ATWT: (SPOILER) Kill him, kill him, kill him!!! Awww... darn!
Cory
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
.
.
.
I had left the TV on as I went about my business around the house, and
forgotten all about what channel I left it on. So just now, as I'm going
between two rooms, I see some guy trying to strangle Jake. The thought
that immediately came to mind and that I said out loud to no one in
particular was, "Kill Jake!!! Go ahead!!! It won't matter!!!".
Too bad the people on TV can't hear us through the circuitry. :-P
--- Cory
--
Reinstate Pete Rose!
http://www.sportcut.com/PeteRose/default.asp
*REMOVE* the 'purrs' to reply...
Shar & Del
"Cory" <onyx3...@xoommail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.12b1d51e8...@news.mindspring.com...
EDimoff
>S
>
>P
>
>O
>
>I
>
>L
>
>E
>
>R
>
>
>S
>
>P
>
>A
>
>C
>
>E
>
>.
>.
>.
>
>I had left the TV on as I went about my business around the house, and
>forgotten all about what channel I left it on. So just now, as I'm going
>between two rooms, I see some guy trying to strangle Jake. The thought
>that immediately came to mind and that I said out loud to no one in
>particular was, "Kill Jake!!! Go ahead!!! It won't matter!!!".
Well, now that his wonderful style of approach to interviewing has killed the
witness who could corroborate Margo's story of having been drugged, I feel the
same way. And how does he get from what the hitman said that his wife might be
alive? The guy said " Now you'll never know "(what happened to her) . ANd he
takes it that she could be alive from this?
Also---- how could the hitman have sold Alec the drug "just before" he was
killed when the hitman wasn't taking his eyes off Vicky? AARGH. Get him OFF the
show! Without his histrionics, after they got the information about the drug,
the hitman could be safely in police custody.......
Maybe he could set off on a worldwide quest to find VIcky? For the next 10
years?
Eleanor
David Ballarotto
"...
> I agree with you 100%
I don't! Some people who will remain nameless have had it in for the
"Another World" characters since they came on. Right now, Jake is the only
one on, and he has hardly taken over the show.
His storyline is actually one of the more interesting ones right now, in my
opinion.
Would it be great if Don Hastings and Kathryn Hays and Eileen Fulton and
Larry Bryggman were getting as much air time? Of course, but unless we
revolt, it's not going to happen.
Look at it this way, at least when Jake is on, your other crowd favorite
isn't because their characters have had little interaction (or
inter-anything for that matter.)
Cory
says...
>
> "...
> > I agree with you 100%
>
>
> I don't! Some people who will remain nameless have had it in for the
> "Another World" characters since they came on.
Like me. :-P
> Right now, Jake is the only one on, and he has hardly taken over the show.
Haven't really complained in recent months that he HAS done that. I just
detest him being on MY show in the first place (as someone else who shall
remain nameless eloquently stated WAY before I did, but ICAM with that
person.).
> His storyline is actually one of the more interesting ones right now, in my
> opinion.
> Would it be great if Don Hastings and Kathryn Hays and Eileen Fulton and
> Larry Bryggman were getting as much air time? Of course, but unless we
> revolt, it's not going to happen.
So why don't you guys?? I read a lot of complaints here every day about
the shape the show is in. I stopped watching a long time ago. If you
don't like the way things are going on the show, then why watch it???
The only way things are gonna change for the better is if the ratings
plummet. Sweeps is a GREAT example of the power of ratings. TIIC trot
out the beloved cast members and shove the hated ones into broom closets
for sweeps, to pacify the fans and say "but we DID bring out the vets"
and the ratings skyrocket, thus justifying the existence of ATWT to those
with the purse strings.
> Look at it this way, at least when Jake is on, your other crowd favorite
> isn't because their characters have had little interaction (or
> inter-anything for that matter.)
I don't like either one of them, and am REALLY apethetic to who should be
the first to leave. It really doesn't matter to me, because either one
of them leaving would be a HUGE improvement for the show.
Cory
edi...@aol.comnospam says...
<referring to Jake...>
> Without his histrionics, after they got the information about the drug,
> the hitman could be safely in police custody.......
That's one of the things I can't stand the most about TE. The melodrama,
but then again, to be fair, LKS is no better.
> Maybe he could set off on a worldwide quest to find VIcky? For the next 10
> years?
PLEASE...
> Eleanor
Shar & Del
not. He is loud, obnoxious, jumpy and nerve racking. Please get rid of him
ATWT, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE.
Shar
"David Ballarotto" <ba...@stargate.net> wrote in message
news:rQZ14.600$M34.3...@news.sgi.net...
>
> "...
> > I agree with you 100%
>
>
> I don't! Some people who will remain nameless have had it in for the
> "Another World" characters since they came on. Right now, Jake is the
only
> one on, and he has hardly taken over the show.
> His storyline is actually one of the more interesting ones right now, in
my
> opinion.
> Would it be great if Don Hastings and Kathryn Hays and Eileen Fulton
and
> Larry Bryggman were getting as much air time? Of course, but unless we
> revolt, it's not going to happen.
Cruisin' Babs
club the other day. John dancing was hilarious!! I thought it was great! I
only wish they would do more with the veterans and make real story lines out
of their characters. Maybe this Christmas we will get a great holiday show
with all our favorites.
--
~Laurie
Insanity is hereditary. You get it from your kids.
*Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home.*
David Ballarotto <ba...@stargate.net> wrote in message
news:rQZ14.600$M34.3...@news.sgi.net...
MsLiz
MsLiz
>I am sorry, but I can't stand Jake. He thinks he is soooo funny, and he is
>not. He is loud, obnoxious, jumpy and nerve racking. Please get rid of him
>ATWT, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE.
Since there have been numerous posts anti-Jake, let me say that
he was one of my favorite characters I had *never* seen when he
was on AW, just because I liked his pictures and interviews and
followed his stories in the Journal of Soap Operas. I like him
on ATWT. Matter of fact, I am willing to start a line of ladies
who admire Jake and will wait for him to grieve over Vicki's
disappearance.
MsLiz
Gizmo 4 Me
>who admire Jake and will wait for him to grieve over Vicki's
>disappearance.
I *adore* Jake. I'd like to join that line right along with you!!!
Carol D. in Colorado
PMegR
Since there have been numerous posts anti-Jake, let me say that
he was one of my favorite characters I had *never* seen when he
was on AW, just because I liked his pictures and interviews and
followed his stories in the Journal of Soap Operas. I like him
who admire Jake and will wait for him to grieve over Vicki's
disappearance.
MsLiz
I'm absolutely joining that line. I love Jake and I'm ready to help him
through his grieving :)
Mommarella
>I am willing to start a line of ladies
>who admire Jake and will wait for him to grieve over Vicki's
>disappearance.
Move over, ladies. I think I can squeeze Jake into my schedule. He adds humor
to the show, and I'm all for that. Gotta love a guy with a sense of humor. :-)
Mary
Ellen Siska
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:25:29 -0600, onyx3...@xoommail.com (Cory)
said:
>I had left the TV on as I went about my business around the house, and
>forgotten all about what channel I left it on. So just now, as I'm going
>between two rooms, I see some guy trying to strangle Jake. The thought
>that immediately came to mind and that I said out loud to no one in
>particular was, "Kill Jake!!! Go ahead!!! It won't matter!!!".
I like Tom Eplin, AND Jake. He can't help the writing for his
character is silly sometimes.
>Reinstate Pete Rose!
Now THERE'S someone who could be strangled and "it won't matter!!!"
Ellen
chica...@nowhere.com
> he was one of my favorite characters I had *never* seen when he
> was on AW, just because I liked his pictures and interviews and
> followed his stories in the Journal of Soap Operas. I like him
> who admire Jake and will wait for him to grieve over Vicki's
> disappearance.
>
LOL... well, you knew I would be here, and I am kind of upset that
Carol beat me here, and I am already 3rd in line. ;-D And if my
server keeps this from getting posted until I am farther down the
line, it will be bad. ;)
I still don't think Tom Eplin has gotten his *sea legs* on ATWT yet,
but I can wait for him to "settle down". His good performances on
AW will always outweigh the "overdone" in my book. I love Jake!
bjw
Skip and Martha Anderson
>
>Since there have been numerous posts anti-Jake, let me say that
>he was one of my favorite characters I had *never* seen when he
>was on AW, just because I liked his pictures and interviews and
>followed his stories in the Journal of Soap Operas. I like him
>on ATWT. Matter of fact, I am willing to start a line of ladies
>who admire Jake and will wait for him to grieve over Vicki's
>disappearance.
>
>MsLiz
>
>
>I'm absolutely joining that line. I love Jake and I'm ready to help him
>through his grieving :)
I'll take a number and get in that line. At first, Jake grated on my
nerves, but I have grown to really enjoy him. I'll be happy to
"comfort" him through his grieving process (although my husband might
not be too happy about it!)
Martha Anderson
TAmandaPat
>Matter of fact, I am willing to start a line of ladies
>who admire Jake and will wait for him to grieve over Vicki's
>disappearance.
I *adore* Jake. I'd like to join that line right along with you!!!
Carol D. in Colorado
Me Too! Now that's a line I wouldn't mind waiting in. I'm very glad he's on
ATWT.
Amanda, who's wishing she was skiing in Colorado right now.
Ellen Siska
said:
>Since there have been numerous posts anti-Jake, let me say that
>he was one of my favorite characters I had *never* seen when he
>was on AW, just because I liked his pictures and interviews and
>followed his stories in the Journal of Soap Operas. I like him
>on ATWT. Matter of fact, I am willing to start a line of ladies
>who admire Jake and will wait for him to grieve over Vicki's
>disappearance.
Count me in!
And FWIW, by Jake's *avoiding* his grief, he *is* grieving in his own
way, though the consequences can be emotionally devastating....
