Y&R: Episodes Discussion for the week June 22

[JackPeyton]

LOL, ty.

But i really did. This was a couple i once loved. I forgot how much til i youtubed some old mac/billy stuff. I reallyw anted to like them too when they brought Mac back and unrelated them, but i just wasnt feeling it. At all. But i do feel they have had some good scenes/moments. And i feel Friday's scenes were the first time i could really root for them.

I was also throwing a house party and doing patron shots, perhaps thats why. lol.

[Aback]

Mac and Billy are not working now because all they have is themselves. We don't see Billy at Jabot, we don't see Mac interacting with grandma about P3. They have no personalities beside the fact that they went to high school together. All we see is them talking about retconned high school memories, which is a big cheat considering that we saw Mac & Billy in their high school years.

Re: Summer's poisoning. To me, Patty Jane's motivation for poisoning Summer is as far-fetched as Phyllis calling Brad to come between Jack and Sharon. Uh? If the child is sick it will bring Nick & Phyllis together. If Sharon is Nick-less, then she has a chance to go after Smilin' Jack again, and it's not a big if, since the baby she's carrying could still be Jack's as far as MJ knows.

[classicmoment]

Patty Jane has a few screws loose I'm sure they are trying or will try to use her to redeem all in the Phyllis/Nick/Sharon triangle. She's impulsive and with her mental anguish does whatever she deems necessary to keep Phyllis or Sharon away from Jack. Her plots I can buy thus far. It seems she wants Phyllis-Nick-Sharon stuck in their own dysfunction she convinces herself that will make Jack free for her

[rhythmchyc]

Welcome TheLionofAzzalle!!

I must say no matter one's opinion of the show, it's good to know that the majority of the board shares this sentiment.

Cane must die.

I don't know why they didn't just time this after the trial instead. That was such an odd script error.

[rhythmchyc]

Wow, I don't see CE similar to Christian Bale in American Psycho at all. But I think Christina Bale wasn't boyish. He wasn't sweet. He wasn't playful EVER. CE had rid himself of emotion as Christian had but I think that was because he couldn't convey vindication and remorse as well as MM has so far. Christian wasn't utterly void of emotion, though. You can see he had a motivation in his atrocious crimes. He was sick of being overlooked by his peers, of the anonymity. It was difficult to find Adam's motivation in the script over the past few months and so CE, hating where the material was taking Adam, didn't play with any emotion at all IMO. This is probably why we didn't see CE soft on the inside and tough on the outside. CE was just driving the plot as far as he was concerned.

And definitely not CE and TSJ. I agree with Juliajms, MM and TSJ are a lot more similar to me. TSJ is all about being present and subtle, which I think MM has done so far. CE was never that way IMO.

Again, as everyone else has said, we have months to see what MM can bring and if he is capable of becoming as likable as CE has.

[YRBB]

Talk about script errors and stupid plotting, Sharon tells Nick they can go get the paternity results as soon as possible, and then on the next episode, they're going to have to wait for 2 hours? WTF? Such continuity errors on a show that used to be top notch in continuity are ridiculous. Don't these writers care at all?

[classicmoment]

Yeah it makes me so disconnected. I used to be on the edge of my seat paying attention. That was one of the elements that made me that way-continuity in the script- but now I pretty much just watch the actors potrayal if they are excellent and if the dialogue is ok I take the 'gist' of the scene from that. Otherwise if they are really bad I just can't (especially if the story is already stupid) and if they are excellent well then that would have been part of a hopefully great/excellent epi (these are few and inbetween)

[MarkH]

As you know, Jules, I'm right there with you. In principle, I think it could work on daytime. I wish it would. But what I learned, after Latham, is that the audience will not allow it. The audience for existing soaps is largely crystallized, with a certain template for what daytime should be. Innovation will die, and it will lead to negative reactions.

Thus, we should love this aging dinosaurs for what they are, and their greatest achievement is to figure out ways to honor their histories and their veterans and their traditions until their deaths in the near future.

True Blood and Breaking Bad are the next generation of soap opera. So we can enjoy the fact that the evolution has occurred, and there is a brief time window -- now -- where the almost obsolete species (daytime soaps) can coexist with the new evolution.

I think we could have these kinds of tales on daytime...and if we did so, we'd expand and "youthify" the audience The problem is that the existing audience for soaps will not allow it. So we should stop trying and hoping for that.

TRADITIONAL soap opera, IMO, is like TRADITIONAL big band music or TRADITIONAL college football. Quaint, classic, with a foot in the past. TRADITIONAL has no future in pop culture.

But, most people are like you. Thus, the current breed of soaps is forced to stay TRADITIONAL, and therefore will soon be EXTINCT. What's cool about that, though, is that in some ways the TRADITIONAL soap opera begat St. Elsewhere and Hill Street Blues and Knot's Landing...and in their fashion they established the primetime continuing adult drama. So, whether it is The Shield or Nip/Tuck or New 90210 or True Blood...all of them show us the serial is alive and well and evolved. They daytime variant gets to breathe out its' last in this obsolete way.

