Why do "new" soaps...

[ian]

Bill Bell was a god among soap developers, but his taste in titles left a lot to be desired. "The Innocent Years" turned into "The Young and the Restless" and "Rags" into "The Bold and the Beautiful".

A show called rags makes me think of homeless people, or tampons. I think it sounds kinda skanky and stupid. I'm glad they went with B&B, even if I'd like to see some more boldness.

and the idea of Port Charles carrying the mob stuff would have been ideal. The hospital and then the underbelly of this town on another show, well well timed crossovers, could have made PC really an extra half hour of GH (but with a different focus on different characters), and if you made GH good enough for people to WANT an extra half hour you'd have it made in the shade.

Ahh, missed opportunities.

[CSF]

The Innocent Years made sense because of the stories penned in the original bible, but the times had changed and that's why he went with Y&R. Y&R makes a lot of sense as well because the show revolved around a young cast and there were only 3 vets until Kay and Philllip II were introduced. In all honestly, regardless of Y&R's success after writing out the original characters, I think that hindered Y&R. Y&R was very much ahead of its time. Having been a show about young people, it should have revolved around those young people into their adulthood and then done the same with their offspring and whatever new characters (The Abbott's, Newman's, Winters') Bell decided to introduce. For example, SOARSing should have never taken place on Y&R and I think that was a big flaw on Bell's part. Because you could have still had the "young," the children of the Brooks, Fosters, Abbotts, Newmans, and their parents, the "restless" still front and center and at any given time, the younger characters who would have been so developed and molded after their predecessors would have been able to take lead roles when called for it.

I think "Rags" would have given B&B a stronger identity. It would have specifically had to be about fashion, nothing else. B&B to me, is like Y&R number 2. It's identity is copied from Y&R and it's stories would be too. I also think B&B should not have held so tight to the Forrester and Logan family. A few from each is okay, but to have the whole show revolve around those 2 families is unnecessary. There is a lot of potential there for a show about fashion. Why limit it to 2 families? That I blame on Bradley Bell.

I've always felt it would have been better for the mob stuff to move to Port Charles and GH remained a show about a hospital.

[EricMontreal22]

Except Loving wasn't owned by ABC outright. Remember that Agnes Nixon formed a company that packaged hersoaps for ABC, that she owned, with AMC and OLTL. The deal was within the first five years they were contracted to ABC, then after that they could sell their show to anyone they wanted to--which is why ABC (of course) jumped in to buy them (which is, I think what Agnes Nixon wanted--as she never was like the Bells wanting to own outright). That was Creative Horizons. Loving (and City) was always copyrighted her second company, Dramatic Creations -- I dunno if things had changed, or ABC never really wanted to buy a show that never caught on, or what...