Y&R/ Maria Bell losing their way?

[Soapsuds]

Bravo post! And I second that!! And others do too. I've got my own PMs to prove it...LOL.

That's too bad. Maybe you should stop before you become Sylph Jr. of the board.

[Sylph]

Let's see them! It will be fun.

[Bright Eyes]

You guys are entertaining.

[NorrthCafe]

Great big YES to the OP! The YnR is becoming a hot mess and if the Sharon/Nick/Phyllis stuff doesn't end soon (along with Kevin, Mac's return, and a million and one other things), I'm going to spit nails.

[Vee]

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.

[Dee41]

On a whole I'm neutral on the show. I don't love it but I don't hate it either..

Highlights

Kevin storyline- GR has been phenomenal during this storyline. I do like the fact the writers are dwelving into Kevin's past. I think this storyline has done a good job of going into depth in this storyline. we have Amber wanting to help Kevin. We see Daniel concerned for his best friend but also concerned at the fact that Amber seems too close. we have Jana worried for her husband and saddened by the connection between Kevin and Amber. Its a pleasure to see the brotherly bond between Michael and Kevin..All in all a damn good story. The only drawback for me is the chipmunk...

Adam storyline- I've been wanting Adam back on my screen so I'm glad he is. I'm curious to see where the is storyline goes. I think MAB is going a good job of creating suspense in the storyline. Is Adam faking this illness just to get out of prison or is he really going blind? There's also the question of is he gaslighting Ashley or is something or someone else behind it? I am getting the feeling they are making Adam into a dark character.

Kay storyline- I loved this storyline but it did drag too long. i am loving Kay and Murphy together though. Its good to see the rivalry with Kay and Jill resurrected. Their mother/daughter relationship will add a new dimension to the rivalry.

Rafe storyline- I am pleased to see Y&R add a gay character to the canvas. Hopefully this leads to a major storyline..

Colleen/JT/Victoria/Victor storyline- Finally JT and Victoria will be getting some angst to their marriage. I loved seeing jealous Victoria. Its good to see the writers finally do something with Colleen instead of having her being Lily's sidekick. I am too pleased about JT getting a storyline. Hopefully this leads to JT and Colleen getting close again..

Nick/Phyllis/Sharon storyline- Even though don't really care for it this is a well thought out and balanced triangle. No one is portrayed in a favorable light. Sharon and Phyllis look desperate and crazy. Nick is douche bag.

Drawbacks

Winters storyline- Ugh.. I can't stand Tyra. MAB has given this character very little character development. Add on that Eva Marcille is not the best actress and it makes a character that i want off my screen. This whole storyline was contrived. There was little thought and effort put into this. Neil acted way out of character. Plus we only saw the winters twice a moth. Ridiculous because a cheating storyline such as this is usually frontburner material...Now I'll have to see Neil, Tyra, and Ana as a happy family.

Billy/Chloe/Mac storyline- I am tired of seeing drunk Billy. I'm starting to think he should be in rehab because the only time I see him is when he's drunk. Chloe is made out to look like she created the whole mess with cane for her baby which is not true since she went after Cane before she found out she was pregnant. But the writers expect viewers to forget that. Mac...I like CF as Mac. i do think she is the closest to AB's Mac but she does seem flat in most of her scenes, especially with Billy and Chloe. Their is NO chemistry between BM and CF. BM tries but it always falls short. If they wanted to revisit Billy/Mac fine but they should have cast an actress that has chemistry with BM. Likewise i see no chemistry between CF and EH. Their sparring falls flat. Personally I think EH has better sparring chemistry with CK. Its obvious they are going for a triangle with these three which sucks for me because I don't want Billy with either of these women.

Cane/Lily storyline- There is no substance to this couple whatsoever. They're nothing but fluff. Lately they're unbearable. Watching them coo at the dog and each other was sickening. I don't see any hotness with this couple. They're sweet but that's about it. there's no angst , conflict, or layers with them. Now they have them getting married and trying to start a family which comes off contrived to me. Actually their whole reunion was contrived. They just picked up where left off. Lily has no layers or character development. Everything with her is a plot point. She wants to model and have a baby. But viewers are given no explanation for her sudden desire to have a baby. She's a girl playing house.

Noah/Eden storyline- Without a doubt the WORST teen couple Y&R has ever had.

[YRBB]

No disrespect, but I just fall down in laughter every time someone says that the Kay storyline (or any storyline for that matter) dragged on too long. Dear Lord, it lasted from end of October to March 2009... and I thought that, at times, it was horribly rushed. Hard to believe that, a few years ago, October to March would hardly be enough to go over the first few beats of the story! I highly doubt we would even get to Marge's death by January for example. Personally, I wouldn't have minded if it had gone on for much, much longer, but then again I've always loved the Bell slow pace.

[MarkH]

I really don't want to stoke any fires, but I think some powerfully thought-provoking questions have been asked here.

I'm afraid, observing past behavior, that Vee's response is either going to be "no response" or "never mind" or "you have made up your mind" or "why bother?" or "you don't understand"

Not a lengthy answer worthy of the question.

But because I genuinely respect the rhetorical devices (we need conversation starters, and at least Sylph's questions are usually good ones, that take us a level deeper than hair, makeup, pecs and boobs, or the twist-de-jour), I'd love to hear you, Sylph, actually engage the discussion points here and formulate a detailed response.

[Khan]

Oh, brimike, wherefore art thou? If anyone can smooth feathers between warring factions on this board, surely, it's he (and I'm not being ironic when I say that, too).

Perhaps, I should refrain from posting any further in this thread, b/c I don't want to inflame anyone's feelings more than they have been already. Nevertheless, I do have a few, final points to make.

I, for one, don't perceive you that way, dmarex -- and please allow me to take this opportunity, on behalf of myself, at least, to apologize if I, or if anyone else, has made anybody feel that way. You are as entitled to enjoy Y&R (or any show) as I am not to (for the most part). Whether or not you enjoy any show shouldn't be a reflection of one's intelligence, I think.

Furthermore, I believe lively debate always is good for the soul. However, the problem here, I think, is that each side believes the other must "bend" to their point-of-view somehow; and when they don't, that's when the name-calling and accusations start. I'm not saying one side or post-er is "better" than the other, nor do I place myself above the fray. Unfortunately, I think several of us have taken these discussions far more seriously than we should have or needed to.

At the end of the day, a soap opera is just that. Granted, I take my soaps seriously, too, in terms of what I expect from them, quality-wise. At the same time, I have to remind myself -- especially since I made some mistakes elsewhere on the 'net and had to step back to regain lost perspective -- that what we have in common here is not world politics, or religion, but a genuine love and adoration for the same kind of entertainment.

Soaps are supposed to be entertaining, and so should any discussions about them.

Alright, ladies and gentlemen, as you were.

[Sylph]

I only saw one question: “If I'm wrong about you, then what do you want here?”

Make me a list.

[Vee]

But he doesn't care if they provoke thought. He just wants to prove he is "Purer Than You" by asking them, and nothing you say will satisfy, because you are stupid enough to post here (just like him) and therefore not mentally equipped to engage him.

God knows I have huge issues with this board and always have - just ask the mods - but I deal with them openly. I don't try to pretend I am a brilliant social theorist on my Sam's Club throne, burning through people's supposed "lies and self-deceptions" about this board or shows they like, explaining to them that they are only "pretending to like it." As annoying and saccharine as some aspects of the board or its latest favorite people or shows can be, what's far more annoying is a self-proclaimed genius who thinks he is above it all and is sure he is the first and only to discover the problem - then has nothing else whatsoever to contribute. Sylph, I was here years ago. Your act bores me, and it was the road not taken for me.

And I'm waiting on an answer.

[Sylph]

Do you really care and haven't you already made up your mind regarding this matter?

[Vee]

I absolutely care. Please, explain it to me.

[Soapsuds]

His act bores a lot on this board. And I doubt he will answer your question.

[Y&RWorldTurner]

Wow, this thead totally became a whole other animal, not that it's surprising.