Bill Bell Sr. and the writers of my childhood and adolescence (1980s & '90s) knew how to introduce new characters (mostly). I'm sorry but I'm not seeing that type of skill from today's soap writers.

Chelsea may have been introduced 2 years ago but never as a character on her own merit, she was attached to Billy's recent history, then she got passed to Adam, now Dylan.

I think there was an attempt to give her an independent backstory by giving her an insta-family as if that will automatically give her a history. While, we learned a bit more about Chelsea's path to conning, it didn't make me care about the character and I cared even less about her parents (even though Ted Shackleford can be amusing in his own right)

Now compare how Chelsea was introduced as a character on this show to say...how Brad Carlton was introduced on this show. Or even Nina Webster. Note the difference.

Dylan has sort of been a ridiculously drawn character (all things to all people) who has earned the nickname 'Dullan'.

Chelsea is a cipher who has not really had much to work with on her own merits

There was a glimmer of hope that Chelsea might have gained some interest as co-pariah to Adam but then Y&R got stuck on writing this silly conventional romance. Having them fall in love eventually could've have worked, had TPTB written a more realistic trajectory based on two characters who knew (and accepted) each other for who they really are. Why Y&R chose to attempt to write some sweeping romance is beyond me but these characters were never the ones to pull that type of story off.

But the majority of the last 5+ years' worth of characters exemplify how not to introduce a new character on a soap. Or how to do so, if you want no one to care about your characters.

Edited September 18, 201312 yr by DramatistDreamer

I'm so busy I only catch the show sporadically now.

That hot priest was distracting me during Nikki and Paul's scenes.

I don't care about Adam's pain

Nice to see Jill is no longer a Cane ass kisser. As for Lauren is Carmine still lurking or did he die or get hauled off to jail?

The problem is that Melissa Claire Egan is a boring one note actress. She is terrible at playing a heroine and she just doesn't have any chemistry or seem to gel in the Y&R cast. The character has had horrible storylines from day one and she should be written off. Unfortunately, this anti-chemistry is what Y&R wants now. I expect big things for her, Steve Burton and Jessica Collins boring ass.

I am still trying to figure out why these three are in a SL together...what sense does that make? Neither are from a core family, neither are a long standing recasted character, neither has solid ties to the canas...it's stupid. Is it a winder I FF it all. I just don't care about them.

I agree that MCE is terrible at playing a heroine and I've seen enough of Chelsea whining and fretting to sidekick Chloe to last a lifetime. As for Dylan, well SB's crying has improved but I still don't care for the character. I don't care how many tragic things happen to him or who he gets insta related to.

The reason that Chelsea cries and whines to ONLY Chloe is because she has no one else on canvas to talk to...she is not connected to anyone despite having birth an Abbot child and now a Newman. She hasn't been on long enough to build any type of relationships outside of Adam. so Chloe draws the Short straw. At least it gives EH some airtime. But gosh if Chloe hasn't looked horrid in this story!

Edited September 19, 201312 yr by ajsp35801

I am pissed that JFP is rewriting history with Nikki having a baby by the cult leader. First of all, the cult leader was a woman named Simeko. second, Nikki was not offscreen to give birth. third, Nikki was married to Greg Foster at the time and was fighting his divorce action, so if they want to do this stupid @$$ story, they need to make it Greg's child and it would give her and Jill something else to fight about for giving her brothers child away.

Knowing JFP she would recast Greg with one of her personal chew toys.

Chloe and Chelsea can both go anytime now. Same character, no chemistry with anyone, asexual, boring actresses.

Chloe and Chelsea can both go anytime now. Same character, no chemistry with anyone, asexual, boring actresses.

Definitely the same character...

The problem is that Melissa Claire Egan is a boring one note actress. She is terrible at playing a heroine and she just doesn't have any chemistry or seem to gel in the Y&R cast. The character has had horrible storylines from day one and she should be written off. Unfortunately, this anti-chemistry is what Y&R wants now. I expect big things for her, Steve Burton and Jessica Collins boring ass.

I completely agree with this sentiment, which is why I never got the praise over her on All My Children. She was only interesting as a character when she was a cartoonish hot mess of a person, and even then she lacked the naunce to really make Annie seem human the majority of the time. Any time she was vaguely interesting was when she was having a spastic meltdown. That's not the sign of a good actress.You should be able to be interesting outside of just being insane. It says volumes that the only merit in her acting career is the role of Crazy!Annie on All My Children. She was nothing before Miller's Ritchie knocked the crazy into her.

I don't feel anything from Jessica Collins's Avery. I felt she was boring from day one. People call her the next Cricket/NuSharon, but Lauralee Bell has so much more fight in her and gravitas to her performances than Collins does and Case excels better at being the more relatable ingenue of the two, even though they have completely devastated the character in recent years.

The writing with Bill Bell was better and also he had a certain type of actor that worked for his brand. You can see it on DAYS, Y&R and B&B (which have all always shared actors). That is my problem with a lot of the recent casting, the actors don't fit the mold of a Bell soap. It's kinda hard to explain, but it's very noticeable when you have people like Amelia Heinle playing Victoria or Tammin Sursok as Colleen. Even Michael Muhney, although a good actor, doesn't fit the Y&R style the way Chris Eghan did IMO.

