General Hospital Discussion Group

Topic: Maurice reads off the TelePrompter--he's the worst actor ever

Sorry...but according to James Franco NONE of the regulars use the  TelePrompTer.

His quote is 'If I needed it, they said they had a TelePrompTer, but the regulars didn’t use it so I didn’t want to use it, either.'

Man are you a downer when it comes to soaps. It's like you expected them to forever stay the way they were in 1980. Times change. Audiences change. Soaps don't have a captive audience of housewives any more.

Your complaints about Jonathan Jackson show that you won't recognize anything good about the soaps today, no matter how obvious it is. Jackson is a three-time Daytime Emmy winner who originated his character and played him for seven years all the way from adolescence to early adulthood.

The fact that he doesn't look like Greg Vaughn is unimportant. What's important is that Jackson can hold his own with the acting heavyweights on this show, like Anthony Geary. He also has the acting chops to share a scene with James Franco when he arrives.

Greg Vaughn was nice looking and by all accounts a great guy. But would anyone call him a great actor or even a particularly good one? I don't think so. Bringing Jackson back is a no-brainer.

Replies: (list all replies)

Crane: Soaps were better pre-1990. I totally disagree that the audience isn't there. They may not be 'housewives' anymore, but soaps have always had a strong audience of working women & those who grew up watching soaps, making them a part of their entertainment time after growing up. There is a WHOLE audience out here that would love to be sitting on the edge of their seats w/anticipation, waiting for the next romance or adventure. It isn't the audience's fault that TPTB don't think much of us & have dumbed things down to the point of unwatchability. There are also still good writers capable of doing right by soaps, if given the opportunity. Just as there would be great storytellers for the future, who aren't getting their chances to grow & shine, making soaps great for the next 80+ yrs. There are still stories for soaps to tell, their own way, not this cookie cutter/cardboard cutout way that drives audiences away instead of bringing them in. Recasts happen, for better or worse. It is great seeing JJ back. Not saying that GV is a bad actor, IMO he isn't, but he was miscast as Lucky. Frankly, I see much more chemistry onscreen w/BH (Elizabeth) & JJ than she ever had w/GV. eom

I think the perception that soaps used to be better is colored by nostalgia. GH in the '80s had fun and adventure and romance, but it also had some deadly dull plotlines and characters. The biggest difference between soaps then and now is that the ratings have dropped and soaps have to cut back on their budgets and their actors. That's reality. But I don't think soaps are as bad as the Walter Curtins and Marlena De La Croixs of the world say over and over and over and over. I wish some of the gloom and doomers who hate today's soaps so much would either adjust to the way they are today or quit watching. The constant complaints are getting old. --Crane eom

Crane, ICAM! Rosebud is always negative and doesn't change with the times. I personally know many family members who loved soaps back in the 70's and 80's but once cable tv came and now the internet and tweeting, they just don't watch anymore. They will not come back to soaps because their lifestyle has changed with so many more opportunities out there rather than just 3 tv stations. I think soaps are still fun to watch but we need to face the fact that with 500 cable stations, the internet and twitter that the audience has so many more choices and it has nothing to do with the quality of soaps. They are still great!

Sorry folks, but the writing & storytelling (the basics) were far better prior to the 90's, w/few exceptions. It isn't about perceptions/misperceptions. The audience wasn't talked down to nearly as much. I've never said that soaps were perfect, but they were better off then than now. The reasons for the changes had nothing to do w/working women or cable. Soaps did quite well when both were still going on. The problems existed long before Twitter & Podcasts. I've never understood how it is negative to feel that soaps can be better than they are! How is it negative to say that there is wasted potential for success, rather than focusing on constant failure?! Were there boring characters in the 50's, 60's, 70's & 80's, sure. There were during the days of radio too. But the substance of most of the storytelling was far better. The basics of storytelling & consistancy were also far better. We didn't see nearly the volume of weak, plot driven stories being done, there were good, solid character driven stories w/incorporation of established history. We just don't see that now, across the board. eom

PS: Not changing w/the times? There is no reason why there can't be great storytelling online & utilizing new technology. I've said numerous times that TPTB (Corp) should have incorporated new technology w/good storytelling to attract and keep the WHOLE audience, not just focus on a small, narrowly defined group they call 'desirable demographic'. Good storytelling is good storytelling. It is all about storytelling--be it radio, television, film or live theater. eom

I agree that the story telling was better before 1990. I totally believe that. I was watching. And what the hell does tweeting have to do with anything? Lame, lame response. Unfortunately there is plenty to be negative about regarding what GH is today. It's a sad FACT. eom Elliott

There were things better about soaps when they had much larger audiences and bigger budgets, but the gloom and doomers today act like everything today is bad and everything back then was good. There's plenty to enjoy on soaps today. JJ's return is a great example. --Crane eom

But Crane, don't you remember the days when there were real family bonds and dinners and real connection with things? My biggest problem with GH is it centering on the mob and Sonny and everyone connected with him and the violence. We had ADVENTURE back in the day. It wasn't all great, I remember being bored with parts of the show, but it was because I COULD NOT WAIT to get back to the exciting stuff. Today, it's another shoot out, another cold blooded killing, another mob war. It just stinks. eom Elliott

I'm going to do a Vivian D thing... cont.: The good things today are few and far between. I loved when we saw Robin having a family dinner with everyone. I love glimpses of the old (real) Luke Spencer when we get them (not often). I love non-mob related action (when it's done well). There are other good things not related to the past, but just not enough of them. It always goes back to Sonny. I'll complain about that until I drop. Why the show continues on like this with all the negative response from fans is beyond me. eom Elliott

Elliiot, that's YOUR opinion. I happen to enjoy GH very much and Sonny very much. It is well known that the internet is only a small portion of the overall audience so chances are that GH is getting wonderfully praising letters that we don't know about from others like myself who enjoy the show. I write in on a regular basis and tell them to show Sonny even more often!

Oh, so it's YOUR fault. LOL. Yes, I'm sure they get tons of snail mail praising the mob version of GH and the extreme talent of MB. {{rolls eyes}} You must be young, because long time fans of the show predominately wish for it to be as it once was... good. eom Elliott

---

Posted by: Maverick
Date posted: Tue Nov 10 16:54:24 2009
Message:

I respectfully disagree with both points.

I like Maurice Benard, and do not think that he is a poor actor.  Even if he does read from a teleprompter, it's understandable considering the fact that most rehearsals have been eliminated, and soaps are producing more sequences per day than ever before.  It's bound to affect quality in every aspect. 

The problem with Lucky being a cop is that he never should have become a cop!  Lucky would have never joined the police force.  It was a major slap in the face to Luke, and totally out of character with who Lucky really is - a free spirit who has always done his own thing - much like his father.  I liked Greg Vaughn, and thought he did a great job playing Lucky, but JJ's style and mannerisms resonate deeper with the true essence of the character. 

Replies: (list all replies)

Lucky is Laura's son too. I can understand why he rejected his father's irresponsibility and lawlessness in the most direct way he could -- by becoming a cop. It's only bad writing that has made him and all other cops the patsies on this show. --Crane eom

---

Posted by: Glitter
Date posted: Tue Nov 10 13:41:55 2009
Message:
Eric Braeden from the Y&R reads from the teleprompter also..when actors age..so does their vision..I guess neither actor bothers with remembering lines from scripts any more.

Replies: (list all replies)

It isn't so much about 'not bothering' w/memorizing the scripts anymore, but the increasing pressure to produce more shows in less time. They don't have the luxury of time to learn every line & often cues (from many other areas) require the actors to stick to what is written. Using a telepromter doesn't mean someone is a bad actor. eom

---

Posted by: Rosebud1
Date posted: Tue Nov 10 10:42:00 2009
Message:
Name an actor today who doesn't!  They are taping more & more shows each day (Days now tapes 8 shows a week instead of 5!).  There is around 40-80 pages of dialog per episode.

Most shows used to NOT use teleprompters, but w/the pressure to produce more & hiring so many wannabes instead of serious actors, it has required some changes.  It isn't that MB isn't capable of memorizing his lines, he has done it & done it well in the past.  But there have also always been actors who taped their lines to scene props & other 'tricks' ever since soaps went to tv.

I also agree that height has nothing to do w/the ability to be menacing.  Alan Ladd was one of the more menacing movie actors & he routinely stood on an apple crate to be close to the height of his costars (male & female).  I can also remember (fondly) one of my favorite soap actors ever, Brent Collins (who was a little person) playing Mr. Big on ATWT and the wonderful Wallingford on AW.  He could play menacing quite well.

Replies: (list all replies)

Rosebud,as usual, you are wrong. Tell me which soaps use teleprompters. And provide facts as backup. Thank you.

Stella: What are YOU talking about?! I didn't say that no soaps used them or that all soaps do. Most soaps don't like using them, but they do. With the volume of dialog being dealt with & the pressure to tape more episodes per day than one, it is only logical that telepromters would be used more than before. Didn't say it was the first choice or the desireable one, only that it is a reality. Some shows have said they refuse to use them, in the past, before they were taping shows out of sequence & taping multiple episodes in a day. It was also before they were hiring so many wannabes w/no memorization experience. eom

Well as usual, you can't back up your statements with proof. Tell us which shows use teleprompters? And provide proof of your statements. Thank you.

So you don't think soaps use them? Not at all??? Here's a quote from James Franco about being on General Hospital: They gave me a script for the day that was as thick as a film script and that's what we planned to shoot in a single day. No ad-libbing. If I needed it, they said they had a TelePrompTer, but the regulars didn't use it so I didn't want to use it, either. Anyway, I'm pretty good at remembering lines. END QUOTE Is that proof enough they have them and do use them???? eom Elliott

Oh, and you're welcome, Stella. eom Elliott

Stella: Read any number of print pieces that have been done in the soap mags about soap budgets & the use of telepromters. There was a time when those who used teleprompters were lazy & unprofessional, however, things have changed. Especially when you consider that soaps are taping MORE, not less, material & they keep hiring these wannabes instead of actors w/experience in memorizing scripts & hitting their mark at the same time. In a recent interview, Ali Sweeney (Sami/Days) said that Days is now shooting 8 shows a week, not five. With all soaps shooting out of sequence, they can/do such things. Actors don't necessarily have one script to memorize for the day, they have far more than that. The average movie considers it a great day when they film 3-4 pages of dialog a day. Soaps have been doing 80+ pages a day for over 30 yrs now! Multiply that by two or three episodes at a time, it is understandable why the actors use teleprompters. In one of the soap magazine articles they were saying that actors are always encouraged to memorize, but that cues mean that actors can't just ad lib their way along either. They can do that during scant rehearsal time, but once the cameras are rolling that isn't acceptable, in general. There are always those exceptions, but even those actors stick to the script more often than not. eom

---

Posted by: tweety
Date posted: Tue Nov 10 10:32:05 2009
Message:
Lucky is so much more than a cop.  JJ made the role and hopefully we will get the old Lucky back with storylines he can sink his teeth into.  The guy is Lucky. 

---

Posted by: Helena
Date posted: Tue Nov 10 10:12:56 2009
Message:

Give him a chance. Acting has nothing to do with height. JJ is 5'8''. Al Pacino is 5'7". The guy who played Manny was menacing enough and he was about 5'5".

 

Replies: (list all replies)

Exactly, Russel Crowe is only 4'11

Is that a joke? Russell Crowe is 5' 10''. --Crane eom

I heard he's actually only two feet tall. hehehe eom Elliott

Alan Ladd was about 5' 7. So was Bing Crosby. And several others. Because Ladd played a tough guy in his standard role, the studio felt they had to hire only shorter actors for his movies, and shorter girls (Veronica Lake, who was under 5'). The 'stand on a box' story started when Ladd co-starred with Sophia Loren and got to be a joke when Shelly Winters made cracks to the press. Ladd was always self-concious about it. But lots of actors were as short or shorter--James Cagney, Humphry Bogart, for instance. Dustin Hoffman is very short. Actors can be made to look taller on screen. Joan Crawford was a petite. It's the acting and style that counts. GHFan

GHFan: ICAM! The other actor who comes to mind is Edward G. Robinson. Now THERE was a menacing guy! He was VERY short & managed to make a career playing bad guys w/great intimidation abilities. eom

---

Posted by: Telstar
Date posted: Tue Nov 10 9:45:50 2009
Message:
A squirt! LOL But I have to agree. JJ looks SO wrong and unbelievable in the part of a police officer.

---

---