The Young and the Restless: December 2014 Thread

[redontop4]

I've always seen Adam--or wanted to see him--as Y&R's Mason Capwell, the brilliant, damaged, bitter, needy, sarcastic, self-destructive black-sheep son who lashes out in sometimes mean, sometimes pathetic, but always entertaining ways. Mason was a bastard, but we loved him. That was due to some excellent writing (the Dobsons, Patrick Mulcahey) and acting (Lane Davies). I'm not sure Y&R has the talent to render such an interesting, complicated character in Adam.

[SFK]

I find that take much more interesting. I'm tired of these writers putting psychopaths, rapists, and murderers on pedestals, pimping them as romantic leads. I'm even more tired of these characters' pathetic sycophants.

[Juliajms]

In that vein, I think that dream Adam had of Delia was meant to show us he isn't a psycho. He has a conscience, even if he is a bastard.

[DramatistDreamer]

I definitely see what you're saying, redontop4 but nothing that Y&R has done over the last 4-5 years has shown them capable of writing a character with that level of complexity anymore. They seem to want to distill every character down to their most basic elements and wait for the actor(s) to do the rest. It makes me long for the days of classic Y&R and other daytime drama.

You know what may have been a problem too (in a strange way)? You had the success of vile characters (Roger Thorpe, James Stenbeck, etc) who managed to captivate audiences back in the day. I think soaps are still clinging to that hope that they can create a vile, crazy character who will eventually be accepted and embraced by viewers. They don't take it into account that times have changed and the audiences now require more accountability of their characters and somethings are just not socially acceptable in this day and age. Plus the writing was of higher quality back then.

[piperisthenewsookie]

The last five minutes of today's show was really good, the best part of the show by far. Nick recognizing Sage, Ashley catching the spy snapping photos in the lab and Victor getting on the same elevator as Adam/Gabriel. The new Adam is just as tall as Victor and broader in the shoulders. He can see eye to eye with him it remains to be seen if they can go toe to toe. I'm looking forward to it. I liked the Stitch and Victoria scene as well although I like Stitch better with Ashley probably because I think ED is a much better actress than AH.

This applies to the women as well. coughChelseacough.

I'm starting to realize that Sharon is pretty much ruined as a character for me. I think Nick has every right to try and protect Faith from whatever Sharon might possibly do if she has a relapse of her bipolar or stops taking her meds. I was watching with my kid today and when Faith told Nick "I'm not going to help you punish Mommy" and then "Dady doesn't want to be a family with us" we looked at each other and rolled our eyes. So stupid. And the meeting Sharon had with Adam at CL wasn't anything special either. Adam is prettier than Sharon and has more charisma. Doesn't bode well for Shadam imo.

[JONNYSBRO]

I am loving the mystery of Sage. Kelly Sullivan is doing well. This is clearly a different role than Connie on GH. Has Sage made your opinion change on La Diva Sullivan?

[NothinButAttitude]

But Roger wasn't that vile. He had redeeming qualities about him. Mostly everything Roger did was to achieve the "American dream" and to gain acceptance, love, and respect from the people of Springfield, who never let him live down raping Holly.

I think that's why fans were endeared to him. At least myself.

Roger's overall intentions in most of his actions were good. His execution and ways he went about thing is what made him bad.

I kept saying years ago that I wish MAB and other writers would've used Roger as the template for Adam. Roger had Achilles heels [blake, Maureen, and Holly] that humanized him. They made him eventually see the error of his ways. In the case of Maureen, she was the only person that gave Roger a break.

Adam (IMO) didn't have that. Some may say Sharon or Chelsea but I don't see it. Adam would have glimmers of human moments but would quickly go back to being a sociopath the next. His internal struggles mirrored the writers, who struggled to figure out what to do with him. Do we make him a sociopath/psycho? Or do we make him a wounded, misunderstood pariah?

I hope they make a choice finally.

[ajsp35801]

Popular culture and their love of the anti-hero can be blamed for that. Every form of entertainment does it. Soaps are just following suit!

