I'm actually kind of surprised Passanante agreed to this given how tight she and Ron are. Guess that friendship is over and Ron will never talk to her again.
As has been mentioned Altman was better during her brief solo period at Y&R before Passanante joined her. I am a bit curious what Altman's writing style is like away from JFP.
It was going to be Passanante or Tomlin because Valentini doesn't have many writer connections.
Anyways Altman & Passanante aren't going to make the necessary changes because 1) They are too tight with Ron and probably think what he has done is brilliant and 2) These two don't make big moves.
I think the change with these two will be akin to when Garin Wolf (later joined by Altman) replaced Bob Guza. eg. They will use Monica a tiny bit more at first and make a few other symbolic efforts around the edges but there won't be that much difference.
On AMC everyone called Juan Pablo...Juan Pablo. Then one day the "Juan" was suddenly dropped and everyone called him just "Pablo", as if everyone in Pine Valley had gotten a memo in their email about the change.
There must have been some legal issue with the name or focus groups has a major issue with it for some reason.
In a recent SOD interview Pratt was adamant that Adam killing Stuart was a great story. And I actually do think it could have been had it been executed a whole lot better. But the various motives for people wanting to kill Adam were developed over the course of like five episodes instead of many many months and -the biggie for me- Stuart's death really had no impact on Adam. Pratt just gave Adam a line every now and then about how devastated he was that Stuart was gone but, other than the morgue scenes, we never really saw this devastation. He was having a good ol' time with Annie.
Agnes Nixon and (gasp!) Jean Passanante did a much better job when Stuart "died" in 2000. There was some incredible material in the aftermath of that, including some Adam/Liza scenes I wish were on Youtube because they were some of the best acting I had ever seen. AN/JP didn't tell us once a month that Adam was devastated, they showed us every day. They also delved a bit into Adam and Stuart's childhood in Pigeon Hollow via flashbacks.
From what I have observed of Tomlin's work over the years he is not really one to adapt according to viewer response (even moreso than most of TPTB); he does the stories and couples and characters he wants until he is fired. Also when the soap magazines used to do their "how much input do the viewers have?" articles Tomlin was always pretty blunt about it not having much/any sway with him. So I don't think lessening how far ahead the show is written/taped would help much.
And yeah there's no way Pratt has any interest in doing the work involved in actually producing Y&R. From what I have heard he doesn't exactly over-exert himself as a HW either. He sets down mandates re tone ("More guns and physical violence when characters confront each other!" ) and tosses out broad story arcs and leaves it to the associate headwriters to make it work. eg: "We need something for May sweeps so why don't we have a bunch of characters gunning for Adam... but he has that twin, right? - Stan?- and Stan gets killed by someone who mistakes him for Adam. Just come up with some motives you can work in really quickly; those aren't important. Make it a big mystery that gets us to November. Oh and we're switching up Erica/Adam and Ryan/Annie for Erica/Ryan and Adam/Annie because those pairings will get people talking. So get them together somehow. If you need me I'll be on the on the golf course with Bri-Bri!"
I have to say I am so glad Craig didn't just treat his final show as any other one (which I feared would be the case).
I loved the musical number at the beginning, the monologue, and the Newhart/Sopranos/St. Elsewhere bit at the end. I did skip the Leno interview though...and in the little bit I did catch Jay was of course working in a whine about how unfair everyone was to him.
All the other late night hosts could go off the air Monday and I wouldn't care. But I'm going to miss Craig.
Yesterday on Fox Lite (aka CNN) one of their "reporters" was explaining that in states where the Republicans are ahead in early voting it's a good sign for the GOP. Okay, makes sense. Then she stated that in states where the Democrats are ahead in early voting it's also a good sign for the GOP. I can't remember her reasoning. Both she and the anchor also couldn't contain their joy that the Republicans were going to take the Senate and the overall impression left for the viewer was that it's a done deal and Democrats need not bother wasting their time going to vote.