From: rose@cecily.UUCP (Rose M. Delckum)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
Subject: Re: DOOL
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:16:52 GMT
 <1992Jul27.173906.13062@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
Organization: The New Alaska Riviera
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 beta rel2

In article <1992Jul27.173906.13062@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, timothy.j.mizerak writes:

> In article <Zudor*kZ0@cecily.UUCP> rose@cecily.UUCP (Rose M. Delckum) writes:
> >
> >     I have to agree with Kelly.  Tim, I know this means I've just
> >lost any hope I might have had to join your net.harem, but I had to
> 
> Ah well, I'm not taking applications right now anyway.  :-)
> 
> 
> >do it :-).  I'm sorry, but I just don't understand this.  They say
> >they're letting Mary Beth go (ie firing her) due to the fact that they
> 
> No, this is not correct (ie wrong).  Mary Beth was NOT fired.

     Whoa there Timster :-).  Now as I recall, Mary Beth indicated that
she wanted to resign.  She made no unreasonable demands like wanting
someone else's dressing room or a million dollars and agreed to all the
stipulations made by the network.  In short, there was no breakdown of
contract negotiations.  The problem was, as I understood it, that they
told her they didn't want to re-sign her.  Now where I come from, whether
it's phrased as 'not negotiating a new contract' or 'being let go', it
still means fired.  It's just a matter of semantics.  Now if I've
misunderstood the situation, I apologize, but this is what my sleep-deprived
brain recalls.
> 
> 
> >can't come up with a storyline (like that's ever stopped them before)
> >and because there are so many other characters and couples that
> >need more attention and airtime.  If this is true, then why bring
> >back Kim?  I mean, she's detracting from others airtime just
> >like Mary Beth would have been.  I think the problem is that
> 
> 
> No, not really.  What Sheri Anderson said was that she didn't want to 
> bring back Kayla *and Steve* as *that* storyline would need LOTS of
> airtime and *that* would be detracting.  Kim is a rather minor character
> compared to what Steve and Kayla would be.

     But just because they didn't bring back Steve didn't mean they had
to dump Kayla.  There were plenty of things they could have done with
her.  She could interact with the Johnsons, the Bradys and Hortons, all
the medical types (including Marcus).  They could have put her with
Marcus (oops, forgot they don't do inter-racial romances on Days anymore)
or had her deal with being a single parent (oops, forgot they don't
deal with issues on Days anymore, except for sexual assault), they could
have done something with her running the riverfront clinic (oops, forgot
it's superfluous now that Carly's got her own trauma center).  Marcus
still has Cassie Scofield in his apartment, they could have built a 
friendship (not a triangle) between them...there's any number of things
that could have been done with Kayla.  And as for not having the time
for Steve and Kayla, well they certainly have the time for Carrie and
Jesse, Bo and Carly and John and Icky.  And they just fired 2 couples, 
that should leave open time.  One would think they'd get down on
their knees to Stephen Nichols for even considering coming back.  Wayne
and Deidre got a fortune and the ratings didn't budge.  But how many
people do you think would've been willing to watch again if Steve and Kayla, 
a recent supercouple, returned?
> 
> 
> >TPTB, for whatever reason, are just plain lying to us.  They
> >just wanted to get rid of MaryBeth for some reason, and so
> >they made up this excuse.  Unfortunately bringing back Patsy
> >within such a short time frame exposes this. 
> 
> 
> Oh thank you Miss Marple for exposing NBC's "Operation Coverup" to lie 
> to the people of r.a.t.s. about why MB Evans left the show.  Like really,
> do they need to justify anything they do?  I really can't see a motivation
> for lying and it certainly is something that would come out eventually.
> Or have they also kidnapped Mary Beth to keep her from getting the truth
> out?  :-)  

  Actually, I prefer Mr. & Mrs. North :-).  As to their attitude, yes, I
feel they do owe us an explanation.  They produce a product and we are
the consumers.  They depend on us.  If they alienate us, we refuse to
consume the product and turn to an alternate product, like GH. :-)  That's
why PR is such a big part of a network (hey, I majored in this stuff).
What get me is Sheri said they would be giving Brian and Ginger a major
storyline, yet those two were fired.  Molly and Tanner were supposed
to get a big story yet were also fired.  They say one thing and do
the exact opposite.  This is what is my gripe (my, that was grammatically
awkward, wasn't it?  Oh well, it's 2 AM.  I'm lucky I'm typing
English!)  What would it hurt them to tell us what's going on?
> 
> 
> > MaryBeth definitely
> >was treated badly, but hell, everyone except RKK, Crystal and
> >Spaci is treated like dirt by TPTB (oops, except for the Royal
> >Couple, Wayne and Deidre).  They really should've thought of 
> >a better excuse.
> >
> >A Disgusted Guavita
> 
> 
> Mary Beth did not get a fair shake.  Agreed.  But let's not make it worse 
> than it was by mangling the little we know into a tale of woe.  Sheesh.

    Was that supposed to be a tale of whoah?  (sorry, when I get sleepy I
get punny...besides I just got done watching "And Now For Something Completely
Different".  I'd forgotten the Hell's Grannies sketch :-)  )

> 
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> |  What is it up in the air for?                :   Timothy Mizerak        |
> |  It's going to fall if it's there for long.   :   tm@mhnmc.att.com       |
> |  It's over, it's over me.             R.E.M.  :                          |
    
    Someday someone's just got to explain these lyrics to me :-)

The Shrubbery

"This is an ex-parrot!"

--
Rose M. Delckum
rose@cecily.UUCP
or uunet!coplex!cecily!rose
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps