Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Spoilers and Speculation: Clink Boom and Cheese Fondue

BestestAuntEver

By BestestAuntEver
in General Hospital

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

ulkis

ulkis

28 minutes ago, IWantCandy71 said:

Why in the world would Spinelli need to be recast? He is not now, nor has he ever been, an essential character. Any dealings with Maxie could be offscreen. He is not needed to prop Jason or Sam-plenty of other people do that already. The dumb decisions just keep on coming. They get rid of Richard Burgi(and I am still assuming he was let go, that he did not quit, but I have no idea), but recast Spinelli?

*shakes head*

I think in this case it was so close to filming they couldn't change it.

  • Love 3
  • Replies 25.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • TeeVee329

    3055

  • ulkis

    2195

  • dubbel zout

    2181

  • Chairperson Meow

    1585

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

OnceSane
OnceSane

Prove it, Sonny.  Die.

TeeVee329
TeeVee329

His treatment of Nelle aside, his brushing his way uninvited and unwanted into the Q manse?  Throwing open the doors of the Q living room and leading the way in like he owns the place?  Trying to shad

TeeVee329
TeeVee329

Well he's very busy with his older children, Sonny and Carly.

Posted Images

peachmangosteen

peachmangosteen

(edited)
5 hours ago, TeeVee329 said:

It's sounding like a very Franco January, KMN.

Gross.

4 hours ago, IWantCandy71 said:

Why even write a script with him in it, though? Silly waste of time and money IMO-no disrespect to any Spinelli fans here. I know some actually loved him and Maxie together.

I kinda get it becasue Spinelli and Maxie/Spinelli are (inexplicably imo) still pretty popular.

Edited by peachmangosteen
  • Love 1
stlbf

stlbf

(edited)
2 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

They weren't done at GH, I don't think. Griffin made a point of saying they couldn't be tampered with.

Which means that they totally could be. 

I'm still not sold on Aiden being Lucky's son. Helena could've easily done a switch. One, to punish Nik. Two, to punish Luke. Give him a grandson to love, then blow it to smithereens by announcing that Aiden really was a Cassadine.

Edited by stlbf
Ambrosefolly

Ambrosefolly

1 hour ago, stlbf said:

Which means that they totally could be. 

I'm still not sold on Aiden being Lucky's son. Helena could've easily done a switch. One, to punish Nik. Two, to punish Luke. Give him a grandson to love, then blow it to smithereens by announcing that Aiden really was a Cassadine.

Well, it didn't work. He never seemed to give a shit about any of his grandchildren, unless you take that time Luke drove Aiden to the hospital for super!serious!disease, which, according to the show, redeemed Luke. 

stlbf

stlbf

Actually, I think it works. Luke would be pissed that he was forced to save another Cassadine against his knowledge and it still punished Nik. Helena seemed pretty pissed at Nik up until the end.

And who knew that drunk driving, hit and run of small child (and said child's alleged death) by a long time drunk, could be overlooked and forgiven with just one trip to a hospital?

WendyCR72

WendyCR72

I think Aiden is Lucky's if just because the show likely sees the kid as the eternal tie for Liz and Lucky and as a consolation prize for what's left of that fan base (because this show seems to value bio ties over everything, so clearly Jake and Cam weren't enough...sad, but there it is), and the Cassadine stuff with a kid was done with Lulu and her blood transfusion ages ago.

Of course, the show has since written Lucky as a chip off of Luke's block, a deadbeat, so it's pointless. But Nik was a shitty dad, too. So trading one shitty dad for another is a lateral move.

  • Love 2
IWantCandy71

IWantCandy71

Quote

I kinda get it becasue Spinelli and Maxie/Spinelli are (inexplicably imo) still pretty popular.

I actually liked them when they were more frenemies, for lack of a better word. It was the only time I really cared about Spinelli. That, and the very beginning with Ellie. The Jason and Sam worship IMO is annoying, and a huge reason of why he needs to stay gone.

