Y&R As much as I dislike LML
Patricia Wadley
we should be bitching about, but Sony.
THEY hired LML. She didn't just waltz in on her
own and decide to be head writer or producer or
whatever. She was actually HIRED by Sony. They
are responsible and they will get a "pass."
They waited until Bill Bell was dead and then they
took an axe and committed mass mayhem. And it
wasn't just Y&R who suffered, but other shows,
too. I understand that DOOL also had a bad
experience.
Both movies and tv used to be run by people who
knew what the hell they were doing. Now it is all
MBA's and the Suits. And they don't have a damned
clue.
Movies are pathetic. They are either cartoons,
literally or they are violence drenched
obscenities that are not worth watching.
Horror movies used to be movies that would scare
you, not nauseate you.
Love movies were gentle and wonderful, there was
no nudity, no slimy lovemaking, there was class
and dignity and beauty.
People talk about reality in movies. I do NOT go
to the movies for reality. I live in reality. I
want fantasy. I want beauty. I want another
world, different from mine, where I can get lost
for a couple of hours. I do NOT want a place I
cannot wait to get out of.
Movies had characters who dealt with things that
most of us never have to deal with. And they
dealt with them in a manner that was both
interesting and intriguing.
We no longer have movies like "The Letter", "Mr.
Skeffington", "Double Indemnity", The Thin Man
Series, "The Big Sleep", "Now Voyager",
"Casablanca" and a million other really wonderful,
interesting and good films. Now we have films
that consider copious bloodletting to be the apex
of film making. And sequels, and I am not talking
about films that have the same characters in new
"adventures" such as the Indy movies. I am
talking about movies that change location and
still use the same old script. The Thin Man
series was just that, a series. Indiana Jones is
a series, not a repeat. But Alien, as much as I
loved the first and second film, became nothing
more than a money driven sequel with little to
recommend it other than the "idea." Which had
been mined to the nth degree and then used again.
And again.
There is so little original thought in Hollywood
today, that movies that are successful are
reproduced until the audience becomes sick of them.
The only time we have original movies is when
independents create a film. The best of these, of
course, is George Lucas and Spielberg. There are
others, but they are few and far between.
What happened? The breakup of the contract system
and the entree of non creative people into the
production of entertainment in films AND tv.
We no longer have films made from books, except
for those few indies. We no longer have creative
people writing and producing, we now have "suits."
Who wouldn't know a film from a piece of plastic.
Once you had "bottom" line people in charge, there
was nothing BUT the bottom line. Cheaper became
better and it shows. Blood sells in the male 14
to 31 age group, then let's add bunches and
bunches of blood to all films. Sex sells, well
then, sleaze it up. "Gritty realism" wins awards,
then make it gritty enough to grow cockroaches in
the theater.
Creativity has become an unknown word in Hollywood.
We used to have really interesting films, and even
a few years ago we had them. People films, films
about things that matter. Remember "Steel
Magnolias?" I love that film. And once in a
while we get a film that is so over the top, so
classically scenery chewing that it is an absolute
hoot such as "Knights" or "Rhinestone Cowboy" and
sometimes we get a film that is an absolute joy to
watch such as "Greek Wedding" or a few others.
And sometimes we get a film that is thrilling,
though totally exhausting, like "300" but those
films are exceptions, not the rule.
Think about who made the Star Wars, Saving Private
Ryan, Schindler's List, the Godfather series,
Indiana Jones, Steel Magnolias, My Greek Wedding,
and Pretty Woman, to name a few. How many of
those were actually made by the big film
production companies and how many were made by
independents.
But for the most part, the films are boring and
tedious and bloody and same old, same old.
Sorry, I have a real problem with Sony controlling
the entertainment industry here.
And I haven't even begun to say anything about
what they have done to the news divisions on the
National Networks.
my2cents
p
Diva
Patricia Wadley wrote:
> I would like to point out that it isn't LML whom
> Both movies and tv used to be run by people who
> knew what the hell they were doing.
Really, like Louis B. Mayer and the other "paternal" moguls who
controlled destroyed the lives of contract players like Judy Garland?
>
> Movies are pathetic. They are either cartoons,
> literally or they are violence drenched
> obscenities that are not worth watching.
>
> Horror movies used to be movies that would scare
> you, not nauseate you.
>
> Love movies were gentle and wonderful, there was
> no nudity, no slimy lovemaking, there was class
> and dignity and beauty.
Yeh nothing so lovely as making love while wearing a full suit of
clothes. That's how real people do it.
And painted the false picture that boy meets girl and they live
happily ever after. Good girl reforms bad boy and they live happily
ever after. Sexy, sultry, chain smoking women with throaty voices that
are unattainable actually are wronged souls with hearts of gold?
That bank robbers in the Wild West were nice to their grannies and
pets and great when it came to playing harmonicas and guitars?
>
> People talk about reality in movies. I do NOT go
> to the movies for reality. I live in reality. I
> want fantasy. I want beauty. I want another
> world, different from mine, where I can get lost
> for a couple of hours. I do NOT want a place I
> cannot wait to get out of.
Try "The Enchanted Dream," "P.S. I Love You," "Definitely Maybe,"
Check out James Bernadelli's top 100. Mostly heavy stuff and he is
including classics.
>
> Movies had characters who dealt with things that
> most of us never have to deal with. And they
> dealt with them in a manner that was both
> interesting and intriguing.
Like we don't deal with AIDS, pregnancy, war, homelessness, divorce,
drugs, crime? Perhaps you can seek refuge in fin de siecle Vienna with
Deanna Durbin and Cuddles Zakell or come u here to Toronto for the
ghosts of Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy.
