Please stop telling me that Dean is not evil. We have had this conversion over and over again. I've never once said he's evil, but you keep telling me he's not evil. I know he's not and I've told you that I don't think he's evil before.
There is a huge gap between a bad person and an evil person. Unlike you, I don't believe some rapists can be "morally good", but that doesn't mean I'm calling him evil. He's just a scummy person who disgusts me and needs punishing.
I have accepted that "morally good" is the wrong phrase and replaced it with "has morals" now - I still care about Dean but you dislike him so we must agree to differ but I do agree that in an ideal world he would be punished as he committed an awful crime.
Can anyone else see any one else doing brilliant ACTING in such a sensitive rape seen. I certainly can't see Shane Ritchie, tony disincline, Jamie borthwick and a lot of other past and present male characters doing so. It's such an imtimitading storyline and Matt really pulled it out of the bag. The fact his character is hated proves it. Others o think can't stand him because he's good looking and therefore can't be a good actor.
Also I agree he is not evil. He really loved stacey and saw a future and he managed to move on and he cared for lilly too which was sweet. His mental health reasoning and his reactions to abandonment also shows that he isn't really evil but just unstable. All he needs is treatment and a stable life. I can't see mick forgiving him at all but linda possibly might if she understood and help her move on and let go of it and be at peace. He should serve some time but their is no longer any evidence to do that now. Whatever way Matt is a brilliant actor and has stepped up the plate. Some characters don't work as criminal villain character to hate like alfie but Dean, Janine, Phil do work that way.
Shows how subjective it all is as I think the worst thing about the rape storyline was Matt's acting. He was so out of his depth when up against the real talent of people like Kellie Bright and Linda Henry. I find him totally expressionless and one dimensional and am dreading his return and yet more scenes with him staring blankly at the camera while we're all supposed to care about the emotional scars that have driven him to this behaviour.
I have accepted that "morally good" is the wrong phrase and replaced it with "has morals" now - I still care about Dean but you dislike him so we must agree to differ but I do agree that in an ideal world he would be punished as he committed an awful crime.
To be honest if somebody has morals but that doesn't stretch to thinking rape is wrong, then they are not a good person. I'm not going to start liking Dean because his morals mean he doesn't have sex with animals or inject heroin.
Shows how subjective it all is as I think the worst thing about the rape storyline was Matt's acting. He was so out of his depth when up against the real talent of people like Kellie Bright and Linda Henry. I find him totally expressionless and one dimensional and am dreading his return and yet more scenes with him staring blankly at the camera while we're all supposed to care about the emotional scars that have driven him to this behaviour.
totally agree he shows no emotion or feeling in any scene hes in,just the same dull mono tone, and when hes doing his big tearful dramatic rants at Shirley I find myself laughing most of the time. like I say everyones just blinded by his looks.
Can anyone else see any one else doing brilliant ACTING in such a sensitive rape seen. I certainly can't see Shane Ritchie, tony disincline, Jamie borthwick and a lot of other past and present male characters doing so. It's such an imtimitading storyline and Matt really pulled it out of the bag. The fact his character is hated proves it. Others o think can't stand him because he's good looking and therefore can't be a good actor.
Also I agree he is not evil. He really loved stacey and saw a future and he managed to move on and he cared for lilly too which was sweet. His mental health reasoning and his reactions to abandonment also shows that he isn't really evil but just unstable. All he needs is treatment and a stable life. I can't see mick forgiving him at all but linda possibly might if she understood and help her move on and let go of it and be at peace. He should serve some time but their is no longer any evidence to do that now. Whatever way Matt is a brilliant actor and has stepped up the plate. Some characters don't work as criminal villain character to hate like alfie but Dean, Janine, Phil do work that way.
BIB No, the other 2 yes, and they would probably do it without that daft blank expression too:D
I have accepted that "morally good" is the wrong phrase and replaced it with "has morals" now - I still care about Dean but you dislike him so we must agree to differ but I do agree that in an ideal world he would be punished as he committed an awful crime.
