Those who hate him, hate him to the core. I know. I just have this weird thought of sending him to be a HW for General Hospital. People are gonna kill me after this...

I wouldn't kill you, Sylph, but from reading your post, I'd definitely look into some professional counseling, if I were you.

What made me think about it and write this is the following, written by SON's member MarkH. I wonder why he didn't write it here...

I have never really loved B&B. The key issues against B&B for me are (1) that Brad Bell favors a campiness (which his father also had on occasion... think of 'Second Hand Rose'... not accidentally played by Darlene Conley) far in excess of Y&R, and (2) the awesome circularity and in-bredness of the small canvas. By now, several Logan sisters have slept with or married just about every man on the show... it's too much. But today, as Brooke and Ridge seemed to be starting yet another triangle (this time with Y&R's Ashley Abbott), I started to really realize what I like about the show.

1. Core characters who have been there either from the beginning, or for a long time, continue to populate the front burner. This is never an "unrecognizable" show.
2. Actors are pretty uniformly strong. Even when a core character is recast (Thorne, Felicia, Donna, Katie), it is usually with a strong performer.
3. The very repetitiveness and recycling that often harms the show is actually its' virtue. You KNOW how Brooke will react... or Stephanie... or whomever.

Nowhere did this come truer for me today, than when Donna (now played by Jennifer Gareis) talked to Jackie Payne about how she always went for 'bad boys'. I had to think about that... but it's true. Indeed, Donna's very first love on the show was 'bad boy' (for the post-disco era) "Rocco". And who can forget her dalliance with Bill Spencer? 20 years have passed, and there is a recast... but still the character's throughline is strong and consistent.

And, I can't rule out that B&B looks like Y&R used to. On the current canvas, we see Lance Prentiss (Eric Forrester), Victoria Newman (Katie Logan), Grace Turner (Donna Logan), Ashley Abbott (Ashley Abbott). Between long-time cast members and characters (a methodology shared with Y&R), and new characters who usually represent the best of daytime... the show just feels familiar and consistent.

The lack of consistency is the very indictment most of us level against Y&R.

It doesn't hurt that much of the legacy Y&R behind the scenes team is now at B&B (and the rest of them seem to be at DOOL).

Although, it is this last fact that further heightens my appreciation for B&B. In the last year, much of Y&R's detritus was absorbed by B&B. Despite this, I can hardly tell that there have been such massive changes, based on what I'm seeing on my screen. For criminy's sake, Kay Alden is now co-head writer... BUT THE SHOW STILL SOUNDS LIKE THE SHOW! THE CHARACTERS STILL SEEM LIKE THEY ALWAYS HAVE!

So, what does this mean? It means that... for all I have decried him... Brad Bell is a strong head writer. He keeps the voice of the show consistent, but tressed against the many forces that might compel him to constantly change course.

For being strong in the storm... for keeping the ship on course... and for doing so while providing safe harbor for many of his father's most beloved employees... my admiration has strengthened for Brad Bell. Say what you want about the dreck that he sometimes puts on screen, he earns full points for offering us a consistent little show that often has high entertainment value. Maybe he really did inherit some of Bill Bell's strengths.....

Bravo, MarkH!

I really think the man can write romance, business storylines and family drama. Yes, he flushed many characters down the toilet - Brooke, Stephanie and for some time now even Taylor, Ridge (never liked him, so I don't care) - but still, he also wrote many great storylines during his tenure.

Now who needs professional counselling?

P. S. This is what Karen from CBS soaps Usenet groups wrote:

B&B has always brought in great, but fleeting, scenes of business treachery, and the personal and professional gambles it's characters have taken. I wish the writers would continue to incorporate more of this kind of thing.

Edited September 11, 200718 yr by Sylph

I still refuse to see Brad Bell as a great headwriter. He simply isn't.

He is (on occasion) a good ideas man who could make a fantastic story consultant but he can't write worth a damn. He knows nothing of pacing or long term story projection preferring to focus on the latest gimmick to enter his brain. Now I could handle that if he ever saw a storyline through but I can think of very few stories from the past few years in particular that have had real and lasting consequences. The set up has been there several times; Stephanie's fake heart attack, Stephanie taking over FC, the Marones taking over FC, Brooke's rape, Taylor killing Darla but they always fizzle out. Even at least one of those was purportedly Patrick Mulcahey's story idea.

The thing is it hasn't always been this way. In the mid-late 90s, he wrote a very entertaining show with some stories that led to real climaxes. As soon as Bill Bell stepped away and he was left to his own devices, he jumped from one thing to the next. Ambervision, the Latino invasion, the Marones all occurred in the same 5 year period and represented distinct changes in direction.

So yeah I can't think of a soap I'd send him to because he's fundamentally flawed. As EP and sometime story consultant however I think he could work for several soaps, including Y&R. GL too actually.

Edited September 11, 200718 yr by JamesF

Actually Bell's current success of familiarity could come from the fact that Kay Alden has been serving as a writer. I think that it's very admirable of her to go back to some sort of Bell roots.

I know he is flawed; that is why I never said he is a great head writer. I think he's really burnt out and so I decided to ship him somewhere else, although that won't happen in a million years. If he goes somewhere, it'll be one of CBS' dramas, not ABC and especially not NBC.

I would agree on "(on occasion) good ideas man" and the fact that he doesn't follow through, he's careening all the time. One of the reasons he destroyed so many characters - Stephanie has become irredeemable, Taylor became a murderer and a tortured soul, Ridge has never suffered any consequences of his wrongful deeds and so on... Also, I think you noted in one the threads, he didn't find a way to successfully incorporate the Marones into the canvas. I really love Jackie (who he also destroyed by making her a prostitute) and Nick, but so many things involving those two don't make sense. Still, I wouldn't write them off.

As for Patrick Mulcahey, I never really saw why is he such a superb writer. That rape episode showed quite well he isn't. And I'm not sure what to say about Alden's and Ferri's influence - why was that rape story so bad under their consultancy?

Edited September 12, 200718 yr by Sylph

And I'm not sure what to say about Alden's and Ferri's influence - why was that rape story so bad under their consultancy?

I don't think that just b/c they (Alden/JFE) are female means the rape story would or should be any better. the fact that they are writers is all that matters- them wanting to create good strories, irrespective of the character's gender.

If one didn't look at the end credits to see Alden's name listed, they wouldn't know that she was part of the staff. They'd be surprised b/c her influence (if she has any at all) is not being felt in a discernible capacity. Maybe if she (Alden) was HW she would return the show to its roots in a rockin' way. So far, i'm very disappointed with Alden & JFE. They are very capable writers, but B&B is clearly not the show for them. They are Y&R writers, first & foremost, and extreme camp is not their forte.

All you have to do is compare both shows so far in 2007 and you'll have your answer. The answer: Nowhere. He must stay on B&B.