3 minutes ago, Gatecrashers said:

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

There was a time when I might've said, "It doesn't." But the writing on TV and in movies has grown very shallow these past 2-3 decades. They've mistaken ponderousness for complexity. Heck, even a lot of plays written and produced aren't as complex as ones by, say, Edward Albee, or Sam Shepard. It's as if these people are afraid of challenging audiences, because, if they do, their brains will implode or something, lol.

50 minutes ago, Khan said:

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.

I can't really speak to that as I personally don't know any TV writers, soap or otherwise. However, from the creative output that continues to come out and flourish in other mediums, I would say that creativity is still pretty high. Soaps seem to have stagnated long ago for a number of reasons I am not going to outline here now.

I want to preface this next part by saying that I thank MVJ for putting a new soap on our screens, in particular on network TV in this century. If you had ask me even a few years ago, before the announcement of BTG, I would have told you with certainty that a new soap would never see the light of day on network TV ever nor would a soap in a traditional format ever see life on streaming either. She has done something unprecedented in many ways. Furthermore, I do not think MVJ should be kicked off her show or be let go of or whatever the conversation was in previous pages. I honestly don't even know what that whole conversation was about since I am usually catching up these days and tend to skim many comments so don't always get the full picture.

Now, I do think MVJ is an artist that may be too close to her art. Hence, why we have characters that probably should have been let go for lack of craft (AA), other characters that seem to have gone "safe" when they were originally presented with more of an edge, and then others that seem to face no consequence at all. I think AA is self-explanatory. As for character being safe, Bill is one that comes to mind. At first, Bill was painted a lot more ruthless. He was actually quite vicious with making Dani and the Duprees attend his wedding - even the way he went about it was vindicative and dark. Now, he is a whole big teddy bear who is easily duped by his barbie wife. We hardly seen him question her off behavior and while I do think we are headed that way, it would have been nice to see it build over time. Then, we have characters like Leslie who roam around interacting with everyone like they don't already believe she tried to kill Laura. Leslie should have gone away for some time by now and this coming from one who thinks TMG is brilliant, but her having no redemption yet and just going around town acting crazy is wearing thin. She is also all over the place. One day she seems like a vindictive lunatic and the next she is running around begging people for favors.

I can see how venturing on this new and exciting thing can make everyone feel like family. These people have all created a bond, but its business not personal and sometimes you have to let people go and wish them the best elsewhere...looking at AA.

Edited 15 hours ago15 hr by GLATWT88

The big reveal after Laura was run off the road (in a location shoot) was Leslie taking off the helmet.

A great set up/hook - but Laura was a minor character that we were never allowed to be invested in and today we still have Leslie swanning around.

It was bait/switch. We should have seen Laura struggling to recover and having memory flashes of the culprit.

Finally Laura remembering that it was Leslie through some slip up on Leslie's part and just as she is to reveal the truth she collapses and when she regains consciousness her memories have gone and Leslie get a reprieve ...for now.

4 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

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.

Seems like the writers wanted to move Eva forward while keeping Kat as being unable to let go. That aside, Alegria's acting is so weak that he was being carried by Michelle and Nixon in that storyline which long term is not sustainable.

3 hours ago, Gatecrashers said:

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

Mainly because one plot is the central theme and over an hour and a half to two hours with just one or two sets it means that you get more focus on the character's psyche.

3 hours ago, Khan said:

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.

I think that increased production values and expanded running times were a factor too.

6 hours ago, ranger1rg said:

e 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.

I'm sure that it's okay for me to say because you know if I'm wrong, I don't mind eating crow and also posting a post saying aloud that I'm eating crow...

I feel the fact they are taking their time with the Cotillion (le sigh a month to go), it will be more leaning to The Anniversary Party vs WinterFest where it had a build and we got a great climax.

My only worry though is that the aftermath/fallout from the anniversary party was so lackluster with SPS taking over the show and POV when the POV moving forward should have been on Nicole's pain. Not to mention that was when we had to deal with the Ted recast. I just hope the Cotillion has great fallout for the build-up.

11 hours ago, skiman12082004 said:

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

I respect your opinion and I find it interesting. However I fail to see any character driving characteristic or any character development really. Characters change their perspective and their essence quite often. Look at Hayley going back and forth between poisoning Bill and then having a child with him. Leslie goes from menacing to annoying. Derek goes from obsessive to town hero. It’s just all over the place at times. Isaiah has been all talk about his personality but we haven’t actually seen anything remarkable about him

The only characters who’ve been developed are most of the Duprees. There’s no doubt there’s been development in Dani (though she could not been sustainable as week 1 crazy Dani), Nicole (who’s probably regressed), Naomi, Lat and Martin. Chelsea has suffered some short lived PTSD but she’s back to where she was initially.

