10 hours ago, Faulkner said:

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the point of parody (making a character a representative for “today’s teen” instead of simply a person) or hopelessly outdated (as if the writers never met a young person since they were young themselves), and the casting is very hit-or-miss.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.

All I’m going to say is bold ratings increased when they put Scott Jacqui and Kim front and center 2012. The triangle was badly written. But initially it brought life back into the show 

Because people were tired of the same stories centering around bridge/stephanie/taylor. It got old and stale.

Steffy is the star of the show. Fans are very engaged with her and Hope. They are not the problem. The writing is. I agree that Liam is stale because the character has always needed Steffy and Hope to carry him.

Anyways Steffy and Hope aren’t younger anymore. But it makes sense the show centers around them. I agree soaps (except gh) doesn’t have a strong younger set. But I blame the acting and writing. They js need to cast better. But they are important. 

soaps ratings have been at their peaked with 30s to 40 year olds leading. It has been proven.I’m not saying there shouldn’t be balance. But I disagree with the sentiment that the younger set is the problem. And I do think vets should take a backseat. It’s a problem i have with Yr. Nikki’s is going through a drinking crisis how many times now?

Edited June 27, 20241 yr by Boldsoaps

One reason I think so many characters act the same age is because of SORAS, which wreaks havoc with the ages for multiple characters. Days is especially bad at this. It's hard sometimes to remember which characters are supposed to be contemporaries because they've all been aged differently and with different speed. 

7 hours ago, Boldsoaps said:

All I’m going to say is bold ratings increased when they put Scott Jacqui and Kim front and center 2012. The triangle was badly written. But initially it brought life back into the show 

Because people were tired of the same stories centering around bridge/stephanie/taylor. It got old and stale.

Steffy is the star of the show. Fans are very engaged with her and Hope. They are not the problem. The writing is. I agree that Liam is stale because the character has always needed Steffy and Hope to carry him.

Anyways Steffy and Hope aren’t younger anymore. But it makes sense the show centers around them. I agree soaps (except gh) doesn’t have a strong younger set. But I blame the acting and writing. They js need to cast better. But they are important. 

soaps ratings have been at their peaked with 30s to 40 year olds leading. It has been proven.I’m not saying there shouldn’t be balance. But I disagree with the sentiment that the younger set is the problem. And I do think vets should take a backseat. It’s a problem i have with Yr. Nikki’s is going through a drinking crisis how many times now?

Bold doesn't have a star of the show ever since Susan Flannery left. Sorry, but that's the reality. If you look around the boards, you will find that most characters right now are more or less NOT liked and annoying viewers as hell - including your favorite - Steffy.

I also don't understand how anything of what you wrote proves your thesis that older characters shouldn't be leading story. Nobody is saying that 30 to 40 year olds shouldn't be leading, but this is not what you said, was it? You said that older character shouldn't be leading storylines. When they should - not always, nobody says that, but THEY should when the time and storyline is right. It's incredibly ageist in my opinion to say otherwise. 

And I'm sorry, but no matter how you spin the ratings after Hope/Liam/Steffy began, I know for a fact that countries around the world stopped airing Bold after one or two years of this unbearably boring triangle. I wonder why that was? And nobody is saying this is because the characters were young - my opinion is that people hated this generic copy/paste of the original triangle that nobody wanted to see for the 198289th time. Bradley didn't write it in any different way - he just made Hope into Caroline/Taylor, Steffy into Brooke and Liam - the most basic male character there is. And I haven't seen this GREAT ratings bump you are talking about. What I'm seeing is that after 1-2 years of an increase, the ratings have continuously declined. How do you explain that? 

Anyways, I wanted to talk more about the issue of older character leading, but seeing how every time the facts are repeated, there is a derailment and shifting the focus, I don't know what else to say. Except that older characters are very very important to soap operas, and history of the genre has proven that hundreds of times. People over 50 or 60 are most interesting to me and to a lot of other viewers and we crave storylines where there is maturity and level of experience in the characters. That's all. I respectfully disagree with the ageist statement that older characters shouldn't lead in soap operas. 

 

 

On 6/22/2024 at 5:33 PM, titan1978 said:

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?

The problem with soaps today is that they lack the ability to write new characters in a manner that builds audience investment.

On 6/27/2024 at 7:05 AM, Maxim said:

Bold doesn't have a star of the show ever since Susan Flannery left. Sorry, but that's the reality. If you look around the boards, you will find that most characters right now are more or less NOT liked and annoying viewers as hell - including your favorite - Steffy.

I also don't understand how anything of what you wrote proves your thesis that older characters shouldn't be leading story. Nobody is saying that 30 to 40 year olds shouldn't be leading, but this is not what you said, was it? You said that older character shouldn't be leading storylines. When they should - not always, nobody says that, but THEY should when the time and storyline is right. It's incredibly ageist in my opinion to say otherwise. 

