Jump to content
NOTICE: What Happened, How It Was Resolved and Moving Forward


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DramatistDreamer

  1. 1 hour ago, Khan said:

    Plus, TL literally oozed sexiness, which was an important facet to Jack's persona, especially during the early years.  You could believe that so many women would WANT to go to bed with a man like TL's Jack Abbott.



    For sure, if Douglas Marland hadn't died, we might have seen Royce's DID storyline play out entirely, instead of being truncated the way it was under Marland's successors.


    First of all, hat tip to you Khan for your kind remarks in the Politics thread.  Nobody's perfect (I used to be the kind who would give it right back double if I felt I'd been insulted but after awhile you realize you're giving others too much of your energy, and it's not worth it, you know?)

    Back on topic, lol.

    TL's Jack could be a scoundrel, no doubt but like you said, he had sex appeal, he was suave and as others have stated, charisma.  I feel like, after he left Y&R on such a sour note, he only really did short stints on soaps after that-- almost as if he was unwilling to commit long-term to any soap, lest he find himself in another situation that he was in while he was at Y&R.


    I'm not sure whether Bill Bell Sr. looked at PB's Jack and decided that he wouldn't be able to continue with TL's characterizations but Jack morphed into a different personality very quickly after PB took over the role and from there, the character has evolved into some type of 'sad sack'  getting dumped and cheated on repeatedly and being outdone by just about anybody with half a scheme.  Soon it'll be time for Faith and Christian to outmaneuver Jack in business somehow.

  2. 1 hour ago, kalbir said:

    What if Y&R didn't become the Cricket show in the late 1980s?


    Y&R might have held onto Terry Lester, if only for a few more years. 

    After Lester left, ATWT managed to snag Lester for a memorable storyline with Elizabeth Hubbard and Mary Kay Adams, all titans of daytime drama.

  3. 44 minutes ago, KMan101 said:

    I always thought one of the benefits of streaming was NO ADS, yet that's the future ;) I get it, but I've yet to be encouraged to buy or click on an ad I see play. It often makes me not even want that product ... 


    Who says?:lol:

    Streaming is getting to be where TV has been for over fifty years.  YouTube, one of the earliest streamers, has never been about having no ads.  PBS' streaming service even has a subtly placed ad or two.  The idea of cable networks like HBO was always to avoid ads.  Netflix, which began as a DVD by mail service, has evolved into the subscription-based service it is today.  Hulu has always had ads.  Crackle has ads.  ESPN's streaming service even has ads (as far as I know, I'm not sure about their recent ESPN+ service).


    I have never gotten the sense that anything online is set in stone, it has always been ever evolving.  I don't think that anyone knows what things will evolve into.  That's the Internet, in a nutshell. 

    If you had asked the inventors of the World Wide Web (and people have asked people like Tim Berners Lee), they would admit that they had no idea the concept that they invented for computers to communicate with one another would turn into what it is today.

  4. Interesting that though this article posits that there is room for both Netflix and Hulu and Netflix if far and away the leader, Hulu's $6 per month ad-supported service  may be more aligned with the future of streaming, according to this article.

    I still say P&G are absolute fools for not at least trying an ad-supported service to stream episodes from some of their classic daytime dramas.


  5. 56 minutes ago, Fevuh said:

    Julianne Moore, and for short hair I always liked Collen Zenk's and Finn Carter's.  Martha Byrne when she'd joosh it up with body. 


    :) I wholeheartedly agree with these choices.  Colleen Zenk's sustained excellence over decades is pretty impressive on its own merits.  She probably had only two or three episodes where her hair was out of place in the three decades of her being on the show.


    I'd also like to add a bit of diversity and add Debbi Morgan to this list, particularly her time on AMC, though I was never an avid viewer of that show.  Looking at Angie's hairstyles, from press n curl, to braids/cornrows to naturally curly, DM's looks read like a historical lookbook on black hairstyles through the decades.  I loved that she never seemed overstyled, especially in her earliest years.

  6. 1 hour ago, Juliajms said:

    There's an understatement.  You always seem to keep your cool DD, which I admire.  The Obama's were treated horribly.  The way people talked about Michelle was disgusting and shameful. 


    I sort of reminds me of how Megan Markel is treated. I have no love for the royal family in general, don't get me wrong, but it's obvious that she is getting a raw deal in the press because she is bi racial.  It took me awhile to realize that people were praising KM as graceful, ladylike and all this other BS as a way of contrasting her to MM. Same thing they do with Melania in regard to Michelle Obama.  It's so unfair and untrue.


    It's probably because at this age, I realized that there were times when I was bullied, called indescribable names for no justifiable reason or harassed six ways to Sunday and discovered that not openly reacting was the best response (albeit the most difficult) especially when open displays of anger would be giving people what they want and expect, which is their stereotype of an angry black woman.  My guess is that both Megan Markel and Michelle Obama have come to realize this fact as well in their lifetimes.

