Re: Y&R Tuesday's Show

MarkH <MarkH_sliprwet@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We are in total agreement here. There is a rumor that the new Colleen
had a Sony contract, and it was "play or pay". So, they may just have
slotted her, for not a very good reason except corporate mandate.

**IF** that's true, they could have had her play Heather or any of LML's
many, many other NEW characters; instead, they fire an established and
accepted actress and recast to put this actress to work? Ever hear the
term "penny wise, pound foolish"?

If you look at the bevy of new females (Colleen, Heather, Logan) it
seems clear to me that we're in the same situation as when nu-Victoria
and nu-Mac were cast a few years ago...they tested a bunch of young
actresses, liked a bunch, and decided to make room for more than one
(even if the story didn't really need it). I don't think that serves th
show AT ALL.

How does it make sense to fire one actress to create a slot to insert a
play-or-pay actress if they then also hire three more *in addition* to
the POP actress? That shoots holes in the rumor that it was a money
decision. "Budget considerations" has always been an easily shot down,
generic blanket excuse when you look at other decisions that clearly
spend more of the "budget" than necessary or warranted.

The death was used to launch Nick on a whole new arc
("Rip van Winkle"), and I'm totally loving that part of the
story. Many have decried amnesia stories as cliche, but
I consider this version to be an interesting wrinkle.

"whole new arc"? How is going back over his prior life with much
emphasis on Cassie "a whole new arc"? It's a replay of story, and
already, some viewers are sick of hearing about CassieCassieCassie and
justifiably expressing the sentiment that if Cassie was so great that
they were going to rehash her story ad nauseam, why kill her off? It is
realistic IRL to continue to remember and talk about a deceased loved
one, but on a soap, the rehash of the same topic over and over gets old,
as does the soap opera amnesia patient who takes MONTHS to remember.

Yes, Nick is seeing it "for the first time" because he doesn't remember
(but we do), and his reaction to some of it this second time is
different. I could have given LML the benefit of the doubt about the
story if she hadn't already demonstrated that taking old-regime material
and replaying *her own way* is how she rewrites prior history. That's
not "mining" history or building on it, it's rewriting it! Show your
chops, pick a bit of history and BUILD on it, write something NEW about
it ... don't just pick something and write a contrived premise that
allows you to CHANGE it. That's lame and lazy, IMO.

I hated the old ruthless Victor. The "softened" Victor was one of the
few good things the new regime did, and I had actually begun to enjoy
his scenes and LIKE the character. Now he's back to acting like a rude,
egotistical, self-righteous jerk -- IOW, he's back to HIMSELF! -- and
I'm back to feeling like he needs to disappear into the background.

Amen! I find Victor compelling when he's in cold/angry mode...but I
found him MORE compelling when he surprised us with his gentleness.
I'll miss that side a lot...but we'll always have the Summer of 06 to
remember :-). Audiences, critics, and I think ultimately even the
actor, reported that they didn't like/tired of gentle Victor. (i.e,
this was viewed as a character assassination). I never saw it that way...

EB's self-serving ideas and suggestions about how Victor should be
written were/are often NOT an accurate reflection of viewer perceptions.
Just because HE tired of playing gentle Victor doesn't mean a thing to
me, as a viewer.

Many actors/actresses have said that they'd much rather play evil than
good, and that playing good *effectively* is more difficult and not as
much fun. That doesn't mean that audiences prefer to see all evil -- the
extra effort to play "good" effectively is vital and necessary to make
the evil equally effective.

That said, sure, if you take ANY element too far or drag it out too
long, viewers will grow tired of it (see above re Cassie). The paper
doll type stuff was over-used, but Victor having/showing a softer side
made him MUCH more real, human, and likeable ... gave us a reason to
care about him. I was usually on *Jack's* side of that rivalry, until we
saw Victor so vulnerable and saw Jack swoop in like a vulture -- that
was total role reversal, and I cared about Victor for the first time in
a LONG time. Go figure! But now he's back to being the egotistical jerk
he always was, and I couldn't care less again.

And where is Zapato? Having a dog/pet added a real element. Where is he
now? With all Noan is going through, one would expect his bond with
Zapato would be important right now, as it would be IRL. In fact,
Zapato, Victor and Nikki have been more consistent in Noah's life over
the past 2-3 years than his parent situation and home life.

<sigh> Isn't it about time these two BOTH find *a little* romantic
happiness? The last thing I'm interested in seeing is yet another story
of unrequited love for either Paul or Jill. For God sake, either let
them find some happiness or have them quit trying...it's just SO
predictable.

Totally right. Jill and Paul (among the current on-contract vets) have
been SHAMEFULLY neglected. If the current stories don't heat up for
them, I think it would be merciful to all of us to drop them.

Jill has almost always been her own worst enemy in relationships. She,
like Victor, is another example, even with the prior regime, of
long-tenured characters that don't learn from their mistakes.

I appreciate that Jill and Paul have not *always* had to be in
relationships to be part of the show ... that too is real, as people can
and do go through stretches of life alone (without a partner). But these
*are* two attractive, interesting people, with knowledge and experience
from a few decades of life experiences ... let us SEE them have some
happiness, and leave most of the on-again/off-again romantic trials to
younger characters who more realistically and more frequently go through
experiences.

Wise and savvy [for Kay] is fine, but what I really wish is that
they'd give her back a situation like she had with Rex. It was
great to see her in a happy relationship with someone who
really loved her, and vice versa.

Oh yes! I'll go further: Even the Rex relationship started in
deception (Jill hired homeless Mr. Romalotti to MASQUERADE as
Rex Sterling, a name she made up). But Quinn Redeker and
Jeanne Cooper sold the ultimate truth of their relationship
with their sparkling chemistry.

*nods* ... a message that good can result, even from something that
began somewhat shadily.

I'd like to see Kay in a real, sincere romance...no lying, cheating.

Thank you! Me, too!

BUT, reality check: With CBS Daytime's desperate grab for the young
eyeballs, and their misguided sense that mature romance is a turnoff for
young viewers, we'll never see it. Never!

Agreed. And what a "misguided sense" that is!

I remember watching GH as a teenager before Laura, Scottie, Amy and Luke
were featured. It was mostly focused on Dr. Hardy, Audrey, Lucille
Weeks, and Jessie Brewer -- these were older, realistic (not
model-perfect) characters, who were VERY likeable and compelling to my
young eyeballs. If anyone remembers the touching story of Lucille and Al
weeks, it was a good solid testament to the fact that a story doesn't
have to have young, beautiful characters to be very moving/compelling.
And the *sisters*, Audrey and Lucille, were protective of one another,
annoyed with one another, had that close bond, and didn't need an evil
component (ala the Baldwin/Fisher brothers) to make them interesting.

Thinking back, even though soaps during that era also had villains, they
weren't all based on evil-doing, scheming backstabbers ... they were
balanced out well with good, decent, genuine characters who made
mistakes but were not always out to stick it to someone in every other
scene. And they were just as compelling, if not moreso without evil
underlying every story.

I think Diamont is finding his way with the
shadings of the character, and his consistently restrained
emoting means that there will always be an ambiguity to
this character (as there has been since the 80s).

I agree with that.
I hadn't interpreted his "restrained emoting" with ambiguity ... I
accepted that he was a good, decent, albeit flawed (realistic) guy
during the majority of the prior two decades because we had no real
evidence or reason to think otherwise (one scene in a diner 20 years ago
didn't cast a shadow over the following 20 years for me). But now that
he has this ridiculously twisted past, I agree that his way of emoting
can be viewed with ambiguity.

Agreed. I really wanted to see a realistic re-emergence of her
substance abuse...played over a long arc. And I may be the only one who
wishes this was BOBBY MARSINO and not David Chow she was playing with.
THAT is a story I could believe and get behind, because it would sort of
represent her internal conflict between her past and her present, and
between an age peer and, ahem, her senior husband. I think Eric Braeden
will not allow a VIABLE romantic competitor for Nikki, though. He'll
bitch so much, it would be uncomfortable on the set.

I don't have any desire to see Nikki with a romantic competitor, so I'd
have to agree with EB about that, though not for the same reason he
would object.

I don't have any desire to see Nikki as a workaholic businesswoman with
no business background, either. I'd like her to be the likeable but
troubled, long suffering wife and mother of her clan--a group of people
who certainly all need the love and support of a strong matriarch. I do
not want her to go back to being the weak, spineless door mat she had
been ... it's still good to see her stand up to Victor when he oversteps
and disrespects her, but this rude, cold, almost heartless and
driven-in-business Nikki has zero appeal to me, is completely out of
character, and IMO, it isn't the direction most women go at that age and
time in life.

I'm predicting Eric and Melody won't be around much longer. The reason
Joshua Morrow took so long to re-sign is he took a major pay cut.
(Previously, when Lauren Woodland, Melody Thomas, Sharon Case, Eric
Braeden, etc. all walked off during contract disputes they finally came
back getting more or less what they wanted. This did NOT happen for
Morrow...and I think the 5-year contract was an alternative approach to
trying to grant him some security. Scott and Braeden WILL NOT take the
pay cuts. They don't need the jobs any more. So I predict they'll both
be gone at the end of their next cycles).

And with the recent deal with Ed Scott, it would not surprise me if MTS
says sayonara too. There ya go, LML ... there's your chance to play yet
another splashy, dramatic death of a veteran character, your specialty!
Wonder if Nikki would posthumously get as much "replay" time as Cassie?!

We don't know if Braeden needs the job $-wise (who knows what shape his
finances are in), but *ego*-wise, despite his success on Y&R, he's not
exactly in huge demand, and I'm not sure any other part would feed his
ego the way playing Victor does.

Michael, Kevin, Will ... very good acting.
Just not that captivated by either story.

I feel that a bit too. EXCEPT, the acting and dialogue win me over.
I actually started to FEEL for Kevin, Michael, Gloria and Will again!
That's my barometer of an upswing.

Not mine--great acting has saved weak story frequently over the last
couple of years, so an excellently acted scene is no longer a barometer
of show upswing for me. Now, when I see something that compels me, I am
constantly asking myself if it was truly well-written story or if it was
just excellent acting of a weak, contrived premise.

I honestly feel that maybe Peter Bergman is next at risk. Colleen
really is a peripheral character in the Abbott orbit...so Jack is all
that keeps that family alive. With Jack now (realistically) spending
the majority of his time in Madison, and with the compelling
Sharon-Nick-Phyllis triangle, and with Bergman's older demographic and
hefty paycheck...I fear that Sony has him in the crosshairs.

Sadly, ITA.
I fear this regime is sadly not seeing the forest for the trees anymore.
They've been rewarded with a best show Emmy, too, so they have no reason
to second guess themselves or to consider valid criticisms.

That's sad, because when Bergman is given good stuff, he is consistently
the BEST performer on Y&R, better even than the showier Leblanc.

They are apples and oranges to me ... I think they're both wonderful and
couldn't say one is better than the other. Different style, different
characters, but both very skilled and effective.

Shirl
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Arthur Laurents and Women
    ... > characters are the gay ones. ... > I remember an article of this nature about Albee and his play EVERYTHING ... noted by Victor, messed-up characters are the stuff of drama. ... they represent a simple dislikable / nutty choice. ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: Y&R Well, That Was Cold
    ... play that", some people get incensed. ... It's a matter of opinion that Victor "is still compelling". ... IMO; and It's the writers' ... characters were being destroyed, that might have had some effect. ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs)
  • Re: No sound
    ... How long is the full path to the music files that don't play. ... characters, that could be the reason they don't play. ...
    (microsoft.public.powerpoint)
  • Re: Civ Rev -sell it to me (baby)
    ... building cities, etc., then waking up first thing next morning to play ... I never got into WOW for mainly this reason. ... characters - from early on it's explained what the point of the game is, ...
    (uk.games.video.misc)
  • Re: [4e] RE: Design and Development - The Zombie
    ... D&D characters, beyond a certain level, are ... Out of 12 or so people, we have 4 groups: those who play ... Resource management and the ability to exaust your mojo, ... In comparing, say, a Warblade ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)