Y&R: Is Bill Bell spinning in his grave?
Shawn H
Y&R always seemed so inviolable, untouched by the regime changes and
corporate group-think that undid so many other soaps over the years. Bill
Bell's singular vision for the show has got to be part of the reason for
it's long-established no. 1 status. He wisely knew there'd be chaos after
he was gone, and he carefully groomed a replacement for many years, Kay
Alden.
But now she's gone, too (did she perform poorly, or lack the status to
perservere?), and in the wake of these losses and changes, has Y&R at last
succumbed to the musical writers and other problems of shifting sands and
shifting directions that beset the other shows? Is it going to be
unrecognizable as the same show a few years from now? Is it already too far
gone? Will Lynne Latham be fired too when the ratings don't rise, or
continue to erode? Will we ever see a day when a McTavish or a Schaeffer
are behind the reins?
Shawn H.
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> Just giving voice to some anxieties that have crossed
> my mind recently.
Anxieties shared by many.
> Y&R always seemed so inviolable, untouched by the regime changes and
> corporate group-think that undid so many other soaps over the years. Bill
> Bell's singular vision for the show has got to be part of the reason for
> it's long-established no. 1 status. He wisely knew there'd be chaos after
> he was gone, and he carefully groomed a replacement for many years, Kay
> Alden.
Agreed. Kind of makes you think about the best laid plans we all make to
preserve the integrity of certain things once we're gone.
> But now she's gone, too (did she perform poorly, or lack the status to
> perservere?), and in the wake of these losses and changes, has Y&R at last
> succumbed to the musical writers and other problems of shifting sands and
> shifting directions that beset the other shows? Is it going to be
> unrecognizable as the same show a few years from now? Is it already too far
> gone? Will Lynne Latham be fired too when the ratings don't rise, or
> continue to erode? Will we ever see a day when a McTavish or a Schaeffer
> are behind the reins?
Sadly, yes, I think it already has succumbed and is unrecognizable. I
don't hold out much hope that the quality and class it once had will be
re-achieved if what we're seeing is what is being "mandated". I don't
see LML being there long term, but that's JMO. Having friends in high
places obviously has its advantages.
Shirl
Nancy Rudins
Good post, especially about Y&R succumbing to the musical writers and
problems affecting other shows. Back in the day, recording artists had
to make good demos and hope a recording studio would pick them up.
Recording time was expensive, so only the marketable artists were
picked up. The next hurdle was getting radio air time to bring their
works to people.
The opposite is true now. Nearly anyone can (and does) record their own
material and can upload it to numerous places on the internet. Can you
imagine The Beatles trying to get in the music market today? "A Day In
The Life"???? That's not a song!! How do you dance to it?" And then
Paul and John appear on "Dancing With The Stars" or worse, "American
Idol."
I'm thinking that Y&R, and other programs, are reaching to the "YouTube"
market. Action, Comedy, and maybe some Drama is more the focus than the
history of the characters and their families; the kind of thing that
kept us watching for all these years.
Kind regards,
Nancy
--
My other computer is a Cray.
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/nrudins
Shawn H
: I'm thinking that Y&R, and other programs, are reaching to the "YouTube"
: market. Action, Comedy, and maybe some Drama is more the focus than the
: history of the characters and their families; the kind of thing that
: kept us watching for all these years.
You mean hoping to generate some "youtube" moments that might show up on
Best Week Ever/VH1, like Passions does?
Though "youtube" is also full of actually classic scenes from old Doug
Marland soaps, etc., IE stuff that the real fans actually love. It doesn't
all have to be disposable, but it's so hard to get people to take it
seriously.
Shawn H.
Niki
I've given it up Shawn. My SOD subscription is going to lapse as of 12-12-06.
I've been with them for about 20 years. Y&R was last on the list. There's
just nothing there for me to watch anymore. It's just my opinion but LML has
killed the show for me. All the oldie favs are being fired. I'm sad to not be
a part of this group as much, but I just can't watch the show anymore. I
don't recognize it.
--
Niki
Rthrquiet
> Just giving voice to some anxieties that have crossed my mind recently.
>
> Y&R always seemed so inviolable, untouched by the regime changes and
> corporate group-think that undid so many other soaps over the years. Bill
> Bell's singular vision for the show has got to be part of the reason for
> it's long-established no. 1 status. He wisely knew there'd be chaos after
> he was gone, and he carefully groomed a replacement for many years, Kay
> Alden.
>
> But now she's gone, too (did she perform poorly, or lack the status to
> perservere?),
Well, the ratings went down. Whether they would have gone down anyway
is an open question.
> and in the wake of these losses and changes, has Y&R at last
> succumbed to the musical writers and other problems of shifting sands and
> shifting directions that beset the other shows?
I think there's good reason to worry that it is. I'm reminded of
so-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o many other soaps through the years that went
through this same sort of change--shows with very distinctive playing
styles whose headwriter was replaced with someone with a substantially
different style--and I'm hard pressed to come up with an instance in
which it (1) improved the quality of the show or (2) resulted in a
lasting increase in the ratings. This transition from Bell to Alden to
Smith to Latham reminds me (and this is not a good thing) of what
happened to Another World in the late 1970s, when Harding Lemay was
replaced, after a ratings slump, with a series of writers who were
supposed to give the show more "plot," which was what the suits at the
time were "sure" the show needed. Well, it was a disaster, both
creatively and ratings-wise. Those making the decisions didn't get what
had made the show (very) popular during Lemay's heyday, and it never
really recovered. I'm really worried that something similar has
happened here. I wasn't reading the newsgroup when the "new
methodology" (as I keep seeing it referred to) was revealed, but one
key ingredient apparently, from what I'm seeing on my TV screen, is
"lots o' plot," played really fast. But that was never what Y&R was
about, and it certainly wasn't what made it so popular. I could
definitely embrace a different approach to storytelling *if* I weren't
feeling, in almost every episode, that nobody bothered to figure out
what had been appealing about the show under Bell and make sure that
the "new methodology" preserved that while making judicious changes.
Instead, I see what looks suspiciously like Standard Soap Executive
Decision Making (i.e., impose, from the outside, what you think
*should* work, or what you *want* to work, instead of doing the hard
job of analyzing what made something successful and making sure you
don't lose that in the transition). I suppose it was inevitable that it
would eventually happen to even Y&R (since I can't think of another
soap that it hasn't happened to, except maybe B&B), but I'm sad.
The irony, for me, is that LML can do more than plot, plot, plot, as I
think she amply showed on Knots Landing. But she's not doing it here,
at least not so far, at least not from what I'm seeing.
> Is it going to be
> unrecognizable as the same show a few years from now? Is it already too far
> gone?
I already find it startlingly different.
>Will Lynne Latham be fired too when the ratings don't rise, or
> continue to erode?
My guess: If the ratings slip, they won't even be sufficiently patient
with the "new methodology" to see if it will work, given enough time;
they'll dump Latham and hire somebody else with yet another
"methodology" they're just "sure" will do the trick, and then as the
ratings continue to slide, they'll continue to switch gears, losing
viewers at each switch. Eventually, after trying half a dozen different
writers, they might get wise and try to get Alden or Smith back (in the
case of Another World, it took a decade, and then they finally decided
to give Lemay another try--albeit only a brief one), but by then it
will be too late.
> Will we ever see a day when a McTavish or a Schaeffer
> are behind the reins?
>
Bite your tongue! If there is any justice, McTavish will NEVER again be
allowed near a headwriting job, once All My Children gets around to
firing her. Sheffer seems to me to be exactly where he belongs now, at
Days. I consider him to have some talent (unlike McTavish, who may be
the worst headwriter in soap history), but he would never be right for
Y&R (not that that would stop them from hiring him, of course).
If Latham were ever to get the ax, the logical choice for a
replacement, in my book, would be Sally Sussman Morina. It might not
work, but at least it would have logic behind it.
Michael
Cheri
Niki wrote in message <2v4dh.2172$ja6....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>...
>I've given it up Shawn. My SOD subscription is going to lapse as of
12-12-06.
>I've been with them for about 20 years. Y&R was last on the list.
There's
>just nothing there for me to watch anymore. It's just my opinion but
LML has
>killed the show for me. All the oldie favs are being fired. I'm sad to
not be
>a part of this group as much, but I just can't watch the show anymore.
I
>don't recognize it.
>
>--
>Niki
Good to see you Niki. I've missed your posts.
Cheri
Shawn H
: > But now she's gone, too (did she perform poorly, or lack the status to
: > perservere?),
: Well, the ratings went down. Whether they would have gone down anyway
: is an open question.
That's why I'm worried they acted too quickly, though I guess I started
watching again in the Smith era, so I'm not sure how I'd feel about her
work.
: > and in the wake of these losses and changes, has Y&R at last
: > succumbed to the musical writers and other problems of shifting sands and
: > shifting directions that beset the other shows?
: I think there's good reason to worry that it is. I'm reminded of
: so-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o many other soaps through the years that went
: through this same sort of change--shows with very distinctive playing
: styles whose headwriter was replaced with someone with a substantially
: different style--and I'm hard pressed to come up with an instance in
: which it (1) improved the quality of the show or (2) resulted in a
: lasting increase in the ratings. This transition from Bell to Alden to
The only thing we can hope for is a writer like Marland who is just really
good and gets it and has the stamina to stick around for awhile.
: Smith to Latham reminds me (and this is not a good thing) of what
: happened to Another World in the late 1970s, when Harding Lemay was
: replaced, after a ratings slump, with a series of writers who were
: supposed to give the show more "plot," which was what the suits at the
: time were "sure" the show needed. Well, it was a disaster, both
: creatively and ratings-wise. Those making the decisions didn't get what
Lemay was also burnt out, wasn't he?
: had made the show (very) popular during Lemay's heyday, and it never
: really recovered. I'm really worried that something similar has
: happened here. I wasn't reading the newsgroup when the "new
: methodology" (as I keep seeing it referred to) was revealed, but one
: key ingredient apparently, from what I'm seeing on my TV screen, is
: "lots o' plot," played really fast. But that was never what Y&R was
: about, and it certainly wasn't what made it so popular. I could
And the plots aren't all going anywhere. Some crop up and vanish.
: definitely embrace a different approach to storytelling *if* I weren't
: feeling, in almost every episode, that nobody bothered to figure out
: what had been appealing about the show under Bell and make sure that
: the "new methodology" preserved that while making judicious changes.
Well, should they have to "figure it out?" Shouldn't they just *KNOW*, by
some silly methodology like actually watching the show? :)
: Instead, I see what looks suspiciously like Standard Soap Executive
: Decision Making (i.e., impose, from the outside, what you think
: *should* work, or what you *want* to work, instead of doing the hard
: job of analyzing what made something successful and making sure you
: don't lose that in the transition). I suppose it was inevitable that it
: would eventually happen to even Y&R (since I can't think of another
: soap that it hasn't happened to, except maybe B&B), but I'm sad.
You're just confirming all my worst fears.
: The irony, for me, is that LML can do more than plot, plot, plot, as I
: think she amply showed on Knots Landing. But she's not doing it here,
: at least not so far, at least not from what I'm seeing.
I'm worried about the plots that just vanish: Gloria's murder of someone
with her sabotage, Ashley not being around to ever find out about that,
Gloria homeless and penniless.
: >Will Lynne Latham be fired too when the ratings don't rise, or
: > continue to erode?
: My guess: If the ratings slip, they won't even be sufficiently patient
: with the "new methodology" to see if it will work, given enough time;
: they'll dump Latham and hire somebody else with yet another
: "methodology" they're just "sure" will do the trick, and then as the
: ratings continue to slide, they'll continue to switch gears, losing
: viewers at each switch. Eventually, after trying half a dozen different
: writers, they might get wise and try to get Alden or Smith back (in the
: case of Another World, it took a decade, and then they finally decided
: to give Lemay another try--albeit only a brief one), but by then it
: will be too late.
Horrific.
Shawn H.
Patricia Wadley
Is Bill Bell spinning in his grave?
The answer:
Like a top.
my2cents
p
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> : definitely embrace a different approach to storytelling *if* I weren't
> : feeling, in almost every episode, that nobody bothered to figure out
> : what had been appealing about the show under Bell and make sure that
> : the "new methodology" preserved that while making judicious changes.
ShawnH:
> Well, should they have to "figure it out?" Shouldn't they just *KNOW*, by
> some silly methodology like actually watching the show? :)
These two comments spell out PRECISELY what I feel has been handled so
abominably and carelessly wrong about the transition!
People have said, "you're just too old, set in your ways, can't accept
change, lose the binky," yadda, yadda, yadda. IMO, those are the most
convenient excuses to gloss over the huge error in judgment that has
caused so many long-term fans to be SO unhappy, angry, and turned off,
some to the point of quitting after 33+ years.
Obviously, if you're enjoying/loving what the "new" Y&R offers, you
would disagree that *any* error has been made. But the fact that a
growing number of viewers are expressing such adamant and extreme
dissatisfaction is proof of that error.
There are a set of circumstances here that exist in any product/customer
relationship: if the product is successful and at the top of other
comparable products -- and I don't think anyone is disagreeing that Y&R
*was* -- you need to make damn sure (a) that there is a NEED to change
it (financial, qualitative, or administrative), and (b) that any change
is, at the very least, going to maintain the success level, and at best,
going to cause the success level to move forward (more customers), NOT
backward (*loss* of customers).
Y&R undeniably had a successful formula in place. It had proven itself
year after year. Are minimal continuous changes needed to maintain
optimum interest, efficiency, productivity? ABSOLUTELY. Are some
customers dissatisfied from time to time that prompt these changes?
ABSOLUTELY. Are minimal changes sometimes not received well and
scrapped? ABSOLUTELY. But you don't put the whole established success
level at risk by making major changes *all at once* that may jeopardize
the ENTIRE product.
Once you have a formula that works, puts you at the top of the heap, and
keeps you there for THAT many years, as Rthrquiet so concisely said, you
analyze what elements made YOUR formula so much more appealing to
customers than others and you "preserve" those elements while making
"JUDICIOUS" changes. As Shawn also said, what's to figure out after THAT
many years of continuous success? If there was any question as to what
made Y&R more appealing than other soaps, nearly any veteran viewer
could have easily told them.
But the new PTB seems to have adopted EB's mentality/attitude that it's
foolhardy to listen to what viewers are saying ... what do we know
anyway?
Shirl
MarkH
Shawn, I've gone on record as having the same concerns as you! I was
completely comforted by the fact that, when Latham was dropped in, she
had two former headwriters and one former executive producer at her
side.
A number of us--when it was first announced that Smith would go--began
to publically express our concerns. I remain worried that Alden is
gone, and I worry that Scott is next.
At the same time, at the time, I said (not directly; paraphrasing here)
"I can understand that a new CEO needs to be free of previous CEOs as
they try to meet the demands of their board and shareholders". It is
rare that a new CEO retains the old CEOs and works along side them
(even though, in principle, this might be a good idea).
Donna B. has said that "Alden had her chance"...and it's true.
CBS/Bell/Sony long ago decided that Alden wasn't going to "cut it", and
so they cut her. Of course, this deposition was ameliorated, somehow,
by the fact that her graduate school friend (Jack Smith--someone SHE
had recruited), who himself had a long association with Y&R and B&B,
was brought in. The fact that they served as co-HW for years reasurred
(me) that the Bill Bell voice was being preserved.
So, in earnest, to this day I am most concerned about Alden's
departure, because (as you suggest), Bell's chosen successor is being
disregarded.
SO FAR, there is no basis for your concerns of (a) musical writers and
changing directions; and (b) unrecognizability. SO FAR, a new team has
been gradually installed, but the team will ONLY be "musical" if they
quickly dump Latham and we have a string of replacements. SO FAR,
Genoa City is very recognizable, from long standing families and
veteran actors to sets. Heck, even the stylistic changes that Latham
says she made are sometimes set aside for "homage" to the old style
(the other day, they followed a guy walking in the Crimson Lights until
the camera settled on one of our characters).
However, I agree that the PRECEDENT of dropping in a new headwriter
should raise alarm bells.
On the other hand, they gave her a YEAR to consult and make
recommendations before they gave her the job. That's a very long,
sober reflection period.
I am reassured that NOTHING was done in haste. This is VERY different
from all the other EP/HW switches I am aware of.
So, to anyone who feels disposed to be a "Chicken Little", LOL, I see
no reason to believe the sky is falling :-).
MarkH
Rthrquiet wrote:
There are some really wise things here!
>
> I'm hard pressed to come up with an instance in
> which it (1) improved the quality of the show or (2) resulted in a
> lasting increase in the ratings.
I completely agree! I do think this transition--UP to Latham--is
different...and that Latham's is too.
>This transition from Bell to Alden to
> Smith to Latham reminds me (and this is not a good thing) of what
> happened to Another World in the late 1970s, when Harding Lemay was
> replaced, after a ratings slump, with a series of writers who were
> supposed to give the show more "plot," which was what the suits at the
> time were "sure" the show needed.
Okay, but it was really --> Bell --> Bell & Alden --> Alden --> Alden &
Smith --> Latham & Alden and Smith --> Latham & Alden --> Latham.
NOW, I admit that the last stretch is kind of bogus, so it was really:
Bell --> Bell & Alden --> Alden --> Alden & Smith --> Latham
So, the ONLY discontinuous switch is Latham. This hasn't been "musical
writers". It's only the Latham switch that should give cause for
alarm.
However, the fact that the show was grinding down into slow plotting,
underuse of veterans, shrinking ratings...gives evidence that Alden &
Smith weren't living up to the potential of their mentor. One could
argue that they needed replacing or help.
I would have been most joyful if the real story had been Latham, Alden
and Smith--together for 10 years.
>but one
> key ingredient apparently, from what I'm seeing on my TV screen, is
> "lots o' plot," played really fast. But that was never what Y&R was
> about, and it certainly wasn't what made it so popular.
I agree, to a point. In fact, I've written in the last week that some
plots (like Devon getting adopted within a week) is ridiculous. So,
"too fast" definitely describes some things. But other things (like
the slow redefinition of Victor and Jack) has played out since last
summer...so it's not all a rush! There is an inconsistency of pacing
(which may be intentional)...but I agree this is a change.
However, and this is an important point. "Lots o' plot" wasn't the Y&R
"methodology" in the 1970s and 1980s. But all television was slower
then, and the audience was different.
In 2006, the show has to think about long-term survival. Watch the
competitors (not just daytime, but all programming). "Lots 'o plot" is
the order of the day. Younger viewers are bored silly by slow stories
(and the reputation of Y&R as the show that attracted older viewers
kind of confirms this).
If the world hadn't changed, the "old methodology" should not have been
tampered with! I agree 100%.
But the world has changed. If Bill Bell were alive and functioning, I
have to believe he would have responded to the changing world. Thus, I
view Latham as acting as an instrument to modernize Bill Bell's vision.
Core elements of the Bell methodology (the families, the story types,
the emphasis on reality-based stories) remain in place.
> I could
> definitely embrace a different approach to storytelling *if* I weren't
> feeling, in almost every episode, that nobody bothered to figure out
> what had been appealing about the show under Bell and make sure that
> the "new methodology" preserved that while making judicious changes.
But how can you say this? The stories on the air use (heavily) all the
vets and situations we've followed for decades? Brad's story is the
DIRECT outcome of a scene he had in a diner two decades ago, his
secrecy ever since, and the perception of many viewers that he was
always "slick". The Winters' story (all premised from their marital
dissolution) is the playout of a story Bill Bell set in motion over a
decade ago, when Malcolm had sex with a drugged Dru.
The Victor-Jack story is the latest beat in a story Bell started in the
1980s. There is a great deal of continuity here.
>I suppose it was inevitable that it
> would eventually happen to even Y&R (since I can't think of another
> soap that it hasn't happened to, except maybe B&B), but I'm sad.
There is definitely an element of "someone coming in from the outside".
BUT, Latham consulted with the show FOR A YEAR (as did Sussman-Morina)
before she was hired. They took a LONG time to listen to her. This is
much more sober and slow than the other shows have done.
> The irony, for me, is that LML can do more than plot, plot, plot, as I
> think she amply showed on Knots Landing. But she's not doing it here,
> at least not so far, at least not from what I'm seeing.
I disagree. Think of the hot chemistry between Nick and Phylllis.
Think of the deepening relationship between Lauren and Michael. Think
of the friendships between Daniel & Devon or Dru and Sharon. Think of
the new tenor of the relationship between Victor and Nikki.
So, I agree with you about lots of plot (maybe too much, too fast).
BUT, there is more than plot.
Heck, there is the whole act of HUMANIZING. Now, when Victoria and
Nick's families get together, they play charades! Phyllis helps Noah
make video tributes for Dad. Neil likes Jazz. Many of us now like
Devon, now that we've gone through an adversity or two with him.
Many characters have been deepened and rendered more complex.
>
>
> >Will Lynne Latham be fired too when the ratings don't rise, or
> > continue to erode?
>
> My guess: If the ratings slip, they won't even be sufficiently patient
> with the "new methodology" to see if it will work, given enough time;
> they'll dump Latham and hire somebody else with yet another
> "methodology" they're just "sure" will do the trick, and then as the
> ratings continue to slide, they'll continue to switch gears, losing
> viewers at each switch.
I consider this a very legitimate concern. THE PRECEDENT of dumping
Bill Bell's chosen successor is chilling! I fully admit this!
So, now, only time will tell. If Latham is still there, and generally
assumed to be doing a good job, a decade from now...then these concerns
will turn out to be baseless. BUT, if Latham is gone in a year from
now, and some new outsider comes to change the show (which is fully
plausible, based on what has happened in the past year) then I think
your concerns are grounded.
The big issues: "Corporate" (CBS/Sony/Bell) decided to
meddle...something they'd never done before. Now that they are
meddling, the fear is that they will not stop. I share everyone's deep
fear about that!.
>
> If Latham were ever to get the ax, the logical choice for a
> replacement, in my book, would be Sally Sussman Morina. It might not
> work, but at least it would have logic behind it.
Generations was a SNOOZE, and she was NOT a good HW on Days. So, the
only things she has going for her are (a) experience as a HW, and (b)
rootedness in the Abbott-history days of Y&R.
I'd rather, then, see a sooner return to the long-standing writers of
Y&R (Alden, Smith) rather than a long succession of strangers.
MarkH
Shawn H wrote:
>
> And the plots aren't all going anywhere. Some crop up and vanish.
>
Which ones? And, when you say that, be sure they aren't "banking"
those plots for the future. Take the example of Kevin's safe deposit
box key from Terrible Tom.
Is that "dropped"? Or will it show up again at the most delicious
moment? I presume the latter, although I'm a little concerned that
Kevin is under-played these days.
> : Instead, I see what looks suspiciously like Standard Soap Executive
> : Decision Making (i.e., impose, from the outside, what you think
> : *should* work, or what you *want* to work, instead of doing the hard
> : job of analyzing what made something successful and making sure you
> : don't lose that in the transition). I suppose it was inevitable that it
> : would eventually happen to even Y&R (since I can't think of another
> : soap that it hasn't happened to, except maybe B&B), but I'm sad.
>
> You're just confirming all my worst fears.
But the fears he is "concerning" are his own fears? In other words,
you both (and me too!) share fears that "corporate" will meddle and
destroy the unique voice of the show.
None of us have CONFIRMATION of these fears, unless you feel (and this
would be a legitimate concern) that the show now stinks or is worse
than it was.
For myself, I SHARE these fears...but because the show is so rich and
entertaining these days, I don't currently find them confirmed.
However, I know this is just my opinion....
>
> I'm worried about the plots that just vanish: Gloria's murder of someone
> with her sabotage, Ashley not being around to ever find out about that,
> Gloria homeless and penniless.
If, 5 years from now, it has not been addressed, I might agree.
BUT, Bill Bell did this all the time. He never planned to revisit
Malcolm's rape of Drucilla! But, the new methodology did, and mined
some good story out of it. Bill Bell never planned to pursue that
diner meeting of Brad with some woman. Now, 2 decades later, the
thread is picked up and we finally know his past.
Dropped threads (I call it "banking for the future") is a key part of
the Y&R methodology--always has been.
I won't believe that Latham's crew is dropping these threads unless
they are never revisited. I have the patience to give her years--even
decades--to draw on her story deposits.
>
> : >Will Lynne Latham be fired too when the ratings don't rise, or
> : > continue to erode?
>
> : My guess: If the ratings slip, they won't even be sufficiently patient
> : with the "new methodology" to see if it will work, given enough time;
> : they'll dump Latham and hire somebody else with yet another
> : "methodology" they're just "sure" will do the trick, and then as the
> : ratings continue to slide, they'll continue to switch gears, losing
> : viewers at each switch. Eventually, after trying half a dozen different
> : writers, they might get wise and try to get Alden or Smith back (in the
> : case of Another World, it took a decade, and then they finally decided
> : to give Lemay another try--albeit only a brief one), but by then it
> : will be too late.
>
> Horrific.
>
Yes, horrific. BUT, let's see if it happens. I'm staying positive,
since I see no real reason to worry about this yet.
MarkH
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
>
> People have said, "you're just too old, set in your ways, can't accept
> change, lose the binky," yadda, yadda, yadda. IMO, those are the most
> convenient excuses to gloss over the huge error in judgment that has
> caused so many long-term fans to be SO unhappy, angry, and turned off,
> some to the point of quitting after 33+ years.
Ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh!!! The ratings do not support this hypothesis!!!
The user boards do not support this hypothesis (opinion is clearly
divided, but some are happy and some are miserable--EVERYONE is feeling
SOMETHING).
I see no evidence to support the declarative statement "huge error in
judgment".
>
> Obviously, if you're enjoying/loving what the "new" Y&R offers, you
> would disagree that *any* error has been made. But the fact that a
> growing number of viewers are expressing such adamant and extreme
> dissatisfaction is proof of that error.
>
I see no evidence that a "growing number of viewers" are expressing
"adamant" dissatisfaction. We have both agreed in the past that those
probability surveys have not yet been done.
> There are a set of circumstances here that exist in any product/customer
> relationship: if the product is successful and at the top of other
> comparable products -- and I don't think anyone is disagreeing that Y&R
> *was* -- you need to make damn sure (a) that there is a NEED to change
> it (financial, qualitative, or administrative), and (b) that any change
> is, at the very least, going to maintain the success level, and at best,
> going to cause the success level to move forward (more customers), NOT
> backward (*loss* of customers).
With regard to (a) the successful company anticipates market changes
and responds proactively, and with regard to (b) ratings bear out no
loss of customers, and maybe a slight gain (but I personally think it's
more of a stability story). I would say that the inability to gain
market share is definitely a "ding" against the new methodology!
>
> Y&R undeniably had a successful formula in place. It had proven itself
> year after year. Are minimal continuous changes needed to maintain
> optimum interest, efficiency, productivity? ABSOLUTELY. Are some
> customers dissatisfied from time to time that prompt these changes?
> ABSOLUTELY. Are minimal changes sometimes not received well and
> scrapped? ABSOLUTELY. But you don't put the whole established success
> level at risk by making major changes *all at once* that may jeopardize
> the ENTIRE product.
Didn't happen. No "major changes *all at once*". It didn't happen!
It didn't happen!! There were stylistic revisions, and a deeper
investment in veterans. Story points set up 2 decades ago were played
out. What you say did not happen!
>
> Once you have a formula that works, puts you at the top of the heap, and
> keeps you there for THAT many years, as Rthrquiet so concisely said, you
> analyze what elements made YOUR formula so much more appealing to
> customers than others and you "preserve" those elements while making
> "JUDICIOUS" changes.
I believe this was done! Same characters, same families, same
sets...stories based on past events brought into the present.
> As Shawn also said, what's to figure out after THAT
> many years of continuous success? If there was any question as to what
> made Y&R more appealing than other soaps, nearly any veteran viewer
> could have easily told them.
Success with annual declines in viewership, and little evidence that
the show was declining at a slower rate than the rest of the industry.
That's not success...not in any business I know of.
AND, the aging demographic was turning advertisers away.
NOT success! I loved the show always (less in recent years), but I'm
not the viewer they want.
They need to make more money! They need to at least keep revenues flat
(that's not good enough). Y&R was not accomplishing this.
>
> But the new PTB seems to have adopted EB's mentality/attitude that it's
> foolhardy to listen to what viewers are saying ... what do we know
> anyway?
>
Oops, misquote! That will BILL BELL'S mentality/attitude. Write from
YOUR gut, and don't write to the viccissitudes of viewer opinion!
Kind of like Latham's doing now :-).
record hunter
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
> Obviously, if you're enjoying/loving what the "new" Y&R offers, you
> would disagree that *any* error has been made. But the fact that a
> growing number of viewers are expressing such adamant and extreme
> dissatisfaction is proof of that error.
So, it's an error for me think that no error has been made?
Where is this 'growing number'? I count you, Diva, Queenie, and now
Michael. Admittedly, that's twice as many of you guys, so I guess
adding Michael counts as 'growing.' But it *sounds* bigger than that.
Donna B
<1165356765.2...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, "record hunter"
<record...@gmail.com> wrote:
But, Michael & I have something in common about Y&R of the past - and that's
that we didn't enjoy the show. We had respect for it, yes, but we weren't
what you'd call fans, really. Correct me if I understood this wrong from the
past, Michael.
Personally, I'll say flat out, after thinking about it for 3 days, that I
don't think Bill Bell is spinning in his grave. I can more easily imagine
him in heaven looking down & being interested in how alive his baby is once
again, how invigorated while still very much having its own identity.
--
DonnaB : ^> shallotpeel <*> Yahoo Messenger: shallotpeel
"What did you do?" "Do?! I did what any red-blooded Englishman would do. I
ignored him!" - Douglas Adams [3/11/52-5/11/01, tHHGttG] 'So Long, And
Thanks For All The Fish'
MarkH
record hunter wrote:
>
> Where is this 'growing number'? I count you, Diva, Queenie, and now
> Michael. Admittedly, that's twice as many of you guys, so I guess
> adding Michael counts as 'growing.' But it *sounds* bigger than that.
Oh, please let's not starting counting whose group is bigger :-).
I'm _all_ for statistics, but only when the samples make sense!
record hunter
MarkH wrote:
> The Victor-Jack story is the latest beat in a story Bell started in the
> 1980s. There is a great deal of continuity here.
I'm cutting down the encylopedia here to say "FINALLY, they did
something that wasn't just Jack is pissed at Victor, chapter 63." That
was so boring, with no real consequences ever, just a never-ending
battle over ownership of whatever they both wanted to keep the other
from having today.
Now it's written to have consequences and dynamics and, *especially*
gray areas, that NEVER existed to my way of observing this program. To
me, the Victor-Jack feud was very 'because we say so' writing until the
last two years. It means something now that I was never able to
perceive as anything more important than 'because we say so' for almost
20 years.
It's continuity, which, for the first time, matters. Which, for the
first time, has gotten out of first gear. It's zoomin' down some
metaphorical Autobahn -- I use that word advisedly, meaning speed and
alluding, yes, to one of the actors' German heritage -- and it's
fabulous. It means something now. FINALLY someone found the page that
says 'UP the stakes.'
I'm sorry some of you are so displeased. I know what that's like. But
this show has gotten better IMO. And you don't have Thom Bierdz playing
Jack Abbott...(or Adrian Korbel, if you're counting nits).
BETTER SHOW. THANKS LYNN.
record hunter
MarkH wrote:
> I disagree. Think of the hot chemistry between Nick and Phylllis.
> Think of the deepening relationship between Lauren and Michael. Think
> of the friendships between Daniel & Devon or Dru and Sharon. Think of
> the new tenor of the relationship between Victor and Nikki.
>
> So, I agree with you about lots of plot (maybe too much, too fast).
> BUT, there is more than plot.
>
> Heck, there is the whole act of HUMANIZING. Now, when Victoria and
> Nick's families get together, they play charades! Phyllis helps Noah
> make video tributes for Dad. Neil likes Jazz. Many of us now like
> Devon, now that we've gone through an adversity or two with him.
>
> Many characters have been deepened and rendered more complex.
Yeah. What he said. MOST characters have more layers now, more colors.
Black & white has been replaced with shades of gray (and lots of other
colors, too...good ones).
record hunter
I'm sorry. Where IS this growing number? Where is this number growing?
I want proof.
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> None of us have CONFIRMATION of these fears, unless
> you feel (and this would be a legitimate concern) that the
> show now stinks or is worse than it was.
Obviously a number of viewers *do* feel that way! But if the new PTB
don't think it is a "legitimate concern" that there is this growing
number of viewers posting such sentiments, sooner or later, the numbers
are going to begin to suffer.
> For myself, I SHARE these fears...but because the show is so rich and
> entertaining these days, I don't currently find them confirmed.
> However, I know this is just my opinion....
The number of viewers that *do* share those fears and see the show the
way you described (or close) *is* confirmation of it, even if you
personally don't share that opinion. And that's the whole point ... even
if the current PTB don't share that opinion, if a growing number of
viewers do, SOMETHING they're doing isn't working as well as it was.
That doesn't mean that *some* of what they're doing isn't enjoyable or
entertaining, but it *does* mean that something(s) from the prior
methodology that they've abandoned is obviously pretty darn important to
many long-time viewers.
If they even believe this is the case, they have a choice: they can
either pay attention to that and try and adjust their new methodology in
the hope of not losing that growing number of dissatisfied faithful
viewers, or they can ignore it and bank on their new formula being good
enough that equal numbers of new viewers will replace those who quit.
What seems to be overlooked is that if the new formula was really THAT
good, those who already loved and were faithful to the show wouldn't be
leaving, and further, if it were attracting *new* viewers AND keeping
the old, the numbers *should* be rising. They're not.
>>My guess: If the ratings slip, they won't even be sufficiently patient
>>with the "new methodology" to see if it will work, given enough time;
>>they'll dump Latham and hire somebody else with yet another
>>"methodology" they're just "sure" will do the trick, and then as the
>>ratings continue to slide, they'll continue to switch gears, losing
>>viewers at each switch. Eventually, after trying half a dozen different
>>writers, they might get wise and try to get Alden or Smith back (in the
>>case of Another World, it took a decade, and then they finally decided
>>to give Lemay another try--albeit only a brief one), but by then it
>>will be too late.
>
> Horrific.
>
> Yes, horrific. BUT, let's see if it happens. I'm staying positive,
> since I see no real reason to worry about this yet.
Therein lies the danger -- the "I see no real reason to worry about this
yet" attitude.
Numbers are still fairly steady, but there *IS* a growing number of
viewers expressing extreme dissatisfaction that is apparently being
ignored/disregarded. If that continues until it shows in the numbers, it
may indeed be too late to fix it. It may already be too late.
Shirl
Donna B
<1165351361.0...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, "MarkH"
<slip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, but it was really --> Bell --> Bell & Alden --> Alden --> Alden &
> Smith --> Latham & Alden and Smith --> Latham & Alden --> Latham.
>
> NOW, I admit that the last stretch is kind of bogus, so it was really:
>
> Bell --> Bell & Alden --> Alden --> Alden & Smith --> Latham
Except that it was really:
Bell -> Bell, with Alden subordinate to him -> Alden -> Smith -> Latham
> I would have been most joyful if the real story had been Latham, Alden
> and Smith--together for 10 years.
But, not even the richest show on the air can afford that kind of luxury
anymore.
> But the world has changed. If Bill Bell were alive and functioning, I
> have to believe he would have responded to the changing world. Thus, I
> view Latham as acting as an instrument to modernize Bill Bell's vision.
We agree. This is what I was describing, in my way, in another post.
> I consider this a very legitimate concern. THE PRECEDENT of dumping
> Bill Bell's chosen successor is chilling! I fully admit this!
But, no one can afford to keep ex-HWs around when they no longer function as
HWs & are simply a part of the Writing team. Once you promote someone, it's
very difficult to demote them - except in terms of power. But, power to
determine story is the only thing unique about the HW position!
Michael, whom I love, had said, ...
> > If Latham were ever to get the ax, the logical choice for a
> > replacement, in my book, would be Sally Sussman Morina. It might not
> > work, but at least it would have logic behind it.
>
> Generations was a SNOOZE, and she was NOT a good HW on Days. So, the
> only things she has going for her are (a) experience as a HW, and (b)
> rootedness in the Abbott-history days of Y&R.
>
> I'd rather, then, see a sooner return to the long-standing writers of
> Y&R (Alden, Smith) rather than a long succession of strangers.
Oy vey y'all, I LOVED GENERATIONS!!!!
Patrick Mulcahy's name has been mentioned. I have no idea if there's
anything to it. Personally I hope that *this* works, that Ed Scott stays &
that 5 years go by with changes in personnel, but only to the extent that
people come & go, regular like. I do not want to see a change in EP/HW. And,
if TPTB become unhappy or even less than happy I hope they will communicate
specifically what they want & what they do not want to Latham & then give
her time to implement or convince why they don't want some of it. Way too
often the suits think they want something & don't really want it, or have no
idea what they really want & just begin to throw things at the wall to see
what will stick. Time & experience has shown that those things do NOT work.
--
DonnaB : ^> shallotpeel <*> Yahoo Messenger: shallotpeel
"To take upon oneself not punishment, but guilt - that alone would be
godlike." - Nietzsche
Rthrquiet
> But, Michael & I have something in common about Y&R of the past - and that's
> that we didn't enjoy the show. We had respect for it, yes, but we weren't
> what you'd call fans, really. Correct me if I understood this wrong from the
> past, Michael.
>
No, you've understood correctly, Donna. I was an on-again, off-again
viewer, more off than on. One of the things I liked, when I did tune
in, was that magical Bell ability to mine situations for emotional
resonance. Part of that was the pacing, which gave the writers time to
explore emotional nuances. (Part of it also came from having characters
around for a long, long time--for example, Nikki and Ashley just had to
be in a room together and there was already so much going on, even
before the first word was spoken.) I tuned in again recently (thanks to
SoapNet) because I saw somewhere that John Abbott was being killed off
and I thought that was a not-to-be-missed event. I didn't even know
that LML was working on the show at that point--that's how out of the
soap loop I've been, not reading the mags, not doing the newsgroup
thing (and I still forget that I have to watch the beginning to get the
writing and producing credits now). Almost immediately I knew something
was really, really different. Initially I liked some of what I saw,
because the dialogue and scene construction are both tremendously
improved. But pretty quickly I was dissatisfied, because I wasn't able
to feel any emotional connection to the characters. I hated the whole
thing with Brad and the reliquary (there's a word I could go the rest
of my life and never hear again). I absolutely loathed what was going
on with Drucilla (a pity, too, since Victoria Rowell is so much fun).
And John's death was a big disappointment; I expected so much more.
