SteveR wrote in
<
4247911d-ed26-4c4a...@googlegroups.com>:
> On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 6:09:12?PM UTC-5, Kaitlin wrote:
>> Marika wrote in <%9EvN.329739$xHn7...@fx14.iad>:
<snip>
>> >> I hope Esme and Spencer show up again.
>> Well, of course they're not dead. No bodies! And please, they were
>> washed out to the Channel? At least they got the flow direction right,
>> but Paris is at least 500 miles from the Channel and the Seine is an
>> extremely slow river. There's no way their bodies could have been washed
>> into the channel in just 48 hours!
>
> I'd bet real money there is virtually no chance either Esme or Spencer is
> dead. In a world where characters bleed out a quart or two of blood, are
> declared dead by a doctor *and* a nurse, and are then stashed in a
> freezer, yet are somehow not dead, falling into the Seine undoubtedly
> is no more fatal than any ordinary daily activity like breakfast.
LOL!
> Regarding the claim from the French authorities that they've probably
> washed out to sea, your point is well taken, that makes no sense.
> However, real-world France is not nearly that large. It's maybe 100 miles
> from Paris to the mouth of the river.
I worded that really badly, sorry, and on top of it, overestimated. Yes,
Paris is about a hundred miles to the Channel where the river ends. But
that's as the crow flies. Spencer's and Esme's bodies would have
traveled to the channel via the river, which winds and loops pretty
dramatically thru the countryside. I had that in mind, as well as the
roughly 500 mile total length of the river from source to mouth, and
somehow conflated the two when I made the distance estimate.
I suppose I should look up on the googles exactly how long the river is
from Paris to the Channel, but I'm too lazy, so I'll just take another
stab at it and hope I hit closer to the mark: Given the Seine's
meandering, looping, at times backtracking, path through the
countryside, a better estimate might be closer to 250 miles between
Paris and the Channel. But, even if the river ran a straight 100 miles
from where Spencer and Esme fell in, it would likely take them the
better part of a week to drift into the channel. That's provided that
before they drifted beyond the city limits of Paris they weren't chopped
to bits by the propellers of the countless tourist boats!
> It's also striking how quickly and easily all the characters accepted
> that they were dead. You'd think none of them had lived in Port
> Charles for all those years.
Too true! Their minds just never go there, but that's the first thing
*we* think of, and quite often suspect that Helena could be behind. One
of the first resurrections I can remember where there was an actual body
recovered was of Laura's mother Lesley. She was killed in a car accident
and her pronounced-dead body was taken to the hospital morgue on a
stretcher. I remember thinking at the time that that was that, because
AFAIK, up to that point (mid 80s?), there hadn't been a resurrection of
a character whose dead body had been recovered. But that *wasn't* that.
Lesley's might have been the first corpse stolen by Helena, reanimated,
and kept in suspended animation (or some silly thing). Still, seems like
a lot of years passed before resurrected Lesley turned up again in PC.
> How many times have characters been
> declared dead only to miraculously return very much alive? Luke,
> Nikolas, Laura, Peter August, Jason, Stavros, Sonny, Anna, Michael,
> Jake Webber to name a few I can think of off the top of my head. Some
> of these twice, if I recall correctly.
I've lost count. Coming back from death is another of those rites of
passage for PC citizens. I suppose it wouldn't be impossible for Helena
(whom I have never believed is actually dead) to fish out Spencer and
Esme and resurrect them, too. We'll see.
>>
>> They'll turn up eventually, but my hope is that it isn't under any of
>> the following circumstances (in order of ascending horrors):
>>
>> A) one or both suffering from amnesia, or
>>
>> B) both suffering from amnesia and living as dispossessed vagabonds,
>> unkempt, wearing filthy, tattered clothing, with a gaggle of snotty,
>> equally filthy and wild-haired brats in tow, or
>>
>> C) suffering from delusions that they are Nikolas Cassadine and Heather
>> Webber or any of the random psychos from their dysfunctional families,
>> or
>>
>> D) having forgiven one another their respective sins, both real and
>> imagined, and fallen in love while awaiting rescue.
>
> I predict that both will turn up fairly soon, maybe the end of next
> week, very much alive but probably with Spencer at least suffering
> from some amnesia. Falling into cold water almost always seems to
> affect the memory on this show. Probably Esme will have convinced him
> they are a couple again, as he will have conveniently forgotten about
> all the reasons he despises her, yet also somehow remembers the parts
> where they were together.
Well, that's choice A, sort of, which is the least objectionable of the
crummy scenarios. But it's still dumb, and I'm really sick of people
falling into water, and when they're fished out, claiming to not
remember who they are. They might at least come up with a different way
for people to lose their memories. An even better idea is for them to
give the amnesia thing a rest for awhile. It's become so that at any
give time, there's an amnesia storyline going on.
>
<snip>
>> I really had a problem with Leo giving him a pass because he showed
>> an FBI id. Leo had been taught not to talk to strangers, but he
>> should also have been taught that strangers with badges and id cards
>> are still strangers. Credentials like those can be faked easily to
>> fool kids. Not a message they should be sending to parents, IMO.
>
> I was thinking the same thing. And who says a legitimate FBI agent
> can't be dangerous to a child, especially in Port Charles.
Also true.
<snip>
>> >> And who believes Carly has any fashion sense? She showed up for her first
>> >> meeting in bed clothes. A negligee or camisole or something like that. Is
>> >> she turning the magazine into a Victoria’s Secret?
>> So true. She does fine with wardrobe when she's being herself--at home
>> and at Bobbie's Diner and even when she was at the Metro Court--and not
>> trying to play the part of a fashionista. That's when things went south
>> for her, wardrobe-wise. I was really (and I mean *really*) disappointed
>> that they stuck her in that job. Never liked her at the Metro Court,
>> either, but even that didn't seem as bad a fit for her as a fashion mag.
>> I like Carly running Bobbie's. It's her family business, and there is
>> plenty of opportunity for story development with her in that role,
>> especially given that it's an entry point for so many new characters.
>> And being on the waterfront, it attracts its fair share of rascals,
>> rapscallions and nefarious charlatans. But no, they had to big-shot it,
>> as if running a diner can't be interesting. Ugh. Hopefully this won't
>> last, but I won't hold my breath.
>
> While I don't have much to say about the fashion question, I agree that
> I wish the writers had left Carly running the diner as her business. It
> seems like they are spreading the character too thin. The plan that
> Carly and Drew originally had was better I think: have Carly take over
> briefly just to stick it to Nina until they find someone permanent. I'm
> always in favor of slapping Nina down, but Carly should focus on the
> diner for all the reasons you mentioned.
Yes, I thought at first that she would be taking over only temporarily,
but now it seems she's in it for the long term. I must have missed the
part when that was decided. Nina deserves some sort of payback for her
awful behavior, but firing her and installing Carly was really over the
top. Now we're in for months and months of Nina working to sabotage
Carly and the magazine. I guess it's possible she could sprout a brain
and realize that working against Carly will not put her back into
Willow's good graces.
--
K