FrenchBug82

That is 100% accurate but I think it has to do with executies catering to the lowest denominator for fear of antagonizing even a small part of what is left of the audience. They are afraid to move in any direction because there is so little audience left that they are afraid offending even a small chunk of it would be the end of it all. They don't see the potential upside of being bolder in telling stories about other demographics; that they could gain more with black and modern young audiences that they would lose with conservative housewives. It is unfortunate that social media, in that sense, has not managed to drive that point home. But that shows yet another way that social media in itself cannot move things if the underlying social change is not ready. And it doesn't, sadly, seem to be yet in the business offices of soap studios.

I mean this is a very interesting question but to me it conflates "social media" with broader changes in social mores. We tend to blame social media for a lot of societal ills - and by making it easier for people to communicate it does amplify voices that it once took a lot more time and work to grow. It is sometimes a good thing - like the progress popular culture is making on race or sexual tolerance - sometimes a bad thing - see the anti-vaxx disinformation and political conspiracy theories. But in the end social media only reflects the society it is part of. It is not social media itself that makes a lot of the material that once flew by harder to imagine today and inversely it is not social media that makes stuff that wouldn't be OK then OK now. Where I do think it might make a difference is to allow many opinions to express themselves so that executives realize it is not one-sided. It is usually the people pissed off about a storyline enough to write who get the last word so something like Neil/Victoria on Y&R back in the day was kiboshed because the racists cared enough to scream while everyone else shrugged because it was a pairing like any other. Today the pushback if racists tried it online would be a lot more vocal and I reckon might shore up the resolve of a writing team if they wanted to go there. But the underlying truth is that our society is also collectively a lot more open to interracial relationships as a non-issue fact of life than it was even twenty years ago. So social media is not just the only reason it would be easier today. Same for gay plots: it was once the homophobes who wrote in. Now the huge fanbase for these couples get to scream even louder online.

And they were also plenty explicit, much later, that the Al/Michael/Marcie plot on OLTL - shudder - was directly lifted out of Heaven Can Wait. What you said is exactly right but I think what is interesting about what j swift pointed out and the Tricia wedding is that it is not so much plot than visual references. Movie directors love to do that and reference each other; it is inexistent in soaps today as it requires some preparation and artistry that is not available to soap directors who work industrially. It is interesting that they invested the time and money for obscure references back then. I wonder how many directors inserted "shot compositions" meant to mimic something in a more famous piece and that went right over everyone's head.

I am not exactly shedding a tear for this even though I like Burgi and he made Ashland work better than I would have guessed at first. But My God Y&R... They have nothing. There is no there there anymore. No story. No new characters that stick. Nothing.

This might be an unpopular opinion since the Sheila/Lauren story has become mythical but I used to have a HUGE issue with the fact the battle was about Scott because I never bought much chemistry between Lauren and Scott and it felt to me like their couple was a plot device rather than a real pairing. I didn't mind him being a wet blanket because in the titanic battle around him, it was better than he not be as big-character as the two women were, and he was obviously handsome enough that I could buy Sheila being enamored. But the Lauren/Scott part of the equation always felt too weak for me to be that invested... which is probably why the story became stronger once Sheila's obsession became *Lauren* rather than Scott himself, which is counterintuitive because usually villains work better for me when they have a clear goal.

As @Kane @Khan and @amybrickwallace were recently discussing on the Loving thread, the look of one of Tricia's weddings on Loving was directly lifted from the Greta Garbo movie Camille. I don't know how the timing matches with the Summer of Silver but clearly explicit direct visual references to old movies was a thing in 80s ABC soaps.

And considering how sour Foxworth was on the job by then, I can't imagine he would have recommended his wife join a show he was miserable working at But nevertheless a fun thought!

So I have been spending the past 48 hours almost entirely on catching up the two-year-and-a-half I had missed. Reading up, finding key episodes on the Internet to watch and my first thought that I had sort of forgotten is... I had forgotten how strong their track record of attractiveness of male characters is. I would seriously jump the bones of 95% of them and that's a pretty steady ratio whatever year you pick. It is particularly striking because while they do have some traditional female beauties too, they also are a lot more comfortable hiring female actresses that are more "real-looking". I like the eye candy but the gap is very noticeable. And as stated before over and over, damn the turnover on this show is bananas. The number of characters that have come and gone in two years is shocking. Also Desi to Jojo regarding her pregnancy: "This isn't Texas; you have options here". As an American, this one hurt. But I feel caught up enough that I will be watching again when they come back (next week?). Tried watching Retribution but I am not a fan of that gritty directing style and crime-ish drama.

That's what I have been saying re: Days vs Y&R. At least Days is trying things. Sure, a lot didn't work but at least there was an effort made and I feel more rewarded, even when I cringe, than when watching Y&R which is just insulting these days.

Does anyone know the backstory of why Rachel is on the floor like that? Was she having health troubles at that time or something? Such a bizarre pose, especially with her legs up in the air like that

It hits the sweet spot of having filled one week worth of airtime with the comfortable illusion of characters doing things without, God forbid, crossing into the wild territory of things actually happening.

