Everything you say makes sense, but in the end what does it mean? Will we only see Lauren once or twice a month and only expect the same type of play for Michael and Lauren? Doesn't their history, popularity and talent mean anything? And yes, I know all of this is subhective but I think CLB and TEB have proven they have talent and the fans enjoy watching them when they have story. I guess my main problem is that MAB isn't even writing them as support at this point. They might as well be written off the show for as much play as they get. Maybe they will be, but I think if it happens they will be missed.

By the way, I am going off Michael Fairman's appearances. I get that Murphy is getting more appearances because he is tied to Katherine and I also get than Nina will get more appearances because of the Philip story. But one has to wonder, why did MAB decide to bring back a long dead character? Yes, some are excited about Thoms Bierdz returning but there certainly was no clamor for Philip III to be resurrected and for him to come back. Yes, they needed to fix the Cane fiasco, but they didn't need to go back 20 years and change history to do so.

It really is subjective and based on what the writers are interested in writing. I guess Michael and Lauren drew the short stick.

So, I have been raked over the coals for my Fisher-Baldwin (esp. Gloria) love.

But that's my point. There is a LOT of haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate, in this order: Gloria, Jeff, Eden, Kevin, Jana, Michael

You know these people are ROUNDLY disliked by a LOT of people. I mean, if we started a thread called "Beating of the Drums: Drop the Fisher-Baldwins", most of SON would co-sign.

So, I think maybe there is a recognition that this clan needs to be "rested"...and this backburnering is a way of doing it without firing the clan. If that is the thought, then I can be grateful they haven't all been dumped.

The show can make room for Lauren/Michael or anyone. It's all about balance and integration.

So, I have been raked over the coals for my Fisher-Baldwin (esp. Gloria) love.

But that's my point. There is a LOT of haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate, in this order: Gloria, Jeff, Eden, Kevin, Jana, Michael

You know these people are ROUNDLY disliked by a LOT of people. I mean, if we started a thread called "Beating of the Drums: Drop the Fisher-Baldwins", most of SON would co-sign.

So, I think maybe there is a recognition that this clan needs to be "rested"...and this backburnering is a way of doing it without firing the clan. If that is the thought, then I can be grateful they haven't all been dumped.

Mark, this is just one site. I enjoy it and the posters are interesting, but I don't think the majority of fans want to see Michael and Lauren used this way. Gloria? Yes, she should be backburned as she was played heavily under LML and even MAB last year. And MAB is still using Gloria and Jeffrey for comic relief with Jill. Eden? Who cares.

Kevin and Jana are still getting significant story and rolled right from the Kevin saving Katherine story to the Kevin vs chipmunk story right into this Daniel art story and Kevin dealing with people who resent him getting off for his crimes story. Kevin and Amber are friends of Katherine so they are getting plenty of story.

Michael and Lauren have been "rested" for quite some time. They were backburned for much of the first half of 2008, and weren't ever really used heavily except for a couple weeks when the River story started and then finished in December. Rarely did Michael have more than 10 appearances a month even when he had story. How much rest do they need?

Edited June 1, 200916 yr by lmfan

The show can make room for Lauren/Michael or anyone. It's all about balance and integration.

Exactly!

Exactly!

When they make room, they also need to get rid of some people. This contrct cast is way too big. Tyra, Ana, and few others haver been epic fails that need to be dealth with. Even if some people might be fan favourites, they need to cut some actors and characters, which they'll probably be doing soon enough anyway for budget reasons. Newbies don't cost as much as veteran players, so who knows...

I kind of feel bad for Tracey though, they only really have room for her when they can land Kimberlin Brown back as Sheila. I think that's a rare occasion where the villain became more popular than the hero/heroine.

But Sheila is so played out, I hope she never returns to Y&R or B&B again...

I feel bad for Tracey too. I think MAB should at least let her know how and if they plan on using her in the future. I know they don't have to, but after over 25 years working on Bell shows, one would think Tracey would deserve some courtesy and the writers could let her know where she stands with the show.

I absolutely agree with this. Josh can't be Peter because that is not his style nor in his comfort zone. His scenes with Phyllis after she confessed she was in Paris were extremely moving. Their fight when he found out about her trying to set up Brad as replacement once the Shack marriage went sour was actually powerful. He simply has to do what he can do with what he's got. He can and has come through.

I do think that this storyline is a tough one for him. He does not seem to enjoy Nick being the huge dick in the center of this story. I wonder if he thinks by putting MORE into his scenes that he will look like an even bigger jerk. His extreme discomfort with what he's being given came home for me on tomorrow's show. I don't, for a second, believe him in any of his scenes. That's a big deal for me as a fan.

Michelle Stafford is the wronged wife, Peter Bergman is the supportive ex, and Sharon Case is the mentally ill flawed heroine. Who is Josh playing? Nick the dick, who feels "guilty" about his past but is so dumb he's moving at full speed ahead to repeat his mistakes. Out of the four of them, he has the crappiest motivation for his character's behavior. The actor is trying but he seems very uneasy.

Hey, it's his job to make us believe him. But the better he is at making us believe him, the more we are going to hate him. I suspect that's at the back of his mind or even the front.

Hmm food for thought indeed. Reading along this post has definitly put me in a place so to speak to understand the possible challenge from JM's perspective.

On another note I fully appreciate the fact that Sharon could have easily came off as the needy, slutty, wife/exwife and she manages to bring depth even those scenes where she is, just that. Sure the actors are similar in many ways but still very much two different actors. But I appreciate an artist who finds how they can add dimensions to what-ever they are expressing. I think Josh is capable but I don't know why it would be harder.

Edited June 1, 200916 yr by classicmoment

they only really have room for her when they can land Kimberlin Brown back as Sheila.

Shendafer!

I believe a new Nielsen survey regarding Y&R will be out later this year, I think Y&R has a Nielsen survey every two years. There was one in 2005, and the last one was towards the end of 2007. Smith was ousted soon after the one in 2005, and Latham was gone a few months after the 2007 survey. MAB better watch out...

Edited June 1, 200916 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

CNN tonight reports on the horrors of Darfur...especially the problem of rape.

I think, having lived through that, OF COURSE Mac would come back dour, depressed, a little hopeless.

I mention this because, while many see CF improvements, I really do believe part of what we were seeing was CF trying to play the truth of where she had come from. I think the show might want to give her a liiiiiiitle more Darfurian backstory...just so that the viewers better understand that the Mac we have been seeing is partly because of story context and character, not actress.

I seriously doubt that even Mac remembers that she was supposed to be Dafur. We the viewers know that Mac as has always been dour bore so don't need any explanation for her rare smiles and solemn expressions. CFMac is as uninteresting as ABMac.

Edited June 1, 200916 yr by Ann_SS

I think most of her sadness is supposed to come from not being with Billy.

So, in Monday's US episode, I notice towards the end they used a really jazzy music cue, it kinda reminded me of something I'd see on Santa Barbara. I quite like it, it was very saxophone driven. They also used the new cue they created for Nick and Sharon, they have a couple of cues it seems.

Most people probably don't pay attention to the background music though.

So, in Monday's US episode, I notice towards the end they used a really jazzy music cue, it kinda reminded me of something I'd see on Santa Barbara. I quite like it, it was very saxophone driven. They also used the new cue they created for Nick and Sharon, they have a couple of cues it seems.

Most people probably don't pay attention to the background music though.

I do sometimes. I thought in Cassie's death scene the movement between Cassie's Theme and Nadia's Theme was quite moving.

So, in Monday's US episode, I notice towards the end they used a really jazzy music cue, it kinda reminded me of something I'd see on Santa Barbara. I quite like it, it was very saxophone driven. They also used the new cue they created for Nick and Sharon, they have a couple of cues it seems.

Most people probably don't pay attention to the background music though.

I do it can either be very distracting or it can uplift