I think we're all sort of saying the same thing about the Adam/Nick/Victoria issues over and over but in different ways (and not bad ones). Yes, it's a longstanding problem that Nick and Victoria don't stand up, especially since the Bell regimes collapsed and Victoria was recast. They have been transformed into weak late-era ABCD leads partially by intentional design from Sony/CBS, and become poor drivers for story, so they have (like most ABC soaps in the last 20 years) become couples/fanbases-reliant. "Villy", Nick/Sharon/Phyllis, etc. That's their only cachet in this weakened state. So they consistently need more volatile characters like an Adam (or a Todd Manning, or whoever) to charge and prop up that canvas. The problem is those characters are also overexposed, written OTT, and relied upon because they're fan favorites and the networks and PTB refuse to innovate and invest in more than the 'tried and true'.

 

So I just said it all again for the 30th time, so whatever. Anyway: My upshot is I agree with all the issues with Adam and 'dark' characters being overly favored in and invested in, even four recasts in, but the fact remains Grossman is good and I can't blame them for pushing him. I just wish a piece of his or Heinle/Morrow's airtime could be funneled into giving Loren Lott a real showcase, because she is a star.

 

Speaking of, am I the only one who could get down with pairing Kyle and Ana? Asking for a friend.

I wasn't really watching during the years Stafford was playing Phyllis - I remember her when I would tune in but I don't like what I'm hearing about the scenery chewing.  I really started watching regularly just before Gina came on as Phyllis. 

 

I don't really care for the new Adam and I feel like I'll be watching the same story we already saw.  And when he said he wanted Christian...like, what?  The kid doesn't even know who you are...

1 hour ago, Khan said:

I think Y&R just forgot to fire her.

 

It almost feels that way. LOL.

 

I feel like between 2009-2011 she was sort of on the cusp ... but then Phelps came along ... and they're probably now like "it's been 15 years, we're used to her, they're "used" to her" (really, lots of folks on Twitter defend her and say they're "used to her" which means she sucks but they don't want to bother with anyone else)

 

I also think the stans for "Villy" and "Killer Miller" helped her along and got her out of danger. And you know she knows that (she never gave David Tom a chance)

Edited June 4, 20197 yr by KMan101

19 hours ago, BetterForgotten said:

Can you picture Victoria circa late 90's/early 00's being portrayed as inferior and intimidated by Adam? Hell no. 

 

Late 90s/early 00s Victoria would've coming out swinging like Beyoncé in Lemonade.

I remember Jamey Giddens saying years ago 'they are aware they have a problem' with Heinle. But I also think they were then and are still committed to her despite that. It's not a question of forgetting she's there. They know very well. Sony/CBS committed to an ABCD hire to try to begin to remake the character and show from the Bells' hold on it, and part of that began with edging out Heather Tom and remaking Victoria into a conventional soap female lead. It doesn't matter if she can't hack it, because they don't want the kind of Victoria she was in her heyday. They want something less distinctive. That's why they also leaned on her one popular pairing with Billy - they wanted the full latter-day ABCD formula and experience, in which their numbers and eyes are driven by couples fanbases and demos. Billy and Victoria with Miller and Heinle gave them that. They want that ethos and approach to succeed at Y&R so Y&R can continue to become that kind of show, on a larger, structural and systemic level. Keeping this approach to Victoria, and particularly Heinle's Victoria, or to Cane and Lily or Nick, etc. has always been a part of that IMO.

 

So no, they never forgot. This is what they want. They think it will be better for them in the long run as part of their push to change Y&R from a Bell soap to an ABC soap. Victoria Newman becoming, say, the weaker-years Greenlee from AMC or Elizabeth on GH is just fine for them.

Edited June 4, 20197 yr by Vee

5 minutes ago, Vee said:

I remember Jamey Giddens saying years ago 'they are aware they have a problem' with Heinle. But I also think they were then and are still committed to her despite that. It's not a question of forgetting she's there. They know very well. Sony/CBS committed to an ABCD hire to try to begin to remake the character and show from the Bells' hold on it, and part of that began with edging out Heather Tom and remaking Victoria into a conventional soap female lead. It doesn't matter if she can't hack it, because they don't want the kind of Victoria she was in her heyday. They want something less distinctive. That's why they also leaned on her one popular pairing with Billy - they wanted the full latter-day ABCD formula and experience, in which their numbers and eyes are driven by couples fanbases and demos. Billy and Victoria with Miller and Heinle gave them that. They want that ethos and approach to succeed at Y&R so Y&R can continue to become that kind of show, on a larger, structural and systemic level. Keeping this approach to Victoria, and particularly Heinle's Victoria, or to Cane and Lily or Nick, etc. has always been a part of that IMO.

 

So no, they never forgot. This is what they want. They think it will be better for them in the long run as part of their push to change Y&R from a Bell soap to an ABC soap. Victoria Newman becoming, say, the weaker-years Greenlee from AMC or Elizabeth on GH is just fine for them.

 

How utterly sad and depressing.

