On Reddit

38 minutes ago, Gatecrashers said:

I nominate @Taoboi as a potential writer for Gates.

lol. No, but thank you.

1 hour ago, skiman12082004 said:

I feel BTG is more of a character driven show with a sprinkle of plot.

I know you had much more to say and explain in your post, but if that is a good analysis of BTG, I don't think it's sustainable long-term.

You do say we've ad a lot of revelations in 13 months, but I'd say most of those came in the first few months. We get character and some plot towards something, but then we're left hanging. The show leaves that story for weeks and months at a time.

Then we see new characters added before other plotlines are fully developed or resolved. We also get plot build-up -- highly anticipated events like WinterFest -- that pretty much goes nowhere. Some people thought WinterFest was fine and made excuses for it (such as the show not knowing if it would be renewed), but I was really disappointed with what we got. I'm worried that will happen again with the Cotillion.

We got build-up with the free clinic, and then never saw it. We got a celebration at Uptown. We get build-up about Leslie's shouse, but I'm unsure we'll ever see it. They're painting the exterior and landscape as so ridiculous that they'll never find an establishing shot to represent it unless they use AI. They're trying to build-up the plasma storyline to amp the danger, but that's not working.

So yeah, I love strongly written characters, but I also want more than a sprinkle of plot. I want story and I want movement and resolution.

........

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by MontyB

1 hour ago, skiman12082004 said:

I feel BTG is more of a character driven show with a sprinkle of plot.

Which is not a bad thing considering Y&R has been #1 since the 80's

So much of last year was spent on character development and while character development is important so is moving story along. MVJ clearly wants this not to be like the other soaps on the air, but that caution is slowing things down too much. Beyond The Gates gives very much 60-70s soap at times.

Just finished Friday's episode and one thing that confuses me about Leslie's shouse remodel is how tacky and garrish it all sounds. This is a gated community we are talking about. Surely there are stricter rules around construction and the appearance of homes. How did she even get any of it approved?

7 minutes ago, ReddFoxx said:

So much of last year was spent on character development and while character development is important so is moving story along. MVJ clearly wants this not to be like the other soaps on the air, but that caution is slowing things down too much. Beyond The Gates gives very much 60-70s soap at times.

I can respect that, but it is no longer the 60s or 70s. Viewers are more conditioned to watching TV, we know what to expect and can "read the room" more quickly. It is part of the reason that scenes in film and TV have also shortened and well attention span plays a role as well. I feel like pacing is a big issue as was mentioned above and some stories are played out in a way that by the time they peak, I don't care as much or at all anymore.

2 hours ago, skiman12082004 said:

What I do find odd however, is that there are only 19 contract players and 30+ non-contract players. Is that because of the budget? Is it cheaper to have a heavily recurring cast as opposed to having to meet contract guarantees? I do respect that the show is committed to the contract cast they chose with only two changes (recasting Ted and making Ben Gavin non-contract), I feel that at some point they should focus on the characters that are working and put those actors on contract (Shanice/Joey/Izaih/Grayson/Kial/Tyrell/Samantha/Donnell/Deanna and I want Derek back on contract). I understand the show is literally still a work in progress and they are doing a lot right but I would focus on the contract players and limit the addition of new characters for awhile. That would be my only real suggestion to improve things at this point.

I think it depends on the show, but I think recurring means you pay the performer for when they actually appear in the show vs contract where you have to pay them a guaranteed amount even if they don't appear. Since Ben Gavin was not appearing consistently (and I think someone mentioned he was doing a movie for awhile), it made sense to put him on recurring (I know Tracy Bregman opted to go recurring because she couldn't get time off to do things with her children.. and Mr Gavin is a new dad so maybe this arrangement allows him time to do a few indie projects and spend time with his baby).

In regards to you would have be on contract.. I would rather have Donnell and Deanna on full time/on contract... and 86 the Tyyrell/Samantha characters. In fact, I would have rather D & D have been on during this whole time grappling with Doug/Vanessa/Joey.. so that when Doug passed.. we would have at least seen Doug and his relationship with D & D.

And for me, I like the character driven stuff... but you gotta have plot movement at the same time.. and have the climaxes be staggered. I was looking up the last twenty to thirty episodes of Guza's stint.. and i was surprised at how much happened during that timeframe (Doug's death, Eva/Tomas hooked up, the start of Tomas and Hayley's conflict, and Hayley's reveal of not being the doting wife).

Since episode 151, we've only seen the Derek/Ashley/Andre situation have movement and resolution with Derek being discovered faking, Ashley dumping Derek, and Andre telling Ashley the ship has sailed. And the Anita story really didn't kick off the the higher 190s.

In this day and age, you gotta have some action to go along with the character driven moments.

23 minutes ago, GLATWT88 said:

I can respect that, but it is no longer the 60s or 70s. Viewers are more conditioned to watching TV, we know what to expect and can "read the room" more quickly. It is part of the reason that scenes in film and TV have also shortened and well attention span plays a role as well. I feel like pacing is a big issue as was mentioned above and some stories are played out in a way that by the time they peak, I don't care as much or at all anymore.

I agree that times are different. Aspects of the traditional soap work, but not in whole and need to be applied sparingly.

41 minutes ago, ReddFoxx said:

So much of last year was spent on character development and while character development is important so is moving story along. MVJ clearly wants this not to be like the other soaps on the air, but that caution is slowing things down too much. Beyond The Gates gives very much 60-70s soap at times.

Had it been a 60s-70s soap.. .then the show wouldn't have killed the Eva/Kat/Tomas triangle.. which had good development and all the elements of a great soap opera triangle of yesteryear.. and it gets killed just as it starts to get good.

