Members DRW50 Posted September 20, 2009 Members Share Posted September 20, 2009 None of the stories have any real motivation. Patty isn't crazy because circumstances made her crazy. She's crazy because the script says so. Just as Tom was apparently involved in art theft, even though there was never any hint of this while he was alive. And Adam, that story is a fiasco, and I will never, ever believe this is the Adam we knew even six months ago. They might as well just say he was experimented on by aliens visiting the cornfields. It's lazy writing to expect fans to come up with rationalizations for these stories, especially since the personalities and motivations change every few months, if not weeks. That's not testing the audience or respecting the audience's intelligence, it's not giving a fig about them. You had to have Eileen Davidson go to the soap press and clarify whether or not Ashley still had a dead fetus inside her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alphanguy74 Posted September 20, 2009 Members Share Posted September 20, 2009 Your'e just basing this on one damn episode on youtube. I lived through it, I watched it every day. Patty was always doing weird, flighty sh!t. It was only a few months before she left town that she caused Traci's miscarriage. Like most kooks, she runs hot and cold, she'll be ok for a while, then she'll go off the deep end. Why do you see this as such a black and white issue? Either someone is SANE or theyr'e CRAZY.... read up on this a little, most crazy people have sane periods during their lives... hell, even David Kimball did. Watch this clip, and see how she falls apart like a fragile flower: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted September 20, 2009 Members Share Posted September 20, 2009 A fragile person isn't the same thing as a psycho who murders innocent people and animals. Patty wasn't a raging psycho with stupid obsessions with cats during her first stint on the show, that is not something the can be debated. The fact is, this is a completely different character and we still don't have a hint as to what triggered her to end up the way she did. There is no motivation for this character, none. I'm not going to create something in head and pretend this is what's really happened on the show, when it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted September 20, 2009 Members Share Posted September 20, 2009 Exactly, thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Faulkner Posted September 20, 2009 Members Share Posted September 20, 2009 Can we finally say that Nelson Branco is the worst "professional" interviewer ever? He's an embarrassing sycophant, and he so clearly wants to be this chatty, gossipy, sleazy soap version of Perez Hilton, which is just a sad aspiration. I learn much more about Nelson's neuroses and likes/dislikes from these interviews than I do about his actual subjects and their opinions. I wish we had an intelligent person getting these interviews. Like, say, Toups. But, then again, people like Rauch and MAB go to Nelson because they know he won't challenge them. Anyway, so much for Rauch's "rehearsal time" being of much help to the show because some of the acting on Y&R has been the laziest I've seen in years. The people running this show are just too far up their own asses to see the error of their ways, which is why I've given up hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alphanguy74 Posted September 20, 2009 Members Share Posted September 20, 2009 I heard that!! I'm wasn't wanting Nelson to break Rauch's balls, but you can ask something a LITTLE BIT challenging, and do it in a nice, respectful way. Like instead of saying... "You did this, and it SUCKS, what's your problem?" You say... "Some fan have upset by so and so... can you shed some light on your thought process and resoning when it comes to this situation?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeeeDee Posted September 20, 2009 Members Share Posted September 20, 2009 You didn't like Josh & Amelia's fabulous confrontation of Victor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alphanguy74 Posted September 21, 2009 Members Share Posted September 21, 2009 Truer sarcastic words were never spoken. I wanted to take Amelia in that scene and splash cold water in her face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeeeDee Posted September 21, 2009 Members Share Posted September 21, 2009 Try it. She will snort the drops off your fingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Paul Raven Posted September 21, 2009 Members Share Posted September 21, 2009 Between Rauch and Branco a loy of s*** was shovelled in that interview. Rauch stated that AW was #1 until GH took over in the 80's.First of all,he made it sound like AW went to #2,when in fact AW dropped from equal 1st to 8th in the 78/79 season.AMC took over as the #1 soap. He stated that you put your A characters front burner all the time and referenced Mac/Rachel/Iris.The problem was that those characters were over used and there was nothing else left. According to Branco,Rauch made Andrea Evans a star? Rauch feels they'll be back to a 4.0 in the coming months! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SFK Posted September 21, 2009 Members Share Posted September 21, 2009 I agree that the interview was a little fawning, I would have appreciated some more heavy-hitting questions, but in Nelson's defense, how many of us would have had the balls to give Paul Rauch the business as he sat across the table? Something I both like and dislike about Rauch is his penchant for innovation, his willingness to try new things for imo all the right reasons. I really don't get the impression that any of his fantastical storylines were purely flash in the pan ratings grabbers in his eyes. I believe that he sincerely likes to broaden the viewer's notion of what soap opera storytelling is capable of being. What I don't like is this gut feeling I get that he and many others in the business never look back in a healthy way, that they are always plowing forward trying to top the last thing, never borrowing from the past in a way that would greatly benefit them. Obviously the stuff he came up with for OLTL and GL won't work on a show like Y&R, that's not what I'm talking about, but I certainly wouldn't mind if he took a good look back at the things he and Lemay did at AW and totally stole some of those nuts and bolts from himself... reinterpreted some of that greatness. That's the kind of soap opera we need to get back in touch with, and grow from there. And... "TVG: No one has to copy Y&R exactly but they should mirror their reverence to history, the skill, and commitment to entertaining fans each day. If you guys can get back to a 4.0, then I’d feel more hopeful about the future of the genre because that means it can be done. And a win for Y&R is a win for everyone. Someone needs to become a ratings sensation to inspire the rest of the beaten-down, depressed industry. Let’s talk Victoria Rowell. There are two actors pundits believe can boost a show’s ratings, and they are Rowell and Vanessa Marcil. I know there are backstage politics involved, but why risk the future of a show because of two or three actors’ egos? The fans want Drucilla back desperately. It would be sad for you guys to bring Rowell back when it’s too late to save the show — which may happen very soon considering you are hovering around at about a 3.0. For example, had you brought Rowell back when you hit a 4.1 — you guys wouldn’t be at a 3.3 now. You could have reached that 4.5 I'm praying you earn. When Rowell and Shemar Moore left they took almost a million viewers with them. Yes, we can’t retrieve the majority of those lost fans, but I’m sure their returns would give a you a nice boost. Is the show going to have to die because of a couple of selfish children? What would Bill Bell say to that? Dru was one of his favourite characters and Rowell was one of his favourite actresses. In the end, I’d rather say I tried everything I could to save this show. If you end up being cancelled in a few years, critics will ask 'Why didn't they bring back Rowell?' Let's compromise — why not bring Drucilla back as a ghost for a couple of episodes. Test the waters. Analyze the ratings. Then go from there. So my question to you is — if you knew an actor’s return could bring in more ratings, would you bring them back? You claim everyone on Y&R is professional..." LONGEST. "QUESTION". EVER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted September 21, 2009 Members Share Posted September 21, 2009 From what Lemay said, Rauch only focused on the production aspects like the sets or dealing with executives or actors. Rauch himself has no real skill as a producer, especially since today's soap climate means he can't afford the production values he had at OLTL, and probably not even at GL. Instead we are just left with the other side of Rauch, which is always making sure someone else is blamed for the show's problems, and creating a soap world where minorities barely exist and women would look at Leave it to Beaver as radical feminism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SFK Posted September 21, 2009 Members Share Posted September 21, 2009 Well I certainly agree that he isn't single-handedly responsible for any of his great successes, and there's no doubt in my mind that he knows that better than anyone else. He is wise enough to ally himself with who he believes to be good writers. As Lemay said in his recent interview, Rauch can be needy and insecure about the job he's doing, the big bad soap mogul is also an approval-seeker. Your point about the lack of funds these days to luxuriate in that Rauch/Conboy brand of soap is of course valid. For that reason one would hope that he's working double-time to ensure that the writing is top-notch. He says that he just lets Maria write. Again, *one would hope* that he's sat down with her in the past and discussed what his former partner did during those glory days at AW. It wouldn't hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Paul Raven Posted September 22, 2009 Members Share Posted September 22, 2009 Rauch always gets mega credit for taking AW to #1,but it is conveniently ignored that once Lemay left,the ratings plummeted and Rauch was around for another 5 years,while AW was systematically destroyed. It seems he's happy to take all the credit,but on the other hand claims to have little to do with the writing. As for those who criticize him for being anti-minority,under his watch at AW,headwriter Corinne Jacker made Quinn,Bib,Henrietta etc front burner for months,so at least in that instance,he was happy to have black characters heavily involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Faulkner Posted September 22, 2009 Members Share Posted September 22, 2009 And the funny thing is that the response was totally not worth all of that build-up. Rauch gave almost a comically brief and dismissive answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.