|
Luke Will Bo On Today..
|
|
Topic Started: Jan 31 2008, 12:38 PM (507 Views)
|
|
LoTr1985
|
Jan 31 2008, 06:01 PM
Post #31
|
|
- Posts:
- 388
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- January 4, 2008
|
- dkp
- Jan 31 2008, 02:42 PM
I think I am being realistic. I totally get because Van is on contract the story is going to be told more through his eyes and he'll probably get more scenes than Jake and that's fine for now, but if Noah is to ever be a long term character, he's going to have to get some more "equal treatment". I'm not asking that for every show Van appears in with Jake, that Jake should get equal. But Noah needs to be shown interacting with other people without Luke sometime. If the couple is to ever reach "super couple" status like many would like, they to start treating both haves more equally or else all it's ever going to be seen as is "Luke and his arm candy".
I agree w/ you Pat. I think the contract issue is a moot point right now b/c of the strike and, quite frankly, I don't think it matters anyway. If the show's intent is to have Noah as a long-term character, regardless of whether Jake's on contract or not, they need to flesh him out. The actor who plays Sophie is not a contract player but we saw more of her than either Van or Jake. A person's story (even though I hated her story w/ Cole) should be what dictates screen time, not recurring or contract status.
Moving on to another point...I think the entire point for Tala being on and the obvious connection to Noah as his sister is indicating that the show is going to be trying to create a family around Noah. They did the same thing with Christian LeBlanc as Michael over on Y&R. He went from being a recurring to a supporting to a lead and they built his family accordingly.
There are several cases throughout soapdom where an actor/character was hated (Alicia DeWitt as Kendall on AMC for example) b/c they weren't given a lot of screen time or s/l. But once the show actually began giving them something to do...well...now Alicia is the best thing on AMC right now. I'm not saying that'll happen with Jake but you never know.
Bubbles, you've said several times that you don't like Noah or don't see the point of him being on w/out Van b/c you don't really like Jake's acting and you don't see Noah as anything other than a trophy b/f for Luke. Wouldn't this be a great time to actually flesh Noah out as something other than a trophy for Luke and to see if Jake can grow by having interactions with some of the other actors? No one who has issues w/ Jake/Noah is ever going to be able to get that settled if he's not given an opportunity.
|
|
|
| |
|
dkp
|
Jan 31 2008, 06:05 PM
Post #32
|
|
OLTL rocks!
- Posts:
- 5,626
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #8
- Joined:
- January 4, 2008
|
^^^^ Glad to have someone else join the debate. I loved your post as well Rachael.
|
 ------------------------------------- DeRo reunited 9/29/09...about damn F*ing time!!!
|
| |
|
LoTr1985
|
Jan 31 2008, 06:14 PM
Post #33
|
|
- Posts:
- 388
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- January 4, 2008
|
- dkp
- Jan 31 2008, 04:05 PM
^^^^ Glad to have someone else join the debate. I loved your post as well Rachael.
Thanks!
I'm not a diehard Jake/Noah fan but I see potential in him and I think that the show should explore that.
|
|
|
| |
|
bubbles
|
Jan 31 2008, 06:31 PM
Post #34
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,710
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- December 30, 2007
|
- LoTr1985
- Jan 31 2008, 10:01 PM
- dkp
- Jan 31 2008, 02:42 PM
I think I am being realistic. I totally get because Van is on contract the story is going to be told more through his eyes and he'll probably get more scenes than Jake and that's fine for now, but if Noah is to ever be a long term character, he's going to have to get some more "equal treatment". I'm not asking that for every show Van appears in with Jake, that Jake should get equal. But Noah needs to be shown interacting with other people without Luke sometime. If the couple is to ever reach "super couple" status like many would like, they to start treating both haves more equally or else all it's ever going to be seen as is "Luke and his arm candy".
