Jump to content

Y&R March 2018 Discussion


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 616
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members
21 hours ago, Faulkner said:

Right. It’s tough. I’m not sure I trust MY to handle a story that would require Shakespearean skill for us to see JT as anything other than an evil jerk, especially in the #metoo era. But I’m trying to separate what’s just bad writing from what is just me being a JT fanboy. 

 

For this story to work I think there has to be some kind of solid cause and effect that has resulted for JT to devolve. I'd say it would to be easy to tie in Colleen's death for JT to regress to his hot headed bad boy ways and short temper, saying he's never truly gotten over Colleen or accepted her death. Still I think even if JT doesn't go off the rails but is emotionally unmoored which is causing him to display controlling behavior and be verbally abusive, I still think it's overkill. This type of story probably would have worked better with Kevin if they really had the courage to tell such a story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, soapfan770 said:

 

For this story to work I think there has to be some kind of solid cause and effect that has resulted for JT to devolve. I'd say it would to be easy to tie in Colleen's death for JT to regress to his hot headed bad boy ways and short temper, saying he's never truly gotten over Colleen or accepted her death. Still I think even if JT doesn't go off the rails but is emotionally unmoored which is causing him to display controlling behavior and be verbally abusive, I still think it's overkill. This type of story probably would have worked better with Kevin if they really had the courage to tell such a story. 

 

JT is a cop. He could have been undercover for too long and lost himself in the process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, ajsp35801 said:

 

JT is a cop. He could have been undercover for too long and lost himself in the process. 

 

I like this as well and could run with it. I just don't want the show to leave JT as an evil jerk with little explanation in the same way as GL did with Ben Reade, ATWT with Adam Munson etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 minutes ago, soapfan770 said:

 

I like this as well and could run with it. I just don't want the show to leave JT as an evil jerk with little explanation in the same way as GL did with Ben Reade, ATWT with Adam Munson etc. 

Do we trust this show to provide the detail and psychological insight such a story would deserve? I’d trust it in the hands of Labine or Bell or Marland. Mal Young? I’m not so sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Had rare chance to watch - it's too bad TL can't join full-time - he has more presence than the other male actors.

 

At least, AH/TL have an incredibly great working relationship. As far as the setting-up Ashley s/l, it just holds no water: 1) Ashley is not duplicitous in business; 2) she would never hurt Newman/Abby; and 3) Victoria/Jack are far too smart to come up with this JV plan.  Victoria becoming 'self-aware' after reading those comments ... her reaction is an insult to all businesswomen. The writers are really out-of-touch here.

 

Hilary begging for Devon's seed. Pass. That's so beneath her. 

 

SC/MTS - they will always be iconic soap gold. Billy/Nick was unexpectedly interesting. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, Faulkner said:

Do we trust this show to provide the detail and psychological insight such a story would deserve? I’d trust it in the hands of Labine or Bell or Marland. Mal Young? I’m not so sure.

 

Not really, which is why the show shouldn't be trying to tell the story for a legacy character. Maybe if it was some new character who dazzled everyone at first but then we see slowly unravel into the dark side, but not even that type of storytelling exists even in daytime anymore. Instead this story is probably going to come off as some lousy D-list Lifetime movie knock-off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, soapfan770 said:

 

Not really, which is why the show shouldn't be trying to tell the story for a legacy character. Maybe if it was some new character who dazzled everyone at first but then we see slowly unravel into the dark side, but not even that type of storytelling exists even in daytime anymore. Instead this story is probably going to come off as some lousy D-list Lifetime movie knock-off. 

 

It doesn't help that they write Vikki horribly. Almost as if to say "she deserves it" when it happens to her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • On Soap Opera Network

  • Community Posts

    • Back in '98-'99 various corporate entities approached P&G (not PGP or Televest) about buying AW or buying into AW or buying the right to re-broadcast vintage AW. FOX TV wanted a daytime lineup of their own & thought starting with what was then current AW would have been great. ABC & Angela Shapiro wanted her good friend Linda Dano & her character Felicia Gallant. The entity that became Viacom wanted something, details unknown. The entity that is now Paramount wanted something, details unknown. What is now Sony but was then, I think, Columbia Tri-Star (and SoapCity), wanted to do some kind of partnership. P&G predictably, I might add, sent them all packing. As a fan activist in favor of AW having some kind of future, at that time, all of that from the pages of the Business section and/or Variety & Advertising Age, was very disheartening because it was basically the other shoe dropping. No other eventualities existed beside cancellation. Now, all that said, and I'm sorry if you've been over all of this ground & it is tedious covering all the dam*ed history, all I want to know is if Collen's alleged information is about *current* destruction of materials or if it somehow is about the historical wiping or taping over that is already known. To me that is what is key. It would be easy for someone to hear about the historical practice & mistake it for new activity. The last information I have on this subject is that *CURRENT* P&G (or PGP or Televest) has 5 soaps "in warehouse" (whatever that means) & that 5 different streaming services have contacted them specifically wanting to buy outright or license to stream vintage P&G soaps & that P&G had replied, "We are no longer in the soap opera business." That dovetails perfectly with my personal appraisal that P&G values its stuff too much to sell or rent, but not enough to invest in a future for it themselves. I am personally suspicious of the above being about *5 soaps" & about "5 corporations". What's up with the number 5?! Could just be being cynical. Oh, yes, but if it is 5 in storage, I believe that is AW, ATWT, GL, SFT & I don't know the last.)
    • It seems like DAYS got more media coverage back in 2019 when they released all the actors. It will be interesting to see if there are renewal talks, how they will go. Will they actually be doing most of the negotiations before episodes made especially for Peacock even air? If they get renewed, the first thing to go has to be 5 sixty minute episodes per week. There's no point now.
    • Thank you! It's nice be heard without being shot down! This is why an Edge of Night reboot could work right now! There's a show that could rock the arc based story format!
    • It's P&G Productions, not P&G Entertainment.  And yes, it does still exist. Today, they mostly provide in-house production facilities for the corporation.   
    • You might be right. There does seem to be an undertone of peeps who do not like to be rushed! Face it, as soap fans go, we don't like change. So, mebbe more time to get used to an idea is an idea whose time has come?!! Please register in order to view this content
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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