Jump to content

Y&R/ Maria Bell losing their way?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

OK, this will sound fake, but it totally opens my eyes.

However, as usual, I have some questions:

1. Does this mean housewives in Peoria have a lower IQ and like dumb television?

2. To which age group does a typical housewife in Peoria belong? Or the majority of housewives in Peoria?

3. Does this also mean these women wouldn't accept a bit of intelligence and realistic, fresh dialogue? What kind of stories are not their stories?

4. Have housewives ever been soaps' largest audience? And can soaps at the same time please a woman English literature professor and a housewife at the same time? Or is that mutually exclusive?

And so on.

Oh, Khan, don't worry about it! Enjoy life! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 225
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I take the answers below, more or less, from Irna Phillips. Really, I'm talking about those essays about early radio soaps...but I really don't think the story has changed.

No, but it does mean [ A. ] risk-averse television; controversial storytelling that turns off some viewers is anathema to advertiser support for home-and-hearth products, and [ B. ] unchallenging television. On this latter, I use Lost or Heroes as current counter-examples. Viewers have to pay attention. That doesn't work when, on Tuesdays and Thursdays you take the children to playdates and on Wednesdays you watch while ironing. That means you need much repetition, fairly slow progress, lots of expository dialogue...

I assume is is the 18-34 or 18-49 Peorian housewife who is most coveted.

I believe it is not what these women can or would accept. I believe that the shows are programmed to fit into those lifestyles where viewing is both habitual and habitually distracted.

The challenging (fresh, realistic) stuff must be reserved for primetime or rented DVDs or whatever...when the kids are asleep or away.

Yes, I am aware at this point that I'm being both stereotypical and a bit out of date...but I truly believe that this is the programming philosophy, still.

If the programming philosophy is to reach the largest number, then the housewives (or whover is at home during the days) greatly outnumber the English literature professor. While the professor may watch, the programming is not designed for her, at all. The sparks of "freshness" we observe sometimes on soaps are almost accidental...they occur when smart, educated writers/producers/actors, yearning to transcend their genres, manage to slip something in.

While SON has all manner of disdain for the ATWT Nuke story, it played out the way it did -- in large measure -- because of the desire not to lose those housewives in Peoria and their presumed desires. Those seeking more greatness in that story need to look outside of daytime, and outside of commercial television. to find it. Fortunately, there are many options outside of daytime.

In the scheme of restaurants, soaps are Boston Market. If you want something more exquisite, you dine someplace else.

And so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wow. :mellow: That is all very depressing, disheartening, dispiriting... But true. And it goes on to show how after all these years — it's stuck. The time machine got broken and we haven't evolved. We are catering to a demographic that does not exist. Or which won't exist in a matter of years. :mellow:

Yet as much as it's "risk-averse TV", it still managed to pioneer and incorporate a whole lot of firsts: issues, stories and TV techniques.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Self-pity = "Self-pity is a psychological state of mind of an individual in perceived adverse situations who has not accepted the situation and does not have the confidence nor ability to cope with it."

I'm curious. Where do you see [ a ] non-acceptance, and [ b ] non-coping?

I'm wondering if your word-choice is off, or if you're seeing something from that definition above that I'm not. I am sincerely interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The demo exists. But not in large numbers. And the other at-home demo is retirees, more or less. But the networks seem not to want to acknowledge that.

So, you're absolutely right about programming for a shrinking demo...and THAT (not whose storyling aired this week, or which head-writer is in charge) is why the ratings are where they are. It is about timeslot and available audience.

I think there is plenty of room for risky TV, and we see it all over the place. Just NOT in daily soap operas in the US. It seems to me that is not where we should be looking for it either, given the demographic realities of the form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You're right, I did intentionally light the fire, but like you said, "you don't have to respond."

I don't know why the "Y&R haters" think that they're being vilified, or that there opinions don't matter, because if you re-read this thread nobody stated that. This whole "woe its me" act is confusing. You hate the show, that's fine, but that doesn't mean others can't enjoy it. I've seen post saying that moila is a one trick poney, well from what I've read, the same can be applied to nearly everyone in this thread.

No silly smiley faces, high English literature, or witty remarks from me - I'm just going to back off now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

BINGO DETROIT!

MTSROCKS- I AM ACCEPTING ANY AND ALL DONATIONS TO MY SELF-PITY FUND. If you are the same MTSROCKS from another board, you pulled the same s-it there when someone was not enjoying Y&R..

Did these people even read the subject of this thread? You have 17+ pages of Y&R raving per week!

Keep this going, please. I will more than happily respond.

Again, why is Y&R the only show we are not allowed to bitch about, even when someone starts a thread specifically to that end?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

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

    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Please register in order to view this content

         
    • @TaoboiI ran into Dani’s favorite party planner again tonight

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I think they’re desperately trying to cover his awful tattoos. But anyway them being unable to style short kings properly has been a major pet peeve of mine for a while now.  I honestly don’t understand what some people expect from actors to even begin considering them for recognition. Let’s be real—awards mostly mean that an actor is respected by their peers and has some level of cultural relevance. Actual judgment on the acting itself? That’s often secondary—highly subjective and shaped by the times. I completely agree on both points. If you’re an actor or a dancer you shouldn’t get any tattoos (sorry not sorry). Tomas’ tattoos are ugly too. And regarding the couples- you’re completely right. These writers are unable to write romance.   Further comments: - Kat cannot be this dumb to keep tampering with evidence over and over again. And I’m officially not a fan of the actress—every time she’s in a scene with Leslie, she doesn’t seem intimidated at all. She plays it like comic relief, which is just too much, especially when paired with Leslie’s histrionics and over-the-top antics. Leslie is older, dangerous, and has literally been portrayed as homicidal—Kat should be at least a little scared. • I also didn’t like Kat playing damsel in distress with the hotel manager. It gave off the same weird energy as Dani with the cop. I would’ve much preferred the version Paul Raven suggested, with her sneaking in through housekeeping. • And yes, Dani again accused Hayley of faking the pregnancy—this time even specifying she might be using a pillow under her shirt. (No fake miscarriage being mentioned) I stand by my take: this is ridiculous writing. No one in the real world—except us, the chronically online soap watchers—would even think of such a conspiracy theory. Haley is no Beyoncé. • What in the world was Chelsea wearing in her hair the other day? And this whole thing with Madison is beyond cringe. Chelsea’s coming off as needy and toxic—basically like every other Dupree. • I’m glad the casino storyline is moving forward, but it’s still boring as hell. Honestly, I’d be so here for a plot twist where Vanessa and Doug take Joey out. • The direction and editing lately have been rough. Abrupt cuts, weird pacing… something just feels off overall. There’s a strange uneasiness to how it’s all coming together. • And finally: Tomas is too much of a saint. Where are the messy sluts when you need them? (Vanessa doesn’t count.)
    • I was watching some August 1987 episodes and they brought back so many memories. I had some thoughts: Lisa and Jamie were so dull. Lisa was such a nothing character. It boggles my mind that so much story was centered around her in such a short amount of time. Joanna Going is a talented actress, but the material was just not there.  It was so good to see Wallingford and Mitch again. I know there was talk about Felicia a while back, but these episodes reminded me how integral Felicia was for the show.  Sally Spencer was done so dirty. She is turning in superb performances in an icky storyline. I wish she had stuck around longer. She has chemistry with everyone. The McKinnons should have lasted longer. Spencer had some strong stuff with Stephen Schnetzer and Mary Alexander. AW waster such a talented actress by getting rid of her. Justice for Cheryl too. I also missed Ed Fry when he left. Sandra Ferguson was a star from the moment she came on. She was charismatic and just popped. She had immediate chemistry with RKK and blended in well with Wyndham and Watson. I'd forgotten about the teenage Matthew.  I have no memory of Peggy Lazarus. She must not have lasted long. Was the original plan for John that he was going to turn out to be the twins' real father?      
    • If the new and improved copies that @rsclassicfanforever has uploaded can be manually moved into the "by month, by year" folders, that would be awesome. I personally don't think it's necessary to keep the older versions (which either have Dutch subtitles hard coded on them, or are lesser in picture quality). That's a lot of valuable drive space that could be cleared. Just my view but can appreciate others may feel differently. The structure had been by month by year previously, so I think it would be easier to conform to that, where so much prior work to get it to that format has already been done. Hopefully you can "drag and drop" so the new copies are in the right month/year? Re Clips, I never look at them now we pretty much have the episodes in full. Appreciate others may use, however. Thanks for all your hard work here @BoldRestless!
    • Oh yes defintely, Josh Griffith repeats and repeats the same storylines.
    • Isnt’t this storyline similar to the Cameron Kirsten situation though? Sharon thought she killed him. He ended up being alive and Sharon was being tormented with thinking she was seeing his face everywhere and that’s how we got that iconic scene with her and Nikki in the sewers.   I understand in Mariah’s case this is different circumstances but it does seem like a play on that whole thing. Maybe I’m wrong. I just wish if they were going to make any character follow in Sharon’s foot steps it would be Faith. Mariah wasn’t even raised by her, and her personality is different. I would expect her to take a different path. I understand I could be completely jumping ahead because the storyline hasn’t even played out yet but we’ll see. 
    • Thanks again @Paul Raven Monica was completely without redeeming qualities at this point. I always found the whole Monica = Carly narrative regressive, as I don't think shows comparing characters so heavily is ever a great idea, but she's actually worse than Carly was. Was it the Pollocks who had Leslie have a miscarriage?  Giving her a child, especially by rape, was not a good idea, but a part of me wishes they'd committed to it just to see what story it might have had in later years.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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