Even worse, much of the mistakes can be corrected with recasts (except Eden, who, I think, just needs to go away).

I'd try to recast Lily, Cane and Colleen... they are salvageable.

I have no problem with the actor that plays Noah, but the character is so annoying I could scream.

As for Tyra and Ana.... there's just nothing to say. When I look back at Nia's amazing delivery on Monday, I'm at loss of words knowing what we're stuck with now.

And as for Eden... ugh.

Edited April 26, 200916 yr by dmarex

Sylph, I can't possibly ridicule you in front of everyone if your points are valid and well-delivered. I'm completely serious. I want to hear what you have to say. I want you to follow through on what you always talk about and mount a defense of your opinions, as opposed to an assault on others. That's what a writer, or a theorist needs: Follow through and the intellectual strength to defend their words and thoughts. Prove to me there's more to you than adolescent rhetoric and absent nihilism! I want to believe you're not vapid like the rest of the board. You always talk about how daytime needs deeper thinkers, new blood, better intellect - here's your chance to be a shining example of that deeper thought, by defending your thesis and explaining to me what you are here for, if it's not to belittle people. If I'm wrong about you, then what do you want here?

Edited April 26, 200916 yr by Vee

And MTS, for someone to Google Schrödinger's cat or Verschränkung, he still has to know what the hell that is. Because in a blink of an eye one can prove whether I'm faking my knowledge or what. Go talk to Ruckston how annoying this "martinet" Sylph is. You two will have fun, I'm sure.

Edited April 26, 200916 yr by Sylph

dmarex I actually love this current Noah/Kevin Schmidt. When I remember Hunter Allan and the insipid dialogue that LML used to give him, it makes me appreciate the Schmidt even more. I also don't mind Eden, but I wish they wouldn't do the whole tortured souls angle again.

With all the big words and big ideas here, I'd love to play 'SON-Jeopardy" with you folks! I'll be Trebek!

dmarex I actually love this current Noah/Kevin Schmidt. When I remember Hunter Allan and the insipid dialogue that LML used to give him, it makes me appreciate the Schmidt even more. I also don't mind Eden, but I wish they wouldn't do the whole tortured souls angle again.

I'm loving Schmidt's portrayal too, as I explained in the post above. But all that boring teenage stuff and Eden is destroying him.

When I look back at Nia's amazing delivery on Monday, I'm at loss of words knowing what we're stuck with now.

I know, right? I couldn't believe what I saw! Watching her give it to Kristoff's Neil with proverbial both barrels, I was literally going, "Who is this woman, and where has she been hiding?!". Whoever wrote the dialogue last Monday, my hat's off to you, b/c you finally gave NP some good material to play, and she rose to the challenge. It's just wrong nobody ever thought to do that for her before.

You always talk about how daytime needs deeper thinkers, new blood, better intellect...

But here's another problem: I don't think it does anymore. I don't think it ever needed that. I was obviously in fantasy-land. TV is commerce, it's capitalism, no deep thinking, new blood, intellect or whatever can "save" it or improve it or whatever. Perhaps, at the end of the day, a successful show is, after all, just a serendipity. And no amount of theory, volumes & tons of it, can provide you with a solution on how to fix daytime or any other part of today's TV landscape. If it needs saving after all.

Sylph why do you keep quoting me, just answer the questions at hand bud.

I think I am a polygamist because I want to.....

Marry this post.

A lofty goal, to be sure. I'm sure it beats filing for unemployment.

And at this point, I can't imagine what nasty little charge you get out of it that you haven't already. How many hypothetical threads can you start in which you bludgeon hapless posters half to death with your hambone dime store sociological analysis, your thesaurus and your persecution complex, until they apologize to you for existing and/or watching soaps that you don't like? Because that's what you really enjoy; posing a "question" and then explaining to overly accommodating people how they're wrong, they don't get it, they shouldn't have spoken to you that way and you don't like their tone. You enjoy seeing how much they will apologize. After all, they're all just hausfraus on a soap forum, right? You're nothing like them. You're just visiting. You can leave any time you want!