  • Love 1
stlbf

stlbf

8 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

I think Aiden is Lucky's if just because the show likely sees the kid as the eternal tie for Liz and Lucky and as a consolation prize for what's left of that fan base (because this show seems to value bio ties over everything, so clearly Jake and Cam weren't enough...sad, but there it is), and the Cassadine stuff with a kid was done with Lulu and her blood transfusion ages ago.

Of course, the show has since written Lucky as a chip off of Luke's block, a deadbeat, so it's pointless. But Nik was a shitty dad, too. So trading one shitty dad for another is a lateral move.

But it could break Luke's heart. Lulu was still a Spencer. No matter what stupid contamination crap Luke spouted off about. But Aiden wouldn't be. Maybe Lucky would be fine with it, maybe not. Maybe Nik would be livid. His bitch grandmother robbed him of a child. And we all know Nik ain't dead. I don't think that Nik was ever a shitty parent. Spencer was always well cared for. And Nik also took excellent care of his mother and grandmother Leslie. Spencer is a weird kid. But he has also had a very privileged, private upbringing for most of his life. Which should make for a weird kid. And Spencer loved and adored Nik.

Francie

Francie

20 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

They weren't done at GH, I don't think. Griffin made a point of saying they couldn't be tampered with.

Been there, heard that before.

That's part of the reason why soaps are at the end of their lifespan. They're played out with these "no really, these results you can trust!" assurances. The show might as well say, "Look, I know we don't have any credibility here, whatsoever, but for the sake of you're being able to absorb yourself into the show, you have to suspend your belief to believe that these results are accurate. [Grumbles] Imeanfornow." 

  • Love 4
dubbel zout

dubbel zout

 As Alexis tries to reconcile past events, Franco takes note of her suspicious behavior.

Huh?

Lulu feels threatened by Nina’s commitment to Valentin.

Good.

This is for the week of 1/9:

Jason and Sam have a pregnancy scare.

It was only a matter of time, though the "scare" is probably Sam having Braxton Hicks contractions. I doubt they'll tock this baby.

  • Love 3
LeftPhalange

LeftPhalange

14 minutes ago, TeeVee329 said:

I'm going to need to learn how to say "boring" in some different languages because these spoilers are...

http://tvsourcemagazine.com/2016/12/general-hospital-spoilers-january-2-6-2017-edition/

Italian - Noioso

Spanish - Aburrido

Portuguese - Chato

French - Ennuyeuse

Russian - Pасточка

German - Langweilig

Japanese - 退屈な

Mandarin - 无聊

Korean - 지루한

Afrikaans - Vervelige

Dutch - Saai

  • Love 12
LeftPhalange

LeftPhalange

Quote

When Alexis confronts Julian, will she learn the truth behind his actions? She’s not the only one with suspicions. Sam wonders if she’s getting the whole story. She has some questions for her father regarding his dealings with Rudge. 

Let me guess, Julian killed Duke, killed Carlos, and pulled a knife on Alexis because Olivia Jerome made him. Yawn. 

Quote

Lulu feels threatened by Nina’s commitment to Valentin. 

I hope Lulu has a meltdown in front of Charlotte and scares her away even more. 

2 minutes ago, TeeVee329 said:

I bet we're gonna see that Alexis was stumbling around drunk and saw Tom the night he was killed.  Can't wait to see Franco give her shade. #eyeroll

The only reason Alexis needs to share scenes with Freako is if she's going to run him over repeatedly until he's dead. 

  • Love 4
magnolia11

magnolia11

Quote

Despite how bad things look for him, Franco is determined to clear his name.

FFS, the SERIAL KILLER locked the murder victim in a cage and now the audience is supposed to be rooting for him to clear his name so he can prove his love to his fair damsel?  Nope, Jelly. Uh-uh. Lord, I'm still feeling icky about the fact that I actually felt bad for the reprehensible cage-ee/murder victim in this story.  Worst story ever.

