Jump to content

The B&B Production Revolution

Recommended Posts

  • Members

This is a love letter to Brad Bell,

The production revolution at B&B has been developing nicely for a little while now. During this time production has nicely fused inside and outside, background music with 'popular' sounding music and a different sort of pacing and camera work.

I love it. What B&B has done is what GL will never, ever be able to achieve, a production model that is strikingly similar to the fabled UK soap. B&B has succeeded where GL failed. It's now obvious that the only way to do the UK model is to spend the money and do it right. The hand held bullsh*t that GL 'innovated' is NOT UK style. The stationary camera work at B&B is second to none, the lighting is superb, the sound is wonderful.

Congratulations Brad, you did it right, you nailed it, I am impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

That's fine, you're just a purist, I have total respect for that. I'm just happy that 'innovation' on B&B doesn't equal 'looking like dogsh*t' like it does on GL.

It also helps that you feature Morgan Fairchild AND Joan Collins in your posts. Terrific! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, I'm with you. I wish the traditional soap look was still in vogue, but if there has to be some innovation, I prefer B&B's way of doing it. There are no random camera cuts to 10 miles away from characters having an extremely pointless conversation in the middle of "Green Acres."

What better way to be guaranteed a look at both of them at least once a day, right? I love those ladies lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh, I don't know.... Your post makes me wonder if I have a blind spot or some kind of deficit that I can't appreciate or enjoy what you are seeing...

So, my basis of comparison is Y&R. I feel that is a fair comparison for B&B, given their shared legacies and colocation in the same studio.

I think I may also be having the problem that on my CBS affliate, the non-HD broadcasts are HORRIBLE. On every TV, this affiliate sends signals that look like they are vaseline-filtered. It gets worse on a 42" 1080p screen...because the lousy signal is too big...exposing all the flaws. When Y&R comes on, there is clearly some kind of visible "switch" (the screen flickers) to a "CBS HD" feed...which is remarkable. Y&R looks cinematic...and B&B doesn't.

For me, the rock-and-role and quick cuts are okay...they don't bother me...until the camera suddenly stops...and we have these lingering, static shots of a REMARKABLY wrinked Jack Wagner or some such. There is SUCH a lack of match between what is seen in the scenes and their transitions...

Like Toups, I'm also not "feeling" the new music. When Katie and Nick's scene is underscored by some tripe about "destiny" my eyes roll. Instrumentals are better. So, I wish B&B had gone to rocky-but-instrumental soundtracks, rather than what they have. Still, I would enjoy the new music more if the scene pacing and within-scene camera work would better match the transitions. And I DON'T mean the camera doing three quick "jumps" or "staggers" as they close up on Jack Wagner's face.

In the end, this may be a place where Marceline's nostalgia hypothesis makes me a resistant viewer. Because I LOVE the beautiful, sumptuous comfort of Y&R...and B&B is no longer comfortable for me. It puts me on edge, and not in a good way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm going to wade in here too and say that I've never seen B&B be such an incoherent mess, in every conceivable way. At least GL knows what it's trying to be. People are applauding B&B for introducing 'gradual' changes but to me its just choppy and unsettling.

First off:

Amen. Even during Bradley's most recycled, ridiculous story phases there was always something salvageable and I never thought there'd be a time when I'd find literally every character on the show to be so bland, boring and unappealing. I don't give a [[email protected]#$%^&*] about any of the characters or stories I'm seeing on my screen. Why bring back Beth Logan if she doesn't have any storyline with Eric or Stephanie, her peers? She's just a weird, twittering woman with hints of senile dementia that apparently have similar symptoms to living in Stepford. Dreadful.

Marcus/Steffy? Fine if it felt like it was related to anything else on the show and wasn't just a random summer storyline. I don't care what Ellen Wheeler says. This is The Hills lite. I hated Ambervision as much as the next sane viewer but it at least intersected the other important story points.

I can't even get into the stupid, nauseating, pathetic Katie/Nick/Bridget mess. Absolute steaming [[email protected]#$%^&*]. Do they honestly think this is what the viewers are crying out for?

Bottom line, you know you're losing Susan Flannery you do it properly. Give her a semblance of an exit storyline and put a hell of a lot of thought into shaping a HUGE new chapter for the show instead of some half hearted infiltration of pretty youngsters.

As for the technical aspects, it's just another example of the complete turmoil and identity crisis the show is in. You can't have Beth Logan making goeey eyes at pregnancy test boxes amidst a background of a soaring orchestrals segueing into Steffy and Marcus sucking face on the beach. Similarly I can't handle quick jump cut shots of LA taking us to Nick cupping Katie's overexposed face on a fake terrace and spouting the most ridiculous dialogue this side of Passions. It's like two different (and equally shite) shows!

Why did Forrester Creations of ALL locations need an exterior? If they wanted to get outside then Bradley should have given up his poolside for filming a couple of mornings a week.

I've stated on the board before that I'm all for enhanced production methods and exteriors but not if they're implemented at random. B&B to me is unwatchable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In contrast to the show, this is one of the most coherent posts about B&B EVER.

My goodness, I thought I was missing the point about Beth. To bring her back as this talk-to in 1950s garb is....astonishing. What is the point?

They're alright. I guess B&B must have one of those lower-cost production models now, where they bring in the actors to shoot their week worth of scenes all in one day. When they do that, the story groups can't intersect. I find this story foisted upon us and boring. I do not see the chemistry that everyone else sees (although it is better than Rick-Phoebe or HORRORS Constantine-Phoebe.

I cannot imagine how a story could be more awful. I lack words to explain why it is awful. That these a-list actors are wasted in this age-13 awfulness is even worse. That these writers are capable of much more makes it EVEN worse. Just awful at every level. Moreover, universally, everyone posting agrees with this--everywhere. But still it persists.

The irony is that Wagner and Tom had decent chemistry. Until...well...the whole sh*t with the bullet-through-the-heart began.

Amen. I've been trying to say a version of that for weeks now...but you have hit the nail on the head.

Again, brilliantly stated. The pacing and writing of the scenes (which is still classic Bell mushy overdramatic...and I personally love that) in NO WAY matches this new rocky scene transition thing. They have to do one show OR another.

But maybe B&B now is like "growing your hair out". They are transitioning to something new, but we're in this in-between stage where it looks awful.

Since these locations are now CBS-wide (not yet Y&R, which disappointed me by not actually going to Malibu), I wonder how much of this was network mandate.

Finally, back to the dialogue. As I wrote elsewhere, I thought Friday's show...so florid...was a Patrick Mulcahy production. I am not the guy here who always listens to the dialogue...but I hear Patrick's. (This is not a good thing.) Imagine my surprise to read that Jack Smith did Friday's show. I guess the good news is that there is an increasingly consistent "voice" at B&B. The bad news is it is...to use your word...shite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The only possible reason for bringing her back is that they want a sounding board for Katie who has no romantic connection with Nick (yet). God forbid she actually has a you know, friend. There's a character in EastEnders called Jean Slater who is there for mentally unhinged comedy relief and playing a supporting role in her childrens' storylines. That is the current Beth Logan. One of those strange women who try to engage you in inane conversation in a supermarket queue. Not exactly B&B.

The acting's fine but I don't know who the hell they are. Instead of being eased in to the overall canvas they're part of this New! B&B! and that instantly makes me dislike them. It's prejudice, I'll admit but until they're integrated I'm not interested. I'd like to see Ridge and Brooke have a more active involvement with them but they've been turned into the Tom and Margo of B&B (and I find Tom and Margo to be one of the creepiest couples in daytime but that's an opinion for another thread).

Polygamy? Poor, poor, POOR Ashley Jones. Imagine getting a role on the glamour soap of daytime and being placed in two romances with men 30 years your senior complete with added 'hints of incest'. The one time she dares get a romance with a more age appropriate man and Lesli Kay hits her in the face with a bunch of lillies.

