I remember when I first read about the shooting story my reaction to Sven being the shooter was kind of, "Who?"

I do appreciate the idea of not sacrificing characters just for a shock reveal - that has been the death of soaps. But I do wonder if, considering he ultimately faded away, they might have done something like had Michael Crawford as the shooter.

I wonder what the reaction was to Who Shot Jill?

Who Shot Jill was fun cause Brenda was at her Love To Hate peak.

they might have done something like had Michael Crawford as the shooter.

Nah. Sven was the right choice.

David Kimble was named Worst Villain.

The main problem was the plastic surgery.

It wasn't that he had it so much as HOW it badly the surgery make up was done.

Plus that part of the story (while entertaining) was rushed & unfortunately didn't allow Corbett to really shine.

Other awards that year were for most overexposed heroine (Nikki)

Not anymore

How long had Sven been around? Just for that story?

Pretty much.

And it worked cause the culprit wasn't the point so much as the shooting.

It was meant to humble & semi redeem Jill which it did (to an extent).

It was meant to humble & semi redeem Jill which it did (to an extent).

Like for 5 seconds before she started to piss EVERYBODY in town again. This was the time when Brenda was at her divaishest. The story was fantastic (as it not only rejuvenated Kay/Jill but also Jack), although the conclusion/reveal was kind of unnecessary and boring.

Like for 5 seconds before she started to piss EVERYBODY in town again.

Jill will be Jill!

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ld4yLbccVlM" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="480"></iframe>

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eJpcFYx1jic" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="480"></iframe>

SOD has the 1989 Y&R/B&B Christmas party.

I was reading some of the best/worst of 1991 in SOD, and David Kimble was named Worst Villain. Basically this was for the plastic surgery storyline. They said it was ridiculous no one recognized him and that he worked out of his old office, and that aside from the ending, the story lacked punch.

Do you think that's true?

Other awards that year were for most overexposed heroine (Nikki), most underused character (Paul, Y&R), best constructed show, and probably a few I forgot.

I think one of the problems of the David story is the fact that he really did not get a whole lot of payback before he actually died in the trash compactor. Sure it was a clever way of killing him off but like deedee said it did seem a bit rush just by watching those clips. I would have prefer that insted of just watching him die first a fistfight between Danny and David would have worked as like a final confrontation, Considering the hell this guy had put them through all those months, also this may be a bit far fetched but just because he was such a jerk to her during her trial, there could have been a scene where Glenn Richards found out that David was just a fraud and apologized to Nina. (Unless he just did that offscreen) I tend to get a bit angry when minor characters like him are such jerks to innocent victims like Nina who are only sufferering because other people have put them through this.

Deedee what did you think of the story where Jack finds out that it was Victor who caused Nikki to lose their baby boy, and he goes to confront him in his office, but like always Victor throws all the punches. That pisses me off because i think that was the one time Bill Bell should have ignored Braeden's stupid rule about Victor being somewhat invinceble to other people (although they let John Abbott give him a knuckle sandwich years later) and let Jack attack Victor.

David's death was fine.

It was fitting & actually clever unlike now where evil characters HAVE to always be "redeemed" cause SOME entitled fans demand it.

David's death was fine.

It was fitting & actually clever unlike now where evil characters HAVE to always be "redeemed" cause SOME entitled fans demand it.

Yes true to that! There would be no way that had they decided not to kill David that any redemption would be possible for him.

Which makes me wonder how it worked with Michael so well?

Even when doing psycho things CLB gave Michael a real level of genuine vulnerability a trait David always lacked & Michael's eventual redemption was slow & honest.

Plus the individuals Michael wronged were allowed to hate him without being treated like the villains themselves.

Unlike now where characters like Kevin & Gloria CONSTANTLY break the law, then gloat about it & have the nerve to constantly play the victim while self righteously judging everyone theu interacts with.

All while the people they wronged are ignored, written way OOC or treated like horrible people for hating & not immediately forgiving him.

John's death & funeral being a PERFECT example.

Edited June 11, 201114 yr by DeeeDee

Even when doing psycho things CLB gave Michael a real level of genuine vulnerability a trait David always lacked & Michael's eventual redemption was slow & honest.

Plus the individuals Michael wronged were allowed to hate him without being treated like the villains themselves.

Unlike now where characters like Kevin & Gloria CONSTANTLY break the law, then gloat about it & have the nerve to constantly play the victim while self righteously judging everyone theu interacts with.

All while the people they wronged are ignored, written way OOC or treated like horrible people for hating & not immediately forgiving him.

John's death & funeral being a PERFECT example.

So is it safe to say that Sharon is the latest victim of THAT type of writing you just described. I say she is because Giggly definitely wronged her when she had the affair with Nick. Yet like Victor she has never really payed for her past crimes and continues to gloat about all the stuff she does.

So is it safe to say that Sharon is the latest victim of THAT type of writing you just described.

Yep.