The Anita scenes this week really were amazing. As far as I'm concerned, TT can take home back-to-back Emmys: for both seasons. The biopsy scenes in December were really strong, and she did so much else last year that was Emmy-worthy.

I have to admit, being thankfully ignorant about the side effects of cancer treatment, I initially thought this week's turn in Anita's story seemed like it was out of left field. But the sepsis development makes total sense, and I credit the show with educating the audience about the cascading health effects cancer and its treatments can have (while also serving up some powerful drama in the process).

That being said, the more "research" aka Googling I do about the plasma story, the less sense that one makes. My understanding is it's legal in the U.S. to pay for plasma, so I'm still struggling to understand what the crime is supposed to be. Is Grayson stealing plasma from the hospital lab, and potentially going to be doing the same at the clinic? Aside from the size of that bag, as has been pointed out, it apparently takes 90+ minutes to donate plasma. Wouldn't patients notice that their routine blood work is taking a lot longer than it should? Is Lia just so greedy that she doesn't want to pay enough for plasma to get a sufficient supply, or what?

While I am caught up on the show/board:

On 3/25/2026 at 4:34 AM, Maxim said:

I've been catching up this morning... And I have something bad to say... Something that I've said many times before but I'm starting to get annoyed again. Maybe because I'm watching OLTL 1993 simultaneously and the difference is so freaking stark.

These people need to figure this unnatural dialogue out. Like really figure this s-it out. The lines are way too stiff and long and people talk like they are in some sort of commercial at times. BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA. It's not that much to ask to edit this sh-t out and make it sound more human. And it's all throughout some episodes. I've still not written down the names of the exact dialogue writers that annoy me so much, but I'm close to doing it.

On 3/25/2026 at 5:19 AM, Broderick said:

The show's main script editor (Susan Dansby) is extremely weak.

Reading the dialogue aloud as she's editing (or even whispering the lines to herself as she reads them) should alert her that certain lines need to be purged entirely or, at the very least, a drastic rewrite to make them resemble real dialogue.

That's been a problem from Day One. The first five episodes of the series were supposedly written by Michele Val Jean, and the dialogue was often atrocious. Obviously no one edited those episodes. And it's set a certain clumsy tone in the dialogue that Susan Dansby has never bothered to rectify even after a year.

Do I enjoy the show? Yep. Does the dialogue need work? Yep.

I have to agree 200% with these posts. The exposition-laden dialogue really is glaring, and remains my biggest issue with the show. I would be fine with a more leisurely pace if the slice of life scenes of characters talking to each other were at all lifelike. I could even swallow some plot holes - half the problem is having to hear characters explaining their flawed logic to each other in excruciating detail.

On 3/23/2026 at 8:29 PM, Tisy-Lish said:

The issue with any "poisoning your spouse" plot is -- in the end, the perpetrator must either die, go to prison, or escape never to be seen again. There is really no way to redeem a character who has poisoned her/his spouse. That's just the way it is. But I'm getting the feeling TPTB at BTG are afraid to write off Ashley and lose a good actress, so they are slow walking the plot until they can find a way to redeem Ashley. Dear God in Heaven, the entire exercise has become as boring as Hell. Get on with it, or get off the pot.

Agreed, this poisoning story should have climaxed in February sweeps, in much the same way you described.

I would argue this was the same problem with Dana/Leslie last year, and that's one reason why I cannot accept that Guza was any sort of lynchpin for plot/momentum. Our first introduction to Leslie was her trying to kill a complete stranger who had done nothing to her (I think that was the plan? At the very least, she had to be indifferent to whether Laura lived or died). Leslie should have grown even more desperate once she was already guilty of one attempted murder, and racked up a body count throughout the spring. And if you'd told me this time last year that the big end-of-summer cliffhanger was going to be be a kidnapping story, it would have seemed like a no-brainer to me: Leslie holding Nicole hostage after Ted continued to reject her.

That would have been way more compelling than the Allison business, not to mention the kind of material you should save for the most seasoned actresses who have proven experience with heavy material. Similarly, the plasma nonsense is a contrived but also redundant excuse for much of the same drama that they could have gotten organically by bringing the "Kill Bill" story to its logical conclusion. The plasma business also has the side effect of isolating some of the less experienced cast members and/or newcomers to the show, with only each other to play off.

And now we have not one but two dynamic but irredeemable villains played by breakout actresses whom this show essentially discovered. That is a remarkable problem for a daytime soap in 2026(!) to have, but also a shame because they're just spinning their wheels.

Again, I hate to complain so much when I started this with well-earned praise for Anita and TT. That is the only reason I caught up on the show and board in time to post this. I definitely agree that Michele Val Jean is indispensable to the show, and any suggestion otherwise is in bad faith - not to mention ridiculous.

Edited 32 minutes ago32 min by DeliaIrisFan

@DeliaIrisFan Excellent post. Leslie should have had some comeuppance by now and plans should have been laid that gave her an exit strategy to keep her on the canvas.

Same with Hayley and the poisoning plot that went nowhere. There needed to be some resolution ,again with a twist that kept Hayley around.

Interesting to see where those characters go this year.

1 hour ago, ReddFoxx said:

Beyond The Gates gives very much 60-70s soap at times.

I'd agree, except soaps in the '60's and '70's went far deeper into characters' psychologies than BTG or other soaps do today. Some (like @GLATWT88 ) blame that on how we've been conditioned as TV watchers over the decades. I blame it on the fact that not enough of today's writers actually read books or see plays. What they know, they know from watching television.

Seriously asking... How does a play give you a deeper dive into a character's psyche than a soap opera?