I don't think it is the comings and goings that are inherently problematic. They limit what can be told but that doesn't mean nothing good can be told. But you can't tell stories that require follow-up. They should have had Sami kidnapped for a long while until she was ready to give the show several months for a proper resolution - the entire arc The problem here was if they were only getting AS for two or three weeks, they should have taken that time to film scenes of Sami in captivity that they could sprinkle through the show for months to show she was still out there and keep the flame burning slowly until she had three or six months to give them for the escape and a proper end to that story.

Is he even listening to her when she talks? Cynthia *starts telling an anecdote about the plane scene* Alan *Interrupts halfway through to say how great the scenes were* Does he know what an anecdote is? Let her finish to the kicker, for God's sake!

(dupe)

Victoria, what did you do!!!!! An excuse for shirtless men, dumb special effects and overacted jokes but that is part of the history of the show? Scryber96 is going to see this, be "inspired" and BOOM. Expect to see Leo in a snake costume torturing sheepskin shirtless Ben and Ciara in a revisit of the Garden of Eden for Xmas 2022.

It was Paul and Nick who actually saved her. Back when Eric Braeden's ego and antiquated notions of mandhood hadn't yet cowed the writers into making Victor the all-knowing-deus-ex-machina of every storyline

And those photos are so filtered and airbrushed to the last hundredth of an inch, half of them don't even look like, nor do they flatter the actors*resses they are supposed to introduce. Plus if you are going to have your opening be just a gallery of photos, at least put the names of the actors to credit them. Make it have a point!

I know people hate Brooke with a passion but you can't deny she is a compelling character. As much as I think the latest predictable twist was lazy, the show is better for her not being just Hope's cheerleader. I really really really really want Bridget to visit when all of this come out. There is so much baggage there; B&B has mined the past very well these recent weeks so let's do full-bore soap here. And, yes, something must have happened at B&B behind the scenes in the past couple of months. Everything, including production values, is on the upswing. It has led to a handful of things being weirdly abruptly dropped (Finn/Paris, Carter/Katie) but let's hope it lasts

Me too. She is still my fave and I continue pining for her return despite the fact that it is not likely to happen. My first experience with that as a watcher was Gerald. I realize it is a bit crass but Harry McNaughton was playing him very gay so for his big romantic storyline to be with a woman and then asexuality felt like pulling the carpet from underneath us even if in itself the stories were fine. Does anyone know if there is an archive of episodes from the past few years anywhere online?

I had forgotten that he was named from the get-go. OK Then thanks for clarifying for me

Which is appropriate if they are going to pretend Luke is dead but not bringing Lucky (and, urgh, Ethan) back even temporarily for it is insulting if they really want us to take it at face value. Also: just because, if they are going to genuinely kill Luke, bring back Skye temporarily just to give ME a treat.

I tend to overthink things that are not on-screen a bit but couldn't her exagerated loyaltly to Roman in all of this be read in the context of her rivalry with Carrie? Trying to be the even better daughte but since it is not entirely felt and something of a demonstration she ends up overdoing it and clinging to it a lot longer than she had to. Also: I always assumed the John thing was a convenient one-stop excuse to resent her mother for things more embarassing to explicitly admit to like, once again, her jealousy of Carrie.

That's what I call the Logan Hayes syndrom. Those who know will know (think of B&B's Brooke sexual track record vs Taylor's sexual track record and tell me why Brooke is the slut) Was Roger Grimes even mentioned before the last season?

Really? Coz they never even wrote her as trying to seduce him in any way or even flirting and I always took her denegations to be very sincere. And talking about the Shapiros and their neglect of proper storytelling I always thought it was a glaring loophole in the last season that they never explained why Sable immediately felt so intensely loyal to Blake and Kristen, other maybe than to annoy Alexis. But it seems to me that as the possibility she might be after him was lampshaded by other characters so much and yet never even began to play out at all, that would be an indication that that was sincerely not her agenda. That is indeed a very very good point. I did the mental work myself: I mean Sable was gorgeous, glamorous and above all in control. Jason always came off to me as a sad sap. Connie seemed quite domineering too so I always figured that energy was what he had settled for: someone who would hold the castle for him, be the wife, the mother, take care of things with taste and let him be a "man". She had the right image and the right attitude and she was there and she took control and one thing led to another. The entire Connie/Sable hatred was about who got to control Jason and was a much more interesting triangle, if not romantic, than Frankie/Sable. But I will grant you this is all stuff that I developed in my head by "reading between the lines". They never tried to explain any of it which is made even worse by the Dynasty retcon that the kids weren't even Jason's.

Well, let's just say that men were not the point of the feud, I agree with that. Do you think that (whether it is about a man) plays a part into whether those stories work? Interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way. I generally hate when smart female characters are written to fight like cats and dog over a man, good or bad girls. Not that it doesn't happen in real life but it is demeaning both IRL and in fiction. I prefer when the dislike comes from some other place and vying for the same men happen to be a piece of the rivalry. So in that way, maybe you are right. Which brings us back to The Colbys: maybe they should have given the Frankie/Sable thing more layers than being just about Jason.