Spoilers and Speculation: Clink Boom and Cheese Fondue

[nilyank]

If anyone is behind the paternity switch, it should be Silas. Silas who collected the samples and ran the tests. Silas who has already secretly crossed medical ethics for Ava by kidnapping Avery for her bone marrow and secretly treating her cancer against her wishes.

[ulkis]

Don't know if it's real but it's been speculated by most of us from the beginning since Carly looked weird during the reveal. Plus, it will break up Sonny and Carly again.

 

Would it? I think Sonny would be in favor of Morgan not raising Avery too.

[GHScorpiosRule]

This. And as a fictional spawn, I didn't care that Luke killed him. Two couples were shredded so his ass could be created and so his parents could be the next coming of Joseph and Mary.

See, I don't see it that way. Liz and Lucky were already "shredded" by the time Jake was born; Lucky was an addict and had cheated on Liz with Maxie at least twice; and the night Jake was conceived, Liz found him high, and Lucky and Maxie in her marriage bed.

 

And Jason and Sam were already broken up, so it's not as if he cheated on Sam. Actually, I believe (and really I think this should be in the history thread, so if a mod thinks it should be moved, if you could move it?) Jason was going back to get back with Sam when he found her fucking Ric.

 

I don't have a dog in this race. Frankly at this point I just don't react to any dead characters coming back from the dead under this writing regime, because unless you're AJ, you will come back. There's no point in getting upset, because it will be undone when it serves the plot that this fuckwit is driving.

[KerleyQ]

No he will call Carly a FAITHLESS bitchslutwhoretramp, throw bareware, sutterbark betrayal, and go off and murder some innocent bystander.

 

And then he'll screw Nina on the grave of that innocent bystander. 

[Chairperson Meow]

And then he'll screw Nina on the grave of that innocent bystander.

Yes! My dream of Sonny/Nina imploding the world will happen.

Sorry, TJ. You will be missed. Tequan Richmond, you'll be okay, kid. *I'm betting Sonny kills TJ because well, look what he's done to his own kids.

[dubbel zout]

Jake could have had great generational value if Guza cared about him being more than something to showcase Jason's Box o' Pain. Ron has shown he doesn't care about building legacy families, so why bring Jake back?

 

Plus, as has been mentioned, Luke hasn't shown he really cares that he ran over a child. Belittling Lucky for taking care of Jake wasn't showing remorse, either. 

 

Jake needs to stay dead. If Ron is so intent on bringing back someone's son, resurrect AJ for the third time. His story isn't finished.

[jsbt]

People have been talking about this all day, so let me just speak on two of the things brought up re: Jake -

 

One, yes, as some have said, the hit and run could have been a well-told if dark story about a man making a horrible mistake and living with it, owning up to it, making amends to his family. But none of that ever happened. The original story was terrible, the fallout was terrible, Luke never paid for his crime, nothing was done right. So instead all the show has is a dead kid from several core families that could drive future story someday. To me, that's a horrible waste compounded by a story that was wasted.

 

Two - Tony Geary's gotten his way with so much, and ruined Luke in many ways. Luke and Laura may never reunite, Luke still drinks because Tony feels like it despite what the scripts say, and he's pushed back against any measure of redemption on these issues with Frank and Ron (and others) for years. For all we know he even made sure Ethan wasn't a Scorpio, because when these guys first took over the double-bluff on Ethan's paternity seemed very kludgy. He's fucked up plenty. He doesn't get to fuck Luke up on that level, too. Taking back that darkest sin is, to me, a measure of victory not just for the show's historical canvas with Jake, but with Luke. It's not everything, but it's something.

I don't have a dog in the race with couples because I despised Steve Burton's Jason. But to me the kid was a bridge too far and I've been wanting him back for years.

Edited July 4, 2015 by jsbt

[Lillybee]

To me, Luke's biggest sin was telling poor Lucky that killing Jake as liberating. I don't care if those words came out of Luke's or Fluke's mouth because it sent Lucky into a downward spiral and may just be the thing that ruined Lucky's character.

[jsbt]

I missed that. How did Helena's Aidan obsession tie into Stavros?

 

IIRC, it was retconned as being about Helena trying to break Stavros from his post-cryo catatonia by giving him an impetus to revive for a new heir (Aidan as Nikolas's son).

[Oracle42]

but resurrecting Jake doesn't take back Luke's darkest sin because Luke's darkest sin (in this decade) wasn't killing Poor!DeadJake, it was the way he treated his son after he killed his son's kid. Bringing Jake back doesn't change any of that and it doesn't change the fact that he continued drinking afterwards.

