Videnbas

3 hours ago, soapfan770 said:

This one was resolved— it was Jake and Margo who stole it. 

Was it though? If I recall correctly, Jake confessed to take the blame off Macy, who had been arrested for the theft but had nothing to do with it.

7 hours ago, BoldKara said:

I've watched about the 5 next episodes and not a single mention of Deveney. Stephanie hasn't told Eric. It's like it never happened! So strange, you'd think Stephanie would have put on her detective hat and wanted to find out how Deveney survived...and what all of a sudden, Deveney didn't want revenge anymore on her. Would love to know exactly why (because there HAS to be a reason) they chose to end that story so abruptly and never mention it again, but I suspect that reason is lost to history. Unless anyone here has a special connection to Brad Bell? Wishful thinking!!!

It would be so good if Deveney was somehow connected to Finn, his birth mother perhaps, as it seems he might be adopted, and Deveney has plotted a 30 year revenge against Stephanie's namesake and her family! If only!!! Only a small fraction of the audience would even remember, so I sadly can't see that or something similar happening. I think Deveney/Angela is done and dusted...but never say never. 

She could easily have been re-cast due to the disfigurement. Such a lost opportunity...but we got Sheila instead and for that I'd never trade!! 

The only plausible reason I can think of is that Deveney got her new face thanks to Thorne, and was so happy with that that she just went on with her life.

Or maybe the writers realized that if Deveney hadn't disappeared her next stop would have been prison (probably still disfigured), and that it was a better exit to have her out there somewhere, with a face that could look like anyone. But then they never played that card.

18 hours ago, BoldKara said:

In my B&B re-watch I've just watched Deveney Dixon's (Angela Forrester) final, abrupt exit.

Does anyone know why that storyline was ceremoniously dropped like a hot potato, never to be mentioned again? This was my first time viewing it as I missed it on original airing while on vacation. I knew it would end abruptly from what I'd been told, but this to me would have to count as B&B's first major storyline that was just dismissed like it never happened. Angela Who? 

I wonder if they would dare to bring the character back after all these years to perhaps wreak vengeance on Stephanie's namesake. Could make for a great story...not that most viewers would have been watching way back in 1989, so it's unlikely we will ever see Deveney again (even if re-cast)!

Yeah, I think Deveney was the first "loose end" that the show left hanging. I think the whole premise of the Angela storyline had been planned from very early on (we knew from the start that Stephanie left to visit someone once a week and that it was a well-kept secret), but the way she left the show left a lot unresolved. It would have made sense for her to show up down the road with a completely new face and we would believe it was a new character until the big reveal that she was really Angela/Deveney. But that new character never came.

I can only think of one other unresolved storyline from that time period, and that's the BeLieF theft. To my knowledge, we STILL don't know who stole it. (My money is on Clarke though.)

18 hours ago, FrenchBug82 said:

I like TK and his Ridge is a richer character but I like to pretend he is just a different character who arrived after something happened to the original. You can literally picture everything that has happened to Ridge since TK took over happening to Nick and making more sense.
There was not much to like in the original, certainly not the acting, but he still was Ridge, stiff pompous wishy-washiness and all. 
I remember reading lots of blind items in the year before it happened (that only became clear after the fact that it was about RM) that a certain producer was putting out feelers to an actor he had in mind and thus calling the chicken game of a certain diva actor who was certain his "iconic" role could never be recast and was being a pain.
Talk about a "I am walking out unless..." that seriously backfired but to be fair, I would not have bet a dime on BB having the guts to recast AND finding a way for the recast to work and still be there 8 years later (!).
I also expected, frankly, TK to get bored but I guess, like Heather Tom, the work must be really comfortable for older actors who want to earn a living acting but are kind of over the hustle.

 

I think RM's Ridge had a certain charm and although he had his own "acting style" he was the right type for the character. He had that playful, arrogant vibe and there were certain details that were just so "Ridge".

Like the way he would walk into a room like he was God's gift to whoever was in the room (often accompanied by a saxophone theme).

Or his way of always sitting down on a chair by throwing one leg over it like it was the back of a horse.

TK just doesn't have any "Ridge-y-ness" to him. He is way too serious a character.

9 hours ago, divinemotion said:

I tried catching up with the last 8 months worth of episodes... I went through them for like 2-3 hours. I would hold a moment for max 20-30 seconds. It's so freaking cheap and bad written. How is it possible this is airing on a national tv? I think they are TRYING to get cancelled. And so much lost potential... how dare Bradley Bell ruin the show... This could still be good... The actors are NOT that bad... If someone just WRITES. I feel like crying... my most favourite show on the planet turned into a boring snooze fest. Brooke is a destroyed character... What happened to the Brooke of the 80s... 90... God... Even up till 2013 she still had her moments... Why is she so boring and bad written, without real character and substance... It's like watching KKL struggling to play this [!@#$%^&*]. I am shocked... It is laughable. 

My feelings exactly. I tend to watch the show by catching up every two months or so and it feels like a chore for the most part. And I would stop watching if it wasn't for the nostalgia factor. The whole thing is absolutely incomprehensible to me - how can a show that was so good in the 80s and 90s be so completely ruined now? Even though the HW hasn't changed since 1993?

I have been watching a lot of classic episodes lately (80s) and two things really stand out to me - the characterization and the long term plot structure. In the early days of the show, it was very obvious that the writers had a plan that stretched many months (sometimes even years) into the future. They KNEW what story they wanted to tell. And they KNEW their characters - as a result, when I watch 80s episodes I can honestly say there is not one character I don't like. They are all interesting and multi-layered and every one of them has a believable motivation, a developed personality and well-established relationships with other characters. Each and every major character has their own storyline and they all progress steadily at the same time - it's really like watching a contrapuntal piece of music.

Today, all of that is lost. There is barely even any rudimentary storytelling and characterization left. I am sure some of it has to do with budget, but that can't explain all of it, especially not the dumbed down writing. I am trying to pinpoint when it started going downhill and I think somewhere around the early 00s is when things started deteriorating. And the show became unrecognizable somewhere around the time Susan Flannery left.

The whole thing is very frustrating to watch because it wouldn't take all that much to get the show back on track, if someone just bothered to do it. Improve the writing and everything improves. The actors and characters have potential. The basic storyline ideas often have potential as well. It's just that the writing kills everything because nothing is ever developed.

20 hours ago, pdm1974 said:

I would have preferred if the Carter/Quinn affair would have been allowed to develop more with them actually falling in love with each other. The fallout would have been even greater with more nuances. Again, the show seems to speed through story before I get really invested in it.

 

The whole Justin takeover of Spencer would have had much greater impact if it had been built up over months versus days, maybe even with Katie and Justin developing a relationship so it really seems like Justin is taking EVERYTHING over in Bill's life.

 

So many potential story beats looked over...

Agreed, the impact of the affair would have been  lot greater if it had been emotional as well as sexual.

And Justin's desire to take over SP really comes out of the blue (and makes no sense - even if Bill and Liam are in prison, Justin is still just an employee who owns nothing of the company and answers to Bill). Besides, we have had zero indication that Justin has any interest in anything but the legal aspects of the company. What is it that he wishes to DO with this new-found power? Spencer Publications is a publishing/media corporation. Is it really Justin's lifelong dream to, say, start a new magazine or news channel? Have a say in what gets published and what doesn't? Gain control of the media? Do even the writers have any idea what SP actually DOES these days? Sometimes it seems the company is just a generic "big international business empire" and nobody really remembers they are in fact in the publishing business.

19 hours ago, FrenchBug82 said:

 

We have said it a gazillion times but Bell manages to both drag certain things ad nauseam (cut to watching the same scene about Liam over and over again) and yet move them at breakneck speed at the same time.

It is bizarre pacing.

Yes, I've noticed this weird pacing problem as well. The storylines manage to be simultaneously repetitive and rushed.

I think the thing is that Bell's "storytelling" moves by quantum leaps rather than a gradual progression. So his idea of a "dramatic" storyline is:

1) Sudden twist that starts a new storyline

2) Stuck in a holding pattern of people either talking about 1) or trying to keep quiet about 1), for several months

3) Sudden quick and unsatisfying resolution of storyline (often simply consisting of someone failing to keep quiet and just blurting out the big bad secret, and everyone else going "oh, okay then" and moving on with their lives).

Sometimes there's not even a lot of drama or twists involved, and then it goes like:

1) THING happens out of the blue.

2) Everybody says "oh, look, THING happened".

3) THING stops happening with no explanation.

4) Nobody ever mentions THING again.

This is, for the most part, how he does "romance".

5 hours ago, Forever8 said:

I love how most of the Brooke detractors bring up her "slutty past"; but fail to mention Quinn and other female characters have been promiscuous too. Let's not forget years prior, Quinn and Ridge essentially dry humping when she had gotten together with Eric. I mean, no one other than a select few can criticize anyone's immoral behavior.

I have never really understood that logic. Brooke's (or anyone's) past, or whether or not it is hypocritical for her to call someone else out for doing what she has done herself, is beside the point.

When someone cheats on her husband it is wrong and hurtful, regardless of who does the cheating. And the person cheating deserves to be held accountable, regardless of who does the exposing. Just because Brooke did the same thing doesn't mean she must forever hold her peace whenever she finds out that someone else is cheating (that would amount to siding with the cheater over the cheated). It's not about Brooke's "right to tell", it's about Eric's "right to know".

And Brooke, or anyone else who ever cheated on a spouse, staying silent simply because they were not guilt-free enough to "throw the first stone" would amount to another betrayal of Eric.

4 hours ago, Marquise said:

do you remember the story with the stolen Believe formula? It is comming up so keep your eyes open and you will notice that it was very well introduced many episodes before it happens!

That is something I've noticed overall in those old episodes - how new storylines, characters and plot twists are subtly introduced many months or even years in advance. It's really impressive. Like the Angela storyline which started in late 1988 after we had been wondering for about a year and a half where Stephanie disappeared to once a week. Or Sally's introduction in early 1989 after we had heard stories for over a year about Spectra and how much the Forresters loathed the company. Or Felicia who was always the youngest Forrester sibling but wasn't shown on screen for years although she was mentioned regularly. It really shows how much thought and planning went into creating the B&B universe in those early years.

Hi, I've been lurking for a while and finally managed to register (had some problems with the validation e-mail). I just want to say a big THANK YOU to all you angels out there! It really is a dream come true to be able to watch all these classic episodes!

I just watched Sally Spectra's 1989 introduction and it's so fascinating to see. I wonder if the writers initially had a more villain-like character in mind and then gradually softened her and gave her more layers. It seems she is very tough, even cruel, in her scenes with Clarke but in the first scene she has alone with Saul you start to see that camaraderie subtly shining through in the non-verbal interactions. It also makes you wonder exactly what went on between Sally and Bucky prior to Sally's introduction - the way I read it, it was heavily implied they were lovers at some point.

I also absolutely love the dry humor Susan Flannery brings to Stephanie. I realize I was too young to appreciate it when I first saw those early episodes but it is gold.