I like that analogy. It makes me feel hopeful. As for the dialogue I've not given it any thought because I find it totally draining to watch. Katie and Nick may as well be talking like Terrence and Phillip for all the interest I have in their scenes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Community Posts

    • I think I've heard of this before but I'd definitely like to know more, lol. Probably in the Classic thread if that's preferred by people. I've never been big on Cari Shayne's Karen. But yes, Carrie and Christie Clark have always had me. Like Kimberly as Robin on GH or Erin Torpey on OLTL, there is a core of lived experience and quiet intelligence there that makes the character rise above any poor writing IMO.
    • I hear what your saying regarding Carrie Brady's place on the canvas. There is no arguing that. As I think I was saying poorly above, Karen was introduced during a transition period very early in Riche's run (as was Jagger). There were a lot of things that happened during that period that feel very against the soap opera grain. For example, David Langdon, Monica's ex and Dawn's father, arrives in Port Charles in a medical story where Monica inserts herself with the intention of telling David that Dawn was their daughter. David dies suddenly and Monica never reveals this information to David. This feels very untraditional. Similarly, the whole Joseph Adkins arc with Bobbie writing to a murderer and the women of Port Charles all fawning over his book is not something I felt was the type of story soaps in 1992 did. Similarly, introducing a character like Karen without any family ties and anchoring a younger part of the story with another outsider Jagger wasn't how things would typically work (effectively) on the soap.   I think my issue with the idea that Brenda had a direct goal is that is all there was to her. She had nothing to her outside of that in early 1993. Jagger had wanting to find his family. Karen was working to get into medical school. Brenda had Jagger, who only wanted her when he couldn't have Karen. Even Ruby called Jagger out on this. Brenda's point of view was so limited. The fact that she nearly gets bested by Jenny Eckert of all people in a confrontation in March, 1993, is pretty wild given how milquetoast Jenny is.  I can see why you would think Karen was taking a middle of the road approach to things. It might not have been presented well, but her pursuing her career and going to college was going to come first. Working at Kelly's and maintaining her grades was going to come before her romance with Jagger. With Rhonda around, meddling in her life, Karen definitely had more reason to be conflicted. Rhonda saw Karen's relationship with Jason as the key to Karen's success, both by marrying into a wealthy family and by building a network of connections in Karen's career field.  Having watched some of her "General Hospital" run, I would like to at the early years of Karen's run on "Port Charles" to see how that all this continues in terms of her characterization. I think Karen remains very passive romantically deferring to Courtney Kanelos, who was just a much stronger adversary for Karen than Brenda was based on where Brenda was in her journey given that Courtney had Neil which tied her to the entire Scanlon clan. I do remember Karen having some outbursts, but I vaguely think that Shayne's Karen could also be pushed to her limits and she would fire back. This just wasn't her modus operandi as it was for characters like Courtney and early Brenda.  In Brenda's defense, I think part of the issue was the underdevelopment of her character. I think there was an intent on either Levinson's (or Riche's) part to craft Brenda as a "poor little rich girl" type who had no moral compass because her father was a business tycoon who ignored her and had loved Julia's mother more than her mother. If this was true, and the intent to solicit sympathy, or least empathy, for Brenda, it wasn't played enough for this to be effective. Brenda rejected Julia both in terms of her role as a parental figure and any sisterly advice she gave.  I would even go further and say that the issues I have with the Brenda/Karen rivalry were inherit to Bill Levinson's writing. By comparison, if you look at what was being done in the other female rivalries, the issues were mostly consistent. Jenny and Julia, for example, had the potential to be interesting but Julia was so passive and Jenny was sound brash and unfeeling that there was no one to root for. Also, the rivalry between Tiffany and Bobbie took Tiffany into a very narrow view with her solely trying to secure custody of Lucas at the cost of everything else including her friendship with Bobbie and Tony as well as her marriage to Sean. I'd be curious to see if Levinson had similar issues when he was at "Loving," but I'm spacing at the moment.   
    • Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka talk new show, ‘Drag Me to Dinner’ l GMA  
    • Jimbo & Alexis Spill Tea on Heidi's Drama (Unaired)

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Do these tournaments still test for COVID? https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/65794974?xtor=AL-72-[partner]-[bbc.news.twitter]-[headline]-[news]-[bizdev]-[isapi]&at_link_origin=BBCWorld&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_type=web_link&at_format=link&at_link_id=085D161A-01FB-11EE-91C3-39FFD772BE90&at_campaign_type=owned&at_bbc_team=editorial
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy