DeeeDee

Shouldn't you be busy "letting it go"? Or are you still vexed?

Characters having established surnames isn't enough....except if it connects them to obsolete soap families to make old people happy.

We've been discussing Heinle & Morrow's acting at SON for years (quite a bit in the past week especially). Though most of us agree we'd prefer the characters be recast we realize it's not going to happen. But well written soaps are a thing of the past. In this era good soap amounts to passable writing the actors do their best to make work.

Fury? Ok.

The difference with Nate, Scotty, Fen, Chance & Heather is they all have been on the show in some capacity in the past decade, are related and/or strongly tied to more than one core character/core family on the current canvas and each are substantial enough to immediately exist on their own.

So much for 'letting it go.' Oh well. Keep trying though. One day maybe you'll get it right.

Whatever you say. I'll continue enjoying my Foster & Brooks-free Y&R, while you...yeah.

The fact that these characters would require treatment the current cast doesn't receive and would still be interchangeable defeats your argument.

Actually, I'm not. You're operating via an idealized version of Y&R that doesn't & won't exist thus your 'ideas' are irrelevant.

No. The point is that if Y&R were that well written it wouldn't currently need a revolving door of head writers or meta touches for a handful of viewers because Y&R's existing characters (and any new ones the soap would introduce) would be enough to hold the audiences attention. Beyond spending time Y&R can't spare to reintroduce families that haven't been relevant in 30+ years the only value those legacy kids have is their surname. It's funny to see how many people feel John Abbott (who is hugely important to current Y&R's history) should remain dead because 'reality' express desire to see Jill share scenes with a faux niece of a family she hasn't been a part of for more than a decade.

I don't have a problem with Olivia, Nate & Joanna returning or (in time) adding a nephew/niece for Paul. Because 1) Liv & Nate should've never left, 2) Paul is gonna need a relative once Dylan is gone, 3) Joanna is much more tolerable than Gloria and 4) all four characters are/were integral parts to Y&R's history.

If Y&R weren't coming off 15 years of horribly bad storytelling that has nearly ruined the soap as a whole then MAYBE introducing a past character or two might be a nice idea. However in an era where there are four soaps left, soap ratings continue to drop, diversity in daytime is at an all time low, the gender pay gap still exists between actors & actresses, etc. there is way too much to be fixed with current Y&R in front & behind the scenes to be worried about introducing new characters who's ONLY value is in their surname. Kay is consulting & even if she was writing she'd be too busy returning substance to already large cast & strengthening existing plot threads instead of introducing unnecessary new characters. This isn't 1998.

The key word is "if". If the world was made of cotton candy everyone would be a diabetic.

She's not Jill's 'niece' & it would mean Y&R spending more time explaining a convoluted retcon to please a handful of viewers instead of fixing a broken show.

The Foster & Brooks families need to remain in the past. There are way too many things currently wrong with Y&R that need to be fixed & Y&R's writers can't even write the current characters they have correctly.

That was the era Bill was determined to make Cricket a part of a core family to cement the character to the canvas. It didn't work with the Chancellors so he hijacked the Abbotts (literally) to make it happen then abruptly threw it away to foist Cricket back on the poor Chancellors.

Watch him in the background of group scenes, especially with Eileen. He's rolling his eyes, smacking his lips, making faces. Just great stuff. Part of the reason TL was upset was because his affair with Nikki was abruptly cut short & he (like Brenda) was abruptly pushed into secondary stories. It's a big blow to go from a steamy affair with the soap's lead heroine to a supporting (but still important) player in several smaller stories. Especially when several male characters (who were supporting players not long ago) suddenly make the leap to genuine leading men themselves.

Black Lives Matter Doesn’t Need To Be Polite—It Needs Us To Remember

89 era Jack is fun because it's crystal clear onscreen that Terry Lester is over the show.

And it's ironic that since Hilary lost a ton of thinkpieces have been written about the failure of "identity politics" as if "identity politics" didn't just win the election.

I understood what you meant about Roy & Jessica breaking up. My point was, if Roy & Jessica's relationship & breakup was as complex and well written as you feel it was they would be better remembered as a couple today, However I'd argue that Bill Bell & Marland were about even in their approach to writing Black characters in the 80s. Marland's Black characters were intimate & earnest (bordering almost on pastoral) where Bill Bell's Black characters were stylish and playful yet still very soulful. In feel ATWT's characters were closer to St. Elsewhere by way of Working Girl while Bill Bell's characters were more Miami Vice meets Broadcast News. I agree that Lien wasn't a token (neither were Mai & Keemo Volien on Y&R or An Li Chen on AMC) but that didn't afford any of them significant airtime or longevity either. The backlash would've indeed been sizeable but someone has to be the first. Denying characters of color opportunities to explore and express their full humanity is one of the main reasons why daytime soaps are in permanent decline.

There are a huge amount of "tortured" white men & "scrappy" white women (both as individuals & couples) in the history of Daytime. The same can't be said for characters of color in daytime who are never allowed similar resources, ie, copious airtime, quality of writing & malleable value systems. Why hasn't there been an Japanese John Dixon? Or an Nigerian Rachel Hutchins? Or a Peruvian Luke Spencer? Because characters of color are either saints or sinners morally that exist as tokens who are trotted out for half an episode every couple days a month as "proof" of the show's "diversity." The occasional character and/or family of color will sometimes become popular but that's largely due to the actors performances.

The Jessica/Marshall story was complex (even with Sheffer involved). The performances by all involved (especially Tamara Tunie & Lamman Rucker) kept the overall story from slipping into If any story of that era degraded Jessica (and Margo) it was the one directly after the Marshall debacle with Doc.

They have no ideology beyond clinging to whiteness.

"Complicated" relationships are solely the providence of white characters.