And I'm sorry, but no matter how you spin the ratings after Hope/Liam/Steffy began, I know for a fact that countries around the world stopped airing Bold after one or two years of this unbearably boring triangle. I wonder why that was? And nobody is saying this is because the characters were young - my opinion is that people hated this generic copy/paste of the original triangle that nobody wanted to see for the 198289th time. Bradley didn't write it in any different way - he just made Hope into Caroline/Taylor, Steffy into Brooke and Liam - the most basic male character there is. And I haven't seen this GREAT ratings bump you are talking about. What I'm seeing is that after 1-2 years of an increase, the ratings have continuously declined. How do you explain that? 

Anyways, I wanted to talk more about the issue of older character leading, but seeing how every time the facts are repeated, there is a derailment and shifting the focus, I don't know what else to say. Except that older characters are very very important to soap operas, and history of the genre has proven that hundreds of times. People over 50 or 60 are most interesting to me and to a lot of other viewers and we crave storylines where there is maturity and level of experience in the characters. That's all. I respectfully disagree with the ageist statement that older characters shouldn't lead in soap operas. 

I really don't see Steffy as the star of the show. She could be an interesting character independent of the repetitive writing, but that has yet to be accomplished. 

Yes, nothing lasts forever. After a certain point people are tired of seeing the same characters go through the same problems repeatedly, so it may be time to bring in new blood. However, after being invested in people like Victor and Nikki or Brooke for over 30 years, it's going to be hard to watch the show without them there.

Soap writers need to learn to pen for mature characters. On the one hand you have shows like Y&R/B&B that embraces them but keeps them in the same boring stories and does not develop a younger generation of characters. Then you have the ABC soaps who back burner the vets. A good medium is Marland era ATWT. A Multi generational show that has storylines relevant to each age group. 

On 6/25/2024 at 2:17 PM, Faulkner said:

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).

Agreed, let Bill give Victor and Jack a challenge or make Brad alive again. Send Heater Tom back to Y&R as Victoria and send Liam back to GH.  Purge the rest.

Edited August 2, 20241 yr by Planet Soap

On 6/26/2024 at 12:19 AM, 1974mdp said:

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

In my mind, they aren't a part of that dumpster fire. Especially since they don't do fashion there anymore. It would be it's own thing, in a sense it would be a new family.

5 hours ago, Maxim said:

Bold doesn't have a star of the show ever since Susan Flannery left. Sorry, but that's the reality. If you look around the boards, you will find that most characters right now are more or less NOT liked and annoying viewers as hell - including your favorite - Steffy.

I also don't understand how anything of what you wrote proves your thesis that older characters shouldn't be leading story. Nobody is saying that 30 to 40 year olds shouldn't be leading, but this is not what you said, was it? You said that older character shouldn't be leading storylines. When they should - not always, nobody says that, but THEY should when the time and storyline is right. It's incredibly ageist in my opinion to say otherwise. 

And I'm sorry, but no matter how you spin the ratings after Hope/Liam/Steffy began, I know for a fact that countries around the world stopped airing Bold after one or two years of this unbearably boring triangle. I wonder why that was? And nobody is saying this is because the characters were young - my opinion is that people hated this generic copy/paste of the original triangle that nobody wanted to see for the 198289th time. Bradley didn't write it in any different way - he just made Hope into Caroline/Taylor, Steffy into Brooke and Liam - the most basic male character there is. And I haven't seen this GREAT ratings bump you are talking about. What I'm seeing is that after 1-2 years of an increase, the ratings have continuously declined. How do you explain that? 

Anyways, I wanted to talk more about the issue of older character leading, but seeing how every time the facts are repeated, there is a derailment and shifting the focus, I don't know what else to say. Except that older characters are very very important to soap operas, and history of the genre has proven that hundreds of times. People over 50 or 60 are most interesting to me and to a lot of other viewers and we crave storylines where there is maturity and level of experience in the characters. That's all. I respectfully disagree with the ageist statement that older characters shouldn't lead in soap operas. 

 

 

The ratings during the 2012-2016 years were the highest it was in years.  And this era was anchored by the younger set. Steffy Hope Liam the avants, Caroline, Rick, with a side of Bill Katie Brooke Ridge Quinn were the focus. I’m not twisting anything. Is a fact. Here’s a link. I can’t speak for other countries but ik in Us. The Hope Liam Steffy triangle increased ratings. And also brought light to social media engament.

https://deadline.com/2014/02/cbs-daytime-hits-ratings-milestones-678687/

2 minutes ago, Boldsoaps said:

The ratings during the 2012-2016 years were the highest it was in years.  And this era was anchored by the younger set. Steffy Hope Liam the avants, Caroline, Rick, with a side of Bill Katie Brooke Ridge Quinn were the focus. I’m not twisting anything. Is a fact. Here’s a link. I can’t speak for other countries but ik in Us. The Hope Liam Steffy triangle increased ratings. And also brought light to social media engament.

https://deadline.com/2014/02/cbs-daytime-hits-ratings-milestones-678687/

I wanna get me some of this engament!!! 

