She's getting hit harder than most hacks because she was perceived as an existential threat to the concept that Y&R cannot improve without someone doing X, Y, or Z according to specific Internet fan spec - or just the idea that it can never improve. That made taking her down fast a priority. Fortunately for some fans that was a priority the network and/or production company seemed to share.

 

I don't think she's a genius of our times and I definitely didn't think all her ideas was gold - and the show moved too slowly and felt creaky in many ways (the whole piano recital thing?) - but she was clearly micromanaged from the jump creatively. It's hard to make a judgment and it's irrelevant now. But I was definitely more interested in what she was doing with a muddle than the usual Sony/CBS peppy and cheap approach to the show.

 

What's far more essential a takeaway here is that CBS and Sony have no vested interest in reviving "classic" Y&R whatsoever, and it doesn't matter who they hire - golden age staffers or angry people online - it's not gonna happen. I guess if you're a nihilist that's validating. I find it terribly boring.

Edited August 10, 20178 yr by Vee

1 hour ago, Elsa said:

 

We have said that about many writers, but the next one always found a way to make things worse.

 

Sally is leaving and Sharon is a normal person again, the Abbotts are a family and have their mother back (I hate the Alzheimer's idea though), Cane and Lily -whom I hated for years- are involved in a very interesting story for once among others. Within six months another writer might have brought Dylan's presumed dead first wife whose brother is a mobster and part of a WTD with Billy and Victoria, killed off Jill and made Ashley a serial killer. 

 

omg  +1. And from you mouth to... nobody's ears!

 

46 minutes ago, Vee said:

She's getting hit harder than most hacks because she was perceived as an existential threat to the concept that Y&R cannot improve without someone doing X, Y, or Z according to specific Internet fan spec - or just the idea that it can never improve. That made taking her down fast a priority. Fortunately for some fans that was a priority the network and/or production company seemed to share.

 

I don't think she's a genius of our times and I definitely didn't think all her ideas was gold - and the show moved too slowly and felt creaky in many ways (the whole piano recital thing?) - but she was clearly micromanaged from the jump creatively. It's hard to make a judgment and it's irrelevant now. But I was definitely more interested in what she was doing with a muddle than the usual Sony/CBS peppy and cheap approach to the show.

 

What's far more essential a takeaway here is that CBS and Sony have no vested interest in reviving "classic" Y&R whatsoever, and it doesn't matter who they hire - golden age staffers or angry people online - it's not gonna happen. I guess if you're a nihilist that's validating. I find it terribly boring.

 

That's been evident the moment Sony/CBS wrested control of the show from the Bells. Obviously these networks and production companies are all in the business of the bottom line; I'm not going to pretend they care about content. However, other shows on their roster have a certain... care attached to them. They involve people who are (sometimes) actually enthused about what they put up on screen. With Y&R, it seems like everybody is nickle- and dime-ing it, from the top down. It is is all about filling up that timeslot which pulls in a certain level of ad revenue and costs a certain amount. SL/characterisation are low on the priority list, and I can almost hear the numbers crunching as I watch certain plotlines.

I think they've decided Mal Young is their big ticket item and they'll let him run it, period.

 

I don't have a problem with Young as a producer per se - he has a certain UK soap bombast that I think suits elements of the show and could do well for daytime - but the fundamental problem is that budget-wise the show still tries way too hard to be peppy and cheap on many levels, and has too many sacred cows they'll never be allowed to remove. Couple that with the fact that his taste is questionable - his thing for Phyllis/Billy above all, and the apparent re-hiring of Rikaart - and frankly he's not the first British producer I've seen come across the pond and get enamored of the most superficial mess on American TV and start to just worship that sort of style vs. substance. I thought he and Sussman/Alden might be oil and water because of his taste. But who knows - maybe he'll be the one EP who can also write coherently.

Edited August 10, 20178 yr by Vee

54 minutes ago, KMan101 said:

 

No, it's not, but she didn't do that much damage either.

That's because she had no stories to tell.

Edited August 10, 20178 yr by Soapsuds

15 minutes ago, Cat said:

With Y&R, it seems like everybody is nickle- and dime-ing it, from the top down. It is is all about filling up that timeslot which pulls in a certain level of ad revenue and costs a certain amount. SL/characterisation are low on the priority list, and I can almost hear the numbers crunching as I watch certain plotlines.

 

Exactly. And honestly I feel like Young enjoys that. But the end result is not as much of a sleight of hand or dog and pony show as he thinks.

1 hour ago, Vee said:

I think they've decided Mal Young is their big ticket item and they'll let him run it, period.

 

I don't have a problem with Young as a producer per se - he has a certain UK soap bombast that I think suits elements of the show and could do well for daytime - but the fundamental problem is that budget-wise the show still tries way too hard to be peppy and cheap on many levels, and has too many sacred cows they'll never be allowed to remove. Couple that with the fact that his taste is questionable - his thing for Phyllis/Billy above all, and the apparent re-hiring of Rikaart - and frankly he's not the first British producer I've seen come across the pond and get enamored of the most superficial mess on American TV and start to just worship that sort of style vs. substance. I thought he and Sussman/Alden might be oil and water because of his taste. But who knows - maybe he'll be the one EP who can also write coherently.

 

As somebody who spent time in the UK as a kid and lives there now, I can attest to that worship of glamour that US TV offers!  I love a lot of that superficial mess, and it is a hard habit to break.

 

LA is the Vatican City of entertainment, the money is there, the sunshine is there, the exceptional technical crews are there, the big writing teams, all running like well-oiled machines. The STARS are there. The "AMAZING work! You look so GREAT, by the way! Love you, baby!", it's all there. I definitely think British producers get sucked in and want to stay. It's just so much... bigger and easier and pays better and it's the end-all and be-all. Few would turn down the chance to try out Hollywood

 

The fact that Rikaart is considered a sacred cow on this show is... depressing. What a low bar he sets.

 

1 hour ago, Vee said:

 

Exactly. And honestly I feel like Young enjoys that. But the end result is not as much of a sleight of hand or dog and pony show as he thinks.

 

 Daytime still pinches itself and sends out a press release whenever it has to shoot outside (usually the CBS Television City parking lot for Y&R). So yeah, they def think they are driving the genre into the 21st century with 'innovation' like that.

Edited August 10, 20178 yr by Cat

The thing is, all that well-oiled machine isn't in daytime anymore! The soaps in the UK still have it head and shoulders over us technically and often creatively because there is still a certain baseline of overall quality those PTB commit to across the board, not excluding the soaps - and I say that as someone who thinks Eastenders is an absolute mess lately. But EE on its worst day still has it all over the American daytime soaps technically, and in the writing and most of the performances. It's because of that baseline. The grass might have been superficially greener for UK talent 10, 20 years ago, and certainly still is in the rest of Hollywood, but it's long gone from our daytime now.

Edited August 10, 20178 yr by Vee

28 minutes ago, Soapsuds said:

That's because she had no stories to tell.

 

LOL

 

I'll give it that I suppose. I think she felt she needed to 'right' the show instead of write big stories.

2 hours ago, MichaelGL said:

I completely agree. 

 

IMHO she left the show in better condition compared to how it was when she first arrived. 

 

+1

 

I do agree with this.  

1 hour ago, KMan101 said:

In theory she tried to do a few things, like give Lauren a story but then it quickly became about Gloria, the car crash with Devon and aftermath with Hilary was good, Sharon's reset was good, she tried to reset Victor but it amounted to tea parties and episode after episode with Faith (who subsequently disappeared and then Victor's redemption was thrown out the window). She sent Summer off to Bali and she still hasn't returned so I appreciated that. She tried to make Phyllis single for a while but that was thrown out the window. She brought Dina back (I don't care for Alzheimers on soaps so I didn't like that aspect). I liked Jill's initial return with closure with Katherine and Colin ripping her off and her heart attack but it made no sense to re-pair Colin and Jill after that and because of Jess's semi-retirement Jill's not around as much as she should be. I thought there was potential with Nikki dropping Victor staying strong and then him forcing the piano recital thing (but it all never came together as it should and it's hard to buy Nikki kicking Victor to the curb because she ALWAYS takes his ass back so it's hard to invest in that). She actually did try to write the women stronger. Victoria was more in character but Heinle sucks for the most part. But then Phyllis hopped back into bed with Billy and looks pathetic and desperate. Lily forgives Cane over and over again. Victoria mopes about how awful she is. Lauren disappeared, etc.

 

In hindsight I think she tried to do some solid things but the execution was slow, lackluster and boring (and things clearly shifted around April/May). There weren't many stakes. Ironically the characters I like least, Cane/Lily/Victoria/Billy had stakes with the Juliet drama. And under her we were almost rid of Kevin! That gets a big plus in my book.

 

I think most of the newbies were lackluster and I think many of them came from Mal and she had no interest in them, so they had little development. Not making excuses and Mal's at fault as well for having hired lackluster actors in said roles. Scott was miscast. Jordan's actor is too laid back and boring, Ravi was sucked of his personality after the ridiculous makeover and isolated. I don't think Zach ever had long-term written all over him. I'm 50/50 on Tessa. I like Juliet but she's a plot device. Charlie/Mattie actors are green and they shouldn't have aged Lane's twins because Khalil looks like their sibling (though she's stepped up her acting a bit and I actually think she plays 'mother' well). Reed came on too hard too fast and now he's ok but the singing is annoying and he needs a haircut.

 

+1

 

I definitely think Sally had great ideas. Just poor execution 

1 hour ago, Aback said:

The interview sounds like some half-baked PR damage control.

 

Oh and how were we supposed to know for sure that Dina had Alzheimer's? Apart from reading the interview...

 

The revelation of her illness has not hit the screen yet. It's supposed to be a mystery that we find out in some big scene. 

