So, MarkH... If you're reading this... What's the mood on Usenet regarding this Maria/Hogan tenure? Is Shirl content?

So, MarkH... If you're reading this... What's the mood on Usenet regarding this Maria/Hogan tenure? Is Shirl content?

LOL. Some recent quotes:

We've agreed here that Y&R could have used some "remodeling" -- updating, improving, modernizing -- but that it was NOT in need of being "gutted". That *is* what has been done. Yes, the characters are the same and some of the sets are the same, but the *structure* that was Y&R -- the formula that built foundation for characters and stories, the process that had stories in various stages of development, and the measured/monitored level of quality *and CONSISTENCY* -- is gone.

That's why we've seen such inconsistent displays of good and bad but no sustained, *consistent* movement upward/forward -- we've seen some periods that are pretty good, even some glimmers of excellence, followed by some VERY poorly written, ill-conceived material ... to the point of having their biggest, central character father a child after two vasectomies without even realizing they made that mistake!

To use your analogy, it's as if the furniture has been moved back in, but the entire front of the building has been torn down and left wide open and vandals periodically come in and do their dirty-work, so the "renovation" can never consistently move forward.

And I'm sure there are others like you; however, there are also others like me who no longer still enjoy the show that is the result of all the chaotic behind-the-scenes changes and inconsistent "remodeling". Y&R has lost the loyalty of a significant number of its long-time, formerly faithful viewers, and new, younger ones have not replaced them. Soaps in general were on the decline anyway, but doing demolition on what WAS working for Y&R in conjunction with what wasn't and *not replacing it with something that is *consistently* better* has accelerated that decline for Y&R even more.

This kind of behind-the-scenes, personnel "chaos" in ANY COMPANY rarely has no negative effect on the product, revenue or customer satisfaction, and Y&R is no exception.

Seems the idea of bringing in *new* viewers has been abandoned. It appears to be accepted that 8- and 10-year olds watching with Mom or Grandma doesn't happen anymore and that the end of soaps is not only certain, it is imminent. The chaos and associated inferior material (overall) coming out of the entire genre looks like those with the credentials are just trying to $queeze as much as they can out of it before it dies completely. Maintaining some viewers is necessary, of course, but short-term vision has replaced the careful, thoughtful, *long-term planning* that went into shows that people expected would be around for years to come.

I'm saying Y&R has NOT been restored, and that some parts -- like the death of John Abbott -- can't be restored. But these are not small parts or mere "exceptions to the rule". The characters you named that are NOT still there were NOT back-burner characters. Y&R took hits losing John, Ash and Dru. Even if you weren't a big fan of those characters, they were core members of core families.

It *is not* and *cannot* be restored; it CAN be remodeled and/or renovated, but that requires *having* and utilizing a plan. To use your analogy again, workers don't go into a building *with no plans* and just start tearing out walls or building walls without PLANS. A successful renovation depends on several people looking at and utilizing the same plan unless, with careful consideration, a different/better idea is proposed, researched and adopted.

It appears these days more like they just "wing it". That can work for short periods of time, but long term, you're going to get those inconsistent rises and falls in quality that we've seen in recent history.

I have no doubt that Janice Ferri Esser does her best to restore whenever she can. But the point is, it has to be a group effort -- they all have to be working off the same PLAN or one person's efforts to restore won't mean a darn thing when the other guy writes the next scene with something completely different in mind.

I was referring, specifically, to demolition of *pre-LML Y&R* and not replacing it with something consistently better ... not whether Y&R today is consistently better than LML. That's a given! ... almost anything is consistently better than the LML era.

By the way--Shirl is really struck by how much Adam looks like a young Peter Bergman. (Not identical, but they favor each other).

So, she is wondering if there is ANY way--during one of Victor and Hope's downtimes, when Jack was a close friend to Hope, if they could have remotely conceived Adam together. It is a retcon, but it WOULD be delish. Surprisingly, Shirl seems to be in favor of the idea. So am I. I warm to it more and more every day.

LOL. Some recent quotes:

LMAO! Such disheatening views!

But she has a point: the magic of the old Y&R is irrevocably lost. The past few years were like watching a train plummet off a bridge.

LMAO! Such disheatening views!

But she has a point: the magic of the old Y&R is irrevocably lost. The past few years were like watching a train plummet off a bridge.

Ah, but of course, you know I didn't paste in my many disagreements with her :-).

Shirl and I tend to go "point for point" for VERY long posts .

I think, for me, part of it has to do with having no interest in revisiting glory days. As much as I have always loved Y&R, I usually find the old nostalgia clips briefly fun...but not that compelling. They are old. Stylistically and artistically, they represent the past.

So, in that sense, I am excited to see Y&R try to continue to reach for relevance in the modern era.

For example, when Y&R went to HD...I cheered. That was a fundamental investment in keeping the show fresh and technically relevant. (You also know I think the show is just visually beautiful).

When LML brought in faster pacing, more dynamic sets, some interesting and ethnically diverse new performers (back in the day...I thought that Emily O'Brien and Eyal Podell and Adrienne Frantz all had great potential....Eric Steinberg too), HUMOR and dialogue with greater realism...every one of these things seemed to be an improvement to me. Although I didn't like it, I even appreciated the attempt to make the music more up-to-date.

Of course, LML failed (I believe) not because of the above improvements, but because of a cognitive inability (a true frontal lobe dysfunction, IMO) to keep it all together. Thus, the plots became outlandish, the historical accuracy of characters and motivations was loss, some key players were (falsely) squandered. Suddenly the plot lines and character motivations became inconsistent from day to day, and it was clear that quality control had fallen to the wayside. Episode-to-episode variations meant the show no longer sounded "like the show" (to quote Kay Alden).

I truly believe that LML's "renovations" would have updated the show, while keeping its footing in its past, if she simply would have been more capable of keeping the whole package under control. Instead, she delegated too much...and the show fell apart...lost identity...lost connection with its own past.

So, in the later LML regime, the show WAS at risk of derailing.

But that is over now. The show is literally back on track.

I personally like (I am wary, cautious, have few long-term positive expectations) that not all of the stylistic modernizations of the LML era have been cast aside. The younger characters STILL sound different from classic Bell dialogue. The look (Restless Style!) and and pacing is still not as it once was. I applaud the show for trying to (now, more gradually) propel the show into a new era.

I have written elsewhere that shows need to give up this idea of lasting for decades. Indeed, the marketplace seems to be taking care of this excessive longevity problem.

But, as someone whose heart is in Genoa City, I also am far from ready to let it go. To that end, any attempt to keep the show from stagnation (stylistically, narratively, linguistically, production-wise) makes me happy.

[but I am also the guy who applauds P&G for TRYING the Ellen Wheeler GL experiment, even if it was doomed to fail. If we don't try new things, sheer staleness with kill the creative enterprise].

Ah, but of course, you know I didn't paste in my many disagreements with her :-).

Shirl and I tend to go "point for point" for VERY long posts .

For me, it's actually sad — and I might be totally wrong here since I haven't lurked around the groups for quite some time — that there are so few people discussing soaps there. And no one even speaks about As the World Turns or Guiding Light (God forbid!). It's constantly Y&R, Y&R, Y&R...

I think, for me, part of it has to do with having no interest in revisiting glory days. As much as I have always loved Y&R, I usually find the old nostalgia clips briefly fun...but not that compelling. They are old. Stylistically and artistically, they represent the past.

So, in that sense, I am excited to see Y&R try to continue to reach for relevance in the modern era.

For example, when Y&R went to HD...I cheered. That was a fundamental investment in keeping the show fresh and technically relevant. (You also know I think the show is just visually beautiful).

I think I might have contradicted my earlier statement in that we should try to get Y&R in the 21st century. But it's not that I want the old Y&R completely, I just want that same quality of storytelling. Which isn't there.

As for the visual aspect, all American soaps are far behind European, Australian and Central/South American ones. They have long ago changed the whole production aspects and look like some primetime shows.

When LML brought in faster pacing, more dynamic sets, some interesting and ethnically diverse new performers (back in the day...I thought that Emily O'Brien and Eyal Podell and Adrienne Frantz all had great potential....Eric Steinberg too), HUMOR and dialogue with greater realism...every one of these things seemed to be an improvement to me. Although I didn't like it, I even appreciated the attempt to make the music more up-to-date.

Of course, LML failed (I believe) not because of the above improvements, but because of a cognitive inability (a true frontal lobe dysfunction, IMO) to keep it all together.

I think she failed because she deeply hated Y&R. And took a job just because of money and the hope that she will be called to write for another soap.

For me, it's actually sad — and I might be totally wrong here since I haven't lurked around the groups for quite some time — that there are so few people discussing soaps there. And no one even speaks about As the World Turns or Guiding Light (God forbid!). It's constantly Y&R, Y&R, Y&R...

Well, that is partly my fault. The number of correspondents at usenet falls and falls and falls...DonnaB says that is trans-group and international. Message boards and myspace, etc., have supplanted usenet. So what is left there is a shrinking pool of stalwart old folks like me.

Even DonnaB barely posts (there, here) anymore. Roger Newcomb says it is precisely us older folks (he said 50+) who are leaving daytime at the fastest rate. I wonder if that is true. Usenet seems to support it.

The other thing is that ratsc is currently awash in Off Topic (OT) threads...endless...and like weeds, that has kind of overwhelmed the soap discussion.

In terms of posting frequency, I'd say the ranking is more like:

Y&R

ATWT

B&B

GL

But you are correct that Y&R is the leader. In the last few months, I think I have been a main thread starter (and Y&R is my thing)...because so few other threads have been started.

I would say, though, that the general tenor of discussion regarding all the soaps is "disgust"...and that inhibits discussion.

I think she failed because she deeply hated Y&R. And took a job just because of money and the hope that she will be called to write for another soap.

That makes my blood cold.

So you think she was like Gloria Monty. Anti-soap, wanting to turn Y&R into something more like primetime?

I always thought she liked the show and its characters, and tried to make it more relevant. But you may have a good point.

That makes my blood cold.

So you think she was like Gloria Monty. Anti-soap, wanting to turn Y&R into something more like primetime?

I always thought she liked the show and its characters, and tried to make it more relevant. But you may have a good point.

I sort of think she wanted to make her own imprint, to make it more alike to her primetime shows. She never really cared and I get the feeling she was bored to death watching it while they payed her to do so as a consultant. At that point, she probably realised she wouldn't know how to write for it but why would she give up on the money? So she decided to accept the HW position.

I think she likes daytime, only not Y&R. Possibly she even had a subconscious wish to destroy the soap she was so jealous of.

I'm making all this stuff up, but I fear it might be true.

I would say, though, that the general tenor of discussion regarding all the soaps is "disgust"...and that inhibits discussion.

Spot on!

Edited September 21, 200817 yr by Sylph

The JFP thread got me thinking - it appears that now Rauch is the most distinguished EP in daytime history. He's EP-ed P&G soaps, an ABC soap, and now a Sony/Bell soap.

JFP's EP-ed all types of soaps, with the exception of a Sony/Bell soap.

The JFP thread got me thinking - it appears that now Rauch is the most distinguished EP in daytime history. He's EP-ed P&G soaps, an ABC soap, and now a Sony/Bell soap.

JFP's EP-ed all types of soaps, with the exception of a Sony/Bell soap.

SHOUT MODE ON:

AND IF I HAVE MY WAY, JFP WILL NEVER GET HER HANDS ON A BELL SOAP.

Sometimes, things must be said very loudly, so that the universe can clearly hear....

SHOUT MODE ON:

AND IF I HAVE MY WAY, JFP WILL NEVER GET HER HANDS ON A BELL SOAP.

Sometimes, things must be said very loudly, so that the universe can clearly hear....

With the exception of GH and now Y&R, Rauch and JFP have worked on all the same soaps - AW, GL, SB, and OLTL.

She never really cared and I get the feeling she was bored to death watching it while they payed her to do so as a consultant.

I'm confused. Didn't she say in an interview that she had never seen Y&R before getting hired? Or am I just making that up?

I'm confused. Didn't she say in an interview that she had never seen Y&R before getting hired? Or am I just making that up?

She did say that she only started watching it when she was hired to consult.

But then she said she interviewed the actors and took them out to dinner to find out more about their characters, and some praised her for that.

She did say that she only started watching it when she was hired to consult.

But then she said she interviewed the actors and took them out to dinner to find out more about their characters, and some praised her for that.

You mean, she took them out to see who was willing to kiss her ass and therefore be given stories?

Edited September 22, 200817 yr by YRBB

She did say that she only started watching it when she was hired to consult.

But then she said she interviewed the actors and took them out to dinner to find out more about their characters, and some praised her for that.

I thought all those dinner/lunch meetings sounded cool...like she really wanted to get into the heads and history of the characters.

Apparently this was nothing but smoke and mirrors.

But it DID seem to keep the actors on her side for quite some time.

But it DID seem to keep the actors on her side for quite some time.

Then again, they only started speaking out against her when she was fired.

at Jeanne Cooper's "She saved this show!" quote from 2007.