Jump to content

Y&R: Old Articles


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, SoapDope said:

 

I agree. They are now a footnote in soap history. The vast majority of today's Y&R audience are either too young or never saw those early days and characters. If you do find long term viewers, most didn't start watching till the mid-late 80's when the show's rating became huge. You'll be hard pressed to find a viewer who was watching in the 70's. 

 

The only good thing about my being so ancient is that I was fortunate enough to witness the soaps' golden age. I think the 1950s to 1970s were the very best years for daytime drama. We had Irna Phillips, Agnes Nixon, William J. Bell, Pat Falken Smith, Harding Lemay, Henry Slesar...all the great writers at the height of their careers! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 10.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The funny thing is that Y&R didn't become number 1 until the Brooks family was phased out. I thought the Brooks era was fantastic but it never reached #1 in the ratings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of the actors from Y&R's first 10 years were ever submitted for awards, even Jeanne Cooper. A lot of people said Jeanne, Brenda Dickson, Jamie Lyn Bauer, Janice Lynde, and Dorothy Green should have had nominations for their work. I saw some of Dorothy's storyline as Jennifer having the mastectomy. It was heartbreaking and was emmy material.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Soapsuds said:

The funny thing is that Y&R didn't become number 1 until the Brooks family was phased out. I thought the Brooks era was fantastic but it never reached #1 in the ratings.

 

But as a brand-new serial, it soared very quickly in the ratings, and was very influential in how the soaps were presented from then on.

 

I think the lack of strong competition in the 1980s helped Y&R reach the number one spot, whereas in the 1970s, almost ALL the soaps were great and fighting for the top spot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It debut at #13 but went up the following year to the #9 soap with an 8.4 rating. By its 3rd year it was the #3 soap and dropped slighty its 4th year to #4 behind GL.

 

 

Edited by Soapsuds
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SoapDope said:

I don't think any of the actors from Y&R's first 10 years were ever submitted for awards, even Jeanne Cooper. A lot of people said Jeanne, Brenda Dickson, Jamie Lyn Bauer, Janice Lynde, and Dorothy Green should have had nominations for their work. I saw some of Dorothy's storyline as Jennifer having the mastectomy. It was heartbreaking and was emmy material.

 

Some of the Emmy nominations during the 1970s were based on name recognition more than actual talent. Farley Granger was not good at all on OLTL and kept noticeably flubbing his lines, yet he was nominated. A lot of the decade's very best actors were consistently overlooked. IMHO, Janice Lynde deserved an Emmy nomination for her character's descent into madness, as did Trish Stewart for her performances during her character's rape storyline.

5 hours ago, Soapsuds said:

It debut at #13 but went up the following year to the #9 soap with an 8.4 rating.

 

13.The Young And The Restless 6.2

 

By 1975, it had flown way up to number three (behind ATWT and AW), with a 35% audience share, the highest of any soap that season. It also attracted massive numbers among young female viewers whom the networks coveted the most.

 

That year the show also won Best Daytime Drama and Best Directing at the Emmy Awards.

Edited by vetsoapfan
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

Bill Bell acknowledged in interviews that he would have kept the Brooks family around, until Jaime Lyn Bauer also decided to quit.  That was the last straw which made him decide to overhaul the show and eliminate many of the original core characters and replace them with the Abbott and Williams families, Victor Newman, etc., as the new focus.

 

 

By the early 1990s, the Abbotts were almost all recasts, the Williams family was almost all gone, and the Newman family expanded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kalbir said:

 

 

By the early 1990s, the Abbotts were almost all recasts, the Williams family was almost all gone, and the Newman family expanded.

 

Yes, the show has continued to change over the decades.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Foster & Brooks families need to remain in the past.

 

There are way too many things currently wrong with Y&R that need to be fixed & Y&R's writers can't even write the current characters they have correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DeeeDee said:

The Foster & Brooks families need to remain in the past.

 

There are way too many things currently wrong with Y&R that need to be fixed & Y&R's writers can't even write the current characters they have correctly.

 

There are several current characters on the canvas who do not work very well, and may end up being written off if they cannot be fixed. Since new characters are bound to be brought on anyway (they always are), it won't make any difference whatsoever to younger viewers if these new people are tied to Y&R's original founding families or not, because they will still be strangers to the audience. But the older, longer-running fans would get a kick out of it and appreciate the nod to history, so there's no definite "need" for any founding families to remain relegated to the past. All characters should be well-written, cast appropriately, and woven into the fabric of the series, and their origins and family ties do not negate the possibility of that happening.

Edited by vetsoapfan
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

There are several current characters on the canvas who do not work very well, and may end up being written off if they cannot be fixed. Since new characters are bound to be brought on anyway (they always are), it won't make any difference whatsoever to younger viewers if these new people are tied to Y&R's original founding families or not, because they will still be strangers to the audience. But the older, longer-running fans would get a kick out of it and appreciate the nod to history, so there's no definite "need" for any founding families to remain relegated to the past. All characters should be well-written, cast appropriately, and woven into the fabric of the series, and their origins and family ties do not negate the possibility of that happening.

 

+1

 

What's the difference between bringing on Chelsea when they could have brought on Jill's niece? Or Cane could have been a Prentiss. It makes no difference IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She's not Jill's 'niece' & it would mean Y&R spending more time explaining a convoluted retcon to please a handful of viewers instead of fixing a broken show.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KMan101 said:

 

+1

 

What's the difference between bringing on Chelsea when they could have brought on Jill's niece? Or Cane could have been a Prentiss. It makes no difference IMO.

 

Twenty-three years after she had been written out, and long after most of her on-screen family had disappeared, THE GUIDING LIGHT brought back Meta Bauer in 1996, and the fans loved it. Even younger viewers got behind the idea of having an original core character back in Springfield. When Claire Labine took over LOVE OF LIFE in the 1970s, one of the first things she did was bring back Vanessa's sister Meg, who had not been seen or mentioned in years, but again, the fans loved it and it gave the show a real shot in the arm. The success all depends on how the characters are written and how they interact with the other players on screen. Of course it's not feasible to bring back all four Brooks sisters, both Foster brothers, and their assorted children, but one or two offspring from the Brooks, Foster, or Prentiss clans, if written well and given interesting storylines, is perfectly do-able.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DeeeDee said:

She's not Jill's 'niece' & it would mean Y&R spending more time explaining a convoluted retcon to please a handful of viewers instead of fixing a broken show.

 

JILL: "I was raised as the daughter of Bill and Liz Foster, and this is my brother, Greg Foster's, daughter."

 

I personally don't see this five-second exposition as particularly "convoluted," and it would still leave the writers 35 minutes on that day's show, alone, to fix everything else that is broken. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...