Nelson, I agree with you about the Katherine's story on Y&R. Actually in MAB's defense, she has really honored the shows history and pretty much followed the same path the original story took. Which is exactly why I never would have repeated it! When the first story aired I was a four year fan of the show and it was the first storyline I truly hated! It was never Bill Bells finest. The only good thing to come out of that story was Marge. You're also right about James Michael Gregory. His acting has changed a bit in 20 years! The difference between MAB and Bill is that her stories move faster. Fans back then had to put up with Gregorys antics for over a year.
I don't know if anyone remembers, but Clint was originally played by a different actor. A guy by the name of Sal Landi. This dude really looked scary. He was only in the role for about 2 months and not having access to info back then like we do today I was never sure why the show got rid of him. In any event, I could literally hear a toilet flush when I first saw Gregory in the role. The menacing ex-con thing was gone. He really was a hair model before you coined that term.
GH's Spinelli was the reason I stuck with GH for as long as I did. The show had a great 2006, but when the Zaccharas devoured the show, I had to tune out. I haven't watched more than five minutes of an episode in at least half a year, but I still love Bradford Anderson. He's a breath of fresh air.
Wasn't a big fan of the Four Musketeers reunion on GL. It's partly because I didn't have any connection to the history, which was before my time, and partly because of those dreadful "The Four Musketeers happen here" advertisements. But the whole thing just felt silly and cornball and irrelevant.
But Olivia and Natalia are growing on me. (I am officially boycotting mashed together one-word couple names, because I hate them.) Today's episode is a major turning point for the storyline, at least for me starting to believe the characters' feelings. The actors are playing it very well, and the writers are treating it thoughtfully.
On an unrelated note, am I the only one who things GL should sign Paul Fitzgerald to a contract as Dr. Colin McCabe? Since Reva's otherwise awful breast cancer storyline a couple of years ago, I thought he was fantastic and had a lot of potential to be a good long-term character. Now that Reva has relapsed and he's back, I'm feeling the same way again.
You're being too kind about Y&R's Katherine storyline. To date, it hasn't been "otherwise amazing and highly creative." It's been one silly stall after another, and I lost patience for it long before the kidnapping. But yes, James Michael Gregary has been dreadful. He's neither menacing nor funny -- just bad.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: 742,
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
I thought it was highly creative because this story has been about one thing: Undoing Jill as Katherine's daughter. The twists and turns which led to that reveal was amazing. Most other soaps would have opted for a single episode plot device —like a medical DNA crisis — to undo this paternity mistake.
On an unrelated note, am I the only one who things GL should sign Paul Fitzgerald to a contract as Dr. Colin McCabe? Since Reva's otherwise awful breast cancer storyline a couple of years ago, I thought he was fantastic and had a lot of potential to be a good long-term character. Now that Reva has relapsed and he's back, I'm feeling the same way again.
ITA ever since the cancer storyline aired in 06, I really wanted those two together. When Reva wasn't going to tell Josh, the writers totally missed the boat when they didn't haver her fall for her docor b/c it would've balance that boring storyline. The soapy cliche drama (which would've work!) w/the social storyline. They have more chemistry than Jeffery & Reva.
Posts: 5388 | Location: New York/California | Registered: September 30, 2006
Fitzgerald was good last time and he had and Zimmer worked together very well. Wouldn't mind Reva dumping Jeffrey (and GL dumping Jeffrey).
WILLIAM PETERSEN: Well, this is a shock. The only explanation for this is that somehow in the last year, every one of you tried to act with rubber gloves and tweezers.
Posts: 6623 | Location: NY | Registered: December 01, 2002
I do have to give GH's Bradford Anderson credit - love him or hate him, he inspires dialogue. Sadly for me, instead of being a "breath of fresh air," Spinelli has become one aspect that is choking the life out of GH, slowly and painfully.
I have been watching GH for many years, and Spinelli is in the very rare company of characters who are onscreen every single episode. I often liken him to be the Luke Spencer of the present. Unfortunately, Luke was (and I emphasize the word 'was') a character of great humor, deep warmth and exciting edge, portrayed by an actor of immeasurable talents. Spinelli, however, is as one-note as characters come, babbling on endlessly, showing absolutely no character growth since the day he first premiered.
