Jump to content

Y&R: Week of June 15-19, 2009


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Burning Questions of the Week

If an inanimate person [Victoria] is hit by an inanimate object [Crate], does a tree still fall in Brooklyn?

If Nina went into the PI business and took all of Paul's business, how many months would it take for Paul to figure it out?

In addition to ob-gyns who get too, uh, involved with their patients & ex-cons willing to risk a return to jail just to drive him around, who else is in Adam's contact list?

Jack's pining for Sharon: Manly or Maudlin?

Besides little Kitty, what else has Mary Jane stuffed & made good as new?

Mac's newfound sluttiness: Brain Tumor or did she accidentally mistake Murph's viagra pills for her daily vitamin C?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wonder when Hogan's contract cycle is up, Hamner too.

August will make a year since Hogan debuted in the credits, and I don't know the specifics of Hamner's case.

I can see Sheffer and Hamner's WORST attributes all over this show right now. Of course, MAB deserves most of the blame, since she lets this crap slip through.

This summer is so going to bomb, especially with MAB pimping her beloved art storyline to the press. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh, I wish I knew that, too! But I doubt it they'll get rid of both! We're not so lucky... :rolleyes:

I wish I could be nasty and say: I want Y&R to tank in the ratings this summer because that will force them to make changes. Because if it tanks, it'll mean a faster death. It'll die this way too, only dying will be slower.

So, it's doomed in any way. I wish there were a normal, positive way to force these people to re-think the concept and "vision".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm looking forward to this week which will be heavy on Nina's story. I think she show could rebound when it shifts focus back onto the Chancellor's. That was what was driving the ratings for most of the year, so those are their money characters for now. Those writers didn't need to keep Katherine frontburner nonstop, but why did they drop Jill? Esther? Even one or two days a week they could show Jill dealing with her lack of a mother, adjusting to life with Kay now, something. Throwing her with two dead characters in a silly story is dumb. They need to treat Jill with the importance that she deserves. Position her like a female Jack or Victor.

Honestly, I think the problems with the show are less about story and more about character. They need to look at each family and see whats wrong before they can write a GREAT story. The Chancellor family is solid and well cast so it's easy to write for them. The Abbott's are severely fractured and the ones that are around (Jack, Ashley, Colleen) never interact. The Winters are Lily--them. The casting is wrong, the characterizations are wrong. It's all wrong. The Newman's are stuck with a fading supercouple (Victor/Ashley), a mediocre recast (Victoria), a son off in his own universe (Nick) and a central star on her way out (Nikki). If they just reestablish these few families, strengthen the casting and write them as families, the stories will come easy. They're falling into focusing on specific characters and forgetting family and the ensemble that makes this show work.

I'm still fully enjoying the show, but I see the many problems people see. It's more something in the future I worry about. If they continue where they're at now, it's going to be bad, but it's not hard to recover either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think Y&R has two headwriters (Hamner and Sheffer) who don't like friendships, or bonds which aren't toxic, or families. They only see families as vendettas or as a negative force. This was their writing on ATWT and PC. Sheffer made Oakdale the coldest town this side of the North Pole.

Budget cuts and poor casting of previous teams takes a toll, but they still could have had Nick find out Victoria was injured. They could have Billy or Jack worry more often about Ashley.

Part of what drove Y&R for years was strong, complex family bonds, especially the Newmans. The family is so broken now, and this is after Y&R rushed to have Victoria and Nick reconcile with Victor last year, so it's not a deliberate writing choice, they just don't bother to write relationships for them.

Sheffer also doesn't like to play the beats of a story. He likes short attention span writing. So it's sex, trauma, sex, violence, and more of the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

QUOTE (Chris B @ Jun 14 2009, 07:04 PM)
I'm looking forward to this week which will be heavy on Nina's story. I think she show could rebound when it shifts focus back onto the Chancellor's. That was what was driving the ratings for most of the year, so those are their money characters for now. Those writers didn't need to keep Katherine frontburner nonstop, but why did they drop Jill? Esther? Even one or two days a week they could show Jill dealing with her lack of a mother, adjusting to life with Kay now, something. Throwing her with two dead characters in a silly story is dumb. They need to treat Jill with the importance that she deserves. Position her like a female Jack or Victor.

Honestly, I think the problems with the show are less about story and more about character. They need to look at each family and see whats wrong before they can write a GREAT story. The Chancellor family is solid and well cast so it's easy to write for them. The Abbott's are severely fractured and the ones that are around (Jack, Ashley, Colleen) never interact. The Winters are Lily--them. The casting is wrong, the characterizations are wrong. It's all wrong. The Newman's are stuck with a fading supercouple (Victor/Ashley), a mediocre recast (Victoria), a son off in his own universe (Nick) and a central star on her way out (Nikki). If they just reestablish these few families, strengthen the casting and write them as families, the stories will come easy. They're falling into focusing on specific characters and forgetting family and the ensemble that makes this show work.

I'm still fully enjoying the show, but I see the many problems people see. It's more something in the future I worry about. If they continue where they're at now, it's going to be bad, but it's not hard to recover either.

Of course you have a valid point, every story that Y&R has front burner right now could have went either way. I don't think it is about what family they choose to write for, I don't know I am going to chance being presumtious and say that Great writers would love to write the dynamics of these characters and families. There is too much a rich history and compelling story potential. There are many characters Y&R could stand to fix or do away with even, sure; but it is not even that the characters that are currently front and center is the issue the issue is the writing. My point is that what I fear about shifting it back to the Chancellors, they'll just find a way to botch their story too. Here is to better Y&R DAYS:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What's ironic about the whole "Art" plot is that MAB fails to see what makes "Art" an interesting subject for fiction. Unless you have the money to pull off a glamor caper like the Thomas Crown Affair, most great movies/fiction about Art are about egos, fights, the toll the art takes on the artist, or breaking barriers and shocking the establishment with new work. Think Pollock, Dreamgirls, Lust for Life, The Agony and the Ecstasy, even Soapdish, Noises Off, WKRP in Cincinatti, and of course classics like Singing in the Rain. Goodness knows all MAB has to do is look in her own backyard for plenty of story about temperamental artists, the art/money question, etc. It would have been far more interesting if Daniel & Amber went off in different directions. What if Daniel were a terrible artist, hackneyed and derivative, and everyone knew it but couldn't bear to puncture his dream? What is Amber was a fabulous designer, started her own business and became too much of a star for Daniel? You could still bring in all your characters -- Jana and Kevin taking sides. Jana might feel Daniel needs to be coddled. Kevin might think Amber is right to resent Daniel's jealousy. Victoria could invest in Amber's company and JT might start to feel that he has a lot in common with Daniel in feeling overshadowed by his wife/girlfriend. If TPTB would just recast Colleen with an actress who can actually show up to work, it would be pure soap to have JT turn to Colleen to plump his ego. And isn't that the fear that a lot of successful women have -- think Star is Born -- that their men can't handle their success? There is so much that can be done with these characters with real human stories that would make us care about them. If I think Victoria is a joke, why do I care if a box hits her on the head? It's just a laugh. Is that it for Y&R? Cheap laughs? Can MAB or Hogan or Scott or Tom C or any of the writers sit there with a straight face and say that they expect us to actually worry about Vicky? Dreadful.

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

    • 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.)
    • Andrew sure has hard nips.
    • 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.
    • @janea4old Your detailed explanation and delving into the psychology and motivations is no doubt the opposite of what we will see onscreeen. As @ranger1rg stated we will get a few scenes and some sketchy explanations. Like the adoption of Aria, most of it will take place off screen.
    • I'm suddenly fearful that DAYS is going to pull a Flowers-for-Algernon stunt and Bo's progress will be reversed.  While @te. is stuck on Abe's tiny bedroom, I can't stop thinking of the size of Bo's huge hospital room.
    • Okay, why are Paulina and Abe sleeping like that?!  I'd take a screen grab if I wasn't lazy, but come on.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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