FilmTVGeek80

I don’t necessarily think she needs to go, but she needs to tone it WAAAAAY down. It’s probably because I hadn’t seen her in much since 227, but I just assumed she didn’t know how to play Paulina any other way or she was trying to recreate her 227 character. But, I’ve seen her in some other things recently and she does actually know how to play a character in a normal way. So, it must be on purpose (perhaps it’s JH’s decision or a combination of her and RC) that want Paulina played like a cartoon character. It’s not just the loudness, but the exaggerated head moves, and eye popping. The thing is I think she can be quite funny. Her line delivery in a scene with Sloan a couple of weeks ago legitimately had me cackling. But the good lines do not outweigh how annoyingly over-the-top she’s being. I think it’s gotten worse and maybe it’s somewhat purposeful with the stress of the Sloan situation, but it is a little hard to take at times.

Isn’t that sugar coating this just a tad? She did a hell of a lot more than say he was a complete jerk.

It's not like time is all that linear on this show. They can be celebrating Thanksgiving one day, and it's Christmas the next. We don't know how long it's been that they slept together unless they specify it. It's not like Nicole is the only one with a vanishing kid. Unless the show needs a kid for a storyline, like this one with Rachel, most people's kids are background fodder, mostly heard about and not seen.

I can’t speak to the actors since I don’t if I’ve ever seen the Corelli actor, but SBu used to be good along time ago. But, like I said, what happened between Eve and Harris was when they were very young. And it’s not like he set out to, or made Eve attempt suicide. Given she’s been through a lot worse since, and done some shady stuff herself, I don’t see why she couldn’t forgive him. Especially since Harris is already doing an apology tour for what he did to Hope and her family. I don’t like SBu and I have no affinity for Eve, so if he’s going to be on the show, I’d rather see him with someone I don’t care about.

She barely mentioned him for years because the character was off-screen and was barely mentioned by anyone, including his twin. As you mention he was Father Eric, so that’s why she was with some of those other men and not immediately repaired with him when he came back. I believe Deimos happened when Eric was in prison for accidentally killing Daniel - Nicole’s fiancé - while drunk driving. Ultimately, she dumped Brady for Eric. Xander blackmailed her into marriage and repeatedly tried to force her to have sex with him. The only time she did sleep with Xander was years later while she was drunk as hell and reaching the end of her rope since Eric was an absentee husband. Rafe happened after she and Eric divorced and, like with Brady, she ultimately dumped him for Eric. Most of your recap doesn’t actually get into how exactly Nicole has ruined his life. It makes it seem like Nicole is the absolute worst while innocent Eric was completely blameless and didn’t contribute to some of their issues. I love the character of Eric, but if you stacked up their mistakes, during the course of their relationship, Eric’s are worse. She cheated on him a couple of times. The worst thing she did was lie to him about his child (but she ultimately fessed up without being forced to.) He accused her of raping him and killed her fiance.

Okay. Not liking it if you don’t like the actor is one thing, but acting like it’s a disgusting idea full stop (which the post I responded to seemed to suggest) is another. I don’t like Burton much either, but objectively speaking, I’m not going to say that what Harris did is somehow worse than what this Corelli guy did.

I wouldn’t say that I’m pining for them, but I didn’t think the relationship was a snooze. I think they had chemistry together and vastly preferred them to Xander/Sarah. If the show ever wanted to go there again, I’d welcome it. I do agree with your overall point about Sloan. I think she and Eric do have chemistry together, but I do see her as very similar to a younger Nicole. I’ve also never warmed to her as an individual character. Her never-ending vendetta against Paulina and Chanel is boring. Even knowing logically she has a right to some of her anger, I don’t root for her against Chanel or Paulina, especially when she acts like Chanel is 100% in the wrong and seduced her father or blames Chanel for that grown-ass man choosing to drink his life away. Chanel did offer her a sincere apology, but there’s no changing the past and what happened with Sloane’s mother. What does she expect Chanel to do? Passively sit back and let Sloan ruin her life to appease her need for vengeance?

They were teenagers. Characters have done worse as adults and been forgiven.

I agree. I'm not sure why it's so embarrassing for her to be competing against younger kids. I don't think anyone older needed to feel embarrassed when people like Kimberly McCullough and Cameron Grimes won. The whole category this year was already changed so it really is the youngest of the pack who compete against each other. I don't watch B&B or Y&R but there don't seem to be that many younger actors in the first place to make it that competitive anyway.

I like CD a lot more than most and cannot think of what material he had to get the nom. But I'm really baffled over Days' New EJ's nomination.