I agree w/ you Pat. I think the contract issue is a moot point right now b/c of the strike and, quite frankly, I don't think it matters anyway. If the show's intent is to have Noah as a long-term character, regardless of whether Jake's on contract or not, they need to flesh him out. The actor who plays Sophie is not a contract player but we saw more of her than either Van or Jake. A person's story (even though I hated her story w/ Cole) should be what dictates screen time, not recurring or contract status. Moving on to another point...I think the entire point for Tala being on and the obvious connection to Noah as his sister is indicating that the show is going to be trying to create a family around Noah. They did the same thing with Christian LeBlanc as Michael over on Y&R. He went from being a recurring to a supporting to a lead and they built his family accordingly. There are several cases throughout soapdom where an actor/character was hated (Alicia DeWitt as Kendall on AMC for example) b/c they weren't given a lot of screen time or s/l. But once the show actually began giving them something to do...well...now Alicia is the best thing on AMC right now. I'm not saying that'll happen with Jake but you never know. Bubbles, you've said several times that you don't like Noah or don't see the point of him being on w/out Van b/c you don't really like Jake's acting and you don't see Noah as anything other than a trophy b/f for Luke. Wouldn't this be a great time to actually flesh Noah out as something other than a trophy for Luke and to see if Jake can grow by having interactions with some of the other actors? No one who has issues w/ Jake/Noah is ever going to be able to get that settled if he's not given an opportunity.
We have talked in length about this. So yeah you know how I feel.
I know ALL about how soaps work. If the actor got the IT factor it shouldn't matter the contract status, I guess.
I said I *like* Jake/Noah. I just don't understand the outcry that Noah *needs* to be on days when Luke isn't. Luke has family and friends. He's part of a core family. So I'm glad he's on.
I said I don't care if Noah is in scenes without Luke. I just don't understand why it was such a big deal Luke was on today without his arm candy,
|

|
| |
|
LoTr1985
|
Jan 31 2008, 06:36 PM
Post #35
|
|
- Posts:
- 388
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- January 4, 2008
|
- bubbles
- Jan 31 2008, 04:31 PM
- LoTr1985
- Jan 31 2008, 10:01 PM
- dkp
- Jan 31 2008, 02:42 PM
I think I am being realistic. I totally get because Van is on contract the story is going to be told more through his eyes and he'll probably get more scenes than Jake and that's fine for now, but if Noah is to ever be a long term character, he's going to have to get some more "equal treatment". I'm not asking that for every show Van appears in with Jake, that Jake should get equal. But Noah needs to be shown interacting with other people without Luke sometime. If the couple is to ever reach "super couple" status like many would like, they to start treating both haves more equally or else all it's ever going to be seen as is "Luke and his arm candy".
I agree w/ you Pat. I think the contract issue is a moot point right now b/c of the strike and, quite frankly, I don't think it matters anyway. If the show's intent is to have Noah as a long-term character, regardless of whether Jake's on contract or not, they need to flesh him out. The actor who plays Sophie is not a contract player but we saw more of her than either Van or Jake. A person's story (even though I hated her story w/ Cole) should be what dictates screen time, not recurring or contract status. Moving on to another point...I think the entire point for Tala being on and the obvious connection to Noah as his sister is indicating that the show is going to be trying to create a family around Noah. They did the same thing with Christian LeBlanc as Michael over on Y&R. He went from being a recurring to a supporting to a lead and they built his family accordingly. There are several cases throughout soapdom where an actor/character was hated (Alicia DeWitt as Kendall on AMC for example) b/c they weren't given a lot of screen time or s/l. But once the show actually began giving them something to do...well...now Alicia is the best thing on AMC right now. I'm not saying that'll happen with Jake but you never know. Bubbles, you've said several times that you don't like Noah or don't see the point of him being on w/out Van b/c you don't really like Jake's acting and you don't see Noah as anything other than a trophy b/f for Luke. Wouldn't this be a great time to actually flesh Noah out as something other than a trophy for Luke and to see if Jake can grow by having interactions with some of the other actors? No one who has issues w/ Jake/Noah is ever going to be able to get that settled if he's not given an opportunity.
We have talked in length about this. So yeah you know how I feel. I know ALL about how soaps work. If the actor got the IT factor it shouldn't matter the contract status, I guess. I said I *like* Jake/Noah. I just don't understand the outcry that Noah *needs* to be on days when Luke isn't. Luke has family and friends. He's part of a core family. So I'm glad he's on. I said I don't care if Noah is in scenes without Luke. I just don't understand why it was such a big deal Luke was on today without his arm candy,
The idea that he *needs* to be on (whether it's with Luke or something else) is b/c the show needs to flesh him out if they him to stick around and he's got potential, which should be explored.
With all the actors making exits (especially Jen and Will), the other younger ones will (should) be called upon to start filling some gaps.
It's really about storyline consistency. Don't introduce a character with this big *bang* and then do nothing with him. That's lazy and uncreative.
|
|
|
| |
|
bubbles
|
Jan 31 2008, 06:40 PM
Post #36
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,710
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- December 30, 2007
|
and they will be on more. I like that they showed Luke today with his family. It's not all about Noah with him. He has other stuff going on too.
they mentioned Noah today , he was in class. They didn't just forgot about him.
I think Noah does need to interact with others but I still don't think Noah needs to be on days without Luke. Scenes ...yes, Days...NO
|

|
| |
|
LoTr1985
|
Jan 31 2008, 06:43 PM
Post #37
|
|
- Posts:
- 388
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- January 4, 2008
|
- bubbles
- Jan 31 2008, 04:40 PM
and they will be on more. I like that they showed Luke today with his family. It's not all about Noah with him. He has other stuff going on too.
they mentioned Noah today , he was in class. They didn't just forgot about him.
I think Noah does need to interact with others but I still don't think Noah needs to be on days without Luke. Scenes ...yes, Days...NO
What's the difference? Especially seeing as how a scene can sometimes take all day.
That sorta doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
| |
|
dkp
|
Jan 31 2008, 06:53 PM
Post #38
|
|
OLTL rocks!
- Posts:
- 5,626
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #8
- Joined:
- January 4, 2008
|
- bubbles
- Jan 31 2008, 05:40 PM
and they will be on more. I like that they showed Luke today with his family. It's not all about Noah with him. He has other stuff going on too.
they mentioned Noah today , he was in class. They didn't just forgot about him.
I think Noah does need to interact with others but I still don't think Noah needs to be on days without Luke. Scenes ...yes, Days...NO
I thought it was fine Luke showed up today without Noah.
To me bubbles your reasons for saying "no" to having Noah appear in episodes without Luke because Van's on a contract and Luke has all this family aren't good enough reasons in my mind. Sorry, but I also don't think you argument is very valid when you make a statement that says its fine that Jake be on episodes by himself but only when Van isn't available. I don't think you can "pick and choose" like that. You either believe it's ok or you don't. Can't have it both ways.
If I come across rude, I apologize, because I don't mean to be. Even though I disagree with you, I was following your argument up until you made the statement I mentioned above. Then if became much harder to see your side.
|
 ------------------------------------- DeRo reunited 9/29/09...about damn F*ing time!!!
|
| |
|
bubbles
|
Jan 31 2008, 06:54 PM
Post #39
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,710
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- December 30, 2007
|
- LoTr1985
- Jan 31 2008, 10:43 PM
- bubbles
- Jan 31 2008, 04:40 PM
and they will be on more. I like that they showed Luke today with his family. It's not all about Noah with him. He has other stuff going on too.
they mentioned Noah today , he was in class. They didn't just forgot about him.
I think Noah does need to interact with others but I still don't think Noah needs to be on days without Luke. Scenes ...yes, Days...NO
What's the difference? Especially seeing as how a scene can sometimes take all day. That sorta doesn't make sense to me.
the difference is i think of Noah as an extension of Luke. And the writing supports that. It would seem odd to me to have Noah on for some random scenes without Luke in that eppy.
I don't mind how they have done it in the past and had Noah have scenes with others but he still had scenes with Luke that day.
It just flowed better that way for me.
Like I've said for the 100th time it makes more sense that Luke will be in scenes with many others because he's part of a core family and he's related or friends with everyone in town. I found it refreshing that Luke was included in today's eppy. He should have been.
Pat, you say the Lucinda/Luke scenes was pointless, well, I love it when shows have characters just talking about whats going on in their lives. It presents them as realistic to me.
When Noah gets some family and friends then fine, he can have those type of scenes but I don't see the point right now.
|

|
| |
|
LoTr1985
|
Jan 31 2008, 06:59 PM
Post #40
|
|
- Posts:
- 388
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- January 4, 2008
|
- bubbles
- Jan 31 2008, 04:54 PM
- LoTr1985
- Jan 31 2008, 10:43 PM
- bubbles
- Jan 31 2008, 04:40 PM
and they will be on more. I like that they showed Luke today with his family. It's not all about Noah with him. He has other stuff going on too.
they mentioned Noah today , he was in class. They didn't just forgot about him.
I think Noah does need to interact with others but I still don't think Noah needs to be on days without Luke. Scenes ...yes, Days...NO
What's the difference? Especially seeing as how a scene can sometimes take all day. That sorta doesn't make sense to me.
the difference is i think of Noah as an extension of Luke. And the writing supports that. It would seem odd to me to have Noah on for some random scenes without Luke in that eppy. I don't mind how they have done it in the past and had Noah have scenes with others but he still had scenes with Luke that day. It just flowed better that way for me. Like I've said for the 100th time it makes more sense that Luke will be in scenes with many others because he's part of a core family and he's related or friends with everyone in town. I found it refreshing that Luke was included in today's eppy. He should have been. Pat, you say the Lucinda/Luke scenes was pointless, well, I love it when shows have characters just talking about whats going on in their lives. It presents them as realistic to me. When Noah gets some family and friends then fine, he can have those type of scenes but I don't see the point right now.
the difference is i think of Noah as an extension of Luke. And the writing supports that. It would seem odd to me to have Noah on for some random scenes without Luke in that eppy.
When Noah gets some family and friends then fine, he can have those type of scenes but I don't see the point right now.
Doesn't that sound kind of contradictory? You don't want him on by himself but yet you're saying when they build a family around him then that's okay. I don't get it. How is he going to get those things built around him if he's always an appendage of Luke? And how will you ever see him as something other than an extension of Luke if he's not given the scenes/days/s/l to do so?
|
|
|
| |
|
bubbles
|
Jan 31 2008, 07:00 PM
Post #41
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,710
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- December 30, 2007
|
- dkp
- Jan 31 2008, 10:53 PM
- bubbles
- Jan 31 2008, 05:40 PM
and they will be on more. I like that they showed Luke today with his family. It's not all about Noah with him. He has other stuff going on too.
they mentioned Noah today , he was in class. They didn't just forgot about him.
I think Noah does need to interact with others but I still don't think Noah needs to be on days without Luke. Scenes ...yes, Days...NO
I thought it was fine Luke showed up today without Noah. To me bubbles your reasons for saying "no" to having Noah appear in episodes without Luke because Van's on a contract and Luke has all this family aren't good enough reasons in my mind. Sorry, but I also don't think you argument is very valid when you make a statement that says its fine that Jake be on episodes by himself but only when Van isn't available. I don't think you can "pick and choose" like that. You either believe it's ok or you don't. Can't have it both ways. If I come across rude, I apologize, because I don't mean to be. Even though I disagree with you, I was following your argument up until you made the statement I mentioned above. Then if became much harder to see your side.
I'm sure it's probably confusing to you. Back when Van was doing his play, I felt the show could have fleshed out Noah's character. I still didn't think he should have had a whole bunch of airtime then either. But when the show did not go there I figured it's because Jake is on recurring. So if the show doesn't really care about Noah's character why should I?
I'm a viewer of the whole show. I want the whole show to make sense. It doesn't make sense to me to have a recurring actor on more than the contracted fleshed out characters on the show.
