Videnbas

On 10/28/2021 at 6:54 PM, DramatistDreamer said:

Revisiting these early episodes, in comparison with the recent seasons '00s, it just seems like the Brad Bell episodes that I have watched seem much more superficial.

This is definitely true of the current episodes and the past few decades. The Bill Bell episodes take a lot more time building characters and playing every beat in a story. 

5 hours ago, Sasha66 said:

 

I am not sure how I feel about this. Maybe a recast is what is needed to make the Taylor character viable again, but the character history is what it is, and the mess that they made of Taylor post 2005 can't really be undone. Taylor getting away with shooting Bill and leaving him to die, as well as her part in the illegal adoption of Beth, are very problematic for a character who is supposed to be essentially a "good" person with good judgement.

On the other hand, Taylor is a character I feel is "recastable" (I am currently watching the 1990 episodes with the temporary Taylor recast and they work OK). The new actress looks the part and will hopefully work well in the role. And I do like that the show seems to moving in a direction where several legacy characters from the show's best years are being brought back (Sheila, Deacon and now Taylor), I hope this trend continues because those old characters, many of which were created by Bell Sr, have more layers than the ones invented more recently.

I have currently reached October 1990 (I think) and there are some things that just strike me:

The Jake storyline - wow, I can't believe the show did such a serious storyline and actually explored it at depth! I can only imagine the mess Brad Bell would make of such a storyline today. But Bell Sr treated it with a lot of sensitivity (even though the ending, as I recall, was a bit of a cop-out).

The Julie subplot - I have to admit this has me confused. So Bill Sr is being blackmailed by Sally who happens to know about his porn magazines. But how is hiring Julie to seduce Clarke going to help Bill get ammunition against Sally? I don't really follow his plan and I don't know if I'm missing something of if there's a little plot hole here.

Eric/Ridge/Stephanie/Taylor/Brooke - so funny to see Stephanie scheme against Taylor in favor of Brooke/Ridge! It's easy to forget that Stephanie was supportive of Brooke/Ridge for a substantial part of the early years - first because it kept Ridge away from Caroline while she was married to Thorne, and then because it kept Brooke away from Eric when Stephanie hoped to reconcile with him.

And isn't Brooke's pregnancy unusually long (at least for a soap)?

19 hours ago, sheilaforever said:

The modeling story got pretty good with time and I liked the Rocco/Donna/Nick dynamic. As well as Donna & Bill - dropping this potential did not make mich sense, IMO.

Yes, Donna/Bill was an interesting dynamic. He seemed genuinely smitten by her and she was torn between wanting revenge and being grateful to him for giving her a chance at Spencer. 

1 hour ago, sheilaforever said:

A LOT if I recall correctly. I wasn't too thrilled about Macy's Bikini Bar days, though. Maybe it will be different to watch it as an adult...

I am actually looking forward to Macy's Bikini Bar days. I think that time period added a lot of depth to her character, in terms of fleshing out some tendencies that had always been there but weren't fully realized before (her role as a professional singer, as well as her darker self-destructive side). If it weren't for her Bikini Bar days, Macy would be neither a performer nor an alcoholic, and those were arguably two of her most character-defining traits.

I have the feeling the Ridge/Brooke/Caroline/Thorne situation was always meant to end with a violent or tragic confrontation between the brothers. 

To me, everything leading up to Thorne shooting Ridge felt like the "first act" of B&B. We got to know the characters and the main conflicts, and then starting in late '88 or early '89, things started becoming more intense, in several storylines, and we began seeing the payoff.

5 hours ago, AbcNbc247 said:

Made it to episode 1300 and I have a few observations and questions...

Sheila showed up on B&B around the time I was born.

I love how Thorne and Macy would just spontaneously burst out into song from time to time  

Blake is still an insufferable douche and I couldn't be happier that his time on the show is soon coming to an end 

And good God, Hunter Tylo really was one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen. It really is a shame what she did to her face.

Did Pierre leave yet? I love that little guy.

And, was there any follow up on who stole the BeLief formula? Was there ever a definitive answer as to who stole it? Last we saw, Jake said he was the one who did it, but it seemed he was lying to get Macy off the hook. By now it seems like the storyline's been dropped.

Oh yes, Pierre! He was such a sweet character! So warm and friendly, and an entertainer. Every scene he is in, he puts a smile on my face. 

