Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



Hello, soap fans -- and welcome to Daytime Royalty!

For those unfamiliar, we are an uncensored community for fans and lovers of the daytime genre. We have a no-holds-barred atmosphere in regards to the shows, writers, actors etc. but we do not allow member suffering succotash in any form.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Tuesday, June 10th Daily Discussion
Topic Started: Jun 10 2014, 01:46 AM (18,929 Views)
Rosebud
Member Avatar


Mouse Mom
Jun 11 2014, 02:48 PM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 11:56 AM
six
Jun 11 2014, 11:27 AM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 11:14 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnotstalkinghunting or trying to capture) by moving slowly and quietly

: to go through (a place or area) while hunting

: to follow, watch, and bother (someone) constantly in a way that is frightening, dangerous, etc.
I know what stalking means. Marlena was definitely hunting them in a manner of speaking. She was attempting to catch them discussing their crime so that she could confront them about it.

How about another definition:


stalk 2 (stɔːk)

— vb
1.to follow or approach (game, prey, etc) stealthily and quietly
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stalk?s=t

Can anyone really argue that this isn't what Marlena did?
Hunting? No not at all. Following because she was curious about what they were up to? Yes. That is not hunting or stalking in any way. Stalking has a very negative connotation, and Marlena was not being dangerous or threatening. Sorry, we'll just have to disagree.
She was stalking, she was hunting. She was hunting for information to ultimately hurt them and by virtue of that, she was dangerous to them. It ain't rocket science people. When you follow someone around and don't make your presence known in order to find some way to get the dirt on someone, it is stalking.
LOL! That is nonsense.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rosebud
Member Avatar


Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 03:12 PM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 02:44 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 02:33 PM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 01:56 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnot
I said nothing about Marlena seeking confirmation, so I'm not sure where that question came from. I said she stalked Sami and Kate and eavesdropped on their conversation so that she could freely confront them about what they had done.

The first shot of Marlena in Tuesday's episode was of her standing in place and watching Sami and Kate, as though she had been in that very spot for a while. There was no movement to suggest that she had just arrived as Kate and Sami were walking away. Therefore, I believe that we were meant to conclude that Marlena had eavesdropped on Kate and Sami's entire opening conversation -- including the part where Sami said to Kate, "Do you really think we should do this here?" -- and that we were meant to further conclude that she had gotten the impression that they were headed to a more secluded area to continue their conversation "in private" so that they could discuss the river incident. So yes, I do think that she knew -- or at least suspected -- that they were about to discuss what they had done -- maybe not in public, but somewhere -- and she wanted to be privy to that discussion.

We're in agreement that there is no expectation of privacy in that secluded section of the town square. We're not in agreement that the preceding fact gave Marlena the right to stalk Sami and Kate there so that she could continue to eavesdrop and free herself from a pesky confidentiality agreement she didn't want to be bound by, though. Like I said before, if she had stalked them there without any prior knowledge of the river incident, I wouldn't have a problem with what she had done, but she knew about the river incident and chose to insert herself into a situation where she would hear about it from another source so that she would be free to talk about it. She should have minded her own business and walked the other way.
It sounds to me like you think Marlena actually planned on seeking out Sami and Kate (thus you calling it stalking) instead of just happening upon them in the town square then following them. As though she walked out of the SPD and said to herself, I have got to find Sami and Kate and stalk them until they reveal something about the river incident so that I can confront them and I don't care how long it takes I will make sure I stalk them until they blab something out loud, which will allow me ethically get around staying quiet about this.

I just think she saw them by chance and it peeked her interest and she decided to follow them, over heard them, and decided to confront Sami about it. She didn't even give a crap about Kate.

Anyway maybe I'll watch it again and see if I notice otherwise.
I'm calling it stalking because it was. You might associate the word with negative connotations, but it has other definitions that have nothing to do with threats and danger, and using it to describe what Marlena did is appropriate, even if, for the sake of argument, she "only" stalked them to the secluded section of the town square after accidentally stumbling upon them in the more public section of it.

We went from seeing Marlena and Sami at the police station at the end of last Tuesday's episode to seeing Marlena watching Sami (who was with Kate) at the beginning of this Tuesday's episode with no scenes in between, so yes, I do think that we're meant to infer that Marlena followed Sami from the police station to the town square because she believed that Sami would go straight to Kate with the news that Gabi had told Marlena about the river incident.
You can infer whatever you want but that doesn't mean it's what happened. And I still don't know for what purpose you think she stalked them. And I still disagree with the use of the word stalked, LOL
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rosebud
Member Avatar


Dany_E
Jun 11 2014, 03:16 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 03:12 PM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 02:44 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 02:33 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnotsomewhere -- and she wanted to be privy to that discussion.

We're in agreement that there is no expectation of privacy in that secluded section of the town square. We're not in agreement that the preceding fact gave Marlena the right to stalk Sami and Kate there so that she could continue to eavesdrop and free herself from a pesky confidentiality agreement she didn't want to be bound by, though. Like I said before, if she had stalked them there without any prior knowledge of the river incident, I wouldn't have a problem with what she had done, but she knew about the river incident and chose to insert herself into a situation where she would hear about it from another source so that she would be free to talk about it. She should have minded her own business and walked the other way.
It sounds to me like you think Marlena actually planned on seeking out Sami and Kate (thus you calling it stalking) instead of just happening upon them in the town square then following them. As though she walked out of the SPD and said to herself, I have got to find Sami and Kate and stalk them until they reveal something about the river incident so that I can confront them and I don't care how long it takes I will make sure I stalk them until they blab something out loud, which will allow me ethically get around staying quiet about this.

I just think she saw them by chance and it peeked her interest and she decided to follow them, over heard them, and decided to confront Sami about it. She didn't even give a crap about Kate.

Anyway maybe I'll watch it again and see if I notice otherwise.
I'm calling it stalking because it was. You might associate the word with negative connotations, but it has other definitions that have nothing to do with threats and danger, and using it to describe what Marlena did is appropriate, even if, for the sake of argument, she "only" stalked them to the secluded section of the town square after accidentally stumbling upon them in the more public section of it.

We went from seeing Marlena and Sami at the police station at the end of last Tuesday's episode to seeing Marlena watching Sami (who was with Kate) at the beginning of this Tuesday's episode with no scenes in between, so yes, I do think that we're meant to infer that Marlena followed Sami from the police station to the town square because she believed that Sami would go straight to Kate with the news that Gabi had told Marlena about the river incident.
I can't agree. All definitions of stalking have a negative connotation. Stalking implies prey. And if you're "prey", you're threatened and in danger.
Thank you! If anything, Marlena was in danger just being close to those witches. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Will&Sonny


concerned
Jun 11 2014, 04:14 PM
S loves EJ
Jun 11 2014, 08:38 AM
six
Jun 11 2014, 07:36 AM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 12:17 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepand
And all the Dimera actors separately decided to do it? ^o)

The inconsistency can be explained by there being more than one script writer. There's also at least one script writer who thinks younger relatives should use titles to refer to older relatives and others who don't.

Whether itīs on the actors or the writers I think EJ calling Sami Samantha is an Ejami thing in the same way as John calling Marlena doc or Bo hope Fancy Face is their thing. I think it makes the women feel special.
Except it's not really just an EJ thing. Stefano, Tony, sometimes John and even Nicole on occasions call her Samantha.

Although admittedly Nicole usually does that when she is mocking EJ.

Oh and Roman calls doc doc too.
Will even called Sami "Samantha Gene" recently. That was weird.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rosebud
Member Avatar


Oh, Will&Sonny I forgot I wanted to comment about your statement about how would Marlena's patient feel if they knew that she was breaking the confidentiality of their convo. I have wondered why on earth Gabi told Marlena, who she knows is Sami's mother and Ari's great grandmother, about the incident. Did she really think she should tell Marlena of all people? Another idiot heard from I guess. :facepalm:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Holaamigas


Interesting episode. Well scripted, actors brought their A game, and yet I disliked everyone. Ugh!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rosebud
Member Avatar


Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 03:28 PM
Dany_E
Jun 11 2014, 03:16 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 03:12 PM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 02:44 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnotsomewhere
I'm calling it stalking because it was. You might associate the word with negative connotations, but it has other definitions that have nothing to do with threats and danger, and using it to describe what Marlena did is appropriate, even if, for the sake of argument, she "only" stalked them to the secluded section of the town square after accidentally stumbling upon them in the more public section of it.