[NothinButAttitude]

But didn't soaps actually start this and everyone else followed suit? As aforementioned, soaps has a knack for antiheroes as romantic lead and that goes back at least 40 years. I wasn't around then but did TV really have antihero romantic leads back in the 70s and even the 80s? Hell, even the 90s?

I don't think this trend didn't start until The Sopranos. I would say Dallas [with JR] but that's basically a soap that was on Primetime.

[Juliajms]

I love a well written and acted anti-hero, but Y&R made a ton of missteps with Adam.

[Melroser]

I liked Adam's scenes today but I really hope he doesn't go back to Sharon! I think SC and JH would have great chemistry but I'd rather someone completely new and away from the Newmans come into Sharon's orbit. Someone that Phyllis goes out of her way to dig up dirt on to throw in Sharon's face but can't find anything....irking the Hell out of her 'cause a "nice guy" wants Sharon.

I'm glad Ashley has been on more but the scene with Victor was annoying. I loved how Ashley handled him.

[DramatistDreamer]

In this day and age now, I just don't see someone who rapes as being embraced today, no matter what he/she did later on in life. I think times truly have changed since the 70s, 80s and even 90s.

I've only seen the Holly rape scenes in flashbacks in various retrospectives (like on the Daytime Emmy's, etc) and in the late 80s when I was watching but didn't Roger also rape another woman name Rita?

I just think those type of actions done today would be the third rail for any character, no matter how well written the script or charismatic the actor. I just think the sensibilities on rape, marital rape have changed, for the most part. I don't see most viewers embracing a character who had raped two people, no matter how long the character had been around.

The audience could embrace a Tony Soprano or a Dexter but a guy who brutally raped two woman on a show that has a strong female viewing audience in 2014??

I think you can have an antihero who doesn't murder or rape. Victor Newman, in his best days was an anti-hero.

[Juliajms]

I agree. Screw that. No more Rogers, Todds or Luke's, thank you very much.

[NothinButAttitude]

But didn't Victor kill Walter Palin--a man who had a hand in Sabrina and his unborn child's death? And from listening to my mom, late grandma, and aunt go on about the 'old Y&R,' Victor did hold a man captive in the basement or bomb shelter, didn't he? Just asking.

Oh and I didn't root for Tony or Dexter. They were interesting to watch but I always wanted them to get their comeuppance.

To this day, Roger is the ONLY antihero I will cut for 100%. But that's all on stellar writing [as you mentioned] and MZ's charismatic acting.

And I think he did rape Rita. That was a little before my time but I've seen clips on YT of them talking about it. Again, I think it was good writing and MZ that made people care for Roger. He wasn't all the way evil.

Roger was just a wounded dog that sadly lashed out at the wrong people.

Oh no! Don't compare King Roger to peasant Todd and Queen Luciana. He's nothing like them. Luke was endearing until AG complained about Luke being too domestic and wanting to make him a drunk and a lecher.

Out of characters like Roger, Jack on DAYS on the only one I'd class with him. He has redeeming qualities and he felt guilty about his past. He tried to grow as a character and better himself.

I'm all for antiheroes with good intentions who about doing things bad ways.

[DramatistDreamer]

I still don't put it down to just great writing and acting. It was a different time period with socially acceptable mores that are no longer socially acceptable today. There was a time when people believed that married women could not be raped by their husbands. That thinking has changed in most of society. Today on the other hand, anyone who believes that a married woman can't be raped is seen as believing in a very outdated and wrongheaded mode of thinking.

Another example, once upon a time blackface and minstrel shows were acceptable to a certain segment of the population. Today you'd be hard pressed to hear anyone proclaim that they want to follow in Al Jolson's career footsteps.

D.W. Griffith's Birth of A Nation was once acclaimed as a great cinematic highpoint. A movie where the Klan is portrayed as the heroes of the day? That would not pass muster today.

I know when I go back to viewing the classic Guiding Light episodes, the very last episode I would ever chose to watch would be Roger Thorpe raping two women. Perhaps people back then could ignore what happened but I know for me, today, as a thinking viewer, I would not be able to look past what a character had done if it was that heinous.