It's hard to fault the actor - this is the way Spinelli is written (Guza is obviously ridiculously in love with writing this Spinelli-speak). And while I do admire Anderson's energy, I can't remember a moment where I felt he wasn't 'acting.' He seems to always be playing to the audience, demanding their laughter, and shamelessly going for their sympathy. For me, I'm always watching an actor hard at work, never a believeable character. His popularity with the audience speaks in volumes, however, so I must be missing something.
Question - with all the chat regarding the Emmy pre-nominations and 'category fraud' (a term that makes me giggle since it sounds just a bit too dramatic, but whatever), do people out there think that Anderson is guilty of it, being that he is most certainly the lead character on GH? I mean, really - in what world is he supporting? He gets more screentime than Maurice Benard (Sonny) and Anthony Geary (Luke) combined, and that's saying something. It's strange because the character, by his very design, is a sidekick, a supporting character, but the amount of screentime he receives, in my opinion, places him firmly as a leading man, or, as Nelson suggests, "GH's biggest star."
Originally posted by nbgemini: I thought it was highly creative because this story has been about one thing: Undoing Jill as Katherine's daughter. The twists and turns which led to that reveal was amazing. Most other soaps would have opted for a single episode plot device —like a medical DNA crisis — to undo this paternity mistake.
I totally agree with this. Rather than doing what most shows would have done and wrote something centered around blood tests or, even lazier, somebody wanting to do a genetic family history or something, Bell/Sheffer/Hamner crafted a storyline of actual consequence to bring us that reveal, as well as some pretty interesting other ramifications. I'm not liking the kidnapping, but I give the story a lot of credit before that.
I do agree that GH makes the mistake of overplaying Spinelli. He's not a character who should be on-screen every day. He's like the Tuc Watkins of GH -- I love him to death, but if you overplay the character and his mannerisms, he goes from refreshing to stale.
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
Originally posted by nbgemini: I thought it was highly creative because this story has been about one thing: Undoing Jill as Katherine's daughter. The twists and turns which led to that reveal was amazing. Most other soaps would have opted for a single episode plot device —like a medical DNA crisis — to undo this paternity mistake.
There's got to be a happy medium. I don't want a one-episode plot device, but I don't like this endless, drawn out mess either. Idiot plots are never the answer.
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
Undoing the Jill/Katherine plot and introducing the character of Murphy was the only good thing to come out of this whole story.
I am interested to see what MAB is planning on doing with Adam's impending blindness.
My guess is, Victor will scour the planet until he finds a new set of eyes for his son, then all will be forgiven...Adam will be out of jail and become Victor's lapdog again.
If i was writing it, i would have klepto-whore Sharon (who just helped spur the Genoa City economy with the all the penicillin she will be buying), hop on Adam as soon as he gets out of jail. Nick will flip and Adam can see a new pair of hooters other than Heather's with his new pair of eyes.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: MARKPGH,
The current Kay storyline is a prime example of what happens when new writers try to rewrite history. They should have just left the Kay/Jill storyline where it was.
Spinelli only works with certain other characters. When he's the driving force of a story, it doesn't work. The recent storyline has been a big bust. Anderson is an extremely talented actor, but I think the Spinelli love is a bit much. I'd rather see Maxie with Johnny. If I were in charge, I'd put Spinelli with Lulu as Anderson tends to quiet down Berman's tendency to shriek.
Hey, anything that pulls the camera away from Sonny and Jason and that General Hospital Does The Sopranos junk is a breath of fresh air. (But at the same time: Spinelli has the sex appeal of a dirty-and-wet mop.)
I don't mean to harp on it, but I really don't think you guys are giving the Kay storyline enough credit. That's led to some good character growth for Kevin and Jana, Esther's getting some action, and all the stuff that's happening with Jabot, starting with the Abbott family's takeover of the company. I don't mean to overpraise it; I just think that story, along with the Phyllis/Nick/Sharon story, is responsible for most of the good stuff we've seen on Y&R in the past few months. It's just unfortunate it took the kidnapping turn. The matter of Kay's identity should have just been resolved otherwise shortly after the DNA test came back negative.
