Daytime Confidential Hypocrisy

14 replies [Last post]
Last seen: 10 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: Oct 12 2011

Look, I love this website and I love any web source actively providing news and trying to save this genre. But this is inexcusable.

This site absolutely ripped last year's storyline regarding Jake's death. Was I a huge fan of it? No, but to be fair, it was a play on a well-discussed arc from the 60's and the grieving was through the roof. The writers at least thought they would give fans a unique, emotional experience with it, even if it was not that success.

But their beloved Ron Carlivati brought in a little girl just to kill her off in one episode. That is much more despicable and yet no one has been complaining about Hope's death.

SoapArmageddon's picture
Last seen: 2 hours 14 min ago
Joined: Jan 22 2011
I can't speak for the

I can't speak for the operators of the site; but, for me, killing Jake was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. It typified everything that had gone wrong with GH over the past decade.

Now, while horrified by her death, I had absolutely no emotional connection to Starr Manning's little girl. These people are migrants from a cancelled show which I occasionally tuned into for a laugh but which never meant very much to me.

That's how I sees 'em.

EricasEvilTwin's picture
Last seen: 5 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: Jul 15 2008
Actually bookerman some of us

Actually bookerman some of us have complained about it, but we get ignored because like you, we too have mentioned some of the hypocrisy that the liason fans are demonstrating in not having ANY sort of hue and cry over this death. We heard endlessly from them about how wrong wrong wrong it was to kill a child - and then we were told that if a child had to die it should be josh, cam, aiden, basically anyone BUT Jake (again showing the hypocrisy - and now here again zilch in the way of outrage.

I get that hope isnt a liason love baby but she still was a little girl and she WAS/IS a legacy child from OLTL given that she is a MANNING AND a LORD and a CRAMER. (wasnt that part of why jake was supposedly special - he was a legacy character and that mattered) At least killing off jake served a purpose, to create drama, heartbreak and serve as a catalyst for a number of characters, but this is just meaningless.

Last seen: 1 year 14 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Welcome to thy DC Carlivati

Welcome to thy DC

Carlivati does anything=genius
Any other writer=terrible cliched soap opera.

JasonMorganIsAHottie's picture
Last seen: 1 year 7 weeks ago
Joined: Oct 9 2008
I have to say that I was a

I have to say that I was a little perplexed myself, not being an OLTL fan and yet here come 3 characters from that show and they kill off 2 right out of the gate? I can see why y'all are upset. I'll be watching to see where this goes with Starr.

maxsmom's picture
Last seen: 1 day 5 hours ago
Joined: Feb 20 2009
and what exactly has been the

and what exactly has been the result of all the protests? Repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result is the definition of crazy.

I would also think that some of those protesters gave up on the show and DC. And It seems there are a fair number of viewers who dont care about OLifers including toddlers.

And finally, it wasnt just Liasonites who protested the obvious manipulation attempt by Fruzelps.

IF, and it's a big IF, the DC staff are hypocrites they certainly have company amongst certain posters.

Perkie's picture
Last seen: 8 hours 13 min ago
Joined: Oct 24 2007
What is with everyone's

What is with everyone's agenda? Ive read tons of comments from people being disgusted that Hope would have been killed off and wanting police to find her alive in the ravine. So what's this sudden nonsense that she isn't getting the same flack that Jake's death had?

Also, as someone who never watched a day of OLTL, I have no emotional connection to this character. That doesn't mean I want her dead. I've actually said I want them to find her. Plus, if they're going down the Starr/Michael road, having a child in the picture could make things even more interesting.

Having said that, I don't know her. So, if I heard/read that a child was being killed off another show that I don't watch (y&R, B&B), should I go into a GH thread and rant and rave about tptb killing off a child, when it's someone I don't even know?

angrierblackerman's picture
Last seen: 13 hours 33 min ago
Joined: Sep 8 2009
Honestly guys, I don't think

Honestly guys, I don't think Hope and Cole are really dead. Ron Carlivati is notorious for faking tragedies to get powerful emmy reels for the actors scenes, and then bringing back the characters later. Granted, the whole plot is a contrived way of having Todd Vs. Sonny and Michael X Starr.

Look for Kristen Alderson to give some powerful grief scenes. I am definitely not a huge fan of Ron Carlivati's cartoon writing, but he definitely USUALLY does character driven stuff. His stuff might be a bit off right now since he is putting 1,000,000 story band-aids all over Garin Wolf's gaping headwound storylines. lol

Miry's picture
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: Oct 30 2008
I get what the author of this

I get what the author of this thread is saying. Jake DID get a whole column/post about why his death was a terrible mistake, and yet there is nothing for Hope. Now I understand about the ppl who didn't watch OLTL & don't know her, BUT for those that do (which includes MANY of the DC staff), it is a bit glaring that there hasn't been an "official" DC post about killing off a legacy child AGAIN, esp. when people like Jamey & Luke talk about characters who came over to a new show after their show was canceled only to be killed off (*cough* Another World *cough*)... so you would think that they would be upset about it & express that in a post.
I mean, Cole JUST came back (to life) & Starr has already had to grieve that little girl once... this is just CRUEL. ALL they had to do was have Cole be injured and have his PARENTS come get him so that they could take care of him & try to find treatment... and Hope could just be on the show, but be rarely seen (like ALWAYS, hello, when was the last time you saw Joss??) and that would have been a good parallel from Carly bringing baby Michael into Jason's life, and Starr doing the same with young adult Michael. Heck, they could have just had Cole be RECOGNIZED and so he had to flee with his parent's help (I want him to be happy too!) in order to allow Starr & Hope to have a normal life. And every now & then Hope's absence could be explained as her secretly visiting her fugitive father.
See, I just easily allowed Starr to be single on the GH canvas & it took me 30 secs to think of it and I didn't have to kill 2 legacy characters! Done.

edenpark's picture
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: May 4 2010
I love that for some fans, of

I love that for some fans, of course it has to come back to Jake and big bad Liason. I couldn't care less about Liason but when I read comments like that, I would (almost) be ready to support them!!!

Has it come to the mind of any of those outraged fans who scream about DC "hypocrisy" that HOPE IS PROBABLY NOT DEAD??????
I am ready to bet anything that she will be found alive soon. So why would I scream and whine when I know that it is a plot and Hope will be spared when Jake wasn't? If Ron really kills a kid and one of his own created characters I would be really really surprised. Remember that he is the guy who made us believe that Shane would be dying, that Matthew died and then oops, they were back at being alive and kicking...

Hypocrisy? Start by comparing similar situations! We knew that Jake was not coming back and that death was just revolting. I will say the same if it happens to Hope. "IF"!!! forth moment I am convinced that Hope is not dead.

golinogal's picture
Last seen: 3 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: Mar 9 2010
I think everyone is

I think everyone is forgetting that one of the main reasons Jakes death was talked about so much on this website by staffers and fans is that it was directly related to the firing of RH.... "story-line dictated" if I remember correctly. It was absolutely a story-line to get rid of RH and make way for Jason and Sam to have a baby. It has been proven by multiple sources as well as actors on the show that BF and BG hated the character of Elizabeth. That's a big part of the reason why there was so much outrage. It was disgusting on so many levels. And not at all comparable to the death of Hope.
There is nothing wrong with killing a fictional character child or otherwise on a TV show. I don't condone it. But its not immoral. it creates drama.

EricasEvilTwin's picture
Last seen: 5 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: Jul 15 2008
Hold the phone - Becky had

Hold the phone - Becky had been rehired by the time the decision was made to go ahead and air the jake story and that was why the story as it aired was so choppy - because a lot of the material reflected poorly on the character and they didnt want to air it once they decided to rehire her. So her job was not at in question/in play when the columns aired and when the shit started to hit the fan around here about killing off jake.

Eden, with all due respect, I havent seen one spoiler listed - and in the spoiler thread a number of posters compile stuff from a variety of different sites - but I havent read one that suggests that hope is not in fact dead. Might that change if gh gets cancelled and ron decides he wants to give starr some sort of happy ending? Sure that wouldnt surprise me, but as of now the child is dead and quite frankly Im not sure that changes anything. THe complaints at the time was that killing off a child was a morbid thing to introduce on a daytime soap when the show was already so dark. I sort of saw both sides - I thought it was dark for a show that already was very very dark BUT I said IF and it was a HUGE IF, IF the show used the death to provide some sort of real catalyst for the characters and growth I could see it being good drama and that in the end it would depend on how it played out on screen. At least in that case it felt they were going for good drama. I watched, I waited and in the end, it gave us emmy bait for the actors involved but I hardly saw any major growth/change/story direction/ripples etc. the way we did with bjs heart and I see the SAME cause for complaint with Hope at least so far. Here again, they have killed off a legacy child and if the complaint with jake was well this just seems like a convenience to make it easier to justify jason having a baby with sam (under the guise of theirs danger everywhere) is this much different - its just a convenience to make starr a single, childless girl for michael to date (not having the complication of a child to write in and out of scenes). I thought killing off jake was a mistake and felt unnecessary. I didnt think it was immoral, just unnecessary. But I think if someone is going to scream from the rafters that its the end of the world as we know it if GH kills off a child from the show, its more than a tad hypocritical if that person then turns around and says a. but hey if you want, kill joss or b. says Hope who? Fair enough if you dont believe the girl is dead, and maybe there is some piece of info you have that I just dont, but right now I dont have anything of fact for me to base a belief like that on.

stoney07's picture
Last seen: 9 hours 45 min ago
Joined: Aug 18 2009
Yeah, well I already expected

Yeah, well I already expected for GH to be the new golden child because RC and FV were going to be there.


ANyway, I wouldn't call anyone a hypocrite for their preferences. I just distance myself from it...

Last seen: 1 year 41 weeks ago
Joined: May 13 2010
EET, I am sorry but I didn't

EET, I am sorry but I didn't see Jake's death as "good drama". I am no Liz fan you know that (I thought Liason was so boring)but she sould have been front and center and we barely saw her and it was all about stupid Jason's pain for a kid he rejected (just to show what a wonderful father he would be for his next kid, the "real golden one"). Jason with teary eyes holding a motocycle... We didn't even get a scene of Jake's funeral!!!!! Because I guess Jason couln't/wouldn't go???

It was horrible drama and a very bad mistake of Guza. They could have had the child being in a coma for weeks with the same drama and Jake waking up a few weeks / months later. But it had to be a quick and sure death to "clean the room". This death was not necessary, it was agenda driven (including giving TG a last chance for an Emmy for the over the top intervention scenes...).

I am not as positive as Eden but I also doubt that Hope is dead. That is not Ron's style. He is not as dark as Guza or Wolf. SO I also think that Hope is still alive and that Michael will have to deal with a baby which will make him grow up. I have not seen any spoiler but it makes sense to me. If they have truly killed Hope, this is just vomit worthy and shame on RC for starting his reign with such bad taste and I fear the worst for GH if his first significant move is to kill that innocent kid he created.
But I am ready to give him the benefit of the doubt until we are 100% positive that Hope is truly dead.

EricasEvilTwin's picture
Last seen: 5 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: Jul 15 2008
Nickskelton to be clear I

Nickskelton to be clear I said killing off jake was a mistake. I think where the confusion lies is that I said they were at least GOING for good drama not that they ACHIEVED that goal and I said that it was disappointing because there was ZERO ripple effect, character growth, spin off etc.

Im glad that at least you said that if they killed off hope that it is vomit worthy. I think thats whats been a little disappointing for some of us - its that more people havent reacted at least to the possibility like you just did ie: "I dont think shes dead but if she is ...etc." again I havent seen anything that indicates she isnt but I hope that you are right and it turns out shes alive.