vetsoapfan

I agree that Y&R was still...Y&R (more or less) up until 2003 or so. And Scott Reeves...whoa, what a perfect physique! That T-shirt alone makes this episode worth watching, LOL!

We always appreciate your efforts, Carl, and with so little material available from Y&R early years, 1996 eps are still miles above what the audience had to endure in the 2000s!

Yes, these are the closest we've got to the Jessie Brewers and Audrey Hardys of yesteryear. It's a shame there are no patriarchs left on GH. It was such a bone-headed mistake to kill off Alan Q!

Yes, even when the show gave them nothing but crumbs, the vets always rose to the occasion and made the most of it. That business with Ryan targeting Audrey really WAS must-see TV! Who are the beloved matriarchs and patriarchs, the tentpole characters, of today? Sonny and Carly?!? Pffft!

"Co-Starring" John Beradino? To me, no matter what young whippersnappers TPTB have ever brought in and showcased, our beloved Steve Hardy was always the REAL star of the show! Younger viewers who have only endured the show during the Maurice Bernard, Michael Easton, and Steve Burton years don't know what they missed! Stalwarts like Beradino, Emily McLaughlin, and Rachel Ames ruled!

Well, you see, if you tied new characters to families from the past, it would all be about...RACISM!!!! ((Roll eyes))

Thank you.

Thank you, Slick. All users of the internet will eventually encounter posters whose personal issues will lead them to act out. I don't think anyone takes them seriously.

I realize that your behavior must be borne from certain personal...issues beyond the scope of this board, so I hope 2017 provides you some relief.

Right, the WRITING and DEVELOPMENT of the characters has to work. Just having a surname of an established family is not enough. Viewers love the use of history, and multi-generational storytelling, but the shows have to keep their families going AND write well for them and cast them effectively. Having Brookses or Fosters on board with lousy writing and bad actors, would be as pointless as having any descendants of the Abbotts, Newmans, or Williamses floating around, mired in poor writing. Fans want continuity among core families ALONG WITH well-developed characters and engaging plots.

Exactly. Soaps are built on history, so seeing escalating vexation over fans' desire for the use of it is...curious at best. One might argue that TPTB cannot introduce characters from past families who are no longer featured on the show, but all soaps routinely bring aboard brand-new characters with no on-screen family ties, so having Brooks Prentiss arrive as a business rival for Victor, or Jennifer Foster working at the hospital, would pose no rational problem. Not every new character has to be part of a huge, currently-on-screen family unit.

Leaping to conclusions and predictions which only exist in your mind and have nothing to DO with my actual points doesn't help your case, I'm afraid. As I have said, it's best just to let it go. Because, clearly, you are having the time of your life watching the current incarnation of the show.

Whether your relentless inability to comprehend is by will or by design, as previously acknowledged, you will not be burdened by future explanations which only get you so vexed. Happy New Year!

Exactly. No one is saying that they ONLY care about new characters having the family name of Brooks or Fosters. This is NOT the sole criterion for bringing on new people. But if the new characters are well-developed, interact appropriately with other players on the canvas, and have interesting storylines, pleasing longtime viewers by tying a character or two to an original core family would only be an added bonus. Doing so would in no diminish the efforts of TPTB to fix the show's overall structural problems. Having Leonard Nimoy appear in the new STAR TREK franchise did not prevent the producers from attempting to make good films, but it did bring a smile to veteran ST fans. What's wrong with pleasing any part of the potential fanbase?

You keep arguing against points which no one else is actually making, so trying to explain everything yet again would only be futile.

When the new series of STAR TREK movies first went into production, I read a message-board thread about the possibility of cast members from the original 1960s' series possibly making cameo appearances. One poster wrote (something like), "Nobody cares about Leonard Nimoy or seeing his Mr. Spock on screen again; they should forget about all those old actors because nobody wants to see them any more." That poster got quite the earful, LOL. Of course, no one is advocating introducing characters "who's [sic] ONLY value is in their surname." Posters are saying that if new characters are written well, interact in an interesting way with other existing players, and have good, solid storylines, then whether or not they are tied to original founding families will not make a negative difference to new viewers, but might gratify longer-running viewers who enjoy seeing the nods to history. This is the point.

Well, writers should not refrain from introducing new characters, be they members of founding families or not, just because there's a possibility that the newbies won't end up working well. We should not automatically assume the writers' efforts will fail. Personally, I think talented writers like Alden, who was involved in the writing of the show starting in 1974 and who worked directly with Bill Bell, should be given the benefit of the doubt and encouraged to create new storylines and characters who might bring substance and interest back to Genoa City. Isn't that...the point of handing over the writing reigns to someone with her history? If the world were made of lemons, everyone would just be sour.

JILL: "I was raised as the daughter of Bill and Liz Foster, and this is my brother, Greg Foster's, daughter." I personally don't see this five-second exposition as particularly "convoluted," and it would still leave the writers 35 minutes on that day's show, alone, to fix everything else that is broken.

Twenty-three years after she had been written out, and long after most of her on-screen family had disappeared, THE GUIDING LIGHT brought back Meta Bauer in 1996, and the fans loved it. Even younger viewers got behind the idea of having an original core character back in Springfield. When Claire Labine took over LOVE OF LIFE in the 1970s, one of the first things she did was bring back Vanessa's sister Meg, who had not been seen or mentioned in years, but again, the fans loved it and it gave the show a real shot in the arm. The success all depends on how the characters are written and how they interact with the other players on screen. Of course it's not feasible to bring back all four Brooks sisters, both Foster brothers, and their assorted children, but one or two offspring from the Brooks, Foster, or Prentiss clans, if written well and given interesting storylines, is perfectly do-able.

There are several current characters on the canvas who do not work very well, and may end up being written off if they cannot be fixed. Since new characters are bound to be brought on anyway (they always are), it won't make any difference whatsoever to younger viewers if these new people are tied to Y&R's original founding families or not, because they will still be strangers to the audience. But the older, longer-running fans would get a kick out of it and appreciate the nod to history, so there's no definite "need" for any founding families to remain relegated to the past. All characters should be well-written, cast appropriately, and woven into the fabric of the series, and their origins and family ties do not negate the possibility of that happening.

It sure is.

Yes, the show has continued to change over the decades.

Some of the Emmy nominations during the 1970s were based on name recognition more than actual talent. Farley Granger was not good at all on OLTL and kept noticeably flubbing his lines, yet he was nominated. A lot of the decade's very best actors were consistently overlooked. IMHO, Janice Lynde deserved an Emmy nomination for her character's descent into madness, as did Trish Stewart for her performances during her character's rape storyline. By 1975, it had flown way up to number three (behind ATWT and AW), with a 35% audience share, the highest of any soap that season. It also attracted massive numbers among young female viewers whom the networks coveted the most. That year the show also won Best Daytime Drama and Best Directing at the Emmy Awards.

But as a brand-new serial, it soared very quickly in the ratings, and was very influential in how the soaps were presented from then on. I think the lack of strong competition in the 1980s helped Y&R reach the number one spot, whereas in the 1970s, almost ALL the soaps were great and fighting for the top spot.

The only good thing about my being so ancient is that I was fortunate enough to witness the soaps' golden age. I think the 1950s to 1970s were the very best years for daytime drama. We had Irna Phillips, Agnes Nixon, William J. Bell, Pat Falken Smith, Harding Lemay, Henry Slesar...all the great writers at the height of their careers!