When the whitewashing of Alan Spaulding began several weeks ago, I was angry. I thought, the only way they can hope to redeem him in so short a time is to kill him. When he survived the surgery to save Philip, I was angry again. And then to proclaim him as a hero during the double wedding made my stomach turn, until the ending made it clear: they talked him up so they could kill him! They still went a little overboard -- can we not canonize the unrepentant killer? -- but I can forgive that now that they've wisely offed him. Now my focus isn't on how much I hate him but on how moved I am by the performances of Marj Dusay and Grant Aleksander as Alexandra and Philip mourn him. He got a more peaceful death than he gave Tammy Winslow, but I suppose beggars can't be choosers.
Good show today!
Don't know how they're going to tie up the Jeffrey-Edmund story in two episodes. They should have put that puppy to bed a couple of weeks ago.
"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 742: When the whitewashing of Alan Spaulding began several weeks ago, I was angry. I thought, the only way they can hope to redeem him in so short a time is to kill him. When he survived the surgery to save Philip, I was angry again. And then to proclaim him as a hero during the double wedding made my stomach turn, until the ending made it clear: they talked him up so they could kill him! They still went a little overboard -- can we not canonize the unrepentant killer? -- but I can forgive that now that they've wisely offed him. Now my focus isn't on how much I hate him but on how moved I am by the performances of Marj Dusay and Grant Aleksander as Alexandra and Philip mourn him. He got a more peaceful death than he gave Tammy Winslow, but I suppose beggars can't be choosers.
Good show today!
Don't know how they're going to tie up the Jeffrey-Edmund story in two episodes. They should have put that puppy to bed a couple of weeks ago.
Darn New Yorkers, who watch GL @ 10AM, j/k...
...# 15,760...in 48 hours, GL will be over...
I guess Josh and Reva won't get back together, nor will Olivia and Natalia kiss (given CBS's track record for gay couples)...
)
Posts: 9729 | Location: Television Land | Registered: April 02, 2003
Originally posted by LostBoy2003: have maureen garrets scenes aired yet for her return? i read a great article with her about her filming them but i am afraid i have missed them.
Yes, they aired a couple of weeks ago. It was great to see her again, but if you blinked, you would have missed her. It was a big waste of a great opportunity.
I'm very curious to see how they wrap things up tomorrow. I hope after 72 years I'm satisfied with the ending, but I'm not holding my breath. I HATE when things are left up in the air with no real sense of closure, and I fear that's what will happen with a lot of the story threads. It would be nice to see Otalia share a passionate kiss. C'mon CBS! At this point, what the hell do you have to lose??
BTW, WTF was with Jeanne Cooper and Christian J. LeBlanc and that three-second scene on Tuesday?
Hemingway once told a friend he was considering giving up writing. "But Ernest," the friend protested. "You love writing!" "No," corrected Hemingway. "I love having written."
Posts: 1312 | Location: Chapel Hill, NC | Registered: April 12, 2005
Originally posted by adamunc: BTW, WTF was with Jeanne Cooper and Christian J. LeBlanc and that three-second scene on Tuesday?
I know! I was going to mention that, too? What was the point of that?? It didn't even make sense. Their presence at the wedding wasn't even explained, and why did she introduce Michael Baldwin to Vanessa as "Justin"? WTF?
Today was another episode I wasn't happy with. Again, they seem to be rushing things with random-feeling love connections; there's no buildup or character development, just characters who seem to just decide to be soul-mates because the show is ending. And they really should have put this Jeffrey-Edmund thing to bed a week or two ago. We're going to be stuck closing out this sub-standard stroyline in the finale episode, which should be spent reminiscing and not cleaning up plot details.
But one second of Marj Dusay during an emotional moment almost made up for the whole thing. What's striking me about these last episodes is that this show had a lot of talent on its canvas and didn't using them until it was too late. Alexandra, Holly, Ed, Billy, Lillian, and so on should have been getting all the screentime they gave instead to Cyrus, Remy, Daisy, etc. these last few months. The Edmund storyline could have been replaced by more Otalia material.
