Broderick

2 hours ago, kalbir said:

For those who watched these original Y&R stories and their B&B versions, how would you compare the two:

Chris/Snapper relationship and the surrounding storylines (Chris's rape, Greg falling for Chris) vs. Caroline/Ridge relationship and the surrounding storylines (Caroline's rape, Thorne falling for Caroline).

Lance/Lucas/Leslie/Lorie quadrangle with Vanessa in the background vs. Ridge/Thorne/Caroline/Brooke quadrangle with Stephanie in the background.

KT Stevens (Vanessa Prentiss) was about 60 years old (but LOOKED even older -- smoked a lot of cigarettes, probably), and she played a very gothic, secretive, veiled, formidable, upper-crust character who seemed obsessed with the love life of her son.  Susan Flannery (Stephanie Forrester) is about a decade younger, still has a youthful look, is more caustic and sarcastic, and even though she appears to have a "crush" on Ridge, she's got a zillion other things going on in her life -- a romantic rival (Beth) who's love with her husband, an assistant (Margo) that she's suspicious of, a daughter (Kristen) that she has a problematic relationship with.  In other words, Stephanie seems more like a fully fleshed-out, well-rounded character who withstood the test of time, while Vanessa Prentiss was primarily a one-note villainess whose story ended in four or five years because there wasn't anything in her life except Lance.   Stephanie was just a better character (probably) than Vanessa, with a whole lot more storyline potential that was tapped.  It probably also works in Stephanie's favor that she's more upper-middle class snotty, and interacts with a variety of characters, while Vanessa was more exclusively wealthy and was a recluse.  Vanessa's social reclusiveness limited her storyline potential.  

I really liked Trish Stewart as Chris, but to me Joanna Johnson as Caroline is an even more appealing performer.  She's just beautiful.  While Caroline is a bit more high-maintenance than Chris, she also seems slightly more neurotic, and is just sorta more interesting.  Her leaving the show was a real loss.  It's hard to compare Snapper with Ridge.  William Grey Espy (Snapper) was such an interesting, aloof, laconic character, and Ronn Moss is -- well -- he's not much of anything.  Jim Houghton (Greg) wasn't the greatest actor in the world by a long shot, and neither was Clayton Norcross (Thorne), but again, I felt as though Snapper and Greg were far more developed and interesting than Ridge and Thorne.     

On 11/19/2021 at 4:34 PM, Chris B said:

One thing I’ve loved about 1987 is that they keep rotating the focus so even though you’re waiting for long term pay offs, the show still has things going on. It’s very well paced and unfolding like a page turning book. Bill Bell did a great job when you consider he was also at the helm of Y&R at the same time.  

The storylines really ARE a lot more varied and interesting than what we see nowadays.  

Hope someone saves that Jill Flashback to the vault.  It's got that Mystic Moods Orchestra "Universal Minds" playing in it at one point, and I fear it'll be snatched off You Tube because of that.  SONY/Y&R has been awfully careful to remove that music the past few years whenever they re-air a scene that originally included it.  

There's an old saying that "absence makes the heart grow fonder".  Soap writers used to understand this, and after a major storyline, a character was sidelined for weeks (or even months) before moving into a new storyline.  But somewhere along the line, most of the writers (including Bell) adapted the adage that "if this character works, he/she should be a constant on the show". 

MOST of Bell's characters should've been given a rest and then worked back into the storyline as needed.  There should've never been a Shari Shattuck or a Kurt Costner or a Rafael Delgado or a Luan or a maid with a mop on her head stalking Nikki's OB/GYN-Husband, because in my opinion all of those characters were a sign of grasping at straws for established characters instead of "resting them" and creating something new.  Bell knew how to create characters, but I suspect he got tired and lazy.   

Back in the early days of Y&R, the "A-list" storylines involved Snapper & Chris, and the Leslie-Brad-Lorie triangle.  The storyline with Jill going to work for Mrs. Chancellor was at best a B-level story.