We are constrained, both by advertisers and audiences resistant to "darkness" or whatever to shows that safely sell toothpaste. Okay. I will accept that.

I confess I am frustrated that many in the audience want Y&R to be akin to "visiting grandmother". When I visit Y&R, I wish it would be more like "visiting cool sibling". So, for me, peanut-poisoning-

and baby-burning-Adam are innovations and twists I have not seen before. I really appreciate that. But unfortunately, most in the audience seem not to.

Welcome! It is nice to hear your perspective!

[mr. sweet]

I agree with you about Daniel. He is the dumbest character on the show. Him confronting faux-Auker in the alley by his lonesome with no weapon was beyond stupid--just to get his painting back. And he has a nerve to rag on Amber's schemes.

I noticed that you didn't mention Sharon in the Quad. Does that mean you dislike the character of Sharon. In actuality I am having a problem liking Phyllis' character right now. The reason is because I completely think that she is a hypocrite. I understand that she is hurting and it is understandable but how can she honestly say all these things with a serious face when Nick did all these same things with her. It's ridiculous how she keeps labeling Sharon as "the other woman." Wasn't she that "other woman" a few years back. I mean c'mon Nick left Sharon for you. Maybe he's a "once a cheater, always a cheater" type dude. Besides she didn't help matters when she schemed to keep him and brought up Sharon's name every other minute. And her rant with Nick when he ended the marriage: "What about my daugher...my daughter didn't ask for this" Well, Phyllis, do you think Noah asked his father to leave his mother for you? I don't think Phyllis cared much for Noah's feelings at the time. That is one of the little problems I've had with this storyline is that when Phyllis ranted on Sharon, why didn't Sharon dish it right back and remind self-righteous Phyllis that she did the same to her. I find it unrealistic that no one is mentioning that piece of history. Sidenote: the acting in this storline has been excellent. I hate that they dropped the Sharon stealing/breakdown SL.

And I agree...I prefer MM as Adam. He comes off as more well-rounded , while CE came off as evil. Though CE was not one of my faves, the character of Adam has been compelling since Day One. I also believe that MM & Eric Braeden going head-to-head will be magic. I say BRING ON THE INTENSITY!!

[DRW50]

Soaps have had relatively dark stories for many decades. The idea of soaps, that no one can ever really be happy, is also dark. People can accept dark material. I think people have more of a problem with sick or very depressing stuff which is more about trying to get attention than about what is best for stories or characters. That's where daytime has gone wrong over the past decade. They think constant violence against women and children is a way out every time.

I think True Blood works because of Alan Ball's talents, more than from soap themes. A vampire primetime show with soap themes I see as more like the primetime Dark Shadows version. Ball primarily worked in sitcoms before he started writing for films and then Six Feet Under.

[MarkH]

But are you watching True Blood? For it is clearly a "vampire primetime show with soap themes". Great love and passion, mysterious backstories, whodunits, triangles, and a cliffhanger every weeek. Yes, it brings in other traditions, including comedy and satire, but this is unambiguously also a soap.

But, returning to Y&R, while I will grant you "sick" and "depressing", this is being done in a context where the characters are mostly acting in character (though I admit that Victor's recent stupidity is not). I'd say there is also "historical accuracy", but I cannot deny that bring P3 back to life is...well...pushing it.

[mr. sweet]

Love True Blood. Loved Six Feet Under (my fave TV show of all time). Imagine a talent like Alan Ball writing soaps. Incredible.

And I love the gaslighting storyline even though it is pretty twisted. I can understand Victor's "stupidity." You see what I think makes this storyline so plausable is the fact that everyone believes he is blind. So as much as people might suspect him, it just seems so farfetched that a blind person would be able to pull off this coop. And no one can prove that he has an accomplice because we all know he has none. The only thing that I will agree is stupid is the fact that Sabrina's voice came booming out of his laptop. They should've found another way for people to suspect Adam.

And I've also read that ppl think that Ashley has been acting stupid. But I've always thought her character has been stupid for yrs. She was the one who stole Victor's sprerm. I've had an intense dislike for her character since that storyline. She has always been a little crazy/obsessed when Victor is concerned...so I can understand her desperation not to be driven out of his house. Though I do believe it is absolutely foolish.