    People are all over Michelle Obama's areola for comparing Trump to a divorced dad (which is about the mildest thing one could ever call that troll) and the British press are deliberately trying to hurt Harry by going after Megan (this time for the couple having the gall not to submit to that ridiculous post delivery photo-op outside of the hospital :rolleyes:).  The British press seems even more incensed that the Megan and Harry won't respond to their tantrums.

    There gets to be a certain point where you know that displaying outrage won't change anything, in fact, it gives detractors a smug sense of satisfaction, so better to channel the anger in other ways and so much the better if it comes off as insouciance. 

    I used to have a wicked temper when I was younger but over the years, I think meditation has also helped.  Thanks for the compliment though @Juliajms:).

  7. Not going to defend the stingy because obviously there are no Jehovah's Witnesses in this group but I personally have never claimed charitable donations on tax forms and I know some people consider it somewhat distasteful to make every charitable donation a "write-off". 

    Are all these folks, keeping their wallets/purses tight or is there some other reason, like investing in organizations that do work that helps individuals?  I would genuinely like for someone to ask each candidate why their charitable donations look the way they do.


    Of course, when the Obamas taxes showed how generous they had been in their charitable donations, they got criticized by some people who claimed it was for show and that charity's effects were limited compared to investing in entrepreneurial and training programs that benefit women, minorities and the poor, for example.  America, in general, was quite harsh on the Obamas in certain regards. Some still are.

  8. For people who many not know much about Peruvian politics, most of their leaders are either incarcerated or have been incarcerated.


  9. 2 hours ago, KMan101 said:

    Separation in stories does work. It worked very well for Y&R. I agree not "everyone" needs to interact. But I also like shows that have tight nit communities that interact and react to each other. One of the things I love about Y&R is that the families ARE in their bubbles (when on other shows we often BEG for family and friends to interact). But it also helps to have characters interact with others, at least in their age range.



    I've never understood not referring to history as much as you can. I even think at certain times, on other shows, flashbacks would really help drive a story point home. I guess some of it stems from the "fear" of fans wanting certain characters back because the old trope was that if someone was referred to a lot suddenly it meant they were coming back. IDK. It's weird how they often ignore so many things. Not really specific to Y&R either, all soaps are guilty of this. And I've always been amused how their life basically stops and they have no idea what's been going on in the soap town they return to. Especially in the day and age of social media and cellphones. I also always thought when someone exited, while it was a big deal and treated as such, people acted as if they would never communicate or see them again. LOL


    I loved when everyone was in everyone else's business in Oakdale, it really seemed to personify the fact that they lived in a smaller town before someone decided to expand it to a small city.  I enjoyed it when other characters would be in their kitchens and living rooms discussing an event that happened to another character. I looked forward to those interactions and see the speed of how news used to travel.  One of the sadder elements on ATWT in the last 15 years or so was how isolated characters had become, even those who had once been close.  Some of these characters no longer seemed to acknowledge events that happened in the lives of others.  It was almost as if they were hermetically sealed off from others.


    In terms of why today's soaps don't seem to want to employ flashbacks or even much acknowledgement of previous storylines and characters from the past.  One reason is ego.  The ego of the current executive and writing regimes don't want to remind viewers of times where their show was likely of higher, more entertaining quality. 

    Another reason, that just came to mind is the fact that some soaps don't have a ridiculous amount of recasts, while others do.  Sadly, the last decade or so of ATWT, they employed a farcical number of recasts, particularly for the characters of Craig, Casey and Adam.  ATWT has always been somewhat disposed to recasts (Lisa, Tom, Margo, Betsy, Hal) which could complicate the use of flashbacks, particularly for newer viewers who weren't there when the changes occurred but in the very late 90s and the 2000s, in particular, I got the notion that TPTB just didn't want the current audience see or know too much about the fact that the quality of the show from previous eras was so much better.

    When it came to most of P&G soaps, ego definitely ruled over most everything else (except budget).

  10. 11 minutes ago, antmunoz said:

    Wasn’t Cal Randolph the biological father of Iva Snyder?  YEAH! that storyline would’ve been hella interesting.  The Snyders loved some (almost) incest. 


    :lol: No, that was Cal Stricklyn.  Cal Randolph was killed off by Doug Cummings (or was it Doug's faithful assistant, Marsha Talbot?) sometime in 1985.  Randolph dated Maggie Crawford, Lyla's sister, at one time.

    Wait, Jared Carpenter was Iva's biological father!  Cal Stricklyn was Josh Snyder's biological father.  Technically Stricklyn was not related to Iva Snyder but since Josh was the one who raped Iva, any romantic leanings pursued between Iva and Cal Stricklyn would've been beyond the pale.


