Jump to content

Y&R Episodes Discussion, Week of October 26, 2009


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I have to disagree.

Victor was always a very flawed man when Bill Bell was around. Remember when Victor allowed everyone to think he was dead, so he could have some peace (and then be happy with his new soulmate, Hope)? He came back BECAUSE he learned that his family had moved on without him, had, in some cases, perhaps found some of the perspective they would not have had with him in their lives. I remember one of the big triggers for him being a bonding moment between young Nick and Jack, where Nick had clearly been able to put his father's death behind him. Never have I seen a better demonstration of the complex, sometimes downright cruel man Victor could be.

If that story played out now, Nikki would be in the gutter. Nick would be buying drugs at school. Newman Enterprises would be in freefall.

There is no longer any ambiguity allowed. Victor is awesome. That's it. End of story. Nikki and Ashley cannot exist without him. They fall apart. Yes, he treats them badly, but they want him to treat him badly. They need that. What are they on their own? It's the same with his children. They now live for him. They may tut-tut about his latest insane actions, but that's just Victor.

Victor has gone from being a very troubled man who is loved in spite of his flaws to a deity who is loved because of his flaws. I don't believe that's what Bill Bell had in mind. I can't imagine him writing a scene where you have eight or nine characters running around in hysterics because of a very mild hit piece. I thought the reaction to Restless was more balanced, although it's been a long time, I might be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 375
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I just DO NOT SEE THIS.

Victor as deity?

Depicted as a moustache-twirler, with constant insults from Jack, and Gloria mocking his mumbling? Most of the town hates him.

I don't see them playing any sympathy or martyr beats.

Ashley and Nikki ABSOLUTELY can exist without him. Nikki is contemplating how she can let him into her life, without losing herself. Ashley has banished him...and even if she is still mentally ill, she won't take him back.

Truly, I don't see this at all. I see zero deification at all...if anything, they have turned decisively away from that during this most recent period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah but these are insignificant characters to hit at the core of the Victor character in one way or another. Jack vs Victor, Gloria vs Victor, Billy vs Victor are the perfect characters to choose to depict antagonism when you're not trying to paint Victor in that bad of a light, each have their own crimes or wrongs or I guess the best way to to put it their own 'crosses to bare'. What would matter is if they wrote the character of Nick correctly, his daughter's (miraculously /quickly healed condition mind you) should make Nick damned mad. Should he be conflicted, I guess that part is within character but for a man who is still reeling from losing his first child, then a second, then a third with the woman he loves mind you where's the anger all of that should be placed on his father, even if some is displaced. I know Nick and Victor have a sick father/son debacle but it is only right IMO that Nick let alot of his issues out on his father, they won't go there God forbid EB is prolly not having any of it. Phyllis should be running down Victor with a car by now but nope, they want to go the Gloria and Jeffrey, Jack & Billy Abbot route. They antagonize these characters enough for the viewer to know that they will never be validated in a conflict with Victor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ashley is out of her mind. If she does exist without him, she will be doing so on the edge of a breakdown. That's what I take from the writing, where Victor is more than fair to her, lets her have the ranch, tries to calm her as she lashes out, and as her own daughter hates her. It makes her "I'm going to be independent" stance into a laugh.

The same for Nikki, she says she will hurt herself in the long run if she's with him, but she is still going to be with him. Katherine, who is the queen of GC according to the show, the wisest of all, has repeatedly told her that this is a relationship that should be, and that the way Victor treats her is just the way he loves her.

Gloria is a loser. Jack is a loser. Billy is a loser, albeit one we're supposed to like.

The characters we are supposed to respect, they always forgive and support Victor, no matter what he does. Traci, whose daughter died because of him, shared a moment of warmth with him at the christening he crashed. We also get a lot of displays of the power he has over his children - Victoria shames Phyllis from even speaking badly of the man who caused her daughter to suffer brain damage.

I think the undertone in most of the writing for Victor is, "He's not a nice man, but real men aren't nice. Fear him and admire him for what he is. And remember, someone else is always as bad, if not worse."

