Videnbas

11 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

Honestly, a more reality-based, character-driven show, one that really confronted everything that grosses us out (including the race angle), could make a story like this work.

B&B is not that show. 

At least not any more. 

I shudder to think how a storyline like Jake MacLaine being molested as a child by his uncle would be dealt with by the current writing team. 

4 minutes ago, Dion said:

Sheila once spiked Macy's drink - apparently out of revenge for Thorne not supporting Sheila's marriage to Eric. I can't remember if they actually talked or anything though.

Macy was a major character throughout the 90s but she was nearly always one step removed from the center of the show (the Forrester family drama) and rarely played a part in a storyline that wasn't either her own or her mother's. She tended to get stuck in the B storyline for the most part. So it was rare to see her sharing a scene with Sheila, Taylor, Ridge or even Brooke (until suddenly they became mortal enemies and Macy got a short-lived frontburner storyline). 

17 hours ago, ChantelOldYRFan said:

Love Macy’s 2002 return! Bring her back and make her Sallys mom!

I loved it too!

I think as far as back from the dead stories go, this one really was perfection. The stunning backdrop of the Italian village, the lighthouse scene (great symbolism with Macy standing up there like a "beacon of light"), the way that Macy's singing voice was used as the focal point of her return (after having been used for the past few years to signal her family's grief), how they gave every "reveal" scene a different emotional mood (epic with Thorne, intimate with Sally, surprising with CJ, and humorous with Darla), how they let us wait for it for two years after hinting very early on that Macy was alive, while her mother spent all that time grieving realistically (i.e. not just "getting over it" like many soap characters tend to do).

In short, they played every emotional beat with gusto. So much so that I had no problem suspending disbelief even though Macy's explanation for not being dead was... well, fairly improbable.

It was only too bad that once she was back in LA, the storyline just took an extremely frustrating turn. I think pairing her with Deacon and making her all about him and his children and revenge against Brooke was a big mistake and the cause of some pretty OOC behavior for Macy's character (and caused her to be written into a corner much sooner that she should have been). A much better move long-term would be having her unknowingly adopt Thorne and Darla's child, and explore the relationship between Macy and Darla during the pregnancy and after. This could eventually have led to Macy (not Taylor) being the one to get drunk and accidentally hit Darla with her car (which would have made a lot more sense dramatically than Taylor doing it).

5 hours ago, boldbeautifulau said:

Hi everyone.

First post and huge B&B fan.

Sorry to start off on a negative note, but I wanted to share my experience and observations in trying to create an account here. My experience may just help others who may have difficulty signing up:

1. I have a Hotmail email address.
2. After numerous attempts at signing up, I would never receive the ‘activation email’ (it was not in my junk folder)
3. I tried 20 or so times to register over the last 9 months. In June, I sent an email to the two email addresses mentioned in this post: https://boards.soapoperanetwork.com/topic/49685-activating-your-account/
4. Got no response from the anyone mentioned in the post. 
5. Yesterday, I decided to create a Gmail account to test whether this would perhaps be successful. To my surprise it worked and I got the activation email immediately. And here I am!
6. After successfully registering, I went to update my email address in account settings (to change from Gmail to my Hotmail address). This change triggers the activation email to go to the updated address which as we know I never receive on my Hotmail account. 

Conclusion: either this site blocks Hotmail accounts from registering or, Microsoft doesn’t trust this site . This was a painful experience and I would urge the Site Admins to investigate these challenges to circumvent other people from having a similar experience - particularly Hotmail users.

Looking forward to contributing to future conversations with everyone

I havde a Hotmail account too, and I had the same problem. I couldn't register until I used my other e-mail address.

12 hours ago, Sasha66 said:

Curious question how would y’all rank all the bold and beautiful years from 1987-2020. You can merge some years together.

I would rank them like this:

1987-1988: 4,5/5 The first two years felt like a very long, but very good, introduction. The writing and characterization were excellent, but the storylines hadn't reached their dramatic climaxes yet (I like to compare this period to the first act in a play). In its own way, it couldn't have been better. It's just that a lot of the payoff was still to come. 

1989-1995: 5/5 This is when the show hit its peak IMO. All the seeds that were planted in the first seasons blossomed and then some. We had Brooke vs Stephanie, Spectra vs Forrester, Tridge/Bridge while it was still fresh, Thorne/Macy, Sheila causing trouble, and so on. To me, this is when the show had the best storylines and the best characters.

1996-2002/2003 4/5 The show was still very good on the whole, occasionally brilliant, but some characters started changing inexplicably, some pairings lost their freshness, and some ongoing storylines started becoming repetitive.