Your junior high social experiments are very tiresome. You no longer talk about soaps anymore; they are simply the stalking horse for your latest filibuster session about yourself and people you don't like who aren't necessarily as cynical as you. (Though apparently, I am.) You're slipping, and it's very obvious. That's why I stay on you. If you're not going to talk about soaps, and you're just going to talk about people who watch them and how they annoy you, then get off the board.

Marry this post.

I honestly thought the Y&R thread was for discussion, and I have not perceived any raving--certainly not in the last week, but not generally. Here are some quotes from JUST the last week. I'm also deliberately selecting quotes from persons who generally like Y&R. Does this really constitute raving? Really?

To me--from a series of show lovers--this seems awfully "fair and balanced to me". I wonder if people actually read the Y&R threads they deride as simplemindedly acolytically uncritical??

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Not meaning to be difficult, but could you point me to a single post in this thread where someone said something that even connotes "you are not allowed to bitch about Y&R"? I really read every word.

Where--in what sentence--anywhere--anyone--in this thread was that uttered? I'm genuinely interested in where this perception is coming from.

Mark, I was going to do the same thing today! I was gonna go through this past week's Y&R discussion thread and copy/paste some negative comments from posters to show that people CAN be negative about Y&R. It amazes me how some think they can't say anything bad - that's where the self-pity comes into play.

Marry this post.

It is a shame RTR won't read this, because my question won't get answered.

I'd like to find a SINGLE POST...just one...ANYWHERE...FROM ANY TIME...EVER, where "Y&R fans cannot handle criticism of their show".

I personally doubt such evidence exists. Which means we're dealing with some kind of perception problem.

But, let me flip it around and assume RTR is correct.

That would imply that Y&R fans are a fiercely loyal and positive group, and their affections for their show are clearly stated. Where is that a bad thing? I'm not seeing the problem.

That said, I do not believe RTR is correct. As my post above clearly shows, the most positive Y&R fans are frequently expressing negative sentiments. It's just that they're not WHOLISTICALLY negative...they are focused on strengths and weaknesses.

That -- the way I was taught -- is the essence of good criticism.

Marry this post.

Oh, my. For the love of all that is good and holy, please find something to stabilize your moods and even you out so we don't have to deal with your whiplash mental state week after week. If it's not one grand pronouncement from on high at the summit, it's another. rangethatrover has decided Y&R is boring! rangethatrover can't watch OLTL! Don't get in his way! Why are you treading on him?!

RTR, your passion for listening to your own voice is inspired. But the fact is that if you look back at your unbelievably colorful and mildly worrisome posting history, you will find that no one has ever stopped you from saying anything you want to about anything that flits across the jagged archipelago of your mental plain. No one is stopping you. No one is censoring you. You have nothing to rebel against. So frankly, your endless posturing and yelling and proud flounces out of the room don't make much sense. What are you upset about? What are you angry about? What opinion or expressed viewpoint has been denied you? Who has kept your light behind a bushel or in a box? Everyday it's something new and crazy and defiant, with trembling jaw and shaking finger pointed forward like a 1950s melodrama. I can't help but listen to your latest gasbaggery, because you're always there!

You don't care for Y&R - okay. You've told us that at least thirty times in one month. Your moral outrage at censorship falls flat when you have never even censored yourself, let alone allowed someone to do it for you, and nobody has stoned you or assaulted you for your point of view on any show. Nobody has attacked you about Y&R in here; on the contrary, since the start of the thread, it's been Y&R fans attacked for "not listening" to your complaints or not engaging you in exactly this kind of strenuous argument. Apparently, agreeing to disagree is not enough for you. So what, exactly, has been denied you? Who is preventing you from speaking your mind, about anything? How are "the cool kids" keeping you down? Please, I want to know.

If you're going to play rebellious teen, I always say it's best to have a legitimate cause. You don't; you're apparently just angry that people don't pay enough attention to you, or that discussion goes on regardless of how you feel. But that's what happens on a message board. Live with it. God knows I do. I may be a lot of terrible words, but if I have a beef about something I tend to be able to articulate it. I think it's the least you could do.

Now you're getting it. Except there aren't any concrete links. You're arguing with someone who thinks you're a sap and just wants to bat people around.

P.S. - If this nonsense about PMs is directed at me, I want to say, by all means, produce these Private Messages and post them. I've never PMed Sylph in my life, or harassed anyone over PM, and the staff can prove that.

Major word! Where's the censorship? All this moral outrage is totally false.

Marry this post.

Not to take away from your latest struck pose, but I actually have a legitimate question, Sylph. Hopefully, it will begin to clear up the profound confusion some seem to have about your stance on the issues. If you can find a fraction of time in your obviously jampacked social and professional schedule, maybe you can answer it as though we ever spoke to each other remotely rationally. We'll call it another delightful hypothetical.

You ask (and by ask, I mean rhetorically ask, since you've already made your mind up) if soaps can appeal to both housewives and professionals, pre-assuming that they are of different intellectual levels. If there can be something in it that keys into what lovelorn women at home want to see as well as teens, as well as urban intellectuals or professional people of any age. You ask these questions - you've asked them more than once, in fact, not just in this thread - but it seems your answer is always an implicit "no," because you have decided the genre is dead. Any time anyone attempts to answer you, you simply toss off a post about how "this is very sad...seems things are staying the same, nothing is changing, very sad, what can be done, hmm." And just like that, your perspective is forcefully re-asserted, since you never really wanted a contradictory answer from anyone else.

But when you ask and answer your own question, you're forgetting something, as usual. In the '70s and '80s and '90s (and even today), Harding Lemay, Bill Bell, Agnes Nixon, Doug Marland soaps all appealed to large audiences. And the audience for the soap opera has always been more diverse than anyone is willing to admit to each other in polite company; not just housebound women and gay men, but professional people of all stripe, doctors, lawyers, teachers, writers, executives, artists. Everybody gets something out of it and always have, whether it's a guilty pleasure or a genuinely compelling storyline. And when these soaps were at their best in any of these eras (including some in the 90s, under Nancy Curlee or Linda Gottlieb), they provided literate, intelligent, innovative storytelling that broadens horizons and the limits of what they could do while also fulfilling the traditional needs of the genre.

As you know, many writers for soaps are and have always been playwrights, novelists, poets, etc. Throughout soaps' history, they've always been evolving and changing, playing with the definitions of what they are and what they can be - comfort food for the radio? a serialized women's picture? a limit-pushing torrid romance? a Shakespearean business/family drama? a social issues story? an action-adventure? a supernatural yarn? It always changes, because the format is fluid.

Many soaps are at a nadir right now, but depending on who you ask, there are still some talented people, probably at each show still on the air no matter how bad, attempting to put out quality work; maybe they don't succeed, maybe there's only something good one day of the week, maybe the HW or the EP or exec doesn't like it and so it doesn't make it on air, or maybe it doesn't appeal to everyone, like a Y&R or a OLTL. But the point is, there is still a difference of opinion, there is still differentiation no matter how faint you find it, and therefore, according to your own standards of examination, if there is difference, if there is a variety of opinion, if there is something someone enjoys, then there is still something to preserve. Haven't you been arguing for months or years that all the shows are the same now, that they all feel the same, look the same, taste the same, make all people feel the same? Well, take a look at this seven-page thread; clearly, they don't. Of course, everybody wants innovation and intelligent storytelling to return to daytime and take a firmer foothold; you act like you are the only one who holds this position, but everyone feels that way. The difference is, not everyone agrees with you that the only way to do those things is destroy all the soaps, burn them off the face of the earth and salt the dirt. And that, to me, seems to be all you ever talk (or rather, pout) about. And when you can't pout, then you knock people (or "sheep," as you'd probably call them) around watching them be unfailingly polite to you while you casually insult them and their intellect by inference.

So my question to you is this: If I'm wrong about you, then what do you want here? If you're not always making these threads and posts and cute little questions as a rhetorical device to "prove" to others that soaps are done for and we all need to do as you say, take our marbles and go home and let geniuses like you refashion the genre, otherwise we don't want intelligence and change - if that's not your only purpose, then why do you ask these questions and get more snide and abusive each time? I've given you some answers, and I'm not the only one. Either you agree or disagree with my answers, and that's okay, but what more can be gained from you asking us again and again and adroitly haranguing people about their "limited vision" and "lowered intellect and expectations"? The way I see it, no one's vision is limited here except yours; you're the one telling people, like Brian Frons, that it is your way or the highway. You've heard from people who disagree with you, yet you keep posing the same rhetorical questions again and again, growing more nasty, dismissive and arrogant each time. Like Charles Pratt!

The longer you stay here on this little board and insult other people for not having your sense of scope, Sylph, I assure you, the more time you will miss out actually transforming things substantively in a meaningful way as a writer. Maybe that's how you like spending your time. Or maybe, just maybe, there is more to the cosmos than your precious ideological purity, and maybe other people have just as much intellect and artistry as you without favoring the same self-serving solution. Maybe the reason no one is listening to you is you're not saying anything new. It seems like you're just attacking people for not following you blindly, though you offer no solution except "better writers," possibly yourself.

You've asked your questions more than once, Sylph. If you don't have an answer other than "my way," then let it go; you're not changing anything and you're not helping the situation or encouraging intelligent discourse about the topic, since nobody's viewpoint is apparently acceptable except your own. But if you don't care about the answers and just enjoy trolling, then you really need a new fuckin' hobby.

Vee, you won't get a legitimate answer. I've questioned Sylph numerous times and never got any replies. I even challenged him to join me and others and a true discussion about on-goings of Y&R (or any other soap) in the weekly thread, but of course he doesn't show up. Also notice how he never actually goes into detail about a soap, it's just general comments. I wonder why?

I'm loving how Vee is putting Sylph on blast. It's so utterly delicious. I can just see him frantically googling various intelligent sources, trying to pass it off as his own knowledge.

I know, right? I couldn't believe what I saw! Watching her give it to Kristoff's Neil with proverbial both barrels, I was literally going, "Who is this woman, and where has she been hiding?!". Whoever wrote the dialogue last Monday, my hat's off to you, b/c you finally gave NP some good material to play, and she rose to the challenge. It's just wrong nobody ever thought to do that for her before.

Teresa Zimmerman wrote the script; it was Casiello's first breakdown.

Everything she said was true! And when she slapped him while sobbing..... And now we're stuck with THAT? Really? Why oh WHY? We don't care if Eva is a model! (this was kinda directed to the writers, just so that I'm not misunderstood...)

But here's another problem: I don't think it does anymore. I don't think it ever needed that. I was obviously in fantasy-land. TV is commerce, it's capitalism, no deep thinking, new blood, intellect or whatever can "save" it or improve it or whatever. Perhaps, at the end of the day, a successful show is, after all, just a serendipity. And no amount of theory, volumes & tons of it, can provide you with a solution on how to fix daytime or any other part of today's TV landscape. If it needs saving after all.

Then why do you keep asking the questions of other people, if it's not just to vent frustration at them for liking something you don't?

With all the big words and big ideas here, I'd love to play 'SON-Jeopardy" with you folks! I'll be Trebek!

:lol:

Btw guys, don't fight with each other. Play nice.

I'm loving Schmidt's portrayal too, as I explained in the post above. But all that boring teenage stuff and Eden is destroying him.

My bad. I agree, minus Eden to an extent. I think it's more the actress, or the fact that her character is Fisherized.

I know, right? I couldn't believe what I saw! Watching her give it to Kristoff's Neil with proverbial both barrels, I was literally going, "Who is this woman, and where has she been hiding?!". Whoever wrote the dialogue last Monday, my hat's off to you, b/c you finally gave NP some good material to play, and she rose to the challenge. It's just wrong nobody ever thought to do that for her before.

She slayed Kristoff. She handed him his ASS, and I hope he actually came prepared that day on set. Like I said, best performance thus far this year in daytime (and unfortunately it will go unnoticed).

She slayed Kristoff. She handed him his ASS, and I hope he actually came prepared that day on set. Like I said, best performance thus far this year in daytime (and unfortunately it will go unnoticed).

YES!