Agreed. I don’t think there’s any reason in the world they would do this story and have Eric not be the father. It would be kind of ironic, given the Sydney situation, if they have a DNA test, and EJ switches the results. Kristen is not 75 years old because Stacy Haiduk isn’t 75. DESORAS happens just like SORAS happens. It’s not icky to me for that reason. I don’t know all the details beyond what was just posted, but it sounds borderline creepy because, to me, it sounds like she had this kid to replace her dead son. Then again, he did bank his sperm so maybe he really wanted this. Though why someone else couldn’t do it, I don’t know. But, I’ve heard of siblings being surrogates, so I don’t know why a parent doing it is somehow ickier. Like you said, Eric and Nicole are a popular pairing, so I think many would disagree they do better with other pairings. Most of their recent break-ups have been due to the off-screen revolving door with the actors. Neither of your scenarios has to be what happens. It’s not a given either would have an affair (yes, I know Nicole has cheated on him twice, but the first time was 25 years ago and the last was because he was an absentee husband.) And, they have been happy with each other before so it’s not a given they would be miserable together. Eric was prepared to not be involved with both Sarah and Jada when they were pregnant, so if they do reunite it won’t necessarily be because Nicole’s pregnant. The soap world is littered with couples who have broken up and gotten back together many times. Many of them have children together. Just some Days examples - Steve/Kayla, Bo/Hope, Jennifer/Jack, Lucas/Sami, Marlena/John, Chad/Abby.

It makes me happy, too. Is the drugged sex root ideal? No. But it's probably because of the drug that she's pregnant. I had a feeling they might go this root when someone said that the drug everyone was given was some experimental drug. Kristen got pregnant because of whatever treatments Rolf gave her, so as per usual, ReRon is going a similar root with Nicole, who, like Kristen, has fertility issues. And, I know, people like to joke about how old Kristen was when she got pregnant, but unlike many Days storylines, it's not out of the land of science fiction. Older women can get pregnant. It seems to be happening more and more (especially with celebrities.) Janet Jackson had a baby at 50. Hilary Swank just had twins at 48.

I'm a huge animal lover, and there are movies with animal deaths that I can't watch again (or at least have a hard time with), like Marley & Me, but as sad as Jenny's death was, it didn't feel like an unnecessary moment or unnecessarily cruel. I felt the whole point of it was to get Paddy to absolute rock bottom. His sister leaving wasn't going to do it. Plus, the fact that it was Colm's finger that caused her death obliterated the friendship and got Paddy to the point he was to burn Colm's house down. Could the movie have gotten there through other means? Probably, but from a writer's standpoint, I understand why it happened. My first time reading responses online about this movie was on the Golden Globes forum here where a few people talked about this being in the comedy category as category fraud. I had that in the back of my mind while watching it. By like the first hour of watching it, I completely disagreed with the category fraud opinion. I think this movie is perfectly described as a dark comedy. Maybe until he cuts off the next batch of fingers, I laughed quite often. Like that moment where Colm tells the guy that his dad was hit by a bread van, and the guy ends up revealing that his mother died after getting hit by a bread van, and if it were the same van, he'd kill them. I know that the movie obviously has its bleak moments, and it doesn't end on the happiest note, but I'm still a bit taken aback to see the movie being described like it's Sophie's Choice or Schindler's List. I've seen far more depressing movies. And this is coming from someone who generally loathes movies or stories with unhappy endings.

How exactly is Alex a cocky jack wagon and Xander isn’t? It’s hard to believe someone who’s that much of a criminal could have the audacity to look down their nose at anyone, but Xander somehow manages it. And Alex may be a cocky jack wagon, but unlike Xander (or Gwen) he’s not a sociopath, thug criminal. Xander and Gwen are made for each other.

He had a crush on old Rachel from high school. By the time they got together, she had changed. And when did he wear her down? All of the first season was about how he didn’t tell her about his feelings. It was CHANDLER who spilled the beans. Then half of the second season was about her crush on him, with him being oblivious. They were both able to let go at certain points, not just Ross. It’s not real life though. It’s not even a realistic drama. It’s a sitcom. So what if they might not have made it in real life (which I’m not sure is even true.) Their biggest obstacle was the writers and their asinine insistence on not getting them together until the last second, so they would throw increasingly lame obstacles to keep them from getting back together. Who was the sister lover? If you’re referring to Joshua as the guy who wasn’t even divorced yet, he was divorced. And he was just as viable as Emily. Tag was basically like Elizabeth, the student - younger lovers who Ross/Rachel ultimately decided they couldn’t have a serious future with. I don’t think they were afraid to, they just had no desire to (thank God.) I think they liked the idea of Joey’s crush, but had no real desire to do them as a legit couple. I think the only reason they revisited it is they realized they had another season to go and needed another reason to keep R&R apart. So, they decided to be as lazy as possible and do a rehash of R&R’s season 2 storyline with the flip-flopped crush.

Having a soft spot is one thing, but the blatant hypocrisy was ridonkulous! She actually stood there and acted like Alex was insane/disloyal to get together with someone like Gwen and she was saying it to Xander who’s basically become Gwen’s number 2 cheerleader. To prove my point, he then defended Gwen after Maggie’s rant about her. I guess if Gwen cared about getting in Maggie’s good graces she could just save her life then she too could get unlimited baked goods and a blasé attitude even when she hurts Maggie’s family.

