8 minutes ago, DeeeDee said:

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.

 

Whether your relentless inability to comprehend is by will or by design, as previously acknowledged, you will not be burdened by future explanations which only get you so vexed. Happy New Year!

Whatever you say.

 

I'll continue enjoying my Foster & Brooks-free Y&R, while you...yeah.

1 hour ago, DeeeDee said:

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

 

Leaping to conclusions and predictions which only exist in your mind and have nothing to DO with my actual points doesn't help your case, I'm afraid. 

 

As I have said, it's best just to let it go.

 

59 minutes ago, DeeeDee said:

Whatever you say.

 

I'll continue enjoying my Foster & Brooks-free Y&R, while you...yeah.

 

Because, clearly, you are having the time of your life watching the current incarnation of the show.

Edited January 1, 20178 yr by vetsoapfan

So much for 'letting it go.' Oh well.

 

Keep trying though. One day maybe you'll get it right.

@vetsoapfan I think nods to history are why most viewers continue to watch soaps. Something they got from family, which is how so many of us got into our shows. Some will dis(agree and that's fine.

 

With so many retconned family members ( Dylan, Avery) that haven't worked out there's no harm in bringing back characters that have been on the canvas. Nate Hastings, Scotty Grainger, Fenmore Baldwin, "Chance" Chancellorm Heather Williams  have been tossed around on the board, so why not a Jennifer Foster? 

The difference with Nate, Scotty, Fen, Chance & Heather is they all have been on the show in some capacity in the past decade, are related and/or strongly tied to more than one core character/core family on the current canvas and each are substantial enough to immediately exist on their own.

Edited January 1, 20178 yr by DeeeDee

19 minutes ago, slick jones said:

@vetsoapfan I think nods to history are why most viewers continue to watch soaps. Something they got from family, which is how so many of us got into our shows. Some will dis(agree and that's fine.

 

With so many retconned family members ( Dylan, Avery) that haven't worked out there's no harm in bringing back characters that have been on the canvas. Nate Hastings, Scotty Grainger, Fenmore Baldwin, "Chance" Chancellorm Heather Williams  have been tossed around on the board, so why not a Jennifer Foster? 

 

Exactly. Soaps are built on history, so seeing escalating vexation over fans' desire for the use of it is...curious at best.

 

One might argue that TPTB cannot introduce characters from past families who are no longer featured on the show, but all soaps routinely bring aboard brand-new characters with no on-screen family ties, so having Brooks Prentiss arrive as a business rival for Victor, or Jennifer Foster working at the hospital, would pose no rational problem. Not every new character has to be part of a huge, currently-on-screen family unit.

Edited January 1, 20178 yr by vetsoapfan

Fury? Ok.

7 minutes ago, DeeeDee said:

The difference with Nate, Scotty, Fen, Chance & Heather is they all have been on the show in some capacity in the past decade, are related and/or strongly tied to more than one core character/core family on the current canvas and each are substantial enough to immediately exist on their own.

And that's been the problem with all soaps. They haven't been able to develop the next generation to take over the older set of actors. That's why soaps died. Look at Victoria and Nick....horrible horrible....writing has been part of it but so have the actors that infected the roles.

We've been discussing Heinle & Morrow's acting at SON for years (quite a bit in the past week especially).

 

Though most of us agree we'd prefer the characters be recast we realize it's not going to happen.

 

But well written soaps are a thing of the past. In this era good soap amounts to passable writing the actors do their best to make work.

9 minutes ago, Soapsuds said:

And that's been the problem with all soaps. They haven't been able to develop the next generation to take over the older set of actors. That's why soaps died. Look at Victoria and Nick....horrible horrible....writing has been part of it but so have the actors that infected the roles.

 

Right, the WRITING and DEVELOPMENT of the characters has to work. Just having a surname of an established family is not enough.  Viewers love the use of history, and multi-generational storytelling, but the shows have to keep their families going AND write well for them and cast them effectively. Having Brookses or Fosters on board with lousy writing and bad actors, would be as pointless as having any descendants of the Abbotts, Newmans, or Williamses floating around, mired in poor writing. Fans want continuity among core families ALONG WITH well-developed characters and engaging plots.

Edited January 1, 20178 yr by vetsoapfan

Characters having established surnames isn't enough....except if it connects them to obsolete soap families to make old people happy.

 

3 minutes ago, DeeeDee said:

Characters having established surnames isn't enough....except if it connects them to obsolete soap families to make old people happy.

 

 

I realize that your behavior must be borne from certain personal...issues beyond the scope of this board, so I hope 2017 provides you some relief.

Shouldn't you be busy "letting it go"? Or are you still vexed?

@vetsoapfan I enjoy your posts and like MOST here appreciate your perspective on both current and cancelled shows. 

 

Some posters can be rude and disrespectful (to anyone that doesn't find their NARROW MINDED point of view.).