It's going to be a wild week B&B fans. I can't wait to see KKL rock her scenes. Let's hope for lots of Felicia and THorne and less Rick and Phoebe.

Monday's episode was so creepy, intense, powerful and dark. I'm glad they played it natural - turning the lights out, and not adding fancy lighting, or shadows to create the dark atmosphere. Andy provided the creepiness, and the intensity was naturally created between Brooke and Andy.

Yeah, B&B are lazy when it comes to creative thinking, but keeping it to the ABC order (which I knew they would) that they love to do, worked just as well, IMO. The conversational aspects do, unfortunately, happen.

The Brooke/Bridget scenes were touching. I'm glad she used her brain, and decided to preserve any evidence. KKL definitely deserves an Emmy nomination.

And I really do detest Stephanie. I just hope she doesn't escape her just deserts.

There shouldn't have been any opening sequence, just the title card at most.

Now this I agree with. The title card played with the continuation of the previous scene incidental music, would have worked well.

I hated the episode. It was very disturbing, I didn't like how it developed, and the dialogue was cr*ppy. Was that Patrick's? In the hands of a British writer, it would have been so much better.

Maybe I'm just under the impression of Stella's death on EastEnders. That's how you write hyperdrama.

Really? Stella's death in Eastenders, is a totally different scenario. Plus it did leave a lot of unanswered questions, and the aftermath was weirdly done, that contained a glaring plot blunder. Anyway, there's no guarantee that had this been in the hands of an English writer it would have been "better". For example, when Little Mo's rape on Eastenders aired, it was disturbingly unwatchable. The dialogue afterwards was on a similar par to B&B's - it wasn't outstanding or anything like that. There was no dark tone; they used bright lights, and there wasn't any kind of build up. Not very creative at all.

So what's the point of the new security measures if anyone and everyone can get into Brooke's house? I can't understand why Bridget would leave her side just to see Phoebe sing! Just tell her there was a hospital emergency or something.

Really? Stella's death in Eastenders, is a totally different scenario. Plus it did leave a lot of unanswered questions, and the aftermath was weirdly done, that contained a glaring plot blunder. Anyway, there's no guarantee that had this been in the hands of an English writer it would have been "better". For example, when Little Mo's rape on Eastenders aired, it was disturbingly unwatchable. The dialogue afterwards was on a similar par to B&B's - it wasn't outstanding or anything like that. There was no dark tone; they used bright lights, and there wasn't any kind of build up. Not very creative at all.

Yes, of course it's a different scenario. But I wasn't referring to the scenario, I was thinking more about the structure of the episode and the dialogue, and above all the overall "feel". Starting with those cats hissing and fighting at dawn.

I didn't like the Stella storyline (I'm now seriously off-topicking), from the beginning, it was rushed and came of out nowhere etc., but I like those two climax episodes.

I'm sure a Briton would have handled things differently. Brits don't have the tendency to make shows about gorgeous people stranded on a gorgeous tropical beach after some plane crashes. They don't gloss over, don't make things prettier just not to upset the viewers, and are thus (not always, but much of the time) more truthful to life and to what realistic drama is.

I haven't watched Mo's rape so I can't say a thing about it.

Edited August 23, 200718 yr by Sylph

Little Mo's first rape was, I thought, spectacularly done but it was in a completely different context. It was part of a wider story about spousal abuse. Her second rape (I can't believe I'm even writing that) was effectively done as a set piece but the story was appalling and distasteful. We all know the problems EE was having during that period.

But it is true that none of it was glossed over and I think it's offensive to do so. If B&B didn't want a stylistic departure, they shouldn't have done a rape story as far as I'm concerned. It would be the same if it was any other "issue" such as chronic drug abuse, spousal abuse, child abuse -- they're not ingredients of melodrama and if you're going to include them they have to be true to life.

Following that I've watched more of this week's episodes and I'm still severely underwhelmed. I adore KKL but she isn't really bringing it to the table because she's not being given the material. What I also find cringeworthy is again the structure and it relates to what I said about not being melodrama. It's fine to include other characters in the episodes (though I do believe Tuesday's episode should have been solely devoted to the aftermath). But they're using delicate moments for cheap cliffhangers instead of giving it the flow that it needs, case in point Bridget asking Brooke "Mom, were you raped?". Cue music of doom, cue soap opera stares, end episode. Then again Bridget - "He followed you here? It happened, here in this house?" Cue brashy opening titles. It's just tacky.

On the plus side to show that I'm not totally negative, I'm glad that they addressed the issue of the morning after pill and also hope they mention the HIV aspect.

Edited August 23, 200718 yr by JamesF

Yes, of course it's a different scenario. But I wasn't referring to the scenario, I was thinking more about the structure of the episode and the dialogue, and above all the overall "feel". Starting with those cats hissing and fighting at dawn.

For me, the fact that Stella's death and Brooke's rape are complete opposites, are what determine the structure and feel of the episodes. Stella's was all about revelation and resolution; while Brooke's was about a horrible act of violence, a beginning, in a way. For me, they were and should be different. An innocent woman running in fear of her life, being chased by darkness; and a psychotic woman running in fear of her life, being chased by "good" should generate different tones and feelings, which is why I can't compare the two. Does this make sense?

I do get where you're coming from, Sylph. It's just I'm not feeling it.

I'm sure a Briton would have handled things differently. Brits don't have the tendency to make shows about gorgeous people stranded on a gorgeous tropical beach after some plane crashes. They don't gloss over, don't make things prettier just not to upset the viewers, and are thus (not always, but much of the time) more truthful to life and to what realistic drama is.

Gotta agree with that. Although, the grittiness is not always that welcome. I know that American's would like more grittiness (a word that seems to associate working class, depression, poor, while traveling along side realism, which I don't agree with. The story should be able to be realistically written in any given setting - rich or poor. And why isn't anything that's set among rich folk deemed as gritty? It's always fanciful escapism. Way off-topic, I know, and kind of a dig at TV in general, really. Which is why I'm loving Eastenders this year, which has combined stories that may be seen as being something you'd only see in an American show (May/Rob/Dawn - baby-buying/selling, kidnapping, for example) and setting them in a gritty location). Anyway, point is, that the reason we don't make many shows about beautiful people, is because no one really has the guts to do so. TV is pretty generic and formulaic. You get a couple of decent "gritty" shows, and suddenly that's all everyone's making. It's not that viewers don't like glossy series (otherwise Desperate Housewives, Lost, Heroes, Melrose Place, Sunset Beach, Ugly Betty, Dynasty wouldn't have been/wouldn't be popular), it's more to do with the fact that the networks are to scared to branch out into this genre. Besides, it appears that you guys are better at it, than us. Funny how American's would like more grit, while the English wouldn't mind a little less.

It's fine to include other characters in the episodes (though I do believe Tuesday's episode should have been solely devoted to the aftermath). But they're using delicate moments for cheap cliffhangers instead of giving it the flow that it needs, case in point Bridget asking Brooke "Mom, were you raped?". Cue music of doom, cue soap opera stares, end episode. Then again Bridget - "He followed you here? It happened, here in this house?" Cue brashy opening titles. It's just tacky.

I thought the same. Even though I thought the mother/daughter interaction was touching, the episode should have devoted a lot more to the aftermath. I was OK with the characters involved, until Thorne & Donna appeared. They took it away from what it should have been about.

B&B in the past are normally good at portraying social issues (numerous cancers, alcoholism, HIV, etc.)) that I did expect a better aftermath. B&B always goes for the emotional punch, but normally not for "cheap cliffhangers." The balance just isn't right, and KKL isn't being given the material she should have. I still think she deserves an Emmy nom.

I hope Bridget takes pictures of Brooke's arm, before the bruises disappear. Tis vital evidence.

Edited August 24, 200718 yr by Ben

For me, the fact that Stella's death and Brooke's rape are complete opposites, are what determine the structure and feel of the episodes. Stella's was all about revelation and resolution; while Brooke's was about a horrible act of violence, a beginning, in a way. For me, they were and should be different. An innocent woman running in fear of her life, being chased by darkness; and a psychotic woman running in fear of her life, being chased by "good" should generate different tones and feelings, which is why I can't compare the two. Does this make sense?