  • Love 12
OnceSane

OnceSane

46 minutes ago, TeeVee329 said:

I bet we're gonna see that Alexis was stumbling around drunk and saw Tom the night he was killed.  Can't wait to see Franco give her shade. #eyeroll

Well, alcoholics are worse than serial killer rapists, dontchaknow?  Alexis should thank her lucky stars that she's not fat.

  • Love 9
Melgaypet

Melgaypet

(edited)
3 hours ago, OnceSane said:

Well, alcoholics are worse than serial killer rapists, dontchaknow?  Alexis should thank her lucky stars that she's not fat.

Hmm. Is being female better or worse than being fat? I'm not entirely up on the General Hospital Scale of Morality.

Edited by Melgaypet
  • Love 7
Darklazr

Darklazr

(edited)
2 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

Patrick Swayze's brother, Don, who has appeared on good shows like M*A*S*H, inexplicably joins GH. I guess a check's a check!

Yes!  I have been waiting for this guy to come to GH!  All of my dreams have come true.  Not.  WTF is wrong with FV?!

Edited by Darklazr
  • Love 1
rur

rur

(edited)
2 hours ago, Fellaway said:

As "Buzz"...  I'm guessing not the same Buzz as Don Galloway's, one of Robin's godfathers.

Which will lead me to a complaint about the writers. The nickname Buzz is rather unusual. Shouldn't someone have checked to make sure it wasn't being reused unnecessarily? Wasn't FV supposed to be a big fan of GH during the Buzz Stryker years? Or does he think this is a nod to "history"?

(not hating on the actor, just on the name choice)

Edited by rur
  • Love 2
jsbt

jsbt

(edited)

The show just has so many tired characters and stories. Julian, Alexis, poor Maxie, Nathan.

Part of it is the way America handles its soaps and always has. There's a contempt bred from rote storytelling. The UK soaps are ruthless, they'll kill anyone in the most vicious way possible. Eastenders, the serial killer of soap operas, just had two long-running popular sisters drown together in a horribly disturbing sequence on one of their wedding days. (They also killed the show's Day 1 matriarch some years back, having her ostracized by her family and bludgeoned by her husband before she died in the cold street over Christmas, and that's just the start of the show's long body count.) Try doing that with any two characters who've been on GH for 9-10 years - there would be a hue and cry to put the production staff inside a wicker man and burn them alive. Or say Alexis killed Julian and then died herself, or Valentin had Nathan and Maxie killed on their wedding day. The audience would go bugfuck.

I'm not saying that's the answer for our soaps, and the European soaps have definitely fallen down a bit in the 21st century. I also find the relentless brutal grind of those soaps and how they burn people down to often be numbing at this point. But there is a poetry and a resonance to how the European soaps handle so much of this stuff (to say nothing of the production value) that is often based in character even when it is vicious or deeply macabre or shocking. Part of it is how our soaps handle death; they toss it off and don't play the beats or mine the right people for enough story or drama, or they pick the wrong people. When GH did kill a lot of people in the 2000s they were usually the folks the show didn't care about, snuffed out and wasted instead of being used up or having a good run. But part of it is simply cultural, how our soaps handle character vs. storytelling as opposed to how the Brits do. And I don't think it's necessarily that the European soaps value character more, though they often do. But they are ruthless about paring down if they get a good story out of it, because they are always willing and able to replenish with new and vibrant characters.

Edited by jsbt
  • Love 4
stlbf

stlbf

Amen. Alot of UK soaps can be vicious. It can get almost as tiresome as boredom though. There has to be a good medium. Brutality for brutality's sake can be just as rote. TFGH hasn't been shy about killing. It just has been terrible doing it and showing the aftermath. The last truly meaningful death was probably Georgie Jones. Tony Jones? Nah. AJ Quartermaine?  Nope. Edward Q? Not really. SkipperBitch?  HA! Connie? Meh. Duke? Only to Anna, allegedly Griffin and for some reason, Sonny. 

