ALL: Resting long term characters

[Maxim]

Bold's new generations are so one-dimensional and badly conceived copy/pastes of past characters, that I'm afraid the show can't fully function on them alone. Not that the vets help much, but...  just seeing some of their faces... makes me think - Ok, this is Bold. At least that. In all other situations the current show is not The Bold And The Beautiful, but something entirely different. 

The new generations flopped tremendously, because Bradley attempted to re-tell the classic storylines his father told, but in his uninspired, rushed, no-character-development-latest-twist-of-the-day modus operandi. Bill Bell made us care about the people before he started mixing them up and putting them in front of challenges. Bradley just writes in someone new and in 2 episodes this character is acting like they are living their worst dramatic conflict of their life. It just feels fake. The biggest flop was the Hope, Steffy and Liam triangle that Bradley attempted to do many times to no success. Bradley wanted Hope to be Caroline/Taylor, Steffy to be Brooke and Liam to be Ridge. Didn't happen. Bradley failed to repeat the success of Brooke/Ridge and Taylor and this has haunted him his whole career. 

All of this is very sad, since I believe Bold have an amazing cast and these younger actors definitely deserve better than to be in a love triangle with Liam for 15 years.

 

[Faulkner]

B&B needs to cut their losses with the Spencer (kill Bill, ahem, or just send him over to Genoa City/figure out a way to make Brad alive if the Bells want to stay in the Don Diamont business—Victoria needs him), ditch Liam (hello, Dylan Quartermaine) and Katie (let HT focus on directing or perhaps producing), and start rebuilding the younger Forresters, with some satellite characters around them. I’d even start phasing out Eric, Thomas, and/or Hope for a bit in the hopes of getting a couple of unrelated new characters for potential love interests. 

This is just pie in the sky, of course. I get the sense Bradley loves keeping certain friends on the payroll, even if they contribute nothing to the show (HT).

Edited June 25, 2024 by Faulkner

[Maxim]

And one person I would return - Bridget, whoever plays her. She has been the most harmed and ridiculed person on this soap. Bridget's childhood was a nightmare - her mother changed her daddy every sunday, then she grew up to be completely outshined sexually by her own mother who slept with all her husbands. This character needs to come back and be the show's ultimate antagonist - someone who hates her mother with such venom and wants to be the head of Forrester... make Brooke's life hell. I have NEVER understood why all of Brooke's children act so loving towards that monster of a mother. It's funny to me that Bradley invested sooo much in Bridget to then not do anything with the character other stupid taboo love triangles. 

 

 

[SteelCity]

There's enough incestuous relation on the show! That's why I think they should introduce a modeling agency with a house. It can be full of unrelated characters with endless opportunities. It can be owned by an ice cold bitch played by Kristian Alfonso.

[bongobong]

Bridget was great in the Jennifer Finnegan era but to me she's the poster child for a character that needed to be rested/phased out. After the Deacon/Brooke affair she was reduced to being the wet blanket in various love triangles apart from that icky flirtation with Ridge. Her presence with Hope & Deacon on the canvas also ages Brooke & Ridge to their 70s. Unfair to the character perhaps, but the D/B/B triangle was the show's most memorable story of the past 25 years.

Being 30 minutes helps but B&B is the best show at phasing out once popular characters that no longer serve a purpose. That said I agree with the previous posters saying Ridge can use a rest - at least for a few months.

[1974mdp]

Oh wow! I really like this idea. The modeling agency could even be part of Forrester.

[Boldsoaps]

I prefer the younger characters. They are the future of the show. They just need to be written better. They recycle the same stories with the older crowd and write them like their 25. Imo older characters should not be leading soaps.

[Maxim]

Absolutely not true. Just an example - Susan Flannery was quite older when she STARTED on Bold (she was if I am not mistaken - nearly 50 years old) and she MADE the show for the next 25 years. Your statement is against all my beliefs and I don't want to say the word ageist, but I said it. Older characters SHOULD lead in soaps, just like younger ones should too.

You should also think about the target demos. If anyone here thinks that soaps are being watched by teens or youngsters only.... and not middle aged women primarily, they are horribly mistaken. This genre is not the netflix teen show crowd. A lot of soaps are watched by women and men long past 50 or 60 and these people need the characters to associate with.

Older characters ROCK and should not be in the shadows. The typical strong woman matriarch that always leads storylines on soap operas is never a youngster. I can go with examples and examples. They SHOULD be leading soaps. 

 

 

[Contessa Donatella]

The very essence of traditional soap opera is what? Multi-generational, that's what. And, what does that exactly mean? Well, it means characters of all ages. Grandparents, parents, teens & young adults & kids. Of course, quite naturally, you ARE going to have older characters who are leads. But, you may also have some the next age group down who are also leads. 