2003/2004-2006 3/5 This, to me, is when the show started running out of ideas and showing its age. New families entered the show and set a different mood (like the Marones) and it started becoming a different show to the one I grew up loving. But it still worked on the whole. Oh yeah, and Taylor's 2005 resurrection. That was a jump the shark moment if ever I saw one. 

2007-2012 2,5/5 Darlene Conley's death left a huge Spectra-shaped hole in the fabric of the show, and the new or recast characters (Spencers and Logans) were not as good as their 80s counterparts. But at least we still had the "core four". 

2012-2017 2/5 Stephanie died, original Ridge left the show, and the never ending saga of Liam's love life dominated the show. It's around this time that it's actually getting hard to watch. There were a few glimmers of hope (the unexpected complexity of Aly's character, the return of Spectra and Sheila for the show's 30th anniversary) but they were killed by bad writing. The dawning suspicion that the writers may be making it up as they go along. 

2018-present day 1/5 Yep, the writers are definitely making it up as they go along. No such thing as character development. No such thing as story arcs. Dialogue and direction hits reality show level. Sets are mostly gone. Costumes so bad they actually distract from the plot. Not even Sheila Carter can save this train wreck (unless she snaps and kills everyone, in which case she would have my full support). 

18 hours ago, sheilaforever said:

This also took place in a very uneven period of the show... Remember the insta-relationship (even marriage?) of Donna &Justin which lasted ten episodes?

All the Logans were hevaily altered wth the recasts in 2006-2008. Think of Steven!? Think of Beth!? Think of Katie!? Only Storm was kinda in-line with the previous incarnations. 

Yes, that was when the show had started going seriously downhill.

I have this feeling that most characters who were introduced, recast or Sorased from about 2010 onward lack - for want of a better word - a soul. There is no "real" human being at the core of who they are. Nothing that makes you think "yes, I know this person, understand them and genuinely care about them".

That's what was so appealing about the early show. Each and every character felt like they were a real person that you knew and had feelings for. And the recast Logans kind of highlighted that. The subtlety was gone. 

I also had a LOT of trouble registering.

I tried several years ago, then gave up when the confirmation email never came, tried to register again and it said I already had registered but I still couldn't log in, so I cancelled the account and tried again registering using a different email address, and then it finally worked and I got the confirmation mail.

1 hour ago, AbcNbc247 said:

Especially considering that in those first few years, Donna said several times that she was a virgin.

I don't think it was actually said explicitly in dialogue. I just remember when Donna was about to move in with Mark, she and Brooke had a bit of a "serious girl talk" and Donna said something like "I think I'm ready now", implying that Mark would be her first.

And her reaction when she skipped a period and thought she was pregnant was definitely not that of someone who had been there, done that. (You'd think it would have come up at that point if she already had a baby that she put up for adoption.)

So to me, Donna having Marcus is just one of those rewrites that are simply incompatible with what we were shown on screen.

2 hours ago, Liberty City said:

Carrie Mitchum (Donna)'s dye-job is questionable. What an awkward colour, especially for 1987.

I much prefer Carrie Mitchum's Donna to the current one, though. The original Donna had brains and guts and she was passionate about what she wanted (even though her judgement was sometimes clouded by her rebelliousness), and there was nothing cartoonish about her. I really dislike how the writers did a complete rewrite of the character and dumbed Donna down when she was recast (not to mention gave her a son she supposedly had at, what, 17?). 

On 9/2/2021 at 8:04 PM, Soapsuds said:

The problem with this is Eric ALREADY takes Viagra - it was mentioned on screen. This goes back to (I think) when he was married to Donna. So obviously he has had this problem for over a decade, and he has overcome it just fine, until a few weeks ago when the writers suddenly decided this was a major issue for him.

And even if he can't rise to the occasion, well, there are obviously other ways to satisfy a woman. No need to make such a huge deal out of it (at least not the "I can't please my wife" angle).

3 hours ago, Liberty City said:

Joanna Johnson's performance as Caroline Spencer in episodes 92 and 93...? How this soap let her go is beyond me! Outstanding talent!

Well, she did return as Karen Spencer for a few years. But for some reason she was a lot less memorable as Karen than she was as Caroline. I just think the character of Caroline fit her better (and Caroline was a more complex character anyway).

On 8/31/2021 at 2:44 PM, sheilaforever said:

They tried some VERY natural stuff with the teens back then. Griffey's was so low key and plausible as a college hangout; and there was a disco called DANCE FACTORY for one episode, I think. Too bad they clearly did not have the proper budget to use this is a real set for the teens.

I liked Griffey's too. Stacey the waitress was a great character! It was so refreshing that she was "normal" looking and still so totally and naturally self-confident in a world populated by beautiful people with "perfect" looks and bodies. And she had a great sense of humor. Her deadpan comments were pure gold. 

9 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

The first weeks 60 to 70 episodes of Bold was set up.  In fact, it felt almost like 2 different shows with the Logan family drama and the Forrester family drama in separate lanes.

However, once Brooke/Ridge..and Beth/Eric reconnect...the show truly gets going.

Looking back, Bill Bell was setting up the characters, showing their lives before the two families start to interact again.  Soaps wouldn't do that build up nowadays..imho.

My mom watched when it premiered..and she said the original Beth was an attractive blonde Grace Kelly type..and she couldn't buy Eric going for Stephanie...but when the mom is recast with a more passive, sweet darker Beth...she could understand Eric ending up with Stephanie.

Though original Beth and Brooke looked like mom and daughter..and it helped explain why Eric ended up hooking up with Brooke.

When I go back to watch the shows in the Vault, it feels like almost the first two seasons are the first "act" of the show. Bell Sr really spends all that time setting the stage for the core conflicts on the show (Stephanie vs Brooke, Spectra vs Forrester, tension within the Forrester family including Thorne vs Ridge). 

Then Act 2 starts in late 1988 with Thorne shooting Ridge (the culmination of a conflict that had been building to that climax for a year and a half).

Around the same time, we also get the introduction of Sally Spectra (after hearing about the conflict between Spectra and Forrester for over a year). 

And just prior to the shooting, we had Eric ending his affair with Beth and going back to Stephanie. This makes me think Beth/Eric was really a red herring whose lasting impact and main purpose was setting up a lifelong conflict between Brooke and Stephanie.

15 hours ago, Liberty City said:

I'm on episode 10, and it's such a 180 soap. Wow. This is what this soap should be.... Bradley Bell has truly ruined this soap. The characters, the dialogue, the fashions, the sets, etc. it all works! Now? Bleh.

I know. It becomes all the more jarring when one tries to follow both the early show and the present one in parallell. Watching the current episodes becomes a chore by comparison. The early years of the show were far superior in every way. Everything was so well thought out, with attention to detail in every part of the writing and production. I don't know how the budget compares, but it seems that in the early years they spent a lot more on sets, costumes and adding supporting characters to scenes. And of course, the quality of the writing is worlds apart. 

On 8/27/2021 at 1:34 PM, Cat said:

I just assumed most actors in soaps were pretty lowkey Hollywood liberals, but it seems like a larger fraction on B&B than I thought might not be. 

I assumed something similar - with KB the most obvious exception. Are there really that many Trump Republicans among the B&B cast (past and present)? Just curious. From a European point of view, it seems hard to fathom.

10 hours ago, Antoyne said:

This will NEVER get old. It was one of the few times I’ve ever watched Bold live and I was rewarded with this.

I don't have words to adequately describe this moment of unintentional genius. 

It must be the second funniest "dramatic" clip in the history of B&B (the funniest being the fight sequence that ended with Ridge falling into the furnace in 2003).

11 hours ago, FrenchBug82 said:

It is indeed clever that Hayes is her in. But my issue is: and then... what?

You know what I mean? They are not telling us what her endgame is - even just in her head.
Is she trying to get revenge on them? Or is she still trying to be "accepted" as part of them?
It looks like she is making it up as she goes along which goes against her earlier iterations where she had a goal and every scheme was intended to build up to that goal OR hide a previous scheme to protect the ultimate goal.

Because I try to give the benefit of the doubt to every story while it is starting, I am not going to assume it is not going to become clearer later - maybe it will! - but based on her previous returns and the way she is written so far, I am not optimistic.

I think the problem is they are not giving her her own POV in the storytelling.

The 90s music cues are nice but they are overdoing it. We get the "menacing" soundtrack virtually every scene she is in (even when she is not actually doing anything menacing) and it kind of "objectifies" her.

Like she is an outside threat, rather than her own person with her own motivations. That was always her strength when she was written well - she was crazy and dangerous but you could understand her motivations and sympathize to some extent. That is, Sheila's own sense of reality was warped but so consistent that her actions made sense in that context.

Now, it's basically just like they bring her out to say "BOO!".

On 8/17/2021 at 2:47 AM, divinemotion said:

I watched the Sheila episodes and it's a complete joke. They had this fake Donna Katie part... which was completely unnecesary. Everyone reacted like crazy maniacs against Sheila... She seemed the most sane of them all. I liked the smile after the slap... and that's it. Bold is finished. Nothing can save it. Not Sheila... not old music scores... Of course she is going to be taking the baby soon... yeah... i'm sure...  If feels old...  boring... slow... stupid.

Also... we know the scripts are bad... but the direction is awful too. This has become from sexy camp drama to completely fake over-acting stupid scenes in which the actors look like the are in an indian soap opera.

 

This is what Bold has become... indian soap opera, with horrible aged faces... boring young ones... 

I actually think Sheila should just kill the whole cast in 1 dramatic episode and the show should be over. Yeah... It's a joke. But I really do wish it...

Also... when is Brooke going to hook up with Finn and get pregnant. I need this.

 

Girl, bye.

Yes, you know you fail at characterization when the person you are trying to write as the psycho comes across as the one level-headed person in the room!

I am also secretly rooting for Sheila to just kill them all. Thought I was the only one.

One of the strangest things in this scene is that during all the times during Wednesday's show that Sheila calls herself Finn's mother, or Steffy's mother-in-law, nobody corrects her and speaks up in defense of Li. Not even Li herself.

Sheila has given up her parental rights. Li is Finn's mother now. And as much as Finn wants to know his biological mother, that is between him and her. It doesn't make Sheila and the Forresters inlaws.

Three episodes in and this storyline is already starting to disintegrate because of the writing.

The wedding party just sort of coming to an awkward halt (and Thomas telling Steffy she was ”literally glowing”) while everyone waited for Finn to return, and Paris and Zende disappearing for no reason (other than possibly a plot device to make sure Paris and Sheila haven’t met, in case Sheila decides to drop by the cliff house when Steffy and Finn aren’t at home).

Ridge acting distracted and confused, BEFORE Sheila even walked into the room. And Brooke for some reason having to hold his champagne glass (instead of just putting it on the table which was right there), just so she could drop it dramatically a minute later.

Sheila telling Finn that she would not have been a good influence on him, and that she wouldn’t have been able to give him a happy life, but also saying she regrets giving him up and that giving him up was the biggest mistake of her life. Which is it? It can't be both.

Finn wanting to introduce his bio mother to his in-laws without even having asked her name first.

The bizarre conversation with Katie and Donna reminiscing about a character none of them ever knew, including flashbacks of things they couldn't possibly remember or even know about (like Lance and the bees). And multiple Sheila pictures showing up where there really shouldn't be any (in Pam's closet? Really?). Donna declaring she never wants to see Sheila again - have they even met?

Sheila agreeing to go say hi to the Forresters, knowing she'd cause a scene and they'd throw her out. Sheila is not that stupid, or that obvious. She would establish contact secretly with him first, making sure to tie Finn more securely to her emotionally before essentially forcing him to choose between his wife and his bio mom. And she'd make sure she told Finn her side of the story before the Forresters got a chance to tell theirs.

Finn taking a full episode to blurt out that Sheila is his mother, and not taking in the horrified reactions of every other person in the room. And everyone in the room interrupting Finn over and over questioning what Sheila was doing there when it was obvious that Finn was about to explain just that, if they had given him half a chance.

It just seems the writers are going for maximum shock value, whether or not it makes sense. Even when the story would have been better (and more in character for Sheila) if they had built it more slowly. Amazingly, the pacing of the storyline as a whole feels rushed, and yet each individual scene has very little momentum.

13 hours ago, FrenchBug82 said:

Of course that's what it is. That's what EVERY story he does is. I wouldn't expect him to be far-thinking like that - he has done it only once with the Angela story - but this is me thinking about how much better the show would be with better plotting and pacing.

I am actually OK with the stories themselves most of the time - it is the execution that drains them out.

Of course, the Angela story was Bell Sr, who clearly thought ahead in ALL of his storylines. In fact, that was the beauty of the early years of the show - how extremely well the storylines and characters were prepared even years in advance. Like Spectra Fashions - first shown on screen in 1989, but mentioned repeatedly in dialogue ever since 1987. Or Felicia Forrester - first came to town in 1990, after the rest of the family had spoken of her and discussed her absence since 1987. Thorne shooting Ridge, which was basically the culmination of almost two years of buildup and foreshadowing. Bridget's paternity, which was left unanswered until it came back into play years later. And so on. This actually used to be one of the show's strengths.

21 hours ago, FrenchBug82 said:

We have talked many times about Bell's pacing but imagine how much more powerful Sheila's appearance would have been if we had been slowly treated to the mystery of his origins for months. If, even in a throwaway scene during the whole whos-the-father story, it had been hinted Finn might have a secret mother.
We literally met Finn's parents and even heard anything about his history three days ago. This is such bad pacing and plotting, sorry.

 

The obvious explanation is Bell didn't come up with the idea of Finn being Sheila's son until recently. It was obviously nothing he planned for the character. He just had a random idea and thought "why not?".

And though I'm willing to suspend disbelief for Sheila, I have to wonder how hard it would have been to lay the groundwork for this storyline over the course of at least a couple of months. I can't believe that Finn being adopted wouldn't have come up even ONCE during the entire pregnancy. It seems like the kind of thing that would come to mind for a future parent at a time like that.

12 hours ago, Jennybold1974 said:

I hope it goes on until (at least) late 1995! Then we still have almost (99%) everything in German for 1996-1999 (still 7 missing episodes in 1999) in case they stop it. 2005-2020 are now complete and 2000-2004 are already well filled in English or German, despite a few gaps and not so good quality (but I can live with that ) So, 1992-1995 in English would be awesome, but yeah I count my blessings. I'd have been happy with 10% of what we have in the vault.

I could never thank you guys enough for everything you're doing. Special thanks to @rsclassicfanforever for the 1990s episodes and @BoldRestless and [email protected] for the German missing episodes from 2005-2009.

I'm also very pleased to see SHEILA is back. I just hope they don't humiliate her character like they did in 2017. They need to pick a side with her. Either they redeem her, make her a nice, transformed person who learnt from her mistakes, she surprises everyone and comes on top. Or they make her the full-blown supervillain she used to be.... She wreacks havoc and terrorizes everyone like she did during her run in 2002-2003. If she can make Steffy's life a nightmare and snatch Eric away from Quinn in the process, I won't complain, LOL. Just don't make her a cartoonish, brainless character who pretends "she has changed" like they did 4 years ago. There are already enough hypocrites on this show. Besides I find the Dr. Finnegan dull as hell until now, Sheila will definitely make him and the story more interesting. Also they'll have to respect Sheila's history and not rewrite everything. Explain the circumstances/timing of his birth, and more flashbacks and hints of her reigns of terror and her times with Eric. They can do better than 2017. Anyway I'm happy they brought her back but I'll restrain my expectations for now. I'm happy to see so many Sheila fans in this discussion. We should all like Sheila OR love to hate her. People who don't care (or are totally opposed to her comeback), aren't true B&B fans, IMO.

I agree with all this! My dream would be to have episodes in English up until late 1995. A huge Thank you to all the angels!

As for Sheila, I have said before that she is a character with a lot of range. It is ALMOST impossible to write her out of character because she is a character who has a very unpredictable nature and is likely to do almost anything. BUT there is exactly ONE way she can be ruined by out of character writing, and that is the route they decided to go with her last time: not taking the character seriously.

Sheila works as a psycho villain. Sheila works as a manipulator. Sheila works as an ex-convict trying to redeem herself. Sheila even works as a mother, in her own obsessive way. But Sheila does NOT work as a joke. The whole "oooh, scary, wink wink, nudge nudge" they did last time, with the exaggerated use of ominous music cues, dramatic closeups and villainous laughs, followed by Sheila just acting like an average busybody, completely ruins the character's dark appeal.

3 hours ago, Marquise said:

I wonder if they will ruin her return again

I want to be super excited, but after the last time my hopes aren't very high. It's one thing to do this shocking reveal, but another thing to turn it into an interesting long term storyline. That's where it failed last time.

Otherwise, it's just a casting stunt with no substance behind it, devised just because Bell doesn't know where to go with storylines. "When in doubt, insert Sheila Carter", or something like that.

Going back to watch the early years, I find the Brooke/Stephanie dynamic fascinating. It's really like one of those optical illusions where you can see two entirely different images depending on how you look at it. Or like a Rorschach test where what you see depends on who you are.

Who is really the aggressor and who is the victim? Who is right and who is wrong? Who is the protagonist and who is the antagonist? Who was the greatest threat to the other's family? Did they see through each other's manipulations, or did they judge each other unfairly?

As a young girl, I was 100% behind Brooke. Now, watching the same episodes 30 years later, I am on Stephanie's side. It's almost scary in a way because I remember thinking Stephanie was SO evil and horrible to Brooke and now I feel a lot more sympathy towards Stephanie than I do for Brooke.