A rapist with morals is still a rapist. I'm sure Frank Foster wouldn't have killed a child, but you don't like him. Your rules on "has morals" are arbitrary.
A rapist with morals is still a rapist. I'm sure Frank Foster wouldn't have killed a child, but you don't like him. Your rules on "has morals" are arbitrary.
I never said Dean wasn't a rapist.
Frank's character/personality is completely different from Dean's. Dean is clearly messed up in the head whereas Frank was 100% sane which just makes it worse. Also Frank unlike Dean doesn't give a damn about anyone else but himself - he let his own dad die rather than admit to the crime, was prepared to outsource the factory without caring about the workers, used and discarded Sally Webster etc etc. Dean has shown that he cares about people and this crime happened on a particular night - his mum had abandoned him, his girlfriend had dumped him, he has issues (jealousy of Mick, obsession with Linda etc) whereas with Frank he chose to work himself up in a rage and convince himself that Carla cheated on him with Peter etc.
Bottom line is Dean is a rapist with morals and Frank is a rapist without morals.
Look at Will Savage and Tony Gordon. Both were murderers but I ended up caring about Tony Gordon whereas I hated Will Savage.
To be honest if somebody has morals but that doesn't stretch to thinking rape is wrong, then they are not a good person. I'm not going to start liking Dean because his morals mean he doesn't have sex with animals or inject heroin.
Frank's character/personality is completely different from Dean's. Dean is clearly messed up in the head whereas Frank was 100% sane which just makes it worse. Also Frank unlike Dean doesn't give a damn about anyone else but himself - he let his own dad die rather than admit to the crime, was prepared to outsource the factory without caring about the workers, used and discarded Sally Webster etc etc. Dean has shown that he cares about people and this crime happened on a particular night - his mum had abandoned him, his girlfriend had dumped him, he has issues (jealousy of Mick, obsession with Linda etc) whereas with Frank he chose to work himself up in a rage and convince himself that Carla cheated on him with Peter etc.
Bottom line is Dean is a rapist with morals and Frank is a rapist without morals.
Look at Will Savage and Tony Gordon. Both were murderers but I ended up caring about Tony Gordon whereas I hated Will Savage.
I never said that you said Dean isn't a rapist. I'm just saying that him having some morals has nothing to do with his crime.
How do you know Frank was 100% sane? How many people are? You can't diagnose someone like that, especially someone like Frank. Claiming that he has no morals, is claiming that there's nothing that he wouldn't do and there's no evidence of that. We never saw that he would hurt a child, for example.
Will Savage was clearly not sane and Tony Gordan was not potrayed as insane, from what I remember. Again, your rules are arbitrary.
You should be careful about what you write about Dean, because that paragraph looks like it contains excuses. He doesn't need excusing. He's a misogynist who believes he can hurt women and blame them for his evil actions. The fact that he loves his grandad should not be making you think "aww poor hot rapist".
Digiguide had him credited for 3rd April but then took him off, don't know if that was a mistake on their part or whether it's too keep his return a surprise. I am interested mainly in Shirley, Denise and Buster finding out what he did and what the satisfying conclusion is. It's a shame they made Dean a rapist.
I never said that you said Dean isn't a rapist. I'm just saying that him having some morals has nothing to do with his crime.
How do you know Frank was 100% sane? How many people are? You can't diagnose someone like that, especially someone like Frank. Claiming that he has no morals, is claiming that there's nothing that he wouldn't do and there's no evidence of that. We never saw that he would hurt a child, for example.
Will Savage was clearly not sane and Tony Gordan was not potrayed as insane, from what I remember. Again, your rules are arbitrary.
You should be careful about what you write about Dean, because that paragraph looks like it contains excuses. He doesn't need excusing. He's a misogynist who believes he can hurt women and blame them for his evil actions. The fact that he loves his grandad should not be making you think "aww poor hot rapist".
I agree that Will Savage was insane but after he killed Anna and held everyone hostage I really had to hate him. Tony Gordon on the other hand, loved Maria and baby Liam and showed guilt and remorse over killing Liam and yes as you rightly say he wasn't portrayed as insane until perhaps after he broke out of prison and torched the factory.
What Dean, Tony, and other villains I care about have in common is that the either show guilt and remorse or have the ability to love and care about people or both. It doesn't change the crime but it does make them complex and more human. Frank wasn't shown to care about anyone but himself and he wasn't portrayed as insane in quite the same way as someone like Will. He knew perfectly well what he was doing each time he did something wrong and had the nerve to gloat about it each time.
Dean may be a misogynist but he did not harm Lauren or Stacey. While he was wrong to attack Linda and the idiot should have chosen to stay in the sitting room or leave the pub and not gone near the kitchen, we know the circumstances surrounding that particular night - Shirley leaving, Lauren having dumped him, and that he is clearly messed up - those are not excuses for the crime but they are reasons why the crime took place. It's completely different from someone like Finn or Frank. Frank tried to attack Maria and Finn went on to try and attack Nancy and both of them seemed to gloat over what they did - Dean/Linda was an isolated incident which happened on a particular night after a series of other events took place - obviously he needs to be punished and in an ideal world he would be but it is difficult for me at least to hate a character who is at certain times shown to care about others.
I hate the crime Dean committed but I care about Dean but you clearly dislike him so we must agree to differ.
A rapist with morals is still a rapist. I'm sure Frank Foster wouldn't have killed a child, but you don't like him. Your rules on "has morals" are arbitrary.
Controversially I enjoyed (probably the wrong word but bear with me) Frank Foster. I think he managed to brilliantly convey the facade of "normality" in covering up his crime. Of course I didn't want him to get away with it or make any excuses for him but thinking back to that storyline, I was much more interested in trying to figure out what was making Frank tick than anything from pathetic, one dimensional Deano. And that, for me, is the main problem with this story - whether it's down to poor writing or acting, Dean's so-called pretty face is what makes people doubt his ability to do something monstrous, rather than anything else in the character's personality because Dean as a character is just an empty vessel.
Controversially I enjoyed (probably the wrong word but bear with me) Frank Foster. I think he managed to brilliantly convey the facade of "normality" in covering up his crime. Of course I didn't want him to get away with it or make any excuses for him but thinking back to that storyline, I was much more interested in trying to figure out what was making Frank tick than anything from pathetic, one dimensional Deano. And that, for me, is the main problem with this story - whether it's down to poor writing or acting, Dean's so-called pretty face is what makes people doubt his ability to do something monstrous, rather than anything else in the character's personality because Dean as a character is just an empty vessel.
Acting in horrific crimes such as rape and murders in soaps are enjoyable and really highlight the actors talents. People can't seem to understand this and let their hatred of the character overrule everything. I'd rather keep Matt di Angelo in the show as he is an asset with how well he potrayed the rape seems them axe him because he's now hated. Characters can have a dark side and that makes then interesting if it was happy rainbows and sunshine the show would be awful.
People can also be good looking and brilliant actors but a lot of people refuse that one person can be both. It's a disgusting opinion imo.
Acting in horrific crimes such as rape and murders in soaps are enjoyable and really highlight the actors talents. People can't seem to understand this and let their hatred of the character overrule everything. I'd rather keep Matt di Angelo in the show as he is an asset with how well he potrayed the rape seems them axe him because he's now hated. Characters can have a dark side and that makes then interesting if it was happy rainbows and sunshine the show would be awful.
People can also be good looking and brilliant actors but a lot of people refuse that one person can be both. It's a disgusting opinion imo.
I agree.