Could you describe this. I never understood the ideology that Bell soaps have "certain actors" that mesh well with the tone of their show. In terms of acting techniques and overall performance styles B&B, Days and Y&R are completely different soaps. I would not at all see them as being interchangeable. Each soap is radically different. I would say ABC more or less had a schtick going in regards to performances -- most of them tended to be very theatrical in nature. But all the Sony soaps are different.

Could you describe this. I never understood the ideology that Bell soaps have "certain actors" that mesh well with the tone of their show. In terms of acting techniques and overall performance styles B&B, Days and Y&R are completely different soaps. I would not at all see them as being interchangeable. Each soap is radically different. I would say ABC more or less had a schtick going in regards to performances -- most of them tended to be very theatrical in nature. But all the Sony soaps are different.

It's so hard to describe quite what it is about the Bell actors but I know what Chris B is talking about. They're just 'different' in how adaptable they are...Lauren Koslow and Don Diamont are two who have been on Y&R, B&B and DAYS and flourished on all of them. It might just be that they are more skilled or natural actors, though they have both played flashy parts, I don't think I've ever felt I'm watching them, rather, I'm watching their characters. They inhabit their roles a bit more thoroughly...they also had the benefit of rehearsals and training that today's actors just don't have in comparison. But that doesn't necessarily explain it correctly. The other facet to a Bell actor that I don't see with the actors on the other soaps is that they rarely, if ever, play things for laughs or perform tongue in cheek. Even with ludicrous dialogue and storylines on DAYS, Koslow has never, ever, played something for laughs, even if it is funny or unintentionally so and as a result she's often regarded as one of, if not the, best performer on the show. Darlene Conley, who played the most flamboyant character in daytime with Sally Spectra, also played Sally as being very real and not a punchline. Don Diamont, especially now at B&B, takes a cardboard character and makes him very believable. They take their parts seriously, to them they are real people.

That isn't to say there aren't other actors out there who have played their characters really believably, even when written flamboyantly. Linda Dano, as Felicia on AW, is one who would have probably been great on a Bell soap because she committed in a big way to her part. I think that's the thing with Bell show actors: the ones who associate with the soaps aren't lazy.

Edited September 19, 201312 yr by DaytimeFan

The 'Unstoppable' song that plays during Navery scenes is so annoying.

The thing with typical Bell actors is that they are and they look naturally glamourus. That's just it.

Even though I've watched Y&R for nearly 30 years (hey, I started young), I don't really believe the Bill Bell style could survive in today's climate. I'm nostalgic for those days and I wish I had a channel I could watch the classic soaps on, but I don't really believe that the audience overall could put up with that slow pace now. The world simply moves faster than it did 30 years ago, for better or worse. It used to be a joke that you only had to watch Y&R a few times a month and the characters would be having the same conversation for days on end. You wouldn't miss anything. It was funny because it was true. I really can't imagine that pacing surviving today.

For my money, they introduced Chelsea at about the right pace for today's audience. Dylan was too fast, but because honorable characters are few and far between, I don't hate Dylan. That's sort of a miracle, since I loathed SB's character on GH. Some people are upset that he isn't tied to a core character, but it looks like that will be changed soon enough.

Y&R is never going to be what it was, but I don't believe what it was could survive in 2013. In 1983 it had a captive audience (3 channels in my neck of the woods) that didn't have computers, smartphones, message boards and 300 other channels competing for its attention.

Even though I've watched Y&R for nearly 30 years (hey, I started young), I don't really believe the Bill Bell style could survive in today's climate. I'm nostalgic for those days and I wish I had a channel I could watch the classic soaps on, but I don't really believe that the audience overall could put up with that slow pace now. The world simply moves faster than it did 30 years ago, for better or worse. It used to be a joke that you only had to watch Y&R a few times a month and the characters would be having the same conversation for days on end. You wouldn't miss anything. It was funny because it was true. I really can't imagine that pacing surviving today.

For my money, they introduced Chelsea at about the right pace for today's audience. Dylan was too fast, but because honorable characters are few and far between, I don't hate Dylan. That's sort of a miracle, since I loathed SB's character on GH. Some people are upset that he isn't tied to a core character, but it looks like that will be changed soon enough.

Y&R is never going to be what it was, but I don't believe what it was could survive in 2013. In 1983 it had a captive audience (3 channels in my neck of the woods) that didn't have computers, smartphones, message boards and 300 other channels competing for its attention.

I agree that it can't be as slow paced...no way. I can not tolerate having the same conversation over and over again, which some characters do still.

The thing with typical Bell actors is that they are and they look naturally glamourus. That's just it.

That makes no sense

The thing with typical Bell actors is that they are and they look naturally glamourus. That's just it.

You've hit the nail on the head!

Key Bell actors under Bill Bell dealt with psychologically ambiguous impulses. Underlying, simmering emotions. Nothing ever exploded until the last possible second. As a result, actors like Lauren Koslow and Don Diamont tend to deliver their lines slowly, savouring the words, pulling out every beat of dialogue. As disliked as Christel Khalil is (and as dull as she is), she is another "slower" speaker who clearly learned the Bell style.

These kids like MCE, Liz Hendricksen tend to all speak in the same little-girl, Valley squeak, and they rattle off their lines at 100 mph. As a result, underlying emotion secreted in the dialogue gets lost. The beats don't get all played. I have a harder time buying the story they are trying to sell me, mostly because I wonder if they are racing through their lines because they find the SL laughable or they just want to get filming over and done with.

Edited September 19, 201312 yr by Cat