I think the show is fairly character-driven, and I agree with others that MVJ (or someone BTS, anyway) is overly preoccupied with the show not being too driven by plot or stunt action, possibly c/o her years under the Brian Frons regime at GH. She watched the Wards she helped create get wiped out there too. To say nothing of her years dealing with the Forresters on B&B.

The bigger issue is not whether a show is character-driven. It is that many of the characters who are driving daily episodes are not that interesting. Or rather, they haven't been allowed to be. They often speak in platitudes and grand pronouncements (or therapy-speak) while they always reset back to loving their family, their sister, their cousin or spouse or whoever they're with. Eva and Izaiah should be hot, heavy and volatile but they are played like Kristy dating a boy in The Babysitters Club. Jacob and Naomi should be beyond crashing out by now but she vacillates between whining about him and pining for him depending on the day while homeboy is wandering these brick-walled streets looking like Lobot from Empire Strikes Back and telling everyone he is not undercover!

(Lobot a.k.a. Jacob)

I think the show has good bones, many good actors and a lot of raw potential. I agree with @DeliaIrisFan that a lot of the expository, etc. dialogue has been a huge issue from Day 1; it would be one thing if we were getting the long, involved almost one-act play scenes Claire Labine's team used to write with MVJ and co. at GH in the '90s, but nothing here is on par with that, even the better dialogued scenes (which do exist, there's just not enough of them).

I think there's also a very real (and valid) concern about what images they're presenting with the characters with a predominantly Black and Black-led soap, and that may be part of the stumbling blocks in story so far. But on the other end of the spectrum I definitely don't think there is any answer to be found in getting rid of TMG or Leslie lol, one of the few plot activators on the show. The new segment of the audience unused to watching annual year-round soaps will get over living with a regular villain. But I do think it is past time she paid for Laura, and I think someone needs to allow many of the rest of these characters to stop being purely sacrosanct or at times idealized, and let them start getting much messier and much more flawed.

And for Christ's sake, end the Hayley story. This should've reached a climax two months ago. Enough.

Edited 11 hours ago11 hr by Vee

Lol. Not the Babysitters Club!!

19 hours ago, skiman12082004 said:

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

I completely agree, and it's so refreshing.

I remember in the first few months, there were some complaints on some the forums about how fast paced the show and not allowing the plot twists and revelations to play out before going to the next plot twist/revelation. So I think one of the adjustments the show probably made was to slow the pace down a bit and allow character moments to shine through.

There are strong scenes and I like that the show isn't afraid to mix up characters and have them interact with different scene partners. I think it's a lot of telling and showing... and almost like they're afraid to have the Duprees have any sort of conflict and exploration.

I often said that Naomi and Chelsea are the way they are due to having Bill/Dani as parents. To me, I think Naomi preferred to be around Bill because he was more decisive and less prone to fly off the handle.. and she ended up becoming the more mature one in the family and had to be the parent to her parents (there were a few remarks Naomi made to Dani when she was melting down saying she wasn't going through this again) while Chelsea was sheltered and made to have the career that Dani regretted giving up for marriage/love.. and Bill's cheating caused Dani to operate on high octane and she poured that energy out to Chelsea.. and I think that was why Chelsea had a harder time forgiving her father because deep down, she blamed him for subjecting her to her mother's more explosive tendencies.

I think if the show really delved into it, it would give Dani a great story about how her stunted maturity had an adverse effect on her daughters in different ways. The show has sort of done this with Bill to a degree.. but the shows seems almost afraid to really go there with Dani.

And with Kat and Martin, they seemed to have had a more stable upbringing and I'm sure Kat being a miracle baby made Ted/Nicole dote on her and Kat would understandably be a bit more entitled and spoiled.. while Martin also had some of that upbringing once Kat was born. He came off very snooty especially the way he used to talk down to Smitty.

I understand where MVJ is going with the show, but I think she operates more on how soaps used to be (where viewers could analyze the motivations for themselves without a lot of exposition).. but a lot of viewers nowadays need to be constantly told why people are they way they are.

I see it the opposite way. I think a big problem with the show is its constantly telling people why the characters are the way they are or why they do what they do. The dialogue is often heavily expositional or leans towards grand pronouncements about who this person is (often with full names!), why they feel this way, etc. That's just not interesting to me.

12 hours ago, ReddFoxx said:

I think that increased production values and expanded running times were a factor too.

Good point!

And I agree with pretty much everything @Vee has said in his last two posts.

I agree with Vee, too. The exposition is especially bad with the Duprees and all the "We are the Duprees and the Duprees always rise above and shine" stuff.

It's leaden dialogue that's eye-rolling. I want to like and love this family, not think about how sanctimonious they are.

Also, we need more friction and conflict among the Duprees and their relatives. For a soap, they all get along much too well.