1 hour ago, Vee said:

She's getting hit harder than most hacks because she was perceived as an existential threat to the concept that Y&R cannot improve without someone doing X, Y, or Z according to specific Internet fan spec - or just the idea that it can never improve. That made taking her down fast a priority. Fortunately for some fans that was a priority the network and/or production company seemed to share.

 

I don't think she's a genius of our times and I definitely didn't think all her ideas was gold - and the show moved too slowly and felt creaky in many ways (the whole piano recital thing?) - but she was clearly micromanaged from the jump creatively. It's hard to make a judgment and it's irrelevant now. But I was definitely more interested in what she was doing with a muddle than the usual Sony/CBS peppy and cheap approach to the show.

 

What's far more essential a takeaway here is that CBS and Sony have no vested interest in reviving "classic" Y&R whatsoever, and it doesn't matter who they hire - golden age staffers or angry people online - it's not gonna happen. I guess if you're a nihilist that's validating. I find it terribly boring.

 

Yet Sally said she was NOT micromanaged. 

Of course she'd say that. The show speaks for itself.

@Cat, reading all of your responses and I'm just cracking up!  Keep it coming

 

As for Zzzzzzzzally, I'm super happy she's gone, and I don't feel she left the show better than she found it.  She's a complete dullard totally full of herself!  She gives an arrogant entrance interview about the state of the show THAT SHE HASN'T WATCHED IN 10 YEARS and overstated her ability to give viewers a good show.  She failed miserably!

 

I'm still trying to figure out on what exactly did CBS base hiring her?!  Seriously scratching my head here!

 

 

@Vee

 

If we question her comments on being micromanaged, then we can't believe a word of this interview. 

39 minutes ago, Vee said:

The thing is, all that well-oiled machine isn't in daytime anymore! The soaps in the UK still have it head and shoulders over us technically and often creatively because there is still a certain baseline of overall quality those PTB commit to across the board, not excluding the soaps - and I say that as someone who thinks Eastenders is an absolute mess lately. But EE on its worst day still has it all over the American daytime soaps technically, and in the writing and most of the performances. It's because of that baseline. The grass might have been superficially greener for UK talent 10, 20 years ago, and certainly still is in the rest of Hollywood, but it's long gone from our daytime now.

 

Sure, I can see that. UK soaps are basically big fish in a small pond because they have large, and more importantly loyal, audiences at home. US soaps have squandered theirs.

 

But working for CBS in LA? Big pond. A stepping stone, an opportunity. Even on a shoestring budget, salaries are higher in the US than for someone working on Emmerdale and living in Leeds, Yorkshire (away from other TV opportunities in London). Speaking of shoestring, I would say that technical crews on US soaps do pull quality literally from their asses, recreating another world on a tiny soundstage in LA. They build that world from scratch, not drive to a farm somewhere and film there.

 

As for writing, yes, maybe writers in the UK are willing to push creative boundaries a little bit, because audiences here expect them to. The problem with the US daytime writing scene has been lack of fresh talent. Shelly, Passanante, Pratt, JFP, Sussman, even relative newbie Carlivati -- they've been around decades. Shelly Altman admitted to starting a SL on GH where she had no clue what exactly ails Sam McCall -- now that is some lazy writing. Similarly, SSM just admitted to half-assing her entire Y&R tenure. These people have no incentive to improve, and they are limited by conservative and risk-averse networks under threat from internet and the Golden Age of Cable.

 

So why come to LA? Because it is still the epicenter and still has cachet in the UK. I know of an actor who snootily told me he "turned down" offers from LA because he never would "sell out." The fact that he made a big deal about announcing that is significant. LA is still The Place for people in the industry. I cannot over-emphasise this! It's where all the deals happen. (Somebody later speculated to me that he was probably rejected at auditions over there and wanted to cover his embarrassment).

6 minutes ago, ajsp35801 said:

@Vee

 

If we question her comments on being micromanaged, then we can't believe a word of this interview. 

 

That's right, you sure can't! It's called graciously spinning a firing.

 

I'm sure the extenuating factors she mentions existed - she was brought in overnight with little prep, according to multiple accounts. I'm also sure she was micromanaged and dismissed, and is somewhat relieved to be focusing on her film.

 

6 minutes ago, Cat said:

LA is still The Place for people in the industry. I cannot over-emphasise this! It's where all the deals happen. (Somebody later speculated to me that he was probably rejected at auditions over there and wanted to cover his embarrassment).

 

Oh, I live and work in LA and the business, I get why they do it. I'm just saying, knowing American soaps the way I do I've seen this story play out with starstuck Brits before and it's just diminishing returns because there is no longer a substantial commitment by the networks to these shows. Period. However challenged they may feel by conditions on the UK soaps, I'd argue those shows have quite solid production standards and ours are bargain basement.

 

And I don't fault the crews at our soaps, who work very very hard. But there is no time left for innovation or quality control, and no money.

Edited August 10, 20178 yr by Vee

10 minutes ago, ChitHappens said:

As for Zzzzzzzzally