GL/ Mimi Torchin on the Maureen Garrett Thing
Lancebowski
[BEGIN SOAPNET EXCERPT]
"Maureen has been put on temporary recurring status due to a lack of
storyline. She is not off the canvas and will probably appear almost
as much as she does now -- but in blocks of larger time when it
happens. This is the wave of the future, I'm afraid, for many of our
vereran performers. They have built up high salaries, they aren't
involved in front-burner stories and it's expensive to keep them
around as "background" for their guarantees. I can assure you that
more actors will follow -- on GL and our other shows. If you don't
like this now or as an indication of the future, write to the shows --
e-mail or snail mail. The passion I've seen on these boards might do
some good."
[END SOAPNET EXCERPT]
Looks like the appeal should have been made for people to write the
agents involved.
<kidding>
If "nothing ain't going on but the rent", Conboy wants to cut
corners (hopefully to be able to afford more guest roles), and some
vets _want_ to lurk, then restructure their contracts.
<half-joking>
But seriously...Since Torchin states that on-screen time for
Garrett will be the same but in longer blocks, and IF the actor segues
in and out of storylines are relatively seemless (there's the rub)...
This stuff doesn't have to play as Chop-Shop Express.
Think of the Garrett Option as: hyper-scheduled vacation segments.
[ ouch ]
[A writing campaign would perhaps be better spent writing the writers,
in hopes of them bringing their A games to the new approach.]
Lancebowski
http://bios7.tripod.com/bioblog/greenteablog.html#gre
Golden...@webtv.net
fixture in the GL universe just as the Bauers and the Spauldings. Keep
in mind that the Santos and the Coopers (no I am not a fan of Buzz or
Frank) and a lot of other characters are "tack-ons" to an established
universe (if good writers pay attention). Of course if you throw history
away, a new Cassie can waltz onto the scene every few years.
Peter J.
Huh? Since Cassie is one of the few compelling (and long-lasting) new
characters created in the past 5-6 years, would having a "new Cassie waltz onto
the scene" be such a bad thing? A well-written, well-portrayed character with
ties to a core family? Would it be better to have another Noah, or Catalina, or
Eden?
Boozy Smurf
"Lancebowski" <cabr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:21835c0d.0302...@posting.google.com...
>
http://boards.go.com/cgi/soapnet/request.dll?MESSAGE&room=guidinglight&id=16
Who's the author of this post? Unless she's some onair personality at
SoapNet I wouldn't believe news coming off of a message board.
Donna L. Bridges
<emr2a.336137$pDv.2...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "Boozy
Smurf" <drew...@rogers.com> wrote:
>Who's the author of this post? Unless she's some onair personality at
>SoapNet I wouldn't believe news coming off of a message board.
Mimi Torchin? Who is Mimi Torchin? LOL!! If anyone gets any coupons
for % off of clues, pass one on to Andrew here, if you can possibly
spare it, okay?!!
Let's see, she created SOAP OPERA WEEKLY & was its editor for 10 years
until the corporation that owns it fired her. She's been working at
Soapnet Online ever since then except for maybe a few months vacation
after the trauma of Security escorting her out of the Head Office of
her particular soap baby.
--
DonnaB %^>
"The tragedy of life is not that it ends so soon, but that we wait so
long to begin it." - Richard L. Evans
Rthrquiet
>[BEGIN SOAPNET EXCERPT]
>
>"Maureen has been put on temporary recurring status due to a lack of
>storyline. She is not off the canvas and will probably appear almost
>as much as she does now -- but in blocks of larger time when it
>happens. This is the wave of the future, I'm afraid, for many of our
>vereran performers. They have built up high salaries, they aren't
>involved in front-burner stories and it's expensive to keep them
>around as "background" for their guarantees. I can assure you that
>more actors will follow -- on GL and our other shows. If you don't
>like this now or as an indication of the future, write to the shows --
>e-mail or snail mail. The passion I've seen on these boards might do
>some good."
>
>[END SOAPNET EXCERPT]
>
>
>
> Looks like the appeal should have been made for people to write the
>agents involved.
><kidding>
>
> If "nothing ain't going on but the rent", Conboy wants to cut
>corners (hopefully to be able to afford more guest roles), and some
>vets _want_ to lurk, then restructure their contracts.
><half-joking>
>
>
> But seriously...Since Torchin states that on-screen time for
>Garrett will be the same but in longer blocks, and IF the actor segues
>in and out of storylines are relatively seemless (there's the rub)...
That's only a small part of what bothers me, Lance. Since Garrett is only the
first in what will apparently be a series of these "temporary recurring"
experiments, we have only Conboy's assurance that we'll continue to be seeing
her the same amount of time, only in more concentrated blocks. This could very
easily be a ploy to quelch some of the (what I hope will be) viewer outrage and
indignation over their decision to phase Garrett out: reassure them now that
they'll really be seeing her just as much, and then about nine months from now,
by the time it dawns on them that that they haven't seen Holly more than three
or four episodes in that time, and what happened to "temporary recurring," it
will be an old issue and old news.
I think the reason that I'm skeptical about the idea that we'll see her again
in any significant role is that it's almost impossible to write story for a
character whose portrayer is not on contract. They're not doing as much
long-term story planning as they once were (at least as I understand it), but
how do you plan for a story for Holly in, say, May sweeps if you have no idea
whether Maureen Garrett will be available then, because you've let her off
contract? It's the Marj Dusay, Round 2 problem from a few years ago, when Marj
came back briefly as Alex, they had a minor, but significant, role planned for
her in whatever story was going on with Alan at the time (I forget what it
was), she wanted a contract, GL would not give her one, and then Dusay got
tapped for a contract role on AMC, so we got Rauch boo-hooing in the soap press
about how "my leading lady has deserted me."
Maybe Torchin is right and they really will find a way to make this work so
that the vets can actually be *used* rather than sit around for appearances
every two weeks. If that's really what they have planned, however, there are
other ways of doing it. Except in rare cases anymore, as I understand it, soap
contracts are for number of appearances per year. There's nothing to stop them,
if they really do plan on using Holly in future storylines, from keeping
Garrett under contract and saying, "We're going to use 80 of the 100 days in
your guarantee for 2003 in April through August, because that's when Holly will
have a storyline."
I think there's very good reason to be skeptical that this will play out the
way Torchin is saying. She's probably repeating what she's being told by
Procter and Gamble or Conboy, but that doesn't mean that's how it will actually
go. Recurring is recurring, no matter how they try to dress it up.
>[A writing campaign would perhaps be better spent writing the writers,
>in hopes of them bringing their A games to the new approach.]
Weston and her team will do what Conboy tells them to do. My guess is that if
the point of all this is that the veteran performers are more expensive, then
we'll continue to see MADD directing the EPs to direct the writers to write
more for the younger, less expensive performers. Same game as in the past five
years, slightly different plan of attack (i.e., recurring for the vets rather
than smaller and smaller guarantees).
Michael
Donna L. Bridges
<20030212085835...@mb-ms.aol.com>, rthr...@aol.com
(Rthrquiet) wrote:
>cabr...@hotmail.com (Lancebowski) posted:
>> Looks like the appeal should have been made for people to write the
>>agents involved.
>><kidding>
What agents did you mean, though, even in the joking?
>> If "nothing ain't going on but the rent", Conboy wants to cut
>>corners (hopefully to be able to afford more guest roles), and some
>>vets _want_ to lurk, then restructure their contracts.
>><half-joking>
That wouldn't save the money on the budget.
>> But seriously...Since Torchin states that on-screen time for
>>Garrett will be the same but in longer blocks, and IF the actor segues
>>in and out of storylines are relatively seemless (there's the rub)...
>
>That's only a small part of what bothers me, Lance. Since Garrett is only the
>first in what will apparently be a series of these "temporary recurring"
>experiments, we have only Conboy's assurance that we'll continue to be seeing
>her the same amount of time, only in more concentrated blocks.
Michael, we don't even have that, actually. With you on everything
else, even that which has been chomped out to save space & repetition.
>If that's really what they have planned, however, there are
>other ways of doing it. Except in rare cases anymore, as I understand it, soap
>contracts are for number of appearances per year. There's nothing to stop them,
>if they really do plan on using Holly in future storylines, from keeping
>Garrett under contract and saying, "We're going to use 80 of the 100 days in
>your guarantee for 2003 in April through August, because that's when Holly will
>have a storyline."
Yep. And, in addition to that, they still have the option to fire
anyone without cause 4 times a year, every 13 weeks.