>
> We no longer have movies like "The Letter", "Mr.
> Skeffington", "Double Indemnity", The Thin Man
> Series, "The Big Sleep", "Now Voyager",
> "Casablanca" and a million other really wonderful,
> interesting and good films. Now we have films
> that consider copious bloodletting to be the apex
> of film making.
Yes, "There Will Be Blood!"
And sequels, and I am not talking
> about films that have the same characters in new
> "adventures" such as the Indy movies. I am
> talking about movies that change location and
> still use the same old script. The Thin Man
> series was just that, a series.
And "Sex and the City" more chopped liver? I can't wait until May when
the movie launches.
Indiana Jones is
> a series, not a repeat. But Alien, as much as I
> loved the first and second film, became nothing
> more than a money driven sequel with little to
> recommend it other than the "idea." Which had
> been mined to the nth degree and then used again.
> And again.
>
> There is so little original thought in Hollywood
> today, that movies that are successful are
> reproduced until the audience becomes sick of them.Hollywood is scrambling to supply a bottomless need for product more for home consumption than for theaters and the strike has dried things up more.
There are only seven basic movie themes:
http://jeriwesterson.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/03/seven_basic_plo.html
How about the fact that everyone in the Golden Oldies blows smoke,
real smoke,
>
> The only time we have original movies is when
> independents create a film. The best of these, of
> course, is George Lucas and Spielberg. There are
> others, but they are few and far between.
Are the Coen Bothers more chopped liver?
>
> What happened? The breakup of the contract system
> and the entree of non creative people into the
> production of entertainment in films AND tv.
The contract system ruined the lives of many stars in the past.
>
> We no longer have films made from books, except
> for those few indies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_based_on_books
Beg your pardon. What is "Atonement," another course of chopped
liver?
We no longer have creative
> people writing and producing, we now have "suits."
> Who wouldn't know a film from a piece of plastic.
My late Uncle Louis Arthur Chesler purchased Seven Arts Films. This
guy was the ultimate suit.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,892461,00.html
>
> Once you had "bottom" line people in charge, there
> was nothing BUT the bottom line. Cheaper became
> better and it shows. Blood sells in the male 14
> to 31 age group, then let's add bunches and
> bunches of blood to all films. Sex sells, well
> then, sleaze it up. "Gritty realism" wins awards,
> then make it gritty enough to grow cockroaches in
> the theater.
>
> Creativity has become an unknown word in Hollywood.
The very films you eschew like "No Country for Old Men" is 100% blood
and gore and is both creative and original.
>
> We used to have really interesting films, and even
> a few years ago we had them. People films, films
> about things that matter. Remember "Steel
> Magnolias?" I love that film.
Given a choice between Steel Magnolias accompanied by a box of
tissues, and baby cereal with no milk or sugar, I would prefer the
bowl of Pablum
>And once in a
> while we get a film that is so over the top, so
> classically scenery chewing that it is an absolute
> hoot such as "Knights" or "Rhinestone Cowboy" and
> sometimes we get a film that is an absolute joy to
> watch such as "Greek Wedding" or a few others.
> And sometimes we get a film that is thrilling,
> though totally exhausting, like "300" but those
> films are exceptions, not the rule.
>
> Think about who made the Star Wars, Saving Private
> Ryan, Schindler's List, the Godfather series,
> Indiana Jones, Steel Magnolias, My Greek Wedding,
> and Pretty Woman, to name a few. How many of
> those were actually made by the big film
> production companies and how many were made by
> independents.
"Pretty Woman" was one of those home runs that can be watched over and
over. But it hardly reeks of innocence. people who romance hookers and
Nannies tend to get busted IRL like Hugh Grant and Jude Law.
>
> But for the most part, the films are boring and
> tedious and bloody and same old, same old.
"Juno" wasn't same old, same old.
>
> Sorry, I have a real problem with Sony controlling
> the entertainment industry here.
>
> And I haven't even begun to say anything about
> what they have done to the news divisions on the
> National Networks.
Now on this one I am with you 100%. My finger is sore from surfing the
sad assortment of channels my Sony remote can access.
>
> my2cents
My Loonie
Diva
> p
Shirl
> I would like to point out that it isn't LML whom
> we should be bitching about, but Sony.
>
> THEY hired LML. She didn't just waltz in on her
> own and decide to be head writer or producer or
> whatever. She was actually HIRED by Sony. They
> are responsible and they will get a "pass."
Excuse me, but there's PLENTY of reason to bitch about LML. Who hired
her aside, the biggest merit in what she wrote was that it was a great
illustration of how NOT to write a soap opera, and the road SHE chose to
drive Y&R *down* couldn't have been more obviously disastrous, but she
continued down that path even after blatant evidence that it wasn't
working.
As for bitching at Sony, they played a part, but they didn't do it
alone. They had help from the Head of Daytime in what ended up being
another perfect example -- of the tenet about not mixing business with
pleasure.
> Love movies were gentle and wonderful, there was
> no nudity, no slimy lovemaking, there was class
> and dignity and beauty.
Nudity alone, or the lack of it, doesn't make a movie good or bad,
dignified or undignified, beautiful or ugly. And I don't find lovemaking
"slimy" -- I don't have to see it in a movie to enjoy or be engaged in
the movie, but if it's done well, I see nothing wrong with including it.
Ditto for nudity.
> People talk about reality in movies. I do NOT go to the
> movies for reality. I live in reality. I want fantasy. I want
> beauty. I want another world, different from mine, where
> I can get lost for a couple of hours. I do NOT want a place
> I cannot wait to get out of.
Okay, but you and others who want more fantasy aren't the only viewers.
Some of us DO want a certain degree of reality in our entertainment. I
don't want to be in a place I cannot wait to get out of either -- that's
why I have HATED how LML turned the Y&R hour into solid backstabbing and
bickering! ... why would anyone be hooked on tuning into a bunch of
people who can't stand each other everyday?
I *do* want enough reality that I can at least RELATE to or identify
with some of the characters. For me, if it's so much fantasy that I
can't identify with any of it, I lose interest quickly. I can watch
*some* sci-fi, but mostly I don't find it entertaining because it's just
too far removed from anything I can relate to. That doesn't mean it
isn't good sci-fi, or that there's anything wrong with sci-fi, or that
others shouldn't enjoy it ... it's just not what *I* happen to like.
I'm not sure why you're so hellbent on the movie thing -- that's a
different genre. But with soaps, part of their appeal was that it had
SOME fantasy, but it mostly was made up of characters and stories we
could relate to and identify with -- mirroring real life but in a very
exaggerated way.
> Movies had characters who dealt with things that
> most of us never have to deal with. And they
> dealt with them in a manner that was both
> interesting and intriguing.
Agreed. But for it to be interesting and intriguing even if you can't
relate to it, it at least has to be somewhat believable *or* totally
sci-fi. For example, you can't write a story about a woman with
**Nikki's** background running for the Senate and have viewers find it
interesting and intriguing when it's an absolutely LUDICROUS premise
unless you're going to turn it into sci-fi and have aliens taking over
people's bodies!
> We no longer have films made from books, except
> for those few indies. We no longer have creative
> people writing and producing, we now have "suits."
> Who wouldn't know a film from a piece of plastic.
>
> Once you had "bottom" line people in charge, there
> was nothing BUT the bottom line. Cheaper became
> better and it shows. Blood sells in the male 14
> to 31 age group, then let's add bunches and
> bunches of blood to all films. Sex sells, well
> then, sleaze it up. "Gritty realism" wins awards,
> then make it gritty enough to grow cockroaches in
> the theater.
Well, remember, there are a lot of 14 to 35 year olds that make up part
of the paying audience today. I don't know whose fault it is that they
like blood and sex, but they do, so it *does* sell. Maybe the media is
responsible for saturating their world with that. Maybe parents are
responsible because they were too busy and/or self-centered to INSIST
that they share family time instead of opting for peace and quiet when
kids have TVs and Play Stations in their own rooms. Blame whatever you
want, but the fact remains that whatever sells is what's in demand. If
you were selling phones, you'd be selling the hottest new phone with the
coolest new features, not still producing the Princess phone and
expecting it to sell the way it did in the 60s.
> But for the most part, the films are boring and
> tedious and bloody and same old, same old.
I agree with you, but in all fairness, our parents had similar
complaints about our music, and our kids can say the same thing about
some of the old, classic movies ("same old, same old"). There's no
getting around the fact that one generation often DOESN'T see,
understand or accept what another finds, or found,
entertaining/worthwhile.
> Sorry, I have a real problem with Sony controlling
> the entertainment industry here.
Sony isn't the only voice.
Shirl
Patricia Wadley
>
> And painted the false picture that boy meets girl and they live
> happily ever after. Good girl reforms bad boy and they live happily
> ever after. Sexy, sultry, chain smoking women with throaty voices that
> are unattainable actually are wronged souls with hearts of gold?
Note that I wrote that I did not think that
"reality" was entertaining. I live with reality.
I want fantasy in my movies, because I want a
break from reality. I am more than aware that a
lot of people do not live happily ever after. And
you will note that many of the movies stop with
the wedding.
I do not think that movies or tv shows about
"Women in Jep" or child abuse or animal abuse is
entertaining. It is not something that entertains
me but sickens me. Why would I want to pay to go
see that, much less watch it on tv?
So they smoked in the past. So what? They do
drugs, kill people, rape, abuse children and
commit general mayhem and this is better because
they aren't smoking while they do it? If you
believe that children are influenced by movies
that have actors smoking, then gawd help us
because, though we can be sure that our kids won't
"smoke" WHAT will they be doing? How are they
going to be treating women? How are they going to
be interacting with people?
As for "No Country for Old Men" please explain to
me why that is "entertainment?"
"Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" were
not "entertaining" but they were important films
that illustrated a period of history. Exactly how
is No Country important or illustrating a period
of history? And other than massacring a bunch of
people, what?
my2cents
p
Patricia Wadley
> Patricia Wadley <mj...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>I would like to point out that it isn't LML whom
>>we should be bitching about, but Sony.
>>
>>THEY hired LML. She didn't just waltz in on her
>>own and decide to be head writer or producer or
>>whatever. She was actually HIRED by Sony. They
>>are responsible and they will get a "pass."
>
>
> Excuse me, but there's PLENTY of reason to bitch about LML. Who hired
> her aside, the biggest merit in what she wrote was that it was a great
> illustration of how NOT to write a soap opera, and the road SHE chose to
> drive Y&R *down* couldn't have been more obviously disastrous, but she
> continued down that path even after blatant evidence that it wasn't
> working.
OH, yes, I know. And I dislike her as much as
anyone. My point is, Sony is responsible for all
the mayhem, because they brought her in and gave
her carte blanche. Now she is gone, thank
heavens, but Sony is still there, still pulling
the strings and we WILL go through this again.
Sony can bring in another LML and there is nothing
we can do EXCEPT suffer through it. There was not
one GOOd thing that happened on the show that LML
was responsible for. She AND SONY are totally
responsible for all the crap and horror that has
been inflicted on the show and the characters.
>
> As for bitching at Sony, they played a part, but they didn't do it
> alone. They had help from the Head of Daytime in what ended up being
> another perfect example -- of the tenet about not mixing business with
> pleasure.
>
>
>>Love movies were gentle and wonderful, there was
>>no nudity, no slimy lovemaking, there was class
>>and dignity and beauty.
>
>
> Nudity alone, or the lack of it, doesn't make a movie good or bad,
> dignified or undignified, beautiful or ugly. And I don't find lovemaking
> "slimy" -- I don't have to see it in a movie to enjoy or be engaged in
> the movie, but if it's done well, I see nothing wrong with including it.
> Ditto for nudity.
>
>
It is like being a Peeping Tom. How many times
have people stared through your window while you
were making love? Would you have enjoyed it? If
this is reality, then reality says that you are a
peeping tom. If this is fantasy, then your
imagination is much more powerful than what you
will really see. In addition, you don't ever see
any "real" folks "getting it on." It is someone
with a great bod. BTW, reality does not require
the use of a "body double."
As for slimy, the lovemaking itself is not slimy.
But the after effects are. Oh, yes, they just
fall asleep, wake up and start all over again. No
brushing of teeth, no taking of showers, just
start it all up again. OR jump up and pull your
clothes on and leave. Yech. Oh, yes, that is
reality. Probably lovemaking in films is the
greatest fantasy being filmed.
>
>
> Okay, but you and others who want more fantasy aren't the only viewers.
> Some of us DO want a certain degree of reality in our entertainment. I
> don't want to be in a place I cannot wait to get out of either -- that's
> why I have HATED how LML turned the Y&R hour into solid backstabbing and
> bickering! ... why would anyone be hooked on tuning into a bunch of
> people who can't stand each other everyday?
Oh, I think you are being much too kind. LML and
SONY were out to destroy Bill Bell's vision. And
they damned near did it.
>
> I *do* want enough reality that I can at least RELATE to or identify
> with some of the characters. For me, if it's so much fantasy that I
> can't identify with any of it, I lose interest quickly.
Then how are you identifying with films like "No
Country...", "The Taxi Driver", and a hundred and
one films about "gritty, bloody, realism".
I can watch
> *some* sci-fi, but mostly I don't find it entertaining because it's just
> too far removed from anything I can relate to. That doesn't mean it
> isn't good sci-fi, or that there's anything wrong with sci-fi, or that
> others shouldn't enjoy it ... it's just not what *I* happen to like.
Liking and relating are two different things.
Just because you can "relate" to something does
not mean that you will like it. Liking something
has nothing to do with relating.
>
> I'm not sure why you're so hellbent on the movie thing -- that's a
> different genre. But with soaps, part of their appeal was that it had
> SOME fantasy, but it mostly was made up of characters and stories we
> could relate to and identify with -- mirroring real life but in a very
> exaggerated way.
That is exactly my point. Y&R IS fantasy. I
don't really KNOW any people like those people. I
don't know anyone who has the number of
catastrophes these people have on a day to day
basis. I don't know anyone who keeps on doing the
same thing over and over without learning
anything. BUT LML and Sony tried to insert
"reality" into the show, or what they thought was
reality, by having the show deal with "reality."
Nikki running for the Senate was supposed to be a
realistic turn, failed miserably. Jack and Nikki
becoming rivals and enemies was supposed to be
reality, but it, too, failed miserably. John
dying in prison, hell even being in prison, was
supposed to be real, but it failed miserably.
My point is that the soaps ARE fantasy and work
because they ARE fantasy. Trying to bring reality
into them was disastarous.
>
>
>>Movies had characters who dealt with things that
>>most of us never have to deal with. And they
>>dealt with them in a manner that was both
>>interesting and intriguing.
>
>
> Agreed. But for it to be interesting and intriguing even if you can't
> relate to it, it at least has to be somewhat believable *or* totally
> sci-fi. For example, you can't write a story about a woman with
> **Nikki's** background running for the Senate and have viewers find it
> interesting and intriguing when it's an absolutely LUDICROUS premise
> unless you're going to turn it into sci-fi and have aliens taking over
> people's bodies!
It is funny you should mention that. One of the
"best" SF movies was "Invasion of the Body
Snatchers." And it's original book was not really
about aliens taking over humans, it was "really"
about people becoming slaves, without their own
will or ability to think, to a political movement.
At that time it was communism, but it actually
meant any political movement where people give up
their identities and their beliefs and allow other
people to tell them what to think and how to
think. Yes, they used an "alien invasion" to
illustrate it, but it actually dealt with reality.
>
>
As to LML being the monster, yes she is. BUT she
wouldn't have been in a position of authority if
Sony had not hired her. She would not have been
able to make a "clean sweep" if Sony had not
allowed it. What they did to Y&R they had already
done to the movies. And the news divisions of the
network they owned.
>
>
>
> Shirl
my2cents
p
Shirl
> OH, yes, I know. And I dislike her as much as
> anyone. My point is, Sony is responsible for all
> the mayhem, because they brought her in and gave
> her carte blanche. Now she is gone, thank
> heavens, but Sony is still there, still pulling
> the strings and we WILL go through this again.
> Sony can bring in another LML and there is nothing
> we can do EXCEPT suffer through it. There was not
> one GOOd thing that happened on the show that LML
> was responsible for. She AND SONY are totally
> responsible for all the crap and horror that has
> been inflicted on the show and the characters.
Again, that's incorrect.
LML and Sony are not "totally responsible".
See below:
> > As for bitching at Sony, they played a part, but they didn't do it
> > alone. They had help from the Head of Daytime in what ended up being
> > another perfect example -- of the tenet about not mixing business with
> > pleasure.
> > Nudity alone, or the lack of it, doesn't make a movie good or bad,
> > dignified or undignified, beautiful or ugly. And I don't find lovemaking
> > "slimy" -- I don't have to see it in a movie to enjoy or be engaged in
> > the movie, but if it's done well, I see nothing wrong with including it.
> > Ditto for nudity.
> >
> It is like being a Peeping Tom. How many times
> have people stared through your window while you
> were making love? Would you have enjoyed it?
> If this is reality, then reality says that you are a
> peeping tom.
That's not anywhere near the same as lovemaking in a movie. OBVIOUSLY
most of us don't peep into other people's windows *in real life*. In
movies, we are shown various aspects of people's lives, including
varying degrees of "lovemaking" (with consideration to censorship), as
part of a story. Granted, some movies do that far more effectively and
classy than others, but the fact that some include some very well done,
steamy scenes does not make me a peeping tom for watching, or make the
movie undignified, classless or ugly.
> If this is fantasy, then your imagination is much more
> powerful than what you will really see.
And I always tip my hat when the suggestion of lovemaking in a movie can
be done so well that it conveys as much passion between two people,
through the use of the viewer's imagination, as a well done, steamy,
passionate scene that we can actually watch.
> In addition, you don't ever see
> any "real" folks "getting it on." It is someone
> with a great bod. BTW, reality does not require
> the use of a "body double."
So? Everyone can appreciate people with great bods, and steamy love
scenes *generally* are more effective that way than attempting to convey
the same passion with people who are less than fit. Don't twist that --
I'm not saying that unfit people can't be just as passionate ... I'm
just saying that most of the movie-going public doesn't WANT to watch
unfit people in near-nude, sexual situations.
> As for slimy, the lovemaking itself is not slimy.
> But the after effects are. Oh, yes, they just
> fall asleep, wake up and start all over again. No
> brushing of teeth, no taking of showers, just
> start it all up again. OR jump up and pull your
> clothes on and leave. Yech. Oh, yes, that is
> reality. Probably lovemaking in films is the
> greatest fantasy being filmed.
With due respect, you went into a rant in your last post about how you
DON'T WANT to see reality; and here the rant is BECAUSE they don't show
us reality! Which is it?
In real life, they would *probably* go clean up. But do we need that
mandatory clean-up scene EVERY time a movie has a lovemaking scene? Can
you suspend *a little* disbelief in your desire NOT to see reality so
that they don't have to SHOW YOU that they got up, went into the
bathroom and cleaned up? brushed teeth?
> >I *do* want enough reality that I can at least RELATE
> >to or identify with some of the characters. For me, if
> >it's so much fantasy that I can't identify with any of it,
> >I lose interest quickly.
>
> Then how are you identifying with films like "No
> Country...", "The Taxi Driver", and a hundred and
> one films about "gritty, bloody, realism".
I never said I am identifying with those films. And why are we talking
about films/movies anyway? I thought the rant was about LML and what she
did to Y&R. That has nothing to do with movies/films.
> >I can watch
> > *some* sci-fi, but mostly I don't find it entertaining because it's just
> > too far removed from anything I can relate to. That doesn't mean it
> > isn't good sci-fi, or that there's anything wrong with sci-fi, or that
> > others shouldn't enjoy it ... it's just not what *I* happen to like.
>
> Liking and relating are two different things.
> Just because you can "relate" to something does
> not mean that you will like it. Liking something
> has nothing to do with relating.
Maybe not for YOU, but for me it does!
When it comes to entertainment -- TV or movies -- for me, I *generally*
need to be able to relate or identify with someone or some scenario in
order to become engaged in the show. Rarely am I engaged enough to sit
through it if I can't relate to it *somehow*, or at least be able to
imagine myself in the shoes of a character. Again, that doesn't mean I
see no value in total fantasy entertainment, if that's what you like;
it's just not what engages *me*.
Point being that just because you don't want to see reality doesn't mean
that's true for all of us. And that's where the Old Methodology was more
balanced in that even if you totally HATED one story, there were usually
others from which one or two might engage you. And some characters were
despicable, but others were likeable. With LML, she did not vary the
theme of her stories -- deaths, bickering, backstabbing, untrustworthy
relationships. -- and most of the characters became unlikeable.
> That is exactly my point. Y&R IS fantasy. I
> don't really KNOW any people like those people.
Thank God! ;-)
But seriously, soaps aren't supposed to be TOTAL fantasy. In the early
days of soaps that we look back at with such affection for how hooked we
were, there WERE people we knew like some of the people on soaps. That
was part of the appeal. They're supposed to mirror real life, but
obviously in a much more intense, dramatic way, to keep us interested in
watching. Even if a person had ZERO hope of ever living at a place like
the Newman ranch or having that kind of wealth, it was still believable
ENOUGH that we could suspend disbelief a little and imagine ourselves in
her shoes, live vicariously, etc.
NOW, can you imagine being married to a guy and having him tell you his
past as the Reliquary story? Can you imagine seeing your husband kill
two men and then just forget it? Can you imagine jumping out of A JET?
Can you imagine trapsing through the sewer? Can you imagine being
careless enough to fall off a cliff? Can you imagine being locked in a
freezer inside a burning building? ...and then befriending the guy who
locked you in there? Can you imagine having been a stripper, being a
housewife all your life, and then running for the SENATE? Can you
imagine stealing someone's sperm and having yourself impregnated with
it? Is this the kind of fantasy you LIKE? cuz it sure isn't anything
most of us can *relate to*! (and yes, I realize a couple of those
stories were Old Methodology ... but at least there were other stories
at the time that were more relatable).
> I don't know anyone who has the number of
> catastrophes these people have on a day to day
> basis.
That's the "exaggerated" part of it. Soap characters have always faced
one dilemma after another.
> I don't know anyone who keeps on doing the
> same thing over and over without learning
> anything.
Agreed. This has been a gripe of mine for a long time also. It's typical
for young people to repeat their mistakes for a time, but by the time
you get to Nikki and Victor's ages, you've usually made *some* progress.
The fact that the people in their late 50s and 60s still repeat the same
mistakes of the 30 year olds makes them look like idiots. You're
supposed to have a little wisdom by the time you're Victor's age.
> BUT LML and Sony tried to insert
> "reality" into the show, or what they thought was
> reality, by having the show deal with "reality."
> Nikki running for the Senate was supposed to be a
> realistic turn, failed miserably.
Huh? Nikki running for the Senate was supposed to be "realistic"? Are
you kidding?
> Jack and Nikki becoming rivals and enemies was supposed
> to be reality, but it, too, failed miserably. John
> dying in prison, hell even being in prison, was
> supposed to be real, but it failed miserably.
I disagree. I don't think they were going for "reality" at all with any
of those stories. They were going for splashy drama, period. But I do
agree that they failed miserably.
> My point is that the soaps ARE fantasy and work
> because they ARE fantasy. Trying to bring reality
> into them was disastarous.
I totally disagree. Soaps have an element of fantasy, yes, but they were
never meant to be complete fantasy. In fact, doing away with the realism
and overdoing the fantasy was the disaster.
> It is funny you should mention that. One of the
> "best" SF movies was "Invasion of the Body
> Snatchers." And it's original book was not really
> about aliens taking over humans, it was "really"
> about people becoming slaves, without their own
> will or ability to think, to a political movement.
> At that time it was communism, but it actually
> meant any political movement where people give up
> their identities and their beliefs and allow other
> people to tell them what to think and how to
> think. Yes, they used an "alien invasion" to
> illustrate it, but it actually dealt with reality.
Invasion of the Body snatchers dealt with reality?
Wow.
> As to LML being the monster, yes she is.
Your words, not mine.
> BUT she wouldn't have been in a position of authority if
> Sony had not hired her. She would not have been
> able to make a "clean sweep" if Sony had not
> allowed it. What they did to Y&R they had already
> done to the movies. And the news divisions of the
> network they owned.
You have completely ignored a third position of power that had a major
say in hiring LML and being given the the authority she was given. Sony
isn't responsible for all of it.
Shirl
Patricia Wadley
>
> You have completely ignored a third position of power that had a major
> say in hiring LML and being given the the authority she was given. Sony
> isn't responsible for all of it.
>
> Shirl
Who, the people at CBS? But Sony owns Y&R and can
"play" with it however they want.
Are you saying that CBS hired LML? And that they
did it without Sony knowing? No that is not what
you are saying, you are saying that there was a
third group, and that must be CBS, who else would
have that much power.
Are you saying that CBS wanted to destroy its most
popular and successful soap? And that is why they
brought in LML?
Sony owns Y&R. Who fired all the good writers?
LML? Who hired LML? Sony.
This isn't over. Because they did it once and
they WILL do it again. And I am sure that CBS
thinks it will be a good thing.
my2cents
p
DonnaB shallotpeel
<Gm8tj.576$pl4...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, Patricia Wadley
<mj...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Shirl wrote:
> >
> > You have completely ignored a third position of power that had a major
> > say in hiring LML and being given the the authority she was given. Sony
> > isn't responsible for all of it.
>
> Who, the people at CBS? But Sony owns Y&R and can
> "play" with it however they want.
Sony owns half of Y&R. The Bell family Corporation owns the other half. CBS
is the network that airs it. That's 3 corporate players, if you're simply
looking at a total.
--
DonnaB shallotpeel
"This is going to hurt ... a lot."- Marlena to nurse/Stefano henchwoman Kate
Honeycutt, as Marlena gives her an injection to knock her unconscious, DAYS
MarkH
LML said she was hired by a trifecta of Sony (Steve Kent), CBS (Barbara
Bloom) and ... wait for it ... Bell Productions (Bill Bell Jr.)!
MarkH
>
> Sony owns half of Y&R. The Bell family Corporation owns the other half. CBS
> is the network that airs it. That's 3 corporate players, if you're simply
> looking at a total.
>
Indeed, I must confess that part of the reason I was willing to accept
LML so easily at the start is that she apparently had Bell support.
In retrospect, I wonder if the Bells had as much power. Lauralee left
contract status during all of this didn't she? Which made me wonder if
that was a bit of a protest move.
Shirl
> > that had a major say in hiring LML and being given the
Patricia Wadley <mj...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Who, the people at CBS? But Sony owns Y&R and can
> "play" with it however they want.
>
> Are you saying that CBS hired LML? And that they
> did it without Sony knowing? No that is not what
> you are saying, you are saying that there was a
> third group, and that must be CBS, who else would
> have that much power.
I did not say there was a third "group". What I said was:
As for bitching at Sony, they played a part, but they didn't do it
alone. They had help from the Head of Daytime in what ended up being
another perfect example -- of the tenet about not mixing business with
pleasure.
> Are you saying that CBS wanted to destroy its most
> popular and successful soap? And that is why they
> brought in LML?
No.
> Sony owns Y&R. Who fired all the good writers?
> LML? Who hired LML? Sony.
See above.
Shirl
MarkH
> Shirl:
>
> > > You have completely ignored a third position of power
> > > that had a major say in hiring LML and being given the
> > > authority she was given. Sony isn't responsible for all of it.
> > Who, the people at CBS? But Sony owns Y&R and can
> > "play" with it however they want.
>
> > Are you saying that CBS hired LML? And that they
> > did it without Sony knowing? No that is not what
> > you are saying, you are saying that there was a
> > third group, and that must be CBS, who else would
> > have that much power.
>
> I did not say there was a third "group". What I said was:
> As for bitching at Sony, they played a part, but they didn't do it
> alone. They had help from the Head of Daytime in what ended up being
> another perfect example -- of the tenet about not mixing business with
> pleasure.
>
> > Are you saying that CBS wanted to destroy its most
> > popular and successful soap? And that is why they
> > brought in LML?
>
> No.
>
> > Sony owns Y&R. Who fired all the good writers?
> > LML? Who hired LML? Sony.
>
> See above.
>
> Shirl
Hi...just out of curiosity? Is there a reason you don't formulate
this as "Parties, A, B, and C made the LML decision", and explicitly
state the A, B and C? For example, if the A, B, and C were "Sony,
CBS, and Bell Productions", is there a reason you don't say it this
explicitly?
Shirl
> Hi...just out of curiosity? Is there a reason you don't formulate
> this as "Parties, A, B, and C made the LML decision", and explicitly
> state the A, B and C? For example, if the A, B, and C were "Sony,
> CBS, and Bell Productions", is there a reason you don't say it this
> explicitly?
The mutually respected/appreciated relationship between C (Bell) and
several of the long-tenured, dedicated writers LML dismissed after
decades of loyalty is well documented. Entity A (Sony) was instrumental,
of course; but B (Bloom, specifically) played a major role also.
Shirl
Patricia Wadley
>
> The mutually respected/appreciated relationship between C (Bell) and
> several of the long-tenured, dedicated writers LML dismissed after
> decades of loyalty is well documented. Entity A (Sony) was instrumental,
> of course; but B (Bloom, specifically) played a major role also.
>
> Shirl
That is precisely what I am saying. If the Bells
owned 1/2 of the show and if they had as much
power as Sony and since Y&R is the single most
popular daytime soap why would CBS [and the Bells]
bend over backwards to bring in a producer who
doesn't have a clue as to what Y&R is about? And
why would the Bells screw with the producers and
the writers? And why would they, if they are 1/2
owners, allow it to continue?
It doesn't make any sense and it leaves me with
the feeling that it WILL happen again. They had
to wait until the writers' strike to get rid of
her. That doesn't sound like strong Bell
participation. It sounds like plan B.
After all, the Bells did not stop the "death" of
John. And they had to know what a total disaster
that was going to be and IS.
None of this makes any sense. Makes me wonder
what we don't know that had a great bearing on the
whole imbroglio.
Somewhere, some suits made a decision about a show
that they had not even watched. They decided that
they wanted to bring in "younger viewers" and to
do that they had to get rid of the older actors
and so, Jerry Douglas was the first to fall. I am
beginning to suspect that Eric Braeden was going
to be next.
What was going to be next? An underground city
with a mad doctor? Or has that been done?
But I do NOT think that anyone remotely attached
to the show, who had a freaking clue, had anything
to do with the "new direction" the show was headed.
And if they can do it once, they WILL do it again.
Because suits think that they can do no wrong.
And the only thing that matters is the bottom
line. And that is the only thing that matters,
today, with regard to "entertainment."
my2cents
p
Shirl
> > The mutually respected/appreciated relationship between C (Bell) and
> > several of the long-tenured, dedicated writers LML dismissed after
> > decades of loyalty is well documented. Entity A (Sony) was instrumental,
> > of course; but B (Bloom, specifically) played a major role also.
Patricia Wadley <mj...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> That is precisely what I am saying.
No, it's not at all what you're saying.
> If the Bells owned 1/2 of the show and if they had as much
> power as Sony and since Y&R is the single most
> popular daytime soap why would CBS [and the Bells]
> bend over backwards to bring in a producer who
> doesn't have a clue as to what Y&R is about? And
> why would the Bells screw with the producers and
> the writers? And why would they, if they are 1/2
> owners, allow it to continue?
The big picture involves THREE entitles, not two.
Being HALF owner of *the show* does not give them 50% say in an issue
where THREE entities have power.
> It doesn't make any sense and it leaves me with
> the feeling that it WILL happen again.
It makes perfect sense. But no, that's no guarantee that it won't/can't
happen again. One can hope that some decision-making wisdom was gained
from this recent experience. But it wouldn't be the first time that ego
prevented a clear, obvious pearl from being considered.
> They had to wait until the writers' strike to get rid of
> her. That doesn't sound like strong Bell
> participation. It sounds like plan B.
It has nothing to do with strong, weak, or indifferent "participation".
Certain things have to be done in certain ways, by certain timing,
legally, in order to stick; otherwise, why bother?
> After all, the Bells did not stop the "death" of
> John. And they had to know what a total disaster
> that was going to be and IS.
The death of the character of John Abbott wasn't the only disaster Y&R
suffered at the hands of the "new regime", it was just the first one
that was so VISIBLE and consequential to viewers.
> Somewhere, some suits made a decision about a show
> that they had not even watched.
That was obvious, yes, and installing a new team of writers that had no
history with the show and dismissing those who were walking Y&R
encyclopedias before the new people could possibly be up-to-speed on the
show's fictional history was ridiculously careless. Again, one can only
hope this has been realized, retrospectively.
> But I do NOT think that anyone remotely attached
> to the show, who had a freaking clue, had anything
> to do with the "new direction" the show was headed.
Most everyone who had a freaking clue was dismissed right out of the
gate, and those who remained that DID have a clue didn't have much of a
say. Having witnessed the string of dismissals among those who didn't
buy all the new "ideas", the obvious choice was: take a stand and likely
lose your job, or shut up.