  • Love 2
ulkis

ulkis

I don't want them to go all Vicious British Soap on us though, I just want characters to leave more often. Especially with these writers, who did kill someone major off, and managed to make it inconsequential after two weeks.

I think Frank would be unafraid to shoo off a whole bunch of people, except he knows no one is going to tune in for the Nina Franco Ava Hayden Finn Kiki hour.

  • Love 5
dubbel zout

dubbel zout

9 hours ago, stlbf said:

showing the aftermath.

This has been a gigantic problem with GH. What's the point of killing someone if there's no followthrough? If you can't use a death, don't kill the character. Send him/her away. People move away. I don't get why GH feels it has to be all or nothing so much of the time. 

9 hours ago, stlbf said:

Edward Q? Not really.

I thought they did a decent job with Edward, considering how fragile JI had gotten IRL. The followthrough should have been better, no question, but I don't think it was as botched as AJ and now Morgan, for example. At least Edward's death wasn't gruesome or entirely stupid.

12 hours ago, jsbt said:

But they are ruthless about paring down if they get a good story out of it, because they are always willing and able to replenish with new and vibrant characters.

GH writers have been creatively lazy for way too long.

  • Love 5
KerleyQ

KerleyQ

3 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

This has been a gigantic problem with GH. What's the point of killing someone if there's no followthrough? If you can't use a death, don't kill the character. Send him/her away. People move away. I don't get why GH feels it has to be all or nothing so much of the time. 

GH was really guilty of this under Guza.  Everyone who left had to die, and it was so short-sighted.   Plus, when everyone who leaves dies, it gives all of the deaths less impact.  For one, as soon as you heard an actor was leaving, you knew their character was going to die, so there was no shock.  And, with so many deaths, it just became "eh, look, someone else died" on some level, especially when you know that the show is more than happy to go to the "back from the dead" well whenever they feel like it.  Deaths should mean something, and they should be shocking.  I still vividly remember Jenny, on AMC, blowing up on that jet ski.  There isn't a single death in the past decade or longer on GH that is so vivid to me, because they all just kind of blend together, and the impact of many of those deaths has been dulled by subsequent resurrections.  Oh, and another reason they don't have as much impact is because they're not having impact on screen.  We need to see funerals, not just see people gathering right before or right after them.  We need to see the whole damn thing.  That's rare these days.  

  • Love 8
HeatLifer

HeatLifer

16 hours ago, jsbt said:

 Try doing that with any two characters who've been on GH for 9-10 years - there would be a hue and cry to put the production staff inside a wicker man and burn them alive. Or say Alexis killed Julian and then died herself, or Valentin had Nathan and Maxie killed on their wedding day. The audience would go bugfuck.

I think you hit it on the nose right here. I don't blame TPTB for some of the decision-making. They don't want the audience backlash. It's also the same reason why the pairings are so stale. IMO, most fans, and yes I feel comfortable saying most, want their couples to essentially be happy all.the.time. If a writer DARES to screw it up in any way, or formulate some type of drama that might cut into snuggle-time, fans get pissed. In the soap world, I don't think any fan should ever feel comfortable saying "X couple would NEVER break up." If that's true, then X couple should go off-screen because this isn't the Disney Channel.*

*On that same note, I do think there should be one, maybe two, stable couples on a soap. But that's about it.

  • Love 3
dubbel zout

dubbel zout

9 minutes ago, HeatLifer said:

I don't blame TPTB for some of the decision-making. They don't want the audience backlash.

I think there are some characters you can't kill off because you need them for continuity. Or if you do decide to kill off a major character, it has to be done thoughtfully and the followthrough needs to reflect the loss.

Morgan's death (not that he's a major character, but he's not a no-name) isn't affecting anyone but Sonny, Carly, Michael, and to a lesser degree, Lauren. I'm not saying the whole town needs to be rending garments and pulling hair, but Morgan's death has not been incorporated into any larger story. And of course the show undercut things by there being no body or body parts found. So of course viewers wonder if he's really dead, and that takes away from any emotion.

  • Love 5

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...