Ellen, who has lots of experience with grief and has worked as a grief
counselor
ck...@erinet.com
wrote:
MsLiz, are you putting us on? Pete Rose was a baseball player for
Cincinnati, who was accused of betting on baseball and is now banned
from the Hall of Fame. He also broke some record for most hits or
something.
Cheryi 8-0
Nutmeg421
>>
>>
>> I don't! Some people who will remain nameless have had it in for the
Just what soap are you discussing? How about putting it in the Subject place?
Cory
It was a joke. Glad to see I'm not the only one who fell for it... ;-)
--- Cory
--
Barbara Wolfe
David Ballarotto wrote:
> "...
> > I agree with you 100%
>
> I don't! Some people who will remain nameless have had it in for the
> "Another World" characters since they came on. Right now, Jake is the only
> one on, and he has hardly taken over the show.
I am another lonely voice in the wilderness on this one. I like
Jake,
I think he a lot of fun, he is not stealing anyone else's time, and he can act.
Barbara
Shellers
Gizmo 4 Me wrote:
> >Matter of fact, I am willing to start a line of ladies
> >who admire Jake and will wait for him to grieve over Vicki's
> >disappearance.
>
> I *adore* Jake. I'd like to join that line right along with you!!!
>
> Carol D. in Colorado
Can I cut in line? Jake's a nice breath of fresh air.Shellers
Pwtrent
>said:
>
>>Since there have been numerous posts anti-Jake, let me say that
>>he was one of my favorite characters I had *never* seen when he
>>was on AW, just because I liked his pictures and interviews and
>>followed his stories in the Journal of Soap Operas. I like him
>>who admire Jake and will wait for him to grieve over Vicki's
>>disappearance.
>
>
>And FWIW, by Jake's *avoiding* his grief, he *is* grieving in his own
>way, though the consequences can be emotionally devastating....
>
>Ellen, who has lots of experience with grief and has worked as a grief
>counselor
>
>
>
>
That's a great insight Ellen and now we're starting to see just how devastating
Jake's "avoiding" his grief is going to be for him. I think the next few weeks
are going to be very interesting.
Penny
Cory
onyx3...@xoommail.com says...
>
> I had left the TV on as I went about my business around the house, and
> forgotten all about what channel I left it on. So just now, as I'm going
> between two rooms, I see some guy trying to strangle Jake. The thought
> that immediately came to mind and that I said out loud to no one in
> particular was, "Kill Jake!!! Go ahead!!! It won't matter!!!".
>
>
> --- Cory
I just remembered something, and in the interest of fairness to Jake and
his fans, I thought I'd tell the story about the other idiot I hate just
as much, if not more, and wanted dead too... still do want her dead,
AAMOF.
Do you remember when Teague was around and the fire at the church
happened (this was quite a while ago)? Molly (the other, even bigger
idiot) stumbled on to Teague's illegal activities and they struggled,
remember? Well, IIRC Teague ended up knocking her out. I posted a
message VERY similar to this one, WRT Molly though, that time, IIRC.
Me
like Molly for her imperfections and wanting to be better. Saints just
don't get it for me anymore, I like someone who has a good heart deep down,
but gets a little screwed up now and then.
Me
ATWT.
Shellers <S...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3849E18B...@earthlink.net...
>
>
> Gizmo 4 Me wrote:
>
> > >Matter of fact, I am willing to start a line of ladies
> > >who admire Jake and will wait for him to grieve over Vicki's
> > >disappearance.
> >
Cory
nutm...@aol.com says...
> > I agree with you 100%
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't! Some people who will remain nameless have had it in for the
>
Soap acronym added, again. FTR, it was there in the beginning when I
posted this, but someone's newsreader stripped the show acronym, which a
few newsreaders do, for some reason.
And as for some people having it in for the AW4, or just Jake for that
matter... they weren't even supposed to BE on this show to begin with.
Why not bring back some REAL ATWT vets or showcase them more frequently,
instead of these stupid dimtwits from AW?
David Ballarotto
"> And as for some people having it in for the AW4, or just Jake for that
> matter... they weren't even supposed to BE on this show to begin with.
> Why not bring back some REAL ATWT vets or showcase them more frequently,
> instead of these stupid dimtwits from AW?
How many times has this circular argument been posted here? There is no
AW4. There is an AW1, and sometimes an AW2.
Jake and Cass are not taking air time from Grant Colman or Donald Hughes.
Ever since the news of their pending arrival came about, there are those
who've done nothing but griped about it, though in the next breath they'll
say they don't even really watch the show anyway.
Nor is it simply a matter of "sweeps" to have Bob and Kim appear one day
to lure in more viewers during those weeks so they can attract more people
then, but go back to featuring Molly and Christopher the rest of the time.
If they knew certain characters drew high ratings, why would they sacrifice
the program's ratings the rest of the year?That just doesn't make sense.
Rthrquiet
> I
>like Molly for her imperfections and wanting to be better. Saints just
>don't get it for me anymore, I like someone who has a good heart deep down,
>but gets a little screwed up now and then.
>
Yikes, do we see Miss Molli differently! Where you see someone who has a good
heart deep down and just gets a little screwed up now and then, I see a
basically selfish woman who thinks as long as her intentions are not evil or
malevolent, she can do anything she pleases, even if the consequences are
hurtful for others (after all, she didn't *mean* to hurt Andy by running off
with Reid, she just "couldn't help herself") then claim she never meant for
anybody to get hurt and she's just a poor, misunderstood person. I'm generally
with you on the idea that people who want to become better people are more
interesting dramatically, but what I find lacking in Molli is her making a
connection between wanting to be a better person and really doing something
about it. I see her making an effort until it becomes inconvenient or gets in
the way of something she wants at the moment (like sex with NudeNuChris), and
then the inclination to try to be good just disappears until she's satisfied
whatever whim it is at the moment, and then it's "Oh, how could I have done
that, I'm trying to be so good." Carly, at least, seems genuinely to recognize
that earning Oakdale's respect is not going to come without some kind of effort
and real change--though she's gotten back what she lost far too easily to make
her transformation credible, in my opinion.
Michael
Rthrquiet
>If the ratings plummet, we won't see any of them, veterans or not, because
>the plug wil get pulled.
Not if TPTB notice the ratings dive and do something (the right thing) to turn
the situation around. Little gets changed when the ratings don't dip. I don't
think anybody wants the ratings to sink to the cellar overnight, but a
precipitous dip might shake TPTB up a little bit. (For example, GL's ratings
have slipped noticeably the last few months because of some largely unpopular
storyline decisions--not a life-threatening slip, but a noticeable one. I don't
think it's enough to get GL cancelled, but I do hear rumblings that TPTB may
revamp the storylines because of it. I think that's the kind of ratings dip
Cory was referring to.)
I think it goes almost without saying that if the ratings stay about the same
TPTB assume people are pretty happy with the show, at least happy enough to
continue viewing. We all need to remember, I think, that TPTB don't care
whether we like what we are seeing, they care only whether we tune in to see
it. The almighty Nielsen numbers don't measure viewer satisfaction (at least
not directly), just number of viewers. So the only way to get a message to TPTB
about viewer satisfaction through the ratings is indirectly, by turning off the
TV or changing the channel. Having said that, I think a middle
alternative--writing and complaining, with specifics about what one likes and
dislikes and a tone that doesn't make one sound like an irrational crank--is
perhaps more likely to bring about change, if only because TPTB invariably seem
to misread ratings dips and do the *wrong* things to fix them. At least with
writing a letter, they not only know you're tuning out, they know why.
Of course, if you've reached the point where watching isn't giving you any
pleasure anymore, then it makes sense to tune out anyway (as I've done several
times over the last three years or so, and as people like Cory and Cheryl are
doing right now).
Michael
Rthrquiet
>How many times has this circular argument been posted here? There is no
>AW4. There is an AW1, and sometimes an AW2.
> Jake and Cass are not taking air time from Grant Colman or Donald Hughes.
> Ever since the news of their pending arrival came about, there are those
>who've done nothing but griped about it, though in the next breath they'll
>say they don't even really watch the show anyway.
I agree. Though I'm still waiting for ATWT Jake to become the interesting,
well-rounded character I found him to be on Another World, he's infinitely more
interesting than certain of the newer ATWT players who *weren't* on AW, and
it's not as though we'd be getting more of Bob, Lisa, Kim, and Nancy if Jake
weren't around--it would just be more Molly, Katie, Chris, etc.
> Nor is it simply a matter of "sweeps" to have Bob and Kim appear one day
>to lure in more viewers during those weeks so they can attract more people
>then, but go back to featuring Molly and Christopher the rest of the time.
>If they knew certain characters drew high ratings, why would they sacrifice
>the program's ratings the rest of the year?That just doesn't make sense.
I disagree. We're talking about two different "ratings" numbers here. The
veterans are more expensive to use because they get paid more per episode than
the more recent additions, and their presence only noticeably affects the
overall Nielsen number (measuring, or purporting to measure, total viewership),
not the youth demographic (viewers, especially female viewers, 18-35 and 12-17)
that TPTB *really* care about (though they're loath to admit it). So TPTB trot
out the vets more noticeably during sweeps months, when overall ratings really
matter the most, then send them back to their dressing rooms during off-sweeps
periods and use the characters and actors they think will build the youth
audience they're so desperate to get. I doubt they'd even bother with the
veterans during sweeps, except that ATWT's youth numbers are among the weakest
in the soap world, and the overall Nielsen rating does still mean something. If
they still were the main story, David, your argument would make perfect sense,
but they're not--it's mostly about the youth demographic these days. So
there's a certain logic to trotting out the veterans during sweeps periods,
even though it's painfully clear to most of us (though we keep hoping!) that
the prospects of a real storyline for Kim, Bob, Nancy, or Lisa are almost nil.
