I personally wouldn't mind seeing the Fosters and Brooks back. Also, they should get Joanna back to be there for Lauren's story.

You disagree. That's fine. Nothing wrong with speculating.

9 minutes ago, DeeeDee said:

The key word is "if".

 

If the world was made of cotton candy everyone would be a diabetic.

 

Well, writers should not refrain from introducing new characters, be they members of founding families or not, just because there's a possibility that the newbies won't end up working well. We should not automatically assume the writers' efforts will fail.

 

Personally, I think talented writers like Alden, who was involved in the writing of the show starting in 1974 and who worked directly with Bill Bell, should be given the benefit of the doubt and encouraged to create new storylines and characters who might bring substance and interest back to Genoa City. Isn't that...the point of handing over the writing reigns to someone with her history? 

 

If the world were made of lemons, everyone would just be sour.

Edited January 1, 20178 yr by vetsoapfan

If Y&R weren't coming off 15 years of horribly bad storytelling that has nearly ruined the soap as a whole then MAYBE introducing a past character or two might be a nice idea.

 

However in an era where there are four soaps left, soap ratings continue to drop, diversity in daytime is at an all time low, the gender pay gap still exists between actors & actresses, etc. there is way too much to be fixed with current Y&R in front & behind the scenes to be worried about introducing new characters who's ONLY value is in their surname.

 

Kay is consulting & even if she was writing she'd be too busy returning substance to already large cast & strengthening existing plot threads instead of introducing unnecessary new characters. This isn't 1998.

Edited January 1, 20178 yr by DeeeDee

11 minutes ago, Soapsuds said:

I personally wouldn't mind seeing the Fosters and Brooks back. Also, they should get Joanna back to be there for Lauren's story.

 

When the new series of STAR TREK movies first went into production, I read a message-board thread about the possibility of cast members from the original 1960s' series possibly making cameo appearances. One poster wrote (something like), "Nobody cares about Leonard Nimoy or seeing his Mr. Spock on screen again; they should forget about all those old actors because nobody wants to see them any more." 

 

That poster got quite the earful, LOL. 

4 minutes ago, DeeeDee said:

If Y&R weren't coming off 15 years of horribly bad storytelling that has nearly ruined the soap as a whole then MAYBE introducing a past character or two might be a nice idea.

 

However in an era where there are four soaps left, soap ratings continue to drop, diversity in daytime is at an all time low, the gender pay gap still exists between actors & actresses, etc. there is way too much to be fixed with current Y&R in front & behind the scenes to be worried about introducing new characters who's ONLY value is in their surname.

 

Of course, no one is advocating introducing characters "who's [sic] ONLY value is in their surname."

 

Posters are saying that if new characters are written well, interact in an interesting way with other existing players, and have good, solid storylines, then whether or not they are tied to original founding families will not make a negative difference to new viewers, but might gratify longer-running viewers who enjoy seeing the nods to history.

 

This is the point.

Considering the filming schedule at Days, SSH could easily make appearances on both shows. Joanna wouldn't need a lot of scenes, and SSH  is one of daytime's best. Trading a few barbs with Lauren, Jill, or Gloria would be great..

 

What's the harm in a niece for Jill? A nephew via Steve for Paul? Characters like Nate and Olivia in stories not involved with Neil, but a medical story? Inevitably, new characters will arrive. Why not tie them to long time characters rather than bringing them in as strangers that people get bored with (Stitch, Sag, Kelly, etc...). With nearly half the current being related to the Newmans, a little nod to the past with a fresh new character wouldn't be the worst thing to do.  JMO

I don't have a problem with Olivia, Nate & Joanna returning or (in time) adding a nephew/niece for Paul.

 

Because 1) Liv & Nate should've never left, 2) Paul is gonna need a relative once Dylan is gone, 3) Joanna is much more tolerable than Gloria and 4) all four characters are/were integral parts to Y&R's history.

There is a lot of dead weight right now on Y&R that they could get rid of to bring back some of Brooks and Fosters.

29 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

This is the point.

 

No. The point is that if Y&R were that well written it wouldn't currently need a revolving door of head writers or meta touches for a handful of viewers because Y&R's existing characters (and any new ones the soap would introduce) would be enough to hold the audiences attention. Beyond spending time Y&R can't spare to reintroduce families that haven't been relevant in 30+ years the only value those legacy kids have is their surname. It's funny to see how many people feel John Abbott (who is hugely important to current Y&R's history) should remain dead because 'reality' express desire to see Jill share scenes with a faux niece of a family she hasn't been a part of for more than a decade.

Edited January 1, 20178 yr by DeeeDee

They could do a storyline where Victoria goes out of town on a business trip and is mugged, beaten and left for dead while AH is still in the role. When she arrives at the hospital Heather Tom is back in the role. The doctor attending her is concerned and stays by her bedside on a regular basis. In a later scene the doctor is reminded of a lunch appointment. When they show him next there is a close up of him looking pre-occupied and then when he is asked where's his minds at, the camera pulls back and he is seated at the table with his mother Leslie and Aunt Lorie. He is revealed to be Dr. Brooks Prentiss.

There don't need to be several Brooks/Fosters, But one well written vixen or bad boy from one of the families couldn't hurt  Snapper and Chris had a daughter named Jennifer.  How hard would it be to have Jill bring in a marketing phenom that just happens to be her niece to work at Brash/Sassy?  I guess that would just be horrible.

28 minutes ago, DeeeDee said:

 

No. The point is that if Y&R were that well written it wouldn't currently need a revolving door of head writers or meta touches for a handful of viewers because Y&R's existing characters (and any new ones the soap would introduce) would be enough to hold the audiences attention. Beyond spending time Y&R can't spare to reintroduce families that haven't been relevant in 30+ years the only value those legacy kids have is their surname. It's funny to see how many people feel John Abbott (who is hugely important to current Y&R's history) should remain dead because 'reality' express desire to see Jill share scenes with a faux niece of a family she hasn't been a part of for more than a decade.

 

You keep arguing against points which no one else is actually making, so trying to explain everything yet again would only be futile.

Edited January 1, 20178 yr by vetsoapfan

9 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

You keep arguing against points which no one else is actually making, so trying to explain everything yet again would only be futile.

Actually, I'm not. You're operating via an idealized version of Y&R that doesn't & won't exist thus your 'ideas' are irrelevant.

18 minutes ago, slick jones said:

There don't need to be several Brooks/Fosters, But one well written vixen or bad boy from one of the families couldn't hurt  Snapper and Chris had a daughter named Jennifer.  How hard would it be to have Jill bring in a marketing phenom that just happens to be her niece to work at Brash/Sassy?  I guess that would just be horrible.

 

Exactly. No one is saying that they ONLY care about new characters having the family name of Brooks or Fosters. This is NOT the sole criterion for bringing on new people. But if the new characters are well-developed, interact appropriately with other players on the canvas, and have interesting storylines, pleasing longtime viewers by tying a character or two to an original core family would only be an added bonus. Doing so would in no diminish the efforts of TPTB to fix the show's overall structural problems. Having Leonard Nimoy appear in the new STAR TREK franchise did not prevent the producers from attempting to make good films, but it did bring a smile to veteran ST fans. What's wrong with pleasing any part of the potential fanbase?

The fact that these characters would require treatment the current cast doesn't receive and would still be interchangeable defeats your argument.