GT, maybe if only by virtue of being a far superior actress to Amelia, would have navigated the watered-down ABC heroine path (with the retractable claws of old-school Bitchtoria) more skillfully.

 

But then I remember the cautionary tale of her last run as Kelly on OLTL, a disappointment after she hit it out of the park as Dinah.

What is with the network wide mandate to ABC-ify the CBS soaps that has clearly been in place since the mid-90s? Are the demos the ABC shows get really so much more attractive to advertisers even though CBS' overall numbers have been higher the whole time?

I know CBS sells the “30 years at No. 1 in total viewers” narrative in press releases, which is nice but doesn’t mean a lot, but Y&R was getting eclipsed by the ABC soaps (and DAYS) in the demos for many of those years. CBS had that grandmas-in-nursing-homes rep they were trying to shake.

Edited June 4, 20197 yr by Faulkner

I mean, even in primetime, the CBS demos were never the greatest. A show like NCIS can pull in decent total viewers, but skews extremely old. 

 

CBS will never be a trendy network with younger demos, and they didn't pretend to be so for quite a long time. I don't understand why they would try to force-feed that mentality on their #1 soap - they're never going to get there regardless. 

 

57 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

GT, maybe if only by virtue of being a far superior actress to Amelia, would have navigated the watered-down ABC heroine path (with the retractable claws of old-school Bitchtoria) more skillfully.

 

But then I remember the cautionary tale of her last run as Kelly on OLTL, a disappointment after she hit it out of the park as Dinah.

I feel like Gina's found better success in being a recast than in the one role she originated. For some reason, she seemed to be a better fit at CBS.

 

Granted, I think there were times even Heather Tom seemed lost playing Kelly Cramer - generally, the writing has always been awful for that character. 

Edited June 4, 20197 yr by BetterForgotten

46 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

But then I remember the cautionary tale of her last run as Kelly on OLTL, a disappointment after she hit it out of the park as Dinah.

It's because she wasn't suited to the old Kelly anymore (which they wanted back), and because Kelly was never nearly as strongly defined a character as Dinah (or Phyllis).

 

I think Kelly could be better served with better writing, but Heather Tom's Kelly was my favorite, the only one I really liked. I used to despise Gina's in the late '90s and early 2000s. HT's was a major departure from Gina's original Kelly and a total mess, often delusional, but it was a brutally honest extrapolation of what the character had become under the baby switch and also Gina's later bad years in her first stint (with Kevin, etc). I grew fascinated by her. From those ashes, to my amazement, Heather and Dan Gauthier's Kevin made a potential damaged, tortured supercouple (a la Alan and Monica on GH) from what had began as a very, very bad, self-righteous 'heroic' pairing with Gina and Tim Gibbs.

 

Gina didn't play Heather's kind of Kelly and I don't think she should. I think she could've threaded the needle between her later, emotionally volatile work on CBS, her lighter side in the '90s and something honest, but the writing for Kelly in her last run was disastrous and gave her nothing to build on. It was just a series of awkward chemistry tests with the Frons/RC-chosen 'hot guys' and no commitment to finding the character's throughline from Gina to Heather and back and making sure Kelly had an identity - something they were never good at during GT's original tenure. She did her best. But it was no coincidence her best work was a few days with Dan Gauthier when she first returned. They could've done just as well together as Heather Tom IMO.

 

As for on-topic: I do think a calculation was at some point made that Gina was too strong/hard to play the new ABCD-style romantic heroine Victoria Y&R now wants. Someone had to have brought her name up for it sometime. And I also think she's been best at CBS.

What was the bar they all ended up at (Summer, Kyle, the 2 marketing geniuses) - is Society also a dance club after hours?  And God it was bad...I hate when they have to use awful electronic music and really bad dancing, and virtually no noise.  All the extras just dance around quietly.  This should go under the 'things that are quirky on soaps that you notice'. 

10 minutes ago, Fevuh said:

What was the bar they all ended up at (Summer, Kyle, the 2 marketing geniuses) - is Society also a dance club after hours?  And God it was bad...I hate when they have to use awful electronic music and really bad dancing, and virtually no noise.  All the extras just dance around quietly.  This should go under the 'things that are quirky on soaps that you notice'. 

OLTL did a great Club with Shelter & Prospect Park had zero Money and was paying actors/Crew Peanuts

IIRC they had money, it was just all loans and venture capital, and they didn't use it to actually pay anyone, or apply it to learning to manage the shows properly on a budget they could handle - they just splurged up front and expected an immediate return. I don't believe the budget was impossible to use - the shows allegedly cost less than GH at the time - I believe the upper management of both shows was what screwed it. The individual productions were not the issue.

 

I also don't believe that managing them properly would've meant sacrificing the look, tone, style, or clothes or sets. I do believe someone was coked up when they paid for 30 seconds of a fuckin' Rolling Stones song while Jack fucked his teacher. I'm glad they got to use real music and brands overall, but that was beyond foolhardy.

Edited June 4, 20197 yr by Vee

I think I read those productions cost 80,000 an episode