Let's look at the example of a classic, ATWT. Lucinda, lead female, age group: oldest. Lily her daughter, lead female, age group: Adults. Her son Luke, young adult male lead, age group: teens & young adults. So, you see? What's the problem? 

And, as to that old saw that people only watch to see people their own age, I call bullsh*t on that. In my experience - and I've been watching soaps & talking to other soap fans since the 70s/80s - people watch to see interesting people. They are not chained somehow to only watching one certain narrow age group. 

[Mitch64]

Agreed...but I think the poster might have a point...the last ten years of GL had Reva and Josh acting like they were still 27, passionately "always," until they are not..lather rinse repeat...boring. Josh acted more mature without Reva being a dad and friend, but as soon as they were together (part of that was the actors egos to be on all the time, but ..) Alan Spaulding never changed, etc. the show would have been much better by allowing the actually at that time 40 something crowd of Rick, Phillip Harley, Beth grow up, appropriately age up there kids ) and using the older generation of course, but not having them repeat the same damn stuff over and over. 

[Contessa Donatella]

Of course I completely agree that writing for characters should show growth, experience, even changes, as that is the way life happens. With B&B Stephanie Forrrester did not act like some sweet young thing. At GL, when Josh was tied to Reva, he had to do & act & be like Reva did. I think that some of those adult leads acted less adult than others did. Probably Erica & Reva are examples. But, at AW Rachel did not remain always the same. 

[Faulkner]

Soaps are ensembles. But you see how often soaps hedge their bets with young characters to the point they’re ciphers. They are experiments that they seem to know will fail. They hire cheap, green actors and let them flail around in the hopes they’ll improve or write them off/do emergency recasts. Sometimes several emergency recasts.

DAYS and GH actually try to develop fully formed, fleshed-out young characters, but their stories let them down, the characterizations either feel self-conscious to the point of parody (making a character a representative for “today’s teen” instead of simply a person) or hopelessly outdated (as if the writers never met a young person since they were young themselves), and the casting is very hit-or-miss.

Young characters on the Bell soaps often feel underwritten to the point of nothingness. It’s basically “we need a hot hunk” or “CBS said we need some youth” instead of having a well-shaped vision for the character.

These characters have to find a purpose beyond simply causing headaches for their parents and get integrated into the canvas. Connections with other adult characters and peers are essential. You can’t just have one or two young characters and think that’s gonna work unless they’re mixing it up with the adults.

Any character’s success is almost wholly dependent on the charisma and personality the young performer brings to the role because they are getting bupkis in the scripts.

Edited June 26, 2024 by Faulkner

[j swift]

To me, this is the crux of the issue.

A story is not multi-generational if all characters are developmentally stuck at 27. 

Characters need plots that fit their maturity.

[Maxim]

Older characters acting like teens or 25 is a completely different topic.  The statement that old characters should not be leading story is the one I don't agree with. I not only NOT agree with it, but I find that older characters sometimes are desperately needed and missed.

What Bold for example is LACKING right now is that older-matriarch type.  I am starving for a character that brings wisdom. Age gives opportunity for experience and that is not a negative - we need characters that have been through it. I am bored with the virgin in distress or the whore of the week, which Bradley always writes. I need some substance.

And yes, people don't always watch to see people their own age, but anyone who reads and knows psychology, knows that what you see - you unconsciously associate with or don't. It is not even conscious process. So yes, I do want variety and older characters who people can relate to and which problems and issues are relevant to them. I will quote my mother who watches tv all the time (she is definitely a target audience, since she also watches commercials and buys things) and always says to me, when I try to suggest to her some too-teen or too-hip show. 

I don't find these shows funny, it's not my type of humor and these are issues that I am long past. Please don't make me watch this.

And then she starts watching a show where there are people over 40 in it. People who some may call older. This is a completely normal thing for some people. I myself can't stomach some things anymore and I'm only 29. And that's why shows have target demos and all the world of ads and commercials KNOW who they are selling to. To know the age of your main audience is CRITICAL for success. 

 

[1974mdp]

I agree that the current shows aren't allowing their characters to "age" and this keeps the younger set from being fully developed. IMO, Nick on Y&R is the perfect example of this, and as a result, his children are not allowed to become fully developed characters. 

Honestly, I think Liam on B&B wins the award for this thread. The show keeps recycling the same triangle for him over and over. Somehow, despite being the most wishy-washy man on daytime, we're supposed to believe that these smart, beautiful women (Steffy and Hope) stay hung up on him...why????