Originally posted by Grace17fan: I'm going to be honest and say I do not like watching Martinez. I do not think Elhers needs to prove her worth, but I just do not think she should have been so vocal about her feelings towards her co-star. On the other hand, it's a job and if work with someone and they are not as skilled as you are then do you not have the right to complain?
If that were the case, most everyone on daytime would be bitching about their on screen scene partners.
Acting with someone who can't act only makes your performance that much better.
Originally posted by FishBiscuit: I don't see where he has risen above anything. Brot and Martinez were events that did not work. Ehlers still has a chance to make something in Pine Valley but it won't happen until there is a new head writer.
Why should TPTB invest any time on an actress and character that have not worked? The cast is full as it is. The character of Taylor did not work pre-Brot, during Brot, and won't work after Brot. Her character was gone for seven weeks, and I doubt that many AMC viewers cared. Ehlers made a mistake in choosing AMC. She's a capable actess, but this was not a good fit, and the show should just cut her loose. The whole situation reminds me of what happened with Jensen Buchanan on GH.
Originally posted by MARKPGH: Acting with someone who can't act only makes your performance that much better.
Really!!!! So you are telling me that Moss makes KKL look better? Cobb made Penny look like Meryl Streep?
Not even close to being the case.
No, what i'm saying is you don't hear Lang going to the media and producers about Ronn Moss, etc.
If an actor is having trouble with a respective coworker..no matter what the reason, then they should pull aside their coworker and talk to them as a professional....not spout off to the media and post a blog about it. It's called being a professional.
Point is...you have to know when to keep your mouth shut.
Co-workers, maybe. But, she has every right to be talking about the crappy writing. Of course, complaining didn't seem to work out so well for Julia Barr or Cady McClain. And they were both far more important to AMC's history than Beth Ehlers. Sigh. Too bad, because all of them are saying things that needed to be said.
Actually, Cady McClain, in particular, had some great, honest thoughts about AMC. She got death by pancakes for her efforts. AMC has been tanking for years. Clearly, no one at the network cares.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: LadyHathor25,
She could have said, "I was paired with an unseasoned performer so it was difficult to modulate my performance accordingly because we had different levels of experience." She came across as level headed for most of the interview, but if you're going to criticise others, you need to shine the same light on yourself. The failure of her AMC tenure thus far is everyone's fault but her own. If only she had been paired with Michael Knight blah blah blah.
1) Beth Ehlers is right about All My Children not integrating her. They wrote for her while Alicia Minshew [Kendall] was on vacation, last year in the fall, but [Taylor Thompson] is an underdeveloped role (whose only connection to an established character is with Frankie Hubbard played by Cornelius Smith Jr.). Ehlers's suggestions about the character needing a background—even a job (like as a waitress)—are correct. (This is true about every role. What the hell is the purpose for this new character? It's a question that apparently doesn't get asked, let alone answered, by many of today's soap honchos.)
2) Ehlers's remarks about being paired with an actor without proper training—who she said is not really an actor [by vocation] but that he is certainly trying—has an affect on her performance: that is true. But it isn't the big picture. JR Martinez is interesting to watch; Ehlers is interesting to watch. Both are plenty appealing; but the show has to be committed to futher developing and writing for them (along with the rest of Pine Valley). Both their characters are yet more examples of no long-term planning from a daytime serial having created, last year, these two new characters. (A huge issue I've noticed with every soap on daytime—be it now, or recent, or throughout the last few years; however long it's been in my 25 years of soap-opera viewing!)
3) Ehlers's admission that Ricky Paull Goldin [Jake] was her favorite Guiding Light acting partner is nice (she was GL's Harley Cooper to his Gus Aitoro). But that's all it is. Thankfully, she is mature about it and smart to recognize—as I have (for months!)—that AMC needs to move forward in exploring screen (and maybe character) chemistry with Michael E. Knight's Tad Martin. (Ehlers and Knight having acting styles that should make them very interesting to watch.)