> And if they can do it once, they WILL do it again.
You can either adopt a pessimistic or an optimistic attitude about that.
I know how ironic that sounds coming from me, since I was so pessimistic
about what I saw early in LML's reign. But since many of the negative
fears of people who felt that way early on **DID** play out as
predicted, there MAY be reason to hope that those decisions and results
will serve as an education for future decisions. Or, you can just assume
they're too stupid to understand or care and "WILL do it again".
> Because suits think that they can do no wrong.
> And the only thing that matters is the bottom
> line. And that is the only thing that matters,
> today, with regard to "entertainment."
If bottom line is the only thing that matters, then there should be
reason to be hopeful, because the bottom line with regard to the
transition from the Bell formula to the LML Free-for-All is that even
viewers who were cheerleaders at first ended up hating it, and whether
they acknowledge, accept and respect it or not, viewers ARE the bottom
line.
Shirl
MarkH
>
> The big picture involves THREE entitles, not two.
> Being HALF owner of *the show* does not give them 50% say in an issue
> where THREE entities have power.
I'd love to get that number nailed down. I can't imagine someone
would buy 50%. No controlling interest = recipe for disaster. I'm
assuming, given the way the LML change went down, that the Bells own
less than 50%. Any confirmation from any source on this?
>
> The death of the character of John Abbott wasn't the only disaster Y&R
> suffered at the hands of the "new regime", it was just the first one
> that was so VISIBLE and consequential to viewers.
Well, it didn't HAVE to be a disaster. I agree that it WAS a
disaster, and that some people predicted it WOULD be a disaster. They
did not use the death to either strengthen the storyline of the
survivors, OR to give us the intriguing, edgy ghost they promised. (I
know this latter sounds stupid, but I could have bought it if it was
well done. Spoilers are suggesting to me that they're going to take
this ghost storyline where I always thought it SHOULD go. We'll
see.).
> That was obvious, yes, and installing a new team of writers that had no
> history with the show and dismissing those who were walking Y&R
> encyclopedias before the new people could possibly be up-to-speed on the
> show's fictional history was ridiculously careless. Again, one can only
> hope this has been realized, retrospectively.
We have always been 100% in agreement again. In fact, my FIRST
expression of worry about the LML regime related to the Jack Smith
firing:
Although I concede that I was initially more optimistic, believing
there WERE checks and balances:
My concerns were elevated, but I was still mostly an LML apologist
when Kay Alden was fired:
And I started to go nuts when Ed Scott left. Indeed, in the thread
above I say that Ed's staying was the saving grace :-)
For me, it is personally interesting to see the chronology. In Sept
and Nov 2006, I was still believing in LML. By May 2007, I was
saying:
"When Jack Smith was fired, I said I hoped that at least Alden and
Scott would stay. When Alden was fired, I said that I hoped that
Scott would stay. ....
Now, I'm just really feeling where there is smoke there is fire.
KEEP
ED SCOTT. REHIRE KAY ALDEN. Work together. Or, to quote a Danny
Romalotti song (which quoted a famous LA beating victim): "Can't we
all get along?"
Patricia Wadley
>
>
> If bottom line is the only thing that matters, then there should be
> reason to be hopeful, because the bottom line with regard to the
> transition from the Bell formula to the LML Free-for-All is that even
> viewers who were cheerleaders at first ended up hating it, and whether
> they acknowledge, accept and respect it or not, viewers ARE the bottom
> line.
>
> Shirl
See, that is just it. They, obviously, thought
that if they "shook up" the show it would bring in
new viewers and a bigger bottom line. It wasn't
until viewership fell and we were totally outraged
that they might have started looking for a "way
out."
The writers' strike provided a perfect out for
them. They got to toss LML. Now if they bring
back the rest of the "good" guys and get rid of
the LML staff we might see a return to the "good
old days."
My rant was not about how LML was not a "bad" guy,
but that the other bad guys were still there and
could do this again when they got their panties in
a wad.
They were responsible for bringing in LML in the
first place. They allowed her latitude to the nth
degree. She got rid of everything and everyone
who was part of the dynasty that was Y&R.
They allowed her to ruin it and then they were too
cowardly to stop it.
And this was not meant as a personal thing. And
if you took it as such I am very, very sorry. My bad.
my2cents
p
Shirl
> The writers' strike provided a perfect out for
> them. They got to toss LML.
They didn't need a strike to make the changes that replaced
Alden/Smith&Co with LML&Co, but I agree with you that the strike was a
convenient, behind-the-scenes interruption during which another
transition could be more easily implemented.
> Now if they bring
> back the rest of the "good" guys and get rid of
> the LML staff we might see a return to the "good
> old days."
That would be *assuming* that the rest of the "good guys" WANT to come
back. I'd love it if they did, as I'm pretty sure there was some
valuable insight they likely gained from observing what took place as
well, but I don't think all the prior team needs to return in order to
get the show back on track. I just think it's going to take people with
a better understanding of what made Y&R different with a leader who is
willing to listen and collaborate.
> And this was not meant as a personal thing. And
> if you took it as such I am very, very sorry. My bad.
Not bad at all, Patricia, no apology needed; it didn't come across at
all as if it were a personal thing.
;-)
Shirl
Patricia Wadley
> Not bad at all, Patricia, no apology needed; it didn't come across at
> all as if it were a personal thing.
> ;-)
> Shirl
Whew, and I mean that. Last thing I want to do is
tick off anyone, especially on the ng, cause
heaven knows I manage to do that without even trying.
lol
my2cents
p