I don't completely know the history there, but wasn't he in high school? And it's not like he deliberately drove her to suicide. He was an asshole to her, but it's not like he purposefully tried to drive her to suicide. Not that I have any love for the Harris character, thanks to Burton playing him, but it feels a little odd to me to hold something against a character that he did in high school, especially since we have characters who have done way worse as adults.

The most serious accusations are the alleged crime he was arrested for and ultimately not charged with. I don't know about anything involving minors. What you've quoted from THR, the most serious accusation is sexual harassment - an accusation from an anonymous source with, I'm not sure what proof. That is not what all people mean when they say, "believe all women." If that's what they meant, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Yes, that's the right of someone - and it's not just women who can be abused/assaulted - who makes an accusation that those accusations should be taken seriously. But, most of the time - especially on social media - the vast majority of people I've seen mean believe women quite literally. It means they make an accusation that must be 100% true. The person they accused should be automatically presumed guilty and lose their job and go directly to prison. And, if you dare expect that accusation to be backed up with something like proof, you're a rape/abuser supporter or apologist. And, I think it's quite easy to say from your position far away that, at best, all they lost was a cushy job, and not much has changed for them. You're not in these people's shoes, so you don't know how life has changed for them. Rich, white man or not being falsely accused of a crime isn't just some cakewalk that's easy to get past. Especially lately, if you're accused of something, that accusation never disappears, and the reputational damage is permanent. Ask the singer Conor Oberst if being falsely accused didn't change anything. And, while this case doesn't involve famous men, a young woman - Eleanor Williams - was convicted in the UK for making many false rape allegations. One of those men suffers from PTSD now.

And yet an accusation is good enough for many to declare him guilty. What exactly would he need to be vindicated? Because one of the biggest issues I have with this "believe all women" mantra is that there seems to be nothing the people accused can do that will clear their names. When they're not charged, you get "well they just couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt or "well, they're rich, so they bought their way out of it."

I'd heard about the assault a long time ago, but I know I recall hearing about it again since The Whale came out, along with everything else - the personal struggles, the issues with injuries from his action movie days, the weight gain. Maybe it depends on what publications you're reading and/or programs you're watching.

I don't think the "comeback" narrative was a lie. You mention The Mummy franchise, but that's not the period he's been referring to. He went from starring in blockbusters like that then, for almost a decade appearing in smaller movies in supporting roles or tv shows I've never even heard of. Before <i>Doom Patrol</i> and <i>The Whale</i> he was one of those actors I wondered what happened to <i>Uncut Gems</i> was such a small movie. I can't imagine he immediately thought Oscar. Plus, the character isn't a tough gangster. He's a wannabe tough guy who basically gets pushed around the whole movie. If any role of his was Oscar-baity it was <i>Reign Over Me</i>. That happened one time. And, given the reaction that some people have to it now, there's pretty much zero chance it will happen again. Plus, if that were an actual fear then no man could be allowed to present in any category where a woman might be a winner.

I wonder if the tide is starting to turn on Adam Sandler's case. Despite his critical successes, I think this year's nomination for Hustle was his first SAG nomination. I know that SAG nominations don't always match up (obviously, since Sandler and others didn't get nominated for Oscars). Still, if the SAG-AFTRA members are more open to giving him a nomination, maybe the Academy will be, too, especially since the members are becoming more diverse and younger.

Not knocking you slowpoked, but is this really that noteworthy? I know with COVID and everything, the years seem double in length, but 2017 was not that long ago. It also seems less impressive since three of the winners are from the same movie.

I don't believe she was a lock that year. Just like the race between JLC and Bassett this year, I think it was seen as a toss-up whether Lupita would win or Jennifer Lawrence. I think he was a lock up to a certain point, and then he wasn't. I'm unsure, but I think some controversy happened before the awards. I remember reading about how some believed that Alan Arkin might win. It's why I wasn't surprised when he did. Yeah, I think the whole thing about the Elvis voice was overblown. Call me naive, but I believed his explanation about it being hard to drop after doing it for so long. I know that campaigning is a thing, but I never usually consider it "thirsty" unless it rises to the level of Lady Gaga and the weird stuff she did last year. I agree. I think it would be selfish if you got up and left because you didn't win. That's sore loser behavior. Plus, it seems selfish, especially when you're supposed to be there not only to support yourself but your film. I think AB is smart enough to know how her walking out would have looked, but I also assume she stayed to support the other Black Panther nominees.

For some reason, I wonder if it happens more often with Best Actress than Actor. It also happened with Renee Zellweger for Judy and Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady. Perhaps coincidentally, like with Brendan Fraser, the only other win for those three movies was Best Make-Up.