Dani? Much calmer and reasonable than early on. Kat? I appreciate her not (unfairly) being the black sheep, but now she's calmer and reasonable. Martin? The political worries aren't there. Bill? Brought back in to the family to do the estate planning. Andre? No mention of what he's been hiding for months. Smitty? Sorry, but I don't feel as if he's in any danger.

With so many characters being Duprees or Dupree-adjacent, we need more drama within that group. Naomi hiding that she carries the BRCA gene ain't it, and neither is Chelsea getting married in a year.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by ranger1rg

9 hours ago, Vee said:

I think the show is fairly character-driven, and I agree with others that MVJ (or someone BTS, anyway) is overly preoccupied with the show not being too driven by plot or stunt action, possibly c/o her years under the Brian Frons regime at GH. She watched the Wards she helped create get wiped out there too. To say nothing of her years dealing with the Forresters on B&B.

The bigger issue is not whether a show is character-driven. It is that many of the characters who are driving daily episodes are not that interesting. Or rather, they haven't been allowed to be. They often speak in platitudes and grand pronouncements (or therapy-speak) while they always reset back to loving their family, their sister, their cousin or spouse or whoever they're with. Eva and Izaiah should be hot, heavy and volatile but they are played like Kristy dating a boy in The Babysitters Club. Jacob and Naomi should be beyond crashing out by now but she vacillates between whining about him and pining for him depending on the day while homeboy is wandering these brick-walled streets looking like Lobot from Empire Strikes Back and telling everyone he is not undercover!

(Lobot a.k.a. Jacob)

I think the show has good bones, many good actors and a lot of raw potential. I agree with @DeliaIrisFan that a lot of the expository, etc. dialogue has been a huge issue from Day 1; it would be one thing if we were getting the long, involved almost one-act play scenes Claire Labine's team used to write with MVJ and co. at GH in the '90s, but nothing here is on par with that, even the better dialogued scenes (which do exist, there's just not enough of them).

I think there's also a very real (and valid) concern about what images they're presenting with the characters with a predominantly Black and Black-led soap, and that may be part of the stumbling blocks in story so far. But on the other end of the spectrum I definitely don't think there is any answer to be found in getting rid of TMG or Leslie lol, one of the few plot activators on the show. The new segment of the audience unused to watching annual year-round soaps will get over living with a regular villain. But I do think it is past time she paid for Laura, and I think someone needs to allow many of the rest of these characters to stop being purely sacrosanct or at times idealized, and let them start getting much messier and much more flawed.

And for Christ's sake, end the Hayley story. This should've reached a climax two months ago. Enough.

Calling Leslie/Dana or even Hayley irredeemable was a poor choice of words on my part, especially because I didn't mean it from a moral standpoint. I'm certainly not saying the characters need to die or go to prison in order for their stories to reach a conclusion that would satisfy me. What I meant was that anyone who is capable of doing what they've already done, especially in such cold and calculating ways, is not going to stop. If anything, they would further escalate, and they're both so self-destructive in different ways that they eventually they would trip up. My issue is that the show seems to be trying to delay and/or prevent that by reducing them to this broad/bumbling "comic relief" material, but in the process we're being deprived of actual story payoff.

It sounds like we're in agreement about Hayley, so I'll limit this to Leslie/Dana. I think there is more pathos there, and certainly more emotional reasons for why she does what she does that we could explore for at least a year or two (certainly for however long soap contracts are now). I'm not sure of the logistics but I could also see her coming and going on a recurring basis like a James Stenbeck or Carl Hutchins, especially now that she has the resources to fake her death, etc.

To play devil's advocate, I could even argue that maybe there is an aspect to her character where she would draw the line at going after someone like Laura, whom she looks down upon, while she might tread more lightly with someone like Nicole or Anita out of self-preservation. And that could realistically extend her shelf life as a main cast member. But I'm not seeing that in how the character is written now - from my perspective, she's gone from dangerous to annoying for no reason other than so we can avoid dealing with the amazing drama the stage was all set for.

I wonder if TPTB's valid concern that you lifted about how Black characters are presented may also be related to to this. I meant what I said about crediting BTG with creating breakout roles for both these actresses. BITD the (almost exclusively white) up and coming performers who burst onto the soap scene as memorable villains could go out in an on-screen blaze of glory and try their luck at primetime or movies, and worst case probably resurface on one of the 10-15 other soaps. I'm not saying either MG or TMG could not go on to even greater success, or that anyone at the show thinks that. Far from it. I'm just recognizing that, especially because of what BTG represents, if a beloved cast member whose career the show helped launch/rejuvenate was written out for story reasons and subsequently got treated badly by the industry, that would really suck. There is no easy way around that, and I also hope this didn't come out wrong...