1. Put Susan Flannery back in a major SL

2. Reduce the focus on Katie and Donna, indeed a lot less of the Logans in general, with the exception of Brooke

3. Brooke/Ridge remarry and they start up their own company or take over Forrester

4. Give Felicia, Thorne, Clarke, Jackie and Pam much more airtime

5. Bring back Deacon, either rehire Sean Kanan or recast the character

6. Hang on to Brandon Beemer, Owen has a lot of potential to be a bad boy, maybe pair him with Felicia instead of Donna?

7. Return the focus to the fashion business, fashion houses going to war with each other etc.

8. Enough with the depressing deaths and medical stuff, more fun romance, sex and scandal is required!

Really? Interesting. A little elaboration?

I meant a stereotypical gay man. One who would love writing for the fashion industry, the divas on the show, and one willing to follow through on bold risks.

Also, B&B has a horrible reputation with the use of its cast and the fact it tends to focus on one storyline at a time. Better ensemble writing is desperately needed on this show, the 30 minutes excuse doesn't cut it with me.

She needs to pay for her crimes and come as a different character.

She needs to die in prison, the same way it was because of her that John Abbott ended up in prison and died there.

Why? What difference does it make if the writer is gay or straight?

A huge difference! We have a show that's supposed to focus on the fashion industry, yet not one gay character has popped up on the show.

Call it a stereotype of not, but the fashion industry tends to be dominated by gay men and straight women.

Not to mention that B&B is a female dominated show, and straight men on daytime right now have no idea how to write for women, especially strong women. A gay man or woman would be better, IMO.

Edited July 12, 200817 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

My favourite character on this show is Bridget. And she has been teeeerrrribly written for ages now. I'm afraid that in the end she might be useless as a character, worn out with all the bad stories she was given.

Edited July 12, 200817 yr by Sylph

I'm not particularly interested in seeing Brooke take over the Stephanie role but it's interesting to note that KKL is roughly the same age that SF was when the show started.

As far as reviving B&B, I think we've covered this ground many times before and the show seems to drift continuously further away from what anyone on SON sees as being crucial for its survival. I don't think it comes down to adding a character here or a storyline there. It is a fundamentally damaged show because of the short sightedness that has prevented any major rejuvenation for the last decade.

B&B desperately needs long term direction. Even if that means a conscious decision to tell short story arcs, at least there would be some kind of plan in place. Bradley's penchant for crushing stories and characters on a whim was a complacent luxury that the show cannot afford to continue with. Bottom line, it needs a new foundation that does not revolve around Susan Flannery because she simply isn't interested in staying.

I've said before B&B needs to capitalise on its "glamour" tag to set itself apart from the run-of-the-mill soaps. It should be a guilty pleasure. A televisual version of the 80s bonkbuster page turners with characters having fun sex. Get back to including some of the classic archetypes and larger than life characters instead of actors. Truly villainous characters to stir up the canvas. There is so much in the fashion industry that could be used to push storyline.

But that doesn't mean that the show has to be shallow. There needs to be motivation to character behaviour however outlandish and resonance to story twists. B&B realised this in the early 90s. The Forresters losing Forrester Creations meant something because we understood what the company meant to the characters who were fighting for it. How many times have we watched diluted versions of this same plot in the past 5 years? We need clearly defined motivation and clearly defined relationships between the characters. Simplify the family tree. Can the incest. Stop with the same triangles that have played out for years.

What's missing is any hint of this show being escapist fun. It's a chore to watch.

I'm not particularly interested in seeing Brooke take over the Stephanie role but it's interesting to note that KKL is roughly the same age that SF was when the show started.

As far as reviving B&B, I think we've covered this ground many times before and the show seems to drift continuously further away from what anyone on SON sees as being crucial for its survival. I don't think it comes down to adding a character here or a storyline there. It is a fundamentally damaged show because of the short sightedness that has prevented any major rejuvenation for the last decade.

We completely agree. It's like when you create some new popular fashion. And then that's the only thing you sell...year after year (say, the wrap dress). After a while you have exhausted audience interest in your product, and you have nothing to follow it up with.

It is interesting that the core foundation Brad has played out is the gift from his father...the cornerstone Bill and Lee invented. Brad has really been unable to add anything viable to that in the ensuing 21 years.

B&B desperately needs long term direction. Even if that means a conscious decision to tell short story arcs, at least there would be some kind of plan in place. Bradley's penchant for crushing stories and characters on a whim was a complacent luxury that the show cannot afford to continue with. Bottom line, it needs a new foundation that does not revolve around Susan Flannery because she simply isn't interested in staying.

They're already telling short arc stories. That's fine, as long as they are embedded in a plan so that the finish of one arc launches the start of the next, so that there is a through-narrative with integrity. Also, EVEN WHEN you tell short arc stories, you tell SEVERAL of them, and you start one, be in the middle of the second, and end the third. This all requires METICULOUS planning, which seems to be the one skill Brad Bell lacks.

But we are in total agreement on the need for a new foundation...AS fundamental as when Bill Bell phased out the Brooks/Fosters and brought in the Abbott/Williams clans.

I've said before B&B needs to capitalise on its "glamour" tag to set itself apart from the run-of-the-mill soaps. It should be a guilty pleasure. A televisual version of the 80s bonkbuster page turners with characters having fun sex. Get back to including some of the classic archetypes and larger than life characters instead of actors. Truly villainous characters to stir up the canvas. There is so much in the fashion industry that could be used to push storyline.

Here I cannot agree with you. But I also cannot get into Desperate Housewives or Ugly Betty. In the 80s, I quickly lost tolerance for Dallas and Dynasty...it was Knot's Landing that I loved.

But I do not dispute you. B&B had a campy foundation, and this is a natural fit for the show today. AND I believe camp is one of the few things that could bring in a multi-generational audience.

But if you mean fashion house against fashion house--the Spectra vs. Forrester kind of idea...we are in total agreement.

But that doesn't mean that the show has to be shallow. There needs to be motivation to character behaviour however outlandish and resonance to story twists. B&B realised this in the early 90s. The Forresters losing Forrester Creations meant something because we understood what the company meant to the characters who were fighting for it. How many times have we watched diluted versions of this same plot in the past 5 years? We need clearly defined motivation and clearly defined relationships between the characters. Simplify the family tree. Can the incest. Stop with the same triangles that have played out for years.

What's missing is any hint of this show being escapist fun. It's a chore to watch.

Zero fun. No fun. Not a scrap of humor...nothing but unrelenting misery, mostly featuring "old" people. I emphasize that (I'm "old", at 43) only because that is such a sign of a structurally broken show. Brooke CANNOT continue acting like a 17 year old girl. And since the show revolves around her 17 year old heart, it is NO fun to watch.

Rather than view Flannery's departure as horrible, it should be METICULOUSLY planned as a way to reinvent the show.

See, I think I might really phase out those Forresters and Logans over time. Maybe focus on a family of garment workers... But maybe I'm too "Knots Landing". If we go the glamour route, they MUST find a way to replace the HEART AND SOUL that was Spectra.

1. Have Bell stick to EP-ing and make Kay Alden the sole head writer, with Jack Smith as co-HW

2. Divide air time more evenly among the cast

3. Revive Spectra - have Nick, Jackie and Clarke develop their own fashion empire. Then have Eric and Donna hired at Spectra after the Forresters eject them from FC. Having Eric there would make Spectra a formidable opponent for FC.

4. Put Dan McVicar back on contract and return Clarke to his rightful status as the serial playboy with comical flare.

5. Pair Thorne with Ashley and give both some air time.

6. Lose Felicia - the character is just an annoyance now. LK can go back to ATWT.

7. Recast Thomas with Blair Redford and hire Adrianne Leon as a love interest.

8. As much as I love Heather Tom, I don't think she needs to dominate the show the way she does now. Cut down her air time a little.

9. Bring back Deacon - recast if Sean Kanan is unavailable (ie. in jail for drunk driving ). Does anyone remember Marsh Mokhtari (Carson) from Y&R? I thought he would make a great Deacon recast.

She needs to pay for her crimes and come as a different character.

I thought she would have made a good Beth Logan. But I like her as Gloria, so I hope she stays on Y&R.

1. Have Bell stick to EP-ing and make Kay Alden the sole head writer, with Jack Smith as co-HW

Do you like watching drivel LOL cause that's what you'll see with Alden head writing. JMO.

Edited July 13, 200817 yr by detroitpiston

Blah to Deacon and Sean Kanan, although I know everybody likes them both. If Owen is around and is "bad" then that's enough.

Also, I think

Brooke/Ridge start up their own company or take over Forrester

is actually happening.

I'll post more on here later.

Edited July 13, 200817 yr by bandbfan

Do you like watching drivel LOL cause that's what you'll see with Alden head writing. JMO.

Apparently I do like drivel! I thought B&B was great during the strike - especially the Pam/Donna SL.

::Awaits Sylph's post on why Kay Alden is the devil and should be fired from B&B.::

Beause B&B is a show centred on the fashion industry, it has missed so many opportunities to do storylines that touch on issues the industry faces. And every time a promising storyline does show up, Bell has no aversion to botching it completely or dropping it like a hot potato.

It's also baffling why the show has never had LGBT characters considering their presence in the fashion world.

Khan, have you heard about any other writer besides Patrick Mulcahey? Any?

Of course I have. Aside from Doug Marland, however, I'm not a fan of any of them. :P

It's also baffling why the show has never had LGBT characters considering their presence in the fashion world.

Not only because it focuses on the fashion world, but the show itself airs in a very BROAD international market! And from what I see and hear, other countries have had long-running gay characters and storylines, so B&B should really think about not just their american audience (who have responded fairly well to Luke/Noah on ATWT... They are consistently favorite couple in SOD), but their overseas audience, who have proven they will invest in gay stories and characters.

See, I think I might really phase out those Forresters and Logans over time. Maybe focus on a family of garment workers... But maybe I'm too "Knots Landing". If we go the glamour route, they MUST find a way to replace the HEART AND SOUL that was Spectra.

Sorry MarkH but you ARE too 'Knots Landing' (which don't get me wrong had it's brilliant times prior to LML gaining control) haha.

Getting rid of the Forresters would be suicide for B&B. Thom Racina said that soap producers should try to keep the audience they have rather than go searching for an audience that doesn't exist. A show about garment workers...not a grand plan.

B&B is about glamor and being over the top...that's why it's such a smash hit overseas. Brooke becoming Stephanie makes sense: many people, over the course of a lifetime, become the person they most feared or despised. It would be very full circle and I'd be 100% on board with it. Spectra also must be reinvigorated. Perhaps Judith Chapman (as a different character mind you) is the answer, maybe it's Lauren Koslow (who I firmly believe would jump from DAYS to B&B if the contract was right) who is a B&B original cast member...maybe it's Lesley Anne Down who is being wasted!

You know, it really wouldn't take much to make Brooke the new Steph. She's already meddling in her sisters, and childrens lives. They need to just take it a step further. And like someone else said, either send Steph out with a bang or just let her leave now. It's better to take the hit and rebuild then to stall for awhile and take the hit anyway cause by then you'd lose to much time you could have spent rebuilding.

Edited July 13, 200817 yr by detroitpiston