Then after a few weeks, I decided to get on here again (after an
extended absence, when I wasn't watching any soaps at all), and that's
when I found out about LML and the "new methodology." I was actually
kind of relieved, because I was finding it really disorienting to watch
the show. At least once I got on here, I understood that I wasn't
hallucinating and things really were quite different, done
deliberately.
Michael
queenie
<record...@gmail.com> wrote:
I can tell you where I thought the error was today. It was At Home
with the Fishers. It was another those bilious group scenes with
people who have zero chemistry and even less acting skills which
resulted false merriment. It was like somebody said, "OK, were paying
these people, what can we write for them to get the most for our
money?" So they came up with this get together--dragging Amber in so
that Lauren could offer her a job. And they had Kevin prancing around
with a telephone "microphone". I can't give more detail about this
gathering--I had to bail. But are we were supposed to believe that
these adults--of this stature--behave this way...especially when
sober?? It's getting so that when I FF, there is little reason to
stop anymore. Sad....
Rthrquiet
> However, the fact that the show was grinding down into slow plotting,
> underuse of veterans, shrinking ratings...gives evidence that Alden &
> Smith weren't living up to the potential of their mentor. One could
> argue that they needed replacing or help.
>
Not necessarily. I think one could support a view that nobody was going
to get the ratings Bell did. The problem in these situations is that
one always has to compare a known (the show's ratings under Alden, and
then Smith) to a speculation (what might the ratings have been under
some other writer?). It's possible that someone else could have held on
to the audience better, but it's also possible that they wouldn't have.
> However, and this is an important point. "Lots o' plot" wasn't the Y&R
> "methodology" in the 1970s and 1980s. But all television was slower
> then, and the audience was different.
No, not all of television was slower then. There were certainly soaps
around that played story just as fast as Y&R is playing it now. And Y&R
continued to have a much slower playing style well past the 1980s, too,
while still retaining its audience much more successfully than any
other soap on the air.
>
> In 2006, the show has to think about long-term survival. Watch the
> competitors (not just daytime, but all programming). "Lots 'o plot" is
> the order of the day. Younger viewers are bored silly by slow stories
> (and the reputation of Y&R as the show that attracted older viewers
> kind of confirms this).
I've continued to hear the argument that "young viewers" won't sit
still for slow stories, and I'm still waiting to see hard evidence that
that's the case. What I'm taking from the continued deterioration of
soap ratings is that "young viewers" won't sit still for fast-paced
stories either. Nobody's getting good numbers anymore, no matter what
the pacing of the stories is. "Lots o' plot" may be the order of the
day, but it isn't generating ratings--for any of the soaps. My
contention is that the problem lies elsewhere.
> If the world hadn't changed, the "old methodology" should not have been
> tampered with! I agree 100%.
>
> But the world has changed. If Bill Bell were alive and functioning, I
> have to believe he would have responded to the changing world. Thus, I
> view Latham as acting as an instrument to modernize Bill Bell's vision.
If Bell were alive and functioning and were forced by declining ratings
to change his way of doing things, I think he would have done exactly
what I said farther up in the thread: figured out how to "modernize"
the show while retaining the elements that had made it successful. I
don't see that LML (or anybody else involved in this change) has done
that. I think it's possible that some effort was given to assessing and
repairing some obvious problems (such as the dialogue and scene
construction, which I've mentioned before), but that's the easy part in
a change like this one. What's tough is figuring out how to change
things while still retaining the essentials that have contributed to
past success. Either they completely misanalyzed that element, or, more
likely (I'm saying this based on years and years of watching this
happen on various soaps once the networks, sponsors, and other business
types start tinkering) they just decided what the "solution" was going
to be, found someone to carry it out, and proceeded to implement it.
By and large, the corporate types don't "get" soaps--and yet they're
often given tremendous amounts of decision-making power over them, with
predictable results. Many of them have genuine contempt for the genre
and would laugh at the idea that there is such a thing as "good" soap
writing and production. Quite a few of them don't get the audience,
either, and the level of contempt and condescension they display toward
soap viewers can be astonishing. They pay lip service to supporting
creativity, they can speak the TV lingo; if you listen to them, they
talk a good game. But fundamentally, many of them just don't understand
the soap phenomenon. And yet they're empowered to make (or approve)
decisions like this one.
> Core elements of the Bell methodology (the families, the story types,
> the emphasis on reality-based stories) remain in place.
>
And yet other core elements of that methodology are, I'd say, being
roundly ignored.
> > I could
> > definitely embrace a different approach to storytelling *if* I weren't
> > feeling, in almost every episode, that nobody bothered to figure out
> > what had been appealing about the show under Bell and make sure that
> > the "new methodology" preserved that while making judicious changes.
>
> But how can you say this? The stories on the air use (heavily) all the
> vets and situations we've followed for decades? Brad's story is the
> DIRECT outcome of a scene he had in a diner two decades ago, his
> secrecy ever since, and the perception of many viewers that he was
> always "slick". The Winters' story (all premised from their marital
> dissolution) is the playout of a story Bill Bell set in motion over a
> decade ago, when Malcolm had sex with a drugged Dru.
Because that's not what I'm talking about (although you've happened to
pick two of Latham's stories I really don't care for at all). I would
argue that two essential elements of Bell's success were (1) a
remarkable degree of character consistency over the years, which
enabled viewers to make (2) a high degree of emotional connection with
the characters. I think both those things are absent in the current
version of Y&R. (I know for sure Latham can do (2); I never had a
problem investing in the characters on Knots. Why she isn't pulling it
off here, I can't say. Whether she can do (1), I'm less clear. As I
look back, Knots had some of the same sorts of character shifting that
I'm seeing on Y&R.)
> The Victor-Jack story is the latest beat in a story Bell started in the
> 1980s. There is a great deal of continuity here.
It's not just story continuity, though, Mark. That's not the only
thing--and probably not the major thing--that accounted for Bell's
success. (And actually, this story is one of things I've liked that
Latham has done.)
> >I suppose it was inevitable that it
> > would eventually happen to even Y&R (since I can't think of another
> > soap that it hasn't happened to, except maybe B&B), but I'm sad.
>
> I disagree. Think of the hot chemistry between Nick and Phylllis.
I don't see that, frankly--possibly because I'm too busy wondering who
this pod person is who took the place of Phyllis to notice whether
there's any chemistry or not. (I do think, by the way, that Nick is one
of the characters Latham has rejuvenated.)
> Think of the deepening relationship between Lauren and Michael.
Again, I'm not seeing that (although I have no complaints about the way
these two characters have been handled).
> Think
> of the friendships between Daniel & Devon or Dru and Sharon.
I agree with Latham on this one: real friendships needed to happen.
> Think of
> the new tenor of the relationship between Victor and Nikki.
>
> So, I agree with you about lots of plot (maybe too much, too fast).
> BUT, there is more than plot.
Perhaps, but not much more. And more to the point, the plottiness is
getting in the way of other things, I think.
> Heck, there is the whole act of HUMANIZING.
Did you really think that the characters, prior to this, lacked
humanity? I wouldn't have said that. I had other complaints, but not
that.
> Now, when Victoria and
> Nick's families get together, they play charades! Phyllis helps Noah
> make video tributes for Dad. Neil likes Jazz. Many of us now like
> Devon, now that we've gone through an adversity or two with him.
That's interesting. I'd like to like Devon, but his storyline is so
preposterous that I can't.
> Many characters have been deepened and rendered more complex.
Really? Again, I'm not seeing greater complexity or depth in more than
a handful. Nick, I'd agree. Victor, for sure and in spades--what Latham
has done with him has been a remarkable achievement. Who else would you
say?
Meanwhile, other characters have been trashed.
>
> The big issues: "Corporate" (CBS/Sony/Bell) decided to
> meddle...something they'd never done before. Now that they are
> meddling, the fear is that they will not stop. I share everyone's deep
> fear about that!.
>
You're right to be afraid. I can't think of another instance in which
the suits started meddling and then pulled back. Chances are, if Latham
is successful in raising the ratings, the suits will decide that the
success is attributable to their "guiding hand," and they'll use that
as a reason to continue to meddle. If Latham is not successful, the
suits will use the ratings slippage as a rationale that they obviously
need to step in and straighten things out. The one thing corporate
types do best is justify their own jobs. Now that they have their hands
on this baby, they ain't lettin' go.
> Generations was a SNOOZE, and she was NOT a good HW on Days.
I'd agree that she wasn't successful on DAYS, but given that they
continued to try to make her write like James Reilly when her natural
inclinations and talents are probably very different from that, I don't
think it's at all surprising that she failed. Why she was hired there
in the first place, given that they wanted to continue with the
direction in which Reilly had taken the show, I will never, ever
understand. I felt sorry for her. In any case, I don't think it's fair
to judge her as a HW based on that.
Generations I didn't watch, so I can't say much, other than it was on
NBC, the undisputed champion of corporate meddling with creative
talent, and I'd be surprised if much of what Sussman Morina wanted to
do with the show ever saw the light of day.
> I'd rather, then, see a sooner return to the long-standing writers of
> Y&R (Alden, Smith) rather than a long succession of strangers.
But they won't do that, Mark. I'm sorry, but they won't. That's not how
the suits think. Luring back Alden or Smith would be tantamount to
admitting they made a mistake in replacing them. The only time I can
think of when that happened was when DAYS lured back James Reilly--and
his second stint was a disaster from almost everyone's perspective. And
in that case, it could happen because Reilly's decision to leave had
been his own. The suits had nothing to protect there, no decision to
defend.
Michael
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> I would have been most joyful if the real story had been
> Latham, Alden and Smith--together for 10 years.
I would too, but only if Alden and Smith had equal say in what was
approved/vetoed. Being retained simply for the appearance of continuity
while Latham had full power would have served no purpose, as was
demonstrated.
> However, and this is an important point. "Lots o' plot" wasn't the Y&R
> "methodology" in the 1970s and 1980s. But all television was slower
> then, and the audience was different.
>
> In 2006, the show has to think about long-term survival. Watch the
> competitors (not just daytime, but all programming). "Lots 'o plot" is
> the order of the day. Younger viewers are bored silly by slow stories
> (and the reputation of Y&R as the show that attracted older viewers
> kind of confirms this).
>
> If the world hadn't changed, the "old methodology" should not have been
> tampered with! I agree 100%.
>
> But the world has changed. If Bill Bell were alive and functioning, I
> have to believe he would have responded to the changing world. Thus, I
> view Latham as acting as an instrument to modernize Bill Bell's vision.
NO ONE here has said that the old methodology didn't need SOME changes,
improvements and modernizing to keep it crisp and interesting to *all*
(younger *and* older viewers). I think we ALL agreed, initially, that
the quicker pace was an improvement. And more plot could have been added
more thoughtfully, without making viewers feel like someone behind the
scenes had adopted the "if more plot is good, then TAKE THIS!" ideology
while squeezing as many plot turns and twists into each episode as time
would allow.
The changes you mentioned could have been done in such a way that
pleased you and RH and Ravl as much as you are pleased today without
turning off those of us who see it so differently.
> Core elements of the Bell methodology (the families, the story types,
> the emphasis on reality-based stories) remain in place.
You had to have said that to get a rise, right?
You could say that there is still emphasis on families, even though she
killed off the patriarch of one of Y&R's long-standing, core families
right out of the gate. Story types are not even similar, IMO, but I
could chalk that one up to different POV. But emphasis on "reality-based
stories" remains in place?? The Reliquary and the man we saw lead a
higher-profile life than most of *us* for 21 years suddenly turned into
a person who's been running and hiding from Nazi art thieves "all his
life" is reality-based? Wow, we really *do* see things VERY differently!
> But how can you say this? The stories on the air use (heavily) all the
> vets and situations we've followed for decades? Brad's story is the
> DIRECT outcome of a scene he had in a diner two decades ago,
Brad's story **for 21 years** SINCE that one scene in the diner had
nothing whatsoever to do with that scene. Do you HONESTLY BELIEVE anyone
was still thinking about that diner scene all these years later (I'm
talking BEFORE she began this current story about his past) and saying,
"Hey, remember that diner scene? wonder what THAT was about?!"
>his secrecy ever since,
WHAT secrecy? They never addressed Brad's past, but they never addressed
Ryan MacNeil's past either, and very little of Neil Winters' past
either. So why would the lack of Brad's past have been any more odd than
that of other characters whose past was never delved into? And God
knows, he hardly showed any signs that he was "running" *or* "hiding"
and he never shied away from being in the public eye in any way, shape
or form. We've already been over and over all the times when he, his
picture, and his name had been either in the paper or in a position of
scrutiny and all the other holes this story has.
>and the perception of many viewers that he was always "slick".
IMO, that's the ONLY part of the 21 years we saw that could be
believably played on to fit this story about his hidden past. And even
then, it depends on the viewers having perceived him as slick, and while
some definitely saw him that way, others did not.
> I'd rather, then, see a sooner return to the long-standing writers of
> Y&R (Alden, Smith) rather than a long succession of strangers.
Money can do wonders, but think about it ...
"Hello? Ms. Alden? it's been a while since we hired someone and gave her
total power over you, Mr. Smith, and your input. Now that we've
completely f*cked up the whole thing and lost many of our most faithful
fans, would you consider coming back and fixing it for us?"
That group cared deeply about the show and were justifiably proud of
their part in its success and evolution, and this is JMO, but I think
the offer would have to be pretty special after the way they were
sacrificed.
Shirl
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> SO FAR, there is no basis for your concerns of (a) musical writers and
> changing directions; and (b) unrecognizability.
How about an "IMO" here, Mark?
Depending on how you view it, there is PLENTY of basis for the concerns
listed above. Shall we list the things you presently consider positives
that you attribute to LML and say there's "no basis" for those?
> SO FAR, a new team has been gradually installed,
That's one way of looking at it ... another would be that many of the
prior group, one by one, were fired and/or forced out in anything but a
"gradual" manner in order to make room for the "new team". That
certainly would resemble "musical chairs" to some ... empty one seat and
fill it with someone else, empty another and fill it, etc.
> Heck, even the stylistic changes that Latham
> says she made are sometimes set aside for "homage" to the old style
> (the other day, they followed a guy walking in the Crimson Lights until
> the camera settled on one of our characters).
JMO here, but I hardly think any of the people who are so thoroughly
dissatisfied would care about any of the "stylistic" changes to the
point of not watching the show anymore if the rest of it
(stories/characters) were as engaging to us as it is to you. They used
an old technique at CL the other day ... how considerate.
> So, to anyone who feels disposed to be a "Chicken Little", LOL, I see
> no reason to believe the sky is falling :-).
Keep tellin' yourself that. :-)
Shirl
Niki
> If Latham were ever to get the ax, the logical choice for a
> replacement, in my book, would be Sally Sussman Morina. It might not
> work, but at least it would have logic behind it.
OMG! Good to see you back Michael!
--
Niki
MarkH
Donna B wrote:
> Personally I hope that *this* works, that Ed Scott stays &
> that 5 years go by with changes in personnel, but only to the extent that
> people come & go, regular like. I do not want to see a change in EP/HW. And,
> if TPTB become unhappy or even less than happy I hope they will communicate
> specifically what they want & what they do not want to Latham & then give
> her time to implement or convince why they don't want some of it. Way too
> often the suits think they want something & don't really want it, or have no
> idea what they really want & just begin to throw things at the wall to see
> what will stick. Time & experience has shown that those things do NOT work.
>
Beautifully said!
Niki
> Numbers are still fairly steady, but there *IS* a growing number of
> viewers expressing extreme dissatisfaction that is apparently being
> ignored/disregarded. If that continues until it shows in the numbers, it
> may indeed be too late to fix it. It may already be too late.
I am surprised the numbers are holding steady. But all I see is SOD which is
soon to be gone. It'll be good. No more picking out 3 inserts each week to
gloss over show recaps I don't watch.
--
Niki
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> If Bell were alive and functioning and were forced by declining ratings
> to change his way of doing things, I think he would have done exactly
> what I said farther up in the thread: figured out how to "modernize"
> the show while retaining the elements that had made it successful. I
> don't see that LML (or anybody else involved in this change) has done
> that.
ICAM, but it is a broken record coming from me.
> > Core elements of the Bell methodology (the families, the story types,
> > the emphasis on reality-based stories) remain in place.
>
> And yet other core elements of that methodology are, I'd say, being
> roundly ignored.
ITA.
> I would argue that two essential elements of Bell's success were (1) a
> remarkable degree of character consistency over the years, which
> enabled viewers to make (2) a high degree of emotional connection with
> the characters. I think both those things are absent in the current
> version of Y&R.
I have outlined exactly the same observations.
> > Heck, there is the whole act of HUMANIZING.
>
> Did you really think that the characters, prior to this, lacked
> humanity? I wouldn't have said that. I had other complaints, but not
> that.
See above. In order to achieve that high degree of emotional connection
with the characters, they had to be VERY human, and they were. There
were always exceptions ... I can't connect with someone who would buy a
cryogenic freezer for her closet so that when she steals sperm, she has
a place to keep it, nor can I identify with someone who wants to have
the baby of a particular individual so desperately that she breaks into
the home of the cryogenic freezer lady to steal stolen sperm, has
herself impregnated with it, then marries an individual that she insists
must agree never to ask questions about the unborn child's actual
paternity. But the list of characters and scenarios one *could* relate
to is endless.
Now ... can you relate to having yourself presumed dead and assuming the
identity of your best friend? or to breaking and entering and cutting up
the clothing of someone you suspect is having an affair with your
spouse? and then expecting her/him NOT to call the police? or to
watching someone you know and/or love MURDER two people and then pretend
you saw nothing (don't answer that if you can!)? ... and that list goes
on, too.
> > Many characters have been deepened and rendered more complex.
>
> Really? Again, I'm not seeing greater complexity or depth in more than
> a handful. Nick, I'd agree. Victor, for sure and in spades--what Latham
> has done with him has been a remarkable achievement. Who else would you
> say?
I'm not seeing deep or complex either. Giving Brad the past he was given
didn't make him deep or complex for me because the story was not
believable and had too many holes. Seems that characters changing their
minds, behaviors, and values so easily and frequently is being mistaken
for being "deep" and "complex". That happens IRL, too ... people who
appear different each time you see/talk with them can be mistaken for
deep and complex when in actuality, they're just flakey, and once you
figure that out, most don't become emotionally connected.
> Meanwhile, other characters have been trashed.
And I'm afraid Jill and Katherine are next in that category.
Shirl
MarkH
Rthrquiet wrote:
> >
>
> Not necessarily. I think one could support a view that nobody was going
> to get the ratings Bell did. The problem in these situations is that
> one always has to compare a known (the show's ratings under Alden, and
> then Smith) to a speculation (what might the ratings have been under
> some other writer?). It's possible that someone else could have held on
> to the audience better, but it's also possible that they wouldn't have.
I can see why they like you here. You write VERY well and
insightfully.
>
>
> I've continued to hear the argument that "young viewers" won't sit
> still for slow stories, and I'm still waiting to see hard evidence that
> that's the case. What I'm taking from the continued deterioration of
> soap ratings is that "young viewers" won't sit still for fast-paced
> stories either. Nobody's getting good numbers anymore, no matter what
> the pacing of the stories is. "Lots o' plot" may be the order of the
> day, but it isn't generating ratings--for any of the soaps. My
> contention is that the problem lies elsewhere.
