GUIDING LIGHT
Nicky Weeber
NICKY. I'VE BEEN A VIEWER OF GUIDING LIGHT SINCE EARLY 1990.
I WAS THINKING THAT IF GUIDING LIGHT BROUGHT BACK RICK'S
FATHER ED BAUR THEY COULD WORK TOGETHER AND HAVE A POWERFULL
AND RIVETING STORYLINE FILLED WITH EMOTION
AND LOTS OF CONFLICT AND DRAMA,
SINCERELY,
NICKY WEEBER
HAVE A NICE DAY
Shawn Gable
first. Danny's sister just came back (if she was ever ther in the first
place), Dinah is making a return appearance evidently... More or less,
I would like to see the show hash out their current storylines before
bringing back 18 more people :)
Shawn
Nicky Weeber
NICKY. I WAS THINKING THAT THE
WRITERS OF GUIDING LIGHT COUL`D HAVE RICK AND ABB ADOPT A
BABIE. PLUS ' I'D LOVE
TO SEE MORE OF FLETCER AND
HOLLY TOGETHER. PLUS MORE OF
DANNY SANTO'S. HE IS THE BEST EW ADDITION TO GUIDING LIGHT IN ALONG
TIME.
Nicky Weeber
CBS'S EMMY WINNING GUIDING LIGHT I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT MATT AND
VANESSA DESERVE A STORYLINE AND MORE AIRTIME. ALSO I'M ENJOYING
PAUL ANTHONY STEWART AS DANNY SANTO'S. I HOPE THIS ACTOR STICKS
AROUND WITH A NEW CONTRACT AND A LONG TERM STORYLINE..
ALSO SHOULD THE WRITERS WAKE
UP AND GIVE RICK A STORYLINE
THE ACTOR WOULD BE WORTH THE
EXTRA AIRTIME.
SINCERELY,
NICKY WEEBER
HAVE A NICE DAY.
mdn...@webtv.net
you will not be seeing too much of her in the near future. However,they
promised Matt a good story lne if he would re-sign and I just read that
he did, so at least you will get half of your wish.
AmyBeth
DASBABY932
<<Sorry Nicky. Vanessa is now on recurring status. It was her choice, so
you will not be seeing too much of her in the near future. >>
No, she's not on recurring status and won't be on recurring status until July.
She's still on contract. Which does beg the question, why have we not seen
much of her or Matt when she HAS BEEN on contract?
Kinkead is going recurring because of how she's treated on the show - she's
either backburner, or she's demeaned. Paul Rauch absolutely refuses to write
for Matt and Vanessa together. How many substantial scenes did M/V get during
the Beth plot? When they finally got back together, they had a three minute
scene resolving six months of story, the love scene we were promised never
happened, they immediately went back to being obsessed with Dinah and now are
back burner again with Kinkead still on contract.
Believe me, if Kinkead were treated better, she WOULDN'T choose to go
recurring. The show has created a self-fulling situation. They treat her like
garbage til she leaves. They don't write for her til she leaves. Then they
say they can't write for her cause she left or went recurring. Well why didn't
they write for her BEFORE? Why did they give M/V minimal air time for their
reconciliation? Why are they backburner NOW?
I am tired of GL's lies and excuses. Maeve Kinkead's contract does not and her
recurring status will not be the reason GL does not write for her. It's not
HER fault, it's THEIR fault.
And for the record, Sandra Santiago is a recurring character and she's on
plenty (she plays Carmen). The writers - if they choose - can prove they WANT
to write for Matt and Vanessa by writing for them while MK IS recurring. If
they do, she'll be there. My guess is they won't, because they couldn't manage
to even when they had her on contract.
Further, despite the recent SOD article I understand McKinney's story issues in
his contract negotiation included Matt and VANESSA story, not just Matt story.
TheCher18
out.
My friend found Bob Gentry resume and contact sheets in the gutter in NY. Life
is cruel.
cher
Scooby002
terrible together. As far as Kinead going on recurring status that's a shame,
I liked both these characters, just not together. I wish Billy would come back
and be with Vanessa and then Matt could find someone else, maybe someone like
Cassie. JMO
sc
Helene Clark
Nicky Weeber
GUIDING LIGHT. FIRST OF ALL I
WAS THRILLED TO HEAR FLETCHER TELL HOLLY HE'S STAYING IN SPRINGFILED.
ALSO BLAKE FINIALLY
DUMPED BEN WARREN.. ALSO I HOPE TO SEE RICK AND ABBY THIS
WEEK.
Lynn M. Podgurny
I'm going to keep asking dumb questions until people start including more
of the original post. Who are Peter and Bob Gentry and what to they have
to do with GL?
Lynn
Lynn M. Podgurny
On 19 Apr 1999, DASBABY932 wrote:
>
> <<Sorry Nicky. Vanessa is now on recurring status. It was her choice, so
> you will not be seeing too much of her in the near future. >>
>
> No, she's not on recurring status and won't be on recurring status until July.
> She's still on contract. Which does beg the question, why have we not seen
> much of her or Matt when she HAS BEEN on contract?
>
> Kinkead is going recurring because of how she's treated on the show - she's
> either backburner, or she's demeaned. Paul Rauch absolutely refuses to write
> for Matt and Vanessa together. How many substantial scenes did M/V get during
> the Beth plot? When they finally got back together, they had a three minute
> scene resolving six months of story, the love scene we were promised never
> happened, they immediately went back to being obsessed with Dinah and now are
> back burner again with Kinkead still on contract.
> Further, despite the recent SOD article I understand McKinney's story issues in
> his contract negotiation included Matt and VANESSA story, not just Matt story.
>
First I want to say that I like Matt and Vanessa separately and am wishy
washy about them together. I can certainly understand peoples frustration
with the lack of air time for these two. I'd like to see more of both of
them myself - together or alone. But I'm going to play devil's advocate
for a moment - the devil being Paul Rauch. In terms of the plot, how
exactly has Kinkead been demeaned? Backburnered yes, demeaned where?
As for Rauch refusing to write for Matt and Vanessa, that's what he's
hired to do, to make decisions like that, right or wrong, like it or not.
Quite a few people in this news group think Matt and Vanessa are the
best soporific known to mankind, snooze city. In the end the ratings will
either kill him or crown him. Kinkead and McKinney are hired to act,
period. They shouldn't be dictating plot or attempting to. Every time I
hear about actors messing with storyline it sets my teeth on edge. Soaps
should be driven by plot and character development and the drivers should
be the writers not the actors.
Getting off my soapbox now.
Lynn
MsLiz
>On 19 Apr 1999, TheCher18 wrote:
>
>> I totaly agree. The problem is Peter won't back, and Bob Gentry didn't work
>> out.
>> My friend found Bob Gentry resume and contact sheets in the gutter in NY. Life
>> is cruel.
>I'm going to keep asking dumb questions until people start including more
>of the original post. Who are Peter and Bob Gentry and what to they have
>to do with GL?
>
>Lynn
That would be Peter Simon, who played Ed Bauer for many years.
Robert Gentry (former Ross Chandler, AMC) had played Ed briefly
in the 1960s reprised the role for a few recurring appearances
after Peter Simon left.
MsLiz
DAnn25
for a moment - the devil being Paul Rauch. In terms of the plot, how
exactly has Kinkead been demeaned? Backburnered yes, demeaned where? >>
Kinkead has been demeaned almost daily since she returned. She routinely had
to stand (as Vanessa) with her hands tied while Dinah berated, yelled at her
and blamed her for everything from the sun rising to Dinah's latest hang nail.
The character of Vanessa was made a whimp to the glorification of Dinah. THEN,
Rauch and the writers started in with the character of Beth taking after
Vanessa with little jibes about her being OLD and needing a face lift. And
What was Vanessa allowed to do? She had to repeatedily had to apologize to
Beth. Just imagine having to apologize to the woman who is constantly telling
you that you need a face lift and that she is going to take your husband. Then
Matt attacked Vanessa at every turn. Matt refused to discuss anything with
Vanessa, while constantly accusing her of not being willing to talk to him.
Yeah, the writers and Rauch made sure that Vanessa had to take the blame for
everything, while refusing to vindicate Vanessa on any turn.
Face lift- can you imagine a woman as beautiful as MK being told daily that she
needs a face lift? In a medium where characters are constantly told that they
are beautiful, MK is the only actress made to take this kind of trash. Vanessa
didn't think about getting a face lift UNTIL Beth made her feel insecure, and
then the writers constantly wrote Vanessa in need of plastic surgery.
Now, let's talk about Maeve's contract or lack there of. She is on contract
now. She has been on contract for 2 years and she has NOT been used. Esensten
gives an interview saying that they can't use her 5 days a week! No one wants
her to work 5 days a week (I don't want to see anyone 5 days a week). Esensten
goes on to say that they can only use her 3 days a week. There has been no
time, except when she was rubbing Dinah's hair that MK was on 3 days a week.
Since Rauch, she has never really had a story. All the M/V stories have been
about someone else.
MK is leaving BECAUSE Rauch refuses to give her story or airtime. I agree with
DASBABY, If MK is given a story then she will stay. Many of players have story
and they are recurring. MK will leave because Rauch is pushing her out. Don't
be fooled, Rauch has done it before and he is doing it again. He has his
personal reasons why he doesn't want to give MK a story.
I also agree with Kurt McKinney whenhe said that M/V get tons of mail and it
behooves (sp?) GL to write a story for them.
GL needs viewers, but it is chasing them away on purpose because Rauch does not
want Maeve Kinkead on his show.
LHAZ 61746
washy about them together. <<
I never liked them together. I was hoping Matt and Beth would get together. I
know I'm probably the only one who feels that way but they had more chemistry
than Matt and Vanessa. IMO
Lynne H
Lynn M. Podgurny
> Kinkead has been demeaned almost daily since she returned. She routinely had
> to stand (as Vanessa) with her hands tied while Dinah berated, yelled at her
> and blamed her for everything from the sun rising to Dinah's latest hang nail.
> The character of Vanessa was made a whimp to the glorification of Dinah.
I guess part of our disagreement is semantic - just because Kinkead is
being under used and the part badly written, doesn't mean she's being
demeaned. I do agree with you that she too often played second fiddle to
Dinah. But she's had way more air time than some other old favourites -
Rick and Abby to name two
THEN,
> Rauch and the writers started in with the character of Beth taking after
> Vanessa with little jibes about her being OLD and needing a face lift. And
> What was Vanessa allowed to do? She had to repeatedily had to apologize to
> Beth. Just imagine having to apologize to the woman who is constantly telling
> you that you need a face lift and that she is going to take your husband. Then
> Matt attacked Vanessa at every turn. Matt refused to discuss anything with
> Vanessa, while constantly accusing her of not being willing to talk to him.
> Yeah, the writers and Rauch made sure that Vanessa had to take the blame for
> everything, while refusing to vindicate Vanessa on any turn.
I thought the writers presentation of Matt and Vanessa during the Beth
period was a little more even handed than you do. I especially liked how
neither one was completely right or completely wrong during the Dinah
shooting. It was the one time I found them interesting - a perfect
opportunity for the writers to dissect a marriage on the rocks. They blew
it of course but it was the one time that Matt and Vanessa were more than
a bland married couple imo.
> Face lift- can you imagine a woman as beautiful as MK being told daily that she
> needs a face lift? In a medium where characters are constantly told that they
> are beautiful, MK is the only actress made to take this kind of trash. Vanessa
> didn't think about getting a face lift UNTIL Beth made her feel insecure, and
> then the writers constantly wrote Vanessa in need of plastic surgery.
Hold on, there's a difference between the actor and the character. It was
the character who was considering a face lift and, yes, beautiful women
get plastic surgery all the time. That's what I found interesting about
Vanessa's brief wanderings in the plastic realm - how a beautiful
woman comes to believe she might need a face lift. The plastic surgeon
wasn't bad either. Far from writing constantly about the plastic surgery,
I thought it was dropped too soon.
> Since Rauch, she has never really had a story. All the M/V stories have been
> about someone else.
I agree their stories were too often about Dinah but the Beth story was
about them surely. Okay, the Beth story was badly done for the most part
but it was about Matt and Vanessa.
> I also agree with Kurt McKinney whenhe said that M/V get tons of mail and it
> behooves (sp?) GL to write a story for them.
> GL needs viewers, but it is chasing them away on purpose because Rauch does not
> want Maeve Kinkead on his show.
>
I don't think it should be the actors deciding which characters should be
together. Even if Matt and Vanessa do get tons of mail, so what? Some
other permutation of characters might be even more popular. For starters,
quite a few posters would like to see Vanessa back with Billy. I'm not
one of those but I surely don't think that the Matt/Vanessa pairing is
written in stone. They don't begin to approach a super-couple in my
opinion. Josh and Reva yes. Michelle and Danny maybe. Matt and Vanessa
no (I bet you don't agree).
I will say this - I wish they'd leave Dinah in limbo. Why IS she coming
back? I can't think of a reason except to give Cassie a plot. And coming
back as some religious convert, how dumb is that?
Lynn
DASBABY932
opinion. Josh and Reva yes. Michelle and Danny maybe. Matt and Vanessa
no (I bet you don't agree).>>
Really, how do you define supercouple? If it's defined by the size of their
fan base, the duration of their fan base and their mail count, then Matt and
Vanessa qualify every bit as much as Josh/Reva. That's the reality. Not
everyone likes them, there will always be Van/Billy fans, but the sticking
point is that even Rauch has described their fan base as legion, he has told
the press how popular they are, the actors continue to get tons of mail out of
all proportion to their air time, and Rauch does nothing with them. It's NOT
his call, IMO, because the audience is the customer and any character or actor
who has a significant fan base (the ONLY reason they re-signed McKinney - P&G
and CBS wouldn't let Rauch NOT re-sign him because of his fan base. Why not
cut him loose? Rauch won't write for him. P&G and CBS overruled Rauch). Any
character with a SIGNIFICANT fan base - and by that I mean numbers of fans --
should be written for, and M/V qualify, whether you're aware of that or not.
It's the truth. It's not split between Van/Billy and Van/Matt, they're NOT
lagging behind Jeva and Michelle/Danny in popularity, and they ARE a
supercouple by every definition there is. It's simply that Rauch doesn't like
them together - the personal has become political.
Matt Beth was NOT about M/V. Want the air times on this? They're certainly
available. It was about Beth holding forth to Matt about BETH, Beth holding
forth to Matt about his marriage, Beth holding forth to Matt about what she
felt was the deal with Vanessa. Go ahead and tell me the substantial and
significant material Matt and Vanessa shared during this story - that wasn't
some two minute one note fight ending with Matt storming out. Go ahead and
tell me the scenes with Vanessa explaining first if she really WAS working too
much or if that was just some attitude problem of Matt's, and if she WAS
working too much, why was she working too much? They never said. It's just
"Vanessa's working too much."
Matt kicks Vanessa out of the Spauldings in front of the "other woman" Beth, we
see Van leave and say "He doesn't love me anymore." Did they give Kinkead
material at home - a monologue, some stuff to chew on, show her acting chops
and emote in the wake of all that? NO. Nothing. Next we saw her was a ten
second insert, no dialogue, a week later. Would they have let Dinah, Reva,
Michelle -- anyone - just go off into the void after a major emotional trauma
like that, not giving them a little acting material to chew on and emote with?
No. But for Maeve Kinkead, they give her character a huge moment and never
follow up on the emotional fallout.
They had nothing. It was a Beth story with minimal scenes for the COUPLE
(M/V) and a rip off at the end.
StAnne463
>know I'm probably the only one who feels that way
No you're not!! I never liked Matt and Vanessa together. I wanted him with
someone else.
Fitzhig
so. He refuses to allow them airtime. Now he is using the old excuse about
not being able to write for them because Maeve is going on recurring. Carmen
is on recurring - do you see her suffering a lack of airtime? Maeve K would
not be asking for recurring if she good story, but it doesn't appear Mr. Rauch
wants that to happen. Go figure.
Lynn M. Podgurny
On 21 Apr 1999, DASBABY932 wrote:
> They don't begin to approach a super-couple in my
> opinion. Josh and Reva yes. Michelle and Danny maybe. Matt and Vanessa
> no (I bet you don't agree).>>
>
> Really, how do you define supercouple? If it's defined by the size of their
> fan base, the duration of their fan base and their mail count, then Matt and
> Vanessa qualify every bit as much as Josh/Reva. That's the reality. Not
> everyone likes them, there will always be Van/Billy fans, but the sticking
> point is that even Rauch has described their fan base as legion, he has told
> the press how popular they are, the actors continue to get tons of mail out of
> all proportion to their air time, and Rauch does nothing with them. It's NOT
> his call, IMO, because the audience is the customer and any character or actor
> who has a significant fan base (the ONLY reason they re-signed McKinney - P&G
> and CBS wouldn't let Rauch NOT re-sign him because of his fan base. Why not
> cut him loose? Rauch won't write for him. P&G and CBS overruled Rauch). Any
> character with a SIGNIFICANT fan base - and by that I mean numbers of fans --
> should be written for, and M/V qualify, whether you're aware of that or not.
> It's the truth. It's not split between Van/Billy and Van/Matt, they're NOT
> lagging behind Jeva and Michelle/Danny in popularity, and they ARE a
> supercouple by every definition there is. It's simply that Rauch doesn't like
> them together - the personal has become political.