>Weston and her team will do what Conboy tells them to do. My guess is that if
>the point of all this is that the veteran performers are more expensive, then
>we'll continue to see MADD directing the EPs to direct the writers to write
>more for the younger, less expensive performers. Same game as in the past five
>years, slightly different plan of attack (i.e., recurring for the vets rather
>than smaller and smaller guarantees).
And, we have to remember Conboy's reputation for only being interested
in the people he considers to be the beautiful people, young & hot.
Turns out some of what we feared ahead of time going by reputation was
true, after all. How about that? LOL
--
DonnaB %^>
"The best of everything is the only individual of that thing. We
should ignore the rest." - Louise Imogen Guiney, American poet and
essayist (1861-1920).
Rthrquiet
>And, we have to remember Conboy's reputation for only being interested
>in the people he considers to be the beautiful people, young & hot.
And to think of how many people on GL that I value don't fall into that
category . . .
>Turns out some of what we feared ahead of time going by reputation was
>true, after all. How about that? LOL
>
Score (another) one for the Stepford fans.
Michael
Anthony D. Langford
>in the people he considers to be the beautiful people, young & hot.
>Turns out some of what we feared ahead of time going by reputation was
>true, after all. How about that? LOL
>
>--
>DonnaB %^>
Not only that, I remember that there were a few people who admonished everyone
for being so negative and downbeat and looking for trouble. Well, as it turns
out, we were right. But we really didn't want to be.
Anthony D. Langford
Creator and Writer of Covington Bay--An Online Soap Opera
Check it out at: http://www.covingtonbay.com
Rthrquiet
>Not only that, I remember that there were a few people who admonished
>everyone
>for being so negative and downbeat and looking for trouble. Well, as it
>turns
>out, we were right. But we really didn't want to be.
Truly. I would gladly trade being "right" in this instance, I'd come on here
and eat crow day in, day out for several months, if instead of what we're
getting, I was reading things like "Conboy fires McKeon, begs Bundy to return
as Marah" and "Conboy decrees Tony and Marah a lost cause; Vilasuso on
recurring" and "Conboy says writing is key, gives Weston free hand to tell
stories she believes in" and maybe even "Conboy finds GL's strengths in over-50
performers, asks writers to beef up roles of Ed, Ross, Holly, and Buzz." But
instead, we're getting pretty much exactly what I suspected. I did not expect
Garrett to be the first, but I did, sort of, expect her name to be on the list.
With StudShane just hired and a NuNuLizzie on the way, I'm thinking it's
becoming easier and easier to see what direction the show will be taking
(although, in fairness, I'll point out that Conboy also asked Marj Dusay to
stay on, and I would never have called that one, even if they are old buddies).
Have we heard anything about whether Lisa Brown is staying on as GL's
acting-coach-to-the-younger-crowd? Or is that entire program going to be
another casualty--"we don't care if they can act, so long as they look young
and hot on camera"?
I guess GL will have to stand, now, for "The Glamourized Light."
Michael
Ian J. Ball
rhfan...@aol.comhatespam (Peter J.) wrote:
Or you f'ing kidding me?!
This is the first thing I've ever heard you say that I vehemently
disagree with. Cassie is one of the primary things that drove me away
from GL as far back as Dinah/Hart/Cassie, and I can only watch GL now on
days where there aren't large blocks of Cassie (and Reva).
So, "would having a "new Cassie waltz onto the scene" be such a *bad*
thing?"
You f'ing bet it would!
--
Ian J. Ball | Mac OS X? Gotta love it!
TV lover, and | Bye-bye members.aol.com!
Usenet slacker |
ijb...@mac.com | http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV.html
Ian J. Ball
alang...@aol.comnojunk (Anthony D. Langford) wrote:
> >And, we have to remember Conboy's reputation for only being interested
> >in the people he considers to be the beautiful people, young & hot.
> >Turns out some of what we feared ahead of time going by reputation was
> >true, after all. How about that? LOL
> >
> >DonnaB %^>
>
> Not only that, I remember that there were a few people who admonished everyone
> for being so negative and downbeat and looking for trouble. Well, as it turns
> out, we were right. But we really didn't want to be.
That's OK. Some of us are getting the same flak about our concerns over
at OLTL, but I'm more and more confident that we're right to be worried
over there too...
Shawn Hill
: In article <20030212030905...@mb-ci.aol.com>,
: rhfan...@aol.comhatespam (Peter J.) wrote:
:> >Frank) and a lot of other characters are "tack-ons" to an established
:> >universe (if good writers pay attention). Of course if you throw history
:> >away, a new Cassie can waltz onto the scene every few years.
:>
:> Huh? Since Cassie is one of the few compelling (and long-lasting) new
:> characters created in the past 5-6 years, would having a "new Cassie waltz
:> onto the scene" be such a bad thing? A well-written, well-portrayed
:> character with ties to a core family? Would it be better to have another
:> Noah, or Catalina, or Eden?
: Or you f'ing kidding me?!
: This is the first thing I've ever heard you say that I vehemently
: disagree with. Cassie is one of the primary things that drove me away
and it's one of the few things I agree with Peter on. Cassie has been a
good addition to the show. She does have ties to core families, she was
great when Eddie had her locked up in the castle, and the hotel is the
best new set/locale in town in a decade. I'm all for Cassie, just not in
large doses.
She also makes Reva far more tolerable.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: That's only a small part of what bothers me, Lance. Since Garrett is only the
: first in what will apparently be a series of these "temporary recurring"
: experiments, we have only Conboy's assurance that we'll continue to be seeing
: her the same amount of time, only in more concentrated blocks. This could very
And she's been promised story many, many times before.
: by the time it dawns on them that that they haven't seen Holly more than three
: or four episodes in that time, and what happened to "temporary recurring," it
: will be an old issue and old news.
Evil but possible!
: contract? It's the Marj Dusay, Round 2 problem from a few years ago, when Marj
: came back briefly as Alex, they had a minor, but significant, role planned for
: her in whatever story was going on with Alan at the time (I forget what it
: was), she wanted a contract, GL would not give her one, and then Dusay got
: tapped for a contract role on AMC, so we got Rauch boo-hooing in the soap press
: about how "my leading lady has deserted me."
Because he f-ed her over, exactly.
THOUGH I'D LOVE to see MG get a showy roll like Vanessa Cortlandt on
another show; I would follow her wherever she goes.
: I think there's very good reason to be skeptical that this will play out the
: way Torchin is saying. She's probably repeating what she's being told by
: Procter and Gamble or Conboy, but that doesn't mean that's how it will actually
: go. Recurring is recurring, no matter how they try to dress it up.
Maeve K. went off an on it repeatedly, and still found a fair amount of
story; but, of course, that was her ASKING for time off.
:>[A writing campaign would perhaps be better spent writing the writers,
:>in hopes of them bringing their A games to the new approach.]
: Weston and her team will do what Conboy tells them to do. My guess is that if
: the point of all this is that the veteran performers are more expensive, then
: we'll continue to see MADD directing the EPs to direct the writers to write
: more for the younger, less expensive performers. Same game as in the past five
: years, slightly different plan of attack (i.e., recurring for the vets rather
: than smaller and smaller guarantees).
Distressing.
Shawn
Donna L. Bridges
<b2e7b3$gle$3...@news.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn Hill
<sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Because he f-ed her over, exactly.
Although it was really MADD who did so.
>Maeve K. went off an on it repeatedly, and still found a fair amount of
>story; but, of course, that was her ASKING for time off.
Not entirely.
--
DonnaB %^>
"I prefer to be a dreamer among the humblest, with visions to be
realized, than lord among those without dreams and desires." - Khalil
Gibran
CMK1996
>From: Shawn Hill sh...@fas.harvard.edu
>Date: 2/12/2003 2:25 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <b2e739$gle$2...@news.fas.harvard.edu>
smiling and a bit more lighthearted. It's been a long, sad, dramatic road for
her for such a long time, with only a few happy moments with Richard in Texas.
There's been more balance with her lately, too, I agree. She's had scenes with
several different people and that's been a big help, too. I don't care how good
a character is, or the actor, if they are locked in scenes with one or two
other people, day after day, it's gonna be painful.
KC
Peter J.
>Or you f'ing kidding me?!
>
>This is the first thing I've ever heard you say that I vehemently
>disagree with. Cassie is one of the primary things that drove me away
>from GL as far back as Dinah/Hart/Cassie, and I can only watch GL now on
>days where there aren't large blocks of Cassie (and Reva).
>
>So, "would having a "new Cassie waltz onto the scene" be such a *bad*
>thing?"
>
>You f'ing bet it would!
Cassie has been one of the main reasons I've stuck with GL the past several
years, especially as my older, longtime favorites have been pushed increasingly
to the sidelines. Laura always gives 100%, and is an all-rounded soap opera
actress (subtlety, drama, romance, tears, comedy, being able to inject new
shadings into repetitive material), and she is very believable as Reva's sister
and a member of the Lewis/Shayne clan. She's also a very human character in
terms of her emotions and how she expresses them, because Laura does not try to
put on a big show to get attention.
With the exception of the Alonzo swill and some of Dinah/Hart/Cassie, I think
that most of Cassie's stories have ranged from decent to excellent, and she has
had strong chemistry with both Richard and Danny. I just hope that GL doesn't
cave in to all the pressure from Michelle/Danny fans and doesn't proceed with
Cassie/Danny or makes Cassie some sort of witch who tries to keep
Michelle/Danny apart.
Ian J. Ball
>
>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:36:41 GMT, Ian J. Ball said the following:
>> In article <20030212094747...@mb-fg.aol.com>,
>> alang...@aol.comnojunk (Anthony D. Langford) wrote:
>> >
>> > Not only that, I remember that there were a few people who admonished
>everyone
>> > for being so negative and downbeat and looking for trouble. Well, as it
>turns
>> > out, we were right. But we really didn't want to be.
>>
>> That's OK. Some of us are getting the same flak about our concerns over
>> at OLTL, but I'm more and more confident that we're right to be worried
>> over there too...
>
>Now Ian, no Jessica Morris bashing in RATSC. ;-P
Yeah, ha ha, Cory, real cute.
But, seriously, Morris is now just the tip of the iceberg. I'm really put off
by the new direction OLTL seems to be going in, and I'm not sure how much
longer I'll be sticking with it...
--
Ian J. Ball | http://homepage.mac.com/IJBall/TV.html
IJB...@aol.com |
Dana Carpender
"Peter J." wrote:
>
>
>
> With the exception of the Alonzo swill and some of Dinah/Hart/Cassie, I think
> that most of Cassie's stories have ranged from decent to excellent, and she has
> had strong chemistry with both Richard and Danny. I just hope that GL doesn't
> cave in to all the pressure from Michelle/Danny fans and doesn't proceed with
> Cassie/Danny or makes Cassie some sort of witch who tries to keep
> Michelle/Danny apart.
I'm happy about anything that keeps Michelle and Danny apart.
Michelle's acting like a snippy little shrew, and she doesn't deserve
him. Or Bill.
--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
NEW! 500 Low-Carb Recipes
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
Nick Cassaro
contract role and she takes it. That would show them.
Shawn Hill
:>"Ian J. Ball" ijball***SPAM-No***@mac.com.invalid wrote:
: to the sidelines. Laura always gives 100%, and is an all-rounded soap opera
: actress (subtlety, drama, romance, tears, comedy, being able to inject new
: shadings into repetitive material), and she is very believable as Reva's sister
: and a member of the Lewis/Shayne clan. She's also a very human character in
: terms of her emotions and how she expresses them, because Laura does not try to
: put on a big show to get attention.
I agree with all of this. "all-rounded soap opera actress" is a pretty
good way to describe her, your so right about how she tries to find new
shadings even as the material wears on and on. She works hard to keep it
interesting.
Shawn
Boozy Smurf
"Donna L. Bridges" <shall...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:m0hk4vonbnea9bupb...@4ax.com...
> In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:46:02 GMT in Msg.#
> <emr2a.336137$pDv.2...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "Boozy
> Smurf" <drew...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >Who's the author of this post? Unless she's some onair personality at
> >SoapNet I wouldn't believe news coming off of a message board.
>
> Mimi Torchin? Who is Mimi Torchin? LOL!! If anyone gets any coupons
> for % off of clues, pass one on to Andrew here, if you can possibly
> spare it, okay?!!
>
> Let's see, she created SOAP OPERA WEEKLY & was its editor for 10 years
> until the corporation that owns it fired her. She's been working at
> Soapnet Online ever since then except for maybe a few months vacation
> after the trauma of Security escorting her out of the Head Office of
> her particular soap baby.
Forgive me for not keeping track of the old editor of a magazine I don't
read, or a message board about a network of soaps I don't enjoy. The
snarkiness is not appreciated.
Rthrquiet
But you were questioning Torchin's reliability as a source directly as a result
of your not realizing who she is, Drew. Donna may have been *slightly* snarky,
but you set yourself right up for it by the way you dismissed Torchin from
being unfamiliar with her. It might have been a wiser course just to ask who
she was and waited for the answer before you hinted she perhaps should not be
believed (i.e., the look-before-you-leap rule).
Michael
Boozy Smurf
"Rthrquiet" <rthr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030212222449...@mb-fv.aol.com...
I did ask, I said if she were a personality with the net then thats another
story. Doesn't warrant a "If anyone gets any coupons for % off of clues,
Stacey
> cabr...@hotmail.com (Lancebowski) posted:
>
> >[BEGIN SOAPNET EXCERPT]
> >
> >"Maureen has been put on temporary recurring status due to a lack of
> >storyline. She is not off the canvas and will probably appear almost
> >as much as she does now -- but in blocks of larger time when it
> >happens. This is the wave of the future, I'm afraid, for many of our
> >vereran performers. They have built up high salaries, they aren't
> >involved in front-burner stories and it's expensive to keep them
> >around as "background" for their guarantees. I can assure you that
> >more actors will follow -- on GL and our other shows. If you don't
> >like this now or as an indication of the future, write to the shows --
> >e-mail or snail mail. The passion I've seen on these boards might do
> >some good."
> >
> >[END SOAPNET EXCERPT]
> >
>
> first in what will apparently be a series of these "temporary recurring"
> experiments, we have only Conboy's assurance that we'll continue to be seeing
> her the same amount of time, only in more concentrated blocks. This could very
> easily be a ploy to quelch some of the (what I hope will be) viewer outrage and
> indignation over their decision to phase Garrett out: reassure them now that
> they'll really be seeing her just as much, and then about nine months from now,
> by the time it dawns on them that that they haven't seen Holly more than three
> or four episodes in that time, and what happened to "temporary recurring," it
> will be an old issue and old news.
Are there any examples of someone going to recurring status and
staying on the canvas? I'm thinking of Claire here--she was put on
recurring and I don't think we've seen her since--even though with Ed
back, I think TPTB really dropped the ball on what could have been
some remarkable scenes with him and Claire. As a matter of fact,
they've dropped the ball with Ed period. I was just starting to get
excited about him and Holly having a story and now this news. I'm
about a millimeter away from throwing in the towel and giving up on GL
after 25 years of (off and on) viewing. When I go this time, there
won't be any coming back.
Sarah Estell
"Stacey" <cjb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:26d7e02f.03021...@posting.google.com...
I'm
> about a millimeter away from throwing in the towel and giving up on GL
> after 25 years of (off and on) viewing. When I go this time, there
> won't be any coming back.
No doubt because there won't be any GL to come back to.
SarahE
Donna L. Bridges
<bhD2a.341417$pDv....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "Boozy
Smurf" <drew...@rogers.com> wrote:
>Forgive me for not keeping track of the old editor of a magazine I don't
>read, or a message board about a network of soaps I don't enjoy. The
>snarkiness is not appreciated.
Just for your information, Mimi Torchin, who has worked at most places
a soap journalist could work over the years, yet is one of the few
still around who created a major soap magazine. She is a soap
journalist at Soapnet, which happens to have message boards in
addition to its main content. As such she & it covers information &
news & interviews & op/ed & chats on all soaps. Her late January piece
on 'My Daughter (Slap) My Sister (Slap)" goes right into CHINATOWN &
then onward to be about this appalling B&B storyline of Bridget &
Ridge. Just because you don't know about someone, just because you
don't like someone or watch someone, doesn't change the answer to a
question you posed or even about other ways to communicate with people
who answer questions for you over the years.
I responded to your posts & thought perhaps changing to move over to
humor would be better, so maybe it wouldn't be another intensive
antagonistic interrogation. Obviously it didn't work. I thought it was
funny & harmless, teasing, etc. as I said, to change the conversation.
If it was personally offensive to you, I apologize.
Oh, and, I forgot: Ms. Torchin is a close personal friend of Ms.
Garrett's.