>
I concede this. I'm not exactly sure what it is that I loathed about
the waning days of the Smith era. I think it was seeing too much of
characters I didn't like, and seeing crazy stories with my known
characters (Nikki killed a boy when she was a pre-schooler! Jill is
Kay's daughter! Kay is turning back into an alcoholic for no good
reason!).
But, your point is correct. Too much plot produces an unbalanced show,
and I'm not sure anyone is attracted to that! The MTV "soaps", like
Real World, get by 100% on character/personality, with essentially no
"plot" (except contrived "reality" twists). So, I agree that plot by
itself can damage emotional investment.
>What's tough is figuring out how to change
> things while still retaining the essentials that have contributed to
> past success. Either they completely misanalyzed that element, or, more
> likely (I'm saying this based on years and years of watching this
> happen on various soaps once the networks, sponsors, and other business
> types start tinkering) they just decided what the "solution" was going
> to be, found someone to carry it out, and proceeded to implement it.
I hear you. As a former viewer of AW, SB, AMC, GH and others, I fully
concur with your analysis of how other soaps were ruined. Honestly, on
Y&R, I don't see this. I really think most of the "essentials" have
remained in place. I'll comment more specifically on your related
comments on this point below.
>
>
> > Core elements of the Bell methodology (the families, the story types,
> > the emphasis on reality-based stories) remain in place.
> >
>
> And yet other core elements of that methodology are, I'd say, being
> roundly ignored.
>
And, if I'm reading correctly, you believe those "core elements" are
consistency of personality? Which implies that you believe what is
happening now is inconsistency of personality? (That's been Shirl's
argument).
I don't honestly see that.
> I would
> argue that two essential elements of Bell's success were (1) a
> remarkable degree of character consistency over the years, which
> enabled viewers to make (2) a high degree of emotional connection with
> the characters. I think both those things are absent in the current
> version of Y&R. (I know for sure Latham can do (2); I never had a
> problem investing in the characters on Knots. Why she isn't pulling it
> off here, I can't say. Whether she can do (1), I'm less clear. As I
> look back, Knots had some of the same sorts of character shifting that
> I'm seeing on Y&R.)
I loved Knot's, and I remember the emotional roots of it being
Karen-Mack-Gary-Val. Some of those characters grew and changed over
the years, but the emotional core of those relationships was a big part
of what I loved. The other part was the amazing plots (some so
convoluted I can't remember a single detail). Peter Hollister buried
in concrete. Galveston and Empire Valley. Jill Bennett and her "poor
Val" attempt to murder Valene. Joshua the evangelist.
I can't even remember which of those arcs were part of Latham's tenure.
Plot plus core characters. I see that as a similar formula to what I'm
seeing now.
>
> > The Victor-Jack story is the latest beat in a story Bell started in the
> > 1980s. There is a great deal of continuity here.
>
> It's not just story continuity, though, Mark. That's not the only
> thing--and probably not the major thing--that accounted for Bell's
> success. (And actually, this story is one of things I've liked that
> Latham has done.)
>
We agree. She balanced the power dynamics a bit, and introduced
vulnerability, esp. into Victor. We can actually see a possible basis
for the two men liking each other, if only.... That makes the rivalry
more gripping.
> >
> > I disagree. Think of the hot chemistry between Nick and Phylllis.
>
> I don't see that, frankly--possibly because I'm too busy wondering who
> this pod person is who took the place of Phyllis to notice whether
> there's any chemistry or not. (I do think, by the way, that Nick is one
> of the characters Latham has rejuvenated.)
I think Phyllis was playing her version of "ful-filled". I think that
will end soon. We agree on Nick's rejuvenation. (I think Neil has
been similarly rejuvenated).
>
>
> > Think
> > of the friendships between Daniel & Devon or Dru and Sharon.
>
> I agree with Latham on this one: real friendships needed to happen.
Me too.
>
> Perhaps, but not much more. And more to the point, the plottiness is
> getting in the way of other things, I think.
Here we may agree a bit. The speed of the Devon arc, the speed of the
reliquary arc, even the Carmen Mesta murder. I do agree there may be
too much plot here.
>
> > Heck, there is the whole act of HUMANIZING.
>
> Did you really think that the characters, prior to this, lacked
> humanity? I wouldn't have said that. I had other complaints, but not
> that.
I honestly do. I couldn't relate to them as friends and neighbors
(something I _could_ with the Knot's core-four). Now, I CAN relate to
the Winters (they cook dinner together!), Nick (he's really hot for his
wife), Nikki and Victor (they actually crack jokes), and so forth.
They are more accessible to me now.
>
> > Now, when Victoria and
> > Nick's families get together, they play charades! Phyllis helps Noah
> > make video tributes for Dad. Neil likes Jazz. Many of us now like
> > Devon, now that we've gone through an adversity or two with him.
>
> That's interesting. I'd like to like Devon, but his storyline is so
> preposterous that I can't.
As a hearing impaired person, I may be investing too much in Devon :-).
BUT, yes, I've been loving his emotional connection to his foster
parents, his loudness when he talks... I relate to him more, feel for
him more...
>
> Really? Again, I'm not seeing greater complexity or depth in more than
> a handful. Nick, I'd agree. Victor, for sure and in spades--what Latham
> has done with him has been a remarkable achievement. Who else would you
> say?
Jack
Neil
Lily (ironically, with the previous actress, who brought an earthiness)
Brad (the actor is limited, but still, I see some of his desperation)
Michael (although he evokes less emotion in me, even as he struggles
with paternity)
Gloria (her uselessness after John's death, her desperation to be
somebody)
Sharon (relative to her "nothingness" in previous administrations, I
see her slowly emerging as a woman with some search for an identity)
Nikki (the emergence of the cutting, sarcastic b*tch is a new
development, and it is a delight to see Nikki in that role; before
that, she was either a weak tissue-woman, or maybe a romantic
rival...but never a strong, witty, cutting b*tch
>
> Meanwhile, other characters have been trashed.
> >
> > The big issues: "Corporate" (CBS/Sony/Bell) decided to
> > meddle...something they'd never done before. Now that they are
> > meddling, the fear is that they will not stop. I share everyone's deep
> > fear about that!.
> >
>
> You're right to be afraid. I can't think of another instance in which
> the suits started meddling and then pulled back.
You are right. I think a lot of the negativity to "regime change" that
we're seeing comes from an awareness by many viewers that this is
usually the beginning of the end.
Here, I force myself to be optimistic that "this time will be
different". I do think the implementation of regime change has been
done much better here than in any other situation I can think of. So,
please permit me this optimistic delusion.
>
> > I'd rather, then, see a sooner return to the long-standing writers of
> > Y&R (Alden, Smith) rather than a long succession of strangers.
>
> But they won't do that, Mark. I'm sorry, but they won't. That's not how
> the suits think. Luring back Alden or Smith would be tantamount to
> admitting they made a mistake in replacing them. The only time I can
> think of when that happened was when DAYS lured back James Reilly--and
> his second stint was a disaster from almost everyone's perspective. And
> in that case, it could happen because Reilly's decision to leave had
> been his own. The suits had nothing to protect there, no decision to
> defend.
Let's hope Latham lasts, and people grow to love her, and she generates
new audience.
MarkH
Rthrquiet wrote:
> >
>
> Not necessarily. I think one could support a view that nobody was going
> to get the ratings Bell did. The problem in these situations is that
> one always has to compare a known (the show's ratings under Alden, and
> then Smith) to a speculation (what might the ratings have been under
> some other writer?). It's possible that someone else could have held on
> to the audience better, but it's also possible that they wouldn't have.
I can see why they like you here. You write VERY well and
insightfully.
>
>
> I've continued to hear the argument that "young viewers" won't sit
> still for slow stories, and I'm still waiting to see hard evidence that
> that's the case. What I'm taking from the continued deterioration of
> soap ratings is that "young viewers" won't sit still for fast-paced
> stories either. Nobody's getting good numbers anymore, no matter what
> the pacing of the stories is. "Lots o' plot" may be the order of the
> day, but it isn't generating ratings--for any of the soaps. My
> contention is that the problem lies elsewhere.
>
I concede this. I'm not exactly sure what it is that I loathed about
the waning days of the Smith era. I think it was seeing too much of
characters I didn't like, and seeing crazy stories with my known
characters (Nikki killed a boy when she was a pre-schooler! Jill is
Kay's daughter! Kay is turning back into an alcoholic for no good
reason!).
But, your point is correct. Too much plot produces an unbalanced show,
and I'm not sure anyone is attracted to that! The MTV "soaps", like
Real World, get by 100% on character/personality, with essentially no
"plot" (except contrived "reality" twists). So, I agree that plot by
itself can damage emotional investment.
>What's tough is figuring out how to change
> things while still retaining the essentials that have contributed to
> past success. Either they completely misanalyzed that element, or, more
> likely (I'm saying this based on years and years of watching this
> happen on various soaps once the networks, sponsors, and other business
> types start tinkering) they just decided what the "solution" was going
> to be, found someone to carry it out, and proceeded to implement it.
I hear you. As a former viewer of AW, SB, AMC, GH and others, I fully
concur with your analysis of how other soaps were ruined. Honestly, on
Y&R, I don't see this. I really think most of the "essentials" have
remained in place. I'll comment more specifically on your related
comments on this point below.
>
>
> > Core elements of the Bell methodology (the families, the story types,
> > the emphasis on reality-based stories) remain in place.
> >
>
> And yet other core elements of that methodology are, I'd say, being
> roundly ignored.
>
And, if I'm reading correctly, you believe those "core elements" are
consistency of personality? Which implies that you believe what is
happening now is inconsistency of personality? (That's been Shirl's
argument).
I don't honestly see that.
> I would
> argue that two essential elements of Bell's success were (1) a
> remarkable degree of character consistency over the years, which
> enabled viewers to make (2) a high degree of emotional connection with
> the characters. I think both those things are absent in the current
> version of Y&R. (I know for sure Latham can do (2); I never had a
> problem investing in the characters on Knots. Why she isn't pulling it
> off here, I can't say. Whether she can do (1), I'm less clear. As I
> look back, Knots had some of the same sorts of character shifting that
> I'm seeing on Y&R.)
I loved Knot's, and I remember the emotional roots of it being
Karen-Mack-Gary-Val. Some of those characters grew and changed over
the years, but the emotional core of those relationships was a big part
of what I loved. The other part was the amazing plots (some so
convoluted I can't remember a single detail). Peter Hollister buried
in concrete. Galveston and Empire Valley. Jill Bennett and her "poor
Val" attempt to murder Valene. Joshua the evangelist.
I can't even remember which of those arcs were part of Latham's tenure.
Plot plus core characters. I see that as a similar formula to what I'm
seeing now.
>
> > The Victor-Jack story is the latest beat in a story Bell started in the
> > 1980s. There is a great deal of continuity here.
>
> It's not just story continuity, though, Mark. That's not the only
> thing--and probably not the major thing--that accounted for Bell's
> success. (And actually, this story is one of things I've liked that
> Latham has done.)
>
We agree. She balanced the power dynamics a bit, and introduced
vulnerability, esp. into Victor. We can actually see a possible basis
for the two men liking each other, if only.... That makes the rivalry
more gripping.
> >
> > I disagree. Think of the hot chemistry between Nick and Phylllis.
>
> I don't see that, frankly--possibly because I'm too busy wondering who
> this pod person is who took the place of Phyllis to notice whether
> there's any chemistry or not. (I do think, by the way, that Nick is one
> of the characters Latham has rejuvenated.)
I think Phyllis was playing her version of "ful-filled". I think that
will end soon. We agree on Nick's rejuvenation. (I think Neil has
been similarly rejuvenated).
>
>
> > Think
> > of the friendships between Daniel & Devon or Dru and Sharon.
>
> I agree with Latham on this one: real friendships needed to happen.
Me too.
>
> Perhaps, but not much more. And more to the point, the plottiness is
> getting in the way of other things, I think.
Here we may agree a bit. The speed of the Devon arc, the speed of the
reliquary arc, even the Carmen Mesta murder. I do agree there may be
too much plot here.
>
> > Heck, there is the whole act of HUMANIZING.
>
> Did you really think that the characters, prior to this, lacked
> humanity? I wouldn't have said that. I had other complaints, but not
> that.
I honestly do. I couldn't relate to them as friends and neighbors
(something I _could_ with the Knot's core-four). Now, I CAN relate to
the Winters (they cook dinner together!), Nick (he's really hot for his
wife), Nikki and Victor (they actually crack jokes), and so forth.
They are more accessible to me now.
>
> > Now, when Victoria and
> > Nick's families get together, they play charades! Phyllis helps Noah
> > make video tributes for Dad. Neil likes Jazz. Many of us now like
> > Devon, now that we've gone through an adversity or two with him.
>
> That's interesting. I'd like to like Devon, but his storyline is so
> preposterous that I can't.
As a hearing impaired person, I may be investing too much in Devon :-).
BUT, yes, I've been loving his emotional connection to his foster
parents, his loudness when he talks... I relate to him more, feel for
him more...
>
> Really? Again, I'm not seeing greater complexity or depth in more than
> a handful. Nick, I'd agree. Victor, for sure and in spades--what Latham
> has done with him has been a remarkable achievement. Who else would you
> say?
Jack
Neil
Lily (ironically, with the previous actress, who brought an earthiness)
Brad (the actor is limited, but still, I see some of his desperation)
Michael (although he evokes less emotion in me, even as he struggles
with paternity)
Gloria (her uselessness after John's death, her desperation to be
somebody)
Sharon (relative to her "nothingness" in previous administrations, I
see her slowly emerging as a woman with some search for an identity)
Nikki (the emergence of the cutting, sarcastic b*tch is a new
development, and it is a delight to see Nikki in that role; before
that, she was either a weak tissue-woman, or maybe a romantic
rival...but never a strong, witty, cutting b*tch
>
> Meanwhile, other characters have been trashed.
> >
> > The big issues: "Corporate" (CBS/Sony/Bell) decided to
> > meddle...something they'd never done before. Now that they are
> > meddling, the fear is that they will not stop. I share everyone's deep
> > fear about that!.
> >
>
> You're right to be afraid. I can't think of another instance in which
> the suits started meddling and then pulled back.
You are right. I think a lot of the negativity to "regime change" that
we're seeing comes from an awareness by many viewers that this is
usually the beginning of the end.
Here, I force myself to be optimistic that "this time will be
different". I do think the implementation of regime change has been
done much better here than in any other situation I can think of. So,
please permit me this optimistic delusion.
>
> > I'd rather, then, see a sooner return to the long-standing writers of
> > Y&R (Alden, Smith) rather than a long succession of strangers.
>
> But they won't do that, Mark. I'm sorry, but they won't. That's not how
> the suits think. Luring back Alden or Smith would be tantamount to
> admitting they made a mistake in replacing them. The only time I can
> think of when that happened was when DAYS lured back James Reilly--and
> his second stint was a disaster from almost everyone's perspective. And
> in that case, it could happen because Reilly's decision to leave had
> been his own. The suits had nothing to protect there, no decision to
> defend.
Let's hope Latham lasts, and people grow to love her, and she generates
new audience.
MarkH
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
> "MarkH" <slip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I would have been most joyful if the real story had been
> > Latham, Alden and Smith--together for 10 years.
>
> I would too, but only if Alden and Smith had equal say in what was
> approved/vetoed. Being retained simply for the appearance of continuity
> while Latham had full power would have served no purpose, as was
> demonstrated.
Agreed! Indeed, I almost consider their dismissal "humane"...but I
wish they could have shared the power.
I honestly didn't say it to get a rise.
I'm not talking so much about the Reliquary...but, for example, Brad
and his family now live in a world where there were Nazis, where Jews
were/are persecuted, where there is repatriation of stolen art.
These are real things.
If you can get past the f*cking reliquary for a minute :-), I'd say the
rest of it is very reality based (within the heightened reality of
soaps): Having a baby and post-partum depression, Coping with a
serious illness in a spouse (e.g., Victor's head injury). Infidelity
in a marriage and its' fallout. Adopting a troubled child. Dealing
with the sense of being overweight.
What I'm saying is that the people in GC now increasingly deal with
things that many of us do.
You mention Ryan McNeil and his ilk. Yes, Bell left lots of open
"story banks". Some of them are being drawn upon now.
MarkH
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
> "MarkH" <slip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > SO FAR, there is no basis for your concerns of (a) musical writers and
> > changing directions; and (b) unrecognizability.
>
> How about an "IMO" here, Mark?
> Depending on how you view it, there is PLENTY of basis for the concerns
> listed above. Shall we list the things you presently consider positives
> that you attribute to LML and say there's "no basis" for those?
>
Well, I do usually try to qualify. But this seemed, to me, to feel to
meet the definition of musical chairs or unrecognizability.
> > SO FAR, a new team has been gradually installed,
>
> That's one way of looking at it ... another would be that many of the
> prior group, one by one, were fired and/or forced out in anything but a
> "gradual" manner in order to make room for the "new team". That
> certainly would resemble "musical chairs" to some ... empty one seat and
> fill it with someone else, empty another and fill it, etc.
Even if I accepted your decision, that feels more like "coup d'etat",
not "musical chairs".
A coup d'etat can be bloodless and "permanent". Musical chairs
bespeaks inconsistency and constant regime change (to me). The latter
has not yet happened.
I concur with EVERYONE, though, that the coup d'etat raises legimitate
concerns that musical chairs will follow. BUT, in my strong
estimation, musical chairs has not yet happened and there is no strong
reason (yet) to believe that it will.
> > Heck, even the stylistic changes that Latham
> > says she made are sometimes set aside for "homage" to the old style
> > (the other day, they followed a guy walking in the Crimson Lights until
> > the camera settled on one of our characters).
>
> JMO here, but I hardly think any of the people who are so thoroughly
> dissatisfied would care about any of the "stylistic" changes to the
> point of not watching the show anymore if the rest of it
> (stories/characters) were as engaging to us as it is to you. They used
> an old technique at CL the other day ... how considerate.
>
I agree with your point. I'm just saying that it's not a "totally
different show". Even stylistically, they pay homage to the old way
when they can.
MarkH
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
>
> See above. In order to achieve that high degree of emotional connection
> with the characters, they had to be VERY human, and they were. There
> were always exceptions ... I can't connect with someone who would buy a
> cryogenic freezer for her closet so that when she steals sperm, she has
> a place to keep it, nor can I identify with someone who wants to have
> the baby of a particular individual so desperately that she breaks into
> the home of the cryogenic freezer lady to steal stolen sperm, has
> herself impregnated with it, then marries an individual that she insists
> must agree never to ask questions about the unborn child's actual
> paternity. But the list of characters and scenarios one *could* relate
> to is endless.
>
> Now ... can you relate to having yourself presumed dead and assuming the
> identity of your best friend? or to breaking and entering and cutting up
> the clothing of someone you suspect is having an affair with your
> spouse? and then expecting her/him NOT to call the police? or to
> watching someone you know and/or love MURDER two people and then pretend
> you saw nothing (don't answer that if you can!)? ... and that list goes
> on, too.
>
Okay, so we understand that there were "unrelatable" characters in all
regimes.
Also, maybe I'm whacked, but if I put myself in teen-Brad's desperate
situation (family just killed, killers after me, best friend just
died), I can COMPLETELY buy what he did (stealing identity). I always
felt Brad had walls around him, and now I FINALLY understand them.
I can completely understand--especially under the influence of
liquor--Dru's desperation in cutting up Carmen's clothes. That stuff
honestly happens! (What "Cheaters" on TV once). And sure, you'd HOPE
the police would not be brought into it.
I do agree that the emotional fallout of Brad's two (self-defense)
murders has not been properly played.
For me, Brad suddenly became chilling. He is capable of ANYTHING.
That actually made him much more interesting to me...but it also meant
he was dark and dangerous.
I would like to have seen Victoria and Sharon and Nick and Paul and JT
all REELING from this revelation of Brad. (Unlike you, I don't care
that he hid this part of himself for 21 years). So, where the story
falls short for me is that Victoria--for example--stays married to him.
When Victoria called a divorce lawyer to check her options, THAT was a
story I could believe. I'd love to see every moment Victoria spends
with Brad seeded with mistrust--even as she WANTS to love and trust
him. (But remember, she only married him to p*ss of daddy anyway).
So, I do agree, the emotional fallout of Brad's revealed nature has
been underplayed.
DonnaB
In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:25:38 -0500 in Msg.#
<r52cn213ns95dtlhr...@4ax.com>, queenie <que...@nospam.com>
wrote:
> I can tell you where I thought the error was today. It was At Home
> with the Fishers. It was another those bilious group scenes with
> people who have zero chemistry and even less acting skills which
> resulted false merriment. It was like somebody said, "OK, were paying
> these people, what can we write for them to get the most for our
> money?" So they came up with this get together--dragging Amber in so
> that Lauren could offer her a job. And they had Kevin prancing around
> with a telephone "microphone". I can't give more detail about this
> gathering--I had to bail. But are we were supposed to believe that
> these adults--of this stature--behave this way...especially when
> sober?? It's getting so that when I FF, there is little reason to
> stop anymore. Sad....
Now see, here's why Baskin Robbins has all those different flavors. I loved
this scene! It was so warm, so real, so well produced without being able to
see the edges of the scene, of the acting, the 4th wall, it just WAS. And,
it was nearly perfect. I can't stand Franz/Amber, so there's the lack of
perfection, for you, but other than Amber, it was SO good!
But heck, two weeks ago I watched every day & loved 4 out of 5 days. LOVED,
I tell you. And, on the fifth day, which happened to be the first day:
Monday of that week, I loved at least parts of it.
And, Little Abby was fantastic! She didn't spill the beans, she told on Jack
for spilling the candy. Crack me up.
And, yes, this is the soap that I used to literally fall asleep trying to
watch. Not figuratively! Literally.
--
DonnaB : ^> shallotpeel <*> Yahoo Messenger: shallotpeel
"The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate." - Douglas Adams
[3/11/52-5/11/01, tHHGttG]
record hunter
SO. FAR. Maybe they're going to deal with this over the next few days.
(I haven't watched Tue/US yet.) If there's one thing this show has
become good at doing, it's seeding story and giving it time to grow.
Perhaps if we were in on Adrian's thought process, we'd know a lot more
than we do. But we're not. And we don't. YET.
Just yesterday I complained that Gloria seemed to be disappearing, then
when I watched yesterday's US airshow (thanks, Mark), I could not have
been more pleasantly surprised.
Maybe we're going to have some new revelations chez Kaplan.
Cheri
queenie wrote in message ...
>On 5 Dec 2006 14:12:45 -0800, "record hunter"
><record...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously, if you're enjoying/loving what the "new" Y&R offers, you
>>> would disagree that *any* error has been made. But the fact that a
>>> growing number of viewers are expressing such adamant and extreme
>>> dissatisfaction is proof of that error.
>>
>>
>>So, it's an error for me think that no error has been made?
>>
>>Where is this 'growing number'? I count you, Diva, Queenie, and now
>>Michael. Admittedly, that's twice as many of you guys, so I guess
>>adding Michael counts as 'growing.' But it *sounds* bigger than that.
>
>I can tell you where I thought the error was today. It was At Home
>with the Fishers. It was another those bilious group scenes with
>people who have zero chemistry and even less acting skills which
>resulted false merriment. It was like somebody said, "OK, were paying
Yes, definitely one of the worst parts of that scene, was the horrible
acting Amber did while talking to Jana about the contestants on the
show. The laughter was just plain bad acting, almost as bad as when she
tries to cry, second only to Taylor when she cries. Real bad.
Cheri
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> > Obviously, if you're enjoying/loving what the "new" Y&R offers, you
> > would disagree that *any* error has been made. But the fact that a
> > growing number of viewers are expressing such adamant and extreme
> > dissatisfaction is proof of that error.
record hunter:
> So, it's an error for me think that no error has been made?
With previously devoted fans expressing such sincere and intense
negativity and listing reasonable, logical justification for it? Yes,
it's an error for you to think no error has been made!
But before you go ballistic at me...
I think your OPINION -- that Y&R is great right now -- is no less valid
than anyone's that it's not ... this is NOT a criticism of you or anyone
for viewing it favorably.
However, if no error in some aspect of the new methodology and its
implementation had been made, there would still (as always) be some
viewers voicing some negativities, but there wouldn't be such intense
dislike, dissatisfaction, anger, outrage, etc. being expressed. The very
fact that this exists in more than a handful of people AND in viewers
who were some of Y&R's MOST diehard, loyal fans is, IMO, evidence that
an error was made. I grant you that calling it an "error" may not be the
right term here ... some would just say they "f*cked up"!
;-)
I think you know what I'm saying, and that I'm not meaning to offend you
or anyone for having a favorable opinion. Is that clear as mud?
> Where is this 'growing number'? I count you, Diva, Queenie, and now
> Michael. Admittedly, that's twice as many of you guys, so I guess
> adding Michael counts as 'growing.' But it *sounds* bigger than that.
I'm not talking about *only* in this group. The number of posts in other
groups expressing extreme dissatisfaction, anger and even disgust with
what has become of the Y&R since LML took over is increasing. I was
starting to say, in another post, that someone suggested that it's only
the people who are "too old" to appreciate the changes that are so
dissatisfied -- that was met with several posts from people claiming to
be in their 20s and 30s, saying they've watched since they were
children, who are also sharing the negative opinion of the changes and
what the show has become as a result ... so it isn't just the over 45
group that some have implied is the only set that doesn't "get it".
Shirl
queenie
wrote:
>
>queenie wrote in message ...
>>On 5 Dec 2006 14:12:45 -0800, "record hunter"
>><record...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obviously, if you're enjoying/loving what the "new" Y&R offers, you
>>>> would disagree that *any* error has been made. But the fact that a
>>>> growing number of viewers are expressing such adamant and extreme
>>>> dissatisfaction is proof of that error.
>>>
>>>
>>>So, it's an error for me think that no error has been made?
>>>
>>>Where is this 'growing number'? I count you, Diva, Queenie, and now
>>>Michael. Admittedly, that's twice as many of you guys, so I guess
>>>adding Michael counts as 'growing.' But it *sounds* bigger than that.
>>
>>I can tell you where I thought the error was today. It was At Home
>>with the Fishers. It was another of those bilious group scenes with
>>people who have zero chemistry and even less acting skills which
>>resulted false merriment. It was like somebody said, "OK, were paying
>
>
>
>Yes, definitely one of the worst parts of that scene, was the horrible
>acting Amber did while talking to Jana about the contestants on the
>show. The laughter was just plain bad acting, almost as bad as when she
>tries to cry, second only to Taylor when she cries. Real bad.
Glad I missed that part. I think the worst crier in the history of
soaps must be Susan Lucci. :-)
>Cheri
>
record hunter
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
> Shirl:
> > > Obviously, if you're enjoying/loving what the "new" Y&R offers, you
> > > would disagree that *any* error has been made. But the fact that a
> > > growing number of viewers are expressing such adamant and extreme
> > > dissatisfaction is proof of that error.
>
> record hunter:
> > So, it's an error for me think that no error has been made?
>
> With previously devoted fans expressing such sincere and intense
> negativity and listing reasonable, logical justification for it? Yes,
> it's an error for you to think no error has been made!
>
> But before you go ballistic at me...
> I think your OPINION -- that Y&R is great right now -- is no less valid
> than anyone's that it's not ... this is NOT a criticism of you or anyone
> for viewing it favorably.
I'm not going to go ballistic. Believe it or not, I don't like that any
more than you do.
>
> However, if no error in some aspect of the new methodology and its
> implementation had been made, there would still (as always) be some
> viewers voicing some negativities, but there wouldn't be such intense
> dislike, dissatisfaction, anger, outrage, etc. being expressed. The very
> fact that this exists in more than a handful of people AND in viewers
> who were some of Y&R's MOST diehard, loyal fans is, IMO, evidence that
> an error was made. I grant you that calling it an "error" may not be the
> right term here ... some would just say they "f*cked up"!
> ;-)
> I think you know what I'm saying, and that I'm not meaning to offend you
> or anyone for having a favorable opinion. Is that clear as mud?
Sure. Okay. As long as you can accept the logic of my expecting -- nay,
just *imagining* -- the possibility that there are others out there who
think great improvement has happened on Y&R. If I can see it, why can't
others? There must be someone out there, who, like me, is essentially a
new viewer. Someone who sees the body rather than the corpse.
Mark, Ravl, and I can't be the only ones who like this show.
> > Where is this 'growing number'? I count you, Diva, Queenie, and now
> > Michael. Admittedly, that's twice as many of you guys, so I guess
> > adding Michael counts as 'growing.' But it *sounds* bigger than that.
>
> I'm not talking about *only* in this group. The number of posts in other
> groups expressing extreme dissatisfaction, anger and even disgust with
> what has become of the Y&R since LML took over is increasing.
The question was "where?" I don't know where these other people are
located. They don't post here, and they are not Pittsburghers, so I
have not heard from them. Speaking of Pittsburgh, two rather positive
articles about the NM have appeared in our paper, the Post-Gazette. I
posted links when they appeared.
> I was
> starting to say, in another post, that someone suggested that it's only
> the people who are "too old" to appreciate the changes that are so
> dissatisfied -- that was met with several posts from people claiming to
> be in their 20s and 30s, saying they've watched since they were
> children, who are also sharing the negative opinion of the changes and
> what the show has become as a result ... so it isn't just the over 45
> group that some have implied is the only set that doesn't "get it".
>
> Shirl
I don't think in terms of real age here. But I also don't think that
you cavedwellers are the only audience. I know you're going to say
'that's not what I said,' and okay, no, not exactly, but over time,
when you highlight your 'growing number' and *33 years* as often as
you do, it looks and sounds like that's what you're saying, even if it
isn't *exactly* what you're saying. You certainly put these ideas front
and center.
There. I hope that was unballistic enough for you.
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> > People have said, "you're just too old, set in your ways, can't accept
> > change, lose the binky," yadda, yadda, yadda. IMO, those are the most
> > convenient excuses to gloss over the huge error in judgment that has
> > caused so many long-term fans to be SO unhappy, angry, and turned off,
> > some to the point of quitting after 33+ years.
MarkH:
> Ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh!!! The ratings do not support this hypothesis!!!
> The user boards do not support this hypothesis (opinion is clearly
> divided, but some are happy and some are miserable--EVERYONE is feeling
> SOMETHING).
It's not my "hypothesis"...it's what I see/read, and it's there for you
to see/read, too, if you care to look around outside of this discussion
group. You're right on two counts: (1) that the ratings do not support
the *observation*, and (2) that everyone is feeling SOMETHING.
The observation is based on my belief that the sum total of people
posting to online discussion groups about Y&R is at least a very
informal random sampling of viewers from various ages and walks of life,
geographic locations, income levels, and social groups, with the only
commonalities being that they have access to a computer and watch the
Y&R. To my knowledge, there's no formal study to show that it can *or
can't* be considered as such.
Are you saying no one is quitting? or that there aren't long-term fans
that are very unhappy, angry, and turned-off by the change? If you think
either, you're kidding yourself, because that situation *does* exist.
You may indeed be correct that so far, ratings have not declined as a
result of all the discord that is being expressed. And by reading your
many posts, I think this is where we differ the most ... you thinking
everything's just fine and that TPTB don't need to change a thing,
whereas I'm thinking that while they should be thrilled that some are
enjoying as much as you are, it's careless and irresponsible to not be
listening to and considering those expressing the other POV.
> I see no evidence to support the declarative statement "huge error in
> judgment".
Again, the evidence is any post on any group (and there are many) that
are expressing extreme negativity for the changes, many in civilized,
well thought out, logical and reasonable terms, not simply rants with
zero thought or reasoning behind them. I'm hard-pressed to understand
why you would think this evidence is somehow less valid than the
evidence here that supports the changes.
> I see no evidence that a "growing number of viewers" are expressing
> "adamant" dissatisfaction. We have both agreed in the past that those
> probability surveys have not yet been done.
No formal studies have been done, to my knowledge. However, there *is* a
growing number of posts expressing adamant dissatisfaction. There are
clearly more of those now on the various sites than there were 3 months
and 6 months ago. This leads to the logical speculation that viewers who
were initially on the fence *are* giving the changes a chance, but more
and more are reaching a negative conclusion. You can close your eyes to
it if you wish, but it's there nonetheless.
> > Y&R undeniably had a successful formula in place. It had proven itself
> > year after year. Are minimal continuous changes needed to maintain
> > optimum interest, efficiency, productivity? ABSOLUTELY. Are some
> > customers dissatisfied from time to time that prompt these changes?
> > ABSOLUTELY. Are minimal changes sometimes not received well and
> > scrapped? ABSOLUTELY. But you don't put the whole established success
> > level at risk by making major changes *all at once* that may jeopardize
> > the ENTIRE product.
>
> Didn't happen. No "major changes *all at once*". It didn't happen!
> It didn't happen!! There were stylistic revisions, and a deeper
> investment in veterans. Story points set up 2 decades ago were played
> out. What you say did not happen!
Methinks thou doth protest too much! If you have to make the
pronouncement 4 times in one short paragraph, perhaps you're trying a
little too hard to convince ?? yourself ?? us ?? that it didn't happen.
Deny it all you want ... a lot of us saw it happen right before our
eyes. What would be the point of saying it happened if it didn't?
> AND, the aging demographic was turning advertisers away.
Perhaps it's time for the advertisers to revamp and "modernize" their
methodology to appeal to the people who *ARE* watching, not to some
phantom group of "target" viewers that may never tune in.
> NOT success! I loved the show always (less in recent years),
> but I'm not the viewer they want.
Maybe not, but if they can't keep the viewers they HAVE happy (or at the
very least, still addicted to watching), what would be the point of
trying to attract new ones?
> They need to make more money! They need to at least keep
> revenues flat (that's not good enough). Y&R was not accomplishing
> this.
Was any soap? Are the *expectations* realistic and in-keeping with
current times and trends?
> > But the new PTB seems to have adopted EB's mentality/attitude that it's
> > foolhardy to listen to what viewers are saying ... what do we know
> > anyway?
>
> Oops, misquote! That will BILL BELL'S mentality/attitude. Write from
> YOUR gut, and don't write to the viccissitudes of viewer opinion!
No misquote. EB said it, too, although somehow, I think his
interpretation was different than what Bill Bell was saying. EB doesn't
care if the writers write from their GUT, as long as where ever it's
coming from, it features HIM!
Shirl
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> Sure. Okay. As long as you can accept the logic of my expecting -- nay,
> just *imagining* -- the possibility that there are others out there who
> think great improvement has happened on Y&R. If I can see it, why can't
> others? There must be someone out there, who, like me, is essentially a
> new viewer. Someone who sees the body rather than the corpse.
>
> Mark, Ravl, and I can't be the only ones who like this show.
Of course you aren't ... Donna likes it, too! ;-)
Seriously, Michael, Diva, queenie, Niki and I aren't the only ones
perceiving it negatively, either. Why would you feel the need to clarify
that, though? I've mentioned the three of you specifically because you
are the three HERE that have been most vocal in your praise; but of
course there are many, many others that are enjoying elsewhere.
I remember saying a while back in one of these discussions that my guess
was that the "new methodology" WOULD likely appeal much more to newer
viewers who *don't* have as much of a history with the show and less of
a feeling that you *know* the veteran characters so well. Some of their
behaviors and changes wouldn't seem as much like they happened overnight
or came out of left field if you didn't know them as well...for one
thing. For another, you wouldn't be as used to any one particular "look
and feel" (emotionally, not visually) of how things had been done for so
long. This new style wouldn't seem so jarring.
And no, I'm not saying those are the ONLY reasons why some long-time
viewers are perceiving the change so negatively, but those are a couple
that newer viewers may not be as affected by.
> The question was "where?" I don't know where these other people are
> located. They don't post here, and they are not Pittsburghers, so I
> have not heard from them. Speaking of Pittsburgh, two rather positive
> articles about the NM have appeared in our paper, the Post-Gazette. I
> posted links when they appeared.
They used the term "new methodology" specifically?
I was talking about the "growing number" of posters perceiving the Y&R
negatively in other online discussion groups. Google "Y&R Discussion
Groups" and you'll find 'em.
> I don't think in terms of real age here. But I also don't think that
> you cavedwellers are the only audience. I know you're going to say
> 'that's not what I said,' and okay, no, not exactly, but over time,
> when you highlight your 'growing number' and *33 years* as often as
> you do, it looks and sounds like that's what you're saying, even if it
> isn't *exactly* what you're saying. You certainly put these ideas front
> and center.
I'm not sure what your point was there. ??
Most of the time, I've highlighted 33 years because habits of choice
that last THAT many years are generally not easy to break. IMO, it takes
*some* doing for Y&R to be perceived badly enough to cause people to
give up a 33-yr habit of choice.
> There. I hope that was unballistic enough for you.
Yes, thanks.
Shirl
MarkH
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
> Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
> > > People have said, "you're just too old, set in your ways, can't accept
> > > change, lose the binky," yadda, yadda, yadda. IMO, those are the most
> > > convenient excuses to gloss over the huge error in judgment that has
> > > caused so many long-term fans to be SO unhappy, angry, and turned off,
> > > some to the point of quitting after 33+ years.
>
> MarkH:
> > Ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh!!! The ratings do not support this hypothesis!!!
> > The user boards do not support this hypothesis (opinion is clearly
> > divided, but some are happy and some are miserable--EVERYONE is feeling
> > SOMETHING).
>
> It's not my "hypothesis"...it's what I see/read, and it's there for you
> to see/read, too, if you care to look around outside of this discussion
> group. You're right on two counts: (1) that the ratings do not support
> the *observation*, and (2) that everyone is feeling SOMETHING.
>
This is a better formulation. In your parent note you said "the huge
error in judgment that HAS CAUSED so many long-term fans to be SO
unhappy, angry..."
It stated "error in judgment" as a declarative fact. It stated the
unhappiness and anger of fans as a declarative fact. Moreover, it
qualified the latter statement as there being "so many" fans who felt
that way.
Whenever such quantitative statements are made, I personally need there
to be an evidential basis for such.
We have earlier understood that your opinion of a "huge error in
judgment" is an opinion--one which you are entitled and encouraged to
hold, but not a declarative fact...just a fan point of view.
Now, in this clarification, you help us to see that this "so many fans"
and their "anger" is your PERCEPTION of the newsgroups that you
selectively read (and, I might add, social psychologists would remind
us that you selectively interpret). There is no objective,
quantifiable, replicable basis for your statements. They are opinions.
Now you'll say "but we all make statements here" and "everything here
is opinion". That is correct. BUT, your particular brand of sophistry
on this is couched in the cloak of the "opinion leader" or "she who has
surveyed the landscape and knows what people think", and neither of
those two are shown to be true.
First, I do not believe newsgroups are an adequate sampling of opinion.