I personally think Matt has acted Dean well but there will be those who disagree. Matt happens to be good looking but he needn't have been. The reason I have empathy with Dean is that while I hate the crime, he has not been portrayed as one dimensional or evil like Frank Foster and Finn O Connor. We have seen examples of him caring about certain characters which Finn and Frank didn't. Also, Dean seems to be in denial/unaware that he committed a crime though we know he did whereas Frank and Finn both admitted it eventually and knew all along what they had done.
A rapist with morals is still a rapist. I'm sure Frank Foster wouldn't have killed a child, but you don't like him. Your rules on "has morals" are arbitrary.
I never said that you said Dean isn't a rapist. I'm just saying that him having some morals has nothing to do with his crime.
How do you know Frank was 100% sane? How many people are? You can't diagnose someone like that, especially someone like Frank. Claiming that he has no morals, is claiming that there's nothing that he wouldn't do and there's no evidence of that. We never saw that he would hurt a child, for example.
Will Savage was clearly not sane and Tony Gordan was not potrayed as insane, from what I remember. Again, your rules are arbitrary.
You should be careful about what you write about Dean, because that paragraph looks like it contains excuses. He doesn't need excusing. He's a misogynist who believes he can hurt women and blame them for his evil actions. The fact that he loves his grandad should not be making you think "aww poor hot rapist".
With regard to Frank Foster - the fact that he wouldn't hurt a child doesn't change the fact that he;
Let his own dad die rather than admit to the crime
Used Sally Webster and discarded her when she was of no use to him
Cheated on Sally with Jenny with no compuction
Was prepared to outsource the factory without caring about the worker's jobs
Raped Carla and conned her out of the factory
Tried to rape Maria
Showed no guilt or remorse for his actions and did not love anyone.
Will, evil as he is was shown to be deranged and delusional but what he and Frank have in common is not caring about anyone but themselves - only difference is Frank was sane imo and Will was insane but both were evil.
Tony Gordon, Dean Wicks etc have been shown to genuinely care about at least one other character apart from themselves. Also Tony had genuine guilt and remorse over killing Liam.
I care about characters that either have the ability to love or show guilt and remorse or both. Dean and Tony are examples that fall into these categories though they clearly committed different crimes.
Also, apart from lying as a teenager the only crime Dean seems to have committed was to attack Linda. For all that he's misogynistic and messed up/emotionally unstable he did not harm Lauren, Stacey or Lily. Though Tony did kill Liam out of jealousy, he only attempted to kill again when bribery failed and his involvement in Liam's death was about to come out but even then he showed a humane side because he couldn't bring himself to kill Roy since Roy saved his life and he did genuinely love Maria and baby Liam but unfortunately all the characters decided he was just a monster when the truth came out.
Frank's character/personality is completely different from Dean's. Dean is clearly messed up in the head whereas Frank was 100% sane which just makes it worse. Also Frank unlike Dean doesn't give a damn about anyone else but himself - he let his own dad die rather than admit to the crime, was prepared to outsource the factory without caring about the workers, used and discarded Sally Webster etc etc. Dean has shown that he cares about people and this crime happened on a particular night - his mum had abandoned him, his girlfriend had dumped him, he has issues (jealousy of Mick, obsession with Linda etc) whereas with Frank he chose to work himself up in a rage and convince himself that Carla cheated on him with Peter etc.
Bottom line is Dean is a rapist with morals and Frank is a rapist without morals.
Look at Will Savage and Tony Gordon. Both were murderers but I ended up caring about Tony Gordon whereas I hated Will Savage.
If a rapist had morals they wouldn't rape someone. Your logic is quite skewed if you think one rapist is worse than another because in this case Dean loved someone at some stage.
I personally think Matt has acted Dean well but there will be those who disagree. Matt happens to be good looking but he needn't have been. The reason I have empathy with Dean is that while I hate the crime, he has not been portrayed as one dimensional or evil like Frank Foster and Finn O Connor. We have seen examples of him caring about certain characters which Finn and Frank didn't. Also, Dean seems to be in denial/unaware that he committed a crime though we know he did whereas Frank and Finn both admitted it eventually and knew all along what they had done.