Likewise, in the late 1970s, the escapades of Nikki and Paul and their venereal diseases was definitely a C-level storyline at the most.

But as the show moved from the half-hour format into the Y&R of the 1980s, it was (strangely) those four characters -- Kay Chancellor, Jill Foster, Nikki Reed, and Paul Williams -- who connected the "lost" Y&R of the 1970s with the Jabot-Newman Y&R of the 1980s and 1990s.  If you'd asked most viewers in 1979 who'd propel the show forward in the coming years, these are four characters you likely wouldn't have chosen to last for decades.    

5 hours ago, amybrickwallace said:

Peter Reckell? How long after leaving ATWT did he book DAYS?

Seems like old Bo was on World Turns from sometime in 1980 till maybe early 1982.  He disappeared into nighttime guest star roles for a few months, and then reappeared on Days in 1983, I believe.   He definitely improved during his move from New York to Los Angeles.  His acting on World Turns was a little bit strange, lol.  

Eric Hollister (Bo Reckell) seemed to be impersonating Peter Brady's famous "pork chops and applesauce" line on the Brady Bunch.  Brad Hollister was downright pervy-looking, and Dee seemed about ready to swoon.  None of that worked exactly right, lol.    

It's the strangest thing.  When someone tells you, "That was a really difficult period for me", 99.9% of the world's population would respond, "What made it so difficult?" or "How did you overcome the difficulties?" or something along those lines.  But instead Alan just sits there, smiles like a simpleton, mumbles, "Ok, wow, that's crazy; let me tell you about my nephew!"  It's like he's a space alien who's never heard two human beings have a conversation before.   

56 minutes ago, amybrickwallace said:

Same here.

Same with me.  I'm glad Alan can arrange the interviews, but I'm sorry he's not a better conversationalist.  None of us is expecting an Oprah Winfrey or a Barbara Walters, but if he could just carry on a normal conversation, pick-up a lead and go with it, instead of bouncing back to his prepared remarks or going on some irrelevant tangent, it'd be nice.  

Josh Griffith usually avoids over-the-top melodrama in his writing.  That's about the only similarity that I've noticed.  Their styles seem completely different to me.  

Wow!  Thank you!  Wasn't expecting another one so quickly!  

On 11/2/2021 at 10:50 PM, Paul Raven said:

I know Bill bell respected Wes Kenney but this article and others at the time seem to credit Kenney with storyline decisions.

I would imagine Bill might listen to Wes, but surely Kenney couldn't just say 'Kill off Cash' and Bill would acquiesce?

It would be interesting to know how that relationship worked.

Much has been written over the years about the relationship between Tennessee Williams (writer) and Elia Kazan (director).   Tennessee Williams (like William J. Bell) was a well-known and gifted writer who didn't *need* any certain director or producer to handle his scripts.  Elia Kazan (like Wes Kenney) was a respected and award-winning director who could choose to collaborate with virtually any author he chose.  But Tennessee Williams often reworked his own scripts, over and over again, to gain the approval of Elia Kazan, whom he knew would make them commercially and critically successful.  He wrote in his diary, "I don't WANT to make these changes, but if I don't, I'm afraid Kazan will lose interest and walk away."  Elia Kazan, likewise, would receive a 100% ready-to-direct script from a lesser known screenwriter or playwright, and he'd toss it aside in favor of spending hours and hours helping Tennessee Williams work out the kinks in one of his scripts, knowing that once finished, the Williams script would be the superior product.   

That's the relationship I believe existed between Bell and Kenney.  Bell was, without a doubt, one of the most perceptive writers working in the genre.  But with the hour format, which he detested, he'd sort of lost his footing.  John Conboy took advantage of the struggle.  Bell began giving in to his personal excesses -- writing in circles at times, introducing characters who lacked a clear focus, changing his mind about storylines mid-stream, digging too heavily into some characters while glossing over other storylines entirely.  In many ways, the show was VERY MESSY from 1980 till 1982, although it had its isolated beautiful moments, as it always had.  John Conboy was preoccupied with developing his own show (completely parroting the Bell formula of wealthy family/working-class family with young and beautiful stars in the main roles).  Conboy didn't seem at all invested in Y&R -- and his solution to Bell's writing struggle was simply to cloak the entire product in tits & ass titillation to disguise the meandering and subpar writing.   I'm pretty sure we've discussed this before on the board -- the awkward braless scenes that popped-up in virtually every episode from this period, the almost comical hip-flexing and bicep-posing the actors were expected to do to make the show interesting.  Even the soap magazine reviewers (such as John Kelly Genovese) were commenting, "Daytime's golden soap has ventured into the world of the tacky and the cheap." 

I believe Bell was looking to Wes Kenney to help him right the ship and remake Y&R into the more tastefully sensual product that it had been prior to 1980.  And I believe Wes Kenney would've rather critiqued and corrected William J. Bell's flaws than work on a more well-oiled soap written by a lesser talent than Bell. 

There's no doubt that Bell was in charge of the writing, and Kenney was in charge of the production values, as evidenced by Kenney's balancing of Conboy's "film noir lighting" into a brighter, more modern-looking serial.  But I expect Kenney DID make some suggestions about storylines, and Bell, realizing the ratings were dropping, likely listened to him.  And as others have pointed out, Melody Thomas's surprise pregnancy meant making certain changes to the storylines that had existed pre-pregnancy.  It seemed fairly necessary to bump-off Jerry Cashman, and of course Kay Chancellor got a new beau in the less-than-charismatic Mark Tapscott.  The soap press at the time rejoiced at this development ("After a series of distasteful assignments -- Joe LaDue, Victor Mohica, and John Gibson -- Jeanne Cooper finally has a love interest worthy of her.")  I disagreed; I thought Jeanne Cooper had great chemistry with John Gibson's Cash character, but the message that a still attractive 50-year-old woman needed to PAY MONEY to a young man for sex seemed a strange message to send in a medium geared primarily to female viewers.  That seems to be the type of thing that Wes Kenney pointed out to Bill Bell, and Bell then rectified the problems.  No doubt, their collaboration, like the collaboration of Tennessee Williams and Elia Kazan, worked for both of them, and Y&R quickly recovered from its ratings slump.  

4 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

I think the reason the 1795 story worked was because the show wisely used Victoria as a guide.  The audience had an attachment to her since she was the introduction to the present day Collins family so it made sense she was the intro to the 1795 branch of the family.

That's the reason the introduction to Barnabas and later 1795 worked..because the show used the relatable outsider (Victoria) to usher it in.

For sure -- like the audience at home, Miss Winters was the "outsider looking in" on all the weirdness and spookiness.   She helped us to understand (and care about) the present day Collins family when the show premiered, and she helped us to care about the 1795 members of the family as well when she met them.  

Still, what a creative risk to remove virtually every character off the canvas in one big Friday afternoon swoop and leave them all in suspended animation, unseen by the audience, for four months or more.  

On 10/27/2021 at 10:12 PM, KMan101 said:

They should make Noah bisexual. I don't think they have the guts really but own it if they do. They won't though.

Perhaps they really have this time.   With the word "lover" in the spoiler (rather than "girlfriend"), they seem to be making the mysterious person less gender specific.  

Also I read an article about the Nu Noah in which it was stated that he "might find love in an unlikely place".  Not sure why a dude would be considered "unlikely", but I'm getting the impression his "unlikely lover" is either a man or a fleshlight.  

5 hours ago, Franko said:

Dark Shadows going all-in on the supernatural with the introduction of Barnabas. Talk about an answered Hail Mary!

Dark Shadows definitely gets the award for taking a chance.  Who on earth would've thought a vampire would become a successful leading man on a 1967 daytime soap?  lol.  

They took another huge risk, as well -- the 1795 storyline.  After about a year on the air, they completely ditched every character on the show (except Victoria Winters and Barnabas Collins), left them all sitting unseen around a séance table for months and months, and introduced the audience to an entirely new slate of characters from a different century.  And they went into it blazing, with no intention of showing the previous characters until the 1795 storyline was finished.  This move had the potential to alienate and confuse viewers and result in the show's cancellation.  Instead, it propelled them to higher ratings than they'd seen before.   

A lot of the negative press B&B got in its early years was probably undeserved.  I recall an early review of the show in which Caroline, Brooke and Kristen were referred to as "B&B's interchangeable blondes".  There's nothing really "interchangeable" about them.  Each of the three characters has a distinctive personality, appearance, and storyline of her own.   It's not as though they're remarkably similar actresses or characters who'd be confused with one another.

I also recall reading that some of the actors had "questionable" abilities.  Aside from Ronn Moss -- say what you will about him, lol -- the only real HOWLINGLY bad actor that I've noticed so far is the guy who plays Donna's boyfriend Mark.  He's awful.  But even there, the emphasis seems to be on his preppy looks and vapid personality, with Rocco referring to him as "Mister Cool" and so forth.  If he were a more animated actor, the storyline probably wouldn't be as effective.     

E.F.  Irna Phillips was such a volatile person.  She and I had many disagreements about the Lisa character.  One instance in particular stands out. 

A.L.  Wow.  Ok.  So did you expect Meg Ryan to make it big?  

Thanks so much for providing these for us!  

Bryton James (Y&R) has been Bryton McClure and just plain old Bryton.  

Bill Bell's leading ladies were always good about passing away with dignity after a romantic evening.  

It's hard to remember the exact number of days that Y&R was pre-empted, but it does seem like it was a couple of weeks or more.  The main thing I remember is racing to the archaic old barber shop my dad visited to have my overly-processed Big 80s hair whacked into an Ollie North cut.  lol.  

I feel like they just wanted to use Heather Tom and gave her a role (Katie) without putting much thought into it.  Likewise they probably cast Jennifer Gareis as Donna, because they thought she slightly resembled Brooke.  They seemed to toss the original concept and personalities of Donna & Katie out the window with the recasts.  

3 hours ago, will81 said:

 I doubt Alden had much power to veto anything Smith wanted.

 

Same here.  I don't think Jack Smith and Kay Alden were a "team".   Jack Smith seemed to be in control, and the show was subject to all his absurd whims.   

There's no question that Alden had some lousy storylines (Sperm capers, etal), but Jack Smith's stories were awfully distinctive, as they all seemed like something an adolescent boy would write.  Juvenile crap.  The most damaging in the long run (I think) was that stupid mess with Jill and Kay, which he probably spent five minutes crafting.  As Paul Raven said above, normally something that ill-planned and foolish would've been dismissed immediately by a grown person.  

I don't have much respect for Jack Smith's writing.  It was a "slash & burn" style of writing that didn't seem to include anticipating long-term consequences of decisions.   

When he joined Alden in the early 2000s as a co-head writer, we had all that nonsense of Kay being Jill's mother.  Seriously, what was the point?  The entire thrust of their 30-year rivalry was that they weren't biologically related, but couldn't stay out of each other's lives.  So the audience already considered them  "de facto family" without having to retcon a foolish "forgotten" pregnancy.  Jack Smith appeared to have no perception of irony or subtlety.   Once the decision was made to create a biological mother/daughter relationship between them, the more fluid love/hate, mother/daughter, arch rivals/old friends element of their storyline was gone.  Jack Smith, if he had any brains, would've looked down the road a year or two and realized that he was handcuffing two of his central characters for years to come.  Stupid decision.  And he made PLENTY of other stupid choices.    

So much for Beth Logan.  6/02/1987 -- "The role of Beth is now being played by a whiner."  Didn't realize it would happen quite that fast.