5 hours ago, Maxim said:

Bold doesn't have a star of the show ever since Susan Flannery left. Sorry, but that's the reality. If you look around the boards, you will find that most characters right now are more or less NOT liked and annoying viewers as hell - including your favorite - Steffy.

I also don't understand how anything of what you wrote proves your thesis that older characters shouldn't be leading story. Nobody is saying that 30 to 40 year olds shouldn't be leading, but this is not what you said, was it? You said that older character shouldn't be leading storylines. When they should - not always, nobody says that, but THEY should when the time and storyline is right. It's incredibly ageist in my opinion to say otherwise. 

And I'm sorry, but no matter how you spin the ratings after Hope/Liam/Steffy began, I know for a fact that countries around the world stopped airing Bold after one or two years of this unbearably boring triangle. I wonder why that was? And nobody is saying this is because the characters were young - my opinion is that people hated this generic copy/paste of the original triangle that nobody wanted to see for the 198289th time. Bradley didn't write it in any different way - he just made Hope into Caroline/Taylor, Steffy into Brooke and Liam - the most basic male character there is. And I haven't seen this GREAT ratings bump you are talking about. What I'm seeing is that after 1-2 years of an increase, the ratings have continuously declined. How do you explain that? 

Anyways, I wanted to talk more about the issue of older character leading, but seeing how every time the facts are repeated, there is a derailment and shifting the focus, I don't know what else to say. Except that older characters are very very important to soap operas, and history of the genre has proven that hundreds of times. People over 50 or 60 are most interesting to me and to a lot of other viewers and we crave storylines where there is maturity and level of experience in the characters. That's all. I respectfully disagree with the ageist statement that older characters shouldn't lead in soap operas. 

 

 

Steffy is the star of the show. Since 2011 the actress has received constant fan awards. Emmys. And the character has the most vocal fandom on social media. She is Bold and the Beautiful. Not to mention the character page  has the largest following on FB. Compared to the others. I’m not saying she’s as iconic as Stephanie or even Brooke. But she’s been the anchor of the show for years now. If Kim Matula was still on. It would be Jacqui and Kim anchoring the show.

Just now, Boldsoaps said:

Steffy is the star of the show. Since 2011 the actress has received constant fan awards. Emmys. And the character has the most vocal fandom on social media. She is Bold and the Beautiful. Not to mention the character page  has the largest following on FB. Compared to the others. I’m not saying she’s as iconic as Stephanie or even Brooke. But she’s been the anchor of the show for years now. If Kim Matula was still on. It would be Jacqui and Kim anchoring the show.

 

I rest my case. 

I didn't want to engage anymore... but I find it fascinating how... once again you didn't answer the question I asked - Why older characters should not lead in soaps? You said this yesterday and left no arguments to why. I gave you mine in the contrary. I am still listening and waiting to hear why you think older characters have no business leading soaps. Please explain this statement to me.  

It's funny to me how you chose to skip the issue I was commenting on and prefer to compare fan bases and facebook page likes. Is it so important to you for us to agree that Steffy is the star of the show? What are the criteria for a star of the show?😃 Is it what you just described? Fan awards (🫣), Emmys and facebook pages... and online engagement? Who chose this criteria? You? Then you should probably rephrase your statement to - Steffy is MY star of the show and I will receive it with no issue. Don't get me wrong, I have grown to like and respect JMW as an actress, this has nothing to do with her.  

I really don't know what else can I say. If it makes you feel good to believe all the things you are writing (especially that older character should not be leading soaps) - I guess... I'm happy for you. 

 

 

46 minutes ago, Maxim said:

I didn't want to engage anymore... but I find it fascinating how... once again you didn't answer the question I asked - Why older characters should not lead in soaps? You said this yesterday and left no arguments to why. I gave you mine in the contrary. I am still listening and waiting to hear why you think older characters have no business leading soaps. Please explain this statement to me.  

It's funny to me how you chose to skip the issue I was commenting on and prefer to compare fan bases and facebook page likes. Is it so important to you for us to agree that Steffy is the star of the show? What are the criteria for a star of the show?😃 Is it what you just described? Fan awards (🫣), Emmys and facebook pages... and online engagement? Who chose this criteria? You? Then you should probably rephrase your statement to - Steffy is MY star of the show and I will receive it with no issue. Don't get me wrong, I have grown to like and respect JMW as an actress, this has nothing to do with her.  

I really don't know what else can I say. If it makes you feel good to believe all the things you are writing (especially that older character should not be leading soaps) - I guess... I'm happy for you. 

 

 

I explained it Before. It’s always the same tired stories with them. The writers nowadays don’t have the intelligence to write for characters that generation. So I think they need to focus on investing in their future.

49 minutes ago, Boldsoaps said:

I explained it Before. It’s always the same tired stories with them. The writers nowadays don’t have the intelligence to write for characters that generation. So I think they need to focus on investing in their future.

Let me repeat... did I read correctly...Now... you say that older characters should not lead soaps, because writers don't have the intelligence to write for them? So in your logic - less intelligent writer means - can only write younger characters? You do realize that Bradley Bell is 60 years old, right? How is it that it's going to be easier for him to write about youngsters, when he is 60 himself? I am struggling with finding logic. Bad writer equals bad writing. No matter what the age of the characters. You are now trying to find an excuse for your statement, but it still falls flat.

I will phrase this like this - If a writer is intelligent (in your perception), should older character be leading in a show then? If you say yes (which you basically did), then your whole argument completely falls. Which was that older characters should not be leading soaps. 

So, I am tired of going in circles. I think even the Pope heard about my stance on this today. I hope you realize how contradictory and unsubstantiated your statements are. And I'm saying this with every drop of respect I can gather after you uttered that ageist remark yesterday. Know that you are going to be old one day and you would love to see people your age too... on the screen. Older characters are irreplaceable. They are part of our lives and part of soap operas. 

The end. 

 

7 hours ago, Maxim said:

Let me repeat... did I read correctly...Now... you say that older characters should not lead soaps, because writers don't have the intelligence to write for them? So in your logic - less intelligent writer means - can only write younger characters? You do realize that Bradley Bell is 60 years old, right? How is it that it's going to be easier for him to write about youngsters, when he is 60 himself? I am struggling with finding logic. Bad writer equals bad writing. No matter what the age of the characters. You are now trying to find an excuse for your statement, but it still falls flat.

I will phrase this like this - If a writer is intelligent (in your perception), should older character be leading in a show then? If you say yes (which you basically did), then your whole argument completely falls. Which was that older characters should not be leading soaps. 

So, I am tired of going in circles. I think even the Pope heard about my stance on this today. I hope you realize how contradictory and unsubstantiated your statements are. And I'm saying this with every drop of respect I can gather after you uttered that ageist remark yesterday. Know that you are going to be old one day and you would love to see people your age too... on the screen. Older characters are irreplaceable. They are part of our lives and part of soap operas. 

The end. 

 

Obviously Younger characters are more active characters and receive more stereotypical common plots (which they recycle for older characters). You know this.

if these writers aren’t creative enough to give older characters age appropriate stories. I don’t want to see them driving stories. That the younger set should be driving. Period. And regardless. The 30s-40s set. Should be the focus and priority of the soaps. They are the future.

there is a reason B&b has a more passionate intense fandom compared to Yr. Despite the awful writing. Steffy fans, with an edge of Hope fans. Keep this shows social media presence alive.

and taken accolades, mainstream coverage, fan engagement, reaction, following into consideration. Steffy/Jacqui is very much the star of the show. We are in streaming era. Media presence in very important. In keep these shows relevant and alive.
I thought this was common knowledge? That she’s pretty much the shows IT girl. And has been for years. The actress literally has more Ig followers than every other soap star. It speaks for itself. 
 

Edited June 28, 20241 yr by Boldsoaps

36 minutes ago, Boldsoaps said:

Obviously Younger characters are more active characters and receive more stereotypical common plots (which they recycle for older characters). You know this.

if these writers aren’t creative enough to give older characters age appropriate stories. I don’t want to see them driving stories. That the younger set should be driving. Period. And regardless. The 30s-40s set. Should be the focus and priority of the soaps. They are the future.

there is a reason B&b has a more passionate intense fandom compared to Yr. Despite the awful writing. Steffy fans, with an edge of Hope fans. Keep this shows social media presence alive.

and taken accolades, mainstream coverage, fan engagement, reaction, following into consideration. Steffy/Jacqui is very much the star of the show. We are in streaming era. Media presence in very important. In keep these shows relevant and alive.
I thought this was common knowledge? That she’s pretty much the shows IT girl. And has been for years. The actress literally has more Ig followers than every other soap star. It speaks for itself. 
 

Bless your heart.

The thing that concerns me in this topic is the blatant ageism. I think ageism is as bad, possibly worse than some, as any other bias-based philosophy or argument. And, I do not think that a case can be made for more success or ratings in general with discriminating based on age as a basis.