Moreover, it is clear that newsgroups have varying cultures, so even
here, there is a sampling problem.
I would never have an objection to any of these statements by you if
you said "I believe", or "It has caused ME to see an error in judgment
because..." or "it has made ME angry enough to want to turn it off".
As soon as you represent your opinion as normative, majority, plurality
or otherwise, I cannot accept that contention without an evidential
basis. AND, the data set required for those quantitative statements to
be believable is frankly never going to be accessible to either of us.
> The observation is based on my belief that the sum total of people
> posting to online discussion groups about Y&R is at least a very
> informal random sampling of viewers from various ages and walks of life,
> geographic locations, income levels, and social groups, with the only
> commonalities being that they have access to a computer and watch the
> Y&R. To my knowledge, there's no formal study to show that it can *or
> can't* be considered as such.
>
As my above argument suggests, I do not accept the usefulness of
gleaning majority opinion from your "informal random sampling", nor do
I believe (social psychologically) that you can read such a random
sampling and necessarily derive an objective barometer of public
opinion. (I do not claim this for myself either...but therefore I
never cite mythical legions of correspondents who agree with me in an
attempt to buttress my opinions).
> Are you saying no one is quitting? or that there aren't long-term fans
> that are very unhappy, angry, and turned-off by the change? If you think
> either, you're kidding yourself, because that situation *does* exist.
> You may indeed be correct that so far, ratings have not declined as a
> result of all the discord that is being expressed. And by reading your
> many posts, I think this is where we differ the most ... you thinking
> everything's just fine and that TPTB don't need to change a thing,
> whereas I'm thinking that while they should be thrilled that some are
> enjoying as much as you are, it's careless and irresponsible to not be
> listening to and considering those expressing the other POV.
>
I agree that all opinions should be surveyed. HOWEVER, although we
spend a lot of time talking about "market" and "product" here, I think
Bill Bell's original contention (this is an artform, and ultimately
needs to follow the barometer of the creator, not popular opinion) has
merit. But, if all opinions are to be surveyed, they should be done in
a representative and random way. To date, no one has invested in such
sampling.
> > I see no evidence to support the declarative statement "huge error in
> > judgment".
>
> Again, the evidence is any post on any group (and there are many) that
> are expressing extreme negativity for the changes, many in civilized,
> well thought out, logical and reasonable terms, not simply rants with
> zero thought or reasoning behind them. I'm hard-pressed to understand
> why you would think this evidence is somehow less valid than the
> evidence here that supports the changes.
This is not "evidence". This is a subjective interpretation by a
biased reader of a selection of newsgroups and boards which,
themselves, represent selective clusters of users, who often gravitate
toward particular online communities because of a certain common
mindset/perspective.
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of statistical value (in the sense of
REALLY gauging public opinion) that can be gleaned from these groups.
These groups are "Kaffeeklatsches" (which have great value), but that's
all.
>
> > I see no evidence that a "growing number of viewers" are expressing
> > "adamant" dissatisfaction. We have both agreed in the past that those
> > probability surveys have not yet been done.
>
> No formal studies have been done, to my knowledge. However, there *is* a
> growing number of posts expressing adamant dissatisfaction. There are
> clearly more of those now on the various sites than there were 3 months
> and 6 months ago. This leads to the logical speculation that viewers who
> were initially on the fence *are* giving the changes a chance, but more
> and more are reaching a negative conclusion. You can close your eyes to
> it if you wish, but it's there nonetheless.
I do NOT believe there is a growing number. Based on my looking back
(also a subjective biased lense), I see a ratio of negativity and
positivity at all times. What I think I see is increased activity and
passion across the board, but not necessarily growing negativity.
Let's put it this way. Let's say in 2001 there were 10 posts a day on
Y&R, and 50% of them (5) were negative. Now, let's say in 2006 there
were 40 posts a day, and 50% (20) of them remain negative.
Sure, an unsophisticated reader might say that the "growth" from 5 to
20 negative posts represents an exponential growth in negativity. But
that's not true. The more interesting numbers are the growth the in
total activity (10 to 40 posts).
Again, nothing of value can be gleaned from the kind of "board surveys"
you claim to be doing. Subjective bias in the reader, coupled with
selection effects in boards, posters, articles read....
I urge you, in the strongest terms, to stay away from these
pseudo-statistical claims (unless your real goals are sophistry and
Disraelian "lies and damn lies"). Represent your own opinion (which
has great value, and which I look forward to every day), and don't try
to manufacture mythical mobs in behind of you. The latter is not
believable with the categories of evidence you have at your disposal.
> > > Y&R undeniably had a successful formula in place. It had proven itself
> > > year after year. Are minimal continuous changes needed to maintain
> > > optimum interest, efficiency, productivity? ABSOLUTELY. Are some
> > > customers dissatisfied from time to time that prompt these changes?
> > > ABSOLUTELY. Are minimal changes sometimes not received well and
> > > scrapped? ABSOLUTELY. But you don't put the whole established success
> > > level at risk by making major changes *all at once* that may jeopardize
> > > the ENTIRE product.
> >
> > Didn't happen. No "major changes *all at once*". It didn't happen!
> > It didn't happen!! There were stylistic revisions, and a deeper
> > investment in veterans. Story points set up 2 decades ago were played
> > out. What you say did not happen!
>
> Methinks thou doth protest too much! If you have to make the
> pronouncement 4 times in one short paragraph, perhaps you're trying a
> little too hard to convince ?? yourself ?? us ?? that it didn't happen.
> Deny it all you want ... a lot of us saw it happen right before our
> eyes. What would be the point of saying it happened if it didn't?
Not protest. RAGE. :-) Seriously, I see repeated statements of what I
think are gross distortions ("making major changes *all at once* that
may jeopardize the ENTIRE product")--every word of that is a subjective
opinion that can be roundly debated--and then claiming a statistical
basis for arguing that it is majority opinion.
After about 50 of those subjective interpretations stated as fact, I
have to protest! Not in the defensive state, but in the sense that I
really hate that kind of subjectivity-passed-as-fact.
(It's one of the things that makes my face purple during election
campaigns).
>
> Maybe not, but if they can't keep the viewers they HAVE happy (or at the
> very least, still addicted to watching), what would be the point of
> trying to attract new ones?
What EVIDENCE do you have (and I'm not talking about subjective
perusals of biased samples) that they haven't kept viewers happy? I
see no such evidence. The only remotely trustworthy data (the flawed
Neilsen ratings) does not support this contention.
Hell, I've been so miserable with B&B (and the newgroups I read fully
support my misery as a near universal experience), but the ratings are
holding! So, I've had to come to understand that my misery is a
subjective phenomenon, and appears to have no relationship--short-term
or long-term--to audience involvement with the show.
Now, I feel comfortable roundly trashing B&B on the basis of my
subjective impression of it as a work of fiction/drama. But I cannot
claim any statistical/evidential basis for my impression.
IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE ARGUMENT to have me say "I concur with many
viewers that the show reeks to high heaven". Indeed, it just feels
like I am manufacturing mythical mobs because I do not have confidence
in my own opinion.
>
> > > But the new PTB seems to have adopted EB's mentality/attitude that it's
> > > foolhardy to listen to what viewers are saying ... what do we know
> > > anyway?
> >
> > Oops, misquote! That will BILL BELL'S mentality/attitude. Write from
> > YOUR gut, and don't write to the viccissitudes of viewer opinion!
>
> No misquote. EB said it, too, although somehow, I think his
> interpretation was different than what Bill Bell was saying. EB doesn't
> care if the writers write from their GUT, as long as where ever it's
> coming from, it features HIM!
>
Yes, EB said it. I think EB is the cat's meow (and yes, I mean that
knowing he's an ornery German whom I'd be afraid to piss off). And if
EB can elevate the whole game via his self-interest, cool. A local
football coach here for the college gets HUGE bonuses when he wins
championships. So, his motive may be self-interest, but in the process
he brings up the whole game. A local basketball coach wouldn't be
recruited until they refurbished the arena. Maybe there was some
self-interest in that, but everyone gained from his strong opinion.
So, more power to EB if what he is asking for (credits, better writing
for vets) elevates the whole enterprise. Yes, there is risk in
catering to strong personalities...but for now, I see little harm.
BUT, that takes away from the core argument. BILL BELL didn't pay much
heed to viewer opinion. That's the Bell methodology, and you can see
it in full view on B&B.
I admire that these guys (and hopefully Lynn Latham too) have the
courage to write from their hearts and minds. The rest of us
(including myself)...nattering nabobs of negativity and
nitpicking...need to view what we do as 'fantasy football', but I don't
think we should be trying to influence the creative direction of the
show.
record hunter
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
> I remember saying a while back in one of these discussions that my guess
> was that the "new methodology" WOULD likely appeal much more to newer
> viewers who *don't* have as much of a history with the show and less of
> a feeling that you *know* the veteran characters so well. Some of their
> behaviors and changes wouldn't seem as much like they happened overnight
> or came out of left field if you didn't know them as well...for one
> thing. For another, you wouldn't be as used to any one particular "look
> and feel" (emotionally, not visually) of how things had been done for so
> long. This new style wouldn't seem so jarring.
This sort of statement makes me feel discounted. I have *tried* to be a
regular viewer of this show for 18 years, only I could not find a way
in. Obviously, yes, you've watched more eps than I have, but I'm not a
complete neophyte here. I see myself as a longtime viewer who likes the
show more now than he did before.
As far as characters go, the show finally became human enough for me in
2004. I got their motivations, whereas in the old days, it was this
*seemingly random* struggle between two or three men for money and
women. It just went around and around and around, and it never seemed
to matter particularly what the prize was, as long as the conflict was
maintained.
But the men *had* enough money, all of them. It wasn't compelling the
way it is now. I have never had such a sense that getting Jabot back
from ______ meant as much to Jack as it does this time. Victor has been
given so many other colors this year than 'yougotthat?' Brad finally
has something to him other than his existence as a painted pony,
marking time on the woman/dollar-go-round (thanks Joni Mitchell).
In speeding up its tempo, this show has paradoxically slowed its
characters down enough that I can understand things about them beyond
"I want." I've never experienced such clarity about what these people
are about. They're not boring anymore. They aren't as (completely)
narcissistic as they always were.
So, *after 18 years* of watching and rejecting this program, I accept
it. After years of never once being able to relate to any character, I
now love the show. For the first time since 1993, I like a soap opera
enough to watch it every day. I want more of it. I couldn't be more
surprised that the show I'm talking about is Y&R.
> And no, I'm not saying those are the ONLY reasons why some long-time
> viewers are perceiving the change so negatively, but those are a couple
> that newer viewers may not be as affected by.
>
> > The question was "where?" I don't know where these other people are
> > located. They don't post here, and they are not Pittsburghers, so I
> > have not heard from them. Speaking of Pittsburgh, two rather positive
> > articles about the NM have appeared in our paper, the Post-Gazette. I
> > posted links when they appeared.
>
> They used the term "new methodology" specifically?
I would love that, but no. That's a 'here' thing. Isn't it? Who was the
first one to say it, Mark? It wasn't me.
> I was talking about the "growing number" of posters perceiving the Y&R
> negatively in other online discussion groups. Google "Y&R Discussion
> Groups" and you'll find 'em.
>
Okay. I'll look.
ravelation
record...@gmail.com (record hunter)
wrote:
>Where is this 'growing number'? I count
>you, Diva, Queenie, and now Michael.
>Admittedly, that's twice as many of you
>guys, so I guess adding Michael counts
>as 'growing.' But it *sounds* bigger than
>that.
Add that Nymann poster to the mix. They're also a "behind the scenes"
type of poster.
Ravl
lots of "behind the scenes" chatter....(definitely makes ME wonder.)
ravelation
rthr...@aol.com (Rthrquiet)
wrote:
>Nobody's getting good numbers
>anymore, no matter what the pacing of
>the stories is. "Lots o' plot" may be the
>order of the day, but it isn't generating
>ratings--for any of the soaps. My
>contention is that the problem lies
>elsewhere.
Too many choices. IMO, the way shows are "ranked" needs to be changed to
reflect the ENORMOUS amount of choices most people have with their
television. It used to be the Big Three.
But now, it's more like the Big Three Hundred. I would think that would
have a huge impact on how much something could realistically be viewed.
Ravl
does anyone watch off of rabbit ears anymore??
ravelation
shall...@comcast.net (DonnaB) wrote:
>And, Little Abby was fantastic! She didn't
>spill the beans, she told on Jack for
>spilling the candy. Crack me up.
OMG, that was PRICELESS! I LOVED her machinations with her arm imitating
Jack's body language!
Brilliant plot twist, I say!
Ravl
Shawn H
: Personally, I'll say flat out, after thinking about it for 3 days, that I
: don't think Bill Bell is spinning in his grave. I can more easily imagine
: him in heaven looking down & being interested in how alive his baby is once
: again, how invigorated while still very much having its own identity.
And you don't feel that identity is in jeopardy? I'm not actually so down
on currrent directions or cast members (I couldn't be, having only gotten
re-interested in the show in the last year or so), but I am worried about a
risk of instability, of no clear vision at the rudder, and of horrible
worst case scenarios like the Winters being written out (Y&R's pioneering
devotion to its black family beats every other soap on racial issues;
though perhaps the demographics that have been done prevent that
happening).
Or of Catherine following in John's footsteps towards illness and death.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: I disagree. Think of the hot chemistry between Nick and Phylllis.
I really liked how their relationship came out of Michael's bachelor party.
I loved having Phyllis be "one of the guys."
: Heck, there is the whole act of HUMANIZING. Now, when Victoria and
: Nick's families get together, they play charades! Phyllis helps Noah
: make video tributes for Dad. Neil likes Jazz. Many of us now like
: Devon, now that we've gone through an adversity or two with him.
: Many characters have been deepened and rendered more complex.
I remain interested in many of the characters.
: I consider this a very legitimate concern. THE PRECEDENT of dumping
: Bill Bell's chosen successor is chilling! I fully admit this!
Yes, scary.
: The big issues: "Corporate" (CBS/Sony/Bell) decided to
: meddle...something they'd never done before. Now that they are
: meddling, the fear is that they will not stop. I share everyone's deep
: fear about that!.
Yes, scary.
: I'd rather, then, see a sooner return to the long-standing writers of
: Y&R (Alden, Smith) rather than a long succession of strangers.
Me too.
Shawn H.
MarkH
Shawn H wrote:
>
> And you don't feel that identity is in jeopardy? I'm not actually so down
> on currrent directions or cast members (I couldn't be, having only gotten
> re-interested in the show in the last year or so), but I am worried about a
> risk of instability, of no clear vision at the rudder,
It's only a risk if they play "musical chairs". If they pick a show
runner (like Latham) and stick with her (even through bumps in the
ratings), then I'm not worried. But I 100% acknowledge that the
PRECEDENT set by ditching Bell-appointees is worrying. It sure
reminded us that this is really a Sony show! So, I think there is
cause for persistent low grade alarm.
> and of horrible
> worst case scenarios like the Winters being written out (Y&R's pioneering
> devotion to its black family beats every other soap on racial issues;
> though perhaps the demographics that have been done prevent that
> happening).
Some day, the Winters MAY be replaced. (I hope not...but they're
actually doing fine even after having lost Olivia and Nathan and
Malcolm). But, under this vision, I have every reason to believe Y&R
will remain multi-ethnic. Suddenly we have Jewish people, Asian
people, Latinas (briefly)....
I want the Winters to stay around as long as they are dramatically
viable for the creative team. Right now, the Winters have been
elevated to a truly core family (along with the Newmans and the Fishers
and to a lesser extent the Chancellors). That's actually an
improvement.
> Or of Catherine following in John's footsteps towards illness and death.
I don't want this NOW. But I actually LOVE John's death. This is no
DOOL-type Alice Horton-slow-descent-into-nothing or ATWT-type
Nancy-slow-descent-into-nothing. John went out with a BANG, and we
will feel the reverberations (in terms of Jack's broken soul) for a
long time to come.
So, when actress-and-show decide to part company, I'd LOVE a drunken
Kay to plunge off a cliff (as her grandson and husband before her did),
raging at Jill, singing "I wanna live till I die". And when her will
is revealed, I want her to have left 100% of the estate to her grandson
Phillip IV, and none to Jill...so we see her claw from the bottom
again, now late in life. THAT'S how to script a death with
long-lasting repercussions, and give this character the due she
deserves.
Death on soaps is not a bad thing :-).
MarkH
Shawn H wrote:
>
> Or of Catherine following in John's footsteps towards illness and death.
>
To amplify that, I feel gifted by seeing John go out in a blaze of
glory...his family around him, tension over losing him, the funeral
that ripped the family apart...
I will remember 20+ years of John (VERY fondly), and I'll also remember
the joy and sadness of his passing...just like life.
I wish for Kay such a meaningful death.
Shawn H
: Patrick Mulcahy's name has been mentioned. I have no idea if there's
: anything to it. Personally I hope that *this* works, that Ed Scott stays &
Stability is key (unless of course the stability is shoving everything down
the tubes). Goutman & Wheeler are the stability at the P&G shows, and
Goutman at least has improved the show since he arrived. Wheeler has a mess
on her hands and probably impossible budget constraints.
I really want the continuity of turning on Y&R to see my favorites, doing
their characteristic things, years from now.
Shawn H.
MarkH
Shawn H wrote:
>
> Stability is key (unless of course the stability is shoving everything down
> the tubes). Goutman & Wheeler are the stability at the P&G shows, and
> Goutman at least has improved the show since he arrived. Wheeler has a mess
> on her hands and probably impossible budget constraints.
>
Off topic, but there is NOTHING about budget that explains that horrid,
horrid cancer story. (I won't tell my one true love that I have
cancer, to protect him....). This, from the strongest fountain-jumper
in Springfield. Uh uh.
fionn
(in article <1165382305....@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>):
I like it better now. I quit watching before because it was so slow,
repetitive, and mannered ( ridiculously long stares even when someone has
just asked a question at end of scenes etc). I checked it out again kind of
by accident one day and thought it much improved. It is now my favorite (I
tape all CBS soaps, generally FF B&B). It never used to be. Well, it would
always be "better" than B&B but that one is so short with FF you can watch it
in 5 min and it is just funny as hell.
I can't speak about *many* other people, I only know one other person who
watches Y&R. Or I should say, used to watch. She quit for the same reasons
I did, but we came to that realization later, we did not discuss it at the
time. I told her recently how it had changed, she gave it another chance,
now she likes it again.
I am 45 and my friend is 52.
FWIW.
Fionn
fionn
(in article <1165421653.6...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>):
I wish I had written these 5 paragraphs, they express how I feel very well.
Thank you record hunter.
Fionn
fionn
(in article <4822-457...@storefull-3336.bay.webtv.net>):
I don't get into, or do more than scan (if that) the behind the scenes stuff.
I have little interest, it makes me feel like it's a soap within a soap and
detracts from my enjoyment of the story. All I care about is whether I enjoy
the show or not. That's what counts to me.
Oh, and this is all IMO, just in case it is not clear.
Fionn
queenie
>On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:02:05 -0500, ravelation wrote
>> Add that Nymann poster to the mix. They're also a "behind the scenes"
>> type of poster.
>>
>> Ravl
>> lots of "behind the scenes" chatter....(definitely makes ME wonder.)
>>
>
>I don't get into, or do more than scan (if that) the behind the scenes stuff.
