You gotta be joking.

Every time they create a new character or try to take an old character in a new direction, 90% of the people on here go screaming "WE ONLY WANT THE VETS! THAT PERSON IS ACTING OUT OF CHARACTER!"

From that I get the impression that the people who post on here don't want anything new. They'd certainly never stand for entire families being written out and new families created...even though the great and perfect Bill Bell did so himself.

The problem is what exactly counts as "new". If you package poorly told stories under the guise of faux hipness or edginess, then it still sucks. Look at Deacon. He was new to the show. I'm sure people would have been willing to embrace him. He was then thrown into one horribly written, unpleasant story after another, with actors he had little to no chemistry with.

Or other new characters like Ryder and Eden. Dead-eyed mopes who drown in their own angst.

Or Chloe, whose motivations and backstory were muddled for nearly a year, and who still seems to have no real solid place on the show, even after endless scenes with the show's main core family.

Are viewers wrong to not love this? I can't say they are.

When the show remembers how to bring new characters in, and how to tell stories, instead of rushed plot point A, B, C, then people may respond better.

As for entire families being written out, given how dismantled the Abbotts, Chancellors, Winters, and the Newmans have become, it feels like the concept of family is on the way out anyway. Aside from machismo rivalries and the occasional holiday episode, they only really interact when someone is dead or dying in the hospital.

It's not just here that has gotten tired of these gimmicks. Even some of the biggest cheerleaders from earlier this year, like DC and Branco, seem to have lost some enthusiasm.

Edited November 30, 200915 yr by CarlD2

Every time they create a new character or try to take an old character in a new direction, 90% of the people on here go screaming "WE ONLY WANT THE VETS! THAT PERSON IS ACTING OUT OF CHARACTER!"

The writing is so plot drive and motivations are changed so often that it's hard to accept a major shift as character growth. These writers are so one-dimensional when crafting the characters that they'll often take one trait and focus on that. Perfect examples: Jill, Jack and Billy who are all unwatchable now.

From that I get the impression that the people who post on here don't want anything new. They'd certainly never stand for entire families being written out and new families created...even though the great and perfect Bill Bell did so himself.

I don't think anybody is opposed to new families if they're necessary and add something to the show. Right now there are several families languishing on the backburner that could be revamped. When Bill Bell revamped the show it was because there was a need. First of all, the show was going to an hour so no matter who was writing you HAVE to add more characters. Writing out the Brooks and Foster families was because all of the actors were gone. Most of the roles were repeatedly recast (rarely having the success of previous portrayals) which made the character useless. I don't think any family would want the Abbott or Newman family if you had to recast the entire family JUST to have them around. Imagine if Nick, Victor and Nikki were all recast. It would be pointless and I certainly wouldn't have a problem with them being written off at that point.

I don't think your assertion takes into account the differences Bill Bell faced.

The problem is what exactly counts as "new". If you package poorly told stories under the guise of faux hipness or edginess, then it still sucks. Look at Deacon. He was new to the show. I'm sure people would have been willing to embrace him. He was then thrown into one horribly written, unpleasant story after another, with actors he had little to no chemistry with.

Or other new characters like Ryder and Eden. Dead-eyed mopes who drown in their own angst.

Or Chloe, whose motivations and backstory were muddled for nearly a year, and who still seems to have no real solid place on the show, even after endless scenes with the show's main core family.

Are viewers wrong to not love this? I can't say they are.

When the show remembers how to bring new characters in, and how to tell stories, instead of rushed plot point A, B, C, then people may respond better.

As for entire families being written out, given how dismantled the Abbotts, Chancellors, Winters, and the Newmans have become, it feels like the concept of family is on the way out anyway. Aside from machismo rivalries and the occasional holiday episode, they only really interact when someone is dead or dying in the hospital.

It's not just here that has gotten tired of these gimmicks. Even some of the biggest cheerleaders from earlier this year, like DC and Branco, seem to have lost some enthusiasm.

Exactly!

The writing is so plot drive and motivations are changed so often that it's hard to accept a major shift as character growth. These writers are so one-dimensional when crafting the characters that they'll often take one trait and focus on that. Perfect examples: Jill, Jack and Billy who are all unwatchable now.

I don't think anybody is opposed to new families if they're necessary and add something to the show. Right now there are several families languishing on the backburner that could be revamped. When Bill Bell revamped the show it was because there was a need. First of all, the show was going to an hour so no matter who was writing you HAVE to add more characters. Writing out the Brooks and Foster families was because all of the actors were gone. Most of the roles were repeatedly recast (rarely having the success of previous portrayals) which made the character useless. I don't think any family would want the Abbott or Newman family if you had to recast the entire family JUST to have them around. Imagine if Nick, Victor and Nikki were all recast. It would be pointless and I certainly wouldn't have a problem with them being written off at that point.

I don't think your assertion takes into account the differences Bill Bell faced.

Amen!

So. What's been happening? Anything improved on Y&R? I haven't watched in more than a week, although I caught the Thanksgiving episode and had to turn it off at the sheer boring awfulness of it. No Chancellors? No real Abbott get-together after helping out at the shelter? WTF? The Baldwins are not the cornerstone family of Y&R, Maria! (And I say this as somebody who actually enjoys Judith Chapman and Ted Shackleford).

The only good bit was the little boy playing Reed playing and cuddling baby Delia and basically outacting Vamptoria and Billy Miller off the screen. But I knew it would be all smaltzy saccharine thereafter so I switched off.

ETA: Already discussed in this week's thread.

Edited December 1, 200915 yr by Scryber96