I am really interested to know. I do not like Kay Alden, everyone knows that , and I'm not really all that much into Maria Arena's writing either...

Both have (strong) supporters here so perhaps this shall be interesting.

I really don't get all the LAUREN hate. I am a huge T.E.BREGMAN fan. I think the Fisher family is one of the most off putting, unattractive, annoying, and creepy families ever in soaps. They do nothing for me. When the Kevin "stockholm syndrome" bulls-it started, i tuned out, completely. Yuck Yuck Yuck. Love Tracey.

Lauren's maturity is definitely good but means nothing if all she does is prop The Fishers.

Exactly! I'm done with the Michael, Gloria and Eden propping.

They will, however, never undo that.

I can't wait for the day when Lauren finally bursts at the entire crazy family. Even though it probably won't happen, I'm waiting anxiously until the day comes.

BAM! That's not what I was saying. At all. That whole "Conniving shrew" crap and all.

Well, to be a husabnd stealer.. that means you need to be "conniving". Maybe not a shrew... ok... but maybe I'm not getting what your wish is?

And Dee dee... I'm not talking about the death of John Abbott in relation to other characters, what I meant by his death being realistic, was that it didn't come out of the blue (Like when Bill Bell had Brad have that heart attack when he was in bed with Lauren.... a young, healthy stud in his 20's, in perfect shape) I'm talking the METHOD of his death was what was realistic.

Edited April 5, 200916 yr by alphanguy74

I'm talking the METHOD of his death was what was realistic.

Yep.

But it was still horrible.

I can't wait for the day when Lauren finally bursts at the entire crazy family. Even though it probably won't happen, I'm waiting anxiously until the day comes.

Fenmores Vs. Fishers!

I honestly can't think of any time a ghost on ANY soap helped matters. EVER.

Wait, that's not true. I thought Duke and Harper appearing to Jack Devereaux during his redemption years *occasionally* helped matters. But only because it's Days, and I buy that over-the-top tragi-comedy aspect on that show. Beyond that, I'm hard-pressed to think of any time a ghost added to a storyline in a positive way.

Definitely. Ghosts are a no-no.

I think the Fisher family is one of the most off putting, unattractive, annoying, and creepy families ever in soaps.

So true.

The initial concept of Gloria Fisher - the idea to bring on this abused wife who sired two of the most psychologically damaged characters in soap history - is fine with me. But she took SUCH a left turn into camp territory, it had an irrevocably bad effect on everyone involved with Michael and Kevin, and completely neutered all of the Baldwin-Fisher-Fenmores. She got involved with the Abbotts WAY too early. In fact, I'm not sure she ever shoudl have gotten involved with them. She should have played out more like Betty white's character on B&B... and not this gold-digging throwback to the 80's with her gold bangles and scenery-chewing.

JVA's Gloria was awesome.

God... When I think of Y&R, I think of so many characters that need to be killed off. And by killed off I mean: written out never to return again.

So many.

JVA's Gloria was awesome.

AMEN.

Well whether or not you believe John should have died, HE SHOULD HAVE LEARNED THAT ASHLEY WASN'T HIS FRIGGIN DAUGHTER.

Talk about dropped plot points. That was a unexplored gold mine.

God... When I think of Y&R, I think of so many characters that need to be killed off. And by killed off I mean: written out never to return again.

So many.

3/4 of the cast?

In the scheme of soap deaths, John's made sense (born of 20+ years of a health condition, and his stressful imprisonment). The death created some good fallout (not as much as it should have, but that was LML's recurring flaw).

That said, much as Nancy Curlee just said about Maureen Bauer, it created a hole in the canvas that was not easily filled. He was the closest thing Y&R had to a moral center and friend-to-many, and nobody has filled that void.

I initially liked the idea of ghost-John, because I was a rabid Six Feet Under fan. Of course, that was misguided on my part because Y&R is not SFU. Also, in my opinion, ghost-John was used wrongly. He should not just have appeared to Jack (although there was a diminishing number of Abbotts he could appear to). Moreover, like Nate Fisher's dad on SFU, he should have articulated their hopes and fears...he should have been nasty sometimes and nice sometimes. But, of course, that wouldn't have been John. So, in the end, the ghost should not have happened.

Was it a mistake to kill John? I miss him every day...so maybe. Indeed, I think I would have put him on the "safe" list, and given him a minimal guarantee, and just let him be a talk to.

But remember, too, that even Bill Bell or Kay Alden took John off contract twice. The first time was when he replaced Brett Halsey. John spied Jack and Jill having sex, and hightailed it to New York for a time. He came back as Jerry Douglas. The second time was in 1998. The Abbotts had lost Jabot, Jerry went off contract and went to New York again. He regularly interacted with Traci and Colleen, off canvas, during that time. (Did he live with them?). When Jack regained Jabot in 1999, John was returned. Thus (I guess this was already the Alden era?) Thus, there was a history of having a hard time finding stuff for John to do. He had pretty low appearance numbers during a lot of years.

I guess my point is that there is both a history of having a problem with this character -- across regimes -- and there was also a precendent for another way of dealing with him. Since he was in jail, they could just have rested the character and kept him in jail without killing him. Or, he could have become disillusioned by Gloria and left. The permanence of the exit, I think, may have been a mistake.

On the other hand, there is a real problem with the Abbott "kids". Living at home, with daddy, never growing up... John's death definitely was necessary for that part of it.

Except, of course, the ghost of John undermined that for Jack. Because John would constantly appear, showing that Jack knew what the right thing to do was... So, when Jack kept doing the wrong things, it made it even harder for us to view him as "misguided". Now, since he was actively ignoring his conscience, it just made Jack seem bad. It deprived the character of nuance, and it unfortunately conveyed this 55 year old man as a little boy...running to his internalized "daddy" with every question.

So, in retrospect, I would have either retired John to prison off canvas, and then returned him as a recurring talk-to (like Doris Collins), or sent him to New York (and used him in a Doris Collins capacity).

I wish, wish, wish soaps used death more sparingly.

ETA: As a Knot's Landing maniac, IMO JVA was a disaster. I found Chapman's Gloria sexier and campier...which was important to explain part of how she keeps attracting so many men (including her sons) to her web. I love that her Gloria is a reckless, evil woman...all sugar-coated in neediness. It is a singular character, and I utterly do not understand -- for a millisecond -- the animus against her or the Fisher-Baldwins. They brought a dangerous, larcenous different voice to Genoa City, and I find the town enriched for it. I disagree even with those who feel these are not leading characters. I believe they are deserving of a place with all the other core families. I hope the Fisher-Baldwins are strengthed with Gloria being Katherine's daughter...even though I suspect it is really Esther who will be her daughter.

Edited April 5, 200916 yr by MarkH

3/4 of the cast?

LOL! As i rub my hands with glee

In the scheme of soap deaths, John's made sense (born of 20+ years of a health condition, and his stressful imprisonment). The death created some good fallout (not as much as it should have, but that was LML's recurring flaw).

That said, much as Nancy Curlee just said about Maureen Bauer, it created a hole in the canvas that was not easily filled. He was the closest thing Y&R had to a moral center and friend-to-many, and nobody has filled that void.

I initially liked the idea of ghost-John, because I was a rabid Six Feet Under fan. Of course, that was misguided on my part because Y&R is not SFU. Also, in my opinion, ghost-John was used wrongly. He should not just have appeared to Jack (although there was a diminishing number of Abbotts he could appear to). Moreover, like Nate Fisher's dad on SFU, he should have articulated their hopes and fears...he should have been nasty sometimes and nice sometimes. But, of course, that wouldn't have been John. So, in the end, the ghost should not have happened.

Was it a mistake to kill John? I miss him every day...so maybe. Indeed, I think I would have put him on the "safe" list, and given him a minimal guarantee, and just let him be a talk to.

But remember, too, that even Bill Bell or Kay Alden took John off contract twice. The first time was when he replaced Brett Halsey. John spied Jack and Jill having sex, and hightailed it to New York for a time. He came back as Jerry Douglas. The second time was in 1998. The Abbotts had lost Jabot, Jerry went off contract and went to New York again. He regularly interacted with Traci and Colleen, off canvas, during that time. (Did he live with them?). When Jack regained Jabot in 1999, John was returned. Thus (I guess this was already the Alden era?) Thus, there was a history of having a hard time finding stuff for John to do. He had pretty low appearance numbers during a lot of years.

I guess my point is that there is both a history of having a problem with this character -- across regimes -- and there was also a precendent for another way of dealing with him. Since he was in jail, they could just have rested the character and kept him in jail without killing him. Or, he could have become disillusioned by Gloria and left. The permanence of the exit, I think, may have been a mistake.

On the other hand, there is a real problem with the Abbott "kids". Living at home, with daddy, never growing up... John's death definitely was necessary for that part of it.

Except, of course, the ghost of John undermined that for Jack. Because John would constantly appear, showing that Jack knew what the right thing to do was... So, when Jack kept doing the wrong things, it made it even harder for us to view him as "misguided". Now, since he was actively ignoring his conscience, it just made Jack seem bad. It deprived the character of nuance, and it unfortunately conveyed this 55 year old man as a little boy...running to his internalized "daddy" with every question.

So, in retrospect, I would have either retired John to prison off canvas, and then returned him as a recurring talk-to (like Doris Collins), or sent him to New York (and used him in a Doris Collins capacity).

I wish, wish, wish soaps used death more sparingly.

ETA: As a Knot's Landing maniac, IMO JVA was a disaster. I found Chapman's Gloria sexier and campier...which was important to explain part of how she keeps attracting so many men (including her sons) to her web. I love that her Gloria is a reckless, evil woman...all sugar-coated in neediness. It is a singular character, and I utterly do not understand -- for a millisecond -- the animus against her or the Fisher-Baldwins. They brought a dangerous, larcenous different voice to Genoa City, and I find the town enriched for it. I disagree even with those who feel these are not leading characters. I believe they are deserving of a place with all the other core families. I hope the Fisher-Baldwins are strengthed with Gloria being Katherine's daughter...even though I suspect it is really Esther who will be her daughter.

Lots of things to contemplate there. Once again, to bring in a KL comparison, sometimes you need to do something really shocking to jolt the viewer, and with Y&R... Cassie's death was one, just like the death of Sid Fairgate. John Abbott's death was different for me, because he didn't drive story very often. The character had a long history of health problems, and that coupled with him being painted into a corner, and being a drain on the show's budget... all spelled doom for his character. When it comes to vets, in this hard economic situation... Douglas and Diamont were the most expendable. And at this point in time, the show's moral pillar can EASILY be turned over to Beth Maitland, something I still feel they should do. Heck, they still MIGHT.

I wish, wish, wish soaps used death more sparingly.

ETA: As a Knot's Landing maniac, IMO JVA was a disaster. I found Chapman's Gloria sexier and campier...which was important to explain part of how she keeps attracting so many men (including her sons) to her web. I love that her Gloria is a reckless, evil woman...all sugar-coated in neediness. It is a singular character, and I utterly do not understand -- for a millisecond -- the animus against her or the Fisher-Baldwins. They brought a dangerous, larcenous different voice to Genoa City, and I find the town enriched for it. I disagree even with those who feel these are not leading characters. I believe they are deserving of a place with all the other core families. I hope the Fisher-Baldwins are strengthed with Gloria being Katherine's daughter...even though I suspect it is really Esther who will be her daughter.

I TOTALLY agree with you about the use of death. It should be used MUCH more sparingly than it's used in soaps.

But then...we are in total disagreement about Gloria/The Baldwin-Fishers...Joan Van Ark, in my view, was a lot more likable, a lot funnier, a character I sort of understood...I could root for her Gloria because she was trashy, dishonest but deep down, pretty superficial. She didn't play the victim, she was more a bumbler.

Chapman's Gloria is more calculating and stupid. She isn't daffy like Van Ark's Gloria, she's a downright stupid bitch. Self centered, horrible to everyone, uses her 'good son' (Michael) to save her 'f--ked up son' (Kevin)...Strangely, for all of Chapman's Gloria's wicked ways, she seems somehow weaker than Van Ark's Gloria.

Van Ark's Gloria was the kind of character who would have eventually reformed and charmed the Abbotts with her lunacy...Chapman's Gloria is a pariah. And she always will be, no matter whose daughter she is.

I really, really hope Gloria isn't Katherine's daughter...that would just be SO [!@#$%^&*] horrible, too awful for words. I just want Kay's daughter and Jill's mother to be DEAD and buried. Those are two non characters who SHOULD be DEAD and forgotten. That said, if they're going to 'go there' and resurrect Kay's daughter, Esther is my choice.

The Baldwin-Fisher's will never be a core family in my eyes. They are B list characters incapable of leading a storyline I've enjoyed.

Edited April 5, 200916 yr by DaytimeFan