Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie Oleson" data-source="post: 155149" data-attributes="member: 8">And this is my dilemma. While I could appreciate Charley for being such a no-holds-barred villain, it&#039;s the almost lobotomized versions of the original characters that made it so hard to watch sometimes, but - as you&#039;ve pointed out in the previous review - it simply wasn&#039;t possible to fight a character like Charley in a conventional soap fashion.In the heyday of the glamorous prime time soaps he&#039;d be banished from The Valley, after a proper beating of course, but Charley wasn&#039;t supposed to go anywhere and I feel that most of this season was written for him.If I had realized this the first time I watched it I could have appreciated it a little bit more.I know this is not the Lance from FC&#039;s first seasons, but considering everything that&#039;s happened I couldn&#039;t help giggling.This gets my vote in the category Blaspheming The Soap Conventions. After a whole decade of doing the &quot;we need to talk&quot; they finally acknowledge the pointlessness of it all.Although that&#039;s not entirely true: &quot;we have to talk&quot; is a useful plot device that allows the character that&#039;s supposed to receive the information to avoid receiving said information, thus creating the opportunity for future plot twists based on non-communication eventhough the viewer knows that at least an effort was made to inform or warn the other character.&quot;Can we do this later, I have an important (always important!) meeting in 5 minutes&quot;&quot;Yes but..&quot;&quot;Later, I promise&quot;.And then he dies in car accident or doesn&#039;t marry the woman he loves because he doesn&#039;t know she&#039;s going to have his baby. Or something like that.After years of playing God and ruining other people&#039;s lives I must say I thoroughly enjoy the sense of comeuppance despite (or maybe because) the fact that it comes from a source unrelated to his pre-season 9 shenanigans. I guess this also applies to the ex-villains ruined by the infamous Charley St. James.They thought they knew the rules, mostly implemented by themselves, but they never saw this one coming.Neil McVane did it to Alexis, after Blake made him reconsider the importance of being loyal to the Right Person.Since it would be her word against his and her motive being rather transparent (the future of the family business) I find this solution a little bit too convenient.There&#039;s something endearing about it. He&#039;s never proved to be a great successor or at least because his grandmother never allowed him to be his own man. And now he thinks he finally dunit.Oh, the nerve! Yes, JR needs to be applauded for almost committing adultery.It&#039;s a bit like saying &quot;I saved your life today because I decided not to kill you&quot;.This also reminds me of the Webbers and Chernaks from Peyton Place.It&#039;s good to see that there&#039;s still room for the more traditional soap opera.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie Oleson, post: 155149, member: 8"] And this is my dilemma. While I could appreciate Charley for being such a no-holds-barred villain, it's the almost lobotomized versions of the original characters that made it so hard to watch sometimes, but - as you've pointed out in the previous review - it simply wasn't possible to fight a character like Charley in a conventional soap fashion. In the heyday of the glamorous prime time soaps he'd be banished from The Valley, after a proper beating of course, but Charley wasn't supposed to go anywhere and I feel that most of this season was written [I]for[/I] him. If I had realized this the first time I watched it I could have appreciated it a little bit more. I know this is not the Lance from FC's first seasons, but considering everything that's happened I couldn't help giggling. This gets my vote in the category Blaspheming The Soap Conventions. After a whole decade of doing the "we need to talk" they finally acknowledge the pointlessness of it all. Although that's not [I]entirely[/I] true: "we have to talk" is a useful plot device that allows the character that's supposed to receive the information to [I]avoid[/I] receiving said information, thus creating the opportunity for future plot twists based on non-communication eventhough the viewer knows that at least [I]an effort[/I] was made to inform or warn the other character. "Can we do this later, I have an important (always important!) meeting in 5 minutes" "Yes but.." "Later, I promise". And then he dies in car accident or doesn't marry the woman he loves because he doesn't know she's going to have his baby. Or something like that. After years of playing God and ruining other people's lives I must say I thoroughly enjoy the sense of comeuppance despite (or maybe because) the fact that it comes from a source unrelated to his pre-season 9 shenanigans. I guess this also applies to the ex-villains ruined by the infamous Charley St. James. They thought they knew the rules, mostly implemented by themselves, but they never saw this one coming. Neil McVane did it to Alexis, after Blake made him reconsider the importance of being loyal to the Right Person. Since it would be her word against his and [I]her[/I] motive being rather transparent (the future of the family business) I find this solution a little bit too convenient. There's something endearing about it. He's never proved to be a great successor or at least because his grandmother never allowed him to be his own man. And now he [I]thinks[/I] he finally dunit. Oh, the nerve! Yes, JR needs to be applauded for [I]almost[/I] committing adultery. It's a bit like saying "I saved your life today because I decided not to kill you". This also reminds me of the Webbers and Chernaks from Peyton Place. It's good to see that there's still room for the more traditional soap opera. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What month follows July?