    I was talking about Cal Randolph, who was likely gone by the time Iva arrived in Oakdale.

    I look at some of the men that Iva was paired with, namely Jason Benedict and John Dixon and they seemed so much older than her.  At least Cal Randolph might have been comparable to Kirk Anderson, who I thought was Iva's best pairing.

  11. 22 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

    Oh she’s hardcore Nolefam... way, waaay more than me. I think the tennis media goes after Novak for many reasons, most of them B.S., but their mentioning his place of residence wouldn’t be first on my personal list of grievances. I just like seeing where everyone lives all laid out. I wish the chart was more extensive.


    Maybe it's just me but the chart seems a bit obsessive and wacky, LOL.


    Perhaps commentators keep mentioning that he lives in Monaco because that's where the tournament is and the commentators lack the ability to find something else to talk about (God forbid they actually be quiet sometimes!).

    Whenever the Williams Sisters play in Miami, the fact that they can drive to the tournament always gets mentioned.  Every. Single. Year.  Even though their origin story is outta Compton and Serena was born in Michigan, Miami being where they are based is always brought up before each and every one of their matches in Miami.  Yeah, it's tiresome but it is what it is.

    I just don't see why she's getting so bent out of shape about it.

  12. I think this person is being a little too reactive to everything that is said about Novak.  Djokovic does live in Monte Carlo, as have lots of other tennis players going back to the 1980s.  Boris Becker used to live in Monte Carlo and it was mentioned all the time.  And?

    As for the players who live in Switzerland, it gets mentioned frequently that they reside in Switzerland.  People have even made jokes about it.  I don't see Tsonga fans getting upset about the jokes and Tsonga's house got robbed while he was out of the country!

    It was well known that Mauresmo lived in London while an active player.  And anytime there is a European player who lives in Florida, I often hear about it.  

    No offense, but I think this person is being overly sensitive.

    Of all the things to complain about, this ain't it.


    By the way, Alex DeMinaur's mother is Spanish and the family moved to Spain when he was five but moved back to Australia when he was a teenager.  It would make sense if he spent time in Spain where his mother's family hails from.

    4 hours ago, ChitHappens said:

    Stan seriously fell asleep at the wheel because it's almost impossible to win a match from 06, 35 no matter who you are!  


    If anyone can achieve this feat, it would be Stan, LOL.

  13. I do think that the O.J. Simpson trial was disruptive to daytime soaps to a certain extent but I often feel that it is used as an excuse as to why the writing deteriorated during that time period.  ATWT obviously had circumstances that changed the show's trajectory--- their award-winning headwriter unexpectedly died. 

    The show had continuity issues in the years after the trial, but many of the stories were just plain dull!  You can't blame that on the Simpson trial. 

    In fact, in the decade after the trial, continuity issues became the norm on a lot of soaps.  That may have been more a function of shrinking budgets than anything else.  Even so, in the previous decade. there were many (now classic) episodes where the budgets were modest and the sets were cheap but the scripts were compelling and the performances were so good.

    I understand that the Simpson trial played a role in declining ratings, I'm just not sure that the impact was as irrevocable as people in the industry would have us believe.  How much of it was the trial vs. failure to invest in what it would take to continue produce great scripts.  How much of it was the headwriters and execs who didn't want to sublimate egos for the good of the show vs. actually reading up and studying the history of the shows they were working on and writing scripts that had good continuity, rather than seeking to put their own "stamp" on the show?


    The O.J. Simpson trial lasted for eleven months.  You mean to tell me that the impact would be so deep and lasting on soaps, most of which existed decades before the trial began?  Nah, there were other factors at work that many in the industry simply don't want to acknowledge and so the O.J. trial becomes an easy pat answer that serves as the de facto response.

  14. 21 hours ago, teplin said:

    What if the O.J. trial hadn't been televised?


    Or if it had just been relegated to Court TV, instead of wall to wall coverage, spread out across various networks?

    5 hours ago, Fevuh said:

    OJ - I think alot of shows would have lasted much longer


    This will probably be an unpopular opinion but IMO many of the soaps didn't try to compete by putting on their best quality material. 

    I can only speak for the shows that I watched but it seemed like some were 'marking time' with filler, believing that when the trial ended, the viewers would return.  Oops, many did not.


    The trial lasted about 11 months from November 1994- October 1995.  During that time,  on ATWW, Douglas Marland, the show's award winning HW, had already passed away earlier in the year during 1994 and the show got very messy after the new writing regime quickly burned through what was left of his material.  There was very little that was written during that period that was capable of competing with the drama of the O.J. Simpson trial.  JMO.

  • Create New...