Killing Jake was an accident. The way Luke behaved afterwards? That was a choice.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Oracle42

[sunflower]

 

it was the way he treated his son after he killed his son's kid.

 

As much as the follow-through of the Killing Jake story sucked, wasn't it guilt sort of that explained Luke's behavior afterwards?  Like, there's no one on earth Luke Spencer loves more than Lucky, so to kill his son's child,  even by accident maybe made him feel so guilty that he lashed out?  Didn't he say killing Jake was liberating line to push Lucky all the way away?  

 

Of course, the continued drinking and then Lucky leaving the show kind of ruined everything.  

Edited July 4, 2015 by sunflower

[Tiger]

Yes! My dream of Sonny/Nina imploding the world will happen. .

I know what will really raise ratings: a Nina/Sonny/Kiki triangle! I'm already EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE'ing in anticipation, mmm'kay.

It'd be worth it for Tracy and Carly's reactive facial expressions alone.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Tiger

[Chairperson Meow]

I'm torn between my need of Sonny/Nina and someone to snatch Ava's wig off. It's so bad, I itch.

Carly, Tracy, Joss, I'm not picky.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm torn between my need of Sonny/Nina and someone to snatch Ava's wig off. It's so bad, I itch.

As has been explained in the PC News thread, it's been explained that though Maura is probably wearing a wig, Ava has dyed her hair and has extensions, so the only ripping off would be of said extensions, if extensions can be ripped off as easily as wigs.

[Chairperson Meow]

As has been explained in the PC News thread, it's been explained that though Maura is probably wearing a wig, Ava has dyed her hair and has extensions, so the only ripping off would be of said extensions, if extensions can be ripped off as easily as wigs.

Still a better story than Nina anything.

*Yup, talking about ripping out the extensions.

[Lillybee]

Still a better story than Nina anything.

*Yup, talking about ripping out the extensions.

 

 

Still not too original, it has been done on RHoNJ.

[Oracle42]

As much as the follow-through of the Killing Jake story sucked, wasn't it guilt sort of that explained Luke's behavior afterwards?  Like, there's no one on earth Luke Spencer loves more than Lucky, so to kill his son's child,  even by accident maybe made him feel so guilty that he lashed out?  Didn't he say killing Jake was liberating line to push Lucky all the way away?  

 

Of course, the continued drinking and then Lucky leaving the show kind of ruined everything.  

 

Then the redemption for that is for Luke to walk over broken glass to make it up to Lucky - to stop being a selfish, self-indulgent POS and genuinely, humbly beg his son's pardon for the accident and for his incredible shittiness afterwards. Undoing the accident just gives him an out that he has done absolutely nothing to earn 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Then the redemption for that is for Luke to walk over broken glass to make it up to Lucky - to stop being a selfish, self-indulgent POS and genuinely, humbly beg his son's pardon for the accident and for his incredible shittiness afterwards. Undoing the accident just gives him an out that he has done absolutely nothing to earn 

 

Luke would need to crawl on the same glass and BEG Liz's forgiveness as well. Jake wasn't just Lucky's son.  

Edited July 4, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[Oracle42]

He apologized to Liz and he wasn't shitty to her. I'm pretty sure Temp!Liz told Jason that she'd forgiven Luke because he was one of the few people who didn't judge her for cheating on Lucky with Nik. 

Edited July 4, 2015 by Oracle42

[Chairperson Meow]

I'm torn between alive kid Jake and dead kid Jake. I think a paternity switch would work imo because then Liz, Carly, nor Jason would have the bragging rights of Kid Jake. ("Mah kid has Jason's kid's kidneys! " "I have the first Jason spaen!" "I gave mah baby up for the mob and he died! " )Lucky raised him, Lucky was really hurt the most by his death, so damn. I'd be ok with pandering to Liz/Lucky fans because for once Ron needs to pander to not himself. And please cut the Jiz cord for good. As far as Luke skating, eh he pays for nothing. Dude raped Laura, stole a corpse, killed his dad, and had very bad hair- but it's ok because his dad was mean. (Says the Show.) So I don't care. TJ almost did more time for using his own credit card than Sonny did for murdering AJ Quartermaine in cold blood, so fuck logic.

[jsbt]

Liz and Lucky already have a biological kid.

[Oracle42]

 so fuck logic.

 

That's basically the show's tagline right now

[dubbel zout]

He apologized to Liz and he wasn't shitty to her. I'm pretty sure Temp!Liz told Jason that she'd forgiven Luke because he was one of the few people who didn't judge her for cheating on Lucky with Nik.

