B&B: Bold from the beginning

[DramatistDreamer]

Watching these early episodes, I have definitely see where the sense of foreshadowing comes into play. This is where the father really differs from the son. WJB hails from that old school, where storyline seeds are planted, take root, with the belief that it will play out in due time, rather than the fly-by the seat of the pants type writing that soap HWs have done over the last 15+ years (even further back for some shows) now. It makes a huge difference in how stories play out.

B&B is far from perfect and was never my favorite soap, but in the beginning, at least, the storytelling seemed far more thoughtful than it ended up being years later.

[Broderick]

A lot of the negative press B&B got in its early years was probably undeserved.  I recall an early review of the show in which Caroline, Brooke and Kristen were referred to as "B&B's interchangeable blondes".  There's nothing really "interchangeable" about them.  Each of the three characters has a distinctive personality, appearance, and storyline of her own.   It's not as though they're remarkably similar actresses or characters who'd be confused with one another.

I also recall reading that some of the actors had "questionable" abilities.  Aside from Ronn Moss -- say what you will about him, lol -- the only real HOWLINGLY bad actor that I've noticed so far is the guy who plays Donna's boyfriend Mark.  He's awful.  But even there, the emphasis seems to be on his preppy looks and vapid personality, with Rocco referring to him as "Mister Cool" and so forth.  If he were a more animated actor, the storyline probably wouldn't be as effective.     

[Althea Davis]

I will disagree that it's boring. It was not boring. In fact in comparison with the later years and today... it's so entertaining... Why... because it's written beautifully. The story hooks you.

[Soaplovers]

The episodes uploaded yesterday and today had Stephanie thinking Brooke was the other woman...and her disbelief.  And there was a scene between them..that I had a feeling made Bell go 'hmmmm'.

Bell would have long term plans, but left enough room for adjustment if something wasn't working and/or if he saw.something in taping (Lauren/Traci feud on Y & r came about due to this).

[DramatistDreamer]

Absolutely.

Just speaking from personal experience, when you write out a fairly well outlined story projection, ideally, it will give you a solid enough foundation to make adjustments when necessary, in service of the story, rather than plowing ahead with an ill-shaped, poorly plotted story, making things up as one goes along, then "painting" characters into a veritable corner. 

I've said through enough writing workshops and unfortunate table reads where questions are asked but left unanswered because the writer gets lost "in the weeds" and has no idea where some of the characters are headed.

 

I can usually tell when a writer is writing as they go along. With soaps, it's not that difficult to tell when it's being done, so clumsy is the execution.

Edited October 31, 2021 by DramatistDreamer

[Videnbas]

It's been a year since I watched that particular episode, and yet I know EXACTLY which scene you were referring to! Yes, the tension between the characters was so thick you could carve it with a knife, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the moment that made Bell Sr go "never mind Stephanie vs Beth, this is the epic rivalry of the show"! 

[Paul Raven]

Josh Griffith, please step forward...

[Forever8]

Please register in order to view this content

[DramatistDreamer]

Mal, Maria and Pratt are all guilty of this.

In fact, of the CBS soaps that I had watched since the early 00s, I doubt any soap writer did thorough and detailed story projections for their shows. With those messy stories that came out on screen, I doubt anyone was looking at long-term consequences.

[Aback]

Cool! What's the episode number? Is it on YT?

[Soaplovers]

 

[DramatistDreamer]

Got a break and decided to watch a few episodes and hoo-man, all that build up about how Ridge would react when he found out about Caroline's rape and when the moment came, Ron flopped it! Those weird visual effects, which, I get it...in the absence of decent acting, tptb felt compelled to do something, but those visual effects just came off as odd and loopy- it actually undermined the gravitas of the moment, almost as badly as Moss' acting choices.

Also, seeing those scenes between Katie, Rocco, Donna and Mark at the Dance Factory and they played Janet Jackson and Whitney Houston, one after another, proves what I have been saying all along-- streaming allows for the use of popular music, as long as copies not being being sold commercially.

Whatever else is being said about music rights being used as an excuse not to stream old episodes of soaps is bullsh*t. Just say you don't care about soaps and go. It's why, for years now, I have been saying that it makes more sense to stream, rather than sell DVDs of classic soaps. The issue is lack of interest, rather than music rights.

[ChickenNuggetz92]

Music rights in television production is much much more nuanced than this take. The B&B team has the advantage of using YouTube as a platform to stream these episodes for free. YouTube's music detection software takes care of deciding whether or not that particular episode can or cannot be monetized for ads, and if B&B takes home the revenue stream for that episode. At the end of the day, B&B is not doing any extra backend administrative work to make this happen - it's YouTube due to its automated processes. And it's worth repeating that Brad Bell owns B&B, unlike Y&R and DOOL (owned by Sony with CBS and NBC), and GH (owned by ABC Disney), so he has far more control how he can distribute the shows, and there isn't a media entity making the decisions.

Moreover, music licensing becomes a huge problem if licensed music on shows not only airs on Television, but is on a platform whose business platform is primarily behind a monthly paywall (Paramount+, Hulu, Netflix, Disney+), because it can be argued that they are profiting off another artists' work. Music directors also need to submit what is called a Cue Sheet. The short of it is, it aggregates all music used and TBTB decide on the rights and distributions and whatever comes with all that. Here's a link that can explain it better. Mike Dobson of Y&R had to do this will all episodes of Y&R classics that aired last year had to create a report of this for each episode. Lots of politics behind this process, but at the end of the day it's not because they don't care. It's because there are so many legal processes and intricacies and blurred lines where this is involved, it's better to err on the side of caution as opposed to potentially getting sued by a record company.

Edited November 3, 2021 by ChickenNuggetz92

[DramatistDreamer]

I was talking about ATWT specifically, and using music rights issues as the primary reason for not being able to show episodes, streaming or otherwise.

Years ago, SoapClassics sold episodes of ATWT on DVD. So they obviously got around the music issue by using alternative music. The reason why it didn't continue was because they didn't extend licensing to the distributor. My contention was that music rights was not the primary reason why we no longer get to see episodes of vintage ATWT episodes. 

There is nuance that is missing but it is not all about music rights. 

Unlike B&B, ATWT was being fully digitized by the SoapClassic people. B&B is simply putting out their analog episodes. This is especially evident when you look at the screen ratio, as it is not formatted to today's LCD type screens. The number of people who had been complaining about B&B's screen ratio without realizing that, in order to fit today's screens they would have to go through the process of digitizing episodes like ATWT did with their collections. 

It's not all down to music rights, that's what I have been contending. If B&B had been digitizing episodes, instead of throwing them out there on analog, as they've been doing, perhaps it would have been a lot trickier for them to do as well, but wisely, they just threw the episodes out there, as is.

I think putting the issue down to music rights, and music rights alone is an oversimplification if the issue.

[DramatistDreamer]

Looking back at these earliest episodes, it really is obvious why these particular actors were chosen to portray the Logan family- the bone structure, along the jawline in particular, is very similar, and when you add in Judith Baldwin, the actress who played the original Beth Logan, the pattern of facial similarities between the actors who portrayed the Logans is magnified that much more. I'm not saying they look identical, just that the bone structure, especially along the jawline is strikingly similar.