We went from seeing Marlena and Sami at the police station at the end of last Tuesday's episode to seeing Marlena watching Sami (who was with Kate) at the beginning of this Tuesday's episode with no scenes in between, so yes, I do think that we're meant to infer that Marlena followed Sami from the police station to the town square because she believed that Sami would go straight to Kate with the news that Gabi had told Marlena about the river incident.
I can't agree. All definitions of stalking have a negative connotation. Stalking implies prey. And if you're "prey", you're threatened and in danger.
Definitions -- straight out of online dictionaries -- have already been provided in this thread that do not necessarily have a negative connotation.
I didn't see any in that definition you quoted. :shrug:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kaha
Member Avatar


lysie
Jun 11 2014, 01:01 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 12:53 PM
The Room Stops
Jun 11 2014, 12:20 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 07:29 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnot
How does that make it unethical? She saw them talking at the square, the two people Gabi had just said conspired and manipulated her into covering up a murder, one of them is her daughter. She then followed them when they snuck off to talk in private, to see what they were up to and confronted them. That has nothing to do with Gabi as far as we know. Because Marlena's feelings aren't shown.

It doesn't make it unethical as much it makes her seem conflicted and a little desperate to ask Sami what the hell she was doing.
If I tell something to a psychiatrist (or a doctor or a lawyer) in confidence, and that psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) desperately wants to talk about that thing with someone else, so they look for an opportunity to insert themselves into a situation that will allow them to no longer have to worry about being bound by a pesky confidentiality agreement, that's borderline unethical, if not blatantly so, as I've said all along. I'm quite confident that any psychiatrist, doctor, or lawyer in the real world would agree with my assessment of the situation. Put yourself in the shoes of the patient and ask yourself if you'd be happy to learn that a psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) had searched for and taken advantage of a loophole that would allow them to betray your trust without "technically" breaking any rules. That's what Marlena did, and I don't need the writers to have her break the fourth wall and tell me "just so you know, I'm stalking Sami and Kate because I want to overhear them talking about the river incident so that I can confront them about it" in order to recognize, based on the context of the scenes in question, that they were trying to depict exactly that.

If Daniel had done something similar, he would have been vilified on this site.
If? He has done stuff like that. So have all the other doctors. I think this is less problematic than the other ways they've found around it. For me, though, I think it's not quite as bad as you're saying because it was Kate and Sami's secret, too. Now if she goes and finds a way to tell someone who actually doesn't already know, then I think that would be a little more in line with the ethics you're talking about.
I think what Marela did was unethical. She used a questionable loophole. But she also confirmed for Sami something that Gabi said. She's not supposed to talk about the issue period. Even if it concerns other people. EJ can use that against her if he needs it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Will&Sonny


Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 04:20 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 03:12 PM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 02:44 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 02:33 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnotsomewhere -- and she wanted to be privy to that discussion.

We're in agreement that there is no expectation of privacy in that secluded section of the town square. We're not in agreement that the preceding fact gave Marlena the right to stalk Sami and Kate there so that she could continue to eavesdrop and free herself from a pesky confidentiality agreement she didn't want to be bound by, though. Like I said before, if she had stalked them there without any prior knowledge of the river incident, I wouldn't have a problem with what she had done, but she knew about the river incident and chose to insert herself into a situation where she would hear about it from another source so that she would be free to talk about it. She should have minded her own business and walked the other way.
It sounds to me like you think Marlena actually planned on seeking out Sami and Kate (thus you calling it stalking) instead of just happening upon them in the town square then following them. As though she walked out of the SPD and said to herself, I have got to find Sami and Kate and stalk them until they reveal something about the river incident so that I can confront them and I don't care how long it takes I will make sure I stalk them until they blab something out loud, which will allow me ethically get around staying quiet about this.

I just think she saw them by chance and it peeked her interest and she decided to follow them, over heard them, and decided to confront Sami about it. She didn't even give a crap about Kate.

Anyway maybe I'll watch it again and see if I notice otherwise.
I'm calling it stalking because it was. You might associate the word with negative connotations, but it has other definitions that have nothing to do with threats and danger, and using it to describe what Marlena did is appropriate, even if, for the sake of argument, she "only" stalked them to the secluded section of the town square after accidentally stumbling upon them in the more public section of it.