--
DonnaB %^>
"America's future will be determined by the home & the school. The
child becomes largely what he is taught; hence we must watch what we
teach & how we live." - Jane Addams
Donna L. Bridges
<20030212222449...@mb-fv.aol.com>, rthr...@aol.com
(Rthrquiet) wrote:
>But you were questioning Torchin's reliability as a source directly as a result
>of your not realizing who she is, Drew. Donna may have been *slightly* snarky,
>but you set yourself right up for it by the way you dismissed Torchin from
>being unfamiliar with her. It might have been a wiser course just to ask who
>she was and waited for the answer before you hinted she perhaps should not be
>believed (i.e., the look-before-you-leap rule).
Thanks, Michael, glad someone got what was going on.
--
DonnaB %^>
"A friend is one who believes in you when you have ceased to believe
in yourself." - Anonymous
Donna L. Bridges
<MPG.18b4a084c...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Cory
<see...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >Now Ian, no Jessica Morris bashing in RATSC. ;-P
>>
>> Yeah, ha ha, Cory, real cute.
>>
>> But, seriously, Morris is now just the tip of the iceberg. I'm really put off
>> by the new direction OLTL seems to be going in, and I'm not sure how much
>> longer I'll be sticking with it...
Goth? or Camp? or abrupt winding up of some & turning of others?
>I'm gonna wait and see what happens. The whole thing with Mitch is...
>surreal, for lack of a better word, and I am curious to see where they go
>with it. Perhaps the biggest thing that bothers me the most is how
>they've destroyed Natalie and turned her into a simpering scaredy-cat.
Guarded optimism.
--
DonnaB %^>
"God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience,
but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world." -
C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
Donna L. Bridges
<20030212151055...@mb-mw.aol.com>, cmk...@aol.com
(CMK1996) wrote:
>>From: Shawn Hill sh...@fas.harvard.edu
>>She also makes Reva far more tolerable.
>>
>I've always liked Cassie, but I especially like her lately, now that she's
>smiling and a bit more lighthearted. It's been a long, sad, dramatic road for
>her for such a long time, with only a few happy moments with Richard in Texas.
>There's been more balance with her lately, too, I agree. She's had scenes with
>several different people and that's been a big help, too. I don't care how good
>a character is, or the actor, if they are locked in scenes with one or two
>other people, day after day, it's gonna be painful.
That's her standout ability to me, too, that she makes Reva fit more.
However, I do think it's taken me very little time to get worn out on
her & ready for her to be in the background often - where it took much
longer, for me, with Reva herself.
I just pray they don't pair her with Ed.
--
DonnaB %^>
"A gem is not polished without rubbing, nor a man made perfect without
trials." - Chinese proverb
Lancebowski
> That's only a small part of what bothers me, Lance. Since Garrett is only the
> first in what will apparently be a series of these "temporary recurring"
> experiments, we have only Conboy's assurance that we'll continue to be seeing
> her the same amount of time, only in more concentrated blocks. This could very
> easily be a ploy to quelch some of the (what I hope will be) viewer outrage and
> indignation over their decision to phase Garrett out: reassure them now that
> they'll really be seeing her just as much, and then about nine months from now,
> by the time it dawns on them that that they haven't seen Holly more than three
> or four episodes in that time, and what happened to "temporary recurring," it
> will be an old issue and old news.
This is a reworked "Architect of Doom" theory that last raised its
big head big-time, when it was announced that Joan Collins had been
hired.
Tptb's move with Joan was heralded (by a fairly large contingent),
as the first in a succession of "stunt casting moves" that would
Destroy The Show As We Know It.
By the time of Joan's bizarre and unfortunate exit from the show,
virtually every former naysayer was bemoaning her absence.
Conboy is not an Architect of Doom.
If you want to see where he's going, _look where he's at_: crisper
dialog, tighter mysteries, the camera work is more varied, the actors
are stepping up to the plate (I've even noticed that Dusay has cut
back on the eyelash batting as of 2.12.03...<chuckle>)...
Then there are the growing _nuances_ that really sell an ep; ex:
Frank's coming on to Beth (resonating with a Dicoupolus interview in
which the actor said "...'Frank' needs action!"); Alan discovering
Phillip's "Bite me, Alan!" sig on the proxy document, etc..
Don't ignore the sharp increase in mini-guest roles, which, imo,
truly flesh out the show and, in and of themselves, heighten overall
interest: Gus' contact in Chicago, and the contact's contact; Alan's
lawyer, Alexandra's lawyer (for Harley), Alex's paramedics/ambulance
personel, new Springfield police officers, and Alex's major domo,
Lloyd, slowly gaining airtime (as is the Spaulding butler, Nolan).
Tptb are arguably on their game under JC's helm (as they also were
under Culliton), and this sentiment is reflected not only in
r.a.t.s.c/gl, but in threads on boards and sites across the Net.
In total, "Convoy's" current direction and his attentions to
detail, are not the acts of a man bent on destroying the show.
The Garrett Thing has the _potential_ to be disasterous, but,
judging by Conboy's moves to-date, tptb merit the benefit of the
doubt.
> >[A writing campaign would perhaps be better spent writing the writers,
> >in hopes of them bringing their A games to the new approach.]
> Weston and her team will do what Conboy tells them to do...
As events in the brain affect the gut, so events in the gut affect
the brain.
The writers have the ears of the execs - exploit the resonance.
Change is inevitable. Vets like Sloan, Deas, Newman, Zimmer, and,
yes, Garrett come and go no matter how beloved or talented.
Veterans "riding into the sunset" en masse (background roles
included) constitutes a pipe dream.
The only real question is whether or not transitions are rendered
transparently (I see no "Glamourization of GL" on the horizon,
either).
So to directly address in shorthand, all of the "sturm und drang"
over the perceived potential for vet disrespect and subsequent show
destruction:
the Fat Lady isn't singing, and she's not warming up. She's down in
The Basement, chowing down on buffalo wings and fries, and chugging
beer.
If "Fats" comes up (this summer??), it'll be to chant at the
Stepford Critics' funeral, not GL's. ;)
Lancebowski
http://bios7.tripod.com/bioblog/psychoblog.html#psy
Donna L. Bridges
<21835c0d.03021...@posting.google.com>,
cabr...@hotmail.com (Lancebowski) wrote:
> Don't ignore the sharp increase in mini-guest roles, which, imo,
>truly flesh out the show and, in and of themselves, heighten overall
>interest: Gus' contact in Chicago, and the contact's contact; Alan's
>lawyer, Alexandra's lawyer (for Harley), Alex's paramedics/ambulance
>personel, new Springfield police officers, and Alex's major domo,
>Lloyd, slowly gaining airtime (as is the Spaulding butler, Nolan).
An increased use of day players is one of the signs of someone out to
change a show into their own & that they're not going to use veterans
as much & spend much less money on the actors. Jill Phelps uses it at
every show she goes to.
> In total, "Convoy's" current direction and his attentions to
>detail, are not the acts of a man bent on destroying the show.
If he knows that's what is up. Familiar to Chris Goutman's 8 months at
the end of AW, though. More echoes.
> The Garrett Thing has the _potential_ to be disasterous, but,
>judging by Conboy's moves to-date, tptb merit the benefit of the
>doubt.
Why does he merit the benefit of the doubt in this specific instance.
>> >[A writing campaign would perhaps be better spent writing the writers,
>> >in hopes of them bringing their A games to the new approach.]
>
>> Weston and her team will do what Conboy tells them to do...
Yes, so one would hope that Conboy & MADD would both be a part of any
campaign, as well as listening to the writers' impressions of fan
feedback.
Plus, it would somehow be great if both they & Maureen knew just how
much she means to the fans.
> Change is inevitable. Vets like Sloan, Deas, Newman, Zimmer, and,
>yes, Garrett come and go no matter how beloved or talented.
> Veterans "riding into the sunset" en masse (background roles
>included) constitutes a pipe dream.
A few at a time is much more usual. However, that adds up.
--
DonnaB %^>
"Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want." - Dan
Stanford
Donna L. Bridges
<20030212100529...@mb-ci.aol.com>, rthr...@aol.com
(Rthrquiet) wrote:
>alang...@aol.comnojunk (Anthony D. Langford) posted:
>>Not only that, I remember that there were a few people who admonished
>>everyone
>>for being so negative and downbeat and looking for trouble. Well, as it
>>turns
>>out, we were right. But we really didn't want to be.
Much much much rather be wrong!
>Truly. I would gladly trade being "right" in this instance, ... But
>instead, we're getting pretty much exactly what I suspected. I did not expect
>Garrett to be the first, but I did, sort of, expect her name to be on the list.
>
>With StudShane just hired and a NuNuLizzie on the way, I'm thinking it's
>becoming easier and easier to see what direction the show will be taking
>(although, in fairness, I'll point out that Conboy also asked Marj Dusay to
>stay on,
SOD (now) relates that Marj said they've talked about it, as a
possibility, but that nothing has been decided yet.
>I guess GL will have to stand, now, for "The Glamourized Light."
The Gilded Lily?
--
DonnaB %^>
"Today I feel no wish to demonstrate that sanity is impossible." -
Aldous Huxley
Bo
<shall...@rcn.com> wrote:
>That's her standout ability to me, too, that she makes Reva fit more.
>However, I do think it's taken me very little time to get worn out on
>her & ready for her to be in the background often - where it took much
>longer, for me, with Reva herself.
>
>I just pray they don't pair her with Ed.
Why is everyone so dead set against a Cassie/Ed relationship? I
actually think they have good onscreen chemistry. Not that Cassie &
Danny don't (I like Cassie/Danny, and esp. like the way Danny is
smiling these days)...I'm just saying I think Cassie/Ed could work.
If TPTB *are* basically writing off Holly (not something I would
relish...but if they are), what would be so wrong about Ed hooking up
with Cassie?
-Bo ( b...@bodacia.com | www.bodacia.com )
"Somewhere in Texas, a village has lost its idiot."
Peter J.
>
>
>Why is everyone so dead set against a Cassie/Ed relationship? I
>actually think they have good onscreen chemistry. Not that Cassie &
>Danny don't (I like Cassie/Danny, and esp. like the way Danny is
>smiling these days)...I'm just saying I think Cassie/Ed could work.
>
>If TPTB *are* basically writing off Holly (not something I would
>relish...but if they are), what would be so wrong about Ed hooking up
>with Cassie?
>
After that scene a few days ago where he was playing all those mind games with
her about Danny, I lost a lot of the initial optimism I had for Ed and Cassie's
friendship. That scene was a very strong suggestion that if they ever got
together romantically or became close, then Ed would start trying to dictate
her life the way he used to with other women in the past.
The other problem for me would be that Michelle would flip out and do
everything she could to sabotage the relationship, because in her mind, Cassie
probably isn't good enough for Ed and Cassie would only be dating Ed because
she wants to keep tabs on Michelle or Michelle/Danny.
Ian J. Ball
Donna L. Bridges <shall...@rcn.com> wrote:
> In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:19:20 -0600 in Msg.#
> <MPG.18b4a084c...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Cory
> <see...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Now Ian, no Jessica Morris bashing in RATSC. ;-P
> >>
> >> Yeah, ha ha, Cory, real cute.
> >>
> >> But, seriously, Morris is now just the tip of the iceberg. I'm really
> >> put off by the new direction OLTL seems to be going in, and I'm not sure
> >> how much longer I'll be sticking with it...
>
> Goth? or Camp? or abrupt winding up of some & turning of others?
It's the simple fact that I don't like the direction *every* story is
going in. Todd possibly on the way out? Jessica & Antonio?! Endless
Cristian & Natalie? Nora & Bo, and good-bye Gabby? No write-out for Jen?
More "socially conscious storylines", a la Flash?
I'm not interested in any of this. Frankly, I think they've taken some
bad storylines, made many of them worse, and added several storylines
that I don't like.
And, truthfully, I do miss some of the camp. When Tomlin was first on
board I liked a lot of that. G&M seem to take themselves so seriously
that it's a turn-off.
I'm trying to stick with it, by my enthusiasm for trying that is almost
gone. And we're only two weeks into this?...
Bo
wrote:
>After that scene a few days ago where he was playing all those mind games with
>her about Danny, I lost a lot of the initial optimism I had for Ed and Cassie's
>friendship.
You're right. That was pretty gross. It's like they've already
assassinated the character of Michelle, and Rick was destroyed years
ago...so why not turn Ed inside out as well.
>That scene was a very strong suggestion that if they ever got
>together romantically or became close, then Ed would start trying to dictate
>her life the way he used to with other women in the past.
Can you give examples? I don't recall that version of Ed.
>The other problem for me would be that Michelle would flip out and do
>everything she could to sabotage the relationship, because in her mind, Cassie
>probably isn't good enough for Ed and Cassie would only be dating Ed because
>she wants to keep tabs on Michelle or Michelle/Danny.
Maybe someone should just take out Michelle already (Carmen, are you
ready to come out of that coma?). *Everyone* in Springfield would be
better off.
Sarah
>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:43:34 -0500, Donna L. Bridges
> <shall...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> >That's her standout ability to me, too, that she makes Reva fit more.
> >However, I do think it's taken me very little time to get worn out on
> >her & ready for her to be in the background often - where it took much
> >longer, for me, with Reva herself.
> >
> >I just pray they don't pair her with Ed.
>
> Why is everyone so dead set against a Cassie/Ed relationship? I
> actually think they have good onscreen chemistry. Not that Cassie &
> Danny don't (I like Cassie/Danny, and esp. like the way Danny is
> smiling these days)...I'm just saying I think Cassie/Ed could work.
>
> If TPTB *are* basically writing off Holly (not something I would
> relish...but if they are), what would be so wrong about Ed hooking up
> with Cassie?
I'm not against it at all, I've seen their chemistry for ages now. In
the beginning I thought that would be a little too trite, but not
anymore. I could definitely get behind that.
sarah
"sarah says" - The Serial Bowl for the new millenium
http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/16094
Peter J.
>
>>That scene was a very strong suggestion that if they ever got
>>together romantically or became close, then Ed would start trying to dictate
>>her life the way he used to with other women in the past.
>
>Can you give examples? I don't recall that version of Ed.
Well he usually wanted his wives to maintain a certain mode of behavior and
then when they didn't he would be outraged at the start and then go back and
try to help them fix their lives. He's done this with Holly several times. I
think he would fall into that pattern with Cassie as well.
>Maybe someone should just take out Michelle already (Carmen, are you
>ready to come out of that coma?). *Everyone* in Springfield would be
>better off.
Wouldn't that be hilarious, if Cassie and Danny got married and went on their
honeymoon, Michelle said, "all of the Santoses are finally out of my life", and
Carmen showed up and shot her! I would die laughing.
I think Michelle needs to go on a 3-6 month vacation, and then return with a
recast. She has been gutted to the point where she is no longer viable for any
present storylines. Every time I see her I hear all of the cruel, manipulative,
ugly remarks she has made to Cassie and especially Danny.
Peter J.
>It's the simple fact that I don't like the direction *every* story is
>going in. Todd possibly on the way out? Jessica & Antonio?! Endless
>Cristian & Natalie? Nora & Bo, and good-bye Gabby? No write-out for Jen?
>More "socially conscious storylines", a la Flash?
You have valid concerns (I share most of them), but if Todd goes that's
Howarth's choice, not the show's.
Shawn Hill
:>>From: Shawn Hill sh...@fas.harvard.edu
:>>She also makes Reva far more tolerable.
: That's her standout ability to me, too, that she makes Reva fit more.
: However, I do think it's taken me very little time to get worn out on
: her & ready for her to be in the background often - where it took much
: longer, for me, with Reva herself.
Eh, I hated Reva from the start.
I liked Cassie, though, until the Dirt triangle wore on so long. But I
liked her in Hart's death scenes, and I liked her when Edmund locked her
up in San Cristobel. Got bored with her and Richard fast (though I
understood the Prince Charming romance others saw), but lover her
fighting with Olivia over the hotel.
Basically, I like Cassie when she's miserable, or nearly so.
: I just pray they don't pair her with Ed.
Well, with Holly on recurring, it'd be no good for him to be paired with
her. I think they're heavy on the Cassie/Danny tip right now, though.
Shawn
Charli
> > If TPTB *are* basically writing off Holly (not something I would
> > relish...but if they are), what would be so wrong about Ed hooking up
> > with Cassie?
>
> I'm not against it at all, I've seen their chemistry for ages now. In
> the beginning I thought that would be a little too trite, but not
> anymore. I could definitely get behind that.
>
I haven't been watching GL that long, so I haven't seen much of the
Cassie/Ed chemistry. But I have seen the chemistry between Cassie and
Danny. They both have strong, fiery personalities, and sparks just fly
when they're onscreen together. To me, Ed seems too low-key to
generate that kind of fire with Cassie. (*But* Ed does generate a
quiet heat with Holly, which is why I absolutely love their scenes
together.)
