Jump to content

ALL: What about Bill Bell's writing made his stories and shows the top standard?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

I don't remember anything being reported in the press of a Bell/Spelling beef but when you factor in the Hunter Tylo lawsuit and the actor swapping between their shows, I can't help but wonder if there was one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The original half hour Y&R with the focus purely on the Foster and Brooks families was entirely Bill's vision. With DOOL he had to work with what was there, even though he came in about 6 months in, he must have been a little restricted by what was there in place.

But with Y&R he had free rein. And the first 5 or so years was especially compelling. What made it special to me was the campy quality -some of that leaden dialogue, the 'daring' elements eg Lorie's book and centerfold, the rape stories, Katherine's drunken escapades (enhanced by Jeanne's OTT performance) Brock's preaching and singing etc

As college students we mocked those aspects, but Dear God in Heaven, we did not want to miss an episode.

I liken it to those glossy Douglas Sirk/Ross Hunter movies eg Imitation of Life. You rolled your eyes at Lana Turner, but were brought to tears by the time the funeral rolled around.

 

Edited by Paul Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Something very important and not mentioned yet is that Bill Bell understood the daytime audience. He wrote these shows mostly from the women’s perspective. He didn’t forget his audience was mostly made up of women.

When I was an avid watcher of Y&R, all these women (and probably more) were on the show at virtually the same time. Katherine, Jill, Nina, Ashley, Nikki, Leanna, Sheila, Lauren, Tracy, Drucilla, Olivia, Cassandra, Cricket…I’m sure I am missing someone. Closely followed by Victoria and Sharon. These are all complex, individual women with their own points of view, their own vulnerabilities, established backgrounds, motivations and storylines. Some of them never crossed paths.

And plenty of sex appeal- Malcolm, Ryan, Paul, Brad, etc. The men were complex too- but the women outnumbered them and were often the best parts. 

On DAYS he had Laura, Julie, Marie, Susan, etc. All complex and vital characters, and always front and center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wish more people who work in the industry would remember that.  Not just people who work in daytime either, but all of television/streaming.  They seem to write for men all the time; yet, whenever advertisers talk about demographics and such, it's always about the female demos rather than the male ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To me it equates to when the shows stoped writing the women as complexly, and turned all the depth and attention to the men, and only the ones that were edgy.
 

Victoria is a perfect example of when things went wrong- Heather Tom was fighting against her character becoming primarily a romantic lead. And that is what I think of Victoria now- primarily a character driven by her relationships with men.

Yeah, it is so strange to me. But look at the last 20 years- these business/non creative folks running studios now hardly make any content directed towards women anymore. I think the last decade it has gotten especially bad. Barbie should be a huge signal to them but it won’t be, because until more women are in the decision making positions at every studio, it’s an uphill battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Yep, it’s usually some male villain or antihero. Bill Bell did a good job in making Victor, Jack, and Paul feel like real, complex men with lifelong psychological baggage, but his writing for them rarely felt indulgent. Bell didn’t always signal to us how “broken” Jack or Victor were or how their behavior stemmed from an effed-up childhood or simply the desperate need for wuv.  But when it came to later characters like Kevin Fisher, who did some pretty heinous stuff, they seemed to go the overboard with the trauma porn to make female viewers sympathize with them. Plus, they had these ‘charismatic’ actors like Greg Rikaart and Billy Miller they used for clout and Emmys. I think a lot of it was influenced by what GH was doing to capture younger viewers and the trend of having ‘sexy’ antiheroes (a la Tony Soprano and Don Draper) that really took off in the 2000s.

Edited by Faulkner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Some think that, in order to recreate the Bill Bell aesthetic, you need expensive-looking sets, lush-sounding music and fabulous lighting and wardrobe...but you really don't.  Like he said, all you need to write like Bill Bell is a great script and two wonderful actors.  And if those actors are portraying characters who want to be together but who, for whatever reason, cannot, even better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I don't think Lisa served a purpose after the serial killer storyline. The writers never gave her anything to do but be Vicky's nemesis. Joanna Going deserved better. Another example of a character taking over the show and then the writers not having a longterm plan for the character.  Exhibit B: Sally Spencer. Such a missed opportunity. It really angers me how they misused her. She could sing and act and they just threw her away in that sexist nonsense storyline. Once the story was over, they wrote her off. The McKinnons should have lasted for years. I will give the show credit for how they introduced Sandra Ferguson as Amanda. I thought it was expertly done. She comes in and she immediately connected to RKK's Sam. She has chemistry with Matthew and she has realistic conversations with MAc and Rachel. That's how it is done. 
    • Great points, and it has not completely vanished. Leslie on Beyond the Gates fits the trope (she's still not over that Ted lovin' two decades later), though I will say there does seem to be an effort to make her more complex.
    • I understand why people speculate, but I have to say it doesn’t sound very plausible that Jill Farren Phelps would be working at Y&R in any uncredited role. CBS daytime shows are tightly bound by union contracts and corporate oversight, and that kind of informal arrangement would be a major liability in 2025. Before the mergers of SAG-AFTRA and the two WGA branches, it may have been easier to hire someone quietly or off the books. But those days are behind us. With digital payroll, tighter pension tracking, and increased scrutiny from legal and compliance departments, it’s just not the kind of thing anyone can get away with anymore. Most union members, especially producers nearing retirement, would not risk their eligibility or benefits to take an uncredited role. The Producers Guild of America is also very clear about crediting. To even receive the PGA mark, a producer has to be verified through a formal review process. According to their credit certification guidelines (source), "only individuals who performed a majority of the producing functions on a motion picture or television production" are eligible for credit, and those credits must be official and recorded. If someone is functioning in that capacity, they are not supposed to be uncredited. Studios that are union signatories, like CBS and Sony, know better than to skirt those rules. If anyone has a legitimate, primary source confirming that CBS is hiring someone like Phelps in an uncredited production role, I’d honestly be curious to read it. But without that, this just feels like rumor—not reality.
    • I keep thinking about the persistent trend of eroticizing mental illness on Guiding Light. Sonni and Annie were never more compelling, or more attractive to the show, than when they were manic. It played into a recurring theme: strong women undone by their unhinged reaction to sex. The writers were likely inspired by Basic Instinct and the broader wave of neo-noir films in the late '80s and early '90s, where female sexuality was often equated with instability. The result was a crude portrayal, not just of mental illness, but of womanhood itself. Both Sonni and Annie were introduced as sharp, capable women, brought in specifically as formidable antagonists to Reva. They were logical and composed, standing in contrast to Reva’s emotional volatility. That difference made them threatening, but not especially “sexy”—until desire became their undoing. In a very male fantasy, their strength unraveled the moment they slept with Joshua. As soon as they got a taste of Lewis lovin’, they spiraled into scheming lunatics, willing to torch everything to hold on to him. It was part of a larger trend in the culture. Fatal Attraction, Single White Female, and The Hand That Rocks the Cradle all traded on the idea that female desire was dangerous, barely held in check, and always teetering on the edge of madness. Looking back, it's a pretty grim trope. And while it's not completely vanished, I'm grateful we don't see it quite as often today.
    • Elements of it were silly, but it was a small price to pay to get Zas back. I should say there's a difference between in town and out of town returns. It's understandable for Roger to skulk around town in a bad wig and clown suit when he's in Springfield and running the risk of bumping in to people he knows.  Taking us out of town to find someone always has a short shelf life. Then it usually becomes about another character knowing X is alive but determined to keep them out of Springfield. Like Alan discovering Amish Reva. I don't know how long it went on, but it was probably twice as long as necessary.
    • Elizabeth Dennehy complained on the Locher Room about how ridiculous so much of the writing was for Roger's return. She laughed at so much of Roger's antics and how it was hard for her to take them seriously. Probably another reason she was fired as she didn't play the game.  
    • Only thing I enjoyed was Abby / Olivia, etc., and the addiction storyline. Otherwise, I could do without the season.
    • Right? Vanessa had a ball gown for every occasion.
    • Roger's return storyline may have been silly but Roger's return was what lead to GL's last golden era.  It was the combination of Roger's return and Robert Calhoun becoming EP that got GL to finally hit it's stride after some really bad years. It will always disappoint me that the ratings during Robert Calhoun's run didn't reflect the quality of the show.
    • He also gave some of the best episodes, like the episodes surrounding Doug's death. The problem with Days was that Ron had a horrible vision from he top. I don't feel the same for MVJ and nothing that has happened in all these months suggests she doesn't have a handle on the show. Now if it becomes an issue I'll acknowledge it, but I'm not seeing it so far.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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