We went from seeing Marlena and Sami at the police station at the end of last Tuesday's episode to seeing Marlena watching Sami (who was with Kate) at the beginning of this Tuesday's episode with no scenes in between, so yes, I do think that we're meant to infer that Marlena followed Sami from the police station to the town square because she believed that Sami would go straight to Kate with the news that Gabi had told Marlena about the river incident.
You can infer whatever you want but that doesn't mean it's what happened. And I still don't know for what purpose you think she stalked them. And I still disagree with the use of the word stalked, LOL
You can disagree with the use of the word "stalked", but that doesn't mean it's an inappropriate use of the word. ;)

I've already said that Marlena stalked Sami and Kate and eavesdropped on their conversation so that she could confront them about the river incident. She clearly didn't approve of it and wanted to take them to task for the way that they had handled the matter, but in order to do so, she needed to first manipulate the situation so that she would no longer be bound by a confidentiality agreement. That was the purpose of stalking them and eavesdropping on their conversation. Doing so allowed her to confront them and throw her own two cents into the mix.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
six
Member Avatar


Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 04:23 PM
Oh, Will&Sonny I forgot I wanted to comment about your statement about how would Marlena's patient feel if they knew that she was breaking the confidentiality of their convo. I have wondered why on earth Gabi told Marlena, who she knows is Sami's mother and Ari's great grandmother, about the incident. Did she really think she should tell Marlena of all people? Another idiot heard from I guess. :facepalm:
Maybe she assumed that since Marlena stepped in and agreed to counsel her, that Marlena would be professional enough to handle it. Gabi was suffering and she needed to unburden herself and if Marlena wasn't up for hearing things that would affect her family, she should have stayed home.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Will&Sonny


Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 04:23 PM
Oh, Will&Sonny I forgot I wanted to comment about your statement about how would Marlena's patient feel if they knew that she was breaking the confidentiality of their convo. I have wondered why on earth Gabi told Marlena, who she knows is Sami's mother and Ari's great grandmother, about the incident. Did she really think she should tell Marlena of all people? Another idiot heard from I guess. :facepalm:
Because she foolishly believed that Marlena was an ethical, professional psychiatrist who could be trusted to keep the conversation between the two of them? I guess Gabi and I both missed the memo that said that confidentiality agreements only apply to secrets that don't involve family members.

:run:

Oh, and Gabi was hesitant to discuss the matter with Marlena at first, until Marlena assured her that anything that she said would stay between the two of them. :whistling:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Room Stops
Member Avatar


Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 02:33 PM
Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 01:56 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 12:53 PM
The Room Stops
Jun 11 2014, 12:20 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnot
If I tell something to a psychiatrist (or a doctor or a lawyer) in confidence, and that psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) desperately wants to talk about that thing with someone else, so they look for an opportunity to insert themselves into a situation that will allow them to no longer have to worry about being bound by a pesky confidentiality agreement, that's borderline unethical, if not blatantly so, as I've said all along. I'm quite confident that any psychiatrist, doctor, or lawyer in the real world would agree with my assessment of the situation. Put yourself in the shoes of the patient and ask yourself if you'd be happy to learn that a psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) had searched for and taken advantage of a loophole that would allow them to betray your trust without "technically" breaking any rules. That's what Marlena did, and I don't need the writers to have her break the fourth wall and tell me "just so you know, I'm stalking Sami and Kate because I want to overhear them talking about the river incident so that I can confront them about it" in order to recognize, based on the context of the scenes in question, that they were trying to depict exactly that.

If Daniel had done something similar, he would have been vilified on this site.
Why would she need to get confirmation from them? Did she really doubt what Gabi told her? I doubt it. I think she simply wanted to find out why he daughter continues to do stupid stupid things. Getting the confirmation from the horse's mouths was just a bonus. It's not like she knew they would say what they did to each other in public. Anyone could have overheard them. They are idiots.
I said nothing about Marlena seeking confirmation, so I'm not sure where that question came from. I said she stalked Sami and Kate and eavesdropped on their conversation so that she could freely confront them about what they had done.

The first shot of Marlena in Tuesday's episode was of her standing in place and watching Sami and Kate, as though she had been in that very spot for a while. There was no movement to suggest that she had just arrived as Kate and Sami were walking away. Therefore, I believe that we were meant to conclude that Marlena had eavesdropped on Kate and Sami's entire opening conversation -- including the part where Sami said to Kate, "Do you really think we should do this here?" -- and that we were meant to further conclude that she had gotten the impression that they were headed to a more secluded area to continue their conversation "in private" so that they could discuss the river incident. So yes, I do think that she knew -- or at least suspected -- that they were about to discuss what they had done -- maybe not in public, but somewhere -- and she wanted to be privy to that discussion.

We're in agreement that there is no expectation of privacy in that secluded section of the town square. We're not in agreement that the preceding fact gave Marlena the right to stalk Sami and Kate there so that she could continue to eavesdrop and free herself from a pesky confidentiality agreement she didn't want to be bound by, though. Like I said before, if she had stalked them there without any prior knowledge of the river incident, I wouldn't have a problem with what she had done, but she knew about the river incident and chose to insert herself into a situation where she would hear about it from another source so that she would be free to talk about it. She should have minded her own business and walked the other way.
That's up for interpretation. Why on earth would she be standing there for a while waiting for them? How would she know they'd come there? Or did she become psychic and/or have an unseen conversation with Sami where Sami said she had to rush off and see Kate in the Horton Town Square? She was by a flower cart, she could have been buying flowers when Sami rushed in, and then saw them being dramatic.

If I knew my daughter had covered up a murder and wasn't allowed to talk about it, without having heard HER talking about? You better believe I'd follow her and her co-conspirator when they're talking and looking around suspiciously before they rush off. Hell, I'd do that just to assure they weren't about to cover up another murder or take it a step further. But that's what I would have done. We have no idea what Marlena wanted to do and intended, because we never hear her side of anything, just like we didn't in this episode. And Marlena walked up towards them in the park, she wasn't lurking or being creepy. One could just as easily as you claim to know what they want us to believe, claim that she wanted to talk to Sami about dinner tomorrow evening. It's up for interpretation.

You could be right and that's what they intended, but no, it was not "clear" or "obvious". It was badly written.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Room Stops
Member Avatar


Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 02:44 PM
It sounds to me like you think Marlena actually planned on seeking out Sami and Kate (thus you calling it stalking) instead of just happening upon them in the town square then following them. As though she walked out of the SPD and said to herself, I have got to find Sami and Kate and stalk them until they reveal something about the river incident so that I can confront them and I don't care how long it takes I will make sure I stalk them until they blab something out loud, which will allow me ethically get around staying quiet about this.

I just think she saw them by chance and it peeked her interest and she decided to follow them, over heard them, and decided to confront Sami about it. She didn't even give a crap about Kate.

Anyway maybe I'll watch it again and see if I notice otherwise.
That's what I saw. I'll re-watch and see if I suddenly see the complete opposite, but I'm usually pretty quick on the uptake. Although, I am still a little jetlagged.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
six
Member Avatar


Does it matter if Marlena happened upon kami by chance in HTS or if she followed Sami from the police station? She still trailed them to the park.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Room Stops
Member Avatar


lysie
Jun 11 2014, 01:01 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 12:53 PM
The Room Stops
Jun 11 2014, 12:20 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 07:29 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnot
How does that make it unethical? She saw them talking at the square, the two people Gabi had just said conspired and manipulated her into covering up a murder, one of them is her daughter. She then followed them when they snuck off to talk in private, to see what they were up to and confronted them. That has nothing to do with Gabi as far as we know. Because Marlena's feelings aren't shown.

It doesn't make it unethical as much it makes her seem conflicted and a little desperate to ask Sami what the hell she was doing.
If I tell something to a psychiatrist (or a doctor or a lawyer) in confidence, and that psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) desperately wants to talk about that thing with someone else, so they look for an opportunity to insert themselves into a situation that will allow them to no longer have to worry about being bound by a pesky confidentiality agreement, that's borderline unethical, if not blatantly so, as I've said all along. I'm quite confident that any psychiatrist, doctor, or lawyer in the real world would agree with my assessment of the situation. Put yourself in the shoes of the patient and ask yourself if you'd be happy to learn that a psychiatrist (or doctor or lawyer) had searched for and taken advantage of a loophole that would allow them to betray your trust without "technically" breaking any rules. That's what Marlena did, and I don't need the writers to have her break the fourth wall and tell me "just so you know, I'm stalking Sami and Kate because I want to overhear them talking about the river incident so that I can confront them about it" in order to recognize, based on the context of the scenes in question, that they were trying to depict exactly that.