It's hard to explain.
I know you feel differently that Jake should be getting a fair amount of airtime but I think it's fine if Van is on without Jake.
|

|
| |
|
dkp
|
Jan 31 2008, 07:01 PM
Post #42
|
|
OLTL rocks!
- Posts:
- 5,626
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #8
- Joined:
- January 4, 2008
|
- bubbles
- Jan 31 2008, 05:54 PM
- LoTr1985
- Jan 31 2008, 10:43 PM
- bubbles
- Jan 31 2008, 04:40 PM
and they will be on more. I like that they showed Luke today with his family. It's not all about Noah with him. He has other stuff going on too.
they mentioned Noah today , he was in class. They didn't just forgot about him.
I think Noah does need to interact with others but I still don't think Noah needs to be on days without Luke. Scenes ...yes, Days...NO
What's the difference? Especially seeing as how a scene can sometimes take all day. That sorta doesn't make sense to me.
the difference is i think of Noah as an extension of Luke.
Yes and that's the very problem and reason why he should have scenes and an occasional episode without Luke. You say that Luke can have them because he has a big family and when Noah does he can have them too. How is Noah going to get a family if he doesn't? Noah is never going to stop being seen as an extension of Luke unless he gets scenes and episodes without Luke. Let's say Ameera is Noah's sister. Well if Luke can have an episode to talk to his grandma and have Noah show up at all (which I say again is fine), then I see no reason why there can't be an episode of just Noah and Ameera hanging out and getting to know each other and have Luke no be in the episode.
|
 ------------------------------------- DeRo reunited 9/29/09...about damn F*ing time!!!
|
| |
|
bubbles
|
Jan 31 2008, 07:02 PM
Post #43
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,710
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- December 30, 2007
|
- LoTr1985
- Jan 31 2008, 10:59 PM
- bubbles
- Jan 31 2008, 04:54 PM
- LoTr1985
- Jan 31 2008, 10:43 PM
- bubbles
- Jan 31 2008, 04:40 PM
and they will be on more. I like that they showed Luke today with his family. It's not all about Noah with him. He has other stuff going on too.
they mentioned Noah today , he was in class. They didn't just forgot about him.
I think Noah does need to interact with others but I still don't think Noah needs to be on days without Luke. Scenes ...yes, Days...NO
What's the difference? Especially seeing as how a scene can sometimes take all day. That sorta doesn't make sense to me.
the difference is i think of Noah as an extension of Luke. And the writing supports that. It would seem odd to me to have Noah on for some random scenes without Luke in that eppy. I don't mind how they have done it in the past and had Noah have scenes with others but he still had scenes with Luke that day. It just flowed better that way for me. Like I've said for the 100th time it makes more sense that Luke will be in scenes with many others because he's part of a core family and he's related or friends with everyone in town. I found it refreshing that Luke was included in today's eppy. He should have been. Pat, you say the Lucinda/Luke scenes was pointless, well, I love it when shows have characters just talking about whats going on in their lives. It presents them as realistic to me. When Noah gets some family and friends then fine, he can have those type of scenes but I don't see the point right now. the difference is i think of Noah as an extension of Luke. And the writing supports that. It would seem odd to me to have Noah on for some random scenes without Luke in that eppy.
When Noah gets some family and friends then fine, he can have those type of scenes but I don't see the point right now.Doesn't that sound kind of contradictory? You don't want him on by himself but yet you're saying when they build a family around him then that's okay. I don't get it. How is he going to get those things built around him if he's always an appendage of Luke? And how will you ever see him as something other than an extension of Luke if he's not given the scenes/days/s/l to do so?
How is that contradictory? I said many times there is no reason for him to be on with many others right now and obviously the show agrees with me. When his family shows up , then he will have a reason to be on. That's when they can flesh him out. He will have someone else to talk to , so I can get inside his head.
|

|
| |
|
bubbles
|
Jan 31 2008, 07:06 PM
Post #44
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,710
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- December 30, 2007
|
- dkp
- Jan 31 2008, 11:01 PM
- bubbles
- Jan 31 2008, 05:54 PM
- LoTr1985
- Jan 31 2008, 10:43 PM
- bubbles
- Jan 31 2008, 04:40 PM
and they will be on more. I like that they showed Luke today with his family. It's not all about Noah with him. He has other stuff going on too.
they mentioned Noah today , he was in class. They didn't just forgot about him.
I think Noah does need to interact with others but I still don't think Noah needs to be on days without Luke. Scenes ...yes, Days...NO
What's the difference? Especially seeing as how a scene can sometimes take all day. That sorta doesn't make sense to me.
the difference is i think of Noah as an extension of Luke.
Yes and that's the very problem and reason why he should have scenes and an occasional episode without Luke. You say that Luke can have them because he has a big family and when Noah does he can have them too. How is Noah going to get a family if he doesn't? Noah is never going to stop being seen as an extension of Luke unless he gets scenes and episodes without Luke. Let's say Ameera is Noah's sister. Well if Luke can have an episode to talk to his grandma and have Noah show up at all (which I say again is fine), then I see no reason why there can't be an episode of just Noah and Ameera hanging out and getting to know each other and have Luke no be in the episode.
*I* personally don't care to have Noah in a episode if Luke isn't on. I don't care about Noah like that. But to advance story he will be in scenes without Luke. Having Noah on more is not going to make me care about him more. It's all in the writing to me.
|

|
| |
|
LoTr1985
|
Jan 31 2008, 07:08 PM
Post #45
|
|
- Posts:
- 388
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- January 4, 2008
|
- bubbles
- Jan 31 2008, 05:02 PM
- LoTr1985
- Jan 31 2008, 10:59 PM
- bubbles
- Jan 31 2008, 04:54 PM
- LoTr1985
- Jan 31 2008, 10:43 PM
- bubbles
- Jan 31 2008, 04:40 PM
and they will be on more. I like that they showed Luke today with his family. It's not all about Noah with him. He has other stuff going on too.
they mentioned Noah today , he was in class. They didn't just forgot about him.
I think Noah does need to interact with others but I still don't think Noah needs to be on days without Luke. Scenes ...yes, Days...NO
What's the difference? Especially seeing as how a scene can sometimes take all day. That sorta doesn't make sense to me.
the difference is i think of Noah as an extension of Luke. And the writing supports that. It would seem odd to me to have Noah on for some random scenes without Luke in that eppy. I don't mind how they have done it in the past and had Noah have scenes with others but he still had scenes with Luke that day. It just flowed better that way for me. Like I've said for the 100th time it makes more sense that Luke will be in scenes with many others because he's part of a core family and he's related or friends with everyone in town. I found it refreshing that Luke was included in today's eppy. He should have been. Pat, you say the Lucinda/Luke scenes was pointless, well, I love it when shows have characters just talking about whats going on in their lives. It presents them as realistic to me. When Noah gets some family and friends then fine, he can have those type of scenes but I don't see the point right now. the difference is i think of Noah as an extension of Luke. And the writing supports that. It would seem odd to me to have Noah on for some random scenes without Luke in that eppy.
When Noah gets some family and friends then fine, he can have those type of scenes but I don't see the point right now.Doesn't that sound kind of contradictory? You don't want him on by himself but yet you're saying when they build a family around him then that's okay. I don't get it. How is he going to get those things built around him if he's always an appendage of Luke? And how will you ever see him as something other than an extension of Luke if he's not given the scenes/days/s/l to do so?
How is that contradictory? I said many times there is no reason for him to be on with many others right now and obviously the show agrees with me. When his family shows up , then he will have a reason to be on. That's when they can flesh him out. He will have someone else to talk to , so I can get inside his head.
I think JP agreed with you but obviously not CG.
I guess I'm just confused b/c you sound like you're saying "I don't want him on w/out Luke b/c I don't see the point" but then you're saying "He can be on when he gets a family." That's confusing to me but....whatev.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|