Members Paul Raven Posted September 30, 2011 Members Share Posted September 30, 2011 Thanks Daytime for clearing that up re Kay.I knew Alden joined early but wasn't sure of exact dates.Interesting that there never was a Jerry on the Bell shows. I would love to know what actors and others really think of Maria's destruction of the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted September 30, 2011 Author Members Share Posted September 30, 2011 It sounds like that. Bah... But isn't it a combo of the Bells and Sony? Surely Sony isn't hung up on only hiring Bells? I know Jack is sometimes a nickname for John, but it's not always--so I was confused Thanks for clearing it up. There was a great interview posted on here about how Alden got the job, after interviwing Bell, I believe for a college assignment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeeeDee Posted September 30, 2011 Members Share Posted September 30, 2011 Bill & Lee basically left Y&R to Kay. When Y&R's ratings began to fall (though nothing really out of the ordinary) Kay was basically pushed aside & Jack Smith was given a chance, after he failed (and Bill died) Sony basically did power grab which led to Latham. Latham (paired with Barbara Bloom) was an unmitigated disaster (both on & off screen) which caused The Bells to step in which is how Maria ended up with the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted September 30, 2011 Members Share Posted September 30, 2011 Word, word and word. Under Kay Alden, history was respected (and not retconned into incomprehensibility) and characters behaved the way they were supposed to behave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted September 30, 2011 Author Members Share Posted September 30, 2011 Right. I guess my question is why they didn't see the point to give Kay Alden (who surely is close with the Bell family) another go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted September 30, 2011 Members Share Posted September 30, 2011 Kay Alden's AMC would have been no more different from Agnes Nixon and Wisner Washam's AMC than even Megan McTavish's AMC was, except Alden's would have been better. I'm sure of it. (And if she had had writers such as Lorraine Broderick, Addie Walsh, Jeff Beldner, Frederick Johnson, Hal Corley, Karen Lewis and Michelle Patrick working under her? Oh, man!) She isn't the type who ignores history or character motivation, the two most essential ingredients to any soap, IMO. It would have been different from classic AMC, but it also would have been compelling television on its own. KA didn't want another go at Y&R. Between SONY, Ed Scott and even Brad & Bill Bell Jr., whom she had clashed with for awhile, I think she'd had enough. Seriously, I don't think she even wanted to work for that family again until Brad (probably) agreed to bury the hatchet in order to bring her to B&B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted September 30, 2011 Author Members Share Posted September 30, 2011 Better than Agnes and Wisner's? Them's fighting words. I guess my question was she's only written for Bell soaps which in style are very different from the Nixon ones. Of course it's easy to adapt--but, for one, the type and level of humour is completely different... But I definitely would have been happy to have her join when she might have (thrilled, more like it) and see what she would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted September 30, 2011 Members Share Posted September 30, 2011 Thank you. I never found many either. Granted, not every story that Alden told was a winner. But the major difference between her worst stories and MAB's (or Hogan and Scott's) is that the latter's are not only bad but 1) bad on a level of character assassination, and 2) eating up most, if not all, of the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted September 30, 2011 Members Share Posted September 30, 2011 Hold on, Eric, you misunderstood me. I never would argue that her AMC would have better than Agnes and Wisner's. Never, lol. I'm saying her AMC would have been better than Pratt's, and even Megan McTavish's. (And Esensten & Brown's...and Dave & Donna's...and Richard Culliton's and Anna Theresa Cascio and Gordon Rayfield's...and on and on and on.) In a way, I suspect Alden's AMC would have reminded some of early, early AMC, when the show was still innocent and not as reliant, perhaps, on larger-than-life characters and humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeeeDee Posted September 30, 2011 Members Share Posted September 30, 2011 Because they wanted a quick fix & still do, which is why they've done so much damage (in record time) to the show. Her AMC would've most likely been like Labine's GH. Not necessarily a perfect fit but grounded enough in family & history to be consistently watchable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted September 30, 2011 Members Share Posted September 30, 2011 IIRC, Kay Alden said she had attempted to undo the Unabortion while consulting for AMC, but decided against it after realizing it would have taken another enormous leap in logic for the audience to accept the rewrite. I don't know whether I would agree with that (I feel like Josh's paternity was/is like Amanda's retconned paternity on GUIDING LIGHT, something we could have gotten out of the way very quickly and then moved on) but I understand the logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soapfan770 Posted September 30, 2011 Members Share Posted September 30, 2011 You know, its funny even 2000-2004 when complaints occurred it was because the show was boring=slow moving or because one didn't like a particular character etc. It was simple stuff basically showing you can't please everyone. People still praised Y&R for its respect and usage of vets, diversity, ability to stay away from Days-like stunts, and use of history. I don't think anyone thought that would ever change. I think the addition of Trent Jones there and the Alden/Scott feud cause the show to lose its way there by 2002, but man oh man then came 2003 and the show was on FIRE thanks to Smith and Alden. Then came 2005 and the show went to hell. I can agree that Smith was Sheffer lite and yes he got rid of people like Gina, Lynne, John Silva, Miguel, etc. But how did he and others at that time fumble the show so badly? The show still lives with the consequences from Smith's choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeeeDee Posted September 30, 2011 Members Share Posted September 30, 2011 Everything was fine up until late 2003. Heather leaving along with Victor winning AGAIN & "redeeming" Kevin (along with the Baldwin Fisher RappaDavidson Invasion) crippled Y&R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeeeDee Posted September 30, 2011 Members Share Posted September 30, 2011 Agendas, Propping & Quick Fixes. The quick fixes have really hurt them because so much story has been unnecessarily squandered and/or destroyed in the past few years. Y&R could still rebound but it would take a combination of dedication & commitment that Daytime isn't willing to invest in its product anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted September 30, 2011 Members Share Posted September 30, 2011 Folks, So, when DeeeDee talks about quick fixes leading to squandered opportunities on the show...well, the opportunities don't get more squandered than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.