Exactly. We've seen Dean in many different ways:
-caring Dean
-mentally unstable Dean
-bitter and vengeful Dean
-cheeky and happy Dean
He might have done one evil thing but like you said he is in denial and unaware and he isn't nesassarily evil
If a rapist had morals they wouldn't rape someone. Your logic is quite skewed if you think one rapist is worse than another because in this case Dean loved someone at some stage.
In both cases the crime is wrong but I honestly think frank Foster is more reprehensible personality wise given the other monstrous things he did in addition to the rape of Carla. The same applies to Finn O Connor - He was homophobic, bullied and raped JP, tried to rape Nancy, battered Blessing - He's just as bad as Frank Foster. As Joe rightly says Dean committed one major crime but we have seen different sides to him.
If a rapist had morals they wouldn't rape someone. Your logic is quite skewed if you think one rapist is worse than another because in this case Dean loved someone at some stage.
That is like saying a thief wouldn't steal if they had morals or a person wouldn't kill if they had morals. Some people/characters can do the right thing in some situations and yet still end up stealing, killing or whatever in other situations. John Stape kidnapped Rosie Webster and killed Charlotte in the heat of the moment but he still had a good heart and loved Fiz and Hope - he also showed guilt and remorse for his actions. Tony Gordon couldn't bring himself to kill the man who saved his life (Roy) and did not harm Maria or baby Liam because he loved them and he even saved Carla the first time yet he still had Liam killed (though he showed guilt and remorse for that eventually)
Acting in horrific crimes such as rape and murders in soaps are enjoyable and really highlight the actors talents. People can't seem to understand this and let their hatred of the character overrule everything. I'd rather keep Matt di Angelo in the show as he is an asset with how well he potrayed the rape seems them axe him because he's now hated. Characters can have a dark side and that makes then interesting if it was happy rainbows and sunshine the show would be awful.
People can also be good looking and brilliant actors but a lot of people refuse that one person can be both. It's a disgusting opinion imo.
Agree with this. Personally I don't find Matt Di Angelo attractive or talented which shows how subjective it is! But I think good looks can be a bit of a curse, particularly to a soap actor, as thanks to some of the casting choices over the last few years, which I believe have definitely been on looks over ability, any conventionally attractive actor is going to have to prove themselves even more than one who doesn't get all the fans swooning.
Comments
Agreed, couldn't Mick just of killed him and buried him somwhere, then this frigging thing would have been over and done with.
I have accepted that "morally good" is the wrong phrase and replaced it with "has morals" now - I still care about Dean but you dislike him so we must agree to differ but I do agree that in an ideal world he would be punished as he committed an awful crime.
thanks
Shows how subjective it all is as I think the worst thing about the rape storyline was Matt's acting. He was so out of his depth when up against the real talent of people like Kellie Bright and Linda Henry. I find him totally expressionless and one dimensional and am dreading his return and yet more scenes with him staring blankly at the camera while we're all supposed to care about the emotional scars that have driven him to this behaviour.
To be honest if somebody has morals but that doesn't stretch to thinking rape is wrong, then they are not a good person. I'm not going to start liking Dean because his morals mean he doesn't have sex with animals or inject heroin.
totally agree he shows no emotion or feeling in any scene hes in,just the same dull mono tone, and when hes doing his big tearful dramatic rants at Shirley I find myself laughing most of the time. like I say everyones just blinded by his looks.
BIB No, the other 2 yes, and they would probably do it without that daft blank expression too:D
A rapist with morals is still a rapist. I'm sure Frank Foster wouldn't have killed a child, but you don't like him. Your rules on "has morals" are arbitrary.
I never said Dean wasn't a rapist.
Frank's character/personality is completely different from Dean's. Dean is clearly messed up in the head whereas Frank was 100% sane which just makes it worse. Also Frank unlike Dean doesn't give a damn about anyone else but himself - he let his own dad die rather than admit to the crime, was prepared to outsource the factory without caring about the workers, used and discarded Sally Webster etc etc. Dean has shown that he cares about people and this crime happened on a particular night - his mum had abandoned him, his girlfriend had dumped him, he has issues (jealousy of Mick, obsession with Linda etc) whereas with Frank he chose to work himself up in a rage and convince himself that Carla cheated on him with Peter etc.
Bottom line is Dean is a rapist with morals and Frank is a rapist without morals.
Look at Will Savage and Tony Gordon. Both were murderers but I ended up caring about Tony Gordon whereas I hated Will Savage.
Nobody asked you to like Dean.
I never said that you said Dean isn't a rapist. I'm just saying that him having some morals has nothing to do with his crime.
How do you know Frank was 100% sane? How many people are? You can't diagnose someone like that, especially someone like Frank. Claiming that he has no morals, is claiming that there's nothing that he wouldn't do and there's no evidence of that. We never saw that he would hurt a child, for example.
Will Savage was clearly not sane and Tony Gordan was not potrayed as insane, from what I remember. Again, your rules are arbitrary.
You should be careful about what you write about Dean, because that paragraph looks like it contains excuses. He doesn't need excusing. He's a misogynist who believes he can hurt women and blame them for his evil actions. The fact that he loves his grandad should not be making you think "aww poor hot rapist".
Most likely. I wonder where he has been all this time. The PC who dealt with Linda's rape is back in week 14 too.
I agree that Will Savage was insane but after he killed Anna and held everyone hostage I really had to hate him. Tony Gordon on the other hand, loved Maria and baby Liam and showed guilt and remorse over killing Liam and yes as you rightly say he wasn't portrayed as insane until perhaps after he broke out of prison and torched the factory.
What Dean, Tony, and other villains I care about have in common is that the either show guilt and remorse or have the ability to love and care about people or both. It doesn't change the crime but it does make them complex and more human. Frank wasn't shown to care about anyone but himself and he wasn't portrayed as insane in quite the same way as someone like Will. He knew perfectly well what he was doing each time he did something wrong and had the nerve to gloat about it each time.
Dean may be a misogynist but he did not harm Lauren or Stacey. While he was wrong to attack Linda and the idiot should have chosen to stay in the sitting room or leave the pub and not gone near the kitchen, we know the circumstances surrounding that particular night - Shirley leaving, Lauren having dumped him, and that he is clearly messed up - those are not excuses for the crime but they are reasons why the crime took place. It's completely different from someone like Finn or Frank. Frank tried to attack Maria and Finn went on to try and attack Nancy and both of them seemed to gloat over what they did - Dean/Linda was an isolated incident which happened on a particular night after a series of other events took place - obviously he needs to be punished and in an ideal world he would be but it is difficult for me at least to hate a character who is at certain times shown to care about others.
I hate the crime Dean committed but I care about Dean but you clearly dislike him so we must agree to differ.
Controversially I enjoyed (probably the wrong word but bear with me) Frank Foster. I think he managed to brilliantly convey the facade of "normality" in covering up his crime. Of course I didn't want him to get away with it or make any excuses for him but thinking back to that storyline, I was much more interested in trying to figure out what was making Frank tick than anything from pathetic, one dimensional Deano. And that, for me, is the main problem with this story - whether it's down to poor writing or acting, Dean's so-called pretty face is what makes people doubt his ability to do something monstrous, rather than anything else in the character's personality because Dean as a character is just an empty vessel.
Acting in horrific crimes such as rape and murders in soaps are enjoyable and really highlight the actors talents. People can't seem to understand this and let their hatred of the character overrule everything. I'd rather keep Matt di Angelo in the show as he is an asset with how well he potrayed the rape seems them axe him because he's now hated. Characters can have a dark side and that makes then interesting if it was happy rainbows and sunshine the show would be awful.
People can also be good looking and brilliant actors but a lot of people refuse that one person can be both. It's a disgusting opinion imo.
I agree.
I personally think Matt has acted Dean well but there will be those who disagree. Matt happens to be good looking but he needn't have been. The reason I have empathy with Dean is that while I hate the crime, he has not been portrayed as one dimensional or evil like Frank Foster and Finn O Connor. We have seen examples of him caring about certain characters which Finn and Frank didn't. Also, Dean seems to be in denial/unaware that he committed a crime though we know he did whereas Frank and Finn both admitted it eventually and knew all along what they had done.
With regard to Frank Foster - the fact that he wouldn't hurt a child doesn't change the fact that he;
Let his own dad die rather than admit to the crime
Used Sally Webster and discarded her when she was of no use to him
Cheated on Sally with Jenny with no compuction
Was prepared to outsource the factory without caring about the worker's jobs
Raped Carla and conned her out of the factory
Tried to rape Maria
Showed no guilt or remorse for his actions and did not love anyone.
Will, evil as he is was shown to be deranged and delusional but what he and Frank have in common is not caring about anyone but themselves - only difference is Frank was sane imo and Will was insane but both were evil.
Tony Gordon, Dean Wicks etc have been shown to genuinely care about at least one other character apart from themselves. Also Tony had genuine guilt and remorse over killing Liam.
I care about characters that either have the ability to love or show guilt and remorse or both. Dean and Tony are examples that fall into these categories though they clearly committed different crimes.
Also, apart from lying as a teenager the only crime Dean seems to have committed was to attack Linda. For all that he's misogynistic and messed up/emotionally unstable he did not harm Lauren, Stacey or Lily. Though Tony did kill Liam out of jealousy, he only attempted to kill again when bribery failed and his involvement in Liam's death was about to come out but even then he showed a humane side because he couldn't bring himself to kill Roy since Roy saved his life and he did genuinely love Maria and baby Liam but unfortunately all the characters decided he was just a monster when the truth came out.
If a rapist had morals they wouldn't rape someone. Your logic is quite skewed if you think one rapist is worse than another because in this case Dean loved someone at some stage.
Exactly. We've seen Dean in many different ways:
-caring Dean
-mentally unstable Dean
-bitter and vengeful Dean
-cheeky and happy Dean
He might have done one evil thing but like you said he is in denial and unaware and he isn't nesassarily evil
In both cases the crime is wrong but I honestly think frank Foster is more reprehensible personality wise given the other monstrous things he did in addition to the rape of Carla. The same applies to Finn O Connor - He was homophobic, bullied and raped JP, tried to rape Nancy, battered Blessing - He's just as bad as Frank Foster. As Joe rightly says Dean committed one major crime but we have seen different sides to him.
Thank you Joe.
That is like saying a thief wouldn't steal if they had morals or a person wouldn't kill if they had morals. Some people/characters can do the right thing in some situations and yet still end up stealing, killing or whatever in other situations. John Stape kidnapped Rosie Webster and killed Charlotte in the heat of the moment but he still had a good heart and loved Fiz and Hope - he also showed guilt and remorse for his actions. Tony Gordon couldn't bring himself to kill the man who saved his life (Roy) and did not harm Maria or baby Liam because he loved them and he even saved Carla the first time yet he still had Liam killed (though he showed guilt and remorse for that eventually)
Agree with this. Personally I don't find Matt Di Angelo attractive or talented which shows how subjective it is! But I think good looks can be a bit of a curse, particularly to a soap actor, as thanks to some of the casting choices over the last few years, which I believe have definitely been on looks over ability, any conventionally attractive actor is going to have to prove themselves even more than one who doesn't get all the fans swooning.