It's funny with the BeLieF theft, the show didn't have many loose ends in the early years, but this was definitely one of them. Such a major plot point, and it was never resolved. I still think Jake confessed only to get Macy off the hook, which basically leaves Clarke as the one remaining suspect. But it was never confirmed whether he did it.

And yes, Hunter Tylo was stunning back in the day. Still was until 2002. And the character was well written until that point. Just imagine how differently we would remember Taylor's character if she had stayed dead after Sheila shot her! I really think her second resurrection was a mistake.

The less said about Blake, the better. I can never unsee his seizures/panic attacks/bouts of rabies/whatever those things were supposed to be.

I loved Thorne and Macy's spontaneous singing! It was like the entire soap operated according to a certain set of fictional rules, with a pretty high level of "realism" (unless we're talking explicit fantasy sequences), and in come Thorne and Macy and suddenly those rules don't apply to them. It's funny how at first the writers tried to find realistic ways to make them sing (like the charity benefit, or them singing together while Thorne played the piano) and then, pretty early on, they gave that up and went "oh well, just let them sing!", threw realism out the window and just let Thorne and Macy be in a movie musical of their own while the rest of the show stayed in the soap genre. 

1 hour ago, Chris B said:

See I find the show much better than I'd heard from the early years, but the one part that doesn't work for me is the Logan family. Brooke is a successful character from the gate, Storm has potential if given more to do and I like the concept of Beth although the actress (I'm still on the original) is weak. Katie and Donna are complete duds for me. I don't know if either gets better, but Katie's storyline is one note and Donna hasn't made much of an impression although the actress seems better than the one playing Katie. I can't see myself missing this family based on how dull they all are. You can tell he was inspired by the Foster family, but they had a lot more going for them that this family does. Snapper and Greg had real stories and personality and so did Jill and Liz. I feel like the writing is letting the Logan's down, but mostly they were just horribly cast outside of Brooke. Beth could've been a long term viable competition for Eric, but you need someone who can stand up next to Susan Flannery and John McCook and this first actress ain't it.

That is an interesting observation. I do think the Logans worked in the early years, but I also think it was the right decision to shift focus away from them when the Spectras came to the show because it made the show take place in "one world" (the fashion world) rather than two. But the early Logan years were necessary to create a backstory for Brooke and a strong foundation for the Stephanie/Brooke rivalry (I still think this was the main goal of teasing Eric/Beth because romantically that relationship never really went anywhere, being based mainly on nostalgia, but it did serve the purpose of making Stephanie and Brooke enemies).

Personally, I found Donna more dynamic than Storm. Storm rarely carried a storyline while Donna had several storylines of her own during those first few years. Katie I'd put in the same category as Grandma Logan - mainly there to create the "family" feeling. 

3 hours ago, Forever8 said:

And wasn't Donna a journalist or at least a journalism student when Carrie Mitchum was in the role? Years later they acted as if JG Donna was some "blonde bimbo" who never been anywhere higher than high school. 

Yes, at least for a while she pretended to be an intern at Spencer Publications and she wrote an article that Bill found genuinely impressive. Donna was really ruined by the recast when they pretended she was just a "dumb blonde".

23 minutes ago, Liberty City said:

Switching from Clayton Norcross to Jeff Trachta was such a downgrade. For me, Norcross was the best in the role, followed by Winsor Harmon. Do we know why the switch between Norcross and Trachta happened? Or is it another Judith Baldwin/Nancy Burnett situation?
Thankfully, William J. Bell had this unspoken rule (at least I believe it was unspoken) to not recast a character more than three times.

Actually, I think recasting Thorne with Jeff Trachta worked really well, even though I liked Norcross as well. Trachta's Thorne had the same softness and sweetness that Norcross did, but added a more humorous and extraverted side to Thorne which worked well in his interactions with Macy and the Spectras (in fact, it was needed to match them). I also think Thorne's scenes with Stephanie became more interesting after the recast.

For me, recasting Trachta with Harmon was far more jarring because his Thorne was completely different from the character played by either Trachta or Norcross. We got a less refined version of Thorne, and the qualities that made Thorne Thorne - the softness, the contrast to Ridge's playboy style, the vulnerability - were downplayed.

20 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

And that was it for recasts until Clayton Northcross was dropped.

I have to say, I almost miss this early attitude towards recasts. The writers clearly had a story to tell with the character and weren't dependent on any one actor to tell it. It's a refreshing change from the current actor-centered writing where the story tends to be adjusted according to which actors are available. 

It's an interesting question when the decline of Brooke's character began. 

I'd say she was pretty consistent for many years. She was fascinated by the Forresters and drawn to Ridge. I think even her brief infatuation with Eric was believable in terms of a rebound (with a little subconscious revenge on Stephanie thrown in).

For me, the moment when Brooke went off the rails was when she suddenly set her sights on Thorne in 1999 and proclaimed he was her new destiny. That was just such a shift for the character who up until that point had been all about Ridge (with Thorne firmly in the friend zone). The fact that Thorne was her third Forrester didn't exactly help. It just felt unhealthy at best, and out of character at worst, for both characters.

After that, Brooke became the scandalous woman who will sleep with anyone no matter who he is married to, including family members. And that part of her grew bigger as her other roles (as a professional woman and a mother) were pushed to the background.

I also feel this coupling signaled a shift in the show as a whole towards a more "anything goes" attitude in terms of which characters could be paired up. 

3 hours ago, Liberty City said:

Yes yes. It was such a feud and conceptual idea that William J. Bell should've gone further with.

William Bell seems to have had a fascination with long lost daughters returning with problematic relationships with their mother. Kristen, Macy and Felicia were all introduced this way. Interestingly, each of those mother-daughter relationships was a "variation of the theme" with a different dynamic.

5 hours ago, Liberty City said:

No clue. I will have to pay attention to the end credits when I get to 1993 episodes.

According to a quick search, Bradley Bell received his first credit as head writer for episode #1.1550 on June 2, 1993. John F. Smith was credited as associate head writer.

I hope we get to these episodes! It would be interesting to see if it's possible to detect any difference in the writing once Bradley Bell takes over.

Of course, the major storylines may have been planned months or years in advance, so some of what follows may already have been thought out by Bell Sr.

Also, I've often wondered about what kind of role John F. Smith played in the writing of the show for its first 15 years or so. It may or may not be a coincidence, but the point where I feel the show began going downhill coincides almost exactly with his no longer being credited as associate head writer (or "executive storyline consultant", whatever that is) in 2002/2003.

(I always think of the Portofino location shoot as the last big hurrah of the "old"/"classic" B&B era. From 2003 on, there was a very noticeable shift in the tone and the focus of the show as Jackie and Nick were introduced and became a major part of the show, while Sally and her clan were phased out.) 

Once about every five years, I am reminded why I keep watching B&B in spite of myself. Suffering through endless repetitive episodes with no storylines and no character development, hoping for a glimmer of hope, waiting for something good to happen but it never does, and then suddenly, there is this unexpected moment where the show manages to be randomly brilliant.

Sheila/Deacon is one of those rare moments of brilliance.

Putting these two in a scene together just works, instantly. And it's definitely all thanks to Sean Kanan and Kimberlin Brown. I still think the writing itself is really not that good - the scripted dialogue could be subtler and more intelligent (after all, both Sheila and Deacon have always been quick-witted characters and are certainly capable of cleverer insults than calling each other "crazy" or "an idiot") and the basic premise (they are both outcasts and they should team up to get what they want) was repeated a few too many times. But on the other hand, Sheila and Deacon could read the phone book to each other and those scenes would still be magic. They are just that good.

I don't have very high hopes for the actual storyline. But for now, it's a joy just watching these two powerhouse veterans, with their long and rich history on the show, simply do their thing.

10 hours ago, JamesF said:

This recent batch of episodes from 1992 marks a real repositioning of stories and the canvas and I wondered if it was acknowledged as a revamp of sorts at the time?

The long game and absolutely delicious irony of where Brooke/Stephanie's machinations get them with their men after 5 years (i.e. out on their arses) is just genius and I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of Bill Bell plan to that aspect of the story. It truly feels like it's moving into a new chapter. Stephanie's turning on Brooke at the wedding is the punctuation point.

However amongst them, a lot else is changing. To be honest, the show from late 1991 to this point did feel like it was spinning its wheels. Clarke/Sally, Margo/Bill, Jake/Thorne/Macy/Felicia - there were great moments but it was surprisingly slow and repetitive and I think the exits of some of those players was needed. The Karen/Blake story is also just very weird and smells of a half baked idea that just didn't translate from page to screen. (As an aside, I only ever knew Macy from 1995 onwards but watching her evolution, she is such an oddball character. She also has this remarkably dated look to her that the other females don't, like she's stuck in 1989).

Anyway, I noted from ep 1290 onwards, there's all this sudden energy. Sheila adds immediate spice, Sly and Zack, Kristen's return, the stunt of Felicia running Zack down. It's a definitely, positive shift.

I think there was always this parallel between Brooke and Stephanie, right from the start. They were linked from the beginning because they were the only ones who knew of each other's manipulations. For example, BOTH of them knew about Eric/Beth and covered it up in front of Ridge, but for opposite reasons. And both of them manipulated letters in order to win or hold on to the man they wanted (Stephanie by sending an anonymous letter to the Logans about their father's whereabouts, Brooke by hiding Caroline's letter to Ridge), and got dumped when the truth about their manipulations became known. I think part of the intriguing dynamic in the beginning between Stephanie and Brooke is that in terms of visible power and status, they are worlds apart, but take away those superficial aspects, and they are very evenly matched.

In fact, going back to watch from the beginning (I am now at 1990), I have a feeling that Beth/Eric was never meant to be the real story. Beth/Eric was simply the catalyst for building a long term rivalry between Stephanie and Brooke.

Blake was an odd character. I never did understand exactly what was wrong with him with his sudden attacks of - something?

As for Macy, I actually found her among the most "human" and relatable characters on the show. But I think the key to her character is that emotionally, she is a child - she can be pretty naive at times and when bad things happen (basically 90% of the time with Macy) she can't really cope on her own but needs someone to put her back together (usually Sally). She is loving and has a good heart but her lack of "toughness" makes her very vulnerable, even to the point of being self-destructive. I do have to wonder though if the Macy who evolved was really the same character the writers had in mind at first or if they changed her in response to how Bobbie Eakes played her. It seemed in the beginning that they had initially intended to make her more assertive and "Sally-like", but instead she became basically the opposite of Sally.

I think where we are at right now, we are heading into the peak of B&B, or at least the years with the most "action". Though I must say I have loved the slow start of the 80s episodes because of the clear direction in long term storytelling and characterization.

4 hours ago, Marquise said:

Everytime I rewatch any episode from the golden era of B&B (at least for me) 1987-1995 I see small details that Bill Bell planed for future stories! In the dialogs, in the looks  - Zack and Felicia, Brooke's pregnancy, Sheila starting to like Eric, Clark thinking about Kristen, the anniversery's date and counting till 2 years! (just stay tuned )....

I couldn't agree more, Marquise! It really makes it a joy to rewatch these years knowing what will happen, because you can see all these seeds being planted, sometimes years in advance! It is very satisfying knowing there's actually a purpose for everything that's being shown. 

11 hours ago, Sasha66 said:

What did you all think about the bold years 1994 and 1995? Do you think they were strong periods

At the time, and the way I remember them, they were my favorite years of the show! I loved Taylor's Morocco storyline, Thorne and Macy's singing career and Ivana's murder, and Sheila's increasingly desperate actions. I really hope to be able to watch these years again and see if they are as good as I remember. They were "high stakes" years with an unusual concentration of serious "life and death" situations. The earthquake (or was that late 1993?), Taylor "dying", Jack having a heart attack, the explosion in the lab, Sheila killing Jay Garvin, Sheila keeping James in a dungen and then trying to kill everyone including herself, Macy having cancer and covering it up to go on a concert tour, Anthony murdering Ivana and almost killing Sally and Macy while Thorne was wrongfully arrested and facing a potential death penalty, Jasmine falling down the elevator shaft at Spectra, and so on. 

2 hours ago, sheilaforever said:

I’m super stoked as well. Looking forward to this a lot. Everything post episode 1300 is really hard to come by. Thankfully, episodes 2200+ is all in the vault already. I’m currently just 10 episodes shy to have rewatched the entire year 1996. I will soon publish episode counts. Meaning we are getting closer and closer to a Jason47 style database for B&B.

I know, I can't wait for us to get past episode 1300 and hopefully get the rest of the year 1992 and beyond! That is my favorite era of the show and I have never been able to find it online except for the odd episode or clip. I used to watch the German episodes but they ended at 1300 and then there's a huge gap.

1 hour ago, ChickenNuggetz92 said:

I don't mind having the Vault shared - in fact, it opens up more opportunities for potential contributors! It's part of the reason why I had the idea of purchasing a OneDrive business account - to break down the cost barrier of accessing these episodes and making them more accessible to soap enthusiasts. Additionally, because OneDrive isn't primarily a video streaming/sharing platform like YouTube, it is much less likely to be flagged by the copyright police.

That being said, depending on the mode of communication, use your judgment. As long as there aren't potential powers that be that are lurking in Soap social media groups, sharing the link is completely fine. On the other hand, it might not be the best idea to directly provide the link on the B&B official YouTube channel in the comments - Casey Kasprzyk is very active on that account so really Gilson is just shooting themselves in the foot. But if you want to deter commenters from purchasing episodes from Gilson in a discreet manner, just do something along the lines of "I can provide access to the same episodes for free, unlike Gilson. PM me for details via (insert platform)".

Also, Gilson seems to be quick at deleting my comments LOL so don't directly reply under him.

Thanks for clarifying! Yes, I guess my main concern was if TPTB might be lurking somewhere where the link is posted. But, like you suggested, the "PM me for details" is a safer and more discreet way of sharing if the forum is very public.

7 hours ago, ChickenNuggetz92 said:

You can always do the following:

 

Gilson Seraphim: I have Y&R 1998-1999, pm me for details.

And respond with the following:

"Or you can access them here for free *paste vault link*"

 

It's a sure-fire deterrent.

Lol! But, seriously, how "discreet" do we need to be about the Vault? I can't help but feel it's almost too good to be true, and wonder if it is truly safe or could get taken down like those old episodes on Youtube, so I am very hesitant to spread the link outside this forum. 

7 hours ago, BoldRestless said:

It was great. Brooke's character was already too fargone after she slept with Thorne. It made sense to go to the next level by having her screw Deacon. There were was no dignity to lose. Classic B&B soapy stuff.

I agree. Brooke's character crossed a line when she went for Thorne. Until that point, you could (possibly) justify her actions by her being in love with Ridge (and temporarily rebounding to Eric and other men). Her consistency in her romantic love for Ridge over the years was the thing that kept the character together and made her human. It was possible (at least for me) to view her in a positive light.

But when she went after Thorne - the third Forrester man - so aggressively, and pretty much out of the blue, that really signaled a shift in her character (or maybe exposed certain traits of her character that had been less obvious, and possible to overlook, until that point). During that storyline, it became clear that her idea of "love" was really an obsession, and that it was completely selfish in nature. Brooke had held grudges and had many confrontations with her rivals in the past, but she was usually the underdog and I never before saw the kind of intentional and unwarranted cruelty she showed with Macy. In every other rivalry up until that point, it was at least a possible interpretation to see Brooke as the injured party (depending on your perspective). But with Macy (and in subsequent rivalries with Bridget and Katie), that interpretation was no longer possible - Brooke had clearly become the aggressor, hurting other women without provocation and without remorse.

1 hour ago, FrenchBug82 said:

I concur with what everyone said. And I do agree it is for the best that they moved Brooke out of the romantic leading lady role that might come off as silly now that she is a bit older (still beautiful and all but the stuff she used to do that was already immature would look ridiculous on a woman in her 40s/50s),

I personally think they are not leaning on the Steffy/Brooke dynamic enough. There are enough good reasons for them to eye each other warily, enough ties between them that they can't walk away, and enough resemblance between them that the animosity could make a lot of sense - and it would mirror the show dynamic where Bell is clearly writing Steffy as the lead the way he used to with Brooke.
They are only exploring it in the context of Hope and, Brooke as marital counselor, setting aside the (dis)merits of her advice, is not really compelling material.
I really wish they would find ways to pit Steffy and Brooke against each other in ways that cut deeper and that have nothing to do with Hope or Ridge (although they'd get dragged into it) the way the Stephanie/Brooke dislike ended up being driven by many things other than Ridge and Eric over the years.
That would be my vote for the "counter-Brooke".

What I really don't understand is, the other month they had this scene where Brooke made a sudden PR move to declare herself and Ridge co-CEOs of FC. Whatever happened to that idea? Did they just drop it? Because a FC power struggle would have pitted Steffy and Brooke against each other in a major way (even though it was introduced in a way that made no sense whatsoever).

1 hour ago, divinemotion said:

We need an older woman... Stephanie... type or even Jackie... just very older... who is obsessive and villianish-like, but not the Sheila type. We need a strong female conflict... and not Hope and Steffy. Maybe Brooke and someone else, because Brooke THRIVES when she is being abused. Donna and Katie need to dissapear for a while. Liam has to die. Bill needs to sleep with Hope. And thats when the show will be watchable again.

I agree that Brooke needs a viable anti-Brooke. She is really at her best when she is in a rivalry with another woman (that has always been the most captivating part of her relationships with men - how she relates to the woman she competes with). Brooke is a character who really needs conflict to thrive.

Stephanie was, of course, Brooke's best rival by far. Caroline/Brooke was also an interesting dynamic because they started out as friends (and ultimately ended up as friends as well). Taylor/Brooke had its moments but in the end I think it was overplayed and became repetitive so I really wouldn't want to see that rivalry revisited (in part because I feel the Taylor character has been so poorly written for so long that she can hardly be salvaged at this point). Out of Brooke's rivalries, the one I think had the most unused potential left was Macy/Brooke. It took a decade for the show to pit them against each other (or even put them in the same scene), but when they did, it was pretty explosive. They seemed to have almost as much raw hatred between them as Brooke and Stephanie and they truly brought out the absolute worst in each other. Too bad they kept killing Macy off as soon as the conflict with Brooke escalated. If she weren't dead (if she is dead), that is one rivalry I could see really reviving the Brooke character.

12 hours ago, sheilaforever said:

LMAO - My thoughts exactly whilw watching. All I can say: it was the same actor

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0453647/?ref_=tt_rv_t8

That's great! Until proven otherwise, I much prefer to think of them as the same character! Dr Oshiro seems to be the Forrester family doctor, and Thorne and Macy initially said they would gather their "talented friends - prominent people who maybe had aspirations to the stage at one time". So it does sort of fit. Only problem is, the Elvis impersonator spoke in broken English with Japanese words thrown in and Dr Oshiro obviously didn't. But I guess that could be part of his act. I just really want to keep the mental picture of Dr Oshiro's secret nighttime life, and Caroline being given her death sentence by Elvis! (Not to mention imagining the wonderful awkwardness that could have ensued at Thorne's next yearly checkup.) 

I don't know if anyone here can help me with this...

I'm currently watching 1990 episodes and I really wonder if the doctor (Dr Oshiro) who gives Caroline her diagnosis in ep 773 was also the Elvis impersonator in ep 749. And if so, is it the same actor playing two different characters, or does the serious Dr Oshiro have a secret passion for karaoke?

(And, by the way, I have an INSANE amount of respect for the people doing their acts in that episode! Imagine getting hired to play "the guy/girl doing a cringeworthy audition for a talent show" on a soap that airs worldwide, and doing it with so much gusto!)

18 hours ago, BoldKara said:

I can't remember what country it was, perhaps Greece (?) but Caroline was so popular that the show was either called "Caroline" or nicknamed "Caroline"...this could just be an urban legend, but it's a distinct memory of mine...my memories are JJ quit as Caroline, and thankfully gave enough notice that they played out her death over sufficient time. Who knows either a lack of other work or the lure of extra dollars brought her back. I quite loved the way they retconned Faith/Karen into existence...for me, it worked really well except for the horrid wig! As for $Bill...too many mentions from Bill Snr referring to Mark Lynley/Garrison as "the son I never had" poopoos $Bill's retcon into unbelievable territory, unless $Bill was an affair baby that Bill Snr didn't discover until many, many years later, much in the same way as Liam and Wyatt were introduced. It was never properly explained, and I resent the show's writers for not providing some plausible clarity. Long-time viewers were pretty much asked to swallow it and shut up. As I've always held firm especially this past 10-15 years or so, the show writes under the assumption that the audience is revolving, the audience come and go, or to not give two hoots about the history in order to meet a story agenda.

We really do need a $Bill mother backstory...could be a chance to bring in an elder actress of calibre to give something meaty for $Bill to deal with.

I absolutely agree about Dollar Bill! It still bothers me to this day that we were just supposed to accept Bill Sr having a son, without even being given ANY explanation as to why Bill Sr was obviously unaware of the fact for his entire run on the show.

I assume Dollar Bill was the result of an affair, but even so, it would be nice to know when and how this supposed affair took place (it was always implied Bill Sr was devoted to Marion) and if Bill is supposed to be younger or older than Karen/Caroline.

And then when the retconned Spencers started piling up with Liam, Wyatt and Caroline Jr, creating a whole second generation of retconned Spencers (whose parents were also retconned Spencers), it all became a bit much. To me, the connection with the original Spencers is pretty much non-existent with the present gang. Even present day Spencer Publications doesn't really feel like Spencer Publications the publishing house, but more like a generic "business empire" like Marone Industries.