I do get where you're coming from, Sylph. It's just I'm not feeling it.

It makes sense and I agree with you. But I wasn’t saying B&B should have copied the exact copy of any of those two episodes. I think JamesF gave some hints as to how the episode should have looked, loosing that ABAB... structure and the opening (which was really inappropriate). The bottom line of my posts was – the structure was bad, wrong, if they entered the risky waters of social awareness, they should have made sure everything fit well. But it didn’t. There is a plethora of possibilities of how the ep should have looked. Really.

Gotta agree with that. Although, the grittiness is not always that welcome. I know that American's would like more grittiness (a word that seems to associate working class, depression, poor, while traveling along side realism, which I don't agree with. The story should be able to be realistically written in any given setting - rich or poor. And why isn't anything that's set among rich folk deemed as gritty? It's always fanciful escapism.

I’m not sure anyone would won’t B&B to become a shelter for the working class family. That is one of the problems – they included this important story in a campy and melodramatic soap, and the two just don’t match. It’s gonna be a flop in some ways, but I’m gonna wait for the conclusion to give my final standing on it.

You don’t agree with grittiness travelling alongside realism?

The problem of writing the rich setting realistically is that you need a bigger budget and a different premise for the show. B&B is not realistic in many ways, but that often just doesn’t matter. And Americans obviously like over-the-top escapism, else we wouldn’t have so many shows with the same feel and themes, but on the other hand – no-one has actually tried to write realistically how rich people live. Americans need a fantasy that rich live a life without worries, that they can travel to the end of the world in a whim, that they are gorgeous and clever and if a problem comes, they will solve it using their own brain and fearlessness. You know the thing about the American dream... Look at the Oscars and think why some movies win (Erin Brokovich) and some loose (Altman’s movies). And P. S. I’m not sure you should write everything realistically. I don’t agree with some Aristotelian theses. How can you write Heroes realistically?

Edited August 24, 200718 yr by Sylph

it's more to do with the fact that the networks are to scared to branch out into this genre.

I'm not sure I would agree with this.

Besides, it appears that you guys are better at it, than us. Funny how American's would like more grit, while the English wouldn't mind a little less.

I thought the same. Even though I thought the mother/daughter interaction was touching, the episode should have devoted a lot more to the aftermath. I was OK with the characters involved, until Thorne & Donna appeared. They took it away from what it should have been about.

B&B in the past are normally good at portraying social issues (numerous cancers, alcoholism, HIV, etc.)) that I did expect a better aftermath. B&B always goes for the emotional punch, but normally not for "cheap cliffhangers."

I didn’t find the mother/daughter interaction touching. I thought it was terribly written. And somehow that “Mom, were you raped” came suddenly in the wrong spot in the script. But good, they could have rushed it even more. I still have to watch the complete interaction, I haven’t watched all my tapes yet. And I have to see the Thorne and Donna part.

The balance just isn't right, and KKL isn't being given the material she should have. I still think she deserves an Emmy nom.

I think James said it - she's really been given a mediocre material. I'm not sure about the nom. We'll have to see.

Another great week!

It makes sense and I agree with you. But I wasn’t saying B&B should have copied the exact copy of any of those two episodes. I think JamesF gave some hints as to how the episode should have looked, loosing that ABAB... structure and the opening (which was really inappropriate). The bottom line of my posts was – the structure was bad, wrong, if they entered the risky waters of social awareness, they should have made sure everything fit well. But it didn’t. There is a plethora of possibilities of how the ep should have looked. Really.

As I've already mentioned, the opening should have been scraped/changed. I wasn't surprised that B&B kept to the ABCABC structure, and in the confines of what they did, I thought it worked as well as what it could've in that structure. Yes, they could've structured it differently - taken out Nick/Taylor for example (but glad they weren't Rick/Phoebe or Creepy McCreepy aka Constantine).

I’m not sure anyone would won’t B&B to become a shelter for the working class family. That is one of the problems – they included this important story in a campy and melodramatic soap, and the two just don’t match. It’s gonna be a flop in some ways, but I’m gonna wait for the conclusion to give my final standing on it.

See, this is what I'm saying, Tony's HIV was done really well (they raised awareness, tackled common misconceptions, were informative in giving out info that most people probably didn't know, etc.) and B&B was still a campy, melodramatic soap back then. So why can't a serious issue of rape be treated in the same way as other social issues, like Tony's HIV? IMO, saying that the two should never meet, is a cop-out. It's the writers job to make it work. Hopefully, B&B won't make the story all plot driven.

You don’t agree with grittiness travelling alongside realism?

It's not that I don't agree, it's more to do with what grittiness is associated with, and how that travels along with realism. Like, if you take away all the imports (American, Australian), English TV (drama wise) is made up of a lot of gritty shows, that are set in the confines of the poorer class, with themes like - depression, struggling single parents living in council houses/estates, horrible teens etc. It would be nice to take these themes and set them in middle class suburbia, or a rich neighbourhood, like, Primrose Hill, or West London, generally, etc. Take Brothers & Sisters - it has realistic characters with realistic problems, set in a middle class neighbourhood in California, somewhere (L.A.?) Can B&S be classed as gritty?

but on the other hand – no-one has actually tried to write realistically how rich people live. Americans need a fantasy that rich live a life without worries, that they can travel to the end of the world in a whim, that they are gorgeous and clever and if a problem comes, they will solve it using their own brain and fearlessness. You know the thing about the American dream...

I love the American dream. The English don't have that kind of mantra. You're right, no-one has attempted to write the rich in a realistic way. When we did have ago, it turned out to be Footballers Wives

And P. S. I’m not sure you should write everything realistically. I don’t agree with some Aristotelian theses. How can you write Heroes realistically?

Depends on what you mean by writing everything realistically. Heroes is a fantasy show, but it still has to be realistic within it's genre, does it not? Anyway, realism should come from the characters and their everyday lives. They're supposed to be ordinary folk who have/are discovering they have super human powers, their reactions and how they incorporate that into their normal lives is where the realism comes from. For the viewers, isn't realism apart of identification?

Edited August 25, 200718 yr by Ben

I'm not sure I would agree with this.

Well, English networks can be very uncreative, especially ITV1, who have been producing and commissioning the same type of shows for several years now, and well, they're struggling because of their copy-cat out put. The networks don't think there's a market for (un)realistically written shows about rich and beautiful people. When they do decide to pluck up the courage, the out-put is something like Footballers Wives or Suburban Shootout (Desperate Housewives meets The Sopranos ). A wider variety of "gritty" would be nice.

So, are American networks different, then? I've always thought that US networks are more gun shy at producing gritty shows, showcasing the poorer side to America. ER springs to mind as being one of the few gritty dramas, in that sense.

Donna and Thorne are engaged. WTH? When did they start dating. She seems so nsaty. She has that dirty porn star look about her and seems even sleazier than her sister. Does she even care about Thorne? Why is she out to get revenge on Stephanie

And how did Andy get in. This was written bad. He may have found the key outside but Brooke has alarms. How did they not go off when he entered?

Edited August 25, 200718 yr by Cheap21

As I've already mentioned, the opening should have been scraped/changed. I wasn't surprised that B&B kept to the ABCABC structure, and in the confines of what they did, I thought it worked as well as what it could've in that structure. Yes, they could've structured it differently - taken out Nick/Taylor for example (but glad they weren't Rick/Phoebe or Creepy McCreepy aka Constantine).

About the opening - I think it was James who mentioned it first. I'm not sure if it worked out well, but still... Now it's been done. Nothing can be done about it.

See, this is what I'm saying, Tony's HIV was done really well (they raised awareness, tackled common misconceptions, were informative in giving out info that most people probably didn't know, etc.) and B&B was still a campy, melodramatic soap back then. So why can't a serious issue of rape be treated in the same way as other social issues, like Tony's HIV? IMO, saying that the two should never meet, is a cop-out. It's the writers job to make it work. Hopefully, B&B won't make the story all plot driven.

It's just that sometimes things don't work out, and writers fail at their job. Sometimes miserably. Campy meets social realism - it can be done, sure, but the risk of compromising your show and mangling with something just for the sake of saying something socially aware is too big. Most of the time, the story won't work out, mainly because writers only injected such a story for the story's sake. They didn't want to be labelled as "no social issues" soap.

It's not that I don't agree, it's more to do with what grittiness is associated with, and how that travels along with realism. Like, if you take away all the imports (American, Australian), English TV (drama wise) is made up of a lot of gritty shows, that are set in the confines of the poorer class, with themes like - depression, struggling single parents living in council houses/estates, horrible teens etc. It would be nice to take these themes and set them in middle class suburbia, or a rich neighbourhood, like, Primrose Hill, or West London, generally, etc. Take Brothers & Sisters - it has realistic characters with realistic problems, set in a middle class neighbourhood in California, somewhere (L.A.?) Can B&S be classed as gritty?

I think that we agree on many issues, it's just that we somehow always manage to misunderstand each other. Brothers & Sisters is not gritty - there's no blood, pain, depression, sickeness and perversion everywhere. But am I missing the point - if it cannot be classed as gritty, what's the problem?

If something is realistic I don't want it to be gritty at the same time always. It depends on the show - sometimes gritty and realistic go together, sometimes they just don't.

Edited August 25, 200718 yr by Sylph

Depends on what you mean by writing everything realistically. Heroes is a fantasy show, but it still has to be realistic within it's genre, does it not? Anyway, realism should come from the characters and their everyday lives. They're supposed to be ordinary folk who have/are discovering they have super human powers, their reactions and how they incorporate that into their normal lives is where the realism comes from. For the viewers, isn't realism apart of identification?

By realism I mean "the depiction of subjects on stage as they appear in everyday life". You know, Chekhov, Gorky, Ibsen... I'm not sure one can ever write a sci-fi show realistically in that I never met a super hero or a witch who can mess up with peoples lives so I just don't know what does writing a witch's life as she lives it means. I can make the audience believe I know, but I don't (know).

I'm not sure how would I call it when you write in the confines of your genre. But there's a word and at the moment my mind is blank. But it's not realism. Maybe it's genre-istic realism.

In the end, all shows are actually about people, about the Homo sapiens and his experiences - it's just that you can wrap it in the genre of your liking. It doesn't matter if it's a witch show, a cop show, a medical show, a sci-fi show - it's always the same: how people live, how they interact with each other, why do they suffer and how do they overcome the suffering.

Well, English networks can be very uncreative, especially ITV1, who have been producing and commissioning the same type of shows for several years now, and well, they're struggling because of their copy-cat out put. The networks don't think there's a market for (un)realistically written shows about rich and beautiful people. When they do decide to pluck up the courage, the out-put is something like Footballers Wives or Suburban Shootout (Desperate Housewives meets The Sopranos ). A wider variety of "gritty" would be nice.

So, are American networks different, then? I've always thought that US networks are more gun shy at producing gritty shows, showcasing the poorer side to America. ER springs to mind as being one of the few gritty dramas, in that sense.

Risk taking is not uncommon in American TV, but the bosses always want a successful show. One day you have Lost, the other - Chuck, Bionic Woman, Heroes, Battlestar Galactica, Pushing Daisies, Moonlight, Babylon Fields, Journeyman. One sci-fi show, the next season ten of those. So they just rip each other's ideas off - OK, I won't write about the mysterious goings on on a tropical island, I'll write a show about mysterious goings on in ordinary people who become superheroes' lives. It's not the same show, but the genre is always the same. It always incorporates fantasy, it has a similar structure (arcs), it's basically a soap opera etc.

Like in UK - one gritty show (drugs, depression, people on the bottom of the food chain, alcoholism, abuse etc.), dozens of them every year. Same thing.

Edited August 26, 200718 yr by Sylph