Jump to content

Y&R: December 2016 Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Yet I still can't believe @DeeeDee Y&R went that route for Paul and Christine as something both Hogan Sheffer and JER had famously done with "no means yes" rape. I'm glad that DD, LB, and CLB were outspoken enough it was finally addressed on screen complete with Todd Williams berating Paul but still even by Christmas 2004 it bothered the jeepers out of even the most causal Y&R fans. Even with Christine coming back for Paul after he had been dating Nina was a bit far fetched....sure they were soulmates but the rape made things awkward enough for a decade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Yes! She was on ALL THE TIME. Even when the story was going slow, Christine got a lot of catch-up kind of scenes with a variety of characters, keeping her on what seemed constantly. I'm sure that's informed by the slight annoyance she causes everytime I saw her, but still....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

@YRfan23 I've felt that Bell was setting up the 1990s to probably be his most volatile decade yet with Victor and Cassandra, Rex and Jill, Brad and Ashley while counting on a Paul/Lauren redux and a Terry Lester Jack picking up a ripe Nikki for the taking with Leanna Love in the mix all the while Chase Benson would dump Nina for Victoria. The setup was all there but I feel Bell ended up playing the safer route overall as opposed to trying to deal with more complicated situations and relationships. I think playing it safe is why Bell started to have regrets throughout the 90s by the time he retired but still Y&R was never a bad soap because he changed course on certain things, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The funny thing is that for all the complaining about Y&R characters being in bubbles Cricket was the most well connected character.

 

Prior to entering Victor's circle in the mid 90s she was either married to, friends with or semi related to everyone else on the canvas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah I feel like lots was in the works that was ultimately drop.....which is why I wish we had some of these original story outlines for the stories, if they still exist! LOL

despite this, the 90's (early 90's in general) are still very much IMO the golden age  and probably the decade Y&R and CBS for that matter garnered the most buzz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The whole thing was terrible & neither character still has really yet to rebound from it. The problem wasn't so much the sexual interaction but the lack of follow through about what it meant to their relationship. Especially as a reflection of how both characters viewed themselves, each other & where they were in their lives at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Personally, there are so many ways to educate yourself about a soap. There's not really any excuse. I'm fairly young(ish) and have quite a vast knowledge of soaps.

 

Soaps have long missed the boat cultivating new writers. It's why we keep recycling the same few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Still here ^^ Come on Prime Video, it's due to bring it back!
    • Got through the eighth season, and it was... painful. 

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I agree 100% with both you and Mitch64.  Soaps have been going further and further off-course since 1981. TPTB just don't have a fundamental understanding of what makes soap fans so loyal. I'd love to be on a writing team with both of you.  Maybe we could put together a real soap opera, and show people what its all about...  
    • They weren't in town, but Fletcher worked at the paper (and we saw anniversary Journal headlines for the 50th, although I don't remember if Roger was one of them), and I'd think Alex would have at least heard of him due to the damage he did to Spaulding only a few years before her return to the fold. I know I have to remember it's not real life, of course.
    • YES. The videos being uploaded to Spauldingfield are almost to the point where Alan is reintroduced. They're already talking about the guy he pretends to be, and yes, he returns at a masked ball. In fact, that masked ball is almost beat for beat the same as the masked ball where Alex was introduced! Get a new schtick. Before the Kobe era, that's pretty much what they did. Characters would just show up. Maybe other characters would talk about them for a while--the Chamberlains, Tony, Maureen, Andy, Kelly, Carrie--but then they would just appear. When Hope came back, she simply knocked on Bert's door and said something like, "Hi, Grandma, I'm home again." No particular fanfare. Sometimes it would be a bit dramatic--Jennifer and Morgan were introduced when Mike accidentally crashed into their car, for instance, and Alan and Elizabeth were introduced through Jackie's flashbacks when she was remembering giving up Phillip for adoption. Nola was involved in the Roger return. Roger's return in 1980 was very dramatic, but in a way that made total sense. He was trying to kidnap a child, so dressing up as a clown did not seem crazy. The mask bit was not only silly, it didn't even make sense. Alex never knew him, so there was no reason for him to be masked in front of her. Yeah, she knew OF him, but there's that phenomenon called cognetive dissonance. If you see someone outside of an expected situation, you probably won't recognize them, especially if you never met them in person and think they're dead. I bet a CIA spook like Roger would be familiar with that concept. And he didn't have to be skulking around SF for months. Again, I will cut Long a little slack--it was not her idea to bring back Roger, she was told to do it. She never wrote for the character. It was something that was not planned. They originally went to Zaslow to offer him the role of Alan. He, of course, turned them down because that was a ridiculous idea, but then he suggested coming back as Roger. At such short notice, it's not strange his return was not handled well.
    • Eh...but neither had been in town. Know the name Roger Thorpe? Sure. But Alex would have gone crazy trying to memorize all of Alan's co-conspirators/lovers/wives and Fletch didn't even know Roger/Adam was on the island, IIRC. But who knew or should've known each other is always a little dicey when people come back to town. 
    • I wouldn't call Tomas' cuts a modern cut. They appear to be a slim/extreme slim cut⏤cut slimmer down the sides, with a higher armhole, which pulls up/out, depending on the fit of the person's body. Again, I feel like Ms Featherstone is buying to fit the wrong parts of the body; instead of buying to fit their widest parts (shoulders), she's buying things to fit their middle/waist (which is the easiest to ultimately fix without a complete re-cut), and it shows in the finished product. And the only reason it irks me is because I worked in suit sales for nearly ten years, and I notice these things immediately. The fashion(s) on this soap are miles ahead of three of the four others (I like the fashions from Y&R), but the tailoring is a choice, especially where the men are concerned.
    • There probably would have been a good chance they knew of him, especially with his ties to Spaulding and his being involved in so much scandal (meaning there would be plenty of photos and articles around they both would have seen), but I agree the mask was silly, clearly just a TV moment.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • I think all the suits are fit too tight, except for Jon Lindstrom's. DC lawyers/doctors are not all LA fashion elites. Yes, maybe Tomas would have a more modern cut to his suit, but an established guy like Bill wouldn't go around looking like that lonely button on his jacket was ready to explode constantly.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy