Y&R: Old Articles

[kalbir]

Victoria was born on-screen November 1982. Nicholas was born off-screen December 1988. They are 6 years apart in real time but inconsistent SORASing messed up the timelines.

 

Edited August 1, 2022 by kalbir

[Joseph]

At Least with This New Adam, it's More Timeline Accurate, I Liked the other ones but i hope they stay with This One, He's from 198somithing right? At Least He's 10 years younger than either Amelia and Joshua, On real time i believe he was 13 years younger the Vicky and 8/7 years younger than Nick, My the Newman Children's timeline is pretty messed, No One can Mention how Abby was Conceived and rub it in on Ashley because SORAS made her an entire decade older than Kyle

[Broderick]

When I re-watch these old shows from the mid-to-late 1980s, I find Cricket even more annoying than I did when the shows initially aired.  I believed at the time that her "reign of terror" would be short-lived, and it was just something we had to tolerate for a couple of years.  Now in hindsight, we know that it went on & on & on (even costing us Terry Lester eventually), and that makes it harder to suffer through in a repeat watching.    

[blueberrywaffle]

I LOVE TERRY

Please register in order to view this content

 

[kalbir]

It's never been confirmed, but I wonder if Cricket eating the show was also the cause of Eileen Davidson leaving in 1988. From what I've seen of December 1988, ED didn't even get a proper exit story. I think her last scene as Ashley was at the hospital when Steven died and a week or so later Ashley was in her room at the Abbott house and it was Brenda Epperson.

[Broderick]

I've often wondered that.  At the time, Miss Eileen claimed she was leaving to try her hand at primetime (which made sense, considering she'd been in a couple of movies), and she did land a primetime show ("Broken Badges")(?), which failed after a few episodes.  Then it was on to Santa Barbara and Days of Our Lives.  But yeah, I always wondered if hadn't been for all that Cricket/Jessica nonsense, if she could've been convinced to stay.   Everyone's role was diminished on Y&R during that period, and all the characters were obliged to pay constant homage to Cricket.    

[YRfan23]

Eileen Departed on 12/2/88 and Brenda Debuted the following Monday on 12/5/88, but it guess it was kind of a rushed exit.

[Joseph]

I don't think Jessica was nonsense considering they went into a very very touchy subject for the time BUT I do think Eileen Might've Felt wasted considering how Front Burner she was up To Cricket's Banquet, it probably wasn't the single motive for exit, but it probably helped, anyway, i do think leaving was best for her, She showed how versatile she could be, maybe if she stayed on, She wouldn't have been able to prove it, Sorry but In My opinion except for her Occasional Mental Problems, Ashley is a pretty one Note Character most of the time

[Broderick]

Maybe not.  But it struck me as silly, because her storyline was so fantastically divorced from the realities of the disease she supposedly had.  While most people suffering from AIDS in the real world were concerned about their CD4 counts, viral loads, and opportunistic infections, Jessica just breezed around glamorously marrying one patriarch, and then having everyone step aside graciously so she could be reunited with the father of her Precious Little Child.  Once she'd completed all the items on her to-do list, she lay down and died without any signs of thrush-mouth, Kaposi sarcoma, or AIDS wasting.   It seemed to be nothing more than another "human interest" story for Cricket, without any of the agony we'd all seen associated with the real virus that had killed our friends.  

[will81]

In terms of Eileen. I think she wanted to move on. I don't think it was Cricket.....but I don't doubt Eileen and Terry had discussions about it and saw that it was time to move on, so it may have had a minor influence. I actually think Eileen's departure made Terry more unhappy. I think if she had stayed he might have tried harder to stick around and make it work, but in saying that he had been wanting out since 1985. 

[Paul Raven]

Agree that Eileen with several years of soap under her belt felt the time was right to make the break.

Just wondering whether recasting so soon was the right move?

Maybe it would have been better for Ashley to be off the canvas for a year or so to rest the character before a recast.

It was  a natural time as Ashley was now widowed and at the end of that story.

Do you think Ashley off the show was viable at that time?

On another note, I wonder  if Bill decided with Eileen leaving, to kill off Steven. Maybe he had other plans but thought it was better to give Brenda a fresh start.

Steven was really a nothing character and like Blade and then Joshua very bland who presented no real rivalry to the likes of Victor. And they each had a crazy ex coming out of the woodwork.

[Joseph]

Oh my I didn't knew details, that sounds awful! I thought they were a more realistic considering The Keesha History just a decade later being pretty realistic, what a disservice!

[kalbir]

When you look at the 1989 storylines, the front-burner females were Cassandra and Cricket, while the rest of the main females (Jill, Katherine, Nikki, Ashley, Traci, Lauren, Nina, Leanna) got second or third tier storylines. So I'd say resting Ashley for a year or so might have worked.

Brenda Epperson was a serviceable recast but in hindsight her main storylines (Brad/Ashley/Traci triangle, Victor marriage/divorce, Blade/Rick) didn't work. Many have said that Bill Bell wrote BE's Ashley as a typical soap heroine which wasn't what the character originally was. From what I've seen of ED's 1982-1988 arc, Ashley wasn't the typical Bill Bell heroine in the vein of Leslie and Chris Brooks before her and Caroline and Christine after her; he wrote Ashley originally as confident and goal oriented but she became emotionally fragile in the aftermath of the parentage reveal. Bill Bell also kept ED's Ashley and Traci in separate orbits when it came to their romances and romantic rivals (Ashley/Victor/Nikki, Traci/Danny/Lauren, Traci/Brad/Lauren) but he must have seen a connection between BE and DD to put Ashley and Brad in each other's orbit romantically. Also BE had no connection w/ EB at all plus she looked too innocent and sweet to be believable as the other woman in the eternal triangle.

Edited August 3, 2022 by kalbir

[Broderick]

Say what you want about Brenda Dickson, and we all have our opinions (lol), but she certainly turned in some "unique" performances that made her character unorthodox.  Eileen Davidson and Terry Lester were also presenting their own characters somewhat outside the mold of "traditional" soap opera fare -- without the bizarre antics associated with Miss Dickson. 

Losing Dickson, Davidson & Lester in 1987, 1988, and 1989 certainly deprived the show of three unconventional characters.

The recasts were more "normalized" and  (in my opinion) weakened the show to a certain extent.  Now obviously the general public responded positively to the changes, as the show went to #1 and stayed there for 30+ years. 

But I always found that period to be a bit rocky from a casting standpoint, and the overemphasis on Cricket didn't help matters at all.       

[Paul Raven]

Brenda definitely didn't have the sarcastic and hard edge that Eileen supplied.

Peter tried hard to bring a touch of Terry to Jack but eventually the character was softened.

Jess filled Brenda's shoes admirably.

The next standout actors for me were Tricia as Nina and Victoria as Drucilla. Ashley's Mac stood out.

One character I could never get into was Brittany-so much story for an unexciting actress and character.