(Lucinda too, apparently, though I would have thought Elizabeth Hubbard would
have insisted on a real story as a condition of coming back. On the brighter
side, it looks like they may be going somewhere real with John and Camille, so
at least *somebody* in the 50-plus crowd is going to be allowed to have a life
of his/her own.)
Michael
Cory
says...
>
> "> And as for some people having it in for the AW4, or just Jake for that
> > matter... they weren't even supposed to BE on this show to begin with.
> > Why not bring back some REAL ATWT vets or showcase them more frequently,
> > instead of these stupid dimtwits from AW?
>
> AW4. There is an AW1, and sometimes an AW2.
And for the umpteenth time, I DON'T CARE how many people from AW are on
ATWT! It does NOT matter to me. They (how many ever there are) are
where they don't belong, IMO. I will probably never get the number
right, and I really don't care if I do. The bottom line is that there
are people from AW who are on a show that I used to love IMMENSELY, and I
hate them, in part because of the reason below in my next paragraph.
> Jake and Cass are not taking air time from Grant Colman or Donald Hughes.
They ARE though, in the sense that if they weren't on the payroll, there
would be room to BRING BACK more vets, which is what this show needs,
IMO. If more room were made on the payroll for more ATWT vets to be
brought back, then they would be getting more air time.
> Ever since the news of their pending arrival came about, there are those
> who've done nothing but griped about it, though in the next breath they'll
> say they don't even really watch the show anyway.
Perhaps THEY are a part of the REASONS why people don't watch the show
these days??? Works for me, but to be fair, Molly/LKS is another HUGE
reason why *I* don't watch anymore either. These are simply not
characters I give a rat's ass about. Period.
> Nor is it simply a matter of "sweeps" to have Bob and Kim appear one day
> to lure in more viewers during those weeks so they can attract more people
> then, but go back to featuring Molly and Christopher the rest of the time.
> If they knew certain characters drew high ratings, why would they sacrifice
> the program's ratings the rest of the year?That just doesn't make sense.
Because sweeps is all that that b*tch cares about anymore, especially
since the ratings don't take a major dive after sweeps, but rather a more
leveling off than anything. MADD wants advertisers to shell out the
bucks and she's such a friggin' manipulator that she knows damn well that
the time to get people interested is during sweeps, when it's really the
time of the year that advertisers REALLY sit up and take notice. This is
a MAJOR reason why I hate sweeps. You can produce the sh*ttiest quality
garbage for an entire year, minus four months, get mediocre ratings
during those eight months, and still have advertisers backing you
because they know you'll draw viewers in during sweeps, when they'll
market their stuff the most. BFHFD.
Coleen L. Flanagan
>Haven't really complained in recent months that he HAS done that. I just
>detest him being on MY show in the first place (as someone else who shall
>remain nameless eloquently stated WAY before I did, but ICAM with that person.).
***************************************************************
For someone who rarely watches ATWT I've come to the conclusion
that your opinion about Eplin doesn't hold a lot of weight. If
you were an avid viewer of this show I would take your opinions
into consideration but all you seem to want to do is rile up the
newsgroup.
>> His storyline is actually one of the more interesting ones right now, in my
>> opinion. Would it be great if Don Hastings and Kathryn Hays and Eileen Fulton
>> and Larry Bryggman were getting as much air time? Of course, but unless we
>> revolt, it's not going to happen.
>So why don't you guys?? I read a lot of complaints here every day about
>the shape the show is in. I stopped watching a long time ago. If you
>don't like the way things are going on the show, then why watch it???
>The only way things are gonna change for the better is if the ratings
>plummet. Sweeps is a GREAT example of the power of ratings. TIIC trot
>out the beloved cast members and shove the hated ones into broom closets
>for sweeps, to pacify the fans and say "but we DID bring out the vets"
>and the ratings skyrocket, thus justifying the existence of ATWT to those
>with the purse strings.
*************************************************************
I think posters here have their likes and dislikes about ATWT
but generally they are enjoying the show or they wouldn't be
sticking around. IMO the ratings for ATWT are doing pretty good
so no AW4, or AW2 or even AW1 has hampered the show in the least.
I think you should be glad that Eplin was brought on because without
him (and the character of Molly) you wouldn't have anything to
complain about.
>>Look at it this way, at least when Jake is on, your other crowd favorite
>> isn't because their characters have had little interaction (or
>> inter-anything for that matter.)
>I don't like either one of them, and am REALLY apethetic to who should be
>the first to leave. It really doesn't matter to me, because either one
>of them leaving would be a HUGE improvement for the show.
>--- Cory
***********************************************************
Of course it doesn't matter because you DON'T WATCH THE SHOW!
According to you ATWT is a bad show because of just one or two
actors. By thinking that way you're giving Jake and Molly
way too much importance. Better watch out, you don't want that
to happen!!!
Coleen
Coleen L. Flanagan
>edi...@aol.comnospam says...
><referring to Jake...>
>> Without his histrionics, after they got the information about the drug,
>> the hitman could be safely in police custody.......
>That's one of the things I can't stand the most about TE. The melodrama,
>but then again, to be fair, LKS is no better.
>--- Cory
********************************************
I wouldn't talk about melodrama if I were you.
It happens everytime TE's name is mentioned.
Coleen
Cory
c...@london.physics.purdue.edu says...
> Cory <onyx3...@xoommail.com> wrote:
> >Haven't really complained in recent months that he HAS done that. I just
> >detest him being on MY show in the first place (as someone else who shall
> >remain nameless eloquently stated WAY before I did, but ICAM with that person.).
> ***************************************************************
> For someone who rarely watches ATWT I've come to the conclusion
> that your opinion about Eplin doesn't hold a lot of weight.
And that is because... ???
Tom Eplin is NOT the worst actor in daytime television, but he sure as
hell is among them. I've seen enough of his work to say that much. He
overacts/prone to milking melodrama (I caught part of his scene where he
found out about Vicki... eh... could've been worse, granted, but someone
like Tom or Bob could've and would've done better in that situation...
JMO) like LKS, and is just generally unpleasant to watch, so I don't
watch him as much as possible.
> If you were an avid viewer of this show I would take your opinions
> into consideration but all you seem to want to do is rile up the
> newsgroup.
Or state a valid, guaranteed by the first amendment, opinion of a show
that I used to enjoy once upon a time.
> >> His storyline is actually one of the more interesting ones right now, in my
> >> opinion. Would it be great if Don Hastings and Kathryn Hays and Eileen Fulton
> >> and Larry Bryggman were getting as much air time? Of course, but unless we
> >> revolt, it's not going to happen.
>
> >So why don't you guys?? I read a lot of complaints here every day about
> >the shape the show is in. I stopped watching a long time ago. If you
> >don't like the way things are going on the show, then why watch it???
> >The only way things are gonna change for the better is if the ratings
> >plummet.
<snip...>
> *************************************************************
> I think posters here have their likes and dislikes about ATWT
> but generally they are enjoying the show or they wouldn't be
> sticking around.
Some of us are sticking around the newsgroup but AREN'T watching the
show. That's part of my point!!! The other part being, if it bugs you
all so much, stop watching the show. The only way you're gonna get any
change made is if you complain and if the ratings tumble while you
complain. The main reason I DO stick around, FTR, is so I can be among
the first to celebrate whenever The MADD Scientist gets her damn pink
slip she so richly deserves.
> IMO the ratings for ATWT are doing pretty good so no AW4, or AW2 or
> even AW1 has hampered the show in the least.
That is a matter of opinion only. I happen to disagree, and I'm part of
the ratings that MADD is so concerned about, like it or not, and right
now I'm not watching.
> I think you should be glad that Eplin was brought on because without
> him (and the character of Molly) you wouldn't have anything to
> complain about.
There's plenty of other garbage to be vocal about, like Denise, Chris,
Abigail, Alec (well, when he was alive anyway), the Tomargo fiasco, etc.,
and generally I HAVE b*tched about them, when the situation warrants it.
On the particular day that I posted the original message in this thread,
all I saw was Jake being choked by some guy. I'm SURE that if I had
continued to watch any further, there would have been other things to
b*tch (justifiably so, too, IMO) about.
> >>Look at it this way, at least when Jake is on, your other crowd favorite
> >> isn't because their characters have had little interaction (or
> >> inter-anything for that matter.)
>
> >I don't like either one of them, and am REALLY apethetic to who should be
> >the first to leave. It really doesn't matter to me, because either one
> >of them leaving would be a HUGE improvement for the show.
> >--- Cory
> ***********************************************************
> Of course it doesn't matter because you DON'T WATCH THE SHOW!
It doesn't matter because EITHER of them leaving would be a VAST
improvement in ATWT!!!!! THAT'S why it doesn't matter to me who goes.
> According to you ATWT is a bad show because of just one or two
> actors.
No... actually there are a lot of other clunkers too, if you read my
comments above.
> By thinking that way you're giving Jake and Molly way too much importance.
> Better watch out, you don't want that to happen!!!
>
> Coleen
MADD already has them entrenched on the show for as long as they want to
be there, so what I think doesn't really matter to her, since she doesn't
give a rat's ass about fan feedback (which she's demonstrated time and
time again...).
Cory
Huh??? What happens? Melodrama??? And TE is the one who gets to
deliver it??? Go figure. That's what he does. Melodrama, and it ain't
even good either.
BTW, If you don't like my stating my opinions the way I do, killfile or
ignore me, because as far as I'm concerned they are valid points WRT the
development of this show these days.
chica...@nowhere.com
>
> > ... they weren't even supposed to BE on this show to begin with.
>
> How many times has this circular argument been posted here? There is no
> AW4. There is an AW1, and sometimes an AW2.
> who've done nothing but griped about it, though in the next breath they'll
> say they don't even really watch the show anyway.
Thank you David, for commenting on what puzzles most of us. Personally,
I've thrown in the towel on trying to understand today, and just taken
his advice. :-/
bjw
David Ballarotto
Michael,
Your information is usually very reliable and you're pretty knowledgeable
about this sort of thing. I just want to ask you about this portion below,
because for me this doesn't make sense.
> I disagree. We're talking about two different "ratings" numbers here. The
> veterans are more expensive to use because they get paid more per episode
than
> the more recent additions,
Since they're under contact, would they really get paid per episode, as
opposed to being paid $X whether they appear as frequently as Lesli Kay or
as infrequently as Don Hastings.
David Ballarotto
turn
> the situation around. Little gets changed when the ratings don't dip.
What amazes me still is that while a lot has been cleaned up from the FMB
destruction, so much hasn't. Can we honestly see Emily having a good
storyline like the bit with Royce a couple of years ago? It's almost as if
Kelley were playing a different character today. What dimensions can they
add to Katie? She's cute as hell, IMHO, and I really think she can set the
screen on fire. But not if she's just going around either conniving or
sucking up to Kim. Give her a personality. Maybe they ought to have her
sleep with this news director to kill the Margo story. That's just off the
top of my head, but it would be typical ATWT, someone doing something
totally stupid with good intentions.
And the fact that not a single professional writer can figure out what to do
with Bob Hughes, Kim Hughes, Lisa, or Susan (or Heaven forbid Ellen) just
astounds me.
And the other thing. This new guy who came on with Jake and Julia.
There's supposed to be this air of mystery about him, but it really seems to
me to be a bogus air. It's like Chris and Abigail, they're supposed to have
this Penny and Jeff chemistry, but they don't. This new character's
mysterious nature is just poorly contrived. Compare that to the mystery
surrounding the appearance of Cousin Carly a couple of years ago. We knew
who she really was, but did she? And what did she want? Wasn't it nice that
she was so sweet and there for her cousin Roseanna? Now THAT'S how you
introduce a mysterious character.
Jimmy
David Ballarotto wrote in message ...
From what I understand of standard soap contracts, an actor gets a certain
"guarantee" of a number of shows, either per week or per month, when they
sign. For instance, X actor would get a "two-day guarantee" on a three year
contract. This means X would get paid for two appearances per week
whether they actually appeared or not. Writers would often gear character
appearances to their guarantees, but if an actor is in a hot story and
appears more than two days a week, he/she gets paid extra. If they are on
the back burner, they will still get paid their guarantee even if the
writers do not write them in to episodes.
Remember when Susan Lucci won that Emmy? She commented "I was only supposed
to be on every other tuesday!!", refering to her original guarantee back in
1970 when the show started.
Obviously someone like her can get a sweeter deal as she becomes more
popular, but beginning soap actors get those standard contracts (and are
very happy to get them!).
I hope this made some sense...<g>
Jimmy
Jeri
>In article <HlO24.982$M34.4...@news.sgi.net>, ba...@stargate.net
>says...
>>
>> "> And as for some people having it in for the AW4, or just Jake for that
>> > matter... they weren't even supposed to BE on this show to begin with.
>> > Why not bring back some REAL ATWT vets or showcase them more frequently,
>> > instead of these stupid dimtwits from AW?
>>
>> How many times has this circular argument been posted here? There is no
>> AW4. There is an AW1, and sometimes an AW2.
>
>And for the umpteenth time, I DON'T CARE how many people from AW are on
>ATWT! It does NOT matter to me. They (how many ever there are) are
>where they don't belong, IMO. I will probably never get the number
>right, and I really don't care if I do. The bottom line is that there
>are people from AW who are on a show that I used to love IMMENSELY, and I
>hate them, in part because of the reason below in my next paragraph.
>
I really don't consider the character of Jake as a intruder,consider
him a NEW character on ATWT who just happens to have a history from
another area. Geez, just because AW was a tv soap doesn't make it a
valid place for a new character to stem from. Even Lucinda came to
the show from somewhere else. Not everybody was BORN in Oakdale! ;-)
Jeri ;-))
If We Quit Voting Will They All Go Away?
Love like you've never been hurt - Dance like nobody's watching
Women don't have hot flashes, they have power surges!!! ;-))
Dream...@TheOffice.net http://www.theoffice.net/dreampager
Jeri
>In article <HlO24.982$M34.4...@news.sgi.net>, ba...@stargate.net
>says...
>>
>> "> And as for some people having it in for the AW4, or just Jake for that
>> > matter... they weren't even supposed to BE on this show to begin with.
>> > Why not bring back some REAL ATWT vets or showcase them more frequently,
>> > instead of these stupid dimtwits from AW?
>>
>> How many times has this circular argument been posted here? There is no
>> AW4. There is an AW1, and sometimes an AW2.
>
>And for the umpteenth time, I DON'T CARE how many people from AW are on
>ATWT! It does NOT matter to me. They (how many ever there are) are
>where they don't belong, IMO. I will probably never get the number
>right, and I really don't care if I do. The bottom line is that there
>are people from AW who are on a show that I used to love IMMENSELY, and I
>hate them, in part because of the reason below in my next paragraph.
>
Cory, I'm not trying to be argumentative here, really I'm not, but
could you explain how you can have such firm opinions of the acting
and use of the characters on ATWT since you don't watch the show. Are
you basing your opinions simply on what you pick up in this NG? If
that's the case, that doesn't seem very accurate to me since everyone
here has differing opinions and has different criteria to base them
on. Even the actors aren't consistent in their performances, NONE of
them, so if you base an opinion on an occasional glance at your tv, or
a particularly biased post, just what knowlege do you really have?
Seems you wouldn't be voicing YOUR opinions, just secondhand opinions
formed from others and your reading of articles on the web and in
print. I would much prefer my opinions based on first person
knowlege.
Cory
<snip of old stuff...>
> I really don't consider the character of Jake as a intruder,consider
> him a NEW character on ATWT who just happens to have a history from
> another area.
But just stop to consider for a moment that MADD could be bringing back
OR placing on the front burner VETERAN characters/actors ALREADY
ESTABLISHED on ATWT. That's a HUGE reason for my hatred of the AW crew.
There were, at the time, other *ATWT* veterans that could've and
should've been more prominent instead of transplanting the AW2-3-4-7-9,
etc. to Oakdale, but since MADD doesn't have a clue about the history of
Oakdale, she has to rewrite it, and this is just one of several ways that
she has done that, and I absolutely hate MADD for that. 100%.
> Geez, just because AW was a tv soap doesn't make it a
> valid place for a new character to stem from. Even Lucinda came to
> the show from somewhere else. Not everybody was BORN in Oakdale! ;-)
Oh I know that not everyone was born in Oakdale, but WRT Lucinda, A.) Liz
Hubbard can act circles around TE any day of the week and B.) she wasn't
transplanted from another soap. She may have been from "out of town",
but it's not like she came to town as Althea Davis (or whatever that
character's name was) from the soap The Doctors, like Jake and his
cohorts did.
> Jeri ;-))
>
> If We Quit Voting Will They All Go Away?
> Love like you've never been hurt - Dance like nobody's watching
> Women don't have hot flashes, they have power surges!!! ;-))
> Dream...@TheOffice.net http://www.theoffice.net/dreampager
--- Cory
--
Reinstate Pete Rose!
http://www.sportcut.com/PeteRose/default.asp
Cory
says...
> > Not if TPTB notice the ratings dive and do something (the right thing) to
> turn
> > the situation around. Little gets changed when the ratings don't dip.
>
> What amazes me still is that while a lot has been cleaned up from the FMB
> destruction, so much hasn't.
Amen!!!
> Can we honestly see Emily having a good storyline like the bit with Royce a
> couple of years ago? It's almost as if Kelley were playing a different
> character today.
I think she is, and it's one of the things that I won't flame TPTB for,
too much anyway. You have to remember (I hope I get this right...) that
in the interim since Royce, she was raped by Diego. Rape changes women,
maybe not all women all the time, but IMO, the majority of women who've
been raped are never the same person they were before the crime happened,
understandably so, I might add. I think that that's part of the logic
behind Emily's personality transplant.
> What dimensions can they add to Katie? She's cute as hell,
My God yes!!! She is cute!!! But she's also one of the most
boring/bland characters, too. Now, take that opinion with a grain of
salt, because I have not seen nearly as much of Katie as any of you
regular viewers have, but from the very little I have seen of her, I
think, "You're gorgeous, yes, but a personality would help immensely..."
> IMHO, and I really think she can set the screen on fire. But not if she's
> just going around either conniving or sucking up to Kim. Give her a personality.
> Maybe they ought to have her sleep with this news director to kill the Margo story.
> That's just off the top of my head, but it would be typical ATWT, someone doing
> something totally stupid with good intentions.
Could you see Katie doing something like that and then ending up
pregnant??
Since we're talking about odds and ends type problems with the show these
days, allow me to throw this into the fray for debate... WHERE THE HELL
IS LYLA (I can just hear MADD now... "Lyla??? Who's that???")??? Don't
you think that Katie would really benefit from having her mother around,
and so would Margo, don't you think? It really amazes me that we've got
so much new blood (including this new guy that apparently showed up out
of thin air last week or the week before), but people like Lyla, an
instrumental support figure for Margo AND Katie and a VERY vital link to
the yesteryears of ATWT, are nowhere to be found.
genie
super cop. When are her idiotic escapades going to end? "mother of
te Year" she"s not.
David Ballarotto
television outside this show is pretty limited, you have to wonder why CBS
isn't giving its veterans the build-up two ABC shows are doing. There was a
column in it a couple of weeks ago and two older actors are currently on the
front burner, involved in every single plotline. One actor who plays a guy
named Asa said if someone gets a pimple, Asa knows about it.
If only John Dixon or Bob Hughes were the Clearasil squad of Oakdale.
Rthrquiet
It did, Jimmy, and I just want to add some things to what you already said. (I
had this entire process explained to me a few months ago by somebody who works
on a soap--not the part about why they choose to use certain characters during
sweeps, which is just my opinion, but the part about how the contract stuff
works. Jonathan Reiner also explained it recently in his TVGuide "Ask the
Expert" column, and some of my explanation draws on that as well.) As Jimmy
said, each actor has a contract that guarantees him/her a certain number of
appearances a week (a typical guarantee, according to Reiner, might be 1.5
episodes per week) and specifies a per-episode salary (which Reiner says would
be something like $1,500 per episode at the lower levels and can go
significantly higher for a veteran star with real clout). If you take the
guarantee and multiply it by the per-episode salary and by the number of weeks
per year, you get the *minimum* annual salary of the performer; in this case,
52 x 1.5 x $1,500 works out to $117,000--not a bad chunk of change for a
fledgling actor, even in New Yawk City or LaLa Land--and it's easy to see that
if an actor's per-episode salary is, say $5,000, we start talking about serious
money on the order of $500,000. If the actor is used *more* than his/her
guarantee, he/she gets paid his/her per-episode salary for every episode he/she
appears in beyond his/her guarantee. The catch is that all of this works on an
average across the year, apparently, so that if, say, Jaime Dudley has the
standard 1.5 episode guarantee and works 3 days this week, they can give her
next week off and still be meeting her guarantee--she doesn't get an extra 1.5
days worth of salary for this week, because her work over the two weeks
averages out to 1.5 days per week, which meets her guarantee. At the end of the
year, if they've used someone in excess of his/her guarantee, that someone gets
a nice bonus in his/her final paycheck of the year, because all the extra gets
paid in a lump sum. According to my source, the writers work very hard to stay
within people's guarantees and not exceed them, because it's obviously more
cost-effective to use people who you have to pay for anyway rather than people
who have gone over their minimum guarantees. But if it costs, say, $1700 an
episode to use Paul Korver (and that's just a guess because he's just starting
out and so I assume he's near the bottom of the range Reiner gave) but it
costs, maybe, $5000 an episode to use Kathryn Hays, it's not hard to see which
one they're going to chose. And since the guarantees have apparently decreased
over the years (Harding Lemay says in "Eight Days in Another World" that
Victoria Wyndham and Beverlee McKinsey both had 3-day-a-week guarantees in the
1970s, when he was the head writer, but my source says that everybody gets
pretty much the same guarantee these days, and Reiner says that's 1.5 days),
but they still have to populate each episode with a certain number of
characters, my guess is that they have to exceed guarantees on a certain number
of characters--and guess which ones those are probably going to be?
My guess is--and again, I'm only guessing--that a few years ago, when MADD was
doing her house cleaning of veteran performers on her three soaps by cutting
salaries, what was actually happening was that she was cutting their
guarantees, which works out to a salary cut. This would certainly explain why
we don't see veterans getting real stories--it would be hard to use a character
in a real storyline of his/her own if you've only guaranteed the actor a very
minimal number of appearances and you don't plan to exceed that because the
actor is one of the more highly paid ones and it's expensive to use him/her.
I also want to point out that what I've typed out above appears to be the
standard. I'm sure that certain stars can negotiate different perks if they're
popular enough and have enough clout. Since Jimmy brought up Susan Lucci on All
My Children, it's been widely reported that she makes at least $ 1 million per
year, which means that she's either got a stupendous per episode salary or a
guarantee of much more than 1.5 episodes per week or both. Another example:
Lemay also said in the same discussion that VW's guarantee of three days a week
was an average, and he could use her in 4 scripts one week if he used her in
only 2 the next, but that McKinsey's was iron clad 3 days a week, no more, no
less. I'm sure that those who are popular and whom the producers want to keep
around can negotiate all sorts of perks (like Jensen Buchanan's restricted
shooting schedule on AW).
That's the basic story, though, as I understand it. My guess is that they save
those comparatively expensive appearances by Helen Wagner, Kathryn Hays, Eileen
Fulton, and Don Hastings for sweeps period and use comparatively cheaper
performers to fill the episodes where they don't care as much about the overall
ratings. (Of course, if they hadn't been so cheap and cut the guarantees of the
veteran performers--if my conjecture above is correct as to what happened when
MADD made the salary cuts a few years ago--it wouldn't be a problem. But I
suppose we should just be grateful they didn't cut the veterans out of the show
altogether.)
Michael
Greg and Sarah Estell
Cory wrote in message ...
>In article <82hqh5$kqg$0...@208.134.200.174>, it...@comwares.net says...
><snip of old stuff...>
>> I really don't consider the character of Jake as a intruder,consider
>> him a NEW character on ATWT who just happens to have a history from
>> another area.
>
>But just stop to consider for a moment that MADD could be bringing back
>OR placing on the front burner VETERAN characters/actors ALREADY
>ESTABLISHED on ATWT. That's a HUGE reason for my hatred of the AW crew.
>There were, at the time, other *ATWT* veterans that could've and
>should've been more prominent instead of transplanting the AW2-3-4-7-9,
>etc. to Oakdale, but since MADD doesn't have a clue about the history of
>Oakdale, she has to rewrite it, and this is just one of several ways that
>she has done that, and I absolutely hate MADD for that. 100%.
But Cory, who? If she brought back a "character" played by a different
actor - say Steve and Betsy - many people on this ng would throw a hissy
fit. Yes, there are many former actors who probably aren't working (ART
being one of them), but I just don't see her caving in, which is exactly
what she - and we - would see it as. And personally, I don't give 2 hoots
about peripheral characters like Cal or Ellen or Penny or Grant Coleman or
any of those kinds of characters. It's nice to see them at family events,
but other than that, their day has come and gone IMO.
>
>> Geez, just because AW was a tv soap doesn't make it a
>> valid place for a new character to stem from. Even Lucinda came to
>> the show from somewhere else. Not everybody was BORN in Oakdale! ;-)
>
>Oh I know that not everyone was born in Oakdale, but WRT Lucinda, A.) Liz
>Hubbard can act circles around TE any day of the week and B.) she wasn't
>transplanted from another soap. She may have been from "out of town",
>but it's not like she came to town as Althea Davis (or whatever that
>character's name was) from the soap The Doctors, like Jake and his
>cohorts did.
I really don't get why this is such a problem for you. Do you prefer Molly
Conlan - a brand new character never before seen on another soap opera - to
Althea Davis or Vicky McKinnon? I really and truly don't understand why.
Jake is just another character who some of the audience happens to know.
FWIW, I think Hubbard has grown in the role, but I much preferred her
understated performance on the Doctors (of course I was only a child
watching with my Nana), than I did Lucinda when she first arrived. I hated
her. I hated the Snyders. All because they were "new." But this hatred
for Jake because the character used to be on AW is just bizarre to me.
Sarah
Rthrquiet
>. . . you have to wonder why CBS
>isn't giving its veterans the build-up two ABC shows are doing. There was a
>column in it a couple of weeks ago and two older actors are currently on the
>front burner, involved in every single plotline. One actor who plays a guy
>named Asa said if someone gets a pimple, Asa knows about it.
>If only John Dixon or Bob Hughes were the Clearasil squad of Oakdale.
Well, there are actually two trends within the industry, as I see it.
ABC and the Bell soaps seem to be going in one direction, using older
performers in real storylines in a nice balance with (generally speaking,
talented) younger performers. Teens and twenty somethings do have a great deal
of air time, of course, but the older characters are actually being used, and
are being used for more than window dressing. ABC in particular gets my
enthusiastic approval for hiring within the last year mature actresses like
Marj Dusay, Linda Dano, and Finola Hughes and (GASP, GASP!) actually USING them
in real storylines. (Linda Dano said she actually cried when ABC hired her,
after several years of enduring NBC's youth-youth-youth attitude on AW. Linda,
honey, you weren't the only one crying, God bless you.) The other axis is made
up of the NBC soaps and the Procter & Gamble soaps--a stong (and in some cases
nearly obsessive) emphasis on youthful characters portrayed by stunning actors
who may or may not have the requisite acting talent to turn in convincing
performances, with veteran characters there in the background and trotted out
from time to time as a sort of symbolic gesture involving the show's history
(or as a token effort to deny charges that they care only about younger
viewers). (Disclaimer: I've never actually watched Passions, so I'm taking my
opinion of that from what I've read about it. I don't think I'm wrong,
however.) Despite the fact that the only show to make a real ratings success of
this approach is Days of Our Lives, and that during Days's ratings rise a few
years ago the main story centered on a character who's been on since the late
1970s and has to be in her late 40s at a minimum, and that Days has lost about
a third of those ratings since the show went back to focusing on the
kiddies--despite all that, this is the strategy NBC and P&G have chosen to
pursue, the strategy they're certain will bring them ratings bliss,
particularly among the youthful audience they crave. (And we all see how well
Sunset Beach and Passions are doing in the ratings, right? Though I'm still
apprehensive that Passions may succeed ultimately, if only because of its
outlandishness and apparent camp value.)
Why someone who is allegedly as savvy as MADD continues to pursue some of the
strategies she does is beyond me. I know why Susan Lee of NBC does it--she's
clearly an idiot, just judging from the continual string of stupid things she
says in interviews, so apparently the poor thing just cannot help herself--but
MADD has an industry reputation for being smart and dynamic, so why isn't she
buying a clue? (One side note in MADD's defense: All the soaps have had
significant budget cuts in the last decade or so as the ratings have fallen,
fallen, fallen--which means the acting budget has been cut as well--and P&G may
well have cut its budgets even more severely than other shows. I don't know
that for a fact, but it's possible.)
Michael
EDimoff
>named Asa said if someone gets a pimple, Asa knows about it.
>If only John Dixon or Bob Hughes were the Clearasil squad of Oakdale.
>
One problem is that there's no central place where everybody drops in---Nancy's
kitchen in the early 60's (when few women went to work, etc.) They keep
changing around on the "clubs" and restaurants and its a stretch to think of
the hospital being such a central place in everyone's life???
Eleanor
Remove "nospam" for email.
http://hometown.aol.com/eloelo/page/index.htm (Eleanor's MIDI Studio)
Karen Maze
David Ballarotto wrote in message:
> And the other thing. This new guy who came on with Jake and Julia.
>There's supposed to be this air of mystery about him, but it really seems
to
>me to be a bogus air. It's like Chris and Abigail, they're supposed to have
>this Penny and Jeff chemistry, but they don't. This new character's
>mysterious nature is just poorly contrived. Compare that to the mystery
>surrounding the appearance of Cousin Carly a couple of years ago. We knew
>who she really was, but did she? And what did she want? Wasn't it nice that
>she was so sweet and there for her cousin Roseanna? Now THAT'S how you
>introduce a mysterious character.
>
>
My thoughts on Isaac (the new guy) are:
1. He is Ben's brother
2. He is an officer or an FBI agent under cover - When the cops were
arriving at the scene of the bodyguard's death, Isaac may have taken off
because he didn't want to answer any questions in connection with Alec that
could blow his cover.
As I said, just my own thoughts. - Karen
cka...@erinet.com
>David Ballarotto wrote:
>>
>> > ... they weren't even supposed to BE on this show to begin with.
>> > Why not <> instead of these stupid dimtwits from AW?
>>
>> How many times has this circular argument been posted here? There is no
>> AW4. There is an AW1, and sometimes an AW2.
>> Jake and Cass are not taking air time from Grant Colman or Donald Hughes.
>> Ever since the news of their pending arrival came about, there are those
>> who've done nothing but griped about it, though in the next breath they'll
>> say they don't even really watch the show anyway.
>---------------------------------------------------
And couldn't we say that ANY new character is taking time away from a
veteran? Having Jake on as a main character, and now Cass popping up
for who knows how long, is, IMHO, not any different than bringing on
Eddie, Georgia, Katie, Molly, Denice, Camille, Ben, Carly, or
Jack--these are some new characters who have been introduced since I
started watching. They replaced Mike, Mark, Rosanne, Scott, Sam,
Kirk, Damian, Pilar, etc. Shoot, those fans who have been around
since the beginning could complain about the loss of Penny, Ellen,
etc; fans from the 60s and 70s might hate that the Andropolises,
Colmans, McCalls, and others have been squeezed out to make room for
the new characters of the 80s and 90s. I know we all miss our
favorites, but I don't expect everything to stay the same every day
for years and years, and if the changes are too much for me, and I
find myself freaking out over who's living in Oakdale and who's not,
then I know it's time to step back, remind myself it's only a soap,
and take a break.
Cheryl 8-0
DonnaB
netizen onyx3...@xoommail.com (Cory) stopped dancing just
long enough to say:
| In article <19991204153344...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
| nutm...@aol.com says...
| > Just what soap are you discussing? How about putting it in the Subject place?
|
| Soap acronym added, again. FTR, it was there in the beginning when I
| posted this, but someone's newsreader stripped the show acronym, which a
| few newsreaders do, for some reason.
Actually in this case I believe that it began without a
header acronym but people added it in so a thread got
underway with it while this one continued without it. And,
the MS header stripping bug doesn't affect header acronyms
of at least 4 letters, which ATWT is.
| And as for some people having it in for the AW4, or just Jake for that
| matter... they weren't even supposed to BE on this show to begin with.
They weren't?!! Wow, renegade actors & writers & directors
putting characters on shows where they don't belong? Alert
the media!
| Why not bring back some REAL ATWT vets or showcase them more frequently,
| instead of these stupid dimtwits from AW?
As for me I've not seen Cameron Sinclair or his ilk since
AW's last show.
--
DonnaB <*> BA*RF GAG, RATSFuzz, CCWF, MPW, LGAW, GRITS,
SWATCHr, ARIAA, SAMC/TINC 8^> ICQ: 308592 AIM: ShallotPeel
"Well, don't worry about it. It's nothing." - Lt. Kermit Tyler, Duty Officer, Shafter Information Ctr., Hawaii, responds to radar sighting of 50 warplanes approaching Pearl Harbor 12/7/1941
DonnaB
| So why don't you guys?? I read a lot of complaints here every day about
| the shape the show is in. I stopped watching a long time ago. ...
And, is that still the case?
--
DonnaB <*> BA*RF GAG, RATSFuzz, CCWF, MPW, LGAW, GRITS,
SWATCHr, ARIAA, SAMC/TINC 8^> ICQ: 308592 AIM: ShallotPeel
"Well, you really tied one on this time, Mr. Harrison." -
BCPD Cop "What?" - Grant "What I mean is you're going to
have a nice hangover." - Cop "No, gophers are silly little
animals." - Grant, AW, 3/17/97, as he tried to eat the fruit
off of a still life
DonnaB
netizen "Jimmy" <jrm...@frontiernet.net> stopped dancing
just long enough to say:
| From what I understand of standard soap contracts, an actor gets a certain
| "guarantee" of a number of shows, either per week or per month, when they
| sign. For instance, X actor would get a "two-day guarantee" on a three year
| contract. This means X would get paid for two appearances per week
| whether they actually appeared or not. Writers would often gear character
| appearances to their guarantees, but if an actor is in a hot story and
| appears more than two days a week, he/she gets paid extra. If they are on
| the back burner, they will still get paid their guarantee even if the
| writers do not write them in to episodes.
|
| Remember when Susan Lucci won that Emmy? She commented "I was only supposed
| to be on every other tuesday!!", refering to her original guarantee back in
| 1970 when the show started.
| Obviously someone like her can get a sweeter deal as she becomes more
| popular, but beginning soap actors get those standard contracts (and are
| very happy to get them!).
AW fans may remember a few years back when Mark Pinter (AW's
Grant Harrison, ATWT's Brian McColl [sp?] & husband to
Colleez Zink-Pinter [ATWT's Barbara Ryan]) began to publicly
"tell it like it is". One of the many insightful things that
he ranted about was that stories began to be written with an
eye to the budget (salaries) instead of inherent factors
like character, history, drama, conflict, etc. so that
they'd be trying to use actors like him, veterans with
accumulated higher salaries & perks, no more than 2 days a
week & the effect on both pacing & stories that that not
only might have but had begun to have big time! The
logistics alone of soap taping is a gigantic nightmare if
everyone is held to their contractual appearances meaning no
more but also no less since P&G certainly doesn't want to
pay for no play. <g> Another money factor that had kicked in
then, too, is that P&G tries to save money by not paying for
long-arc stories, so, long-arc stories may not get written.
--
DonnaB <*> BA*RF GAG, RATSFuzz, CCWF, MPW, LGAW, GRITS,
SWATCHr, ARIAA, SAMC/TINC 8^> ICQ: 308592 AIM: ShallotPeel
"Well, don't worry about it. It's nothing." - Lt. Kermit Tyler, Duty Officer, Shafter Information Ctr., Hawaii, responds to radar sighting of 50 warplanes approaching Pearl Harbor 12/7/1941
TM Wheaton
>
>
> | Soap acronym added, again. FTR, it was there in the beginning when I
> | posted this, but someone's newsreader stripped the show acronym, which a
> | few newsreaders do, for some reason.
>
> Actually in this case I believe that it began without a
> header acronym but people added it in so a thread got
> underway with it while this one continued without it. And,
> the MS header stripping bug doesn't affect header acronyms
> of at least 4 letters, which ATWT is.
>
Gal dang it! I wasn't gonna add anything to this thread, but
since this is only technical info I guess I can chime in. Cory's
original post *did* have the ATWT header but somewhere along the
way somebody's newsreader did strip the header. So people
replying to the person who replied to Cory's original post had
their header stripped as well. While others replying to Cory's
didn't.
oh shoot! well since I'm on this topic, I may as well stick my
oar in. I actually liked all the AW4 and really wouldn't mind
them all being on ATWT provided we could've gotten rid of certain
ATWT4 (Molly, Katie,Chris,Reid). But also, I don't mind Cory
sniping at Jake regardless of his reasons. I can relate since I
get such satisfaction at sniping against Molly. As far a reasons
for disliking a character go they can be as ridiculous (I don't
like the right side of her head) or reasoned as necessary as far
as I am concerned. I just like turning on the computer to read
everyone's ideas no matter how far out there or far in there they
are. Yeah, Cory's a little curmudgeonly, but, really, would it
be interesting if we all agreed on everything and if everyone's
reasons for why they like or dislike the show/characters make
sense?
Tina (from NY)
DonnaB
netizen TM Wheaton <tmwh...@cas.syr.edu> stopped dancing
just long enough to say:
| > Actually in this case I believe that it began without a
| > header acronym but people added it in so a thread got
| > underway with it while this one continued without it. And,
| > the MS header stripping bug doesn't affect header acronyms
| > of at least 4 letters, which ATWT is. - DonnaB
|
| Gal dang it! I wasn't gonna add anything to this thread, but
| since this is only technical info I guess I can chime in. Cory's
| original post *did* have the ATWT header but somewhere along the
| way somebody's newsreader did strip the header. So people
| replying to the person who replied to Cory's original post had
| their header stripped as well. While others replying to Cory's
| didn't.
Hmm, interesting. Interesting enough to me to cause me to do
considerable searching to find the first reply & all of the
replies to it, only one of which continued on, but, without
its header acronym. It's here below. Now to try to figure
out if we've accidentally discovered yet another bug in the
MS products. Could be that, could be something about the
posting site/service. Could be some weird flukey something.
Maybe the pren did it to Outlook Express. Hmmm.
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Re: (SPOILER) Kill him, kill him, kill him!!! Awww... darn!
Author: Shar & Del <del...@gemair.com>
Date: 1999/12/03
Forum: rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs
Posted on: 1999/12/03
Message-ID: <HqX14.2290$4k5....@typ12.nn.bcandid.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 17:24:39 EST
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs
Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions -
http://bCandid.com
References:
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
X-Priority: 3
X-Trace: typ12.nn.bcandid.com 944259879 209.115.69.118
(Fri, 03 Dec 1999 17:24:39 EST)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you 100%
"Cory" <onyx3...@xoommail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.12b1d51e8...@news.mindspring.com...
> S
[snip spoiler space]
>
> I had left the TV on as I went about my business around the house, and
[snip rest]
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Posting & EMailing Simultaneously
Jeri
Maybe Jack know him since that's his background. (If that's the
case.)
cka...@erinet.com
Barbara Wolfe
Karen Maze wrote:
> David Ballarotto wrote in message:
>
> > And the other thing. This new guy who came on with Jake and Julia.
> >There's supposed to be this air of mystery about him, but it really seems
> to
> >me to be a bogus air. It's like Chris and Abigail, they're supposed to have
> >this Penny and Jeff chemistry, but they don't. This new character's
> >mysterious nature is just poorly contrived. Compare that to the mystery
> >surrounding the appearance of Cousin Carly a couple of years ago. We knew
> >who she really was, but did she? And what did she want? Wasn't it nice that
> >she was so sweet and there for her cousin Roseanna? Now THAT'S how you
> >introduce a mysterious character.
> >
> >
>
> My thoughts on Isaac (the new guy) are:
>
> 1. He is Ben's brother
This was stated in several of the newsletters before I stopped
reading the spoiler parts a few weeks ago. An experiment I am enjoying,
btw.
>
> 2. He is an officer or an FBI agent under cover
I haven't read this yet but it would make sense.
I think that Isaac is going to become involved with Camille, leading to
a conflict with Ben. (Can you say Brad/Jack/Carly or Carly/Rosanne/Mike?
Barbara
Barbara Wolfe
Cory wrote:
> They ARE though, in the sense that if they weren't on the payroll, there
> would be room to BRING BACK more vets, which is what this show needs,
> IMO. If more room were made on the payroll for more ATWT vets to be
> brought back, then they would be getting more air time.
Cory, even if I were foolish enough to argue this with you, I don't have the
time or inclination to indulge in an argument with such a strong-minded
man. However, I would like to point out one flaw in this theory: If they
had any interest in, or intention of, bringing back some of the former
characters, they would. They have neglected to do this for many years
while constantly bringing on new characters. Therefore, as much as I would
love to see some returnees, I have faced the fact that it just isn't going
to happen.
Barbara
chica...@nowhere.com
>
> What amazes me still is that while a lot has been cleaned up from the FMB
> storyline like the bit with Royce a couple of years ago?
And remember her storyline with the schoolteacher, was it Jeff? She was
still neurotic, but also believably human and interesting. I read your
other post about KMH's happy comments and expectations, and I certainly
hope she's right, and it will mean good things for Emily's place in
Oakdale. I really, really hate that they made Tom the father of her
child, and just wish we could all forget it!!! ;-D
> What dimensions can they
> add to Katie? She's cute as hell, IMHO, and I really think she can set the
> screen on fire. But not if she's just going around either conniving or
> sucking up to Kim. Give her a personality. Maybe they ought to have her
> sleep with this news director to kill the Margo story. That's just off the
> top of my head, but it would be typical ATWT, someone doing something
> totally stupid with good intentions.
I hope you'll have second thoughts about that one. ;) I agree that she is
cute though, and hope she can get the best of that guy in other ways. He's
begging for someone to trip him up on his rise to the top. ;-D
> And the other thing. This new guy who came on with Jake and Julia.
> There's supposed to be this air of mystery about him, but it really seems to
> me to be a bogus air. It's like Chris and Abigail, they're supposed to have
> this Penny and Jeff chemistry, but they don't.
I hadn't thought much about that, it's kind of early to really be wondering
about him. He hasn't been seen that much yet. I like Isaac, and hope he
will be a keeper for Camille's sake. :) About Chris and Abigail, they're
a little "too sweet" for me, but I think they do have lots of fans, David.
Just want to say I think they did a "great" job today, with the courtroom
scenes! How about you?
bjw
chica...@nowhere.com
>
> My thoughts on Isaac (the new guy) are:
>
> 1. He is Ben's brother
> arriving at the scene of the bodyguard's death, Isaac may have taken off
> because he didn't want to answer any questions in connection with Alec that
> could blow his cover.
>
> As I said, just my own thoughts. - Karen
I'm hoping you're right, Karen. It would make sense that with Alec's
murderous background and big business in NYC, he would have come to the
attention of the Feds somehow. I would love this. :)
I'm anxious to see some good guys at work, since Jack's brains have
turned to silly putty, and Hal's are occasionally out to pasture. ;)
bjw
chica...@nowhere.com
Cory
> If they had any interest in, or intention of, bringing back some of the former
> characters, they would. They have neglected to do this for many years
> while constantly bringing on new characters. Therefore, as much as I would
> love to see some returnees, I have faced the fact that it just isn't going
> to happen.
>
> Barbara
And I guess that's my overall point. TIIC have done nothing to make this
show wonderful again. Absolutely nothing, and bringing back some of
yesteryears characters while dumping some of the current characters that
aren't working out certainly would make it a wonderful show to watch
again.
--- Cory
--
Barbara Wolfe
Cory wrote:
For once we are in complete and total agreement, although the cynic
in me fears they'd bring back people like Hutch and his annoying mother or
other such forgettable gems.
Barbara
Rthrquiet
>For once we are in complete and total agreement, although the cynic
>in me fears they'd bring back people like Hutch and his annoying mother or
>other such forgettable gems.
Hutch was motherless when he came on the show, so I fear you mean the supremely
irritating Hannah Lafferty, Linc's mother (and "fear" is definitely the word I
mean in that sentence). What a truly annoying and tiresome character. (Though
she was meant to be, so it was a little different from today's situations when
front-burner heroine types that we're supposed to be rooting for turn out to be
supremely annoying and tiresome (no names mentioned). But I digress.) I will
admit, however, that one of my all-time favorite storylines-within-a-storyline
during the Marland era was when that wicked (and wickedly funny) Marcy Breen
was married to Linc (after having stolen him away from my beloved Connor) and
was snowing Linc's mother hook, line, and sinker about what an upstanding and
religious girl she was. Watching Hannah was painful because she was so
holier-than-thou and so rigid about her beliefs, so watching Marcy dupe her so
completely was an absolute joy.
I'd love to have Marcy back to stir things up in Oakdale (provided the same
actress, Jill Powell, were hired to play her) but please, please, please keep
Hannah Lafferty under whatever rock they've hidden her. I remember that Hutch
and his father (who was also Linc's father) left town after Linc died, but I
think Hannah stayed around and just sort of faded into the woodwork (not that
anybody missed her).
Michael
Rthrquiet
>Barbara Wolfe bev...@erols.com posted:
>
>>For once we are in complete and total agreement, although the cynic
>>in me fears they'd bring back people like Hutch and his annoying mother or
>>other such forgettable gems.
>Hutch was motherless when he came on the show, so I fear you mean the
>supremely
>irritating Hannah Lafferty, Linc's mother (and "fear" is definitely the word
>I
>mean in that sentence).
And I just went to look in on the TVGuide website and was reminded, in one of
the transcripts of Reiner's chats, about the equally irritating Aunt Mary, who
did, as I recall, turn out to be Hutch's mother, so I guess that's whom you
were actually referring to, Barbara. Either way, I hope they both are gone
forever. I don't remember what happened to Aunt Mary. It seems to me she stuck
around for a little while after Hutch and Woody left town, with no real
purpose, and then sort of disappeared too.
Michael
TM Wheaton
Rthrquiet wrote:
>
> Barbara Wolfe bev...@erols.com posted:
>
> >For once we are in complete and total agreement, although the cynic
> >in me fears they'd bring back people like Hutch and his annoying mother or
> >other such forgettable gems.
>
> Hutch was motherless when he came on the show, so I fear you mean the supremely
> irritating Hannah Lafferty, Linc's mother ... I will
> admit, however, that one of my all-time favorite storylines-within-a-storyline
> during the Marland era was when that wicked (and wickedly funny) Marcy Breen
> was married to Linc (after having stolen him away from my beloved Connor) and
> was snowing Linc's mother hook, line, and sinker about what an upstanding and
> religious girl she was. Watching Hannah was painful because she was so
> holier-than-thou and so rigid about her beliefs, so watching Marcy dupe her so
> completely was an absolute joy.
Thank you Michael and Barb for reminding me of a truly good
character. Marcy was a hoot and I loved/hated her b/c she was
messing with my dear Connor! BTW, wasn't Marcy hired by Lucinda
to break up Linc and Connor b/c Lu hated Connor so much? Now that
I'm thinking about this I must stop a moment and just reflect on
how wonderful the show was during this time. I still get
goosbeumps when I remember the Walsh stockholder's meeting and
Evan and Connor sliming in for the kill. Lucinda's face--her
dignity--her betrayal! It was high drama at its finest. I'll
always remember how excellent AR-T was st showcasing Connor's
conflict -- her need and desire to get her family's company back
warring with her feelings of admiration and true liking for
Lucinda. Honestly, I can't think of any storyline in recent
history on this show that comes close to the complexity and
layers that this one had. sigh.
Tina (from NY)
MsLiz
>Barbara Wolfe bev...@erols.com posted:
>
>>For once we are in complete and total agreement, although the cynic
>>in me fears they'd bring back people like Hutch and his annoying mother or
>>other such forgettable gems.