> I have little interest, it makes me feel like it's a soap within a soap and
>detracts from my enjoyment of the story. All I care about is whether I enjoy
>the show or not. That's what counts to me.
ITA That behind the scenes talk is just a distraction from the show
so I can't be bothered with it.
record hunter
Why, thank *you*, Fionn.
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> It stated "error in judgment" as a declarative fact. It stated the
> unhappiness and anger of fans as a declarative fact. Moreover, it
> qualified the latter statement as there being "so many" fans who felt
> that way.
You're chastising me for posting opinion as "declarative fact"? ... you,
the person who posts the topic title: "Latham is NOT making the
decisions you hate" ?
If I had the time to go back, read and copy them, I could post numerous
other OPINIONS you've posted as "declarative fact", in addition to
declaring that interpretations other than your own "didn't happen".
I'm the first to agree that opinion and declarative fact are two
different things that should be expressed as such. But it *does* happen
quite regularly here, ALL of us have done it, and all of us have pointed
it out in others.
> Whenever such quantitative statements are made, I personally
> need there to be an evidential basis for such.
And I personally need there to be factual basis for topic titles like
the one quoted above, too.
> Now you'll say "but we all make statements here" and "everything here
> is opinion". That is correct. BUT, your particular brand of sophistry
> on this is couched in the cloak of the "opinion leader" or "she who has
> surveyed the landscape and knows what people think", and neither of
> those two are shown to be true.
After how many times you've used words "brilliant" and posted your
opinion as declarative fact, even going as far as to declare what Latham
is or is NOT responsible for, how dare you accuse ME of "sophistry"?
My opinions/debates/discussions here are NOT tricky, false or intended
to deceive ANYONE. I'm no more "selective" in what I say, read,
understand or post than you or anyone that is presenting their POV.
Substantiation or evidence to back up any opinion or belief *IS* the
selective information that caused the person to have that opinion. That
doesn't mean there isn't *other* information that supports a different
POV, and I have clarified with nearly every opinion I've posted that
there are others who feel differently. I've never presented myself as an
"opinion leader" or claimed to know what everyone thinks. I am, however,
capable, as you are, of reading and understanding other people's posts,
and like it or not, there are x-number of other posters agreeing with
BOTH sides of this ongoing difference of opinion ... yours and mine.
> First, I do not believe newsgroups are an adequate sampling
> of opinion. Moreover, it is clear that newsgroups have varying
> cultures, so even here, there is a sampling problem.
How are varying cultures a "sampling problem"? Y&R viewership is not
made up of only one culture. The sampling may indeed not be "adequate",
but other than ratings, there are focus groups and these online
discussion groups. Y&R focus groups had been hand-picked. I don't know
if they're still using them or the same method of enlisting
participants, but IMO, hand-picked focus group participants may express
their opinions intelligently, but that is a far, far less accurate
representation of overall viewership than these discussion groups where
there are opinions of viewers from any geographic, social, financial,
cultural and educational segment of the population that has access to
the internet and that is interested enough to watch Y&R and post their
thoughts.
> I agree that all opinions should be surveyed. HOWEVER, although we
> spend a lot of time talking about "market" and "product" here, I think
> Bill Bell's original contention (this is an artform, and ultimately
> needs to follow the barometer of the creator, not popular opinion) has
> merit.
Of course it has merit; but in the case of a TV show, popular opinion
ultimately *IS* what determines whether the art form lives or dies, so
it has to be considered in some phase of the process. Perhaps that's
another area of difference, with some believing that popular opinion
should be considered while in the process of deciding/creating/writing
and others believing they should decide/create/write and let the chips
(popular opinion) fall where they may.
*I personally believe* the importance of popular opinion falls somewhere
in the middle of that process, and *it is my OPINION*, based on what *I*
see when I watch the new Y&R, that this regime uses the "let the chips
fall where they may" ideology. (Those words are only starred so that
it's clear that this is MY opinion, not because I'm trying to portray it
as representative or as an opinion leader or any other thing you accused
me of doing with my writing.)
> > Again, the evidence is any post on any group (and there are many) that
> > are expressing extreme negativity for the changes, many in civilized,
> > well thought out, logical and reasonable terms, not simply rants with
> > zero thought or reasoning behind them. I'm hard-pressed to understand
> > why you would think this evidence is somehow less valid than the
> > evidence here that supports the changes.
>
> This is not "evidence". This is a subjective interpretation by a
> biased reader of a selection of newsgroups and boards which,
> themselves, represent selective clusters of users, who often gravitate
> toward particular online communities because of a certain common
> mindset/perspective.
It *is* evidence of the *varying opinions* we have been discussing. Most
of us can accurately distinguish, without any personal interpretation,
negative from positive, civilized from uncivilized, and
opinions-with-substantiation from rants-with-none. Few opinions are so
vague and ambiguous that you have to do a lot of studying and further
dialogue to determine whether they're positive or negative. If someone
is on the fence, they usually say that quite clearly, too.
When someone posts: "I can't stand what Y&R has become since Lynn Latham
took over. After 33 years of loyal support, I no longer see any reason
to keep watching" ... the statements speak for themselves, and it's not
open to ANY interpretation that this person is CLEARLY unhappy and
dissatisfied with Y&R under LML. If some guy says, "I think Lynn Latham
is a brilliant, creative genius," it doesn't take a rocket scientist to
interpret that he's happy with her work, either.
> There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of statistical value (in the sense of
> REALLY gauging public opinion) that can be gleaned from these groups.
Is that "declarative fact" or YOUR opinion? or your "brand of
sophistry"? or "selective bias"?
> I do NOT believe there is a growing number. Based on my looking back
> (also a subjective biased lense), I see a ratio of negativity and
> positivity at all times. What I think I see is increased activity and
> passion across the board, but not necessarily growing negativity.
Okay.
But I see both ... increased activity *and* growing negativity.
> Again, nothing of value can be gleaned from the kind
> of "board surveys" you claim to be doing.
Don't misrepresent what I said to suggest that I'm conducting any "board
surveys" ... I'm simply interested, as you are, in what's happening to
Y&R and do a fair amount of online reading of viewer comments. It is not
a misrepresentation of any kind to say there are several others (besides
myself) posting dissatisfactions with the new methodology, and it is
also accurate to say that there are several others (besides you, RH and
Ravl) who are posting enjoyment.
>Subjective bias in the reader,
I resent this remark as well -- I am no more "subjectively biased" than
you are. As discussed previously, just because I have a personal opinion
doesn't mean I can't be objective about any new development or about any
new/different POV. I'm no different than you in that when someone posts
something I agree with, I make note of that as well as seeing and
understanding the reverse. Neither may change MY mind, but it's still
noted.
> I urge you, in the strongest terms, to stay away from these
> pseudo-statistical claims (unless your real goals are sophistry and
> Disraelian "lies and damn lies"). Represent your own opinion (which
> has great value, and which I look forward to every day), and don't try
> to manufacture mythical mobs in behind of you. The latter is not
> believable with the categories of evidence you have at your disposal.
I have represented MY OWN opinion. I have also noted that there are
others posting similar thoughts. There has been no attempt to create
"mythical mobs". Part of the reason I have noted that there are others
who also feel similarly negative is because the validity of my negative
opinion was challenged with the accusation that it came from a different
personal agenda other than what I'm seeing on my TV. The fact that
others are perceiving things similarly at the very least speaks to there
being validity in my perception ... IOW, if several unconnected people
are expressing negativity about the same issues, there is obviously a
reason/basis for them, whether you agree with them or not.
> ("making major changes *all at once* that may jeopardize
> the ENTIRE product")--every word of that is a subjective
> opinion that can be roundly debated--and then claiming a
> statistical basis for arguing that it is majority opinion.
I NEVER used the word "majority" or said it was a "majority opinion"! It
is an opinion that some/many/several (use whichever word is least
offensive to you) share, that there have been major changes all at once.
That's not selective or biased or misleading or sophistic ... it is a
fact that x-number of people share that opinion. And yes, I realize,
that opinion can, and has been, debated.
> After about 50 of those subjective interpretations stated as fact, I
> have to protest!
Yeah, well, after about 50 opinions stated as declarative fact (i.e.,
LML is brilliant, we're seeing a creative renaissance, these characters
are more human, etc.), I have had to protest on occasion also!
> Not in the defensive state, but in the sense that I
> really hate that kind of subjectivity-passed-as-fact.
As do I.
> (It's one of the things that makes my face purple during election
> campaigns).
My favorite color. ;-)
> What EVIDENCE do you have (and I'm not talking about subjective
> perusals of biased samples) that they haven't kept viewers happy?
Nothing biased about it. Any viewer that is posting about how much they
dislike what they're seeing (myself included) hasn't been kept happy.
Have I stopped watching? not completely, but I don't watch as faithfully
as I did for the first 33 years. I don't FF when I do watch. I don't
tape anymore, and I don't get upset if I miss the show anymore, nor do I
miss it like I used to when a few days elapse w/o it. And if they were
keeping viewers happy overall, there wouldn't be this firestorm of
debate over the job they're doing. What more evidence do you need?
>I see no such evidence.
Then you're seeing this with blind eyes.
You don't have to agree, but the evidence is there...not in the Neilsen
ratings, yet, but there is dissent being expressed for what's happening,
not only here. It may or may not eventually show up in the ratings. That
said, I also believe that you and others don't see it the same way and
in fact are quite happy with the new Y&R ... but that doesn't erase the
fact that those of us who aren't exist and also have valid reasons for
our differing (from you) perception(s).
> IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE ARGUMENT to have me say
> "I concur with many viewers that the show reeks to high
> heaven". Indeed, it just feels like I am manufacturing mythical
> mobs because I do not have confidence in my own opinion.
That's YOUR perception and stretch about the mythical mobs. If a new
restaurant opens up near your home and ONE of your neighbors says the
food sucks while FIFTEEN say it's great, you would probably think the
ONE likely ate there on an off night or think it was HIM vs. the food;
if ONE said it was good and FIFTEEN said it sucks, you would likely
conclude that there must be SOMETHING odd, different, or bad about the
food. That's just deductive reasoning and/or simple LOGIC.
No one needs the endorsement of others to like or dislike anything, and
don't misconstrue that to mean that I'm trying to "sway" anyone -- I'm
not. I think it's just an instinctive, defensive response when someone
says "Hey, you're nuts!", to say, "well, then FIFTEEN of us must be
nuts, cuz they feel the same way."
> And if EB can elevate the whole game via his self-interest, cool.
Yeah, I just don't see any evidence of that.
;-)
> A local football coach here for the college gets HUGE bonuses
> when he wins championships. So, his motive may be self-interest,
> but in the process he brings up the whole game.
That's not the same thing. EB isn't a coach for Y&R. He's an actor in a
cast of 40 or 50. If his bitching and whining didn't contain criticisms
of his colleagues' work, I might be more inclined to agree, but you
don't PUBLICLY dis' the work of your colleagues if your intent is to
"bring up the whole game".
> So, more power to EB if what he is asking for (credits, better writing
> for vets) elevates the whole enterprise. Yes, there is risk in
> catering to strong personalities...but for now, I see little harm.
We SAW the harm when KA used to cater to his demands before JS came
aboard. JS stopped that, and then EB began going to the press with his
complaints...if he succeeds with that practice, what's to stop all 40 or
50 of them from going to the press when they want something? I'm sure
you'll say, "Sure ... they're all within their rights to do so," and
they are, of course ... but what kind of image does that give to
customers of the show about the quality of the product if employees are
publicly airing their dirty laundry? Not to mention the insubordination
involved.
Shirl
DonnaB
<taicn2l1rhqhb36e1...@4ax.com>, queenie <que...@nospam.com>
wrote:
> Glad I missed that part. I think the worst crier in the history of
> soaps must be Susan Lucci. :-)
It's crazy: She can't cry. Yet they continue to write that for her. While
she can play comedy, but they don't write that for her!!!
--
DonnaB : ^> shallotpeel <*> Yahoo Messenger: shallotpeel
"Cats are distant, discreet, impeccably clean & able to stay silent. What
more could be needed to be good company?" - Marie Leczinska
Shawn H
Sure there is: inability to hire or use anybody but inexperienced newbies
leading to Reva getting all the airtime for any story at all. Ross jumped
ship, Holly's MIA, Maeve and Marj might as well be, and KZ will eat up any
airtime crumb they offer her, and come back for more.
Billy's been the real "guiding light" of that story.
Shawn H.
DonnaB
<el7dn7$j0h$1...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn H <sh...@fas.harvard.edu>
wrote:
Well, I don't think they'd dump Reva even if they could afford to spend the
money to replace her, although I personally don't think she needs replacing.
But, I guess you could stretch real far & say that it was a story that Kim
demanded to re-sign a contract but then Kim also got a raise & did NOT take
a pay cut like she said she would! Back when everyone was asked to take a
pay cut she said she would not take one at a work cycle point but at the end
of a contract she'd be glad to. Oops. So, if Kim wants a story like that,
she gets it. Me, I consider what GL is like *besides* Kim's demands. I mean,
when I love everything with everyone else BUT her storyline, ... it says
something.
--
DonnaB : ^> shallotpeel <*> Yahoo Messenger: shallotpeel
"If man could be crossed with a cat, it would improve the man but
deteriorate the cat." - Mark Twain
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> > I remember saying a while back in one of these discussions that my guess
> > was that the "new methodology" WOULD likely appeal much more to newer
> > viewers who *don't* have as much of a history with the show and less of
> > a feeling that you *know* the veteran characters so well. Some of their
> > behaviors and changes wouldn't seem as much like they happened overnight
> > or came out of left field if you didn't know them as well...for one
> > thing. For another, you wouldn't be as used to any one particular "look
> > and feel" (emotionally, not visually) of how things had been done for so
> > long. This new style wouldn't seem so jarring.
record hunter:
> This sort of statement makes me feel discounted. I have *tried* to be a
> regular viewer of this show for 18 years, only I could not find a way
> in. Obviously, yes, you've watched more eps than I have, but I'm not a
> complete neophyte here. I see myself as a longtime viewer who likes the
> show more now than he did before.
Did not mean to make you feel discounted. Feeling the way I do now about
the Y&R -- wanting to be interested but just not being compelled or
gripped or lured into tuning in faithfully by what I see when I do -- I
fully understand when you say you "tried" to be a viewer but "couldn't
find a way in". I also feel a profound sadness for what's happened and
how it has made me feel like an outsider after 33+ happily (for the most
part) faithful years. The feeling reminds me of when the time comes to
sell the family home and you drive by, know another family is in there
and happy (hopefully), but you have that sinking feeling that despite
all your great memories, you will never be able to go in and make
yourself at home there again. Okay...that's a bit dramatic, but it is a
very similar feeling for Y&R to be so non-alluring (to me) now.
> As far as characters go, the show finally became human enough for me in
> 2004. I got their motivations, whereas in the old days, it was this
> *seemingly random* struggle between two or three men for money and
> women. It just went around and around and around, and it never seemed
> to matter particularly what the prize was, as long as the conflict was
> maintained.
Even when I loved it so much, one of my biggest gripes was the
play/replay, play/replay of the Victor/Jack feud. To this day, I still
find it ridiculous that these two grown men would have played out this
feud SO MANY TIMES with horrible consequences for each of them and/or
their loved ones, that at their ages they wouldn't have learned that no
positive results are gained in exchange for all the time, energy and
angst they put themselves and their families through every time they set
this plan in motion YET AGAIN. These are two highly intelligent people
... that they would continue to devote THIS MUCH of their lives into
something that *never* amounts to much of anything positive for either
of them seems too juvenile to get into anymore.
Still, I loved the show, and even though some of the new stories were
loosely replayed versions of old ones, they proved the point that if you
tell it well, the same basic story can be retold and still be compelling.
> But the men *had* enough money, all of them. It wasn't compelling the
> way it is now. I have never had such a sense that getting Jabot back
> from ______ meant as much to Jack as it does this time.
What makes this time different? Is it because John is dead now? For me,
that makes it even more pathetic. Or because Victor, in his human,
vulnerable state accepted Jack as a friend only to have Jack be up to no
good? That does add a different twist to it this time, but I'm still
tired of the two of them at odds AGAIN. I dread the thought of Katherine
and Jill getting into it again, too. I never agreed with the decision to
turn them into mother/daughter, but I *do* like that they get along,
care about each other, act like classy ladies instead of like two
teenage girls in a catfight all the time.
> Victor has been given so many other colors this year
> than 'yougotthat?'
I agree with that. And I must say, I had the TV on this morning, and the
scene with Victor and Jack and the flowers *was* pretty funny, as was
the one when Jack said to Ashley, "I MADE this!" LOL. It was like a
little boy running out of a kindergarten classroom, proud of a
colored-paper flower that he's handing to his mother, saying, "I MADE
THIS!"
> So, *after 18 years* of watching and rejecting this program, I accept
> it. After years of never once being able to relate to any character, I
> now love the show. For the first time since 1993, I like a soap opera
> enough to watch it every day. I want more of it. I couldn't be more
> surprised that the show I'm talking about is Y&R.
This is so weird -- if you substitute 33+ for 18, 1973 for 1993 and
reverse most of the positives to negatives, that's exactly how I feel.
> > They used the term "new methodology" specifically?
>
> I would love that, but no. That's a 'here' thing. Isn't it?
> Who was the first one to say it, Mark? It wasn't me.
Yer lookin' at her.
Yes, it's a "here" thing, but I do believe it has caught on...not that
*that* was the intent. Just seemed like there had to be a way to refer
to the new style or approach to doing things.
Shirl
MarkH
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
> "MarkH" <slip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I say this sincerely...what would my life be without you? :-) I
deeply admire your passion and tenacity.
>
> You're chastising me for posting opinion as "declarative fact"? ... you,
> the person who posts the topic title: "Latham is NOT making the
> decisions you hate" ?
I actually think it _is_ declarative fact. I cited Eric Braeden as the
source of that information, based on a SOD article.
Let me also say I _love_ that thread title :-). It is so cool to log
onto google and see that declarative title :-)
> If I had the time to go back, read and copy them, I could post numerous
> other OPINIONS you've posted as "declarative fact", in addition to
> declaring that interpretations other than your own "didn't happen".
>
> I'm the first to agree that opinion and declarative fact are two
> different things that should be expressed as such. But it *does* happen
> quite regularly here, ALL of us have done it, and all of us have pointed
> it out in others.
Agreed.
> > Whenever such quantitative statements are made, I personally
> > need there to be an evidential basis for such.
>
> And I personally need there to be factual basis for topic titles like
> the one quoted above, too.
See Eric Braeden quote.
>
> After how many times you've used words "brilliant" and posted your
> opinion as declarative fact, even going as far as to declare what Latham
> is or is NOT responsible for, how dare you accuse ME of "sophistry"?
I honestly try NOT to post my opinion as fact. If I have, I actually
apologize for that. That said, things that I may take as "fact" you
may take as "opinion". So, we'll never get over that ultimate
subjectivity conundrum.
> I am, however,
> capable, as you are, of reading and understanding other people's posts,
> and like it or not, there are x-number of other posters agreeing with
> BOTH sides of this ongoing difference of opinion ... yours and mine.
Okay, let's put it differently. I don't think claiming that your
opinion represents the opinions of/is congruent with the opinions of
"many" others is useful. It does not add a THING to the point you're
trying to make. AND it infuriates me :-). (Because for me it feels
like you're trying to say that you speak for a larger constituency).
I'd just love it if you'd claim your opinions as your own, and not
worry whether there is a single other person who agrees or disagrees.
