6 minutes ago, kalbir said:

Yes, Y&R did start to go down Fall 1994-early 1996 when Nick and Sharon ate the show, then there was the lull from Fall 1996-first half of 1997. Things did pick up in the second half of 1997 through to 1998, which was the last excellent year. While Kay Alden's run started good, we could see signs of tanking from 1999-2005. As we all know, nothing was the same 2006 onward.

 

I feel like Kay Alden's run was really strong from 1998 - 2002. While Ed Scott's ouster in 2001 probably hurt the show a lot in the long run, because he was so strong and steady behind the scenes, I think David Shaughnessy was very effective. Once John F. Smith was appointed EP in 2003, though, things changed. As you say, from 2006 onward, good lord what's happened. 

3 hours ago, DaytimeFan said:

 

I feel like Kay Alden's run was really strong from 1998 - 2002. While Ed Scott's ouster in 2001 probably hurt the show a lot in the long run, because he was so strong and steady behind the scenes, I think David Shaughnessy was very effective. Once John F. Smith was appointed EP in 2003, though, things changed. As you say, from 2006 onward, good lord what's happened. 

I guess it depends what you are into. I know I have mentioned it ad nauseum, but the sperm caper story ruined three great female characters. It was such a gross and poorly told story, and was similar to JER's Days run. Fun on Days not on Y&R

 

Jill Faren Phelps said when she started on the show the mandate was to bring the show into the 21st Century, make it hot and blah blah blah. I am almost certain Kay Alden was pushed to do the same thing in 99/00, that's why we got that story. I think the failure of this story to bring in viewers and the loss Y&R suffered that year probably resulted in Trent Jones being promoted to either Co-Headwriter or Associate Head Writer. I have no solid proof this is what happened, but I am fairly confident Trent was promoted in 2000, his writing credit moved up just beneath Kay Alden and his wiki states he became a co-headwriter in 2000. He was definitely a co-headwriter by June 2002 when Jack Smith returned to the show as a 3rd co-headwriter. Which then led to Paul raping, I mean not raping, Christine. Kay/Jill being mother and daughter and a bunch of other stuff I have forgotten because I didn't like it. I was in and out until 2005/06 whenever the Phick affair was in full swing, then just gave up entirely. 

 

The true golden age for me (in retrospect) ended when Nicholas Newman was aged in the summer of 94.

 

For me Fall 1994 to Fall 1997 wasn't great, I have mentioned the Abbott family stories I dislike before. Ones I have not mentioned before though; de-aging Nathan then giving him a mid-life crises affair storyline, bringing on Malcolm and having him rape his sister in law almost as soon as he arrives, then setting him up as a sweet, tender and talented hunk. Victoria going from frigid to bearing it all for a national men's porno magazine with an absolutely lame reason "People change, Ryan" lol okay, thanks for that Victoria totally makes sense now. Nicholas in anything, if it were not for Sharon Case I would not have lasted, haha. 1997/98 - roughly 99/00 was a return to form, but it was short lived as mentioned above.

Edited September 3, 20205 yr by will81

I think the bigger issue is the forcing of pets to the forefront. B&B spent years focusing solely on Hope/Liam/Steffy and IMO it was briefly great but then they had nothing else to rely on and when they did they ruined it (Maya and Aly) while GH focuses solely on the deadly boring quad whose names I won't mention. I think some people-audience and behind the scenes- become so attached to the pets that they become all the show focuses on. 

 

Y&R spent literally a decade struggling to build young talent while giving the same boring non suspenseful storylines to the older cast. I am still haunted by the horrible casting and staleness of 2009 era Noah and Eden, bad casting for Daisy and Kyle and other forgotten attempts. When they did find great talent-Ricky Williams, Ana Hamilton, Fen Baldwin, Hilary Curtis for example-they ruin or write them off. 

 

When the soaps try to build the younger talent it is so out of wack and unnatural that it is simply painful to watch. 

 

The other issue as I believe someone said above is that no one has CHARACTER. Every single scene is the same boring conversation for every character. No one is quirky, glamourous or over the top anymore. 

 

I would love to see one of the shows make a lasting change, become diverse and feel alive again but outside of a few good story months here and there I have lost faith. 

The title of this thread amuses me.  We are interacting with other fans who have made 74,528 posts lamenting cancelled soaps.  I think we are at least slightly resistant to change.

Edited September 7, 20205 yr by j swift

What kind of change though?  Because I feel as though most soap fans might associate change with taking something away, rather than adding something good. Many of these soap producers claim that they plan to make changes that will improve or restore the show, only to dismantle the few aspects that actually still work. The track record of most of the producers hasn't been that great. There have been some resounding successes but quite a bit of mediocrity as well and soap fans have no reason to trust someone who comes in and makes a boatload of promises and pronouncements. 

A good example I can think of is Pratt dismantling AMC but whoever came after not giving anything for the sake of keeping people at bay. Pratt had the show one event after another and then after summer 2010 through 2011 I don't think there was anything to offer. It would be nice if someone could shake things up just enough to build momentum and update the soaps but not dismantle the core of them.