Topic Posted by: starfish
Date Posted: Mon May 12 15:15:18 2008
Additional Comments: Wasn't that a much younger Bree in Jessica's arms today? The last time we saw her, she had darker, longer hair and was playing with crayons. Today, short light wispy hair and looked much smaller/younger. Anyone else catch that?
Posted by: michdee Date posted: Tue May 13 15:45:59 2008
Message: The other Bree had curly reddish hair and didn't look like she would be the child of Nash and Jessica. I thought maybe they were going to have her turn out to be Antonio's after all. Maybe they scrapped that idea and decided on a blonde child who looks more like them.
Posted by: Emily Date posted: Tue May 13 13:30:12 2008
Message: With kids this little, it's hard to say why they were replaced, or if it's just temporary. Children's roles are usually recurring, and if the usual baby/babies aren't available, tptb usually get a sub. Or the usual baby/babies were getting too hard to handle on set or they were getting too uncomfortable.
But, in Bree's case, it is striking that they obviously de-aged her, so maybe they felt the character was getting too old too fast (which is ironic for a soap opera). Bree had been played by the same twins for at least a year. They were the ones with Nash when he gave Bree a leather jacket at Christmas before last. They were also the ones who were Bree all last summer when Jessica was in the hospital.
Posted by: Wanda Wolek Date posted: Mon May 12 20:12:51 2008
Message: Yes, she was definitely de-sorased. But was she de-sorased to Bree's actual age? It seems like it was just last year that Bree was born, or was the whole Antonio/Jessica/Nash triangle so painful that after two years the pain still isn't a vague memory?
Posted by: Soapness Date posted: Mon May 12 18:17:43 2008
Message:
I totally noticed that she was a smaller baby than the other baby. I was wondering why??? Storyline???