[DRW50]

I guess I see True Blood as being an adaptation of a series of books. There are some soap ties (a number of soap actors, gorgeous bodies on display, sex scenes), but I think that what we see as coming from soaps, things like cliffhangers, mysterious backstories, whodunits, have been around for centuries. Like the works of Dickens, which were initially published chapter by chapter, with millions of people waiting to see what was going to happen next. I think daytime soaps are just part of the serial format, and ideally they've intertwined in a good way with primetime dramas, but I don't think they have died off in favor of primetime dramas. IIRC, the era when primetime soaps and continuing dramas were most popular, the 80s, was when daytime still had very high ratings. I think daytime soaps are dying for several reasons, but I don't think it's because the form is obsolete. With some changes they still could have gone on, they could have figured out how to branch out to new audiences, as soaps did in the 70s and early 80s. I think those who run daytime, in their desperation to try to be what they weren't, made the form obsolete.

I don't know if Adam and Mary Jane, who are the main forces behind the ugliness on the show, are acting in character because I don't think they have been characters for most of their time back in Genoa City. They move the plot forward. They're the crazies. That's not new to Y&R or any other soap, but I think focusing so much on the dark with no way out is new for Y&R. All that is ahead for Ashley is agony. She no longer exists for any reason other than to be a dupe, and to be tormented. A reunion many fans longed for (Shick) has almost been made a mockery by the show because of all the partner-swapping and Sharon behaving in random ways to keep the story going. There's no balance. I think what they may have hoped would be balance, like the Billy/Mac/Chloe story, has been weighed down by other problems.

I think this is what hurts soaps now, is that there's so much death and angst and dead babies for no other reason than to get a reaction out of viewers. Y&R doesn't always do this, they've certainly done a good job keeping Cassie's memory alive, and they did with Phillip for many years, but the more recent stories, like Brad's death, have been more along these lines. When soaps tell people that this constant focus on mental torture and death is just a way to get attention, nothing behind it, people are less likely to want to keep watching.

That's why I don't think it's viewers resisting dark stories, it's viewers resisting darkness for the sake of darkness. If a soap came along which had this atmosphere from the start, then viewers may respond, like some primetime shows which are obviously very, very dark from the beginning (from the first episode of The Shield you knew not to expect happy endings). But a soap like Y&R, I don't think that tone fits.

[MarkH]

Just to start, I see a LOT of truth in what you write here. I'm okay with the lack of balance now, but I definitely see your point.

I wanted to address your other point:

"There are some soap ties (a number of soap actors, gorgeous bodies on display, sex scenes), but I think that what we see as coming from soaps, things like cliffhangers, mysterious backstories, whodunits, have been around for centuries. Like the works of Dickens, which were initially published chapter by chapter, with millions of people waiting to see what was going to happen next. I think daytime soaps are just part of the serial format, and ideally they've intertwined in a good way with primetime dramas, but I don't think they have died off in favor of primetime dramas."

I see it like this: The serial began in book form, but it has had some "dominant forms" for the last 100+ years.

1. Magazine serial (e.g., Dickens Pickwick Papers), beginning around 1837 - eclipsed somewhere in the mid 20th century

2. Movie serials (e.g., Perils of Pauline), beginning in 1910s, but pretty much fully eclipsed by the 1950s

3. Radio serial (e.g., Irna Phillips Painted Dreams), beginning around 1930 - eclipsed in the 1950s

4. Daytime television serials (e.g., Guiding Light), beginning about 1952 and ending, for the most part, in the 2000/2010 decades.

5. Primetime serials--soapy variant. This has had an up-and-down history. The Peyton Place era (1960s), the Dallas-Dynasty-Knot's Landing era (1980s, through early 90s), the Melrose Place/90210 era (90s). I guess we're in the midst of the latest resurgence, after a fashion, with Desperate Housewives and Gossip Girl. I think the point with this genre is that shows tend to have 5-10 year courses.

6. Primetime adult dramas with serial elements. Now this, in the main, we can date to the early-to-mid 1980s (Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere, Thirtysomething), and it has grown ever since. Most of the primetime dramas now that are not procedurals fall in this vein, and it transcends genres...from cop shows (The Shield) and spy shows (Alias, 24) and firefighter shows (Third Watch, Rescue Me) and doctor shows (ER, Grey's Anatomy) to family shows (Brothers and Sisters) to sci-fi (Battlestar Galactica, Lost) to edgy fare (Breaking Bad, Weeds, Sopranos, Six Feet Under) to vampire shows (True Blood)...even Westerns (Deadwood). Even the sitcom (The Office, Friends, Entourage) now is largely driven by continuing stories, romance.

These genres overlap, but most have eclipsed, and some are hanging on. Like evolution, different lines can coexist, but eventually one dies and another moves on.

We see the serial has taken firm root, too, in cinema (all those sequels and trilogies since at least the 1970s), and in novels (especially detective fiction in the post-Agatha Christie era, where the detective carries a backstory from mystery to mystery--but basically in all those book series that are out there now; every writer is trying to launch a franchise).

It will be interesting to see whether the serial takes firm room on the internet too. There are clearly many experiments.

[BadZoe]

Which story isn't dark? I think the lack of balance is what is making this show increasingly depressing to watch.