Your writing and logic are strong enough that you don't need this
rhetorical device.
>
> How are varying cultures a "sampling problem"? Y&R viewership is not
> made up of only one culture. The sampling may indeed not be "adequate",
> but other than ratings, there are focus groups and these online
> discussion groups. Y&R focus groups had been hand-picked. I don't know
> if they're still using them or the same method of enlisting
> participants, but IMO, hand-picked focus group participants may express
> their opinions intelligently, but that is a far, far less accurate
> representation of overall viewership than these discussion groups where
> there are opinions of viewers from any geographic, social, financial,
> cultural and educational segment of the population that has access to
> the internet and that is interested enough to watch Y&R and post their
> thoughts.
We are 100% agreed. I don't think either newsgroups/boards or focus
groups should be used to sample public opinion.
I believe that a Neilsen type probability sample, made up of the
desired population (current viewers, ever-viewers,
never-viewers...whatever they're trying to glean) is the only way to
go. But, as an "artform", I'm also fine if they just go with their
guts, and let critics/ratings be their barometer. In the scheme of
myriad ways of gleaning opinion, though, I believe (from a selectivity
perspective), newsgroups/boards are about the worst. Why? The
self-selection problem....
>
> Of course it has merit; but in the case of a TV show, popular opinion
> ultimately *IS* what determines whether the art form lives or dies, so
> it has to be considered in some phase of the process. Perhaps that's
> another area of difference, with some believing that popular opinion
> should be considered while in the process of deciding/creating/writing
> and others believing they should decide/create/write and let the chips
> (popular opinion) fall where they may.
Nope. Eyeballs delivered to advertisers is what determines viability.
90% of the audience could hate what they see, but if they're compelled
to tune in (e.g., Jerry Springer), the show flourishes.
>
> It *is* evidence of the *varying opinions* we have been discussing. Most
> of us can accurately distinguish, without any personal interpretation,
> negative from positive, civilized from uncivilized, and
> opinions-with-substantiation from rants-with-none. Few opinions are so
> vague and ambiguous that you have to do a lot of studying and further
> dialogue to determine whether they're positive or negative. If someone
> is on the fence, they usually say that quite clearly, too.
>
> When someone posts: "I can't stand what Y&R has become since Lynn Latham
> took over. After 33 years of loyal support, I no longer see any reason
> to keep watching" ... the statements speak for themselves, and it's not
> open to ANY interpretation that this person is CLEARLY unhappy and
> dissatisfied with Y&R under LML.
Right, but it adds NOTHING. We don't know if that opinion--no matter
how it appears on boards--represents 1% or 99% of the opinions of
viewers and target viewers in the target demographic. It is therefore
near useless.
I suppose such opinions can serve as a first-pass to see how certain
story beats or characters are playing...but to really know the answer
to that, you need a proper probability sample.
>
> > There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of statistical value (in the sense of
> > REALLY gauging public opinion) that can be gleaned from these groups.
>
> Is that "declarative fact" or YOUR opinion? or your "brand of
> sophistry"? or "selective bias"?
That is canonical teaching in statistics and population studies. Thus,
it is *fact* according to textbooks. We could, of course, ala freshman
philosophy, argue whether a fact ever truly exists. But do we want to?
>
> >Subjective bias in the reader,
>
> I resent this remark as well -- I am no more "subjectively biased" than
> you are. As discussed previously, just because I have a personal opinion
> doesn't mean I can't be objective about any new development or about any
> new/different POV. I'm no different than you in that when someone posts
> something I agree with, I make note of that as well as seeing and
> understanding the reverse. Neither may change MY mind, but it's still
> noted.
Wait...you take issue, but this is a miscommunication between us. All
perceivers are subjectively biased. Me too! All of us!
>
> I have represented MY OWN opinion. I have also noted that there are
> others posting similar thoughts.
I see no value in this second part. Who cares if you share thoughts
with others. Leave that to your readers to judge.
>
> > What EVIDENCE do you have (and I'm not talking about subjective
> > perusals of biased samples) that they haven't kept viewers happy?
>
> Nothing biased about it. Any viewer that is posting about how much they
> dislike what they're seeing (myself included) hasn't been kept happy.
A sample size of 1 should not provoke changes. So, until they formally
survey viewer disgruntlement, and its' effects on viewing and
purchasing habits, opinions expressed here are meaningless to the show.
However, your point is FORMALLY true. Your opinions are prima facie
evidence that "there is at least one viewer who is unhappy".
>
> You don't have to agree, but the evidence is there...not in the Neilsen
> ratings, yet, but there is dissent being expressed for what's happening,
> not only here. It may or may not eventually show up in the ratings. That
> said, I also believe that you and others don't see it the same way and
> in fact are quite happy with the new Y&R ... but that doesn't erase the
> fact that those of us who aren't exist and also have valid reasons for
> our differing (from you) perception(s).
Yes, but two issues follow. First, the relative importance of negative
and positive opinion can only be determined (a) when it sampled
representatively, and (b) when a clear linkage is established with
viewing and/or buying habits.
If unhappy viewers are watching MORE...well, that isn't necessarily a
bad thing.
>
> That's YOUR perception and stretch about the mythical mobs. If a new
> restaurant opens up near your home and ONE of your neighbors says the
> food sucks while FIFTEEN say it's great, you would probably think the
> ONE likely ate there on an off night or think it was HIM vs. the food;
> if ONE said it was good and FIFTEEN said it sucks, you would likely
> conclude that there must be SOMETHING odd, different, or bad about the
> food. That's just deductive reasoning and/or simple LOGIC.
It depends on who is giving those opinions. If the opinion expressers
were members of the "We hate most restaurants" club, I wouldn't take it
for much.
We often ignore film critics who are persistently negative. We come to
realize that they are undiscriminating.
So...in your example...I'd listen to the restaurant raters to the
extent that I felt their opinions were objective, open-minded, etc.
BUT, your example may also give some hint to your purpose :-). Could
it be that, just as you view popular opinion as useful in shaping
people's restaurant preferences, you also hope it will be useful in
shaping Y&R viewer preferences? Do you thereby acknowledge that
opinion (of any valence) might actually influence viewership? And, if
yes, do you further acknowledge it as your intent to shape said
viewership?
>
> > A local football coach here for the college gets HUGE bonuses
> > when he wins championships. So, his motive may be self-interest,
> > but in the process he brings up the whole game.
>
> That's not the same thing. EB isn't a coach for Y&R. He's an actor in a
> cast of 40 or 50. If his bitching and whining didn't contain criticisms
> of his colleagues' work, I might be more inclined to agree, but you
> don't PUBLICLY dis' the work of your colleagues if your intent is to
> "bring up the whole game".
I'm not sure I agree. I do see your point, and in life I'm actually a
team player like you describe. But....we'd be nowhere without the
rebels.
> We SAW the harm when KA used to cater to his demands before JS came
> aboard. JS stopped that, and then EB began going to the press with his
> complaints...if he succeeds with that practice, what's to stop all 40 or
> 50 of them from going to the press when they want something? I'm sure
> you'll say, "Sure ... they're all within their rights to do so," and
> they are, of course ... but what kind of image does that give to
> customers of the show about the quality of the product if employees are
> publicly airing their dirty laundry? Not to mention the insubordination
> involved.
Remember that I was off the boards/groups from 1995-1999, and from
2000-2006. So, I wasn't into all the behind-the-scenes stuff then.
My subjective recollection is that I liked the Alden regime (including
the sperm saga), and didn't feel really dissatisfied (in a growing way)
until the Smith regime. I also liked things about the Smith
regime...but it was the first time I could recall feeling palpably not
interested.
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> I say this sincerely...what would my life be without you? :-)
You'd spend less time writing? :-)
> I deeply admire your passion and tenacity.
As I do yours ... although ... I do keep seeing that happy little boy in
the pile of s**t saying, "There's a PONY in here...I KNOW there is!"
> > You're chastising me for posting opinion as "declarative fact"? ... you,
> > the person who posts the topic title: "Latham is NOT making the
> > decisions you hate" ?
>
> I actually think it _is_ declarative fact. I cited Eric Braeden as the
> source of that information, based on a SOD article.
Even if it were true, you KNOW FULL WELL how misleading that topic title
is...and what you were doing when you posted it!
> Let me also say I _love_ that thread title :-). It is so cool to log
> onto google and see that declarative title :-)
Knew it!
> (Because for me it feels like you're trying to say that you
> speak for a larger constituency).
> I'd just love it if you'd claim your opinions as your own, and not
> worry whether there is a single other person who agrees or disagrees.
> Your writing and logic are strong enough that you don't need this
> rhetorical device.
I never claimed to be a spokesperson for anyone, that's not the context
in which I've said it, I *have* proclaimed my own opinions as such and
stated a bizillion times that no one has to agree ... so I don't know
why you'd suggest I've done things any other way or that I'm worried
about who agrees. Maybe it infuriates you when I say there are others
who agree because you'd rather not draw attention to that fact. Hmmm ...
maybe I should think up MY OWN topic title that you can see when you
open up Google ... <G>
Saying that there are others posting similar negative perceptions is not
speaking for anyone else, it's simply stating that there are other
viewers that I don't know, in places where I don't post, coming away
from the Y&R these days feeling some of the same negativity. That has
nothing to do with having confidence in my opinion ... it has to do with
the point that if random people in random places are describing similar
negative perceptions, the show is obviously doing something that's
causing that reaction.
Add to that the *observation* that many of the people that are
expressing strong dissatisfaction with the new methodology have also
made reference to being long-time (one, two or three decades) or since
day-one viewers. Conclude what you want or nothing at all. For me, the
conclusion is that even though I love a well written, compelling story
that holds my interest, I thought I'd probably always watch as long as
the show was on the air. But they managed to make changes that have
Shirl -- their MOST devoted, loyal fan -- not watching on a regular
basis anymore. That, to me, is *astounding*! I honestly did not believe
it could get bad enough for ME to quit!
Your opinion about the comments in online discussion groups being
*completely* meaningless and of zero value doesn't change what's
there--the negative, the positive, and the volumes of analysis and
substantiation for everyone's various opinions. I don't know how that's
valuable or how that feedback could be utilized, but I have a hard time
believing that it is totally worthless info. And if YOU really believed
that, why on earth would you spend so much time here?
> We are 100% agreed. I don't think either newsgroups/
> boards or focus groups should be used to sample public opinion.
That's not what I said.
I see zero value in hand-selected focus groups. Anyone can choose 10
people to tell them what they want to hear.
I think online groups are a terrific way to get a "quick pulse" type
review at the end of a day -- first reactions to a new character, actor,
story, plot twist, etc. That's not to say they should to *change*
anything as a result of anything they read. But if I were writing it and
had time, I'd likely check in on occasion.
> > Of course it has merit; but in the case of a TV show, popular opinion
> > ultimately *IS* what determines whether the art form lives or dies, so
> > it has to be considered in some phase of the process. Perhaps that's
> > another area of difference, with some believing that popular opinion
> > should be considered while in the process of deciding/creating/writing
> > and others believing they should decide/create/write and let the chips
> > (popular opinion) fall where they may.
>
> Nope. Eyeballs delivered to advertisers is what determines viability.
> 90% of the audience could hate what they see, but if they're compelled
> to tune in (e.g., Jerry Springer), the show flourishes.
Semantics. That's essentially what I meant. I was not talking about
people saying they hate a show but are still watching. Viewers determine
viability, and you're right that popular opinion doesn't necessarily
always coincide with ratings, but it may indeed be *a place* where
dissent can be detected BEFORE it shows up in ratings. So to ignore the
tide of popular opinion when it's here, or listen, understand and
perhaps fix a tiny leak before it grows to create a sink hole) *may* or
*may not* prove to be worth their time and effort.
> BUT, your example may also give some hint to your purpose :-). Could
> it be that, just as you view popular opinion as useful in shaping
> people's restaurant preferences, you also hope it will be useful in
> shaping Y&R viewer preferences? Do you thereby acknowledge that
> opinion (of any valence) might actually influence viewership? And, if
> yes, do you further acknowledge it as your intent to shape said
> viewership?
No.
The example was not a hint about any purpose because there is none,
other than to participate in discussions here. I used the example ONLY
to show that if/when multiple individuals express similar sentiments,
there's usually *some* validity to *some* or all of those sentiments ...
whether you agree or not after you see it, watch it, hear it, smell it,
wear it, drive it, play with it, or eat it yourself.
For the umpteenth time, my comments are not intended to shape anything
... just as I'm sure yours aren't (Mr.
Latham-is-NOT-Making-the-Decisions-You-Hate).
> My subjective recollection is that I liked the Alden regime (including
> the sperm saga), and didn't feel really dissatisfied (in a growing way)
> until the Smith regime. I also liked things about the Smith
> regime...but it was the first time I could recall feeling palpably not
> interested.
JS *could* be boring, no doubt, but I like that he got KA out of the
corner she'd written herself into and gave Y&R some stories that didn't
have Eric Braeden as their focal point...which probably had him dancing
naked in the street when JS left.
Shirl
MarkH
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
>
> I never claimed to be a spokesperson for anyone, that's not the context
> in which I've said it, I *have* proclaimed my own opinions as such and
> stated a bizillion times that no one has to agree ... so I don't know
> why you'd suggest I've done things any other way or that I'm worried
> about who agrees. Maybe it infuriates you when I say there are others
> who agree because you'd rather not draw attention to that fact. Hmmm ...
> maybe I should think up MY OWN topic title that you can see when you
> open up Google ... <G>
I live in fear of this title to come....:-).
>
> Your opinion about the comments in online discussion groups being
> *completely* meaningless and of zero value doesn't change what's
> there--the negative, the positive, and the volumes of analysis and
> substantiation for everyone's various opinions. I don't know how that's
> valuable or how that feedback could be utilized, but I have a hard time
> believing that it is totally worthless info. And if YOU really believed
> that, why on earth would you spend so much time here?
Honestly, I'm just here to chat with others who like the same show.
There is no sense in which I expect or want what I write here to go
back to Sony/Bell/CBS. If that was my intent, I'd post/e-mail to that
cbs.com or insideyandr.com address.
I'd say online communities have enormous value for participants, but
little objective value for those who count on opinions.
> > We are 100% agreed. I don't think either newsgroups/
> > boards or focus groups should be used to sample public opinion.
>
> That's not what I said.
>
> I see zero value in hand-selected focus groups. Anyone can choose 10
> people to tell them what they want to hear.
Right. We agree on focus groups. ALTHOUGH, I actually think focus
groups (as they are selected by the investigator, not self-selected)
have slightly more value that polling newsgroups.
>
> For the umpteenth time, my comments are not intended to shape anything
> ... just as I'm sure yours aren't (Mr.
> Latham-is-NOT-Making-the-Decisions-You-Hate).
My comments are also not intended to shape anything, believe it or not.
The thread title was selected because I found published evidence
(Braeden quote) that Latham had nothing to do with Eileen's firing.
That is meaningful. It says the "suits" are somewhat in control...and
that speaks to the larger fear we have had here (corporate meddling).
I do have this "justice" orientation. So, when I see Latham bashed, in
the face of what I interpret as (a) good work onscreen, and (b) the
challenge of doing good work with corporate interference, I want to
remind everyone of these things. Shoulda been a lawyer.... :-)
> > My subjective recollection is that I liked the Alden regime (including
> > the sperm saga), and didn't feel really dissatisfied (in a growing way)
> > until the Smith regime. I also liked things about the Smith
> > regime...but it was the first time I could recall feeling palpably not
> > interested.
>
> JS *could* be boring, no doubt, but I like that he got KA out of the
> corner she'd written herself into and gave Y&R some stories that didn't
> have Eric Braeden as their focal point...which probably had him dancing
> naked in the street when JS left.
>
I'll now have to go back and check out the plot summaries for the Alden
era. I never perceived this dominance of Victor Newman...but if this
was the time when the awful Ramona story happened, I can see some of
your point.
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> > maybe I should think up MY OWN topic title that you
> > can see when you open up Google ... <G>
MarkH:
> I live in fear of this title to come....:-).
You should ... I only hope your reaction will be half what mine was! LOL.
> Honestly, I'm just here to chat with others who like the
> same show.
Same here.
> > I see zero value in hand-selected focus groups. Anyone can
> >choose 10 people to tell them what they want to hear.
>
> Right. We agree on focus groups. ALTHOUGH, I actually think focus
> groups (as they are selected by the investigator, not self-selected)
> have slightly more value that polling newsgroups.
I think focus groups have LESS value than newsgroups. However, I note
that you said "polling" newsgroups -- I see little-to-no value in info
in opinion polls like: "What do you think should happen to Gloria?" or
"How do you feel about the Y&R these days?" I think people responding to
those threads *are* apt to be influenced by what other posters have said
and do the bandwagon thing because the very fact that it's a poll almost
asks you right off to pick a side.
But I think there *is* value in other random subjects and
thoughts/opinions as each episode airs and overall perceptions of
enjoyment or dissatisfaction levels.
> My comments are also not intended to shape anything, believe it or not.
> The thread title was selected because I found published evidence
> (Braeden quote) that Latham had nothing to do with Eileen's firing.
> That is meaningful. It says the "suits" are somewhat in control...and
> that speaks to the larger fear we have had here (corporate meddling).
It may or may not be meaningful. And for someone who accuses others of
being so selective, you are clearly that way yourself in what you choose
to find "meaningful" and what you don't. If it suits your argument, you
declare it to be meaningful; if it doesn't, you put your "it means
NOTHING" or "has no value" stamp on it.
You know how everyone smirks when someone says, "I read it on the
internet, so it MUST be true!"? Same can be said for soap magazines in
that quotes can be taken out of context or incomplete or even
inaccurate. Just because EB said that doesn't mean it's true ... if the
news of ED's firing came as a shock to him, he wasn't there when the
decision was made, so is it his assumption or interpretation Latham had
nothing to do with it? is that what Latham told him? or did ED tell him
that? or did someone else tell him that she had nothing to do with it?
if so, who? and how do they know? is there a reason why Latham may not
want people to think she had anything to do with it? ...
So I wouldn't take a statement like that and run with it the way you
did, even using it to post that highly misleading, sophistic topic title!
Material in the soap magazines is just as subject to interpretation,
opinion and perception as anything said here, and needs to be weeded
accordingly.
> I do have this "justice" orientation. So, when I see Latham bashed, in
> the face of what I interpret as (a) good work onscreen, and (b) the
> challenge of doing good work with corporate interference, I want to
> remind everyone of these things. Shoulda been a lawyer.... :-)
Corporate interference isn't anything new since Latham took over. The
prior regime did some good work on-screen and faced that challenge with
corporate interference, too. Do you remind everyone of that? Maybe I
shoulda been a lawyer too. :-)
> I'll now have to go back and check out the plot summaries for the Alden
> era. I never perceived this dominance of Victor Newman...but if this
> was the time when the awful Ramona story happened, I can see some of
> your point.
The awful Ramona story that came out of the more awful desert saga...
Ramona, the character that needed three scenes to complete one sentence.
Jeez, that was awful.
Shirl
Shawn H
: pay cut she said she would not take one at a work cycle point but at the end
: of a contract she'd be glad to. Oops. So, if Kim wants a story like that,
: she gets it. Me, I consider what GL is like *besides* Kim's demands. I mean,
: when I love everything with everyone else BUT her storyline, ... it says
: something.
She's a pretty big hurdle to overcome.
Shawn H.