Sydney? - Melrose Place (2009) Discussion

[–] onederboi779 12 years ago

they claimed that she faked her death back when she was run over at the end of season 5 of the original show but that was totally pointless because they brought the character back from the dead just to kill her again in literally the first 5 minutes of the very first show.

reply

[–] Morning_Sun 12 years ago

Oh, so they were just using her as a connection to the original... Crazy.

Hakuna Matata, bitches!

reply

[–] RobinsonSt33 11 years ago

It made no since to bring Sydney back from the dead even though I love her character and Laura. It wasn't fare for fans of the original, she abandons her new, just married husband, he killed himself of of grief and then they kill her off in the first five minutes. Why didn't they bring back Lexi Sterling as the landlord, after all she did own the building in the finally and she and Michael were almost married in the finally, we don't know what had happened between those two in those missing years.

reply

[–] jenk1376 10 years ago

Lexi would have been perfect! She was a total skanky bitch and deserved to be dead in that pool!!!

reply

[–] vmars080 10 years ago

It made no since to bring Sydney back from the dead even though I love her character and Laura. It wasn't fare for fans of the original, she abandons her new, just married husband, he killed himself of of grief and then they kill her off in the first five minutes. Why didn't they bring back Lexi Sterling as the landlord, after all she did own the building in the finally and she and Michael were almost married in the finally, we don't know what had happened between those two in those missing years.

Not sure i followed all of that but will try and tackle a few points.
Lexie was, IMHO, a weak character after Laura and Marcia. It felt like the show just needed another red-haired character. So Jamie had a tough couple of acts to follow. (She also went to All My Children as a re-cast of an older character, but I don't know if that was why she wasn't a part of 2.0)

I still haven't seen the last season, i wasn't enjoying it so i switched to this one. Craig (Sydney's new husband) was not a great guy, and people don't kill themselves because of one thing. He offed himself mainly because he was an entitled little jerk and when he wasn't rolling in dough, he just gave up. (And shooting himself in Jennifer's car? That is something people do to essentially give the finger from the grave)

It is fair to fans, since you can just ignore 2.0 and stick to canon. But I agree it was odd to bring her back since she had no reason to want to pretend to be dead -- I still haven't found a reason for that. (And the drug addiction, I guess she was on meds after being hit by the car and got addicted? This Sydney is definitely not as fun as she was before, that character was enjoyable, IMHO, because she had a delicious sense of humor, wasn't just a one-note beeotch like Amanda.

reply

[–] vmars080 10 years ago

Ah, someone unfamilar with soap opera law! :) Anyone can come back from the edad on a soap. More often in Daytime than PT soaps, but yep, you are never really dead on a soap.

And hopefully someone explained that Michael helped Sydney fake her death. I have no idea why she wanted to, since her character was finally really happy, even though she married a jerk, but yep, they brought her back just to off her again. Not sure that was such a great idea though....

reply

[–] Swissangel4616 9 years ago

Well... a lot "fans" have been dissapointed with returning of Sydney and killing her again after 5 minutes only.

There is nothing wrong with bringing someone back from the death...:

in the new show it shows that Michael rescued her in the hospital..
but..
the problem is... during the Season 5 Finale: Michael cut during a fight both hands and was then hospitalized with both hands bandaged. We see him in the flashback in the new one without those bandages.

I have not seen yet the whole "new" show but.. my question about Michaels son (played by Shaun Sipos) - is he Taylor McBrides and Michaels son but he wouldn't be older then 12?

Those are just a few things I don't like in the "new" Melrose Place.

reply

[–] newplanet 9 years ago

Well... a lot "fans" have been dissapointed with returning of Sydney and killing her again after 5 minutes only.

The body in the pool was originally supposed to be Amanda but when Heather Locklear passed on the storyline, instead of coming up with a new story, they simply replaced Amanda with Syd. People would likely not have been happy about them killing off Amanda either, but at least it would have been a bit less of slap in the face because we *knew* Amanda had faked her death in the series finale. And they never ever did properly explain *why* Sydney had faked her death in the season 5 finale, so it was all a bit dissatisfying.

the problem is... during the Season 5 Finale: Michael cut during a fight both hands and was then hospitalized with both hands bandaged. We see him in the flashback in the new one without those bandages.

Actually, he *is* wearing bandages in the flashback sequence, but nothing like those we see him wearing in the Season 6 premier. And that still conveniently forgets that he was completely bedridden and incapable of reporting for work. It was as if the producers recognised some of the past continuity and forgot the rest. This was another reason why replacing Amanda with Syd never worked. It was Michael who helped Amanda (and Peter) fake their deaths in the series finale - we saw it happen. And with Amanda as the murder victim there would have been no need for the horrible retcon to make Michael the facilitator of Sydney's fake death too.

I have not seen yet the whole "new" show but.. my question about Michaels son (played by Shaun Sipos) - is he Taylor McBrides and Michaels son but he wouldn't be older then 12?

No, he isn't. He's simply a son we (and he) never knew about. Originally, David was supposed to be Jake's son (who was indeed called David, as we saw on the show). The plot was to be that David was having an affair of the murder victim, i.e. Amanda, who also had had an affair with his father, Jake. I can only assume they switched him to be Michael's son when Amanda became Sydney to retain that same plot element (although Jake also had an affair with Sydney so there was no real reason to do so.)

reply

[–] theworldastage 8 years ago

@newplanet

Thanks so much for the explanations!

I knew David was suppose to be Jake's son. It's too bad they didn't keep it that way - probably because the actor playing Jake didn't come back? I don't know why that would stop them. You never know when an actor/actress could return - as Heather Locklear ended up doing anyway! (And on the reboot 90210, they mentioned the character Dylan by name, and he didn't come on.)

But the actor playing Michael does a phenomenal job. They could have still gave him something besides being David's father. I found it so strange they were father and son. I saw MP 2.0 before I watched the original series in its entirety.

Anyway, I had NO IDEA the murder victim was originally going to be Amanda! Makes more sense.

Now that I know that, it annoys me even more these ideas didn't work out. Though I don't think I would have wanted Heather Locklear killed off for good.

reply