>
Oh ho, I knew my super-couple comment was going to cause debate. I love
debate - I'm rubbing my hands together gleefully, can't wait to get
started. You've challenged me to define what I mean by a super-couple
which is more than fair since I blatted out the term. You've taken a
pretty good shot at why you think Matt and Vanessa qualify. Just
remember that we're not completely on opposite sides here. I like both
characters - I'm just not convinced they're dynamite together.
I'm fairly cynical about the way soaps are put together. If the Matt and
Vanessa fans are as legion as you say they are, then tptb would cynically
use them to bolster their anemic ratings. I'm not convinced that GL fans
are legion period. Look at the participation on this newsgroup. We can
be an interesting bunch but we're pathetically small. And among our
pathetically small bunch there are very few posters ringing their hands
over Matt and Vanessa. This thread is you and me and a few lurkers going,
yah, whatever. At the very same time as you and I are debating their
super status, two other posters are saying how they liked Matt better with
Beth.
My first criteria for a super-couple would be that they can't be ignored.
No matter what the producer's personal or political bias is (whatever
that's supposed to mean), support for the couple is so overwhelming that
they can't be ignored. Just try separating Luke and Laura at their height
or try putting Danny permanently with someone else other than Michelle
now. The outcry would be instantaneous. The very fact that Rauch can
dare to ignore the Matt/Vanessa pairing tells me the support for them is
weak. That's not to say there isn't support - just that it's not
overwhelming. Super-couples have overwhelming support.
Super-couples also dominate the screen. Much as I hate to say it, Josh
and Reva still have that capacity. Sometimes they dominate scenes a
little too much for my liking but they still have that spark. Danny and
Michelle definitely have it but who knows if it can be sustained. The
entire time I've been watching GL, which admittedly is not dramatically
long, there hasn't been a single time that Matt and Vanessa have burned up
the screen. The closest they came was their argument in the hospital
parking lot but that was closer to a simmer than a burn. To me they are a
comfy, cozy couple. They are not hot. Super-couples are hot.
You might say that they haven't been given anything hot to act in. That
the fault is entirely with the writing. Maybe. I haven't been very
satisfied with the writing for them either. The whole head in the
snowbank thing was stupid. But they have been given plenty of scenes
together and if that's as much sizzle as they can muster then lend me a
pillow, yawn.
You seem to have a lot of information about fan support. So fill the rest
of us in. How many letters do Matt and Vanessa get? I find it hard to
believe they don't lag behind Josh/Reva and Michelle/Danny, very hard.
You say potato, I say potaato. You say super-couple, I say no way.
Lynn
Scooby002
Well, Lynn, another great post. I happen to agree with everything you said. I
would be interested to know what type of fan mail Matt and Vanessa are
receiving also. I find them incredibly boring, and I haven't been watching GL
regularly that long, but I was around when Matt first came on the scene, and I
never liked him paired with Vanessa. As for Danny and Michelle, they are
definitely the newest, hottest couple on GL and I have seen alot of people
really pulling for them, myself included. I would be furious if they stuck
Danny with someone else, maybe even enough to stop watching for a while. So
all in all I agree with what you said, and really enjoy reading your posts!!
scooby
DASBABY932
You've taken a>pretty good shot at why you think Matt and Vanessa qualify.
Just
>remember that we're not completely on opposite sides here. I like both
>characters - I'm just not convinced they're dynamite together.>>
YOU don't have to be convinced. Just like I don't have to be convinced
Danny/Michelle or Jeva are dynamite together. A compelling, significant number
of FANS have to be convinced, and on that basis, M/V qualify. If the 'not
convinced' group of any of these couples were the majority, TPTB could have
that to point to for not writing for them. But any characters that have a
large, significant fan base - not "cult" not "loyal" -- large, in raw numbers
as a percentage of the audience -- shouldn't be ignored. M/V fans have those
numbers and they ARE ignored.
And on THAT basis, there is no excuse for Paul Rauch not to use them. His NOT
using them is petty, spiteful and punitive.
>
>I'm fairly cynical about the way soaps are put together. If the Matt
andVanessa fans are as legion as you say they ar, then tptb would cynically>use
them to bolster their anemic ratings>?>
No, not if you're Paul Rauch. Not everything Rauch does is rational. Ask
Harding LeMay - the writer Rauch used to cite as his creative soulmate (he
wrote AW during its classic days while Rauch produced it and it got high
ratings). He said Rauch doesn't understand writing, doesn't understand
audiences. He understands producing - but that's on a technical end. NOT the
creative end. Harding LeMay has removed himself from the business because he's
sick of it even though they often ask him to come in and consult. Ever since
he said that, Rauch no longer cloaks himself in the Word of Harding LeMay. The
problem with daytime today is the same pool of hacks get recycled because none
of the networks are developing executives and writers for the genre. They
stick their hacks and losers in there. Once the people who really loved it,
who really understood it and were good at it died or retired or got older (like
Doug Marland), the hacks remained. And they still remain. Rauch has his job
because there aren't that many candidates to take his place and because he's a
friend of Lucy Johnson - the head of CBS daytime since forever. Lucy Johnson
is coasting on the success of Bill Bell - whose success has nothing to do with
Johnson, and Bob Barker. Rauch is her friend. She wanted him in there before
Laibson was in there, and she'll fight to keep him there. The networks don't
care enough to overrule her. People like Johnson - and Susan Lee (head of NBC
daytime) - they have to mow down a building to lose their jobs. Their bosses
don't even like daytime.
Look at JFPhelps - another daytime Dr. Kevorkian. Same w/Megan McTavish. The
criteria for working in daytime as writer or producer is the credit - not a
successful track record, not good work, nothing, because these people haven't
been successful in a long time. The credit. If they've done it before,
they'll work, because there's nobody else and TPTB aren't interested in
developing it.
<<. I'm not convinced that GL fans
>are legion period. >>
When you take the raw base of GL fans in toto, M/V fans can be described as
"legion" within that base. That is all ANY soap can count. They can't count
the fans who don't watch the show. They can't count as Jeva supporters fans
who don't watch the show. They can only count the percentage of their viewers
who DO watch the show who like couple A, B or C, and I know for a fact that
Matt and Vanessa are every bit as popular as the most popular couple GL has
ever had, not that you'd know it from how they're treated. And they continue to
get tons of mail and support despite the fact that large numbers of M/V fans no
longer watch - what's the point? So they have ongoing appeal and can win NEW
fans. And Paul Rauch's decisions are not always made from good business
sense or what would help the show. He's been in daytime - in and out - a LONG
time and has a track record. At AW and on OLTL. Look it up and learn about
him and what makes him tick, and what he's done in the past. Speak to people
who have worked with him if you can. Read. His treatment of Maeve Kinkead and
M/V has NOTHING to do with good business sense or judgment about the show.
<< At the very same time as you and I are debating their>super status, two
other posters are saying how they liked Matt better with
>Beth.>
I'm not using the internet as a basis to judge because if I did I'd think Sean
was hugely popular and so was Wendy Moniz, and in terms of both mail and focus
groups, neither was. So I'm not even considering the internet. Not to
mention every time Moniz was the focus of a big story the ratings dropped. BUT
she was a hot topic on the internet. The internet is so narrow - it's not a
cross-section, and it's not my basis for assessing M/V.
<<My first criteria for a super-couple would be that they can't be ignored.>>
Oh yes they can. Matt and Vanessa are a supercouple and they ARE ignored. The
show isn't technically ignoring Matt and Vanessa, they're simply not writing
for them. They pay lip service in the press, they make promises and don't
deliver, they double cross, they promote stuff that doesn't happen, etc. etc.
All of this they're compelled to do by their bosses because M/V CAN'T be
ignored. Rauch isn't ignoring them. He is doing everything he can to act like
he's paying attention to them EXCEPT writing for them. He even goes to the
press and has the writers go to the press and say M/V ARE written for and get
fabulous stuff and wonderful stuff and fans don't appreciate it for some odd
reason, they're never happy. It's bullshit. Esensten over and over has
discussed all the great stuff she's done, forgetting to point out that the
stuff she's talking about was a) in 1997, and b) lasted two days (seven minutes
a show) for each "story" she's talking about. But they work VERY hard in the
press - for the benefit of their bosses who don't watch the show - NOT to
ignore M/V. They're NOT ignoring them. They're trying to say they're doing
great things for M/V but fans aren't happy. Finally, Kurt McKinney called them
on it in the press when the writers pretended they wanted to write for Kinkead
but even had to pull back on story because of her contract. That's also
garbage. The bottom line is, they don't want to write for them (Rauch doesn't)
but because they ARE so popular they CAN'T be simply ignored, so the writers
spin, spin, spin in the press, including the new tactic of advertising and
promoting stuff that doesn't transpire.
>No matter what the producer's personal or political bias is (whatever
>that's supposed to mean), support for the couple is so overwhelming that
>they can't be ignored.>>
NO, that's wrong. See above. You are underestimating Rauch. And
underestimating his maturity level and professionalism.
Just try separating Luke and Laura at their height
>or try putting Danny permanently with someone else other than Michelle
>now. The outcry would be instantaneous. The very fact that Rauch can
>dare to ignore the Matt/Vanessa pairing tells me the support for them is
>weak>>
Oh please, if the writing and air time for Danny and Michelle turned anemic for
awhile the fans would lose interest a lot faster than the fans of M/V have lost
interest in THEM, I'd bet a lot of money. There are plenty of people who
aren't loving Danny/Michelle, as the recent 3.6 and 3.7 ratings testimony. In
my affiliate area, GL is stil running Mylanta and "overactive bladder"
commercials during GL and that doesn't tell me GL is selling high priced ad
buys to all those young demos pulled in by Danny and Michelle. THe most glitzy
commercial GL has right now is Clairol Daily Defense which is geared to
30something and 40something women. So Danny Michelle is more smoke than fire
when it comes to popularity and support, at least when you consider the ratio
of air time they get to ratings results.
As for M/V -- The support for them is enormously strong and Rauch and P&G
and the writers spend a LOT of time dealing with that support. And if you
notice, M/V DO get lots of air time during sweeps periods. This past February
they had a lot of air time - separately, but McKinney and Kinkead were on a
lot. Ditto November. THAT's when ad rates are set - no other time - just
sweeps. And GL always tries to put M/V in air time (if not air time their
fans enjoy, because they have no scenes together) during sweeps. It's when
they don't need M/V for a sweeps period they stick them in storage. So they
know. They KNOW they're a draw, and they exploit them to get whatever
percentage edge they can during sweeps, and then dump them the rest of the
time when they don't need them.
The show spends a LOT of time dealing with the fan base and justifying their
M/V treatment to P&G. A lot. The only thing Rauch WON'T do is write for
them, and he won't because of his personal grudges, vendettas and biases.
There IS an outcry. There IS tons of mail. P&G, CBS and the studio get an
onslought and they ARE forced to respond. But they respond by bullshitting and
tap dancing. They are killing themselves doing everything to respond to the
outcry except write for them, because Rauch doesn't WANT to.
. That's not to say there isn't support - just that it's not
>overwhelming. Super-couples have overwhelming support.>>
I'll say it again, they have overwhelming support and Rauch is trying to
decimate it, finesse it, bullshit it, spin it, excuse it, scapegoat it (like
Kinkead's contract).
<<Super-couples also dominate the screen. >>
Again, these are truisms that have no basis in how soaps do business.
Harley/Mallet were hugely popular in the early 90's and the fans were having a
FIT because the show wouldn't write for them. Phelps didn't even offer the
actors a contract renewal until the eleventh hour, by which time they both said
Sayonara. Producer favoritism, grudges and vendettas - especially with the
less successful and talented - ALWAYS have played a role. Rauch is the most
egregious example, but many decisions are made on other basis. For instance,
on OLTL Sam Rappaport dominates the screen and has despite the fact that fans
HATE it. Phelps likes him. So Rappaport will dominate the screen until ABC
works up the stomach to fire her - if they do. And Rauch will continue to
screw over M/V until P&G works up the stomach to fire HIM - if they do.
<< Danny and Michelle definitely have it but who knows if it can be sustained.
>>
M/V have every bit the fan base of Danny/Michelle and MORE.
The>entire time I've been watching GL, which admittedly is not dramatically
>long, there hasn't been a single time that Matt and Vanessa have burned up
>the screen.>>
Well, what material have they had where they were supposed to burn up the
screen but didn't? Did you see the cave scenes when they met? The scenes in
the hot tub in her home? The scenes after the 5th Street Fire? At the Bauer
cabin? The scenes right before Van became ill? Matt and Van don't get any
writing, they don't get any scenes together, they are NOT written for.
<<To me they are acomfy, cozy couple. They are not hot. Super-couples are
hot.>>
They are hot and Rauch knows it. He has cut scenes of theirs. Danny and
Michelle would be comfy cozy with M/V material.
<<You might say that they haven't been given anything hot to act in. >>
Exactly. But they have in the past and they melt the screen.
But they have been given plenty of scenes
>together and if that's as much sizzle as they can muster then lend me
a>pillow, yawn.>>
Of course it's not as much sizzle as they can muster and I challenge you on
your assertion they have plenty of scenes together. Their scenes have been
timed. The last time they were on McKinney had four lines of dialogue (total)
over two days, and on the third day his dialogue was Dinah re-hash. The day
they visited the convent McKinney had ONE line of dialogue w/Kinkead,
previously he had THREE. The Dinah rehash was the in between day.
They often have scenes that last thirty seconds and say nothing and go
nowhere. They have NOT have plenty of material, and the material they have had
an arsonist with a can of gasoline and a torch couldn't make hot because they
are written flabbily and short. They don't have plenty of material.
>
>You seem to have a lot of information about fan support. So fill the rest
>of us in. How many letters do Matt and Vanessa get? I find it hard to
>believe they don't lag behind Josh/Reva and Michelle/Danny, very hard. >>
Well, I can't help that, but they don't lag behind Josh/Reva and in fact many
times have exceeded Josh/Reva. The Jeva fan base is more Kim Zimmer, not JEVA.
As a couple, M/V get more mail. And they have a stronger base than
Danny/Michelle. I'm sorry if you don't believe it, but it's a fact.
>
>You say potato, I say potaato. You say super-couple, I say no way.>>
I say if you base your assessment on information instead of assumptions you may
find you are wrong even if they never become your personal taste. By every
criteria that exists, they are a supercouple.
DASBABY932
>I'm fairly cynical about the way soaps are put together. If the Matt
andVanessa fans are as legion as you say they ar, then tptb would cynically>use
them to bolster their anemic ratings>?>
I just wanted to emphasize that Rauch always makes sure to dust them off for
sweeps - when they can do HIM some good. It's the rest of the time he sticks
them on ice.
Kay Freeman
> If the Matt and
> use them to bolster their anemic ratings.
You'd think TPTB would be that smart, wouldn't you? But if soap EPs
were truly giving fans what they want, the ratings across the board
wouldn't be plummeting from year to year.
> Look at the participation on this newsgroup. We can
> be an interesting bunch but we're pathetically small. And among our
> pathetically small bunch there are very few posters ringing their hands
> over Matt and Vanessa. This thread is you and me and a few lurkers going,
> yah, whatever. At the very same time as you and I are debating their
> super status, two other posters are saying how they liked Matt better with
> Beth.
A Usenet ng is hardly a statistically valid sample.
> My first criteria for a super-couple would be that they can't be ignored.
> No matter what the producer's personal or political bias is (whatever
> that's supposed to mean), support for the couple is so overwhelming that
> they can't be ignored.
Sorry. Soap EPs can and do separate or backburner (or both) couples
with large fanbases, whether because of the EP's antipathy toward one or
both of the actors or because the EP is absorbed with "developing"
(read: pushing down our throats) his own favorites. It certainly
happened to Todd and Blair on OLTL, who were destroyed because an EP
wanted to promote Tea. On GL, there has never been a bigger
super-couple than Roger and Holly, yet in Rauch's hands, they were
largely ignored except for the occasional scene here and there. We
could have had more than a year of sizzling Rolly storyline before
Michael Zaslow's symptoms became manifest, but that was not on Rauch's
agenda.
> Just try separating Luke and Laura at their height
Luke and Laura have yet to reach their height (which is ever on the
horizon), but they're pretty much apart.
> or try putting Danny permanently with someone else other than Michelle
> now. The outcry would be instantaneous.
And short-lived. No fans have sunk *years* of emotional investment in
Michelle and Danny. They may be a very promising young couple, but
they're hardly "super" yet.
> The very fact that Rauch can
> dare to ignore the Matt/Vanessa pairing tells me the support for them is
> weak.
That may be your interpretation, but that's not what it means. It means
only that Rauch has no desire to use them and is willing to pay whatever
the price is in fan disgruntlement. (Not yours -- I know that already
-- but the disgruntlement of their considerable fanbase.) It wouldn't
be the first time Rauch has pushed -- or tried to push -- a popular
actress off a show. Ask Ellen Holly. Ask Robin Strasser.
> That's not to say there isn't support - just that it's not
> overwhelming. Super-couples have overwhelming support.
CBS, P&G and the soap rags all acknowledge that Matt and Vanessa have
enormous support.
> Super-couples also dominate the screen. Much as I hate to say it, Josh
> and Reva still have that capacity.
Josh and Reva dominate the *airtime*. That much is fact. Their sparks
or lack of sparks is a matter of opinion.
Sometimes they dominate scenes a
> little too much for my liking but they still have that spark. Danny and
> Michelle definitely have it but who knows if it can be sustained. The
> entire time I've been watching GL, which admittedly is not dramatically
> long, there hasn't been a single time that Matt and Vanessa have burned up
> the screen. The closest they came was their argument in the hospital
> parking lot but that was closer to a simmer than a burn. To me they are a
> comfy, cozy couple. They are not hot. Super-couples are hot.
Well, there you are. You haven't been watching long enough to have an
informed opinion: you never had the privilege of watching Matt and
Vanessa in the days when they had an EP who nurtured them and saw to it
that they had not only sufficient airtime but also good material written
for them, attractive wardrobe (or state of undress), and romantic
settings. It's hard to be *hot, hot, hot* in fully clothed 2-minute
love scenes on a small, hard mission sofa once every 6 months.
> But they have been given plenty of scenes
> together
Wrongitty, wrong, wrong, wrong. *Beth* had plenty of scenes with Matt,
and talk, talk, talk, because Rauch is promoting Beth Chamberlain.
Beth's airtime loomed HUGE. Vanessa and Matt have mostly had 2-3 minute
scenes, in which they talked very little -- Matt yelled and stomped off.
>
> You seem to have a lot of information about fan support. So fill the rest
> of us in. How many letters do Matt and Vanessa get? I find it hard to
> believe they don't lag behind Josh/Reva and Michelle/Danny, very hard.
Be serious. You don't have Josh & Reva's mail count any more than any
other fan has Matt & Vanessa's. Unfair argument.
>
> You say potato, I say potaato. You say super-couple, I say no way.
>
> Lynn
And thus saying, you have just admitted that liking for any particular
soap couple is a matter of personal taste. You simply have difficulty
accepting that there is a large fanbase for Matt and Vanessa even though
they don't appeal to you personally.
Kay Freeman
AzVixen
Vicki
http://www.fridgetech.freeserve.co.uk/althvac/vicki/index.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
DASBABY932
<<Sorry. Soap EPs can and do separate or backburner (or both) couples
with large fanbases, whether because of the EP's antipathy toward one or
both of the actors or because the EP is absorbed with "developing"
(read: pushing down our throats) his own favorites. >>
My God, the list of actors Rauch alone has petulantly and irrationally had it
in for could form their own soap opera.
As to EP wisdom - remember Alan Michael/Lucy? The fact that they never took
off as GL had hoped didn't stop GL from promoting them up the whazoo and using
every plot strategy under the sun to sell them. Remember Tangie? How much air
time did SHE chew up? She was front burner her entire two year stint despite
widespread viewer DISLIKE, let alone popularity that justified this investment.
Other, truly popular characters and couples suffered while GL tried to force
others on the audience.
Katherine to this day remains an indifferently popular character on GH (which I
hate to criticize because it's the only classic soap left, IMO) but they
continue to keep her. Kristina Wagner has spent a LOT of time on the
backburner during her years despite being very popular. But I hate to use
Wagner or anything GH as an example, their intentions are usually honest. But
I will mention ATWT and Molly. Is her air time proportionate to her
popularity?
However, it is a matter of track record and experience that JFP, Rauch (a
pigboy of the first order) and others make the personal political - actors they
dislike, they don't support or write for or deliberately undermine, actors they
favor or consider a pet or personal discovery, they promote. Rauch is ever on
the hunt for the quick fix, and when he thinks he's found it, he saturates the
show with it. The ratings on GL during the height of Danny/Michelle these past
two ratings report weeks have been clone-level. And if you wonder how the
higher ups could let Rauch get away with it - why do they have such a
collection of hacks running daytime anyway? Because the higher ups (the
networks) don't respect it,don't watch, don't respect the viewers and are more
than vaguely embarrassed. They are corporate suits, not people with any
background in audiences. They research and implement daytime like they
research and implement a bar of soap. The fact that non-quantifiable product
can't be predictably interpreted and marketed with focus groups or via straight
numbers crunching doesn't stop them, because they don't want to invest
themselves enough in the medium to learn how to judge it properly on the merits
- i.e., what works, what plays. They don't want to control Rauch unless they
realy start to hemorage because that means they have to get involved, find
another producer, make a decision, think about - ick - daytime.
P&G's own records show that even products that have a TASTE can't be accurately
test-marketed or focus-grouped, anything with a subjective component is a poor
candidate for P&G's way of doing business. But this hasn't changed P&G's way
of doing business.
And for the record, I attend the SODgl chats and the moderator there, a
cheerleader for all things GL, doesn't think Joie Lenz and Paul Anthony Stewart
have chemistry. The show IS, however, writing obstacles, intensity and
conflict for them, and that is sustaining this story, although the ratings have
been weak. Paul Anthony Stewart - as his stint on LOVING attests -- could
have chemistry with a bread box. He's a romantic figure every bit as much as
soap opera ingenues and leading ladies have been romantic figures. He's smart,
vulnerable, sensitive and an intelligent actor. If, however, Rauch were not
shoving Danny/Michelle down our throats, it is my opinion the Lenz/Stewart
chemistry would not entrance many. Stewart, however, would continue to
interest many fans. It has also been my perception that many Reva fans are
easily swayed from Josh to whomever else Reva is interacting with at the time,
whether it be Billy or Sean.
Also, when Matt and Vanessa were a couple in their first two years (they began
in mid-1994) they were nominated for "Hottest Couple" for an SOD award. This
was not SOD's own pick, this pick was based on which couples get the most mail.
The other candidates were Noah/Julia on AMC and the couple on B&B. (the
Ridge/Taylor/Brooke triangle). When was the last time a GL couple, on PURE
mail count, not SOD's judgment, rated that kind of nomination? I'm talking a
popularity contest straight on the numbers, not a judgment call by the mag.
And it is a fact that M/V continue to have a tremendous amount of fan support,
and it is equally a fact that Paul Rauch resists it at every turn.
DASBABY932
> But they have been given plenty of scenes
> together >>
I think you'll find that Matt and Beth talked about Vanessa, said the name
"Vanessa" far more than Matt actually ever interacted with Vanessa. Matt
interacted with Beth, Beth told him how she felt, how Matt felt, and what
Vanessa's failings were. "Vanessa" was a very frequently invoked name in
this storyline. Matt said and said and said and said the name Vanessa. So did
Beth. Vanessa was not, however, commonly given scenes to play. And she and
Matt had - save the airport scene - NO scenes of substance in this story.
Count them. None.
As to the face lift stuff, naturally the show is not going to leave itself open
to charges that it thinks Vanessa needs a face lift. But this is a cosmetic
industry where it's all about how you look and how beautiful you are. That's
the fact of daytime. How interesting that only Vanessa has to "explore" these
issues while the other woman are so beautiful and the fantasy is sustained.
Suddenly on this cartoon show, Rauch wants to get gritty. Right.
Rauch especially is a throwback obsessed with female appearance. For more
than a month every time Van appeared the line "old enough to be Matt's mother"
was uttered. This is so channel surfers tuning in would go - gee, she's old
enough to be that guy's mother. It was done to turn fans off. Of course the
show is going to say - Van is just insecure, we're exploring her unnecessary
insecurity - but that wasn't explored, was it? The face lift stuff was said
over and over, the woman pulled her face up on camera, the mother crap got
shoved out and repeated ad nauseum, but the other side, the exploration and
discussion was never played. Rauch had one agenda - humiliation - in raising
it to begin with, and of course he'll pretend to have clean hands by saying -
our point is to show she's insecure and too beautiful to need it. No. His
point is what was on the air. THAT's the point. When you repeat "face lift"
and "his mother" over and over -- THAT's the sound bite. That's what he wanted
to sink in. Especially in the absence of no balancing material or exploration,
no matter what they claimed.
DAnn25
<<I'm fairly cynical about the way soaps are put together. If the Matt and
Vanessa fans are as legion as you say they are, then tptb would cynically
are legion period.>>
You have this wrong Lynn. Rauch and company know for a definite fact that the
M/V fans are many. You are missing one little bit of information--- and it's
Rauch has a thing for and against Maeve Kinkead. She won't play casting couch
with him. It's no secret. Everyone in the industry knows it. It wouldn't
matter to Rauch if he lost the show--he still will not use Matt and Vanessa
because he wants to destroy Maeve. And, yes, he is vindictive. He has done it
to other actresses who won't play his game, and he is doing it to Maeve--trying
to make her angry enough to leave the show. She may leave, and they may
announce that she is leaving of her on desire--but everyone in the industry
knows that she is being forced out.
Rauch is crazy enough that he will sacrifice ratings before he will give M/V a
story that would bring in fans and viewers. Not one insider would tell you
that there has been a M/V story. It's painfully obvious that they are given
little or no time together.. Their scenes are rushed and glossed over, while
Matt's scenes with Beth are LONG and drawn out. Rauch will not allow M/V to
have scenes where they talk or discuss things. He will not allow them to do
love scenes. What couple have you EVER seen in daytime that was not given a
love scene when they made up after a 7 month separation? none.
Yes, M/V have legions of fans, Rauch, MADD, CBS and P&G know it-- but they are
all allowing Rauch to play his dirty little game.
DAnn25
the fault is entirely with the writing. Maybe. I haven't been very
satisfied with the writing for them either. The whole head in the
together and if that's as much sizzle as they can muster then lend me a
pillow, yawn.>>
Sorry, but you are not watching the same show. M/V have NOT been given scenes
together. I have the airtimes to prove it. Matt and Vanessa have not had a
scene that lasted over 2 minutes in a year. They are not given time to develop
any story or any connection. It is the writing, and the writing is the way it
is for two reasons: The writers are incompetent and Rauch will not allow them
to be in scenes where people would get a chance to see them sparkle.
<<You seem to have a lot of information about fan support. So fill the rest
of us in. How many letters do Matt and Vanessa get? I find it hard to
believe they don't lag behind Josh/Reva and Michelle/Danny, very hard. >>
Be very sure that M/V get tons of mail.
DAnn25
fan base, the duration of their fan base and their mail count, then Matt and
Jill Phelps is weak in MANY areas, but she recognized immediately that M/V were
super couple material. If they were promoted and written for like other
couples are--they would have the status. It is similar to Harley and Mallet..
they were a super couple that Phelps couldn't hold down--but they never got the
press or the recognition they deserved because Phelps wouldn't allow it. Rauch
does not promote or write for M/V- but they are a supercouple in ever sense of
the word. Everyone in the industry knows it. Rauch knows it, but he won't let
the show act on it.
Josh/Reva are a super couple because the show constantly tells everyone they
are.. the press tells everyone. Supercouples can't really be created-- they
just ARE. It's the chemistry between the two people. Any other producer would
be using them like crazy, and Rauch knows it. Look, OLTL, GH are trying to
duplicate the M/V story. (I hear that several other shows and actresses want
to do it also) It's a story of the 90's, it's a story that people want to see.
It's what's really happening (there was a huge article in the NYTimes not to
long ago about older women and why men love them). Maeve and Kurt have
undeniable chemistry, and a story that is a now story.. and Rauch refuses to
use them or write for them......
DAnn25
> But they have been given plenty of scenes
> together
Wrongitty, wrong, wrong, wrong. *Beth* had plenty of scenes with Matt,
and talk, talk, talk, because Rauch is promoting Beth Chamberlain.
Beth's airtime loomed HUGE. Vanessa and Matt have mostly had 2-3 minute
scenes, in which they talked very little -- Matt yelled and stomped off.>>
Absolutely correct. Mata and Beth had PLENTY of time to talk. In fact, they
had so much time that they repeated themselves most of the time. Matt and
Vanessa had NO TIME--- Rauch saw to it that Matt ran off as soon as any
discussion was started.
DAnn25
And it is a fact that M/V continue to have a tremendous amount of fan support,
and it is equally a fact that Paul Rauch resists it at every turn.
>>
I agree with your entire post --but this is the point that needs to be made
the most. Rauch KNOWs that M/V have support,and he is chosing to ignore it---
on purpose.
I also agree with your comments about PAS. The story that he is in is God
awful. He pulls along every actor in every scene he is in.
TDTY456
this was a demeaning story . I also agree that this was targeted on MK because
Paul Rauch wanted to make her uncomfortable. He wanted a "never been done"
story, he got it. No other producer would ask a beautiful actress to say daily
that beauty is everything, and to have all the other characters on the show who
are trying to destroy Vanessa, tell her that she needed a face lift.
I know that an actress on Y&R had a face lift on TV. I know that Linda Dano
made a big deal about her face lift. Those are different things. They were
generated by the actresses themselves. Paul Rauch wanted to reinforce daily
that Van was old, and that she needed face work to keep husband. Of course
this affected MK. She is a beautiful actress who was told daily that she was
old.
I agree with those who wouldn't blame MK for leaving GL. Paul Rauch has done
his best to chase her away.
clair...@my-dejanews.com
dasba...@aol.com (DASBABY932) wrote:
>
>
> Also, when Matt and Vanessa were a couple in their first two years (they began
> in mid-1994) they were nominated for "Hottest Couple" for an SOD award. This
> was not SOD's own pick, this pick was based on which couples get the most
mail.
> The other candidates were Noah/Julia on AMC and the couple on B&B. (the
> Ridge/Taylor/Brooke triangle). When was the last time a GL couple, on PURE
> mail count, not SOD's judgment, rated that kind of nomination? I'm talking a
> popularity contest straight on the numbers, not a judgment call by the mag.
>
> and it is equally a fact that Paul Rauch resists it at every turn.
>
As evidenced in a recent SOD - once again Matt & Vanessa were the fan
favorites for romantic moments. Not Josh & Reva, not Danny & Michelle, BUT
Matt & Vanessa. Just goes to show once again, these talented actors have a
large fan base, a fan base who speaks loudly when asked to voice their
collective opinion of what they consider to be the "best". It also speaks
volumes as to the current EP and writing staff - the choice was a scene from
1995 because these actors have not been given a chance to shine as they once
did. Even though the fans don't care for the current treatment of Matt &
Vanessa, they continue to support the actors who brought these characters to
life. Time for sweeps again, they should trot out and dust off Matt &
Vanessa to help bring in advertising $$. I am one of many fans who hopes
TPTB wake up before it is to late.
Lynn M. Podgurny
On 21 Apr 1999, DASBABY932 wrote:
> Of course it's not as much sizzle as they can muster and I challenge you on
> your assertion they have plenty of scenes together. Their scenes have been
> timed. The last time they were on McKinney had four lines of dialogue (total)
Lynn M. Podgurny
someone pull the plug, literally. I refuse to write all that bleep again.
It went something like: large fan base blahblahblah, legions
blahblahblah, focus groups blahblahblah, where's the beef blahblahblah,
this is getting boring blahblahblah. A few comments below.
On 21 Apr 1999, DASBABY932 wrote:
> Of course it's not as much sizzle as they can muster and I challenge you on
> your assertion they have plenty of scenes together. Their scenes have been
> timed. The last time they were on McKinney had four lines of dialogue (total)
> over two days, and on the third day his dialogue was Dinah re-hash. The day
> they visited the convent McKinney had ONE line of dialogue w/Kinkead,
> previously he had THREE. The Dinah rehash was the in between day.
>
I just love tyranny by passive voice. Their scenes have been timed - by
who? By you? By the president of the M & V fan club? By snoop doggy
dog? And what does timing a scene actually accomplish? Surely the
problem is the quality of their scenes, not the quantity. And they
certainly do have plenty of scenes compared to, say, Rick and Abby. What
are the appropriate number of seconds for M & V to be on together to
satisfy their legions anyway?
> >You seem to have a lot of information about fan support. So fill the rest
> >of us in. How many letters do Matt and Vanessa get? I find it hard to
> >believe they don't lag behind Josh/Reva and Michelle/Danny, very hard. >>
>
> Well, I can't help that, but they don't lag behind Josh/Reva and in fact many
> times have exceeded Josh/Reva. The Jeva fan base is more Kim Zimmer, not JEVA.
> As a couple, M/V get more mail. And they have a stronger base than
> Danny/Michelle. I'm sorry if you don't believe it, but it's a fact.
Are the number of letters they get and their fan base the same thing? How
do you assess fan base? I'm truly curious.
> >You say potato, I say potaato. You say super-couple, I say no way.>>
>
> I say if you base your assessment on information instead of assumptions you may
> find you are wrong even if they never become your personal taste. By every
> criteria that exists, they are a supercouple.
And when I ask for information, you say what - trust me, it's a fact
(note above). I guess everything you write is incontrovertible and truth
with a capital t. Mind you, stating opinion for fact doesn't make it
fact. Stating categorically that they are a super-couple doesn't make it
so. Super-couple is a purely subjective term that is open to whoever
wants to interpret it. Which makes my interpretation and my opinion just
as valid as yours.
I like Matt. I like Vanessa. That's all I want to say.
Lynn
Lynn M. Podgurny
> You'd think TPTB would be that smart, wouldn't you? But if soap EPs
> were truly giving fans what they want, the ratings across the board
> wouldn't be plummeting from year to year.
Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps as a class of entertainment, soaps are no
longer valid. Perhaps the plummeting ratings reflect a basic
dissatisfaction with the format and not a dissatisfaction with the level
of production. Maybe soaps are going to go the way of the western.
> A Usenet ng is hardly a statistically valid sample.
Don't think I ever said it was. But it's perfectly valid for discussion
purposes to use examples from this group. Why not? If nothing else, my
post has created discussion.
> Sorry. Soap EPs can and do separate or backburner (or both) couples
> with large fanbases, whether because of the EP's antipathy toward one or
> both of the actors or because the EP is absorbed with "developing"
> (read: pushing down our throats) his own favorites. It certainly
> happened to Todd and Blair on OLTL, who were destroyed because an EP
> wanted to promote Tea. On GL, there has never been a bigger
> super-couple than Roger and Holly, yet in Rauch's hands, they were
> largely ignored except for the occasional scene here and there. We
> could have had more than a year of sizzling Rolly storyline before
> Michael Zaslow's symptoms became manifest, but that was not on Rauch's
> agenda.
Sure, I'll buy that tptb can be petty, vindictive, and can play
favourites. But I don't buy that every controversial decision is a
conspiracy of hate by the producers (not that you're saying that). I
think the producers are bound to follow their own taste to a certain
extent and what's wrong with that? I would hate to see soaps constructed
entirely by popularity polls or focus groups, paint by numbers. The
creative people have to be free to make decisions and that includes making
some big mistakes and perhaps some unpopular choices.
> Luke and Laura have yet to reach their height (which is ever on the
> horizon), but they're pretty much apart.
Temporarily apart in my opinion. But the height part - we'll just have to
disagree on that.
> And short-lived. No fans have sunk *years* of emotional investment in
> Michelle and Danny. They may be a very promising young couple, but
> they're hardly "super" yet.
My original post actually said Michelle and Danny maybe as a super-couple.
Longevity IS important I'll agree.
> Well, there you are. You haven't been watching long enough to have an
> informed opinion: you never had the privilege of watching Matt and
> Vanessa in the days when they had an EP who nurtured them and saw to it
> that they had not only sufficient airtime but also good material written
> for them, attractive wardrobe (or state of undress), and romantic
> settings. It's hard to be *hot, hot, hot* in fully clothed 2-minute
> love scenes on a small, hard mission sofa once every 6 months.
Ah, it comes down to that does it, that I have to be watching x number of
years to have an opinion that counts. Actually, as an inveterate soap
floater I did see Matt and Vanessa in what you consider their hay day.
Didn't do much for me then either - together I mean. Separately I like
them.
> >
> > You seem to have a lot of information about fan support. So fill the rest
> > of us in. How many letters do Matt and Vanessa get? I find it hard to
> > believe they don't lag behind Josh/Reva and Michelle/Danny, very hard.
>
> Be serious. You don't have Josh & Reva's mail count any more than any
> other fan has Matt & Vanessa's. Unfair argument.
Never said I did. DASBABY932, however, did come pretty close to claiming
the mail count by an adamant assertion that Matt and Vanessa's mail was as
high or higher than anyone elses. Surely if a poster states that as a
fact, I can ask for more details. Don't see anything unfair about it.
> And thus saying, you have just admitted that liking for any particular
> soap couple is a matter of personal taste. You simply have difficulty
> accepting that there is a large fanbase for Matt and Vanessa even though
> they don't appeal to you personally.
Of course it's my personal taste - who would think otherwise? And I don't
have any difficulty believing in a large fan base for Matt and Vanessa.
Maybe just not as large and undeniable as some posters would say. I
did start my original post by saying I was playing devil's advocate and
the devil has stirred up a little trouble. Fun isn't it!
> Kay Freeman
Thanks for your thoughts Kay.
Lynn
Greg and Sarah Estell
Scooby002 wrote in message <19990419114118...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
>I for one was NEVER a Matt and Vanessa fan. I thought and still think they
are
>terrible together. As far as Kinead going on recurring status that's a
shame,
>I liked both these characters, just not together. I wish Billy would come
back
>and be with Vanessa and then Matt could find someone else, maybe someone
like
>Cassie. JMO
>
>sc
I agree, Scooby. As for why the writers don't write for Maeve, perhaps we
should look at the way she basically phoned in her performances when she
came back from her last leave. I have always been a Maeve fan and a Vanessa
fan, but when Van came back from whatever kind of Dreaming Death she had, I
think the disease sapped some of her acting skills. I like Vanessa and I
like Matt. Just not together. I'm just guessing here, but I can see how
Rauch might have gotten a little tired of seeing half-hearted performances
and decided to write for actors who might not be as good, but would at least
make a little effort.
Sarah
Greg and Sarah Estell
>super-couple than Roger and Holly, yet in Rauch's hands, they were
>largely ignored except for the occasional scene here and there.
Sorry, but I find it hard to accept a rapist and his victim as a
super-couple. I don't know a woman alive who could get past that, no matter
how much we all liked MZ. Roger Thorpe was a rapist.
The
>> entire time I've been watching GL, which admittedly is not dramatically
>> long, there hasn't been a single time that Matt and Vanessa have burned
up
>> the screen. The closest they came was their argument in the hospital
>> parking lot but that was closer to a simmer than a burn. To me they are
a
>> comfy, cozy couple. They are not hot. Super-couples are hot.
>
>Well, there you are. You haven't been watching long enough to have an
>informed opinion
Well, I have. I've watched GL for nearly 25 years and have long been a
Vanessa fan. I also happen to like Matt. I DID watch M/V during their
courtship and I thought they were boring. I also watched them during
Vanessa's illness and I thought they were boring. And I have watched them
since Vanessa's return and found them to be boring. See a trend?
In fairness to both Maeve and Kurt (as well as Rauch), I think a great deal
of the problem I've had with M/V is that at the height of their popularity -
when they were getting TONS of airtime btw - Maeve went on one of her
not-infrequent leaves of absence. She has done this several times over the
years, but probably never before at such an inopportune time. I felt very
sorry for Kurt because how could the writers move Matt forward when all the
fans new Vanessa was still alive? And since Vanessa came back, she's just
not had that edge that Maeve always had. I don't think that's the writers -
I think it is Maeve's performance. She clearly isn't happy with her
character, and I honestly can't blame her. But she gets a paycheck to do a
job. In my opinion, she hasn't given 100% in a very long time. I'd like to
see Maeve take a leave and then come back full of p*ss and vinegar!
Sarah
Greg and Sarah Estell
LHAZ 61746 wrote in message <19990420130706...@ng06.aol.com>...
>>>First I want to say that I like Matt and Vanessa separately and am wishy
>washy about them together. <<
>
I
chemistry
>than Matt and Vanessa. IMO
>Lynne H
You're not the only one.
Sarah
DASBABY932
Well, I have. I've watched GL for nearly 25 years and have long been a
Vanessa fan. I also happen to like Matt. I DID watch M/V during their
courtship and I thought they were boring. I also watched them during
Vanessa's illness and I thought they were boring.>>
Fine, but legions of fans don't agree with you. And that is the point here.
They have the fan base to justify storyline and scenes together, no matter that
not every individual fan sees their appeal. The argument Lynn was making was
she didn't see their appeal and she extrapolated from there that relatively
speaking, their fan support must be weak -- or at least not overwhelming and in
supercouple category. The point is, they do have that kind of overwhelming
support, the point is not that "everybody" loves them. Their history was
mentioned simply because Lynn acknowledged not having seen it. There's no
expectation that everyone who saw it loved it. However, many many fans did.
Plenty of fans don't love Jeva, or whomever. The point is M/V HAVE the fan
base to deserve story, and they don't get it.
<< And I have watched them
since Vanessa's return and found them to be boring. See a trend?>>
I see that you're not among their many many fans, just as I'm not among the
many fans of Jeva. However, a soap opera is supposed to appeal to its
significant audience and fan bases. M/V have a base as numerous as any on GL,
including Jeva.
In fairness to both Maeve and Kurt (as well as Rauch), I think a great deal
of the problem I've had with M/V is that at the height of their popularity ->>
In fairness to you, I don't think Maeve and Kurt have anything to do with it, I
think it's perfectly possible they just don't appeal to "everybody" because
nobody does. However, the reasons you cite for YOU not liking them are not
universal, and in fact, and this is the point, M/V do have supercouple level
fan support.
<<when they were getting TONS of airtime btw >>
An erroneous impression since they did get a lot of publicity due to the TONS
of mail the fan magazines and the show were getting. However, they were never
more than the "b" story. The return of Alan and his rather lame "Mr. Tashawa"
impersonation, Alan Michael's presumed death in the explosion and his hooking
up w/Tangie, Nick and Mindy, LUCY COOPER, etc. were all running as the "A"
story at that time, ditto Josh's courtship of Annie, Annie and Rick and Annie's
past, and the ever escalating adventures of Dinah, which at one point almost
swallowed the show during the "lonotrat" saga. And let's not forget Brent.
and M/V's story could not and never was, even at their most popular, dominant,
or THE story. However, that was the time that they had support from the show
and were seen at least steadily and consistently. But even so, if they didn't
win you in particular over, that's not the point. Nobody is saying anyone and
everyone who saw them from the start would adore them. We are saying the
material they have now is not the material that showcases them to their
considerable fan base, and somebody like Lynn who cites their current material
and the airport scenes as indicative of what they're about is working from an
uninformed basis. If she did happen to see the start of M/V and still felt
unmoved -- fine. At least then, her opinion would have more of a basis. As it
is now, she has no basis of comparison. You do, and they're not your cup of
tea. Again, fine. The point is, Rauch is ignoring the huge number of GL fans
who do support and love them.
<<- Maeve went on one of her
not-infrequent leaves of absence. >>
Maeve took one leave of absence prior to this one in 1996, and prior to this
one, Matt and Vanessa were on the backburner. Even Megan McTavish admitted at
the time that M/V were backburner for months at the time Maeve left, and that
contributed to the anger fans felt when she went away.
In fact, as Kurt McKinney has said repeatedly, Matt and Vanessa's heydey was
from July to December 94. Then came Dinah, and Matt and Vanessa were relegated
largely to group scenes while "their" story became about her. Of course,
compared to now, that was still the renaissance. Every couple of months or so
the show would write a block of long scenes for them that included
conversation, conflict, and love scenes. But in terms of air time, basically,
after the wedding, M/V were backburner except for two brief spurts - one when
Amanda came to town. During April 96, Henry died and Van learned Matt had been
a Malibu guy hooker. They resolved this in two weeks and went back to the
backburner. M/V were backburner from their wedding until April, in April came
the Henry's death/Malibu stuff, then it was backburner again until August when
her "illness" hit and she played 2-3 times a week until she left. TONS has
never described the air time given to M/V.
<< She has done this several times over the
years, but probably never before at such an inopportune time.>>
What inopportune time? She was stone cold backburner when she made her
decision and had been since her three scene honeymoon. Toward spring they
coughed up about three weeks of story surrounding Henry's death and Malibu
madam, then it was backburner til she left. Her leaving didn't interrupt or
derail any story.
<< I felt very
sorry for Kurt because how could the writers move Matt forward when all the
fans new Vanessa was still alive? And since Vanessa came back, she's just
not had that edge that Maeve always had. I don't think that's the writers -
I think it is Maeve's performance. She clearly isn't happy with her
character, and I honestly can't blame her.>>
Oh give me a break. Maeve's performance? she's written as the show's toilet.
Maeve's performance isn't the least passive, the WRITING has had her stand
their and take it from Dinah and Beth. She is a punching bag. She has NO
power, no point of view, and nothing to perform.
<< But she gets a paycheck to do a
job. In my opinion, she hasn't given 100% in a very long time. I'd like to
see Maeve take a leave and then come back full of p*ss and vinegar!>>
Is she going to come back and write the scripts herself? You give me one scene
with the dialogue she's had where piss and vinegar were conceivable. She's
written as a doormat. And that is purely intentional.
Sarah
DASBABY932
who? >>
Oh excuse me - I don't say I timed them - I say the have been timed and you
think it's made up? Yes, fans have timed Matt and Vanessa's scenes. That's
what I meant when I said they have been timed. You want me to post names and
screen names on the internet? However, since there are M/V fans on line who
have timed their scenes, if you want the info I'll ask and give it to you.
<<By you? By the president of the M & V fan club? By snoop doggy
dog?>>
What are you going for here? I didn't post on the ng the names, rank, serial
number so I'm full of it?
<< And what does timing a scene actually accomplish?>>
It accomplishes refuting your assertion they had PLENTY of scenes together.
This was your comment, I - and I notice others - informed you no they have not.
NOW you say what does this accomplish? It accomplishes , for the purpose of
this thread, "proof" that the opinion (passive voice again, but that's because
it's addressing this point of view in general, not just YOU Lynn) - that the
opinion they have had plenty of scenes together is wrong. It's erroneous.
They haven't had plenty of scenes together.
<< Surely theproblem is the quality of their scenes, not the quantity.>>
Surely the problem is quantity since they get minimal air time. And surely I
didn't fantasize that you said they'd had PLENTY of scenes together. This was
your point. I answered it. The reality is, they get minimal - and less - air
time together and what minimal air time they do get is of deliberately,
consciously poor quality NOT designed to enhance either the characters or their
relationship.
<< And they certainly do have plenty of scenes compared to, say, Rick and
Abby.>>
Fill in the obvious response to this. I think you can do it. Ask youself if
Danny and Michelle fans should -- if they ever find themselves with M/V screen
time - be grateful they have marginally more screen time than a couple that
gets no mail. Ask Jeva fans. Give me a break.
<< What are the appropriate number of seconds for M & V to be on together to
satisfy their legions anyway?>>
Is this an actual question or a veiled put down? The point I made about air
time and fan base was, I'm guessing, perfectly clear to you. More than that,
it was also completely rational, and this question, following what I posted, is
not.
DASBABY932
<<Are the number of letters they get and their fan base the same thing? How
How would you define it Lynn? How do you "know" Danny and Michelle have an
important fan base? How do you know Jeva do? Because Rauch gives them tons of
air time? Or because that is your impression from the press? What is your
basis for your impression that they have a fan base? How have you made your
assessment?
<<And when I ask for information, you say what - trust me, it's a fact (note
above). I guess everything you write is incontrovertible and truth with a
capital t. >>
Yeah, that's what it means -- you're quick like that. I just intuit these
things, you've got it. Yes, I have a factual basis for this opinion, NO, I am
not giving you names and specific sources, and all I can tell you is I would
not post it if it were merely my opinion and I were not sure of my information.
Since this is a newsgroup, I accept that I cannot prove any of this to you on
my word. I am simply telling you, for the purposes of this discussion, that I
have an informed basis for my viewpoint. It is your choice to assess that
however you like and I have no problem with it, however, I'm not going to post
as if I don't know myself and my own information. I will continue to post from
the standpoint of what I know myself. It should not be confused with my
posting with the aim to prove myself to you. However, if you were this
interested in the topic you could find out for yourself.
I post based on what I know, not based on what I can convince you about
because I accept that's impossible for me and imprudent for you and anyone else
engaged in a newsgroup discussion.
<< Mind you, stating opinion for fact doesn't make it fact. Stating
categorically that they are a super-couple doesn't make it
so. >>
Oh thanks, can I take notes? I've done none of those things. I've stated not
my opinion - but the fact that they are a supercouple based on their fan
support. That's not my opinion, that's what I KNOW. Prove that I know and
it's not my opinion? Sorry. I can distinguish between my opinion and
information, and in this case, I'm going by the latter. And again, I am
comfortable discussing this thread knowing that unless I PROVE it to you you
will assert I have a corner on Truth and my Opinion is Fact and all that, and I
can't distinguish between my subjective opinion and fact and information RME.
<<Super-couple is a purely subjective term that is open to whoever
wants to interpret it. >>
That's totally irrational - supercouple is a couple that has an enormous amount
of fan support. Matt and Vanessa have an enormous amount of fan support. The
fact that I am not going to give you a fact sheet to prove it to you does not
revert that reality back to simply my opinion, sorry. You are, of course,
free to think (like I need to tell you this) that I'm lying through my teeth.
I'm not, but I can deal knowing you choose to believe it.
<<Which makes my interpretation and my opinion justas valid as yours. >>
Sorry, it doesn't, because I know what I'm talking about and you don't, not
because of my superior opinion, but because I'm informed on this and you are
not. Obviously. The fact that I'm not PROVING how I'm informed doesn't change
that. However you slice it, reality is more valid than "interpretation" based
on lack of information and assumption, and the reality is Matt and Vanessa are
a supercouple based upon their fan support. I responded to this thread
originally because I saw assumptions and comments I knew for a fact were off
base. No, I am not going to prove on this newsgroup how and why I know this
for a fact, and as a consequence, you choose to find it valid or not valid.
I'm fine with that. However, that still doesn't chande what I know for myself,
and therefore, won't change my argument, since I know it has a secure
foundation.
DASBABY932
<<Super-couple is a purely subjective term that is open to whoever
wants to interpret it. >>
I meant to add that that contradicts your own prior assertion that a
supercouple has overwhelming fan support. Did you NOT say that? And I am
saying that by that yardstick - one of the markers you laid out - Matt and
Vanessa are a supercouple. Now you say it's purely subjective. Okay doke,
since that's so, I declare it about Susan and Max. What a supercouple. It's
subjective, purely so, so they get to be called it as much as anyone, surely.
Just cancel all the other criteria you outlined. Now, suddently there is no
criteria, just as now air time isn't important, even though it was significant
enough to assert in your earlier post that M/V had plenty. Conducting a
discussion by constantly shifting the terms and dismissing one's own prior
points does make for a tiresome thread, so I appreciate the boredom I've
inferred you are experiencing in this thread.
And naturally, my asserting these things re M/V and saying that this is an
informed assertion automatically translates into meaning I know "everything"
(you know, not this specific issue about which I do have a very informed
understanding - but EVERYTHING) and "everything" I write -- just because I
write it - is the truth with a capital "t" Despite my prior post saying
nothing more than that I have an informed understanding of this particular
situation and issue.)
DAnn25
should look at the way she basically phoned in her performances when she
came back from her last leave. I have always been a Maeve fan and a Vanessa
fan, but when Van came back from whatever kind of Dreaming Death she had, I
think the disease sapped some of her acting skills.>>
Sarah, I have to disagree with you. IF you remember, Maeve had weeks of
scenes when she had no one to act with or interact with. She was given nothing
to do but monologues saying the same thing. Rauch claimed to want her back,
but from the very beginning he booby trapped everything she did. Since she has
returned under the Rauch reign, she has been held captive to Dinah, then Beth.
After M/V were re-united they were given almost nothing to do. Every story
they had airtime became stories for Dinah of most recently, Beth. She has been
given brief scenes that no actor can get much out of. The ONLY time she has
had a 3 minute scene was with Jerry verDorn. Rauch has made sure that her
scenes with Kurt have been brief.
DAnn25
I just love tyranny by passive voice. Their scenes have been timed - by
dog? And what does timing a scene actually accomplish? Surely the
problem is the quality of their scenes, not the quantity. And they
certainly do have plenty of scenes compared to, say, Rick and Abby. What
are the appropriate number of seconds for M & V to be on together to
satisfy their legions anyway?>>
Well Lynn, I time the M/V scenes.. and I'm not the president of anything, nor
am I some dog. Your comments seem exactly like what the writers say ("we can't
work them 5 days a week, MK will only work 3 days a week, so we have to cut
their story short). Exaggeration is not going to make a difference. Everyone
within the industry knows what's going on. Heck, you don't have to be part of
the industry to know that Rauch is doing everything in his power to force both
Maeve and Kurt off the show. You talk about a "quality" scene. Wow! what a
concept. You ask any actor, and they will tell you that no one can do anything
with 30 seconds of airtime. From the beginning, Rauch had no intention to give
M/V a story. He has done everything in his power to get rid of them. You can
choose to believe me or not... but a 2 yr old watching can see exactly what is
going on.
But, you won't have to worry, because Rauch will succeed. MK will leave, Kurt
will be paired immediately with Beth, or screw every female on the show in
order to stick it to the M/V fans-- and then he will be fired. Rauch will win.
He wins because MADD sits on her rear, or on her "spinning" bicycle and
twittles her thumbs, the P&G suits sit in Cincinnati and do nothing, and Lucy
Johnson of CBS continues to keep Rauch in place because they are good friends.
Rauch will have cut short MK's career ON PURPOSE. Check out what is going on
now. They are so far on the back burner that they might as well not be on the
show. Pretty soon, MK's contract is up and they will give her about two scenes
for Matt to break up with her( because remember all the trouble has been her
fault---she was too obsessed with Dinah, and she reacted too strongly when her
husband told her to get lost while he was standing drunk with the blonde
bimbo)-- and MK will be gone from daytime forever. Rauch wins.... he succeeds
in destroying one of daytimes best ever couples..... and everyone within the
industry will be talking about what a fool Rauch is.
<<Are the number of letters they get and their fan base the same thing? How
do you assess fan base? I'm truly curious.>>
Let's see, everyone at the studio, P&G and the magazines will tel l you that
their fan base is tremendous. It's not a secret.
DAnn25
This was your comment, I - and I notice others - informed you no they have not.
NOW you say what does this accomplish? It accomplishes , for the purpose of
this thread, "proof" that the opinion (passive voice again, but that's because
it's addressing this point of view in general, not just YOU Lynn) - that the
opinion they have had plenty of scenes together is wrong. It's erroneous.
They haven't had plenty of scenes together.
>>>
I missed this in the last point. There very definitely is a reason to time the
scenes. M/V have less time than any other major couple on GL. TPTB claim that
they have tons of airtime, etc.. and they don't....
As far as Rick and Abby, I like them, and they have been treated like dirt
also. If I was a fan of theirs, I would be having a fit. But no magazine, nor
does anyone at the studio claim that they get any ammount of mail. What about
Frank and Eleni, or Meta? Heck, there is almost no one left anyway.
Back to the airtime. It's what we see. I started timing it because I wanted
to prove what we were saying. Without facts, you just make generalized
statements... When it's in black and white, it's hard to ignore.
DAnn25
above). I guess everything you write is incontrovertible and truth with a
capital t. >>
There are people on the bb's who have more information and knowledge that you
could ever imagine. Are they going to tell where the info comes from? no way.
People can chose to believe it or not. It doesn't matter. Whether people
believe the posts are not are up to them, but that doesn't change the fact that
there are people with inside info.
DAnn25
<<Super-couple is a purely subjective term that is open to whoever
wants to interpret it. >>
>>
True. But didn't I read that you had some definite criteria? A supercouple
has overwhelming support--- it's support that comes from a groundswell. Trust
me, M/V are. They have survived in the hearts of the fans despite the fact
that Rauch, Esensten and Brown have done everything in their power to destroy
them.
DAnn25
full of piss and vinegar.. Vanessa has been written as a wimp.. They have tied
her hands while Dinah attacked her on a daily basis. They tied her hands as
Beth trashed her and tried to steal her husband. The writers (at Rauch's
instruction) have tied Vanessa's hands at everyturn. They made her the doormat
of SF. THIS was done on purpose. Don't you think MK wants her character to
have piss and vinegar? Of course she does. Also, everytime Vanessa stood up
for herself-- fans of Dinah would criticize her for being mean.
I don't blame MK for wanting to go. Rauch has made her life hell, he has
turned the character into Dinah and Beth's doormat.
DAnn25
see Maeve take a leave and then come back full of p*ss and vinegar!
>>
Part of your wish is going to come true. Maeve is going to leave.. And , you
pretty much got it right when you said that she has to be upset withthe way
her character is being treated and written. BUT, Vanessa and Maeve Kinkead
will NEVER return. There is just so much a human can take, and Rauch has
dished it out to her at every turn. Who will suffer when she leaves? Guiding
Light. There is not another character of dignity and style on the show. Rauch
knows that, but he wants a low class show. So, for those of you who take
great pride in bashing MK and MV-- you will get your wish.. Maeve will be
gone....but so will her fans, and soon so will the show. What Rauch has done
to the show will not be repaired. Maybe my friends are right... he was brought
on to destroy the show, so that CBS can cancel it and give Bell that show he is
contracted to do.
Fitzhig
who? By you? By the president of the M & V fan club? By snoop doggy
dog? And what does timing a scene actually accomplish? Surely the
problem is the quality of their scenes, not the quantity. And they
certainly do have plenty of scenes compared to, say, Rick and Abby. What
are the appropriate number of seconds for M & V to be on together to
satisfy their legions anyway?
Actually, they were timed by a group of people who carefully keep a log of the
airtime for most of the characters on GL. Why you may ask? To prove the
point that M/V have little of it, that the mob and the teens have more than
half of it, to prove that the show isn't balanced etc. It comes in handy when
a poster doesn't realize how little or how much some character(s) may get.
The problem is the lack of airtime that M/V have together - darned little. And
how is a story developed if the writing is poor and the airtime very limited?
But more importantly, why deny airtime to fans of this couple? Why not try to
appeal to a larger audience? Airtime is certainly related to quality...again,
how is a story developed if it isn't given the airtime to tell it? And
development is a major component of quality. M/V have the fans...they just
don't happen to have the support of their EP.
MsLiz
>I'd like to talk about the face lift story that MK had to act. I agree that
>this was a demeaning story . I also agree that this was targeted on MK because
>Paul Rauch wanted to make her uncomfortable. He wanted a "never been done"
>story, he got it. No other producer would ask a beautiful actress to say daily
>that beauty is everything, and to have all the other characters on the show who
>are trying to destroy Vanessa, tell her that she needed a face lift.
>
Good Grief.
I am Vanessa's age, and am married to a younger man. This story
was one I could relate to [except that Vanessa can afford a face
lift, and I can't]. It's common for women in my [our] situation
to be concerned about their aging faces. After all, men are
hard-wired to get turned on by a female's physical appearance [as
opposed to females, who are turned on by intelligence, a sense of
humor, kindness . . . money . . . power . . . tight butts . . .
the way my husband looks in his button-fly jeans . . . ].
I don't get why this is assumed to be a personal attack on Ms.
Kinkead. Vanessa's situation made the story appropriate.
What happened to this story anyhow? Did Vanessa decide not to
have cosmetic surgery, or did it get dropped [probably because
the focus groups hated it like you did!].
I don't get why Paul Rauch is singled out to blame, anyhow. Do
executive producers [or whatever he is] write the show? Does
someone know that he dislikes the Vanessa character?
Is this strident? blame it on my period.
MsLiz
P.S. This thread is really long, Nicky Weeber really got us
started here.
DASBABY932
What happened to this story anyhow? Did Vanessa decide not to
have cosmetic surgery, or did it get dropped [probably because
the focus groups hated it like you did!].
>>
What happened to this "story" was it wasn't a story about older women and
younger men and an older woman's insecurities and how she feels reassured or
not. What happened is exactly the point. What happened, is Rauch accomplished
his purpose - humiliate Kinkead to NO point. There was no story, as you
notice. He raised the issue simply to raise it, period. So that channel
surfers and others would be sure to hear the message "she's old enough to be
his mother." "She needs face work." There never was a story, there was only
the intention of raising this issue, hiding behind the pseudo-valid issue as
the pretext for raising it, but never -- as you yourself note - actually doing
the story.
Your own situation may have made a halfway decent M/V story even though the age
thing was the principle point of the beginning of the relationship - in other
words, it was already done -- and you would think on GL Rauch could think of
something else for Maeve Kinkead besides face lift and getting abused by her
character's daughter. Your own situation is fine, but that's not the story GL
told. GL told no story. Rauch only wanted face lift and "mother" in the
dialogue, to turn off as many viewers as possible.
Furthermore, since when, recently, has GL been a reality-based drama dealing
with the kind of situation you yourself describe in your own life? Clones,
growth serum, mind control, plastic surgery, episodes that are structured so
that morning, noon and night seem to occur simultaneously (I'm saying the
continuity is slapdash), high concept, glamorized, shallow plotting. But for
Maeve Kinkead , forget that. Let's get "real" with the age and face lift. For
HER, Rauch can make an exception. "Issues" (such as Reva's breast cancer) are
nixed on this show all the time. The clone looked a little weather beaten to
me but was told she was incredibly beautiful while simultaneously a somewhat
salt-cured Reva washes up on an island and is told SHE's incredibly beautiful,
and meanwhile Dinah's rationale for living is basically her looks, and Beth's
rationale for living is HER looks. Rauch is producing a cartoon where men and
women are presented histrionically, cartoonishly and stereotypically and women
are unabashedly valued for their appearance. That's his ethos. But for
Kinkead, suddenly it's valid to pull her - alone from this glamorized cartoon
concept show -- and with no other material for her - out and say gee, let's
talk age and face lift. She has no other context, no romantic story to show
the other side, no relationship scenes with her leading man, no meaty material
to show her emotion and her talent, nothing to show HER character, just her
reacting to Dinah's abuse and coming back for more. The show can't write for
her. Except - well, let's talk about her face. How's that? Let's say "old
enough to be his mother" and her face lift. If all of this were part of a
developed story, it MIGHT be different, but it was not part of a story, it was
simply singling out this actress and burning up her guarantee by humiliating
her instead of writing for her. If this "story" had any decent intention, it
would have been explored, balanced, and WRITTEN. It was not, because its only
purpose was to demean the actress and attempt to turn off fans to the couple.
DASBABY932
I don't get why Paul Rauch is singled out to blame, anyhow. Do
executive producers [or whatever he is] write the show? Does
someone know that he dislikes the Vanessa character?<<
Is this strident? blame it on my period. >>
It's not strident (IMO anyway).
Paul Rauch has creative control of the show. He, not B&E (Brown and Esensten)
calls the creative shots on the show. No, he doesn't do the breakdowns, but
the "vision" is his, the clone was his idea.
About 20 years ago Paul Rauch was executive producer of Another World and Maeve
Kinkead played Angie Perrini. Maeve Kinkead rejected Paul Rauch's romantic
attentions and Paul Rauch did not take no for an answer. No, he didn't assault
her, he simply persisted in coming onto her. It reached the point where
Kinkead sought legal recourse (i.e., contacted a lawyer) and the outcome was
P&G moved Kinkead from AW to its other show, GL. Many years later Rauch was
married, proclaimed himself a "new man" (to a skeptical Michael Logan, for one)
and he informed the press that relations were cordial and amicable between him
and Kinkead these days. The issue came up again (first in the now defunct Soap
Now reported by Michael Kape) because Rauch took over GL while Kinkead was on
her leave of absence, and there was speculation she would not return to GL now
that Rauch was EP, due to her past with him. And remember her past with him
was Rauch wanted to have an affair with her and she didn't care to have an
affair with him, and Rauch didn't want to take no for an answer. Rauch doesn't
believe women "mean" it, when they say no, or so he'd like to believe. We can
see the control, dominance, no-means-yes, women are nuts, if a guy keeps coming
around a woman will give in to her "true" feelings Rauchian "vision" and
fantasy on GL today. Women are teases, they don't mean it, they really do want
you and are in denial, hell - they don't know WHAT they want -- they're
basically oversexed, confused, needy little girls (Blake, Dinah, Beth, Annie,
Michelle, Drew ) -- and so a guy is justified in continuing to pursue her
despite her resistance, because he "knows" better than she does (that's how
Esensten put it in the Blake/Ben story - that Ben knew better than Blake did)
what she wants and who she wants to have sex with. IMO, Rauch is reformatting
GL according to how he has justified his behavior in real life for years. He's
using Gl to show he's right about how men and women behave.
Unfortunately for Rauch (well, more unfortunately for Kinkead) in real life
Kinkead DID mean it and Rauch's fantasy didn't play out. He played his part -
not taking no for an answer - but she never did give in because she honestly
had no interest in sleeping with him.
Rauch is notorious for screwing his actresses - there's no "nice" way to put
it. It was true on AW (not Kinkead though), true on OLTL. He hasn't changed.
And he's notorious for punishing his actresses, especially any who have
"dissed" him. He's the "man" don't you know.
Rauch assured Soap Now that was all water under the bridge. I believe Kinkead
felt it was as well.
Rauch had an affair with Louise Sorel (Vivian on Days) during his tenure at
OLTL when she played Judith. Sorel ended that relationship. FF when Rauch is
named producer of Santa Barbara where Sorel played Augusta (think the
equivalent of Lucinda on ATWT). It was reported that Sorel was quaking in her
boots upon learning he'd been named EP - and sure enough, almost as soon as he
arrived it was announced she was fired - they were "out of story." Robin
Strasser - who has her own personal history with Rauch - has said publicly that
he tried to make her so miserable on OLTL so that she'd quit. Rauch is passive
aggressive - outright firing someone, as with Sorel, is rare. Making someone
miserable so they quit is more his style. Strasser has reaffirmed this story
for publication within the last two months. You can also read Ellen Holly's
autobiography, in which her tenure at OLTL plays only a small part, but her
account of her experience with Paul Rauch is familiar to everyone who has ever
worked with him. You might also read transcripts of Harding LeMay's comments
about Paul Rauch - especially how he's a bully. Harding LeMay has no axe to
grind - he is in demand as a story consultant but has become disillusioned with
the corporate and committee mentality on daytime that has alienated the
audience and produced a lot of bad soap opera. He did especially mention that
he thought The City (a show he was asked to consult on) was a disaster. LeMay
has abandoned daytime, daytime would like it if he were still there, so he's
not speaking out of sour grapes.
Rauch is a well known quanity in the daytime business. Pretty much everybody
knows what he's about. He did make a strong show of saying he was changed,
kinder, gentler (I remember Logan joking about believing it when he sees it),
he wanted to build GL in the image of the classic, relationship and
romance-driven dramas a la Another World in its heydey produced by him and
written by Harding leMay. Alas, Rauch has regressed and backslid and now GL
far more resembles the campy, over-lit, cheaply, tightly costumed, over-acted
OLTL of the 80's than AW of the 70's. JMO, but when I watch GL now it's like
having a flashback, especially that shade of blonde and the solid color block
tight tight short suits.
clair...@my-dejanews.com
dasba...@aol.com (DASBABY932) wrote:
>
> <<Super-couple is a purely subjective term that is open to whoever
> wants to interpret it. >>
>
"In daytime, couples come and couples go. However, a select few stay in the
minds and hearts of viewers forever. Their loves are different. They have
reached out and touched us in some indelible manner that we didn't necessarily
realized but certainly can't forget. These are the most dymanic duos ever to
have lit up the small screen."
Matt & Vanessa were 1 of 14 couples listed in this article. Out of all the
soap couples - 14 is a very small number and being part of these "14"
certainly qualifies as super-couple status in my mind. This article
validates my belief that Matt & Vanessa have a huge fan following (that info
has also been published in national magazines), fans who think they are
"special" and special enough to tolerate the poor writing and lack of airtime
they are currently being given and continue to be part of that "large" fan
base. Numbers say it all - and Matt & Vanessa have the numbers.
asts...@prodigy.net
"Lynn M. Podgurny" <podg...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> Oh ho, I knew my super-couple comment was going to cause debate. I love
> debate - I'm rubbing my hands together gleefully, can't wait to get
> started.
Finally found out where all the creative energy is being expended in the
newsgroup (glaring at the subject line! hehe)
> You've challenged me to define what I mean by a super-couple
Enjoyed your definition and thoroughly agree with it!
> I'm fairly cynical about the way soaps are put together. If the Matt and
> Vanessa fans are as legion as you say they are, then tptb would cynically
> use them to bolster their anemic ratings.
This is so completely true. Can't begin to describe how I have suffered
through actors and storylines on GL through the years, just because of their
fan base, and it still goes on today!
> I'm not convinced that GL fans are legion period. Look at the participation
> on this newsgroup. We can be an interesting bunch but we're pathetically
> small. And among our pathetically small bunch there are very few posters
> wringing their hands.
I'm looking up at the *Subject* line and thinking.... this group would be
larger if the *Subject* line were GL <snif>. That notwithstanding, of course,
we are pathetically small <eg>.
> My first criteria for a super-couple would be that they can't be ignored.
> No matter what the producer's personal or political bias is (whatever
> that's supposed to mean), support for the couple is so overwhelming that
> they can't be ignored. Just try separating Luke and Laura at their height
> or try putting Danny permanently with someone else other than Michelle
> now. The outcry would be instantaneous. The very fact that Rauch can
> dare to ignore the Matt/Vanessa pairing tells me the support for them is
> weak. That's not to say there isn't support - just that it's not
> overwhelming. Super-couples have overwhelming support.
>
ooooohhhhh! She hits the nail on the HEAD!
> Super-couples also dominate the screen. Much as I hate to say it, Josh
> and Reva still have that capacity.
hehehe!
> Danny and Michelle definitely have it but who knows if it can be sustained.
Danny has the requisite *intensity* to burn up the screen for years to come.
Alas, Joie Lenz is far to *vacuous* an actress to accomplish the same, even
for a *brief* period of time. =)
> The entire time I've been watching GL, which admittedly is not dramatically
> long, there hasn't been a single time that Matt and Vanessa have burned up
> the screen. The closest they came was their argument in the hospital
> parking lot but that was closer to a simmer than a burn. To me they are a
> comfy, cozy couple. They are not hot. Super-couples are hot.
>
Ouch! The awful truth.
> You might say that they haven't been given anything hot to act in. That
> the fault is entirely with the writing. Maybe. I haven't been very
> satisfied with the writing for them either. The whole head in the
> snowbank thing was stupid. But they have been given plenty of scenes
> together and if that's as much sizzle as they can muster then lend me a
> pillow, yawn.
>
I have a nice fluffy one right here. M&V have ALWAYS been just that intense.
Seems the greatest heat they can generate is when one or the other, or both
are missing/presumed dead. Taken right from the first time (shipwrecked on a
desert ... ah ... shore? She was boating in a lake for heaven's sake), to
when they finally got together in Springfield (The Fire!). When Vanessa
faked her death, I thought Matt would go mad with grief (he is by far at his
most interesting here, but alas, the writers do not capitalize on it).
Mainly M&V are renowned for their ability to ... ahem ... cuddle.
> You seem to have a lot of information about fan support. So fill the rest
> of us in. How many letters do Matt and Vanessa get? I find it hard to
> believe they don't lag behind Josh/Reva and Michelle/Danny, very hard.
>
> You say potato, I say potaato. You say super-couple, I say no way.
>
> Lynn
>
>
You said it Lynn,
Teri.
asts...@prodigy.net
dasba...@aol.com (DASBABY932) wrote:
>
>
> I say if you base your assessment on information instead of assumptions you
> may find you are wrong even if they never become your personal taste. By
> every criteria that exists, they are a supercouple.
>
>
This statement seems to imply that one criteria comes from factual
information and all other criteria come from casual observation. However, it
seems clear to me that all thoughts expressed in this thread are based on
general observation, and opinion, if not outright rhetoric. To say: I know
the truth, and you don't, without being able to back up that statement with
*facts*, well ... it doesn't lend credibility.
Teri. JMHO Of course. =)
asts...@prodigy.net
lizg...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> I don't get why Paul Rauch is singled out to blame, anyhow. Do
> executive producers [or whatever he is] write the show? Does
> someone know that he dislikes the Vanessa character?
>
> Is this strident? blame it on my period.
>
>
> P.S. This thread is really long, Nicky Weeber really got us
> started here.
>
OHMYGOSH Liz, ESP to the MAX! You addressed two of the things I was thinking
just as I opened your message! ROFL:
1. WOW THIS THREAD IS REALLY LONG >>>> AND NICKY WEEBER STARTED IT> GOOD
GOIN NICKY!
and
2. Is it just the WHOLE Executive Producer thing... in that they get the
ultimately responsibility for the show, good or bad, and thus, get all the
glory or the crap heaped upon them based on what the viewers love or hate
about the show? Or are people who actually KNOW him and KNOW his
motivations, posting in this newsgroup? Or! Maybe! Are they just psychic and
know that he is the "King of all that is Evil in Springfield"... hehehe.
Maybe all this "Paul Rausch has it in for (this or that character)." is
gleaned from <shudders> the MEDIA!
My mommy always taught me to rely only on what I could determine for myself,
and not to form my opinions on what I am "told". =)
Not too strident Liz (lol). But, uh, on that final notation.... Do you think
that urban myth about women who work and or live, together eventually have
their cycles come into synch, could be appled to women who hang about together
over the Net? hehehe. =)
Thanks for the post Liz!
Teri.
bluee...@hotmail.com
2. Is it just the WHOLE Executive Producer thing... in that they get the
> ultimately responsibility for the show, good or bad, and thus, get all the
> glory or the crap heaped upon them based on what the viewers love or hate
> about the show?
Rauch has made it clear in interviews that he makes substantial input into
storylines, and that he is definitely the controlling person in the show,
having more say than the headwriters. On some shows it is the exec producer
who has the most creative power, on others its the headwriter, and in some
cases it appears to be balanced, but in GL's case it is definitely Rauch.
And if he is going to take credit for the show, then he should also be taking
credit for the show's faults.
This is not to say that he has full responsibility; the headwriters writing
for the show are doing *something* although it's hard to know what exactly
what, and it's anybody's guess as to which headwriter is writing which
stories.
P&G and CBS also put input into the show, and often suggest or require certain
stories. It's no secret, for instance, that CBS is trying to woo Hispanic
viewers, thus the Santos family. The clone story, too, was the result of CBS
input (or maybe P&G, I can't remember which at the time.) P&G has definitely
had more say in their shows over the past years, since they think it helps the
show, although declining ratings would seem to suggest something different.
Nicky Weeber
`
NICKY WEEBER. . I'`M A DEVOTED
FAN OF GUIDING LIGHT. I JUST
HEARD THAT THE ACTRESS WHO`
PLAYS ABBY ON GUIDING HAD
`SURGERY SO THAT SHE CAN HEAR. IF TRUE I HOPE THIS
WILL GIVE RICK AND ABBY A`
STORYLINE.
SINCERELY,
NICKY WEEBER
HAVE A NICE DAY.
Lynn M. Podgurny
Thanks for this post - I found it very informative (as opposed to those
posts saying find out for yourself if your so interested). I can see your
point about air time - to a certain extent. But I think I can give some
examples that refute it. Of course more air time doesn't automatically
lead to quality, I'm sure you'd agree. The clone fiasco got plenty of air
time and was a real stinker. And as I see it, the reverse is also true -
less air time doesn't automatically mean dreck. My example for this would
be Buzz and Selena. Even months ago, when they were not on as much as
they are lately, their scenes were little gems imo. I'm not comparing
Buzz/Selena with Matt/Vanessa here. I'm just saying that less doesn't
automatically have to mean lesser quality. Of course, if you want Matt
and Vanessa involved in a big, important story (as opposed to a little
Buzz/Selena type story) then yes, more air time is critical. But the way
Matt and Vanessa have been written lately (badly), I'd rather have them in
a little story with punch than with a lot of air time. Just my opinion.
Lynn
DASBABY932
This statement seems to imply that one criteria comes from factual
information and all other criteria come from casual observation. >>
It does come from facts and my own posts (and others) have outright said it is
supported by facts. What is also true is that no way are the sources of these
facts (other than generally) going to be posted on the internet, so it's your
call to believe it or not. However, MY point is that my own assertion (and
that of others who have posted -- at least in some cases) that Matt and Vanessa
have supercouple level fan support is based on fact, and I have said so.
Whether or not you can accept it on my say so is another matter. That's
entirely up to you.
<< However, it
seems clear to me that all thoughts expressed in this thread are based on
general observation>>\
It must be clear to you then, that we're all lying. That would be a wrong
assumption, but one you are entitled to make when you just have newsgroup posts
to go by. However, I, and other posters, have specifically said it is based on
more than general observation. So your response that it is nothing more than
general observation = you've decided we're all lying. Which is fine.
That's not true, but you are more than entitled to believe it, considering
the forum.
Several posts, not just my own, have made it clear that all thoughts in this
thread are NOT based on general observation, but are based on information and
fact. Several posts have also acknowledged that since sources are not going
to be provided in this discussion other than generally, it's up to the
individual to decide if those who say they have a supported opinion are lying
or not. If you believe those, like myself, who assert that their opinions
are based on fact and information are lying, then it follows that you believe
all these posts are based on nothing more than casual observation. That is
however, your choice, and doesn't change the reality that plenty of people,
including myself, do have a solid basis for our assertions about Matt and
Vanessa. So if you say no, we don't, it's only our opinion and casual
observation, you are saying you believe we are lying. And I can accept that.
It doesn't matter.
<<, and opinion, if not outright rhetoric. To say: I know the truth, and you
don't, without being able to back up that statement with
*facts*, well ... it doesn't lend credibility.>>
You know, welcome to life on an internet newsgroup. People have to evaluate
what they read on their own. I didn't say I couldn't back it up, I said I
wouldn't back it up here on a newsgroup, and nor will anyone else (I'm
guessing) with specific sources. That doesn't change the fact that it CAN be
backed up. And nobody is saying you can't make your own evaluation, and nobody
is trying to usurp that entitlement from you. However, I am equally entitled
to post what I know to be true, and to say I know it to be true. The fact that
I will not cite a specific source on the internet does not = "lie". The fact
that it is not put out here doesn't mean it doesn't exist. One doesn't follow
the other. But again, I am perfectly aware that you and anyone else are
entitled to decide that it does.
DASBABY932
through actors and storylines on GL through the years, just because of their
fan base, and it still goes on today!>>
Well sorry for your suffering but as it happens it is the show's job to support
stories and couples that have a significant and substantial fan base regardless
of your individual suffering.
<<ooooohhhhh! She hits the nail on the HEAD!>>
You must be under the erroneous impression that there is no outcry or
overwhelming reaction to the treatment of Matt and Vanessa. She has not hit
the nail on the head if she's claiming there is no such reaction to M/V.
> Super-couples also dominate the screen. Much as I hate to say it, Josh
> and Reva still have that capacity.
hehehe!>>
Wait, didn't Lynn go on to say in a subsequent post supercouple definition is
purely subjective? What are criteria doing here?
> comfy, cozy couple. They are not hot. Super-couples are hot.
>
Ouch! The awful truth.>>
No, the awful "opinion" of one fan, you. There are others who share it, but
the point here is not who's individual assessment of Matt and Vanessa's
chemistry is correct, nor is anyone here (I think) seeking to get any
individual fan who doesn't like them to like them. However, where you are
mistaken is in thinking there is not a huge number of fans who feel very
differently than you do and who support Matt and Vanessa, and who are ignored
by Paul Rauch for reasons that are personal and not professional. I don't
think anyone here is actually arguing Matt and Vanessa's appeal with those who
don't like them. Hey -- whatever floats your boat or doesn't, as far as I'm
concerned. From there, however, you apparently assume they lack "it" for the
majority and their support is weak or insufficient to justify GL writing for
them other than tiny, minimal increments. That assumption is wrong.
<<I have a nice fluffy one right here. M&V have ALWAYS been just that intense.
Seems the greatest heat they can generate is when one or the other, or both
are missing/presumed dead. Taken right from the first time (shipwrecked on a
desert ... ah ... shore? She was boating in a lake for heaven's sake), to
when they finally got together in Springfield (The Fire!). When Vanessa
faked her death, I thought Matt would go mad with grief (he is by far at his
most interesting here, but alas, the writers do not capitalize on it).
Mainly M&V are renowned for their ability to ... ahem ... cuddle.>>
Renowned to whom? Again you are ovelooking the fact that you do not equal all
"fans", and in fact, you do not even equal the general consensus. While M/V
fans certainly don't equal all GL fans and just like there are plenty of fans
who have antipathy to Jeva and Michelle/Danny there are plenty of fans who
don't care for M/V, the point in this thread is there are a huge amount of
fans who love them and find them everything you don't. You are not among them,
I understand this. However, Matt and Vanessa manage to have a huge fan base
without you.
Lynn M. Podgurny
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 bluee...@hotmail.com wrote:
> P&G and CBS also put input into the show, and often suggest or require certain
> stories. It's no secret, for instance, that CBS is trying to woo Hispanic
> viewers, thus the Santos family. The clone story, too, was the result of CBS
> input (or maybe P&G, I can't remember which at the time.) P&G has definitely
> had more say in their shows over the past years, since they think it helps the
> show, although declining ratings would seem to suggest something different.
>
Interesting. Someone else in this thread (I'm losing track of all the
posts) said the clone story was a Rauch baby.
Lynn
DASBABY932
This is so completely true. Can't begin to describe how I have suffered
through actors and storylines on GL through the years, just because of their
fan base, and it still goes on today!>>
Something I wanted to add is that let's say "Molly and Mike", in the opinion of
many observers who believe they know how to assess these things - such as you,
Lynn, me or anyone here -- are duller than watching grass dry. If "Molly and
Mike" nevertheless have a significant and substantial fan following, a show
that knows what it is doing will feature Molly and Mike. Naturally, I strongly
disagree with your feelings about Matt and Vanessa. But really, whether you
think they're great or I think they're great isn't the point. The point isn't
how appealing any one of us on this thread finds them or not. The point is,
when a couple has a substantial following on par and/or greater than any couple
a soap opera has EVER had, it "behooves" (quoting Kurt McKinney <g>) that soap
opera to write for them. NOT to say, oh, they're hugely popular but don't rock
MY world, so I'll just give them itty bitty scenes. Matt and Vanessa DO have
that kind of fan support, and therefore whether you think they're exciting or
not is academic. And whether the show likes them or not is as well - or should
be. Whether they ARE exciting or not is also irrelevent -- or it should be.
If they have enough fans, those fans are justified in demanding that the show
respond with air time. When dealing with a supposedly market-driven product
like a daytime drama, one is supposed to give the customers what they want, if
enough of them want it. And the point is, Matt and Vanessa DO have the fan
support to justify their fans taking this attitude.
DASBABY932
Interesting. Someone else in this thread (I'm losing track of all the
posts) said the clone story was a Rauch baby.
>>
I said that it was Rauch's. Michael Logan, however, believes Wendy Fishman
was clone woman. I think he's too credulous in this instance. Rauch does have
the tendency to shift blame when something doesn't work out as planned. If the
clone story had rocketed GL to third place, as Rauch calculated, he would have
been happy to claim responsibility.
Do you remember Nikki/Vicky on OLTL? Do you remember Faux Bo/Bo? This is the
80's. Rauch produced OLTL during those stories, and both stories were his
brainchild. Rauch is the one who decided he wanted to do a dual identity story
with Kim Zimmer. Rauch has said this on the record - that from the minute he
returned he wanted to do a double role story for Kim Zimmer. His first
brainstorm was the sister (Cassie). Kim Zimmer did make-up tests for that
where she wore a red wig and face tape. The sister story - the sister an eerie
if somewhat younger doppleganger for Reva -- would have played almost exactly
as the clone did in the middle portion (minus, obviously, the miracle gro).
The point was to get a loud, red-headed, bawdy Kim Zimmer up against a blonde,
family-oriented, mature, pillar of the community Kim Zimmer, and watch those
ratings skyrocket. That was the impetus behind the story. It was Rauch's
baby.
Tthe clone (and the original Cassie concept, as well as any alter character
they would have settled on ultimately) was patterned almost exactly on the
crude, bawdy, blousy, redheaded, cleavage flaunting "Niki" alter ego Erika
Slezak played during her dual role stint in the 80's.
"Niki" (Viki's split personality) posed as "Viki" until finally she was
exposed as an alternate personality. After she was exposed, "Niki" wanted to
be loved and valued for herself and so assumed a red wig and a loud, sexually
aggressive and bawdy persona whenever she took control of "Viki". And during
the "faux Bo" story, "Faux Bo" posed as real Bo, puzzling his family who was
confused at the changes in his manner (he was somewhat cruder and sleazer than
real Bo), while keeping "real Bo" captive in a dungeon. There were many split
screen scenes between Real Bo and Faux Bo as Faux Bo taunted Real Bo. The two
went nose to nose with the bars of the jail cell betwen them (rather like an
iron gate - sound familiar?)
As MADD pouted to the press - those darn GL fans "prejudged" this story before
Kim even took over the role of the clone! - and that's when the fun begins!!!
said MADD. The clone story wasn't about cloning - it was about getting a
Nikki/Vicky story on Guiding Light for Kim Zimmer. And that was Rauch's idea
from the beginning - he was happy to claim his longstanding intentions of
doing that in every interview he gave at the start of that plot. If Wendy
Fishman said "How about a clone?" or if she has decided to take the flak,
that's nice, but the concept and the dynamic and the airtime AND the
characterizations were Rauch's baby. Basically, he was ripping off his work
from 1980's OLTL.
bluee...@hotmail.com
> Interesting. Someone else in this thread (I'm losing track of all the
> posts) said the clone story was a Rauch baby.
Rauch and TPTB at GL *did* want to do a dual role for Kim Zimmer. But it was
reported in several soap mags that CBS wanted one of their soaps to do a clone
story. So in that way, I suppose both Rauch and CBS contributed to it, since
the idea of a clone basically suggests a dual role.
MBOYKIN98
abby surgerey just like real life to have her hearing restored and they will
make it just as close as the real thing to her previous surgery but that
basically the May storyline-- i heard this from some spoilers on website
Greg and Sarah Estell
DAnn25 wrote in message <19990422222502...@ng-fx1.aol.com>...
><<s for why the writers don't write for Maeve, perhaps we
>should look at the way she basically phoned in her performances when she
>came back from her last leave. I have always been a Maeve fan and a
Vanessa
>fan, but when Van came back from whatever kind of Dreaming Death she had, I
>think the disease sapped some of her acting skills.>>
>
>Sarah, I have to disagree with you. IF you remember, Maeve had weeks of
>scenes when she had no one to act with or interact with. She was given
nothing
>to do but monologues saying the same thing.
I'll grant you that when she first came back, she was in many scenes alone,
but I don't agree that because she had no one to interact with, it is an
excuse for lackluster delivery of dialog. As an example - those who watch
ATWT have seen several scenes with Larry Brygman and Colleen Zenk-Pinter
interacting with no one, but lamenting the loss of their baby. Brygman's
scene, in particular, after baby Johnny's death (as well as subsequent
scenes at the grave site) are riveting. Yes, they say the same thing over
and over when they visit the grave, but it doesn't make it any less
compelling. Another example I'll give was Michael Zaslow's performance as
Roger after Maureen's death. Roger stayed away from the funeral out of
respect for Maureen, but privately visited her grave after the ceremony. No
one to interact with, but the emotion was raw and riveting. In fact, its
the scene that won him an Emmy if I remember correctly. My point is that
the Maeve of a few years ago would not have been so blah in her
performances. I know I'm not the only one who felt that way at the time
because there was quite a bit of discussion on this newsgroup and in chat
rooms about her performance. I fear that she cooked her goose with Rauch
during that time and has not been able to redeem herself in his eyes.
Rauch claimed to want her back,
>but from the very beginning he booby trapped everything she did.
Oh my. Please explain how this makes any sense. Rauch hires Maeve back,
builds up the return of Vanessa in promos and gives it a huge amount of
airtime during that whole stupid poetry chat room fiasco - I'm sorry but
watching people "chat" on television is about as exciting as watching paint
dry - and then does everything he can to make her return a failure? To what
end? The success or failure of GL is a reflection on Rauch - not on the
actors. And let's not forget what a dismal failure GL was BEFORE Rauch came
on board. He turned the show around. Maybe not the way you or I would have
liked all the time, but you can't argue with the fact that 2 years ago,
everyone thought it would be GL that was cancelled. Instead, it was AW.
Regardless of how you feel about M/V, you have to admit that Rauch saved GL.
You may not be totally happy with his approach (and neither am I - I
absolutely hate this Annie thing), but GL was on the chopping block and now
it's not.
>After M/V were re-united they were given almost nothing to do.
That's because they are boring (in my opinion).
Every story
>they had airtime became stories for Dinah of most recently, Beth.
I truly hated the Vanessa/Dinah dysfunctional relationship, but I do think
that it is in Vanessa's scenes with Beth - the corporate sniping, the snide
remarks - that Maeve has shown the most spark. It reminded me a bit - I'm
getting ready to say how old I really am - of the Mindy/Alex sniping, the
India/Alex sniping, and even the long ago Hope/Vanessa sniping. Everyone
got so bent out of shape when Beth got Vanessa all unnerved about being
"older" but Mindy did the same thing to Alex and so did India. It's not new
on GL and it's not a plot to make Maeve look stupid.
She has been
>given brief scenes that no actor can get much out of. The ONLY time she
has
>had a 3 minute scene was with Jerry verDorn. Rauch has made sure that her
>scenes with Kurt have been brief.
Well, I'm not quite obsessed enough about GL to time scenes, so I'll take
your word for it. But I will surmise that if her only 3 minute scene was
with verDorn, it had everything to do with the quality of verDorn's
performance and very little to do with Maeve. verDorn is a gem.
Sarah
Lynn M. Podgurny
On 23 Apr 1999, DASBABY932 wrote:
> << However, it
> seems clear to me that all thoughts expressed in this thread are based on
> general observation>>\
>
> It must be clear to you then, that we're all lying. That would be a wrong
> assumption, but one you are entitled to make when you just have newsgroup posts
> to go by. However, I, and other posters, have specifically said it is based on
> more than general observation. So your response that it is nothing more than
> general observation = you've decided we're all lying. Which is fine.
> That's not true, but you are more than entitled to believe it, considering
> the forum.
>
I'm enjoying this thread and we wouldn't have much of a thread without you
DASBABY932. Lying means someone is deliberately trying to deceive and
nobody has been accused of that on this group. Even if Teri and I and
some of the other posters were privy to exactly the same information
word by word, source by source, that you have doesn't mean we'd come to
the same conclusions. Just because we're being sceptics doesn't mean
we're calling you a liar.
Lynn
DASBABY932
I'll grant you that when she first came back, she was in many scenes alone,
but I don't agree that because she had no one to interact with, it is an
excuse for lackluster delivery of dialog.>>
Estelle, if you don't mind, can you give an example of a scene that was written
well and had the potential of the John/Barbara scenes but Maeve "phoned it in"?
You make a comparison that doesn't scan, IMO, because Maeve hasn't HAD
material. Even giving birth to Mo she was in a coma most of the time, and then
off to the side with dead Saint Mo watching Dinah and Matt, etc. She hasn't
had the material. Please, tell me a scene that would have been good except it
fell flat because Maeve phoned it in.
DASBABY932
I'm enjoying this thread and we wouldn't have much of a thread without you
DASBABY932. Lying means someone is deliberately trying to deceive and
nobody has been accused of that on this group. Even if Teri and I and
some of the other posters were privy to exactly the same information
word by word, source by source, that you have doesn't mean we'd come to
the same conclusions. Just because we're being sceptics doesn't mean
we're calling you a liar.
>>
Well, before I answer, I wonder if I could persuade you to read my response to
the end before cutting and pasting (if you do) because you may go, well BUT!!!
at any given point, when by reading to the end you may see I anticipate that
BUT. So here goes:
I hope I made it clear that it's okay with me if you did call me a liar or
think me one. There is NO grounds to take offense on my part - you don't know
me (nor does Sarah or others here). As you've just said that's not what you
are doing, that's also okay, and I'll take that on face value. But as to your
point:
Tthe information is pretty much the conclusion Lynn (I'm not saying this to
persuade you, just to make my own perspective clear). IOW, if you were told
source by source or word for word that someone's dress was white, or the new
employee was male and not female, I don't know if it's a matter of coming to
different conclusions when the info is as concrete as that. (Yes, I know
that's the lamest analogy in the world, but I think at least the point I'm
trying to make is clear enough). You know, hmm, people are saying Frank is a
man, but I'm not convinced. Hmm, people are saying that's a white dress but it
looks flower-patterned on a fuschia background to me - what do you think Sarah?
Well, Lynn, I don't see the fuschia, but the dress looks actually a little
ecru with some eggshell trim.
I do think if the dress was absolutely white, you, me and anyone else would
come to the same conclusion that it was white. And same for coming to the same
conclusion that Frank was a guy.Especially if Frank's "guyness" was evident
over a long, long period of time and you saw him in the men's room, for
example, or doctor's office, and many other people did as well. I'm going to
get off this analogy now. <g> .
And when someone says information is definitely not from "casual observation"
"interpretation" or "general information" and others then say it's clear all
the comments are from casual information, interpretation or general
information, well, then I'm either being told I'm a liar or an idiot who
doesn't understand what I know or how to make a distinction. Or I'm being told
I COULD be those things for all anyone knows (hyperbole being used here for
sake of point) And btw, either is okay with me, not because I'm an
understanding person, but because this is an internet newsgroup for God's sake!
I could be a trained puppy in a laboratory for all you know.
I do understand your point about coming to different conclusions, but in this
case, it doesn't apply (again, defining my perspective, not trying to convince
you sans full and complete disclosure <g>)
HOWEVER, of course you are skeptical and that simply speaks to your common
sense and intelligence because this is an internet newsgroup. I participate on
another, non-soap newsgroup and in one case this guy (if he WAS a guy - and how
do we know? <g>) kept saying something was going on and people were skeptical,
and then he was validated (somewhat) when his assertions became public, and he
had a big fat "I told you so" fit. Apparently his personal validation as a
credible "poster" was more important to him than the topic itself. I do want
to say that's not the case with me. This guy seemed to believe that the
confirmation of his assertions meant he should have been believed all along and
he also seemed to believe that this meant any assertions he made in the future
should be believed. I posted that both expectations were completely
unreasonable. The expectation that he'd be given credibility based on a
newsgroup post isn't all that rational. . . blah blah blah I'm sure you can
fill in the rest. It's not like HAH! I was right! So now I have proved I am
newsgroup GOD!!!! You foolish, ignorant dumb ones who didn't believe!
To that, one wants to say "Excuse me, you idiot. I must have lost my remote
control internet bullshit detector, the one that lets me read the minds,
personalities and histories of anonymous posters. Forgive me, great one."
He can only speak from HIS standpoint and respond, comment and refute other
posts from HIS POV (and yes, that can include, IMO, posting that what others
are concluding is erroneous if he (or I <g>) is sure of their ground), BUT
what he should not and would be foolish to expect is that he can control
anyone's response or compel anyone to find him credible. On what basis would
anyone have the right to that expectation on an internet newsgroup? I do not
have that expectation at all here. Believe me, I respect the responses that
say "Well, there's no back-up, so it doesn't lend itself to credibility, etc.
etc." Of course. I get that. I accept that. I EXPECT that, as would anyone
with a grain of sanity, IMO. People still have to evaluate it on their own,
and that includes being unable to MAKE an evalutaion. There are no
credibility entitlements on an internet newsgroup.
So saying that, I'm emphasizing that my aim here is not to persuade, but to
simply to post what has credibility with ME, what satisfies me, because I am
the only one (on the newsgroup) who knows whether or not I'm credible or my
opinion has foundation. I am going to argue from what I do know, and that
includes saying I have solid reasons for knowing and believing it, but without
any expectation that I'm pre-empting someone else's right to take it as they
see fit.
MsLiz
>I don't get why Paul Rauch is singled out to blame, anyhow. Do
>executive producers [or whatever he is] write the show? Does
>someone know that he dislikes the Vanessa character?<<
dasba...@aol.com (DASBABY932) wrote:
Wow
I had no idea. Now maybe I know why my favorite show just
doesn't thrill me much anymore. Gee, it hurts to say that about
GL.
Thanks
Maeve should go recurring under these circumstances. I gather
she can financially swing it, and working for an SOB under
contract would really stink.
But I'd rather Paul Raunch (misspelling intended) go away.
MsLiz
Greg and Sarah Estell
DASBABY932 wrote in message
<19990424144734...@ng-cm1.aol.com>...
OK. Now that you mention it, I think many of the scenes with Ellen Parker's
Maureen had the potential to be good, but they weren't. I remember Maeve
just standing there talking in monotone. Someone in an earlier post had
said that Maeve was given no one good to interact with, but I think any
scene with Ellen Parker DID give her someone positive to interact with. I'm
going to get blasted for this, but the only real emotional moment that I can
remember in the entire Vanessa back from the convent story, was when Dinah
walked in to M/V's house and saw her mother for the first time. Wendy's
face and body conveyed her emotion - she didn't have to say a word.
Sarah
asts...@prodigy.net
dasba...@aol.com (DASBABY932) wrote:
This is "Teri", calmly inquiring....:
>
> This statement seems to imply that one criteria comes from factual
> information and all other criteria come from casual observation. >>
>
This is "You" telling me the above statement means I accuse you of "lying":
> > It does come from facts and my own posts (and others) have outright said it
> > is supported by facts. What is also true is that no way are the sources of
> > these facts (other than generally) going to be posted on the internet, so
> > it's your call to believe it or not.
And this is me... just a teensy bit cranked off that you are laying words in
my mouth:
And I ^choose^ not to believe, or take anything as *FACT* just because it's
presented that way, anyone who does, releases their right to free thought, as
well as any use for their own intellect. I will continue to express my own
*opinions* despite being pursued because of them. I am also not in the least
bit interested in hearing a *substantiation* of *facts*, frankly at this point
I am just so throughly not interested, you couldn't measure with an eyedropper
my disinterest.
And this is me, summarizing my generalized argument (but with the good parts
snipped out):
> However, it seems clear to me that all thoughts expressed in this thread are
> based on general observation
>
And this is "You", calling yourself a liar:
> > It must be clear to you then, that we're all lying.
Your penchant for putting words in other peoples mouths is objectionable.
And this is "You", tell me I'm "wrong" again:
> > That would be a wrong assumption, but one you are entitled to make...
And this is "Me" signing off this pointless discussion:
1. "I" didn't make such an assumption. I would ^never^ assume someone was a
"liar", as it is ^rude^ and presumptive to do so.
2. If I'm "entitled" to make an assumption, or form my own beliefs by seeking
out, and collecting information, why do you continually repost in this same
thread desperately trying to refute any opinion which is not in wholehearted
agreement to yours? Frankly, I'm starting to *assume* you are taking a
position just to continue an already tediously long thread which I have no
intention of perpetuating.
Teri.
Coleen L. Flanagan
Greg and Sarah Estell <est...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
>
>LHAZ 61746 wrote in message <19990420130706...@ng06.aol.com>...
>>>>First I want to say that I like Matt and Vanessa separately and am wishy
>>washy about them together. <<
>>
>>I never liked them together. I was hoping Matt and Beth would get together.
>> I know I'm probably the only one who feels that way but they had more
>>chemistry than Matt and Vanessa. IMO
>>Lynne H
>You're not the only one.
>Sarah
********************************************************
Right now anyone would have more chemistry with Matt than
Vanessa. I just don't understand why Kurt McKinney has to
suffer every time Kincaid decides she needs another hiatus
from the show. I agree that she's phoning in most of her
scenes. If she wants to go - let her. Give Matt a new love
interest. I think Anna Stuart who plays Donna on AW right
now would be a wonderful recast for Vanessa. She's just
about Kincaid's age if not a little younger, looks gorgeous,
and would give the Matt and Vanessa's story a real jumpstart.
With AW being cancelled (damn NBC) I think GL should seriously
think about hiring Ms. Stuart!! Kurt deserves more consideration.
Coleen
Scooby002
>Vanessa. I just don't understand why Kurt McKinney has to
>suffer every time Kincaid decides she needs another hiatus
>from the show. I agree that she's phoning in most of her
>scenes. If she wants to go - let her. Give Matt a new love
>interest. I think Anna Stuart who plays Donna on AW right
>now would be a wonderful recast for Vanessa. She's just
>about Kincaid's age if not a little younger, looks gorgeous,
>and would give the Matt and Vanessa's story a real jumpstart.
>With AW being cancelled (damn NBC) I think GL should seriously
>think about hiring Ms. Stuart!! Kurt deserves more consideration.
>
>Coleen
I agree Coleen, I think Matt deserves a story, I would love to see how he looks
with Cassie. I was never a Matt and Vanessa fan, I just wish TPTB would give
Matt his own story WITHOUT Vanessa.
scooby
MsLiz
>Right now anyone would have more chemistry with Matt than
>Vanessa. I just don't understand why Kurt McKinney has to
>suffer every time Kincaid decides she needs another hiatus
>from the show. I agree that she's phoning in most of her
>scenes. If she wants to go - let her. Give Matt a new love
>interest. I think Anna Stuart who plays Donna on AW right
>now would be a wonderful recast for Vanessa. She's just
>about Kincaid's age if not a little younger, looks gorgeous,
>and would give the Matt and Vanessa's story a real jumpstart.
>With AW being cancelled (damn NBC) I think GL should seriously
>think about hiring Ms. Stuart!! Kurt deserves more consideration.
>
Anna Stuart played Vanessa in the early 1980's. Maeve Kinkead
took a year or so off (I think she was having babies), and Anna
Stuart really got on my nerves. My memory was that she cried a
lot. Eventually, Vanessa was written out.
I still remember the ads announcing "Vanessa's back!" when Maeve
returned.
Still, I agree that she's not doing her best work right now.
Other posters have enlightened me that behind the scenes politics
has been very unpleasant for Ms. Kinkead.
IMO, MK is a thoroughly professional actress. I'll give her the
benefit of the doubt.
Did you know Meryl Streep is her sister-in-law?
MsLiz
OLYBUGG
>are
>terrible together
>I liked both these characters, just not together.
> I wish Billy would come back
>and be with Vanessa and then Matt could find someone else, maybe someone like
>Cassie.
i think they should put matt with someone younger with more energy.he is a
young guy he needs to be with someone young.someone wild but not crazy.maybe
someone new.
DASBABY932
This is "Teri", calmly inquiring....:
>
> This statement seems to imply that one criteria comes from factual
> information and all other criteria come from casual observation. >>
>
This is "You" telling me the above statement means I accuse you of "lying":>>
Because that's what the above statement means. Where things may be getting
bent out of shape is that maybe you think I said "IOW, you're saying I'm lying"
as an accusation, as a challenge, as some kind of rebuke to your opinion, or as
some kind of support to mine, or that I'm "pursuing" (your word) you til you
believe me. If that's so, you ARE jumping to conclusions, and I'm probably
not being clear, and too many assumptions are being made, therefore, on your
part. All I'm doing is taking what you said, and saying what it means. I am
not attaching anything negative to the meaning. What right would I - an
anonymous poster you don't know - have to take offense at being called a liar
or not being believed? And my noting that was not a jumping off point for me
to argue with you personally, because I'm about as interested in that as you
are. I noted it to be clear.
However, what I'm getting from this post of yours is you think I'm implying
that a) there's something wrong or off base about you saying I'm a liar
because; b) I believe - and will pursue you until you agree - that you should
believe on face value everything I say. You decline to do so, you say! Well
gee, say I. No shit!
Congratulations on your free thought and independence and all, , but I had no
such expectation.
The remark that I have put words in your mouth is somewhat confusing because
the reason you "are" saying I am lying is because I said flat out that what
I've said in my posts is NOT from general observation and casual observation.
I know what the terms mean, and I said my posts were supported by fact and
information, not general info. (I'm repeating what I said here, not trying to
"convince" you. Contrary to your assumption, nothing I have said has been an
attempt to convince you, or deal with you personally at all) I am simply
speaking for myself, and, speaking for myself, saying what is behind my
opinion. You (I guess you, I can't remember the author of the comment) say,
AFTER I said, nope, not casual observation: "It is clear to me all statements
on this topic come from casual observation."
Well, IOW, I'm lying. When a poster says, " I didn't get this info *here*",
and the reply is, it's clear everything came from "here" - that's saying the
poster is lying. (Wait a sec, if you would, before replying, til I answer the
below - it may clarify)
> > It does come from facts and my own posts (and others) have outright said it
> > is supported by facts. What is also true is that no way are the sources of
> > these facts (other than generally) going to be posted on the internet, so
> > it's your call to believe it or not.
And this is me... just a teensy bit cranked off that you are laying words in
my mouth:>>
No I'm not. And, btw, what is so bad about calling an anoymous poster with
unsupported opinion a liar? I did not take offense, but I did read what you
said correctly. Whether you intended it to mean that, I don't know, but it
certainly wouldn't need defending.
<<And I ^choose^ not to believe, or take anything as *FACT* just because it's
presented that way, anyone who does, >>
It has nothing to do with what you believe. When I say you called me a liar
I'm not saying "And you should believe me - just cause I said so!" You bad
person -- calling me a liar! These are separate things. It's not about you,
convincing you or anybody else. I'm discussing the topic and going at it from
my point of view, and framing my point of view to make myself clear to other
posters, not to make myself credible to other posters, because nobody can
really do that on an anonymous newsgroup. But sorry, if you say "I like
potatoes, not tomatoes" and I reply post saying "It's clear there are only
tomato lovers on this board" - I'm calling you a liar. And what OF it? I
pretty much get to think anything I like, draw my own conclusions, don't I,
since I don't know you. And you get to think and say anything YOU like since
you don't know me. And there's nothing wrong, or prejudicial, or critical
about my commenting on what you've concluded -- or at least what you posted --
which is that I've lied. Just as there's nothing wrong with your having said so
in the first place.
Nothing I posted was to make you believe anything. I posted to express MY
opinion and answer other comments. Everyone else is free to do the same and I
never suggested otherwise. Continuing on here:
<<releases their right to free thought, as
well as any use for their own intellect. I will continue to express my own
*opinions* despite being pursued because of them. >>
Who the hell is pursuing you? Are you having a personal conversation, or
posting on a public newsgroup? Furthermore, who told you - because I didn't -
that you couldn't have free thought, that you had to believe me, that you
couldn't form a conclusion, or anything idiotic and unreasonable like that? I
simply commented on the conclusion you DID post, which was that it was clear to
you all comments on this topic came from casual observation. I said, okay,
you're calling me a liar. That's not an accusation, that's not something I'm
trying to use as a supporting argument for MY opinion, it's acknowledging the
reaction. PERIOD.
<<I am also not in the least
bit interested in hearing a *substantiation* of *facts*, frankly at this point
I am just so throughly not interested, you couldn't measure with an eyedropper
my disinterest.>>
Oh gee, and it's not about you. It's about me explaining MY opinion (all of
which is not directed at you personally Teri, even when it's your post to which
I respond), not trying to convince YOU, which is where the lack of
communication appears to be occuring. I don't care if you're interested or if
you believe me because I am posting my opinions and viewpoint on this topic,
via this thread, not engaging in a personal discussion with YOU, save to the
extent you post things upon which I comment. That shouldn't be a problem, I
don't think, unless this is a cheerleading newsgroup and nobody told me, or
unless I've wandered into a private discussion board where people would prefer
not to be disturbed.
When it comes to the lying thing - which IS, btw, not a PROBLEM for me - -
what, I think someone should be taken on their word on a newsgroup? Anyone who
posts and doesn't expect everyone else to evaluate it for themselves and form
their own conclusions is deluded. Anyone who posts and thinks they can control
the response of someone else based on their say so is nuts. Although I don't
expect you to take my word for it, I'm neither of those things.
I simply took your comment at face value. What you said, after I and others
said our M/V comments were not from casual observation, is that it is clear to
you that everything posted is from casual observation. Since I - and other
posters - have said it's not from casual observation - you're saying it's clear
to you this is a lie. You didn't say - who the heck knows WHAT is true? You
didn't say, well, excuse me if I reserve judgment since there's no support for
your assertions beyond your say so.
You read and formed a conclusion - or at least said you did. You conclusion
was that the posts were based on casual observation, when the posts said, no,
they're not.
The alternative to saying "it's clear everything is from casual observation"
isn't "I believe every word you say - thank you for enlightening me on this
topic in which I have no interest." But thanks for explaining to me that you
decline to do so. I'm crushed here, I had such hopes.
<<Your penchant for putting words in other peoples mouths is objectionable.>>
I didn't put words in your mouth. I said "A, not B". You said "Well, it's
clear to me it's all "B".
And therefore, I reasonably said, "Okay then, since I've said my opinion has A
behind it, not B, and you reply it's clearly B, you're calling me a liar."
That's NOT what that means? How so? And how is my asking that question, or
noting that you've called me a liar - how is that interpreted by you as meaning
I think you should believe me, take my word, blah blah blah?
<And this is "You", tell me I'm "wrong" again:
What is the PROBLEM? You concluded something, or so you said, i.e. "It's all
casual observation." I said, wrong (I do get to speak for myself, don't I?),
but acknowledged - as if it needed acknowledging - that I understand perfectly
well you are entitled to think otherwise.
<<And this is "Me" signing off this pointless discussion:>.
All the more so when the discussion is taking place with you taking both sides
of it and filling in my part of it with asssumptions. Heck, with you
apparently wrongly assuming my interest here is you and what you think, and not
the topic.
<<1. "I" didn't make such an assumption. I would ^never^ assume someone was a
"liar", as it is ^rude^ and presumptive to do so.>>
Why? In person fine, on a newsgroup - whatever. But give me a break, that's
exactly what the comment said, if not what you intended, and I was perfectly
correct in saying that is what it meant.
<<2. If I'm "entitled" to make an assumption, or form my own beliefs by
seeking
out, and collecting information, why do you continually repost in this same
thread desperately trying to refute any opinion which is not in wholehearted
agreement to yours? >>
Well, here you are certainly exercising your right to make assumptions - this
#2 is a wonderful example of them. Who's pursuing YOU? A good part of this
thread I've back and forthed with Lynn, a bit with Dann - unless you're all
one and the same person - if so, I'm unaware of it. Then there's "desperately
trying to refute an opinion which is not wholeheartedly in agreement with
yours." No, I'm engaging in a thread discussion which interests me, about
which I feel strongly, and I'm expressing MY opinion. You seem to feel my
strength of feeling is about YOU and your opinions and my trying to convince
others and change minds and all - it's personal with you, IOW. My strength of
feeling is about the TOPIC. Therefore, I am going to engage in discussion and
arguments on the points about which I feel strongly, points you make, points
Lynn makes, whatever. The purpose of this discussion on my part, btw, is NOT
to convince YOU of anything, but to express myself on the topic and make myself
clear. You are the one making a big wanking personal thing out of it and
assuming I'm doing the same to you. If so, you are mistaken.
<< Frankly, I'm starting to *assume* you are taking a position just to continue
an already tediously long thread which I have no
intention of perpetuating.>>
Well see, tedious to you, because perhaps the topic of Matt and Vanessa and
Guiding Light doesn't interest you as it does me. To each his or her own.
But how interesting that you've "assumed" it's all about you and convincing
you.
clair...@my-dejanews.com
incredible chemistry and a power of communication far above others in
daytime. My view, whoever paired them at GL knew what they were doing. The
only problem now, backburner is no place for Maeve Kinkead or Kurt McKinney.
Front and center, together, is where Matt & Vanessa belong so new fans can
enjoy this special couple, and see why they have become fan favorites.
In article <19990428032817...@ng-cl1.aol.com>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
clair...@my-dejanews.com
other soap term to define a couple that should be together). Matt & Vanessa
are all of these and more, IMO.
waffl...@my-dejanews.com
bluee...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> 2. Is it just the WHOLE Executive Producer thing... in that they get the
> > ultimately responsibility for the show, good or bad, and thus, get all the
> > glory or the crap heaped upon them based on what the viewers love or hate
> > about the show?
>
> Rauch has made it clear in interviews that he makes substantial input into
> storylines, and that he is definitely the controlling person in the show,
> having more say than the headwriters. On some shows it is the exec producer
> who has the most creative power, on others its the headwriter, and in some
> cases it appears to be balanced, but in GL's case it is definitely Rauch.
> And if he is going to take credit for the show, then he should also be taking
> credit for the show's faults.
>
Very very well said! I totally agree. This can apply to other shows
besides GL, by the way... I think that a lot of people who write for
television like to grab the glory but not the responsibility for the
problems.
- Sarah S
*******************************
Do you like scrapbooking or sticker trading? If so
you're welcome to join our mailing list. We're friendly
people who like to trade stickers through the mail. To sign
up, go to this address:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/stickermoo
waffl...@my-dejanews.com
Kay Freeman <kj-fr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Lynn M. Podgurny wrote:
> > If the Matt and
> > Vanessa fans are as legion as you say they are, then tptb would cynically
> > use them to bolster their anemic ratings.
>
> You'd think TPTB would be that smart, wouldn't you? But if soap EPs
> were truly giving fans what they want, the ratings across the board
> wouldn't be plummeting from year to year.
>
> > Look at the participation on this newsgroup. We can
> > be an interesting bunch but we're pathetically small. And among our
> > pathetically small bunch there are very few posters ringing their hands
> > over Matt and Vanessa. This thread is you and me and a few lurkers going,
> > yah, whatever. At the very same time as you and I are debating their
> > super status, two other posters are saying how they liked Matt better with
> > Beth.
>
> A Usenet ng is hardly a statistically valid sample.
>
That's right, you have to put things in perspective... tons of people who
watch the show are not even ON the internet, and a good deal of those who are
don't post to usenet. It takes a special type of person to post here (one
who's immune to flaming and other harsh comments, ;) and you don't find
those people all over the place.
DASBABY932
<< Very very well said! I totally agree. This can apply to other shows
besides GL, by the way... I think that a lot of people who write for
television like to grab the glory but not the responsibility for the
problems.>>
Sometimes the press is complicit in this too and I don't get it - why some
producers/writers get roasted and others get excused constantly - or get the
credit when it's good and get to blame others when it's not. The exec
producer of DAYS wrote to SPW complaining about this at one time. I think SPW
made reference to "James Reilly's DAYS". The producer pointed out that unless
Reilly invited fans over to his house to read the scripts, a lot more went into
DAYS than James Reilly. The producer further said that if it's SPW's position
that the writer IS the show, then why does it credit only Jill Faren Phelps'
for what works at Guiding Light? (Phelps is a producer). In his letter to
SPW, DAYS producer made points about the seemingly arbitrary basis upon which
the press doles out the blame and the credit that I'd wondered about too.
My impression with Phelps is that when something she does on one of her shows
is received favorably, the press credits her, not her writers. When her show
starts to hit the skids, the press blames the writers. I remember the press
saying, re GL - oh it's not Phelps' fault, it's Doug Anderson's - he's
inexperienced. This was when Anderson had taken over from Stephen Demerest and
someone else. Well, it was during Anderson's brief writing tenure at GL that
PHelps had the MOST creative imput into the show, and the press knew this.
When Phelps moved to ABC and OLTL, the network canned Pam Long after awhile,
when IMO, Long (who's not one of my favorite writers) has a better track record
than Phelps, and everything "wrong" w/OLTL had Phelps' - not Long's -
fingerprints all over it. (Saying this based on having seen Phelps' work on
SB, AW, GL and now OLTL. It's so, so familiar)
Ditto for Rauch. When something succeeds, the press plays up the "God" Rauch
deal. He's powerful, he's intimidating, he's a producer's producer, he's
strong willed, and he's whipping that show into shape and it's all thanks to
him. Paul Rauch's Guiding Light. When things start to go haywire then it's
Wendy Fishman, it's CBS, it's B&E, it's what have you. But it's not Rauch.
And then there's Megan McTavish, who enjoys none of the teflon with which the
press coats Phelps and Rauch. When her shows and stories stink, it's her
fault, not her producer's. I'm not sure if, when and if anything of hers
works, SHE gets the credit, but I do believe on GL she didn't get the most
credit on earth for the successful Brent/Marian story arc. If it had tanked,
she'd have been blamed. I think she stinks as a writer, btw, but it's
interesting to me that the press has no problem blaming her when her shows are
bad and awarding credit elsewhere when they hit on something successful, and
working the opposite way w/Phelps and Rauch despite their repeated patterns of
destruction on show after show no matter who's writing it. Maybe Phelps and
Rauch throw their weight around more freely with the press than does McTavish,
and intimidates the daytime press more, so they suck up more.
Fitzhig
they are given the opportunity to be in a scene together, and I think it's
terrible that they are almost never together! And it's so cool that Van is a
bit older than Matt! We are always seeing older man/younger woman pairs, and I
for one think older woman/younger man is just as intriguing! Besides, MK isn't
that much older than KM anyway.
Fitzhig
Vanessa. I just don't understand why Kurt McKinney has to
suffer every time Kincaid decides she needs another hiatus
from the show. I agree that she's phoning in most of her
scenes. >>
Interesting that you think MK is "phoning in her scenes" - after all the
overacting on the show I find it such a great relief to see an Emmy-winning
actress play her scenes in an understated way. I thought it was very romantic
that Matt didn't fall for anyone else when MK left before - he didn't believe
she was dead. They are a great couple!!
Nicky Weeber
WATCHED GUIDING LIGHT TODAY. THIS EPISODE TO ME WOULD BE WORTH
EMMY NOMINATIONS IN
ACTING, DRAMA AND DIRECTING. .
PERHAPS RICK WILL GET A STORYLINE IN MAY.
SINCERELY,
NICKY WEEBER
HAVE A NICE DAY.
LHAZ 61746
Matt his own story WITHOUT Vanessa.
<<
Matt just needs to be on the show ALOT more ! He is too easy on the eyes not be
seen more often. I watch every day just to see if I can get one good look at
Matt. What a handsome fellow!!
Lynne H
LHAZ 61746
together, some don't. I used to but then the writers messed up Vanessa's
character and now I'd prefer him with someone else. I always liked Vanessa and
Billy too. Now, they were a Hot couple!!!
Lynne H
DAnn25
do. MK is not phoning her work in---she has nothing to do.
Matt is great with Maeve, but not with anyone else.
Scooby002
>
I disagree, I was never a Matt and Vanessa fan, I think they are great as
individuals, but not as a couple. I'd love to see Matt with Cassie or someone
else. jmo
scooby
DDM
proper period of mourning of course.
That way Buzz could start working his way through Sarah Shayne's girls the
same way Reva went through the
Lewises. Perhaps they could also bring Roxie back to be the wife after
Cassie. Sounds almost doable.
Dee
Scooby002 wrote in message <19990506114645...@ng-ce1.aol.com>...
Lynn M. Podgurny
On 6 May 1999, DAnn25 wrote:
> Matt and Vanessa are a wonderful couple. But, they are not getting anything to
> do. MK is not phoning her work in---she has nothing to do.
>
> Matt is great with Maeve, but not with anyone else.
>
At the risk of starting another Matt and Vanessa flame war, how would we
know he isn't great with anyone else unless he's put with someone else?
And I don't mean only in a romantic sense. Recently the only characters
he's had much interaction with are Beth and Dinah (and that's not very
recently). Though you'd hardly know it, tptb have put Matt and Vanessa
back together again - fine. Why they would bother at this point I can't
even figure out. And don't tell me it's to appease all the Matt and
Vanessa fans because they can be anything but appeased. Putting them back
together again and then having them virtually disappear is the worst of
all possible scenarios. At least they could give Matt his own story (he's
not working limited hours) and make it one that doesn't revolve around a
woman. Maybe a business story or a mystery. Then we'll see how good he
is with other characters.
Lynn
Connie McCubbins
and Matt with somebody younger...
Connie
Scooby002 wrote in message <19990506114645...@ng-ce1.aol.com>...
>>Matt is great with Maeve, but not with anyone else.
>>
>