Jump to content

Y&R: Discussion for the Week of January 5th 2009


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Oh I thought yesterday's show was a snoozefest so didn't watch today's eppy. Good thing I past on it too. What happened to continuation to the brilliant show of Friday?

And is it me or does Nu-Abby look like a young Brenda Epperson?? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

True...but you dont follow up a great cliffhanger with a clunker of a Monday show. The set up was there and Monday was just not clicking. I actually taped it to watch before it came on Soapnet. I was very disappointed that i went and did other things around the house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

While the new Eden is better than the first one, I still don't think she's that great. Maybe she'll improve over time, but she isn't a good actress either. However, I do like Michael having a daughter-figure type around, even if she's his sister. It makes Michael more compassionate, which Lauren already did.

I love Victor and Sharon's friendship. It's just so natural.

Neil should have left Newman for Jabot years ago. Yes, it shows how loyal a person Neil is, but it also makes him look stupid and pathetic. Victor overlooks him time and time again for his children, who often turn their backs on him, yet Neil does nothing. If anyone deserves to be promoted to Victor's second, it's Neil. He's more loyal to Victor and Newman Enterprises than both Victoria and Nicholas.

Gloria's an idiot for purposely getting her bail taken away. Dumbass!

Kevin's face was priceless when Katherine remembered that he has her money. :lol:

I loved Sharon's evil little smirk when Phyllis made the comment about Nick and Sharon kissing in Paris. How does it feel on the other side, Red?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I completely and totally agree.

I also did not think Mon/Tues were boring. Not every episode nees to be massive. As for not continuing the Friday cliffhanger..."Make 'em laugh, make 'em cry, make 'em WAIT."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Young and the Restless always was most successful with the slow paced storyline that gradually builds until you have such a great climax. The climax is always best when you have invested alot of time watching it, and the acting is much better too because the actors have invested that time as well.

I am glad Y&R is back to the slow paced model that Latham pretty much abandoned. It doesn't work for all soaps, but works for Y&R and works well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

IA- It's always been more about the "why" than the "what". Anyone can get online and read a spoiler. It's much different to sit and listen to the characters talk about why they do the things they do- making talent a "must" for the Y&R actors, as is longevity and familiarity. They are in relationships with one another under the same "why" clause, which constantly keeps story line moving. I appreciate Y&R for taking the time to do this kind of storytelling.

The fast paced cheapened the work the actor's put in, and forced them to do some outrageously piss poor performances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree. They are building long term story and alliances. They are following beats of the story and making me wonder about how they are aligning certain characters. I love that Jill is working with Victor to nail Jack even if I don't want the Abbotts to lose Jabot but it needs to be a slow build.

I am curious that they seem to be getting all the Baldwin-Fishers involved in the Katherine storyline before having Nikki or Amber find out about Kay which makes me wonder why they are alligning Katherine with them so closely. I like that Michael is talking to Kevin about doing the right thing and that even though he is tempted to keep the money he is conflicted.

Good story takes time to set up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
    • Interesting.  It seems to allude to that statement that Warren Burton made around that time about some AW actors getting special treatment.  I wonder who was resentful about not getting to go. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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