but, come on, when he smiles, whoa! And, oozes
charm but, yes, can turn cold fast.
>And I don't know Andrew Prine ... what has he done?
Credits that go on & on & on ...
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Prine,+Andrew
He was on DALLAS. He was a badguy, actually I guess that would be a
bad reptile, on V.
But, you probably just need to see pix to recall him.
http://images.google.com/images?q=%22Andrew+Prine%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search
--
DonnaB <*> 8^>
"Autumn truly is what summer pretends to be: the best of all seasons.
It is as glorious as summer is tedious; as subtle as summer is
obvious; as refreshing as summer is wearying. Autumn seems like
paradise." - Gregg Easterbrook
squeakinby
"Donna L. Bridges" <shall...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:1mebquo1b0hkn2g9k...@4ax.com...
> In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on 10 Oct 2002 16:35:59 GMT in Msg.#
> <ao4a9f$ebb$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn Hill
> <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> > >And I don't know Andrew Prine ... what has he done?
>
> Credits that go on & on & on ...
> http://us.imdb.com/Name?Prine,+Andrew
>
> He was on DALLAS. He was a badguy, actually I guess that would be a
> bad reptile, on V.
>
> But, you probably just need to see pix to recall him.
What was that cowboy thing he was in 1000 years ago when he was oh so young
and I was even younger? Mitch Guthrie? He played Earl Holliman's younger
brother. On the rodeo circuit. Sort of Route 66 with horses.
Then of course he seriously dated (or maybe was even married to) Barbie
Benton Playboy Bunny extraordinaire and hence lost all credibility for me.
I think David Selby is a good choice.
How about Tim Mathieson!? That would be my default choice to play everyone
except Queen Elizabeth II.
Robin
Marlene Blanshay
do community service.
I said, out loud, "as what? A candy stripper?"
Yeah, that's what you wear to take care of a bunch of sick kids.
Also, Reva's ugly blouse with the slit sleeves. And poor Marah, in the
midriff-baring plaid-skirt outfit with her bony hips.
I know, it's just my taste- some of you probably like the clothes and
that's OKAY! But personally, even if I was tammy's age I'd run away
screaming from that outfit.
Shawn Hill
: I think David Selby is a good choice.
: How about Tim Mathieson!? That would be my default choice to play everyone
: except Queen Elizabeth II.
The right age, maybe, but way too preppy. Part of Roger's ... aura, I
guess ... was his having the aspect of a social climber, ie, a bit too
much ethnicity for the culture club, even if it was never specified what
it was.
Is there a way to make that sentence not sound racist?
Shawn
Carol
>
>I think they would have written him off with Richard if they didn't see
>the potential.
So his potential is getting Cassie in trouble?
>When has he ever been much more than a stock villian?
During several parts of the SC story, and the Lorelei storyline. He was the
closest he's ever come to human during that story, especially the last few
months.
I
>don't think Edmund has EVER been written very well. The only thing that
>keeps him around is DAM, who is just such a good actor.
It's time to fish or cut bait. If they have nothing for him, then he should go.
>
>And he's proving very useful write now in keeping Cassie in trouble.
>
Wow, well let's break out those party favors.
squeakinby
"Marlene Blanshay" <blan...@total.net> wrote in message
news:blanshay-101...@192.168.1.3...
> I had to laugh at Tammy's outfit when she was going to the hospital. To
> do community service.
>
> I said, out loud, "as what? A candy stripper?"
Or do you just mean stripper, which she would have learned from dear ol'
Mom. I was cracking up while trying to figure out what clothing was
sticking out from under what.
What's with the cumberbunds around the middle or are the tops slit? The one
good thing is that these get-ups (I refuse to say outfits) distract us from
the idiotic storytelling.
Geez, it's October, dontcha know? It's getting cold. Let's go back to the
Jaclyn Smith fashions from K-Mart. A turtleneck and a down vest would be
more appropriate for Tammy.
I think what we have here is a case of what some show biz type on a coast
thinks is fashion and then they ram it down our throats. But we all have
better and more practical tastes than that. They think we're so dense, so
backward, so dismissable (except for our potential purchasing power).
Criminy! I'd almost consider feeling insulted if I didn't know the source.
Robin
Donna L. Bridges
<20021007160948...@mb-ml.aol.com>, rthr...@aol.com
(Rthrquiet) wrote:
>I was panicking today after I watched the opening credits because I couldn't
>recall seeing Holly. Is she in the pictures in the opening sequence? I would
>hate to think the show had plans to get rid of Maureen Garrett (and it would be
>especially strange with all the Roger references that have been dropped into
>the dialogue lately).
Yabbut her contract comes up in the spring & they have not used her
much at all recently & they're not going to go with a redux of her &
Ed. I admit to some concern. That's one of those very particular
things that might make me give up the show.
--
DonnaB <*> 8^>
"A real Christian is the one who can give his pet parrot to the town
gossip." - Billy Graham
Donna L. Bridges
<20021007204344...@mb-ms.aol.com>, rthr...@aol.com
(Rthrquiet) wrote:
>Speaking of Buzz, did Justin Deas have plastic surgery? I'm thinking he's a
>no-plastic-surgery kind of guy, myself, but today when he showed up on screen I
>thought he looked significantly younger, certainly better than I've seen him
>look in years.
Looks completely the same to me - great.
--
DonnaB <*> 8^>
"What you do when you don't have to, determines what you will be when
you can no longer help it." - Kipling
Donna L. Bridges
<20021007193347...@mb-fb.aol.com>,
chaoz...@aol.comjunkbloc (Darn) wrote:
>>Holly is in the opening credits (with Billy I think).
>
>Billy and Buzz.
Their Tron disc is the one I call, "We want a storyline."
--
DonnaB <*> 8^>
"Understanding is knowing what to do; wisdom is knowing what to do
next; virtue is actually doing it." - Tristan Gylberd
Shawn Hill
:>And I don't know Andrew Prine ... what has he done?
:http://images.google.com/images?q=%22Andrew+Prine%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search
You are right, I do recall him! I think that's an excellent idea. But
wasn't he already on GL, as Drew's adoptive father, the music mogul? Or
was that someone else?
I think he has GREAT potential as a Roger recast, if she's available.
Shawn
Rthrquiet
[re: Maureen Garrett]
>Yabbut her contract comes up in the spring & they have not used her
>much at all recently & they're not going to go with a redux of her &
>Ed. I admit to some concern. That's one of those very particular
>things that might make me give up the show.
Yep. Me too. I'm enjoying Philip-Alan-Olivia, with Alex thrown into the mix,
and I'm also happy about the occasional moments like the Buzz-Alex scenes last
week and Philip and Rick's conversation on the beach, and I'm also willing to
wait around and see what Taggart and Culliton can do in terms of improving the
storytelling, especially once Paul Rauch is taken out of the mix. But *none* of
that is enough to really keep me tuning in if they do something stupid like
write Holly/Garrett out, especially when there is still *so* much dreck to wade
through in nearly every episode. And I mean, really, why go to the trouble of
luring back Peter Simon because of what his very *presence* can bring to the
show (and it does--he even makes Cassie less smackable when she's with him) if
they're not able to grasp what someone like Maureen Garrett brings to the show
as well, simply by being there? It's *always* a better day if Holly is on, even
when the episode is largely worthless. I sure hope they get that, but I fear
they don't. The only thing I can hope is that Millee, as an actress,
understands the value of someone like Garrett and can prevail over anybody who
might think she's expendable.
Michael
Marlene Blanshay
<squea...@tds.netToDamnSpam> wrote:
> Geez, it's October, dontcha know? It's getting cold. Let's go back to the
> Jaclyn Smith fashions from K-Mart. A turtleneck and a down vest would be
> more appropriate for Tammy.
>
> I think what we have here is a case of what some show biz type on a coast
> thinks is fashion and then they ram it down our throats. But we all have
> better and more practical tastes than that. They think we're so dense, so
> backward, so dismissable (except for our potential purchasing power).
>
> Criminy! I'd almost consider feeling insulted if I didn't know the source.
>
> Robin
LOL, I know- the colder it gets, the more skin they seem to be showing.
Doesn't one of these women own a sweater, a turtleneck or a jacket? It's
like every day on GL is an opportunity to send some poor girl down the
runway in a freakazoid outfit!
However not all of them are looking bad. Harley wears really nice stuff,
cassie is actually relatively sedate these days (as befits a widow),
olivia looks good except for some of the ruffly things they stick on her.
It's mainly the young actresses who seem to be the victims!
Rthrquiet
>It's mainly the young actresses who seem to be the victims!
You know, I spend a fair amount of time on a college campus in an urban setting
(with a sizable crowd drawn in from the suburbs as well), and although I do see
some of the undergrad women in getups on the order of what they've been showing
lately on GL, most of the young ladies seem to be forgoing the
skanky-ho/fashion disaster look for minor variations on what they were wearing
back in the Dark Ages when I went into college. What the new wardrobe
maestro/maven is inflicting on these young actresses and their characters may
be trendy and fashionable, but it's so out of touch with what young
Springfielders would likely be wearing--at least based on what I'm seeing out
here in the real world.
Yet another false note creeps in . . .
Michael
squeakinby
This is true. Once we got Harley out of the baby blue tops and matching
eyeshadow, she looked better. Hair better as well, softer against the
pronounced angles of her face.
These are wealthy people, all upper class, who can afford stylish clothing.
I'm not talking momentary fashion. Style. Clothing that bespeaks the
wealth and status they have. There's still room for improvement. I didn't
understand the Morticia-like hemline of Alex's dress of a few days back.
Beth needs a lot of help in the wardrobe dept.
Carmen usually looks pretty darn good. I like Saundra Santiago, style-wise
and hair. She's probably put together about the best. I'm not saying I
like the Santos clan, however.
I hope Patricia Fields keeps going with the young 'uns tho so we have lots
to yammer about since the stories are all going about nowhere.
I can't even begin to list all my objections to Marah moving in with 3 guys.
Robin
Darn
>From: Donna L. Bridges shall...@rcn.com
>Date: 10/11/2002 10:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <gjodqusm07p6kqbnb...@4ax.com>
>
>In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on 07 Oct 2002 20:09:48 GMT in Msg.#
><20021007160948...@mb-ml.aol.com>, rthr...@aol.com
>(Rthrquiet) wrote:
>
>>I was panicking today after I watched the opening credits because I couldn't
>>recall seeing Holly. Is she in the pictures in the opening sequence? I would
>>hate to think the show had plans to get rid of Maureen Garrett (and it would
>be
>>especially strange with all the Roger references that have been dropped into
>>the dialogue lately).
>
>Yabbut her contract comes up in the spring & they have not used her
>much at all recently & they're not going to go with a redux of her &
>Ed. I admit to some concern. That's one of those very particular
>things that might make me give up the show.
>
>--
Do you know why they're not going with that story?
Darn
http://pub18.ezboard.com/bsoapslut
http://www.generalshmospital.com/
http://dimwitt.tripod.com/snark.html
http://whoswhoinsalem.com/main/
Darn
>From: blan...@total.net (Marlene Blanshay)
>Date: 10/11/2002 11:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <blanshay-111...@192.168.1.3>
They should put the younger actresses in peasant tops, that's really hot right
now. My sister has a few dozen of them.
Donna L. Bridges
<20021011131621...@mb-ft.aol.com>,
chaoz...@aol.comjunkbloc (Darn) wrote:
>>From: Donna L. Bridges shall...@rcn.com
>>In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on 07 Oct 2002 20:09:48 GMT in Msg.#
>>Yabbut her contract comes up in the spring & they have not used her
>>much at all recently & they're not going to go with a redux of her &
>>Ed. I admit to some concern. That's one of those very particular
>>things that might make me give up the show.
>
>Do you know why they're not going with that story?
Apparently they saw nothing when they put them together. Blind, I
guess. Need glasses? I was staggered to hear it. I saw lots there.
What do I know? Huh?
--
DonnaB-wishing you a Happy National Coming Out Day! <*> 8^>
"Every man is a divinity in disguise, a god playing the fool." - Ralph
Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
kmc
I understand what you're saying. So many of the characters in the
Country Club set over the years have had light hair and eyes, that
Zaslow's dark hair, heavy eyebrows, and swarthy complexion stood out
and, to me, was like a visual reminder that he was an outsider, no
matter how good he looked in a tux. Don't get me wrong, I think Zas
was HOT, but his looks were not pretty boy, matinee-idol looks. They
were dangerous, brooding, mysterious looks.
In the early years, Roger would bitterly complain about not being
respected, not being good enough for those people and I'm not sure it
would have played quite as well if the actor looked like a golden boy.
KC
kmc
Tammy's outfit was ridiculous, especially for working at the hospital.
Marah's outfit when she was talking to Tony outside company: off the
shoulder (again) "Las Vegas" with brown cords? And that gold purse
strap that caused a blinding flash every time the lights hit it?
But what about the necklaces lately? The other day (maybe RealTues or
RealWed), Cassie had that big gold elephant head pendant on and Alex
had something that looked like a chandelier hanging around her neck.
KC
Darn
>Message-id: <ci2equ4r11duqgqhl...@4ax.com>
>
>In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on 11 Oct 2002 17:16:21 GMT in Msg.#
><20021011131621...@mb-ft.aol.com>,
>chaoz...@aol.comjunkbloc (Darn) wrote:
>
>>>From: Donna L. Bridges shall...@rcn.com
>>>In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on 07 Oct 2002 20:09:48 GMT in Msg.#
>>>Yabbut her contract comes up in the spring & they have not used her
>>>much at all recently & they're not going to go with a redux of her &
>>>Ed. I admit to some concern. That's one of those very particular
>>>things that might make me give up the show.
>>
>>Do you know why they're not going with that story?
>
>Apparently they saw nothing when they put them together. Blind, I
>guess. Need glasses? I was staggered to hear it. I saw lots there.
>What do I know? Huh?
How can they see nothing in a couple with so much history? I could throttle
TPTB sometimes...
Donna L. Bridges
<20021011134939...@mb-ft.aol.com>,
chaoz...@aol.comjunkbloc (Darn) wrote:
RE Holly & Ed
>>From: Donna L. Bridges shall...@rcn.com
>>Apparently they saw nothing when they put them together. Blind, I
>>guess. Need glasses? I was staggered to hear it. I saw lots there.
>>What do I know? Huh?
>
>How can they see nothing in a couple with so much history? I could throttle
>TPTB sometimes...
Can we make up a throttle team?!! I'm ready. Especially since with
this regime I feel there's actually a chance. (Subject to new EP
announcement.)
--
DonnaB-wishing you a Happy National Coming Out Day! <*> 8^>
"If you would be known and not know, vegetate in a village. If you
would know and not be known, live in a city." - Caleb Colton
Dana Carpender
I don't think it sounds racist, I think it points out that there is
racism at work in the country club set.
--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
squeakinby
"Dana Carpender" <dcar...@kiva.net> wrote in message
news:3DA759C1...@kiva.net...
>
>
> > Is there a way to make that sentence not sound racist?
> >
>
>
> I don't think it sounds racist, I think it points out that there is
> racism at work in the country club set.
What did Groucho Marx say?
Robin
snow_whitecat
> Carmen usually looks pretty darn good. I like Saundra Santiago, style-wise
> and hair. She's probably put together about the best. I'm not saying I
> like the Santos clan, however.
except what Carmen wears for daytime always seems more suitable for a
night out on the town, don't you think? She does look good, but who
dresses like that from 9 to 5??
snow_whitecat
> But what about the necklaces lately? The other day (maybe RealTues or
> RealWed), Cassie had that big gold elephant head pendant on and Alex
> had something that looked like a chandelier hanging around her neck.
>
> KC
LOL - that damn huge elephant pendant hung around Cassie's neck for
days! (our time anyway) At first I thought it was a lion's head. And
let's not forget that giant horseshoe pendant Olivia wore with her
white wedding suit. Was I the only one who thought it was
inappropriate (but funny as hell!) to wear a good luck charm as big as
that one around your neck when you're supposedly getting married. How
does it go?... something borrowed, something blue, something old,
something voodoo. Hee.
Marlene Blanshay
> > cassie is actually relatively sedate these days (as befits a widow),
> > olivia looks good except for some of the ruffly things they stick on her.
> > It's mainly the young actresses who seem to be the victims!
>
> This is true. Once we got Harley out of the baby blue tops and matching
> eyeshadow, she looked better. Hair better as well, softer against the
> pronounced angles of her face.
>
> These are wealthy people, all upper class, who can afford stylish clothing.
> I'm not talking momentary fashion. Style. Clothing that bespeaks the
> wealth and status they have. There's still room for improvement. I didn't
> understand the Morticia-like hemline of Alex's dress of a few days back.
>
> Beth needs a lot of help in the wardrobe dept.
>
> Carmen usually looks pretty darn good. I like Saundra Santiago, style-wise
> and hair. She's probably put together about the best. I'm not saying I
> like the Santos clan, however.
>
> I hope Patricia Fields keeps going with the young 'uns tho so we have lots
> to yammer about since the stories are all going about nowhere.
>
> I can't even begin to list all my objections to Marah moving in with 3 guys.
>
> Robin
What's the big problem? I have seen lots of similar arrangements, and I
personally have had quite a few male roommates. NOt all of them were
ideal, I admit, in fact a couple were real losers. But there was nothing
going on aside from sharing the rent (except for the one who was a real
deadbeat and never paid his bills!)
Marlene Blanshay
km...@webtv.net (kmc) wrote:
> blan...@total.net (Marlene Blanshay) wrote in message
news:<blanshay-101...@192.168.1.3>...
> > I had to laugh at Tammy's outfit when she was going to the hospital. To
> > do community service.
> Tammy's outfit was ridiculous, especially for working at the hospital.
>
> Marah's outfit when she was talking to Tony outside company: off the
> shoulder (again) "Las Vegas" with brown cords? And that gold purse
> strap that caused a blinding flash every time the lights hit it?
>
> But what about the necklaces lately? The other day (maybe RealTues or
> RealWed), Cassie had that big gold elephant head pendant on and Alex
> had something that looked like a chandelier hanging around her neck.
>
> KC
Actually, I kind of liked that elephant head (elephants are good luck) and
cassie's suede jacket. Sort of a golden color scheme-great for blondes.
Anthony D. Langford
What's wrong with it? It's not like she's doing any of them. She's related to
one (Bill) and sort of, kind of related to another (Ben). As for the third
(Remy), you know the show ain't going there.
Anthony D. Langford
Creator and Writer of Covington Bay--An Online Soap Opera
Check it out at: http://www.covingtonbay.com
squeakinby
"Anthony D. Langford" <alang...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20021012063143...@mb-mr.aol.com...
> >I can't even begin to list all my objections to Marah moving in with 3
guys.
>
> What's wrong with it? It's not like she's doing any of them. She's
related to
> one (Bill) and sort of, kind of related to another (Ben). As for the
third
> (Remy), you know the show ain't going there.
It actually goes against the beliefs of my religion. It falls under the
heading of immodest if nothing else. And I'm sure you aren't interested in
my argument why I think this teaching is valid which is why I didn't say
anything but that I had objections to it.
Robin
~*Connie*~
"snow_whitecat" <snow_w...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Was I the only one who thought it was
> inappropriate (but funny as hell!) to wear a good luck charm as big as
> that one around your neck when you're supposedly getting married. How
> does it go?... something borrowed, something blue, something old,
> something voodoo. Hee.
lol.. I too noticed the symbolism.. quite humorous..
Anthony D. Langford
>heading of immodest if nothing else. And I'm sure you aren't interested in
>my argument why I think this teaching is valid which is why I didn't say
>anything but that I had objections to it.
>
>
Well, I have no problem with religion, nor hearing a person's religious views,
religion is important to me too. That said, as long as there isn't anything
going on, I don't see the problem with Marah living with those guys. And well,
you had to know when you said you didn't like Marah living with those guys,
*someone* was going to ask why.
Donna L. Bridges
<UDUp9.18163$PS1.2...@kent.svc.tds.net>, "squeakinby"
<squea...@tds.netToDamnSpam> wrote:
>It actually goes against the beliefs of my religion. It falls under the
>heading of immodest if nothing else. And I'm sure you aren't interested in
>my argument why I think this teaching is valid which is why I didn't say
>anything but that I had objections to it.
I thought that unrelated males & females lived communally on
kibbutzes. Are you against this in all circumstances? What about co-ed
dorms in colleges?
--
DonnaB-wishing you a Happy National Coming Out Day! <*> 8^>
"In completing one discovery we never fail to get an imperfect
knowledge of others of which we could have no idea before, so that we
cannot solve one doubt without creating several new ones." - Joseph
Priestly
squeakinby
"Donna L. Bridges" <shall...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:qfngquga3vdmrgsbc...@4ax.com...
> In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on Sat, 12 Oct 2002 12:32:52 GMT in Msg.#
> <UDUp9.18163$PS1.2...@kent.svc.tds.net>, "squeakinby"
> <squea...@tds.netToDamnSpam> wrote:
> I thought that unrelated males & females lived communally on
> kibbutzes.
I don't know anything about kibbutzes, sorry to report. I know my rabbi
won't shake my hand because I'm not related to him and he won't close the
door if we're together in a room or the house and no one else is there. The
reason? Men and women are sexual beings.
Are you against this in all circumstances? What about co-ed
> dorms in colleges?
I'm really "old-fashioned" about this. I think sexual energy is something
to be conserved and used in appropriate settings.
I know that men and women, boys and girls, boys and boys, girls and girls,
and any other combinations, can suddenly go from casual to intimate in the
blink of an eye. For some people that's fine and I would certainly never
tell them they're wrong.
I think sexuality is actually sacred and should take place in the context
of love. If you have situations where there is close contact, it's possible
to get involved in something you perhaps wouldn't have otherwise. (Marah
did have that thing with Romeo and I don't think she really intended for
that to happen.) For me, for my characters, I would like them to seriously
consider putting themselves in this position and what it would mean both in
the present and what the ramifications might be in the future. I would want
them to think about what they think is private and for them and their SO,
and what should be available to anyone. I fear that we are getting
desensitized as a culture. We see so much flesh, so many body parts, we
seem to have so little privacy left, so little is retained or withheld that
I wonder what is reserved for someone who is truly special.
To some people these are perhaps bizarre or out-moded notions, but one does
find themself pressed to assign meaning to something and this is one area
where I've done it.
So co-ed dorms? No, I'm not really in favor of that. I'm old enough to
have attended an all women college and I can say that was some of the most
relaxing time of my life--even though we were protesting the war in Vietnam
and it was during Kent State. Women are truly terrific creatures and well
worth knowing. Once you have men in class, the entire dynamic changes, I
have no idea what it would be like to have them in the dorm on the same
floor with you.
Robin
Murray Fox
squea...@tds.netToDamnSpam wrote on 10/12/02 2:53 PM:
> Women are truly terrific creatures and well
> worth knowing. Once you have men in class, the entire dynamic changes,
For the better, in my opinion.
And I don't mean that in an off-the cuff, or inflamatory or argumentive
manner. I completely respect what you've said and the thought you've put
into it.
For me, however, we live in a world that is both male and female. And I
would rather experience the richness that comes from the mixing and joining
of the genders. I think that there is far more similarities between male
and female than there are differences, and to segregate the genders usually
does more harm than good.
murr
Shawn Hill
: Shawn Hill wrote:
:>
:> squeakinby <squea...@tds.nettodamnspam> wrote:
:>
:> : I think David Selby is a good choice.
:>
:> : How about Tim Mathieson!? That would be my default choice to play everyone
:> : except Queen Elizabeth II.
:>
:> The right age, maybe, but way too preppy. Part of Roger's ... aura, I
:> guess ... was his having the aspect of a social climber, ie, a bit too
:> much ethnicity for the culture club, even if it was never specified what
:> it was.
:>
:> Is there a way to make that sentence not sound racist?
:>
: I don't think it sounds racist, I think it points out that there is
: racism at work in the country club set.
Thanks, that's what I was hoping for. I just worry about how easily things can
be taken the wrong way, and my wording isn't always the best.
Shawn
squeakinby
"Murray Fox" <mur...@kw.igs.net> wrote in message
news:B9CDEFC6.5597%mur...@kw.igs.net...
> in article Oc_p9.18483$PS1.2...@kent.svc.tds.net, squeakinby at
> squea...@tds.netToDamnSpam wrote on 10/12/02 2:53 PM:
>
> would rather experience the richness that comes from the mixing and
joining
> of the genders. I think that there is far more similarities between male
> and female than there are differences, and to segregate the genders
usually
> does more harm than good.
For a brief time I experienced just the one. It was a unique and
enlightening time in my life and I learned a great deal about myself.
Robin
Marlene Blanshay
shall...@rcn.com wrote:
> In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on Sat, 12 Oct 2002 12:32:52 GMT in Msg.#
> <UDUp9.18163$PS1.2...@kent.svc.tds.net>, "squeakinby"
> <squea...@tds.netToDamnSpam> wrote:
>
> >It actually goes against the beliefs of my religion. It falls under the
> >heading of immodest if nothing else. And I'm sure you aren't interested in
> >my argument why I think this teaching is valid which is why I didn't say
> >anything but that I had objections to it.
>
> I thought that unrelated males & females lived communally on
> kibbutzes. Are you against this in all circumstances? What about co-ed
> dorms in colleges?
Speaking of kibbutzes, I couldn't help noticing that marah's obnoxious
roommate was jewish. I'm not a PC, hypersensitive prude/victim, but I was
a bit annoyed that the only jewish person in SF is a blabby, annoying
yenta!
Marlene Blanshay
<mur...@kw.igs.net> wrote:
OTOH, there is something to be said for segregated private schools.
Sometimes I wish I'd gone to a girl's school- I know it would have been
much better for me, anyways.
Murray Fox
squea...@tds.netToDamnSpam wrote on 10/12/02 4:53 PM:
I can't disagree with that. I think you said that this was a period of time
when you were in university, and I wonder whether it would have been an
enlightening time anyway. I know that I found those years to be ones of
growth and insight. None of which is meant to take away the specialness
that comes from being grouped together with a set of people with similar
interests.
I mean, for me, just being housed together in a dorm with a group of other
people (male or female) was enough to forge a bond of collegiality that was
special. For different people it's obviously different.
murr
Murray Fox
blan...@total.net wrote on 10/12/02 6:48 PM:
Oh she just balances out the other only Jewish person... that Matt something
or other that was supposed to be Harley's love interest before Josh or
Mallet. Remember? The fashion designer guy? He was almost too good to be
true from what I remember. So we've had a Jewish saint, and now a Jewish
ditz. FWIW, I like her. I'd rather see Sunny involved in some kind of
storyline than Marah, at the moment.
murr
Murray Fox
Sure, there's lots to be said, but nothing positive. :)
Said the proud-to-be-a-public school teacher.
murr
Dana Carpender
You're forgetting Levy -- a level-headed cop who was always willing to
work on Christmas. I miss Levy.
Murray Fox
wrote on 10/12/02 7:56 PM:
Oh my gawd YES! What happened to him? Next to Eleni, he was the best thing
to happen to Frankie. Was he ever written out properly or did he just stop
appearing one day?
Marlene Blanshay
<mur...@kw.igs.net> wrote:
I forgot about Matt whatsisface- Weiss? And I was kind of thinking that
perhaps sunny thinks, "geez that marah- what a humorless drip."
Donna L. Bridges
<Oc_p9.18483$PS1.2...@kent.svc.tds.net>, "squeakinby"
<squea...@tds.netToDamnSpam> wrote:
>"Donna L. Bridges" <shall...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>news:qfngquga3vdmrgsbc...@4ax.com...
>> I thought that unrelated males & females lived communally on
>> kibbutzes.
>
>I don't know anything about kibbutzes, sorry to report. I know my rabbi
>won't shake my hand because I'm not related to him and he won't close the
>door if we're together in a room or the house and no one else is there. The
>reason? Men and women are sexual beings.
Yes, they are sexual beings & they are much much more than JUST sexual
beings. Plus, of course, a minority of each population is attracted to
their own gender, not the opposite.
I went to a single gender college as well, although even if allows men
in now. However, it, like Vassar, hasn't really changed its mission,
and its ratio remains far more women to men. Periods of time where
part of one's life is spent with your own gender & not the opposite
can be excellent. But, complete separation, or even extreme
separation, for long periods of time is something that sets off alarms
in me. In almost all cases where they rigidly separate by gender it
means there are also rigid roles where only women can perform certain
tasks & only men can perform other certain tasks, and these aren't
short lists. They seem to always be about non-equality & non-parity
instead of protection & to seriously & severely curtail the natural
individual expression of too many people. If your rabbi were a woman
would she not shake the hands of men she was not related to?
--
DonnaB <*> 8^>
"Solitude is not something you must hope for in the future. Rather, it
is a deepening of the present, and unless you look for it in the
present you will never find it." - Thomas Merton
Donna L. Bridges
>in article blanshay-121...@192.168.1.3, Marlene Blanshay at
>blan...@total.net wrote on 10/12/02 6:48 PM:
>> Speaking of kibbutzes, I couldn't help noticing that marah's obnoxious
>> roommate was jewish. I'm not a PC, hypersensitive prude/victim, but I was
>> a bit annoyed that the only jewish person in SF is a blabby, annoying
>> yenta!
>
>Oh she just balances out the other only Jewish person... that Matt something
>or other that was supposed to be Harley's love interest before Josh or
>Mallet. Remember? The fashion designer guy? He was almost too good to be
>true from what I remember. So we've had a Jewish saint, and now a Jewish
>ditz. FWIW, I like her. I'd rather see Sunny involved in some kind of
>storyline than Marah, at the moment.
What about Drew?
--
DonnaB <*> 8^>
"Always look at what you have left. Never look at what you have lost."
- Robert H. Schuller
Dana Carpender
"Donna L. Bridges" wrote:
>
> In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on Sat, 12 Oct 2002 19:26:55 -0400 in Msg.#
> <B9CE27FF.55C1%mur...@kw.igs.net>, Murray Fox <mur...@kw.igs.net>
> wrote:
>
> >in article blanshay-121...@192.168.1.3, Marlene Blanshay at
> >blan...@total.net wrote on 10/12/02 6:48 PM:
> >> Speaking of kibbutzes, I couldn't help noticing that marah's obnoxious
> >> roommate was jewish. I'm not a PC, hypersensitive prude/victim, but I was
> >> a bit annoyed that the only jewish person in SF is a blabby, annoying
> >> yenta!
> >
> >Oh she just balances out the other only Jewish person... that Matt something
> >or other that was supposed to be Harley's love interest before Josh or
> >Mallet. Remember? The fashion designer guy? He was almost too good to be
> >true from what I remember. So we've had a Jewish saint, and now a Jewish
> >ditz. FWIW, I like her. I'd rather see Sunny involved in some kind of
> >storyline than Marah, at the moment.
>
> What about Drew?
>
>
And, eventually, Jesse, not to mention the rabbi who helped him convert.
cher
husband. :-) He was replaced with a working model. <lol>
Marlene Blanshay
<dcar...@kiva.net> wrote:
> "Donna L. Bridges" wrote:
> >
> > >Oh she just balances out the other only Jewish person... that Matt
something
> > >or other that was supposed to be Harley's love interest before Josh or
> > >Mallet. Remember? The fashion designer guy? He was almost too good to be
> > >true from what I remember. So we've had a Jewish saint, and now a Jewish
> > >ditz. FWIW, I like her. I'd rather see Sunny involved in some kind of
> > >storyline than Marah, at the moment.
> >
> > What about Drew?
> >
> >
>
> And, eventually, Jesse, not to mention the rabbi who helped him convert.
Yes, but none of these people are around anymore- poor sunny is the lone
jew in town. Perhaps she'll resurface in late nov. for a
thanksgiving/chanukah story!
looneybird
would be wrong with a Marah/Remy romance?
"Anthony D. Langford" <alang...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20021012063143...@mb-mr.aol.com...
Darn
>From: "looneybird" lmg...@cinci.rr.com
>Date: 10/13/2002 7:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <hYmq9.80216$Cz.92...@twister.neo.rr.com>
>
>Why wouldn't they "go there"? His sister Mel and Rick are married. What
>would be wrong with a Marah/Remy romance?
>
TPTB tend to be more timid about a black man/white woman romance than a black
woman/white man romance.
Darn
http://pub18.ezboard.com/bsoapslut
http://www.generalshmospital.com/
http://dimwitt.tripod.com/snark.html
http://whoswhoinsalem.com/main/
Lancebowski
> blan...@total.net (Marlene Blanshay) posted:
>
> >It's mainly the young actresses who seem to be the victims!
>
> You know, I spend a fair amount of time on a college campus in an urban setting
> (with a sizable crowd drawn in from the suburbs as well), and although I do see
> some of the undergrad women in getups on the order of what they've been showing
> lately on GL...[...]
What the new wardrobe
> maestro/maven is inflicting on these young actresses and their characters may
> be trendy and fashionable, but it's so out of touch with what young
> Springfielders would likely be wearing--at least based on what I'm seeing out
> here in the real world.
>
> Yet another false note creeps in . . .
>
> Michael
The false note is in your initial premise.
Mike (and Marlene and Dawn and Robin and Sarah and...(x to the
power of 10) ), you're holding Patricia Field to a false standard! The
woman has _no_ obligation to mirror what "the majority" are wearing in
the real world.
If you all are going to start critiquing her approach, start at the
foundation: the designer's own stated goals.
PF's GL "mission statement":
"I'd like to create more distinction between the show's characters,
and plan to give the show's fashion a sense of heightened reality ---
giving 'Guiding Light' extra visual interest wherever I can."
http://www.fashionwindows.com/fashion/patricia_field/guiding_light.asp
For what it's worth, I as surfed the tube Sat. morning, the host of
MTV's "Wannabes" had one of Marah's outfits on (coutroom getup), right
down to the "newsboy/golfer" hat. The audience wasn't far behind.
Field influence could clearly be seen in the following videos:
"Bare Naked" - Jennifer Love Hewitt, "Family Portrait" - Pink, and the
new India.Arie spot.
That outrageous "breakaway" outfit Britney Spears wore on the 2000
MTV Music Awards? A Field associate.
Jillian Barbiere, host (among other shows) of "Extreme Dating", is
also doing a PF thing.
The street borrows from tv, tv borrows from the street...they tend
to meet in the middle in terms of influence.
Again, folks; key phrases: "heightened reality", "extra visual
interest".
PF is achieving her goals, and, considering what she _could_ be
doing (cracking up :) ), she's exercising restraint and good taste.
;))
[ Warning: http://www.patriciafield.com/Merchant/8thststore.htm
"fetish" ---> "spiked headpiece" ]
[ Warning: House of Field
http://hh426.hiphip.com/default.asp
http://www.patriciafield.com/Merchant/intropage.html
Click "lingerie": think I'll ever get to see Cassie in that pink
"ruffle panty"? (bwa-ha-ha-ha!) ]
Lancebowski
http://bios7.tripod.com/bioblog/vitaminblog.html#vit
Rthrquiet
> The false note is in your initial premise.
> Mike (and Marlene and Dawn and Robin and Sarah and...(x to the
>power of 10) ), you're holding Patricia Field to a false standard! The
>woman has _no_ obligation to mirror what "the majority" are wearing in
>the real world.
>
> If you all are going to start critiquing her approach, start at the
>foundation: the designer's own stated goals.
>
> PF's GL "mission statement":
>
>"I'd like to create more distinction between the show's characters,
>and plan to give the show's fashion a sense of heightened reality ---
>giving 'Guiding Light' extra visual interest wherever I can."
But Lance, how can she be giving the show's fashion "a sense of heightened
reality" when the clothes she is putting on (particularly) the young ladies do
not reflect what those young ladies would likely be wearing if they were out in
the real world? She may be succeeding on the "extra visual interest" and
"create more distinction" criteria, but she flunks the "sense of heightened
reality" test. Springfield isn't Hollywood or the world of high fashion, and
Marah et al. aren't Britney Spears.
Michael
Murray Fox
shall...@rcn.com wrote on 10/13/02 1:16 PM:
>
> I went to a single gender college as well, although even if allows men
> in now. However, it, like Vassar, hasn't really changed its mission,
> and its ratio remains far more women to men. Periods of time where
> part of one's life is spent with your own gender & not the opposite
> can be excellent.
I agree with most of what you say. The only area where I'd probably veer
off, is the above statement. Not that it isn't true, per se (per say? prrr
sai? my spelling brain is not working), but for me, I would say that
periods of time where part of one's life is spent with your own kind can be
excellent.
Now that might mean gender, in some cases (I've spent time in an all-male
dorm and enjoyed my time there). But it might also mean people with whom
one shares an interest. I know that the time I spent in the male dorm was
fun. As was the time I spent in a co-ed dorm. As was the time I spent
working at camp, or working at the pool, or working in a group home. Each
of those environments contained elements of spending a majority of my time
with individuals who shared my interests (as opposed to sharing my gender).
> But, complete separation, or even extreme
> separation, for long periods of time is something that sets off alarms
> in me.
Me too, for all the reasons that you listed, and also because it's a false
environment. It's not the way the world works. A "vacation" from the real
world, with people of your own kind can be wonderful, but long term
separation/segregation creates a false reality.
murr
Sarah Estell
"Rthrquiet" <rthr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021014114616...@mb-ml.aol.com...
While I dislike intensely many of the "fashions" on GL (and ATWT for that
matter) right now, I don't think they are unrealistic. Milwaukee certainly
isn't Hollywood (in fact I don't think it could be farther away!), but many
of the young girls I see around my small suburban town look a LOT like Marah
and Tammy and Marina. I don't care for the look, but I see it all the time.
And whether or not an outfit on the show worn by Lindsey as Marah is
something that Lindsey herself would wear doesn't really matter. Field
isn't dressing Lindsey - she's dressing Marah. Marah has no taste in men
and no taste in fashion - just like her Mama.
Sarah
genie
Have we ever seen so many? It's
hardly even believable (soap that it is).
How did Lizzy and Tammy get to be so
mature looking? And what is the age
difference between Beth and Bill .
This soap is getting to be a bore.
CTBell
reuniting.
Donna L. Bridges
Msg.# <29115-3DA...@storefull-2171.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
ge...@webtv.net (genie) wrote:
Well, Lizzie was kept way younger than she actually was for so long. I
didn't mind so much when it was to get to have Hayden Panetierre, but,
after she was gone, I was more than ready for Lizzie to grow up.
--
DonnaB <*> 8^>
"Why do writers write? Because it isn't there." - Thomas Berger
Marlene Blanshay
rthr...@aol.com (Rthrquiet) wrote:
The thing is that on tv, hardly anyone wears what regular people wear. I
was watching "mod squad" and the clothes were just ridiculous! It was some
program exec's idea of what 'hip young people were wearing'. I remember
being a little kid and teenagers and young people did not dress like the
mod squad! No one did! And teens in the 80s did not sit around in gaudy
designer outfits like the cosby kids! Not at home anyways. And does any
mother with small kids sit around the house in a silk blouse?
However, the outfits on GL lately are not just 'tv-unreal' they are just
horrible and UGLy! Yes, maybe some teen host of a music show would wear
one, but she shows them wearing outfits in just ridiculous situations!
Like "gee, mom's on trial so I guess I'll dress like a VJ from MTV!"
"Better get undressed- it's time for community service!" "Time to do
renovating- better wear a tube top!" And a lot of the outfits are really
just ugly, like that split sleeve top reva wore. That is just personal
taste and esthetic, but some of those outfits do NOTHING for the women
wearing them.
Anthony D. Langford
>difference between Beth and Bill
I never thought about it. To me, Beth doesn't seem that much older than Bill,
though she did know Bill as a child, didn't she? <g>
Anthony D. Langford
Creator and Writer of Covington Bay--An Online Soap Opera
Check it out at: http://www.covingtonbay.com
MsLiz
like:
>I agree Parlato didn't impart the depth to Roger that Zas did (how could he, in
>so brief a time). Perhaps he's not half the actor Zas was.
Parlato thought he was a substitute, not that the role was recast. He
wasn't in a position to put his own stamp on the role.
MsLiz
Mstress of the FGCs
lizgrahamatmindspringdotcom
Lynne726
>>I never thought about it. To me, Beth doesn't seem that much older than
Bill,
though she did know Bill as a child, didn't she? <g><<<
LOL, yeah, she did. She'd already graduated from high school when he was
born. But I guess in real life the age difference isn't that much.
WebSp...@webtv.net
soon played by a new actor (Michael Zaszlow died a few years back(.
WebSp...@webtv.net
be replaced, only imitated on a level- hopefully- that fans can
appreciate and recognize to an extent that one day 9 months from now
we'll say to each other, "Did you see what Roger did today?" Imitation
is the sincerest form of flattery they say, so the new actor has a real
challenge ahead of him, for sure.
Anthony D. Langford
I don't know... I would've thought that about Alexandria, but JC is doing a fab
job, IMO.
In my mind, she IS Alexandria.
Rthrquiet
>I don't know... I would've thought that about Alexandria, but JC is doing a
>fab
>job, IMO.
>In my mind, she IS Alexandria.
Well, I wouldn't go that far, myself. She's doing a fine job, and I have no
trouble accepting her as Alex, but Marj never erased Beverlee's memory and I
don't think Joan will either.
Michael
kmc
> In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on Mon, 14 Oct 2002 17:56:45 -0400 (EDT) in
> Msg.# <29115-3DA...@storefull-2171.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
> ge...@webtv.net (genie) wrote:
>
> >GL is becoming a soap for teens.
> >Have we ever seen so many? It's
> >hardly even believable (soap that it is).
> >How did Lizzy and Tammy get to be so
> >mature looking? And what is the age
> >difference between Beth and Bill .
> >This soap is getting to be a bore.
>
> Well, Lizzie was kept way younger than she actually was for so long. I
> didn't mind so much when it was to get to have Hayden Panetierre, but,
> after she was gone, I was more than ready for Lizzie to grow up.
But Donna, Hayden is OLDER than Lizzie. Hayden was born 8/21/89,
making her a year old when Lizzie was born in November 1990. Lizzie
should be celebrating her 12th birthday this November. Hayden just
turned 13.
KC
kmc
Well said. A woman Reva's age would never wear that blouse unless her
arms were damn good. The clothes are being selected without regard to
the scene in which they'll be worn. And I don't see how the choices
"create more distinction between the show's characters" when they all
wear the same ugly stuff. But Beth had a lovely sheet on yesterday.
:-)
KC
KC