If Daniel had done something similar, he would have been vilified on this site.
If? He has done stuff like that. So have all the other doctors. I think this is less problematic than the other ways they've found around it. For me, though, I think it's not quite as bad as you're saying because it was Kate and Sami's secret, too. Now if she goes and finds a way to tell someone who actually doesn't already know, then I think that would be a little more in line with the ethics you're talking about.
This is what I wanted to say.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angelsmile
Member Avatar


The Room Stops
Jun 11 2014, 12:20 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 07:29 AM
Rosebud
Jun 10 2014, 08:18 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 10 2014, 02:54 PM
As expected, Julie annoyed the hell out of me today. Nothing that Gabi or Hope told her sunk into that thick, Nick-loving skull of hers, and she continues to make excuses for him and act like he was the victim instead of the abuser. It's going to be a long time before I can start to feel anything other than disdain for her. I wouldn't be surprised if newer viewers don't even realize that Julie is related to Will and Arianna. Hell, she seems to have forgotten herself.

Marlena also annoyed me today -- I can't help thinking that what she is doing is borderline unethical, if not blatantly so. I've suspected since her conversation with Gabi that she was going to either break Gabi's trust or manipulate the situation to find a loophole so that she would be free to talk about the river incident with Sami and Kate, so I'm not surprised that the latter happened, but the fact remains that it does feel like a manipulation to me.

And just once, I want to hear a character thank another character for not confessing a crime to them and consequently burdening them with the task of keeping it quiet instead of constantly hearing characters whine about how the person who committed the crime should have confided in them about it.
Marlena overheard Sami and Kate, and did nothing unethical today.
She stalked them for the express purpose of overhearing them so that she would be able to loophole her way out of being bound to respect Gabi's confidentiality. I stand by my assessment that what she did was borderline unethical, if not blatantly so.
How does that make it unethical? She saw them talking at the square, the two people Gabi had just said conspired and manipulated her into covering up a murder, one of them is her daughter. She then followed them when they snuck off to talk in private, to see what they were up to and confronted them. That has nothing to do with Gabi as far as we know. Because Marlena's feelings aren't shown.

It doesn't make it unethical as much it makes her seem conflicted and a little desperate to ask Sami what the hell she was doing.
What was unethical was that she confirmed what Gabi said to her. She had just followed/stalked Sami and Kate and listened to their conversation so she really did not even need to do that. She had heard it all for herself and knew that they were lying when they tried to deny what happened.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Will&Sonny


Rosebud
Jun 11 2014, 04:26 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 03:28 PM
Dany_E
Jun 11 2014, 03:16 PM
Will&Sonny
Jun 11 2014, 03:12 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepnotsomewherewith no scenes in between, so yes, I do think that we're meant to infer that Marlena followed Sami from the police station to the town square because she believed that Sami would go straight to Kate with the news that Gabi had told Marlena about the river incident.
I can't agree. All definitions of stalking have a negative connotation. Stalking implies prey. And if you're "prey", you're threatened and in danger.
Definitions -- straight out of online dictionaries -- have already been provided in this thread that do not necessarily have a negative connotation.
I didn't see any in that definition you quoted. :shrug:
The one I bolded -- "to follow (an animal or person that you are hunting or trying to capture) by moving slowly and quietly" -- has no inherently negative connotations; you just inferred them because of the parenthetical example, which could easily be removed.

"to follow by moving slowly and quietly"

There is nothing that suggests danger or threats in that definition. When I was younger and still lived with my parents, my mother and I often stalked each other in the hallways of our family home in an effort to give each other a friendly scare. If she was in the kitchen, for instance, and didn't know that I was in an adjacent room, I might stalk her and yell "Boo!" when I got close enough, startling her in the process. There was nothing malicious about it. When she would gasp, jump, and say, "You nearly gave me a heart attack!", she wasn't being literal.

If, on the other hand, she told me "I'm going to the kitchen to get something to eat" and I replied "I'll go with you!", I would be following her to the kitchen, not stalking her there, because she would know that I was in tow. Sami and Kate didn't know that Marlena was following them, therefore it could be said that Marlena was stalking them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nananana7
Member Avatar


Suggestion:
Instead of the debate of the word stalking ...

How about we say that Marlena overheard Sami and Kate standing and talking -- and was able to tell they were referring to rivergate even though they weren't giving details.
And then ... a little later ....
the scene changed to Kate and Sami sitting on a bench talking more intensely about rivergate ... but ...
.... bad editing caused the viewers to *not* see how/why Marlena arrived ...
-- but regardless of how/why she was there ... Marlena nevertheless was standing in the background behind Sami and Kate while they sat and talked on the bench.

That is what we saw happen -- who was where, without assigning motivations.

The reason for the transition between the first location and the second is up for debate, so I'll avoid that here.

Perhaps Marlena intentionally followed and intentionally eavesdropped --
or perhaps Marlena just happened to come upon them and tried to be polite and not interrupt
-- or something in between ...
But regardless of which of those it was ...
Marlena *knew* she was listening to something that Gabi had mentioned in confidence.

Now for my opinion:
In my opinion, as soon as Marlena realized what Kami was discussing, she should have walked away.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angelsmile
Member Avatar


nananana7
Jun 11 2014, 05:06 PM
Suggestion:
Instead of the debate of the word stalking ...

How about we say that Marlena overheard Sami and Kate standing and talking -- and was able to tell they were referring to rivergate even though they weren't giving details.
And then ... a little later ....
the scene changed to Kate and Sami sitting on a bench talking more intensely about rivergate ... but ...
.... bad editing caused the viewers to *not* see how/why Marlena arrived ...
-- but regardless of how/why she was there ... Marlena nevertheless was standing in the background behind Sami and Kate while they sat and talked on the bench.

That is what we saw happen -- who was where, without assigning motivations.

The reason for the transition between the first location and the second is up for debate, so I'll avoid that here.

Perhaps Marlena intentionally followed and intentionally eavesdropped --
or perhaps Marlena just happened to come upon them and tried to be polite and not interrupt
-- or something in between ...
But regardless of which of those it was ...
Marlena *knew* she was listening to something that Gabi had mentioned in confidence.

Now for my opinion:
In my opinion, as soon as Marlena realized what Kami was discussing, she should have walked away.
I like this post. The fact is that all of these questions could be deemed irrelevant and Marlena would still be wrong. She could have had almost the exact same conversation with Kate and Sami and not have her ethics come into question. The problem is when they denied the incident at the river she countered with the fact that Gabi had told her. That was unethical. The conversation was supposed to be confidential by her own words. She could just as easily have said she had overheard their conversation and that was why she was confronting them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Will&Sonny


nananana7
Jun 11 2014, 05:06 PM
Suggestion:
Instead of the debate of the word stalking ...

How about we say that Marlena overheard Sami and Kate standing and talking -- and was able to tell they were referring to rivergate even though they weren't giving details.
And then ... a little later ....
the scene changed to Kate and Sami sitting on a bench talking more intensely about rivergate ... but ...
.... bad editing caused the viewers to *not* see how/why Marlena arrived ...
-- but regardless of how/why she was there ... Marlena nevertheless was standing in the background behind Sami and Kate while they sat and talked on the bench.

That is what we saw happen -- who was where, without assigning motivations.

The reason for the transition between the first location and the second is up for debate, so I'll avoid that here.

Perhaps Marlena intentionally followed and intentionally eavesdropped --
or perhaps Marlena just happened to come upon them and tried to be polite and not interrupt
-- or something in between ...
But regardless of which of those it was ...
Marlena *knew* she was listening to something that Gabi had mentioned in confidence.

Now for my opinion:
In my opinion, as soon as Marlena realized what Kami was discussing, she should have walked away.
My problem with this (not with you for suggesting it, but with the idea itself) is that it implies that we can only decide that something has happened on the show if dialogue specifically states that it is happening. The camera panned to Marlena as Sami and Kate walked away for a reason. Deidre Hall played it as if Marlena were suspicious and planned to follow them for a reason. The next scene was of Sami and Kate arriving at the secluded section of the town square, with Marlena a few seconds behind them, for a reason. Deidre was still playing it as if Marlena were in pursuit of them for a reason. The writers had Marlena stick around and eavesdrop at that point for a reason. Deidre played it as if Marlena were trying to hide her presence from Sami and Kate for a reason. Everything happened for a reason. Are we not allowed to decide what that reason was just because it was never explained in dialogue?

As I recall, earlier in this thread, several people praised Kristian Alfonso's wordless expressions during Gabi's conversation with Julie. This sort of suggestion implies that we have to ignore those expressions because there's no way to "prove" what they meant. If that's the case, we might as well just be reading transcripts instead of watching a television show that involves acting and directing choices as well as dialogue.
Edited by Will&Sonny, Jun 11 2014, 05:29 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply