ALL: Resting long term characters

[titan1978]

There has been a lot of debate on the GH monthly threads about the show needing to trim their cast. My question- Is it always a bad idea to cut a long term set of characters? 

We saw so many terrible cast cuts in the 90’s and 2000’s and beyond, that many of us bristle at the thought of cutting veteran casts. We know all the main culprits- Maureen Bauer, Frankie Frame, Alan Q, the majority of the Winters/Barber family on Y&R, etc. But is it always a bad idea?

When I look at shows like AMC in the early 90’s, was it wrong to rest Ellen and Mark? Nina and Cliff? Jeremy? Chuck and Donna? Tom Cudahey?

On GH, I think it ended up being the right move when Tristan quit, because the stories we got for Robin without Robert and Anna were some of the best of the decade.

People often mention folks like Don and Neil Curtis just disappearing on DAYS. Was there really enough left for them to do to be on contract and vital to the story beyond just audience fondness?

I remember loving Delilah, and tolerating Rafe on OLTL. They were another set of characters that slowly faded out.

Many of those characters had made room for others that were now mainstays. Would I trade Natalie on AMC or Hailey to keep others in story instead?

When is it okay to rest long term characters?

[Khan]

I think former Y&R EP David Shaughnessy (sp?) had the healthiest attitude about trimming casts and writing out even longtime characters: it might suck initially to "lose" them, but if you give the audience brand new characters who are compelling on their own, the audience will, in time, adjust.  (Of course, I'm paraphrasing what he said, but you get the idea).

[j swift]

I would argue that there's a distinction between a character like OLTL's Delilah, whose entire arc had been told (i.e., she was redeemed, found love, and her motives were satisfied) vs. someone like Neil on DAYS who was left unresolved because newer writers were no longer inspired by the character.

Now, I am not saying that if a character is not sparking the interest of a writer than they should still keep them, because that seems futile.  But, as a fan, it is frustrating when a long term character is 'rested' without a resolution to their story or justification for why they are no longer the focus of attention.  For example, when it was suggested that Hope on DAYS should be temporarily written out, before Kristen Alfonso quit, there seemed to be no long term plan of how to explain her absence while her children were still lead characters.  Ultimately there are only so many weddings, trials, and emergencies that a character can miss before we need a reason why the attendance is impossible. 

I am in favor of some characters having a natural ending to their story and being shipped off if they've become repetitive or uninteresting.  But, there has to be a logical reason why this moment was chosen to conclude their life's tale. 

Edited June 23, 2024 by j swift

[titan1978]

It does suck when there is viability and story still to be told. But I agree with him that sometimes it is time to move on.

This is an interesting example, because to me, if I take over DAYS as a HW, I would walk in the door knowing that Hope will need story, and if I am not interested in her (or let’s say Marlena), then I am not right for the job at that show. Not that they should dominate the show like they once did, but they should be used and have stories of their own still.

I remember being shocked when they killed John Black off and let Drake go in the late 2000’s. But what we got for Marlena was really compelling, especially her anger. And then they brought him back once again with altered memories, and they had a renewed dynamic. It opened them up for me. The show dumped them both shortly after for budget reasons, and I missed their new dynamic playing out.

Diane Jenkins on Y&R is a great example of a character that has been rested several times, and easily helps jump start things when they bring her back. And I think that has worked best for her character.

[NothinButAttitude]

It is odd nowadays b/c I feel like we are on the opposite end of the spectrum where daytime is letting too many characters long overstay their welcome. Funny because as aforementioned, daytime used to foam at the mouth of getting rid of veteran characters before it even got to that point. 

This has resulted in the next generation of characters on all four soaps offering nothing.

If these shows make it another 10 to 20 years, what is Y&R going to offer without Jack, Victor, or Nikki? I mean the show is called YOUNG and the Restless; however, the younger characters are the most underdeveloped, uninteresting characters on the show.

Same with B&B. What is the show going to do when Brooke and Ridge bounce? Yes, we have Steffy, Hope, Finn, Liam, but what are the B and C stories? RJ and Luna have no real longevity. I doubt Will will either. Brad has NEVER been good with teen characters. I can see him slashing half of them within the next year or two. 

GH would tremendously benefit with Sonny, Carly, Jason all driving off a cliff into a burst of flames b/c I feel the show would finally and possibly resort back to its roots of being about the hospital. But we'd still be left with young characters like Willow, Michael, and Joss, who are repulsive and one note. Even they can't carry the show post an exodus of the unholy trio. Yes, you have the likes of Brooklyn, Chase, and Trina but they get scraps and are still criminally underdeveloped. 

I will give DAYS props as RC does try with the younger batch, but with the lack of budget and Ron's writing being so horrendous, I can't even sit through an episode of DAYS. I can count on one hand how many episodes I've watched since the show moved to Peacock. But I will give DAYS props as they are the one show that handles families and generations the best. I just need him to get rid of Emily O'Brien, Greg Rikaart, and even Robert Scott Wilson (even though he is eye candy) at this point. 

[carolineg]

 I don't think we actually know there wasn't a plan on how to write Hope out.  I believe at the time it was for about 6 months?.  Considering Days pace, I think you could easily say Hope found a lead that Bo may be alive and get away with her being gone for that period of time.  That would be like 3 weeks in Days time lol.   I would buy that Hope would leave her children to find Bo.  Her children were grown adults.

Anyhow, I always thought resting Hope briefly was the right idea.  Obviously, it backfired and KA walked, but Hope was becoming increasingly unlikeable by the day.  Hope had a lot of story, but none of it was landing and reverting her back to Gina or saddling her with Rafe was not the answer.  

Resting to me implies a break and some of the characters mentioned on this thread were cut permanently.  For example, I think GH could rest Jason, Carly, Sonny, Michael for awhile and reset, but I wouldn't cut them all permanently.

[1974mdp]

I think British soaps, such as Hollyoaks, are much better at this. They will drop a character whose story has stalled in a blink of an eye and bring in new blood. There's been a definite lack of building up new, younger characters on ALL the shows as other have mentioned. The result is that the shows are not changing with the times. It doesn't mean you drop all your legacy characters, but you give newer characters the same amount of screentime and development to balance it out. 

I loved the comment about Y&R being anything but young. It's so true, and what does that mean for its future? The show should be renamed The Old and the Tired. Almost everyone is over 40 and filthy rich. Where's the conflict in THAT?

A character that I've believed needs to be rested for quite a while now is Ridge on B&B. TK is a wonderful actor, but the character is so self-centered, overplayed and not interesting at this point. Can you imagine how much story the show could get out of Ridge's death...especially if Steffy blamed it on Brooke for some reason? It could send their rivalry into the stratosphere, reenergize the show, send it in a new direction and free Brooke of the albatross that is Ridge. I also think Liam needs a rest. He, just like Ridge, comes off as a misogynistic a-hole that has bounced back and forth between two woman to the point I don't care anymore.

On Y&R, characters like Adam, Chelsea, and Abby all need a break, too. They've run their course and are just on repeat at this point. None of them really serve a point. Again, decent actors but tired characters. Bring in some new and YOUNG characters who aren't a Newman or an Abbott. Those two families have intermarried so many times it's nuts (looking at you, too, Brady and Hortons on DAYS).

I sort of gave up on DAYS after many years once all the mask wearing and sci-fi stuff took over. The show has lost a lot of its heart the past few years IMO. But, there are soooo many characters that I think could use a break on that show (Steve, Kayla, Rafe, Stefan, Eric) or just need to drive off a cliff (Leo, Alex). 

[Khan]

ICAM!

Once upon a time, Bill Bell phased out most of the Brookses and Fosters out of necessity.  I think it's way past time for Y&R to do another similar reset.

Edited June 23, 2024 by Khan

[titan1978]

Well, maybe resting was my gentle way of saying get rid of. Plus in theory there could always be a return if they had kids or a story to play, just maybe not the central role they used to be in.

I think @NothinButAttitude makes a great point. These newer characters are so poorly developed that they have zero chance of taking the center stage. So we have characters like Nick Newman on Y&R that have been written forever as if they are in their mid 20’s. They even killed Cassie off to help perpetuate this, and she was a viable character for telling stories as she grew up. And his parents have often been written as if they are dealing with life issues a perpetual 45 year old would face, instead of letting them mature story wise.

B&B did successfully create a new generation of characters and center the show around them. But by all accounts Brad Bell has made them almost unwatchable by churning them through too much story.

 

[Khan]

I think the shows were more willing to phase out older or veteran characters when they still believed that the genre as a whole was thriving.  Once reality set in, however, and shows like AMC and GL, among others, started getting canceled, I think TPTB panicked and began keeping those characters at the forefront, even at the risk of not allowing them to mature, out of fears of losing the fans they still had.

[Liberty City]

Ronn Moss & Susan Flannery both quitting should have been the beginning of the next generation for The Bold and the Beautiful, but instead... Bradley Bell recast Ridge. That should have been the catalyst for the launching of Hope / Rick / Steffy et al running things at Forrester, and vying for the lead of the company, re-shifting focus back on fashion. And then, with the introduction of Sally Spectra, do a semi-retelling of those early year storylines, with Brooke & Eric playing those beats of supporting leads. And then, maybe, bringing Thorne out of the damn basement. Instead.... we got stale, repeated storytelling.

[Faulkner]

Exactly. A growth vs. maintenance mindset. Squeezing the living daylights out of their product/“managing for margins,” reducing sets to nothing, repetitive stories with the same faces, content to be ambient background noise, with just enough effort to keep people from tuning out altogether. Lots of people will still watch just to see their “family” every day out of routine. 

Edited June 23, 2024 by Faulkner

[NothinButAttitude]

That's what I loved about UK soaps when I used to heavily watch them. They don't fear cutting anyone. They take risks and a lot of times, they pay off. I think US soaps don't even try and take risks. They just rest on their laurels and drudge along until they get canceled. 

Seriously though, I need US soaps to utilize vets when it makes sense and put them in supporting roles when they don't. I love Victor/EB, but I can only bear so much of him acquiring companies and trying to control his old azz kids. If Adam, Snoreboria, and Big Oaf don't get it at this point, get over it. The Jordan arc would've been killer had they taken their time, integrated Jordan better into the canvas, and then had her strike. It should've been a domino effect before lashed out. I do feel like Abby has so much potential, more than most, but the show puts on her an island, which is weird. Abby is an Abbott, a Newman, and has a child with a Chancellor. She should be the leading lady of the show. Adam would've been more endearing if they didn't paint him into a corner of being a sociopath early on. Now that he wants to be "normal," it is hard to buy b/c they've made him so heinous for so long. He is one of the many characters that need to go on permanent ice on this show. Chelsea too. 

With Bold and the Beautiful, at this point, (unpopular opinion) I'd get rid of Brooke, Ridge, Eric, and Donna. Katie & Bill still have tons of story in them with Will. Center them as the new matriarch/patriarch. Bring back Rick, Amber, Bridget and recenter the show around sex and scandal. You have the KKKardashians thriving off scandal in real life. B&B should be subtly emulating that. 

I would love for Jennifer Foster, Chucky Foster, and Brooks Prentiss to come back at this stage. Maybe put the Newmans and Abbotts on ice and revert to the original core family. Julia's daughter, Jamie, can be brought back in that batch too. And once Meg Bennett passed away, they could've easily done that by having Jamie come to Genoa City and break the news to Victor, who would be heartbroken by her passing. Hell, you could've even tied that in with Jordan's story by having Jordan kill Julia offscreen as Eve hated Julia.  But that's just my thought.

Killing Cassie has always been one of the dumbest things Y&R has ever done. Mariah is a dud. 

And don't get me started on Nick the man-child still having stories about him being a himbo or having his 1000th mid-life crisis about wanting to be at Newman or not.  

I need them to stop panicking and either slash people or adopt the old concept of matriarchs and patriarchs being given supporting stories when they aren't in the lead. They can still drive story by being the "wise sage" or meddlesome parent. With me regarding Victor, his meddlesome antics make no sense. 

[asafi]

I think sheila Carter was great in the 90's, in both y&r and b&b.. however outstayed her welcome.. no point to bring her back again and again. her rivalry with Lauren and Stephanie was great at the time.

as for victor and Nikki.. enough is enough. those two dominated the show for decades.. time to move on. 

having the same characters for years and years (victor, Nikki, ridge, Eric, Brooke).. I mean at some point you run out of storylines.. and it becomes very boring. 

I'm waiting for the new GATES soap, it's about time we'll experience something new. 

[Faulkner]

I wonder about the costs of having EB, MTS, et al., on the canvas. I thought maybe MTS was becoming expendable for a while. The Jordan story is the first time Nikki has been center stage in years. Was it worth it having Nikki flounce around Genoa City as the new “grande dame,” making idle threats against various characters on behalf of Newman? I don’t think so. The balance is way off on this show. It’s either feast or famine.

Y&R has a real problem with managing its budget (clear to anyone who’s watched in recent years—it looks cheap), and having such a top-heavy cast of worn-out characters doesn’t help. But Eric Braeden and even MTS bring such cultural heft from their 45 years on the show. (When EB talks [!@#$%^&*] on Twitter, it often trends. We know how hard it is to cut through the noise.) They were soap stars when that meant something. But they’re also albatrosses around the show’s neck from a creative standpoint.

Edited June 24, 2024 by Faulkner