That's why we get these painful scenes of various characters saying, "Jack is as much to blame for Patty as Victor" and, "Victor took three bullets for Jack," and Victor saying, "This isn't the first time the Abbotts have come after me." And that's why, at the first sign of a mild article attacking him for his behavior, everyone from Sharon to Michael to Ashley were disgusted and heartsick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have to disagree.

Everything in yesterday's US episode was geared towards making us feel sorry for the old codger. From the heart-stirring music swelling in the background as he "begged" Nikki to stay with him, to the way he would periodically clutch his heart and have little gasping spasms, to the overblown rhetoric of Billy/Jack's article.

MAB may have been writing Victor out at the time. But Victor is being cast as the hunted, being run out of town by the bully-boy Abbotts.

And ITA with classicmoment who said that Phyllis should be revving up her car to run him over right about now. Instead, it's like Summer's brain damage is being played down as being no biggie "ya, ya, definitely. Summer's doing GREAT at school!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't like the insta-recovery of Summer either...although that could just be Phyllis being over-optimistic. Two weeks ago, the girl couldn't even speak two words.

I just don't see it! I haven't seen Victor's farewell eps, but I do imagine they'll be heart-swelling...but that's because of the real possibility that it represented EB's final moments.

My sense of Victor is that he is being written and played as vile...unapologetic, revenge-minded, reckless...and that the people in his environment recognize all of that. I also think--and this was the long-term genius of Bill Bell's creation--that at the same time he *used* to be shown as having redeemable characteristics, and even now, each of these people have enough of a history of love and happiness with him (if only for brief shining moments) that they are unable to just give him the "heave ho".

For me, with Victor (and I'm not excusing recent writing, which in my opinion has further villainized--not sanctified--him), what Y&R has always so masterfully shown was love could still be comingled with anger and hate. Even Jack and Victor, at their worst, could set aside some differences if they had a common purpose. (We haven't seen that, really, in a long while).

But apparently I have this warmed view of the show...not based in reality. :lol: I keep wondering what I'm missing.

I really don't see this elevation of Victor at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think that if they wanted to paint Victor as being reckless and out of control and vile, they wouldn't constantly use the "Jack is as bad" or "Victor saved Jack" disclaimers. They have worked tirelessly to make sure we know someone else always shares as much blame, or even more blame, and that at heart, Victor is a better man than those who hate him.

But we can agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We sure can.

In the specific case of Patty, Jack is the ORIGINAL BLAME (and he never fully atoned for that...especially since he STILL used Mary Jane sexually 25 years later). Victor is the RECENT BLAME.

Both blames are legitimate. I don't think that "disclaims" Victor's guilt at all. And I feel Emily's "voice" has clearly shown that. Jack was vile...but it in no way absolves Victor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mark I think in that sense it is a question of counter balance. Victor have the Newman and most others acting as if what he did for now is not that big of a deal, Jack villanous because none of that same kind of support is clearly show for that character. They are both wrong for contributions they have made to the whole thing but Victor's was worse, he took an already fragile woman and pushed her further on down the slope. These things should be a part of the resolution

Two of my favorite Y&R scenes ever it's up there with the Kimble shooting for me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

^^ My other favorite scene is Kimble going into the trash compactor.

Victor is such a hypocrite. He has treated his family like crap over the years.

For all EB's complaints, he got a damn fine tribute today.

Billy makes me laugh. He is so gleeful about getting his revenge on the Newmans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Here's what bugs me. Gloria and Jeffrey have come off with NO BLAME in this whole thing, and they are the ones who kidnapped Patty in the first place, when she was holed up in a church and close to a surrender agreement. Of course, one could say that Victor is ultimately responsible there as well, because those two wouldn't be so desperate for money if Victor hadn't wrecked the bank in the Caymans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ooooh...you're right.

Both Victor and Jack know about this, too. If they had properly turned Patty into the authorities at that time (or not interfered), Patty would have gotten the help she needed then and there....no Colleen kidnapping...no Victor shooting.

Hey, Fishwin haters, here's your chance! Glo-Jeff are the REAL criminals in need of punishment!

It is hard to give Victor ultimate responsibility for Glo-Jeff, since they were baaaaaaaaaad and selfish looooooooong before Victor entered the picture. If Victor hadn't blown their riches, they would have lost them some other foolish way. (On the other hand, Jill would never have invested so stupidly...for her, that was pure plot driven bullsh!t).

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

    • Jean Hackney was awful and that lead to Ben's exit story which sucked. I liked Ben/Val together. Val's love for Ben was that of a grown woman moving on with her life and Ben's love for Val made him willingly decide to raise another man's children as his own.
    • It wasn't just a GL thing, it was an 80s thing. Opulent party scenes on soaps were very big back then. Even in regular episodes where people are just going to dinner they're dressed up like they're going to see royalty.
    • Just started the May 27 episode and first thing I see is that Willow got an ugly haircut since hte last time i watched   I dont have the context for how everthing went down but I know its all Lulu's fault which make her a bish for what she did to Gio
    • I'm pretty sure he was. But point taken. GL really had a thing for masked and costumed balls/parties in the '80's. Everyone looks fabulous, but those poor costume designers.
    • Still here ^^ Come on Prime Video, it's due to bring it back!
    • Got through the eighth season, and it was... painful. 

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I agree 100% with both you and Mitch64.  Soaps have been going further and further off-course since 1981. TPTB just don't have a fundamental understanding of what makes soap fans so loyal. I'd love to be on a writing team with both of you.  Maybe we could put together a real soap opera, and show people what its all about...  
    • They weren't in town, but Fletcher worked at the paper (and we saw anniversary Journal headlines for the 50th, although I don't remember if Roger was one of them), and I'd think Alex would have at least heard of him due to the damage he did to Spaulding only a few years before her return to the fold. I know I have to remember it's not real life, of course.
    • YES. The videos being uploaded to Spauldingfield are almost to the point where Alan is reintroduced. They're already talking about the guy he pretends to be, and yes, he returns at a masked ball. In fact, that masked ball is almost beat for beat the same as the masked ball where Alex was introduced! Get a new schtick. Before the Kobe era, that's pretty much what they did. Characters would just show up. Maybe other characters would talk about them for a while--the Chamberlains, Tony, Maureen, Andy, Kelly, Carrie--but then they would just appear. When Hope came back, she simply knocked on Bert's door and said something like, "Hi, Grandma, I'm home again." No particular fanfare. Sometimes it would be a bit dramatic--Jennifer and Morgan were introduced when Mike accidentally crashed into their car, for instance, and Alan and Elizabeth were introduced through Jackie's flashbacks when she was remembering giving up Phillip for adoption. Nola was involved in the Roger return. Roger's return in 1980 was very dramatic, but in a way that made total sense. He was trying to kidnap a child, so dressing up as a clown did not seem crazy. The mask bit was not only silly, it didn't even make sense. Alex never knew him, so there was no reason for him to be masked in front of her. Yeah, she knew OF him, but there's that phenomenon called cognetive dissonance. If you see someone outside of an expected situation, you probably won't recognize them, especially if you never met them in person and think they're dead. I bet a CIA spook like Roger would be familiar with that concept. And he didn't have to be skulking around SF for months. Again, I will cut Long a little slack--it was not her idea to bring back Roger, she was told to do it. She never wrote for the character. It was something that was not planned. They originally went to Zaslow to offer him the role of Alan. He, of course, turned them down because that was a ridiculous idea, but then he suggested coming back as Roger. At such short notice, it's not strange his return was not handled well.
    • Eh...but neither had been in town. Know the name Roger Thorpe? Sure. But Alex would have gone crazy trying to memorize all of Alan's co-conspirators/lovers/wives and Fletch didn't even know Roger/Adam was on the island, IIRC. But who knew or should've known each other is always a little dicey when people come back to town. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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