>
>Hutch was motherless when he came on the show, so I fear you mean the supremely
>irritating Hannah Lafferty, Linc's mother (and "fear" is definitely the word I
>mean in that sentence). What a truly annoying and tiresome character. (Though
>she was meant to be, so it was a little different from today's situations when
>front-burner heroine types that we're supposed to be rooting for turn out to be
>supremely annoying and tiresome (no names mentioned). But I digress.) I will
>admit, however, that one of my all-time favorite storylines-within-a-storyline
>during the Marland era was when that wicked (and wickedly funny) Marcy Breen
>was married to Linc (after having stolen him away from my beloved Connor) and
>was snowing Linc's mother hook, line, and sinker about what an upstanding and
>religious girl she was. Watching Hannah was painful because she was so
>holier-than-thou and so rigid about her beliefs, so watching Marcy dupe her so
>completely was an absolute joy.
>
>I'd love to have Marcy back to stir things up in Oakdale (provided the same
>actress, Jill Powell, were hired to play her) but please, please, please keep
>Hannah Lafferty under whatever rock they've hidden her. I remember that Hutch
>and his father (who was also Linc's father) left town after Linc died, but I
>think Hannah stayed around and just sort of faded into the woodwork (not that
>anybody missed her).
>
Hey Michael, I missed her. Hannah was so bitter she always made
me laugh. Hutch and Linc's father thought so too, and deserted
her. Hutch's mom was Aunt Mary, the food factory lady who had
an account with Kirk at Walsh Enterprises. The same actress
played Mary who had played Calla, Lillian's sister, on GL.
You are absolutely right about Marcy Breen. Those scenes with
Hannah were hysterical.
MsLiz
Tim Kynerd
>Barbara Wolfe bev...@erols.com posted:
>
>>For once we are in complete and total agreement, although the cynic
>>in me fears they'd bring back people like Hutch and his annoying mother or
>>other such forgettable gems.
>
>Hutch was motherless when he came on the show, so I fear you mean the supremely
>irritating Hannah Lafferty, Linc's mother (and "fear" is definitely the word I
>mean in that sentence). What a truly annoying and tiresome character. (Though
>she was meant to be, so it was a little different from today's situations when
>front-burner heroine types that we're supposed to be rooting for turn out to be
>supremely annoying and tiresome (no names mentioned). But I digress.) I will
>admit, however, that one of my all-time favorite storylines-within-a-storyline
>during the Marland era was when that wicked (and wickedly funny) Marcy Breen
>was married to Linc (after having stolen him away from my beloved Connor) and
>was snowing Linc's mother hook, line, and sinker about what an upstanding and
>religious girl she was. Watching Hannah was painful because she was so
>holier-than-thou and so rigid about her beliefs, so watching Marcy dupe her so
>completely was an absolute joy.
>
>I'd love to have Marcy back to stir things up in Oakdale (provided the same
>actress, Jill Powell, were hired to play her) but please, please, please keep
>Hannah Lafferty under whatever rock they've hidden her. I remember that Hutch
>and his father (who was also Linc's father) left town after Linc died, but I
>think Hannah stayed around and just sort of faded into the woodwork (not that
>anybody missed her).
I agree with you about Hannah's character. I had another comment about
this.
Anybody seen "Airplane!"? There's a passenger on the plane who makes these
comments taken from a coffee commercial IIRC ("Jim never has a second cup of
coffee at home...") which are later parodied (when her husband gets sick,
she thinks, "Jim never vomits at home..."). :-) Anyway, that passenger was
IIANM played by the same actress who played Hannah Lafferty.
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden tky...@my-deja.com
"If I had my way, I would move to another lifetime.
I'd quit my job, ride the train through the misty nighttime...." --
Steely Dan, "Any World (That I'm Welcome To)"
Tim Kynerd
>
>
>Rthrquiet wrote:
>>
>> Barbara Wolfe bev...@erols.com posted:
>>
>> >For once we are in complete and total agreement, although the cynic
>> >in me fears they'd bring back people like Hutch and his annoying mother or
>> >other such forgettable gems.
>>
>> Hutch was motherless when he came on the show, so I fear you mean the supremely
>> admit, however, that one of my all-time favorite storylines-within-a-storyline
>> during the Marland era was when that wicked (and wickedly funny) Marcy Breen
>> was married to Linc (after having stolen him away from my beloved Connor) and
>> was snowing Linc's mother hook, line, and sinker about what an upstanding and
>> religious girl she was. Watching Hannah was painful because she was so
>> holier-than-thou and so rigid about her beliefs, so watching Marcy dupe her so
>> completely was an absolute joy.
>
>
>character. Marcy was a hoot and I loved/hated her b/c she was
>messing with my dear Connor! BTW, wasn't Marcy hired by Lucinda
>to break up Linc and Connor b/c Lu hated Connor so much? Now that
>I'm thinking about this I must stop a moment and just reflect on
>how wonderful the show was during this time. I still get
>goosbeumps when I remember the Walsh stockholder's meeting and
>Evan and Connor sliming in for the kill. Lucinda's face--her
>dignity--her betrayal! It was high drama at its finest. I'll
>always remember how excellent AR-T was st showcasing Connor's
>conflict -- her need and desire to get her family's company back
>warring with her feelings of admiration and true liking for
>Lucinda. Honestly, I can't think of any storyline in recent
>history on this show that comes close to the complexity and
>layers that this one had. sigh.
Somewhere on videotape, I still have the scene where Lucinda fires Marcy.
It's absolutely TERRIFIC -- vintage Lucinda! Lucy has gotten hold of a copy
of Marcy's contract with Gavin Kruger, where Marcy agrees to spy on
Lucinda's company while working there. This is after Gavin has been
convicted of murdering Carolyn Crawford and thrown in jail, so Lucinda's
line to Marcy is so *perfect*: "You bet on the wrong horse, didn't you,
dear?" in that inimitably poisonous EH voice. *shiver* You're right --
it was great soap.
Glynis
Cory <onyx3...@xoommail.com> wrote in message
I just
> detest him being on MY show in the first place (as someone else who shall
> remain nameless eloquently stated WAY before I did, but ICAM with that
> person.).
***The guy is a character and YOUR show wouldn't have brought him over if
they didn't think that he could make it better. afterall, a lot of the AW
folk are watching YOUR show now. That should make you feel good.
Jeri
>>
>>I'd love to have Marcy back to stir things up in Oakdale (provided the same
>>actress, Jill Powell, were hired to play her) but please, please, please keep
>>Hannah Lafferty under whatever rock they've hidden her. I remember that Hutch
>>and his father (who was also Linc's father) left town after Linc died, but I
>>think Hannah stayed around and just sort of faded into the woodwork (not that
>>anybody missed her).
>>
>me laugh. Hutch and Linc's father thought so too, and deserted
>her. Hutch's mom was Aunt Mary, the food factory lady who had
>an account with Kirk at Walsh Enterprises. The same actress
>played Mary who had played Calla, Lillian's sister, on GL.
>
>You are absolutely right about Marcy Breen. Those scenes with
>Hannah were hysterical.
>
>MsLiz
Wasn't Marcy preggers when last seen and didn't tell anyone choosing
to wait until a later date when the child might be "worth" something
to her?
Rthrquiet
>Wasn't Marcy preggers when last seen and didn't tell anyone choosing
>to wait until a later date when the child might be "worth" something
>to her?
It seems to me she returned right after Linc was killed and tried to make a
claim on his estate based on the child, but it turned out that the child was
not Linc's. I know she returned briefly right after Linc died; I might be
confused about the details (it wasn't one of ATWT's more memorable plots).
Michael
Barbara Wolfe
Rthrquiet wrote:
> Violating netiquette shamelessly and following up my own post. I wrote:
>
> >Barbara Wolfe bev...@erols.com posted:
> >
> >>For once we are in complete and total agreement, although the cynic
> >>in me fears they'd bring back people like Hutch and his annoying mother or
> >>other such forgettable gems.
>
> >Hutch was motherless when he came on the show, so I fear you mean the
> >supremely irritating Hannah Lafferty, Linc's mother (and "fear" is definitely
> the word
> >I mean in that sentence).
>
> And I just went to look in on the TVGuide website and was reminded, in one of
> the transcripts of Reiner's chats, about the equally irritating Aunt Mary, who
> did, as I recall, turn out to be Hutch's mother, so I guess that's whom you
> were actually referring to, Barbara.
You are very kind, but I was confused and meant Linc and Hannah. I had
forgotten about Aunt Mary, which means I didn't find her all that irritating.
Unless, of course, I found her so irritating I have blocked her from my memory.
There is a long list of forgotten hangouts waiting to be compiled. Remember
the hospital cafeteria (where Rosa actually cooked for a while), Aunt Mary's,
The Cellar?
Barbara
Barbara Wolfe
Jeri wrote:
>
> Wasn't Marcy preggers when last seen and didn't tell anyone choosing
> to wait until a later date when the child might be "worth" something
> to her?
>
OOH YES! Shoot! It might almost be worth bringing all those people
back just to see what happens. Almost... Nah!
Barbara
MsLiz
>it...@comwares.net (Jeri) posted:
>
>>Wasn't Marcy preggers when last seen and didn't tell anyone choosing
>>to wait until a later date when the child might be "worth" something
>>to her?
>
>It seems to me she returned right after Linc was killed and tried to make a
>claim on his estate based on the child, but it turned out that the child was
>not Linc's. I know she returned briefly right after Linc died; I might be
>confused about the details (it wasn't one of ATWT's more memorable plots).
Not only was the baby not Linc's, it wasn't even Marcy's. Marcy
miscarried off screen, then flounced back in town with a "nanny"
in tow who could actually nurse the baby. It was the nanny's
baby. Linc had made money off cereal commercials.
MsLiz
Woodlawn12
daytime.