"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 742: Today was another episode I wasn't happy with. Again, they seem to be rushing things with random-feeling love connections; there's no buildup or character development, just characters who seem to just decide to be soul-mates because the show is ending. And they really should have put this Jeffrey-Edmund thing to bed a week or two ago. We're going to be stuck closing out this sub-standard stroyline in the finale episode, which should be spent reminiscing and not cleaning up plot details.
But one second of Marj Dusay during an emotional moment almost made up for the whole thing. What's striking me about these last episodes is that this show had a lot of talent on its canvas and didn't using them until it was too late. Alexandra, Holly, Ed, Billy, Lillian, and so on should have been getting all the screentime they gave instead to Cyrus, Remy, Daisy, etc. these last few months. The Edmund storyline could have been replaced by more Otalia material.
It doesn't matter. They have an extremely short time to wrap things up. Extremely short.
Originally posted by 742: Today was another episode I wasn't happy with. Again, they seem to be rushing things with random-feeling love connections; there's no buildup or character development, just characters who seem to just decide to be soul-mates because the show is ending. And they really should have put this Jeffrey-Edmund thing to bed a week or two ago. We're going to be stuck closing out this sub-standard stroyline in the finale episode, which should be spent reminiscing and not cleaning up plot details.
But one second of Marj Dusay during an emotional moment almost made up for the whole thing. What's striking me about these last episodes is that this show had a lot of talent on its canvas and didn't using them until it was too late. Alexandra, Holly, Ed, Billy, Lillian, and so on should have been getting all the screentime they gave instead to Cyrus, Remy, Daisy, etc. these last few months. The Edmund storyline could have been replaced by more Otalia material.
It doesn't matter. They have an extremely short time to wrap things up. Extremely short.
They had weeks, maybe months to go when it was announced they were cancelled, depending on how far in advance the scripts were written. The reason they have such short time to wrap things up is that they wasted a lot of time on stuff that should have been prioritized down -- I'd much rather have seen an Ed-Holly love story developed over the last few weeks, or Otalia, or Billy-Vanessa, or Buzz-Lillian than that stupid Buzz-Cyrus quest, or the Edmund/John Doe murder investigation with Edmund faking his death. We didn't need that stuff. Spending time with and saying farewell to the legacy characters without having to rush their resolutions is what was important.
"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 adamunc: BTW, WTF was with Jeanne Cooper and Christian J. LeBlanc and that three-second scene on Tuesday?
I know! I was going to mention that, too? What was the point of that?? It didn't even make sense. Their presence at the wedding wasn't even explained, and why did she introduce Michael Baldwin to Vanessa as "Justin"? WTF?
They weren't playing their Y&R characters on GL, just wedding guests of Vanessa and Billy.
^^Yeah, but still WTF?? Why would they fly across country to be in, like, 20 frames? Seems like they could have written a few lines of dialogue. Maybe it had to be cut for time or something.
Hemingway once told a friend he was considering giving up writing. "But Ernest," the friend protested. "You love writing!" "No," corrected Hemingway. "I love having written."
Posts: 1312 | Location: Chapel Hill, NC | Registered: April 12, 2005
it's all over here in boston. the opening will get you a little teary. very rushed. you see most every1 in the cast, even if only for a line or 2 of dialogue. lots of group activities. ALWAYS.....
Posts: 345 | Location: boston, ma | Registered: October 12, 2001
I missed the first 10 minutes of so, but the rest worked for me. I haven't really watched the show in years, but it felt like saying goodbye to an old friend.
Some very touching moments and performances. I'll miss this cast ...
But -- and this is a big "but" -- there's one unresolved issue that makes me so angry I could hardly think of anything else during the episode. I can't wait until this episode is done airing all over the country so I can blast this show for dropping one vitally important ball.
"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)
742, are you really surprised about the issue you reference? They have time (according to DC) to show Mel and Cyrus in bed, but can't manage to finish another coupling in the proper way???
I have not watched GL this week. I can't. It would be too painful. I want to pretend this is all a bad dream, and that GL will be on at 3:00PM Monday. Once I knew Tina Sloan had an emotional scene, I knew I could never make it through.
) 