Maybe you can tell I want to see a Danny/Cassie pairing. I'm hoping
that Danny hooks up with Michelle, realizes what a shrew she's become
and how wonderful Cassie is, and leaves Michelle just in time to save
Cassie from an evil Richard twin. Is that asking too much? :-)
Charli
Shawn Hill
:>Bo b...@REMOVEbodacia.com wrote:
:>relish...but if they are), what would be so wrong about Ed hooking up
:>with Cassie?
: After that scene a few days ago where he was playing all those mind games with
: her about Danny, I lost a lot of the initial optimism I had for Ed and Cassie's
: friendship. That scene was a very strong suggestion that if they ever got
: together romantically or became close, then Ed would start trying to dictate
: her life the way he used to with other women in the past.
That is Ed's modus operandi. It's almost as if he's not happy unless he
can be subtly judgmental and critical of the people in his life; since
many of them are so flawed already, they're more than ready for his
mixture of advice and disapproval.
: The other problem for me would be that Michelle would flip out and do
: everything she could to sabotage the relationship, because in her mind, Cassie
: probably isn't good enough for Ed and Cassie would only be dating Ed because
: she wants to keep tabs on Michelle or Michelle/Danny.
Wouldn't she more likely be happy to have distracted Cassie from Danny?
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: On 14 Feb 2003 01:26:52 GMT, rhfan...@aol.comhatespam (Peter J.)
: wrote:
:>After that scene a few days ago where he was playing all those mind games with
:>her about Danny, I lost a lot of the initial optimism I had for Ed and Cassie's
:>friendship.
: You're right. That was pretty gross. It's like they've already
: assassinated the character of Michelle, and Rick was destroyed years
: ago...so why not turn Ed inside out as well.
As if Ed was ever anything but passive agressive and manipulative? He's
had his haters forever, and (to some extent) rightly so.
:>That scene was a very strong suggestion that if they ever got
:>together romantically or became close, then Ed would start trying to dictate
:>her life the way he used to with other women in the past.
: Can you give examples? I don't recall that version of Ed.
Maureen: difficulties with her career and social standing, disapproval of
her tolerance of Roger
Holly: always picking up the pieces, but never really giving her what she
needed
Eve: giving her a refuge when the town hated her, but not giving her
unconditional love
Bridget: fairly superior, judmental attitude, often over not her actions,
but over NOT TELLING HIM about her actions
: Maybe someone should just take out Michelle already (Carmen, are you
: ready to come out of that coma?). *Everyone* in Springfield would be
: better off.
Michelle can be as difficult and demanding as her father.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: rthr...@aol.com (Rthrquiet) wrote in message news:<20030212085835...@mb-ms.aol.com>...
: This is a reworked "Architect of Doom" theory that last raised its
: big head big-time, when it was announced that Joan Collins had been
: hired.
ICAM!
: Tptb's move with Joan was heralded (by a fairly large contingent),
: as the first in a succession of "stunt casting moves" that would
: Destroy The Show As We Know It.
: By the time of Joan's bizarre and unfortunate exit from the show,
: virtually every former naysayer was bemoaning her absence.
Totally.
: Conboy is not an Architect of Doom.
: If you want to see where he's going, _look where he's at_: crisper
: dialog, tighter mysteries, the camera work is more varied, the actors
Seriously, Reva's dream about her accuser was rather wild before she went
on her rant after Holly and the dry cleaning, wasn't it? I almost
expected the sock puppet to pop up!
: are stepping up to the plate (I've even noticed that Dusay has cut
: back on the eyelash batting as of 2.12.03...<chuckle>)...
: Then there are the growing _nuances_ that really sell an ep; ex:
: Frank's coming on to Beth (resonating with a Dicoupolus interview in
: which the actor said "...'Frank' needs action!"); Alan discovering
: Phillip's "Bite me, Alan!" sig on the proxy document, etc..
Yep. tighter and crisper on dialogue and editing.
: Don't ignore the sharp increase in mini-guest roles, which, imo,
: truly flesh out the show and, in and of themselves, heighten overall
: interest: Gus' contact in Chicago, and the contact's contact; Alan's
: lawyer, Alexandra's lawyer (for Harley), Alex's paramedics/ambulance
: personel, new Springfield police officers, and Alex's major domo,
: Lloyd, slowly gaining airtime (as is the Spaulding butler, Nolan).
Yep. Let's get more staff at the hotel, too.
: In total, "Convoy's" current direction and his attentions to
: detail, are not the acts of a man bent on destroying the show.
: The Garrett Thing has the _potential_ to be disasterous, but,
: judging by Conboy's moves to-date, tptb merit the benefit of the
: doubt.
Agreed.
: The Basement, chowing down on buffalo wings and fries, and chugging
: beer.
: If "Fats" comes up (this summer??), it'll be to chant at the
: Stepford Critics' funeral, not GL's. ;)
Tee hee.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: This is beyond disgusting. I hope another show offers Garrett a
: contract role and she takes it. That would show them.
Well, it worked for Marj Dusay.
Shawn
:> "Maureen has been put on temporary recurring status due to a lack of
Shawn Hill
:>personel, new Springfield police officers, and Alex's major domo,
:>Lloyd, slowly gaining airtime (as is the Spaulding butler, Nolan).
: An increased use of day players is one of the signs of someone out to
: change a show into their own & that they're not going to use veterans
: as much & spend much less money on the actors. Jill Phelps uses it at
: every show she goes to.
It's also something the Stepford critics often clamour for, and not doing
it often leads to tedious, endless focus on the current "teen" couple or
other tedious and uninteresting focuses on new airtime usurpers.
:> In total, "Convoy's" current direction and his attentions to
:>detail, are not the acts of a man bent on destroying the show.
: If he knows that's what is up. Familiar to Chris Goutman's 8 months at
: the end of AW, though. More echoes.
Familiar in what ways? Are you saying Goutman was trying to get rid of AW
the whole time he was there?
:> The Garrett Thing has the _potential_ to be disasterous, but,
:>judging by Conboy's moves to-date, tptb merit the benefit of the
:>doubt.
: Why does he merit the benefit of the doubt in this specific instance.
Because he might actually use her more than when she was on contract?
: Plus, it would somehow be great if both they & Maureen knew just how
: much she means to the fans.
You don't think she knows? I should write her right now!
Loved, btw, Buzz's inability to nail down Holly for Frank this week. If I
was MG, I'd really be enjoying this chance to shine. She even got to say
"It's always about protecting Reva, isn't it???!!!"* Unless of course I
knew it was my last hurrah!
Shawn
*I wondered how long she'd been waiting to say that, but I couldn't
really detect any extra relish to her delivery!
~~***~~*~*~*~*~*~~~~*~~*~*~~~**~*~*~*~*~*~**~**~*
Holly to Buzz: You're teasing me. I'm not in
the right frame of mind for that.
sh...@fas.harvard.edu*~*~**~~*~*~**~*~*~**~*~**~*
Donna L. Bridges
<b2jpin$uvv$2...@news.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn Hill
<sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Donna L. Bridges <shall...@rcn.com> wrote:
>: An increased use of day players is one of the signs of someone out to
>: change a show into their own & that they're not going to use veterans
>: as much & spend much less money on the actors. Jill Phelps uses it at
>: every show she goes to.
>
>It's also something the Stepford critics often clamour for, ...
And, going by philosophy, you would be one of the Stepford critics?
I'm not sure who you mean, you see. Don't agree with the point of view
but might as well know who has it.
>:> In total, "Convoy's" current direction and his attentions to
>:>detail, are not the acts of a man bent on destroying the show.
>
>: If he knows that's what is up. Familiar to Chris Goutman's 8 months at
>: the end of AW, though. More echoes.
>
>Familiar in what ways? Are you saying Goutman was trying to get rid of AW
>the whole time he was there?
Opposite. Much is familiar, but, specifically here I was referring to
the possibility that Goutman didn't know he had been hired to preside
over the ending & that he'd been set up & no matter what he did, it
was actually a foregone conclusion.
>: Why does he merit the benefit of the doubt in this specific instance.
>
>Because he might actually use her more than when she was on contract?
I'm sure that would be a pleasant surprise to many people, including
MG.
>: Plus, it would somehow be great if both they & Maureen knew just how
>: much she means to the fans.
>
>You don't think she knows? I should write her right now!
I am quite sure that she really has no idea what her standing is with
the fans.
--
DonnaB %^>
"I love you like a sister." - Skye, AMC, 1-31-97 <And considering how
she treats her sister ... Delores>
Peter J.
>
>: The other problem for me would be that Michelle would flip out and do
>: everything she could to sabotage the relationship, because in her mind,
>Cassie
>: probably isn't good enough for Ed and Cassie would only be dating Ed
>because
>: she wants to keep tabs on Michelle or Michelle/Danny.
>
>Wouldn't she more likely be happy to have distracted Cassie from Danny?
No. Michelle is self-absorbed in all matters, not simply Danny. She would think
that Cassie was trying to take Danny *and* Ed away from her.
Murray Fox
sh...@fas.harvard.edu wrote on 2/14/03 3:04 PM:
> Bo <b...@removebodacia.com> wrote:
> : On 14 Feb 2003 01:26:52 GMT, rhfan...@aol.comhatespam (Peter J.)
> : wrote:
> :>After that scene a few days ago where he was playing all those mind games
> with
> :>her about Danny, I lost a lot of the initial optimism I had for Ed and
> Cassie's
> :>friendship.
>
> : You're right. That was pretty gross. It's like they've already
> : assassinated the character of Michelle, and Rick was destroyed years
> : ago...so why not turn Ed inside out as well.
>
> As if Ed was ever anything but passive agressive and manipulative? He's
> had his haters forever, and (to some extent) rightly so.
>
> :>That scene was a very strong suggestion that if they ever got
> :>together romantically or became close, then Ed would start trying to dictate
> :>her life the way he used to with other women in the past.
>
> : Can you give examples? I don't recall that version of Ed.
>
> Bridget: fairly superior, judmental attitude, often over not her actions,
> but over NOT TELLING HIM about her actions
I don't remember that at all. Not that it didn't happen, only that my
memory of Ed and Bridget is that he was in her corner from day one when he
learned about little Peter.
Granted, when Bridget came on the show with her wild hair and sleazy
boyfriend, Elvis, Ed was hardly her biggest supporter, but over time that
changed.
murr
Darn
>From: Shawn Hill sh...@fas.harvard.edu
>Date: 2/14/03 5:06 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <b2jp8o$uvv$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>
Oh wow. I never noticed how alike Shawn and Lance were before this post.
Darn
Shawn Hill
:>Agreed.
:>
:>: The Basement, chowing down on buffalo wings and fries, and chugging
:>: beer.
:>: If "Fats" comes up (this summer??), it'll be to chant at the
:>: Stepford Critics' funeral, not GL's. ;)
:>
:>Tee hee.
: Oh wow. I never noticed how alike Shawn and Lance were before this post.
Now even I'm getting scared. I've also agreed with Peter like twice this
week! What's going on?
Shawn
:)
Donna L. Bridges
<6lgo4v4jhj9ucdd3d...@4ax.com>, Bo
<b...@REMOVEbodacia.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:43:34 -0500, Donna L. Bridges
><shall...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>>That's her standout ability to me, too, that she makes Reva fit more.
>>However, I do think it's taken me very little time to get worn out on
>>her & ready for her to be in the background often - where it took much
>>longer, for me, with Reva herself.
>>
>>I just pray they don't pair her with Ed.
>
>Why is everyone so dead set against a Cassie/Ed relationship?
Well, I don't think everyone is, but, sure, a lot do seem so. I guess
people just don't see it & may even find it somehow icky.
>If TPTB *are* basically writing off Holly (not something I would
>relish...but if they are), what would be so wrong about Ed hooking up
>with Cassie?
Perhaps that Peter Simon is already depressed enough.
--
DonnaB %^>
"To have a reason to get up in the morning, it is necessary to have a
guiding principle." - Ordinary People, by Judith Guest, 1976, 1st line
Jude, Plain and Tall
"Donna L. Bridges" <shall...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:397a5vch4gh3l4ksq...@4ax.com...
> In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on Fri, 14 Feb 2003 01:13:42 GMT in Msg.#
> <6lgo4v4jhj9ucdd3d...@4ax.com>, Bo
> <b...@REMOVEbodacia.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:43:34 -0500, Donna L. Bridges
> ><shall...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >
> >>That's her standout ability to me, too, that she makes Reva fit more.
> >>However, I do think it's taken me very little time to get worn out on
> >>her & ready for her to be in the background often - where it took much
> >>longer, for me, with Reva herself.
> >>
> >>I just pray they don't pair her with Ed.
> >
> >Why is everyone so dead set against a Cassie/Ed relationship?
>
> Well, I don't think everyone is, but, sure, a lot do seem so. I guess
> people just don't see it & may even find it somehow icky.
>
> >If TPTB *are* basically writing off Holly (not something I would
> >relish...but if they are), what would be so wrong about Ed hooking up
> >with Cassie?
>
> Perhaps that Peter Simon is already depressed enough.
Has he spoken publicly (or privately) about being disgusted with the changes
since he came back to the show? Esp MG's recurring status?
Rthrquiet
>since he came back to the show? Esp MG's recurring status?
Poor Peter Simon. He was trying so hard to be a good little soldier, too. I
remember very well his comments when he returned about how he was going to do
his job and let the writers do their job . . . and then he gets smacked with a
writer change and a producer change, and one of the first moves of the new
regime is to write off his leading lady.
I really do feel bad for him. It may yet all work out, but I'm sure he came
back thinking one thing and now must think some very different things and be
very concerned about what he's gotten himself into.
Anybody know how long he signed on for this time?
Michael
Peter J.
>
>Poor Peter Simon. He was trying so hard to be a good little soldier, too. I
>remember very well his comments when he returned about how he was going to do
>his job and let the writers do their job . . . and then he gets smacked with
>a
>writer change and a producer change, and one of the first moves of the new
>regime is to write off his leading lady.
>
>I really do feel bad for him. It may yet all work out, but I'm sure he came
>back thinking one thing and now must think some very different things and be
>very concerned about what he's gotten himself into.
>
>Anybody know how long he signed on for this time?
>
I always assumed that Peter came back only because he wanted the money, and
knew there was no real chance of ever being prominent again. He talked about
his kids' college education or something like that in an interview, I think. If
he didn't realize how meaningless his return would be about a month in, he
should have when Millee Taggart made another of her idiotic comments to the
press which basically said that Ed did not need a storyline because Ed was a
cornerstone of Springfield and Springfield was in every storyline. Yeah, and
I'm the queen of England.
The saddest part will be if he is demoted to recurring and trotted out for
token appearances to hold Michelle's hand. That would be far more humiliating
than his last departure, where at least he left with a flourish and dignity.
Rthrquiet
>I always assumed that Peter came back only because he wanted the money, and
>knew there was no real chance of ever being prominent again.
That may be, but I understood he had continually held out for *years* every
time they tried to talk him into returning because he hated the writing for Ed
the last time he was on. I assumed that they had said something that reassured
him he'd get good writing this time--I'm wondering if maybe Millee talked to
him personally, and since she's an ex-actress, was able to convince him the
show was in good hands and he didn't have to worry about the writing.
>He talked about
>his kids' college education or something like that in an interview, I think.
>If
>he didn't realize how meaningless his return would be about a month in, he
>should have when Millee Taggart made another of her idiotic comments to the
>press which basically said that Ed did not need a storyline because Ed was a
>cornerstone of Springfield and Springfield was in every storyline. Yeah, and
>I'm the queen of England.
I have no inside information on this, but I wonder if Millee is really the
dum-dum she comes across as in some of her interview comments, or if she was
simply trying to be a good team player and put the best spin she could on what
she was being told she could write, or had to write. What you've described
above sounds like it could be the commentary of someone who wants to write for
a particular character but is being told she can't because he's not a character
TPTB think will bring in the viewers. Although if all of that is the case, one
wonders why on earth they bothered to bring Ed/PS back.
>The saddest part will be if he is demoted to recurring and trotted out for
>token appearances to hold Michelle's hand. That would be far more humiliating
>than his last departure, where at least he left with a flourish and dignity.
>
Well, if he's doing it for the money, I guess it doesn't matter, although I do
think it's ironic that the show pursued him for years about returning and now
they finally get him to cave in and come back and they may actually give him
the heave-ho.
Michael
Rthrquiet
>I'm wondering if maybe Millee talked to
>him personally, and since she's an ex-actress, was able to convince him the
>show was in good hands and he didn't have to worry about the writing.
<forehead slap> Duh. No wonder that sentence didn't sit right. Not only is
Millee an ex-actress, but she and Peter were on Search for Tomorrow together
for a number of years (along with Peter's wife Courtney, who writes for ATWT).
I'd almost be willing to lay money on its having been Millee who convinced
Peter to return.
Michael
Peter J.
>
>That may be, but I understood he had continually held out for *years* every
>time they tried to talk him into returning because he hated the writing for
>Ed
>the last time he was on. I assumed that they had said something that
>reassured
>him he'd get good writing this time--I'm wondering if maybe Millee talked to
>him personally, and since she's an ex-actress, was able to convince him the
>show was in good hands and he didn't have to worry about the writing.
Sometimes people mellow or are pushed by financial situations. I was surprised
at how long Justin Deas stayed around in what slowly became a thankless role,
until I read interviews which said he was staying basically because Margaret
Colin was going from role to role and he had the steady income. There was a
heartbreaking interview with Elizabeth Hubbard I guess last year where she
seemed to be doing her best to keep up a positive spirit about having no real
role on ATWT, even though she had left the show a few years earlier because she
was unsatisfied with the writing, then came back only because she was promised
better treatment.
>
>I have no inside information on this, but I wonder if Millee is really the
>dum-dum she comes across as in some of her interview comments, or if she was
>simply trying to be a good team player and put the best spin she could on
>what
>she was being told she could write, or had to write. What you've described
>above sounds like it could be the commentary of someone who wants to write
>for
>a particular character but is being told she can't because he's not a
>character
>TPTB think will bring in the viewers. Although if all of that is the case,
>one
>wonders why on earth they bothered to bring Ed/PS back.
They probably thought he would help the ratings, or satisfiy noisy longtime
viewers.
I may agree with you about Millee if not for that Marah/Tony stuff. I can't
imagine that that was forced on her, because MADD and Paul Rauch had never
tried that garbage before her arrival, so I have a hard time picturing even the
likes of those two forcing that rape-as-romance story on her.
>Well, if he's doing it for the money, I guess it doesn't matter, although I
>do
>think it's ironic that the show pursued him for years about returning and now
>they finally get him to cave in and come back and they may actually give him
>the heave-ho.
I knew, probably everyone knew, this was exactly what was going to happen
(immediate backburner). Ed's return is a great example of what is wrong with
soaps today.
Donna L. Bridges
<20030221162944...@mb-fw.aol.com>,
rhfan...@aol.comhatespam (Peter J.) wrote:
>I always assumed that Peter came back only because he wanted the money,
LOL. You can forget about that one. No.
>knew there was no real chance of ever being prominent again. He talked about
>his kids' college education or something like that in an interview, I think. If
>he didn't realize how meaningless his return would be about a month in, he
>should have when Millee Taggart made another of her idiotic comments to the
>press which basically said that Ed did not need a storyline because Ed was a
>cornerstone of Springfield and Springfield was in every storyline. Yeah, and
>I'm the queen of England.
I'm sure that it was because of Millee & what she wanted to do with
Ed, which was for awhile put him in everything instead of your
immediate cliched romance or other narrow front burner storyline that
was HIS, that Peter came back at all. Do you recall which mag you read
that 'idiocy' in?
>The saddest part will be if he is demoted to recurring and trotted out for
>token appearances to hold Michelle's hand. That would be far more humiliating
>than his last departure, where at least he left with a flourish and dignity.
Peter Simon didn't even play the last appearance of Ed before this
one, did he?
--
DonnaB %^>
"I'm gonna try and make it mad." "Make it mad? Are you nuts?
Commander!" - Sinclair and Garibaldi in B5/Infection
Donna L. Bridges
<20030221164531...@mb-ci.aol.com>, rthr...@aol.com
(Rthrquiet) wrote:
>I have no inside information on this, but I wonder if Millee is really the
>dum-dum she comes across as in some of her interview comments,
She's not dumb at all. And, she was vibrant & excited when talking
about GL & what she hoped to do & even now is gracious.
>or if she was
>simply trying to be a good team player and put the best spin she could on what
>she was being told she could write, or had to write. What you've described
>above sounds like it could be the commentary of someone who wants to write for
>a particular character but is being told she can't because he's not a character
>TPTB think will bring in the viewers. Although if all of that is the case, one
>wonders why on earth they bothered to bring Ed/PS back.
I believe it's what might be called an 'alternate interpretation' of
what was actually said.
>Well, if he's doing it for the money, I guess it doesn't matter, although I do
>think it's ironic that the show pursued him for years about returning and now
>they finally get him to cave in and come back and they may actually give him
>the heave-ho.
Whether he leaves or they send him off, either one, is replete with
irony.
--
DonnaB %^>
"You forgot the first rule of a fanatic. When you become obsessed with
the enemy, you *become* the enemy." - Sinclair to 'Tular' in
B5/Infection
Donna L. Bridges
<20030221165424...@mb-ci.aol.com>, rthr...@aol.com
(Rthrquiet) wrote:
>I'd almost be willing to lay money on its having been Millee who convinced
>Peter to return.
You're right.
--
DonnaB %^>
"Interplanetary Expeditions, the corporation that financed the dig on
Ikarra 7 is a front. A front for a bio weapons supplier." - Vance
Hendricks to Franklin in B5/Infection
Donna L. Bridges
<Psr5a.44640$rq4.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Jude,
Plain and Tall" <jhc86SP...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Donna L. Bridges" <shall...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>news:397a5vch4gh3l4ksq...@4ax.com...
>> Perhaps that Peter Simon is already depressed enough.
>
>Has he spoken publicly (or privately) about being disgusted with the changes
>since he came back to the show? Esp MG's recurring status?
Oh, well, he was already very depressed before that news so it's safe
to say that's he's even moreso now.
Who's up next? Step right up & be axed or even have your character
killed off!
--
DonnaB %^>
"And Vir!" "Yes, sir?" "Don't give away the homeworld." - Londo and
Vir in B5/Born to the Purple
Peter J.
>
>I'm sure that it was because of Millee & what she wanted to do with
>Ed, which was for awhile put him in everything instead of your
>immediate cliched romance or other narrow front burner storyline that
>was HIS, that Peter came back at all. Do you recall which mag you read
>that 'idiocy' in?
SOD, I think it was the summer or fall preview for 2002.
Peter J.
>In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on 21 Feb 2003 21:45:31 GMT in Msg.#
><20030221164531...@mb-ci.aol.com>, rthr...@aol.com
>(Rthrquiet) wrote:
>
>>I have no inside information on this, but I wonder if Millee is really the
>>dum-dum she comes across as in some of her interview comments,
>
>She's not dumb at all. And, she was vibrant & excited when talking
>about GL & what she hoped to do & even now is gracious.
>
I should mention that, although some of my comments in this thread may imply
otherwise, I don't think Millee is an idiot or stupid; if I had a problem with
anything it was a few of her press comments, which, as Michael said, may have
been her being forced to read P&G statements and not having an opinion of her
own. I had serious problems with some of her stories, but I'm sure she tried
her best at GL and never got a fair chance.
Bo
>Poor Peter Simon. He was trying so hard to be a good little soldier, too. I
>remember very well his comments when he returned about how he was going to do
>his job and let the writers do their job . . . and then he gets smacked with a
>writer change and a producer change, and one of the first moves of the new
>regime is to write off his leading lady.
>
>I really do feel bad for him. It may yet all work out, but I'm sure he came
>back thinking one thing and now must think some very different things and be
>very concerned about what he's gotten himself into.
It breaks my heart. Peter Simon is SO good...and why TPTB at GL
continually squander such a valuable asset is beyond me. :(
-Bo ( b...@bodacia.com | www.bodacia.com )
"Somewhere in Texas, a village has lost its idiot."
CMK1996
>From: Bo b...@REMOVEbodacia.com
>Date: 2/21/2003 4:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <bs7d5v4n22u0uf3lq...@4ax.com>
>
>On 21 Feb 2003 15:46:15 GMT, rthr...@aol.com (Rthrquiet) wrote:
>
>>Poor Peter Simon. He was trying so hard to be a good little soldier, too. I
>>remember very well his comments when he returned about how he was going to
>do
>>his job and let the writers do their job . . . and then he gets smacked with
>a
>>writer change and a producer change, and one of the first moves of the new
>>regime is to write off his leading lady.
>>
>>I really do feel bad for him. It may yet all work out, but I'm sure he came
>>back thinking one thing and now must think some very different things and be
>>very concerned about what he's gotten himself into.
>
>It breaks my heart. Peter Simon is SO good...and why TPTB at GL
>continually squander such a valuable asset is beyond me. :(
>
>
when, or maybe especially when, he has no lines. The scene where he walks into
the Bauer kitchen will be one of those scenes forever stamped in my memory.
KC