In respects to Ehlers's remarks on JR Martinez: I can take another listen to the podcast. But it seemed to me Ehlers was not dissing him. She was forward in saying acting is not his vocation; she has been a professional actor for, roughly, two-thirds of her life. What did happen, in the interview, was this one [call-in] supporter who said that Ehlers has been more generous—as an actor—than a lot of other soaps performers would be if they were in her situation. (Some of that I agree with.) Had I been Ehlers, I would not have spoken a word about the working process with Martinez. Few will understand; and, understably, few can appreciate the working process in many a professions.
In talking about the rest of her AMC experience: Ehlers was being direct about it, and that's good. Real good! In fact, her understanding of story telling, of production, and of the viewers are smart. (Give it another listen, folks.)
In this interview plenty of what needed to be said was delivered by the actress. (A lot of what Ehlers addressed many of us were thinking.)
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DS0816,
I don't watch AMC but has she really been on 7 week vacation?? Her choice or not??
I am not surprised they are not writing for her; the show has only focused on Kendall and younger actress. I mean ever Lucci has barely had sl on AMC in years; she became supporting player to Bianca and Kendall.
I bet 2 months after GL sadly goes off the air they let her go ( if they have zero plans of attaching her back with Paul). I am willing to bet this was another instance of not planning; they grabbed the 2 actors as ratings ploy with zero idea of how they were even going to use them.
Posts: 1740 | Location: Providence RI USA | Registered: November 29, 2001
Originally posted by DS0816: Three points—and a summary—I want to make about the interview Beth Ehlers gave in that podcast [Stardish Radio, at blogtalkradio, http://www.blogtalkradio.com/s...9/06/18/Beth-Ehlers] .…
1) Beth Ehlers is right about All My Children not integrating her. They wrote for her while Alicia Minshew [Kendall] was on vacation, last year in the fall, but [Taylor Thompson] is an underdeveloped role (whose only connection to an established character is with Frankie Hubbard played by Cornelius Smith Jr.). Ehlers's suggestions about the character needing a background—even a job (like as a waitress)—are correct. (This is true about every role. What the hell is the purpose for this new character? It's a question that apparently doesn't get asked, let alone answered, by many of today's soap honchos.)
2) Ehlers's remarks about being paired with an actor without proper training—who she said is not really an actor [by vocation] but that he is certainly trying—has an affect on her performance: that is true. But it isn't the big picture. JR Martinez is interesting to watch; Ehlers is interesting to watch. Both are plenty appealing; but the show has to be committed to futher developing and writing for them (along with the rest of Pine Valley). Both their characters are yet more examples of no long-term planning from a daytime serial having created, last year, these two new characters. (A huge issue I've noticed with every soap on daytime—be it now, or recent, or throughout the last few years; however long it's been in my 25 years of soap-opera viewing!)
3) Ehlers's admission that Ricky Paull Goldin [Jake] was her favorite Guiding Light acting partner is nice (she was GL's Harley Cooper to his Gus Aitoro). But that's all it is. Thankfully, she is mature about it and smart to recognize—as I have (for months!)—that AMC needs to move forward in exploring screen (and maybe character) chemistry with Michael E. Knight's Tad Martin. (Ehlers and Knight having acting styles that should make them very interesting to watch.)
In respects to Ehlers's remarks on JR Martinez: I can take another listen to the podcast. But it seemed to me Ehlers was not dissing him. She was forward in saying acting is not his vocation; she has been a professional actor for, roughly, two-thirds of her life. What did happen, in the interview, was this one [call-in] supporter who said that Ehlers has been more generous—as an actor—than a lot of other soaps performers would be if they were in her situation. (Some of that I agree with.) Had I been Ehlers, I would not have spoken a word about the working process with Martinez. Few will understand; and, understably, few can appreciate the working process in many a professions.
In talking about the rest of her AMC experience: Ehlers was being direct about it, and that's good. Real good! In fact, her understanding of story telling, of production, and of the viewers are smart. (Give it another listen, folks.)
In this interview plenty of what needed to be said was delivered by the actress. (A lot of what Ehlers addressed many of us were thinking.)
Posts: 6070 | Location: Illinois | Registered: June 30, 2006
Originally posted by MARKPGH: Acting with someone who can't act only makes your performance that much better.
Really!!!! So you are telling me that Moss makes KKL look better? Cobb made Penny look like Meryl Streep?
Not even close to being the case.
No, what i'm saying is you don't hear Lang going to the media and producers about Ronn Moss, etc.
If an actor is having trouble with a respective coworker..no matter what the reason, then they should pull aside their coworker and talk to them as a professional....not spout off to the media and post a blog about it. It's called being a professional.
Point is...you have to know when to keep your mouth shut.
And for Ehlers this is not one of those times. She is being underused thanks to bad writing and was part of ratings stunt that did not work. (Her pairing with Martinez) What happened to the Taylor/Jake/Tad triangle? That certianly had the potential to be a better story than whatever Brot and Taylor are going through. Ehlers has a right to complain publicly and I'm glad she did.
Posts: 6070 | Location: Illinois | Registered: June 30, 2006
After listening to her interview, it doesn't seem her comments were as harsh as I precieved. While I don't agree w/her on J.R. she didn't come off as a bitch and was on the money w/most of everything she said. But I applauded when she called Pratt on his ****. He is not writing the show as it should be. And I loved her suggestion of making Taylor Krystal's sister to connect her to the canvas.
Posts: 5352 | Location: New York/California | Registered: September 30, 2006
As I noted earlier: The creation of a new soap-opera character for which a series has not planned Steps 1, 2, and 3 in the development process that successfully weaves the new figure into its canvas has become common.
This is the situation with Beth Ehlers on AMC. We know her Taylor Thompson is an Iraq War soldier. She loved her fellow soldier, Brot Monroe (played by JR Martinez). She mourned him. She was reunited with him. She recently broke up with him. And, yet, she has no family. She has no job. She has no purpose for being in Pine Valley aside from coming to town, last summer, to present a medal to fellow soldier Frankie Hubbard (played by Cornelius Smith Jr.).
That's the writing! (And it is the soap itself that is responsible for all aspects of production. Charge that to the exec producer, Julie Hanan Carruthers!)
I can see why Crystal figures there's no purpose to the character. Where I disagree with Crystal is with the notion of dumping both character and actress. You don't hire a superb and five-time Emmy-nominated vet—with a following—and fail to bring to that new role direction.
In reflecting on [Taylor], [AMC] used to craft some social-issue stories. Iraq War is a good topic. And we have, as Daytime Confidential likes to say, a legacy character who also has a history being a soldier in Iraq [Frankie]. So that connection doesn't render [Taylor] entirely useless.
In the past few months, AMC has failed to rotate its characters. Anyone watching knows which ones were overexposed—and the others that were neglected. And we're familiar with the distracted and rudderless story telling that has benefited next to know one. It is no wonder this actress addressed the neglect of her character, as she said in the podcast, with the soap (using the word integrate).
This is not the first such situation. And I surely am not the only one who thinks this can be rectified. From recent episodes, it appears AMC is finally going to embark on pairing Ehlers and Michael E. Knight's Tad Martin. I suspect they may make a charming pair—and Knight's character, thoroughly depressed (for, say the past three years), may benefit. (Let's see how, and especially where, this goes!)
I repeat myself on the point that Ehlers said some stuff in that interview we were already thinking. (I'm glad.)
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DS0816,
Originally posted by DS0816: I can see why Crystal figures there's no purpose to the character. Where I disagree with Crystal is with the notion of dumping both character and actress. You don't hire a five-time Emmy-nominated vet—with a following—and fail to bring to that new role direction.
The show is overstuffed as it is. Taylor has no connections to anyone in town. She was gone for nearly two months, and viewers didn't care unless there was outrage that I missed. With people having to take pay cuts, I think it's silly to continue to pay for someone whose character does not work. If they want to keep her, get rid of Luner, and have Ehlers take over the role of Liza. Plus, I don't trust Pratt to do any social issues. His writing is as one dimensional as it comes. I can't get over that Pratt and Guza were responsible for some of the best part of SB. Of course, the constant rapes were a sign of things to come.
Originally posted by DS0816: I can see why Crystal figures there's no purpose to the character. Where I disagree with Crystal is with the notion of dumping both character and actress. You don't hire a five-time Emmy-nominated vet—with a following—and fail to bring to that new role direction.
The show is overstuffed as it is. Taylor has no connections to anyone in town. She was gone for nearly two months, and viewers didn't care unless there was outrage that I missed. With people having to take pay cuts, I think it's silly to continue to pay for someone whose character does not work. If they want to keep her, get rid of Luner, and have Ehlers take over the role of Liza. Plus, I don't trust Pratt to do any social issues. His writing is as one dimensional as it comes. I can't get over that Pratt and Guza were responsible for some of the best part of SB. Of course, the constant rapes were a sign of things to come.
Crystal,
I'll continue to follow this.
Your statement about what is overstuffed leads me to think it more accurately applies just to the small circle over which head writer Chuck Pratt has focused his stories: Dominant David; Scenes from a Marriage Starring Zach and Kendall; Adam's Remorse; Fatal Attraction with Annie's Hall of Shame. Hell, even Erica—who used to be the top character—gets scraps! And there is no excuse for not having Angie and Jesse front and center with consistency.
(I agree with you on Liza. It's not Jamie Luner. It's the casting of Jamie Luner. Who the hell believes this is the Liza that traveled in circles, in the early-1980s, with Tad and the late Jenny and Greg and the two previously mentioned characters?)
AMC has…problems.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DS0816,
Originally posted by Boidiva02: i'm with her 100%. I don't think she meant any disrespect to her co-star, i think she just meant that you know it's hard enough to jump start a new character but even harder when you throw the actress into scenes with people that haven't ever acted before. it hurts the credibility of the scenes and doesn't do the character any justice.
If they wanted to make this character a viable one they could put her in scenes with people like Tad, David, Krystal, Adam, Erica and people that could at the very least match her level of acting experience.
Perfectly stated. As an experienced actress trying to find and add her own interpretation of a new character, it must have been challenging to be instantly paired with a less experienced non-actor. I truly believe she meant no harm or disrespect to JM. She just stated a fact.
Posts: 96 | Location: Santa Monica, CA | Registered: August 19, 2008
I enjoyed the interview. I thought she was refreshingly astute and honest for most of the interview. I was disappointed that she did not acknowledge that she had a part in her character's reception. She (intentionally/unintentionally) put most of the blame on being paired with Martinez. She then said it in an insensitive way. There's a way of stating a fact/opinion that does not insult the fellow actor. While it's true that he was new to acting, her character had already been mishandled by that point.
Soap viewers do not appreciate shows trying to force a couple because they were on another show. I saw the same thing happen recently on GH with Storms and Cook or years ago with Evans and Nichols. I thought the scenes between Goldin and Ehlers were badly written and it engendered bad will on the part of the viewers. Let's be real here. If Taylor had been played by an unknown, how many of us would be wanting the show to keep her on? There'd be calls for her to be written out. I recall more disappointment on this board that Ya-Ya from ANTM was being let go than anything involving Ehlers.
I think it's sad that the most attention she gets for playing Taylor is from a podcast interview.
I listened to Ehlers's portion of Martinez's nterview, and she still blamed someone else for what she said. She says, "I hurt my friend" but she blames the fan who called in for interrupting her! She was on the show for over an hour. She had plenty of time to say, "Joanne, I need to go back and clarify what I said about JR." Accept responsibility for the choices you made and the things you said and there's no story. Even if what she said were true (and that's debatable), did she really think it a wise move to badmouth an Iraq war veteran who was disfigured? Anyone with any common sense would know that was not going to end well for her. It's rather ironic that she had discussed how technology was making less responsible for what we say and do.
I think it's sad that this "feud" has had more discussion and more interest than anything she's done on AMC. I watched AMC tonight on Soapnet, and she doesn't click with Michael Knight. Her frustration is there on the screen. It can't be fun knowing that you made a mistake in choosing a show, that you're being wasted, and the audience is completely indifferent to you.