 

They had a decent scene. It was when Luke told Liz he'd paid Coleman to rename the bar so she wouldn't see Jake's name every time she drove by it.

[Chairperson Meow]

Why does a Quartermaine /Webber have to be Jason's? I'm positive AJ and his drunk, hungry ass had a lot of evil unprotected sex. I'm sick of Jason, Jason, Jason. And he doesn't know he's Jason. It's not the actor. It's the hard on writers have for a robot douche. God, I wish Alan and Monica had more kids. Just one secret kid (not you, Franco. You can't sit with us.)

[Melgaypet]

Why does a Quartermaine /Webber have to be Jason's? I'm positive AJ and his drunk, hungry ass had a lot of evil unprotected sex.

 

AJ should absolutely have more kids than just Michael. Maybe he crossed paths with Liz's boring sister Sarah? Boom! Secret Quartermanine/Webber/Hardy kid!

 

And how many of us wanted TJ to be AJ's kid (and for Jordan to be Keesha)? Or going back, hoped that he and Nikolas' ex-wife Lydia had run off and were raising Nikolas' unknown firstborn heir along with a kid or two of their own?

[Ambrosefolly]

And how many of us wanted TJ to be AJ's kid (and for Jordan to be Keesha)? Or going back, hoped that he and Nikolas' ex-wife Lydia had run off and were raising Nikolas' unknown firstborn heir along with a kid or two of their own?

While I was all for AJ and Lydia having a kid with Nik's real first born heir ( I would love to see the look on Spence's face when he found. I think the staff he bosses around would have a good laugh.), I hate the idea of AJ knowingly leaving behind children to go after Michael.

[yowsah1]

Why does a Quartermaine /Webber have to be Jason's? I'm positive AJ and his drunk, hungry ass had a lot of evil unprotected sex. I'm sick of Jason, Jason, Jason. And he doesn't know he's Jason. It's not the actor. It's the hard on writers have for a robot douche. God, I wish Alan and Monica had more kids. Just one secret kid (not you, Franco. You can't sit with us.)

 

Not just A.J.  Neither Alan or Edward were exactly Mr. Faithful during stretches of their marriages, so there could be any number of Quartermaines born on the wrong side of the blanket out to get revenge on the family that "spurned" them (but who secretly want acceptance and love from the same).  And didn't Edward have a brother?

 

And what with all these rumors of "changes on the horizon due to low ratings" I got to thinking about what kind of cast turnover could maybe be in the offing, which led to me to start speculating to myself as to which actors on the show might have "pay or play" contracts and guaranteed minimums.  My guesses were Maurice Bernard (always, Roger Haworth, Michelle Stafford, and maybe Maura West or Billy Miller.  Anybody else have any thoughts on this?

Edited July 6, 2015 by yowsah1

[Oracle42]

There are rumors of changes? Thank goodness!!

[Tiger]

And what with all these rumors of "changes on the horizon due to low ratings" I got to thinking about what kind of cast turnover could maybe be in the offing, which led to me to start speculating to myself as to which actors on the show might have "pay or play" contracts and guaranteed minimums. My guesses were Maurice Bernard (always, Roger Haworth, Michelle Stafford, and maybe Maura West or Billy Miller. Anybody else have any thoughts on this?

My understanding is that everyone on contract has a minimum that guarantees so many episodes that they either appear in or get paid for per week, month, quarter, or year. And then the actor gets a premium for working over their guaranteed minimum.

It was widely reported that when Jill was in charge, one of the big reasons the show always ran over budget is that some actors were worked over their minimums while many other actors weren't workers their minimums and were paid without having to work.

Allegedly Uncle Frank is a big stickler with the actors minimums. For example, if Laura Wright's contract calls for her to appear in 12 episodes per month then Carly will appear in 12 episodes per month even if that means sometimes she's only present in the background of a scene, or she's not present when she should be.

ETA: I believe that under Jill that Laura, Mo, Steve, and a few others had 4 day a week minimums but those three were the only three that regularly hit and exceeded that minimum. For a few years there in the mid-aughts Sonny would always be off on Wed and it was usually the best episode of the week, except when Mary Sue Price scripted for that day.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Tiger

[dubbel zout]

No character needs to or should be on four days a week.

[LegalParrot81]

 

No character needs to or should be on four days a week.

 

Even at the height of the L&L craze they were rarely on more than 3 days a week. 

 

I never understood why Guza/Phelps/Frons thought ramming the Terrible Trio of Suck down viewers throats was a positive thing.  When GH became The Jason Hour, that's when I pretty much became a fair weather viewer.

Edited July 6, 2015 by LegalParrot81

[Francie]

And what with all these rumors of "changes on the horizon due to low ratings" I got to thinking about what kind of cast turnover could maybe be in the offing, which led to me to start speculating to myself as to which actors on the show might have "pay or play" contracts and guaranteed minimums.  My guesses were Maurice Bernard (always, Roger Haworth, Michelle Stafford, and maybe Maura West or Billy Miller.  Anybody else have any thoughts on this?

 

My understanding is, by and large, the same as Tiger's.  All contract actors have minimums. That's dictated by the union-negotiated contract.  The minimum, which is what newbies are offered, is low.  Something like 1.5 or 1.75 appearances per week at less than $1,000 per episode.  Whatever it was, I did the math once and it came out to about $80,000 per year.

 

While actors have guarantees that are set out on a weekly basis (for example, 2 per week, or 3 per week, and or 2/3 split, meaning 5 episodes per every two weeks), that doesn't mean the actors are guaranteed to be on twice a week every week. And it doesn't mean they'll get a paycheck for that amount every 2 weeks or even month. 

 

As they go along, the actors are paid only for the episodes they work.  Then, at the end of either the quarter, the 6-months mark, or the end of the year, the accountants then settle up.  So, a worker who is off for a month or only has a handful of appearances isn't getting paid much. Then, they may be worked those additional days later on and make up the difference. Or they may get (finally!) paid for the amount of days they are under their guarantee to make them whole.

 

While that sounds similar to "play or pay" provisions, those are a bit different, I think.  Very few actors have had play or pay provisions, and probably none nowadays. Linda Dano had one and so did Jackie Zeman way back in the mid-1990s.  My understanding is that "play or pay" provisions mean that the actors who have them don't have to wait months upon months to get their guarantees for the amount of days they were not used under their guarantees.  They get paid for their guarantee as they go along, even if they aren't on.  This impacts the immediate budget, and thus TPTB are more likely to use them consistently on a week-in and week-out basis rather than incur the cost of paying them and paying the people on screen.

 

The "play or pay" provisions may also have meant that the actors were, indeed, guaranteed to be one those number of days per week, and that the show couldn't stockpile their guarantees and use them later on to make up the difference. So, if they had a 4 per week "play or pay" guarantee, they were paid 4 episodes per week, every week, and then paid extra if they did, in fact, work a 5th day in a given week.  I've never seen an adequate explanation of how "play or pay" operates in the daytime arena, but that's my best understanding of how it would play out (no pun intended).

 

Very, very few actors ever had 4 per week guarantees, but I would expect that Maurice, Steve, and maybe Laura were among them in the 2000s. I seriously doubt that anyone has a 4 per week guarantee anymore though.

 

I agree that JFP gave the guarantees little consideration, and Frank calculates them out to the day. If you look at the year-end episode counts for 2014, it looks like Maurice has a 3 per week guarantee, for example, while Finola Hughes has a 2 per week.

 

Right now, it does seem like Frank is resting a lot of the people with a higher per episode rate (Jason Thompson, Nancy Lee Gran, even Maurice and Laura are on less).  He may be doing that to compensate for Genie's high rate of pay.  Both she and Tony are on right now, and Genie always demands to be paid at the same rate as Tony.  I can only guess what their per episode rate is now -- but until these anemic days, the high-caliber veterans were paid in the ballpark of $3,000 per episode.  Tony Geary reportedly made $1 million a year when he returned to daytime in 1991.  That meant probably at least a $5,000 per episode rate at the time.  It's anyone's guess how much of that he's allowed them to cut, as opposed to just cutting his guarantee and giving him about half of the year off every year.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Francie

[Chairperson Meow]

Billy Miller hasn't been on nearly as much as I thought he'd be for being Jason to be honest. If I had to make a chart or graph of Steve Burton's tv time vs his, I think Burton would have more.

[Lobsel Vith]

Even at the height of the L&L craze they were rarely on more than 3 days a week.

I never understood why Guza/Phelps/Frons thought ramming the Terrible Trio of Suck down viewers throats was a positive thing. When GH became The Jason Hour, that's when I pretty much became a fair weather viewer.

The inability to paint them as the bad guys was also perplexing. Unless Sonny or Carly wronged Jason, they were Teflon. Jason was treated as the hero for taking Michael from AJ, Jason was treated as the good guy when he started the last war with Lorenzo Alcazar, Jason was treated as the shining knight while Lucky was dragged through the mud during SOS. It was also pretty disgusting when Emily talked to Liz about Jason like she was in love with him during SOS (when the two were comparing him to Lucky). I still don't get the lack of balance.

[LegalParrot81]

 

Billy Miller hasn't been on nearly as much as I thought he'd be for being Jason to be honest. If I had to make a chart or graph of Steve Burton's tv time vs his, I think Burton would have more.

 

Significantly more.  During the Guza years (in this case 2005- early 2011), there was an average of 253 episodes aired per year.  Burton averaged 216 appearances per year.

 

Billy Miller isn't  close.

 

SBu's last full year through June, there were 126 episodes, he was on screen 104 times.

 

Miller for the same period of time now, there have been 127 episodes, he's appeared 86 times.

 

Yeah, I'm bored.  LOL

Edited July 6, 2015 by LegalParrot81

[Oracle42]

So. Yeah, one of the people on another board said that the Poor!Dead!Jake actor only taped for a day. If this is a fakeout/dream thing? I think RC should probably hire body guards

[Box305]

So. Yeah, one of the people on another board said that the Poor!Dead!Jake actor only taped for a day. If this is a fakeout/dream thing? I think RC should probably hire body guards

 

What? Oy. 

[jsbt]

You can tape a lot of material with an actor in one day on Uncle Frank's schedule. Especially kids, where they tend to limit the airtime.

[Oracle42]

That's also true and it would make more sense since JJ is only around for a limited time.

[TeeVee329]

That's also true and it would make more sense since JJ is only around for a limited time.

 

But wouldn't Lucky return Jake to Liz?

 

I wonder if this is more planting a flag for later.  Ron reveals Jake's alive/"undoes" Luke's big sin.  Maybe this attempt to rescue him or whatever fails, Lucky goes off after him (maybe with Laura and Luke too), and then a recast Lucky can return with Jake in the fall or something.

Edited July 7, 2015 by TeeVee329

[Oracle42]

Please don't let Frank choose the recast, please don't let Frank choose the recast, please don't let Frank choose a recast, please, please, please!

Edited July 7, 2015 by Oracle42

[Melgaypet]

Please don't let Frank choose the recast, please don't let Frank choose the recast, please don't let Frank choose the recast, Please, please, please!

 

Mark Lawson, people. I'm a JJ fangirl, but ML could get it done.

 

(Watch Uncle Frank hire John-Paul Lavoisier, just to torture us all I'M SORRY I DON'T KNOW WHY I JUST PUT THAT OUT IN THE UNIVERSE)

Edited July 7, 2015 by Melgaypet

[Oracle42]

YOU TAKE THAT BACK RIGHT NOW!!

I think I just had a mini-stroke.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Oracle42

[Melgaypet]

I'm sorry! The thought just came to me and I couldn't bear being all alone in my horror. Here, let me make it up, Mark Lawson, ideal Lucky recast:

 

 

(He can act, too.)

Edited July 7, 2015 by Melgaypet

[Oracle42]

Shirtless!Brody was always my favorite Brody

[Box305]

I like when they allow guys to keep their body hair. Meow. 

[UYI]

Mark Lawson, people. I'm a JJ fangirl, but ML could get it done.

 

(Watch Uncle Frank hire John-Paul Lavoisier, just to torture us all I'M SORRY I DON'T KNOW WHY I JUST PUT THAT OUT IN THE UNIVERSE)

 

 

HOW DARE YOU.

 

(And I actually liked him during first year of OLTL--I actually kind of liked him and Jen. Hell, I even liked him and Gigi for the longest time. BUT IT WAS A YOUTHFUL MISTAKE I'M OVER IT NOW.)

[KerleyQ]

Mark Lawson, people. I'm a JJ fangirl, but ML could get it done.

 

(Watch Uncle Frank hire John-Paul Lavoisier, just to torture us all I'M SORRY I DON'T KNOW WHY I JUST PUT THAT OUT IN THE UNIVERSE)

 

ML is the only Lucky recast I'll accept at this point.  He would be perfect.  And he and Dante partnered up as adorable pocket cop partners?  Has to happen. 

[WendyCR72]

I'm sorry! The thought just came to me and I couldn't bear being all alone in my horror. Here, let me make it up, Mark Lawson, ideal Lucky recast:

 

 

(He can act, too.)

 

Cute but - and I'm aware this is EXTREMELY immature and petty - but by virtue of the fact he was on OLTL, no. Just because it would piss RC off not to get more OLTL actors.

[jsbt]

I agree.