Y&R Kicks Butt during holiday break week? (4.5 rating)
MarkH
Final Standings
1.(1) Y&R 4.5 (+.2)
2.(2) B&B 3.2 (+.1)
3.(4) DOOL 2.7 (SAME)
3.(3) GH 2.7 (-.1)
5.(5) ATWT 2.5 (SAME)
5.(5) AMC 2.5 (SAME)
6.(5) OLTL 2.4 (-.1)
8.(8) GL 2.1 (-.1)
9.(9) PSNS 1.7 (SAME)
This surprises me, given the slump (4.0, 4.2) of previous weeks.
The dailies are even better. Check out the 4.6 on New Years Eve (which
I thought was a good ep):
Y&R
Tuesday 4.3
Wednesday 4.4
Thursday 4.5
Friday 4.6
Wasn't it just a few weeks ago we were saying Y&R "slumps" during the
holidays? That was certainly true in the post Thanksgiving weeks.
Glad to see the show has trended back up.
Diva
On Jan 15, 6:42 am, "MarkH" <slipr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Fromhttp://boards.soapoperanetwork.com/index.php?showtopic=14667Final Standings
What's the point about the ratings? Does it change any of our views
about the quality of the show? All my young life my mom insisted I have
what 90% of the people were having (she didn't know about Meg Ryan as
Sally) so I have dedicated my independence to trying to avoid the
influences oif polls. Sorry Krazy Brash & Sassy :-(
Black is Black, I want the old writers Back
Diva
Up to Season 2, Disc 6 of Boston Legal-one more to go before the long
wait for Season 3
Diva
On Jan 15, 6:42 am, "MarkH" <slipr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Fromhttp://boards.soapoperanetwork.com/index.php?showtopic=14667Final Standings
> 1.(1) Y&R 4.5 (+.2)
> 2.(2) B&B 3.2 (+.1)
> 3.(4) DOOL 2.7 (SAME)
> 3.(3) GH 2.7 (-.1)
> 5.(5) ATWT 2.5 (SAME)
> 5.(5) AMC 2.5 (SAME)
> 6.(5) OLTL 2.4 (-.1)
> 8.(8) GL 2.1 (-.1)
> 9.(9) PSNS 1.7 (SAME)
>
> This surprises me, given the slump (4.0, 4.2) of previous weeks.
>
> The dailies are even better. Check out the 4.6 on New Years Eve (which
> I thought was a good ep):
>
Losers with no dates to dress for must have all been watching! LOL
Diva
Who never watches the ball drop...at Times Square
ravelation
c.fr...@sympatico.ca (Diva) wrote:
>>Standings
>>1.(1) Y&R 4.5 (+.2)
>Losers with no dates to dress for must
>have all been watching! LOL
Funny, but the masses were thinking that of you just a few short months
ago. I guess now that you don't like Y&R, it's made you much smarter
than the rest of us losers who still like it?
Ravl
soaps have ALWAYS been thought of as dog doo by the masses, so now why
the digs from you at those of us that still do like it??
DonnaB shallotpeel
<1168870663.3...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "Diva"
<c.fr...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> What's the point about the ratings?
The point is that it may enable Y&R to make more money and, therefore, have
more money as operating revenue.
> Does it change any of our views
> about the quality of the show?
Nope, never has.
> All my young life my mom insisted I have
> what 90% of the people were having (she didn't know about Meg Ryan as
> Sally) so I have dedicated my independence to trying to avoid the
> influences oif polls. Sorry Krazy Brash & Sassy :-(
Go for it. However, polls aren't ratings.
--
DonnaB : ^> shallotpeel <*> Yahoo Messenger: shallotpeel
MarkH
The premise has been advanced here that there is widespread
dissatisfaction with the show. I have even identified my own pockets of
dissatisfaction.
Indeed, the November slump was reported and interpreted by Nymann in
this group as evidence that this dissatisfaction was now percolating
through to ratings, and the show was having diminished viewership.
Ratings are NOT a opinion survey. They are a flawed but best-possible
estimate of the number of eyeballs on a show, and determine advertiser
revenue. Thus, falling ratings would indicate that people are turning
off the show (ostensibly because of the dissatisfaction summarized by
you and others), and so could provide evidence that there is sufficient
dissatisfaction with the new methodology to influence behaviors/viewing
habits. That would be the kind of trend that could get EP/HWs fired.
Instead, if anything, the trend remains stable-to-increasing,
suggesting that the new methodology is NOT turning off viewers. That
means the EP/HW is not going anywhere.
This is not a challenge to your opinion. This is simply saying that
the impression created here and elsewhere--that dissatisfaction is
widespread--does not yet seem to be reflected in viewer behavior.
After a full 12 months of new methodology, it seems fair to say that
the new regime has not put ratings in the toilet.
queenie
>This is not a challenge to your opinion. This is simply saying that
>the impression created here and elsewhere--that dissatisfaction is
>widespread--does not yet seem to be reflected in viewer behavior.
>After a full 12 months of new methodology, it seems fair to say that
>the new regime has not put ratings in the toilet.
"Hope springs eternal"--people hate to give up on a beloved show--we
keep watching because we hope it will get good again. It's not enough
just to "not like" a favorite show anymore, it has to become downright
sickening before we stop watching--that's the way I am anyway. There
are some elements of Y&R that I find sickening now but there are more
that I find appealing.
Diva
On Jan 15, 4:18 pm, DonnaB shallotpeel <shallotp...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on 15 Jan 2007 06:17:43 -0800 in Msg.#
> <1168870663.376013.272...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "Diva"
>
> <c.fril...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > What's the point about the ratings?The point is that it may enable Y&R to make more money and, therefore, have
> more money as operating revenue.
>
> > Does it change any of our views
> > about the quality of the show?Nope, never has.
>
> > All my young life my mom insisted I have
> > what 90% of the people were having (she didn't know about Meg Ryan as
> > Sally) so I have dedicated my independence to trying to avoid the
> > influences oif polls. Sorry Krazy Brash & Sassy :-(Go for it. However, polls aren't ratings.
Guess not :-(
Poll: an estimate of the percentage of the public listening to or
viewing a particular radio or television program, a questioning or
canvassing of persons selected at random or by quota to obtain
information or opinions to be analyzed : a record of the information
so obtained.
Rating: a scale measuring the popularity of a person or thing
typically based on dividing an assessment of familiarity or recognition
by an assessment of favorable opinion
Diva
DonnaB shallotpeel
<1168903474.5...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Diva"
<c.fr...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 4:18 pm, DonnaB shallotpeel <shallotp...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on 15 Jan 2007 06:17:43 -0800 in Msg.#
> > <1168870663.376013.272...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "Diva"
> >
> > <c.fril...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > What's the point about the ratings?
>> The point is that it may enable Y&R to make more money and, therefore, have
> > more money as operating revenue.
> >
> > > ... so I have dedicated my independence to trying to avoid the
> > > influences oif polls. Sorry Krazy Brash & Sassy :-(
>> Go for it. However, polls aren't ratings.
> Guess not :-(
>
> Poll: an estimate of the percentage of the public listening to or
> viewing a particular radio or television program, a questioning or
> canvassing of persons selected at random or by quota to obtain
> information or opinions to be analyzed : a record of the information
> so obtained.
>
> Rating: a scale measuring the popularity of a person or thing
> typically based on dividing an assessment of familiarity or recognition
> by an assessment of favorable opinion
This is not a definition of what the Nielsen ratings are.
--
DonnaB : ^> shallotpeel <*> Yahoo Messenger: shallotpeel
"Worthless people blame their karma." - Burmese Proverb
record hunter
I would have wagered that after today's show you'd be just
ecs-fucking-static.
Diva
On Jan 15, 6:54 pm, "record hunter" <record.hun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> queenie wrote:
> > On 15 Jan 2007 14:49:54 -0800, "MarkH" <slipr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >This is not a challenge to your opinion. This is simply saying that
> > >the impression created here and elsewhere--that dissatisfaction is
> > >widespread--does not yet seem to be reflected in viewer behavior.
> > >After a full 12 months of new methodology, it seems fair to say that
> > >the new regime has not put ratings in the toilet.
>
> > "Hope springs eternal"--people hate to give up on a beloved show--we
> > keep watching because we hope it will get good again. It's not enough
> > just to "not like" a favorite show anymore, it has to become downright
> > sickening before we stop watching--that's the way I am anyway. There
> > are some elements of Y&R that I find sickening now but there are more
> > that I find appealing.I would have wagered that after today's show you'd be just
> ecs-fucking-static.
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> The premise has been advanced here that there is widespread
> dissatisfaction with the show. I have even identified my own pockets of
> dissatisfaction.
There is no theory ("premise") being "advanced" that there is widespread
dissatisfaction. Many of us have expressed, as you just said you have,
our own pockets of dissatisfaction. For those of us who have done so,
many of those pockets are common ones. Many of you who have expressed
your own pockets of approval also overlap. I don't believe anyone,
myself included, is here trying to "advance" anything. It is a FACT that
there are now significant numbers of posts expressing dissatisfaction,
but I don't believe anyone has ever used the word "widespread". Take a
look at Media Domain, for example ... there are several topics/posts
talking about it among the usual ones discussing the show in the usual
way.
> Instead, if anything, the trend remains stable-to-increasing,
> suggesting that the new methodology is NOT turning off viewers. That
> means the EP/HW is not going anywhere.
You may be right that the EP/HW is not going anywhere right now. The
ratings have been (surprisingly, to me) stable. If they continue to
climb steadily for a while, then they could be characterized as
stable-to-increasing, but I wouldn't make that leap yet; they could
decline next week the same amount that they were up last week.
And I disagree with the interpretation that this trend indicates that
"the new methodology is NOT turning off viewers". On the contrary, while
many are undoubtedly still enjoying, there are plenty of posters in
these groups expressing *extreme* dissatisfaction -- if those are not
viewers that are turned off by the new methodology, what are they?! They
are not just discussing one or two stories or characters that are
turning them off, they are talking in far greater terms -- i.e., "Y&R
is/has been destroyed".
So what's the explanation?
Oddly enough, those viewers may indeed be turned off, but they still
aren't *turning it* off! I am in that category of extremely dissatisfied
viewers, and while I don't watch anywhere NEAR as faithfully as I once
did, I still check in maybe a couple times/week. Sometimes I watch till
it's over; other times I can't stand what I'm seeing and shut it off.
I ask myself why I watch at all, since I hate what LML has done, and all
I can come up with is to see just HOW preposterous she's going to get.
And it continues to amaze me. I've thought *almost* from the beginning
of her reign that she didn't have an ounce of concern about staying true
to what long-time Y&R viewers WATCHED, and she continues to prove that
with each even more ludicrous desecration of important pieces of Y&R's
history. How anyone can interpret this Phillip-wasn't-the-real-Phillip
premise as "mining history" is beyond me! I see NO valid reason to do
this, and I've asked before, if she's as creative and brilliant as you
and others have claimed, why can't she leave Y&R history, the way it was
written and executed, alone and move forward with HER OWN stuff?
There are plenty of ways to tie/weave some of the past into new stories
without *changing* what we saw or trying to make us believe something
like Brad's new past for a character we saw NO indication whatsoever of
this from in 21 years. I wonder if she just doesn't have any new ideas
of her own. For some stupid reason I can't explain, I continue to tune
in to SEE just how far she's going to go with this technique she seems
to have developed of going back decades to destroy what we saw.
So while "seeing how bad it's going to get" isn't likely the way LML
intended to keep viewers tuning in, I honestly believe that's what many
are doing. But I don't buy the interpretation for a second that just
because the ratings are steady or up the last couple of weeks that "the
new methodology is NOT turning off viewers". There *is* a hold Y&R still
has on viewers, but many are definitely "turned off" to the new
methodology. That isn't anything anyone is trying to "advance" ... the
dissatisfaction (viewers turned off to the new methodology) is there in
black and white for you or anyone else to read, if you choose to see it.
Shirl
Diva
On Jan 15, 10:19 am, ravelat...@webtv.net (ravelation) wrote:
Diva
On Jan 15, 10:19 am, ravelat...@webtv.net (ravelation) wrote:
Maybe it does sound like I'm singing a different tune now.
The above isn't logical. No one was more devoted to Y&R over the years
than I because it was so engaging from when I tuned in back in 1996
until the new style of writing in the past months. I never thought in
terms of its degree of popularity or whether it had status or not.
People from all stratas of life do watch soaps after all. I just knew
something about it was pleasing and satisfying and it was an hour I
relished and looked forward to every day as well as being part of
ratsc.
Like Shirl, I now watch like people who stop at a car collsion and
wonderi how it can get any worse. I am an easily addicted person. (
legal addictions) Frankly I wish I could stop watching.
It isn't linked to intelligence but to emotion. I no longer have
"feelings" about what goes on.
Yet, I just completed 28 episodes of Boston Legal and felt like I was
part of it.
Y&R always seemed much better than other soaps to me. I admit I scanned
them but never watched for more than two minutes because they seemed
dumb and phony.
Now I am at an impasse. If I can find a substitute for the decade long
habit of late afternoon Y&R that is pleasing I will make the leap to
elsewhere and attend Y&R Anonymous meetings with other recovering
disillusioned addicts.
Diva
record hunter
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
> ...if she's as creative and brilliant as you
> and others have claimed, why can't she leave Y&R history, the way it was
> written and executed, alone and move forward with HER OWN stuff?
Because then you'd complain she's introducing new characters and
ignoring your favorites.
DonnaB shallotpeel
<1168913286.0...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Diva"
<c.fr...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 10:19 am, ravelat...@webtv.net (ravelation) wrote:
> > c.fril...@sympatico.ca (Diva) wrote:
> > >>Standings
> > >>1.(1) Y&R 4.5 (+.2)
> > >Losers with no dates to dress for must >have all been watching! LOL
> >
> > Funny, but the masses were thinking that of you just a few short months
> > ago. I guess now that you don't like Y&R, it's made you much smarter
> > than the rest of us losers who still like it?
> >
> > Ravl
> > soaps have ALWAYS been thought of as dog doo by the masses, so now why
> > the digs from you at those of us that still do like it??
>
> Maybe it does sound like I'm singing a different tune now.
>
> The above isn't logical.
Sure it does. Ravl made a great point. I suspect that you just 'called'
those people watching the name 'losers' as a joke because it was associated
with New Year's Eve, but, if you really think people who like Y&R now are
losers, ... it's completely logical to point out that soap fans have taken
verbal abuse from non-soap fans forever (still do) and we don't really need
to turn it on each other, do we?
I'm glad you enjoyed BOSTON LEGAL even though I don't like it. I'm sorry
that you don't like Y&R now that I am watching it & enjoying it.
> Y&R always seemed much better than other soaps to me. I admit I scanned
> them but never watched for more than two minutes because they seemed
> dumb and phony.
I hear you, but, it's such an elitist belief! Although I know it was a
common belief in some quarters. And, in all fairness, other people have
thought the same about their favorite soap at a particular time, etc.
But, to me, you see, until recent changes, no soap had more phony sounding
dialogue than did Y&R. <G> Of course, that is not the only reason I couldn't
get engaged in it, I would guess. But, no soap has ever put me to sleep the
way Y&R used to. Absolute cure for my insomnia.
--
DonnaB : ^> shallotpeel <*> Yahoo Messenger: shallotpeel
"A proverb is a short sentence based on long experience." - Miguel de
Cervantes Saavedra
DonnaB shallotpeel
<1168915063.4...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, "record hunter"
<record...@gmail.com> wrote:
And, because it is better (and more creative) and has been proven to be more
effective to do both - add new characters as well as use history & current
characters.
Besides who is it who has made this claim about how creative & brilliant she
is? I've not seen anyone be that kind of advocate of her here. I have seen
people react to what's happening.
queenie
<record...@gmail.com> wrote:
LOL Great show today! JC's performance today was amazing. Did she
actually tear-up when Bardwell told her he was reopening the product
tampering case? I hope she doesn't leave the show. I would love to
see her and Jack sentenced to sharing the Abbott mansion.
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> > ...if she's as creative and brilliant as you
> > and others have claimed, why can't she leave Y&R history, the way it was
> > written and executed, alone and move forward with HER OWN stuff?
record hunter:
> Because then you'd complain she's introducing new characters and
> ignoring your favorites.
It isn't as if she's not doing that anyway!
And shouldn't be any reason she couldn't move forward with her own
stories using the characters that were present when she arrived. No need
to go back decades to rewrite history in order to keep using existing
characters. We seem to be able to move forward in real life without
going back to rewrite our own histories.
Shirl
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> And, because it is better (and more creative)
It's "better"? Says who? "More creative" to go back and rewrite history
that played out over a couple of decades ago? Says who? That is strictly
a matter of opinion, and a number of viewers have disagreed about its
effectiveness.
> and has been proven to be more effective to do both -
> add new characters as well as use history & current
> characters.
How has that been "proven"? What is "effective" is also a matter of
opinion. The ratings were right around 4.0 for a long time. I wouldn't
be *too* quick to use the recent rise in ratings as "proof" of anything
just yet; they may decline as quickly as they rose.
> Besides who is it who has made this claim about how creative & brilliant she
> is? I've not seen anyone be that kind of advocate of her here. I have seen
> people react to what's happening.
LML was touted here as many things early on ... "brilliant" was commonly
used to describe her by a couple of posters, as many as four times in
one post! ;-)
Can't remember the other phrase ... was it "a creative renaissance",
Mark? Guess maybe you weren't reading Y&R posts then, Donna...if you
were, you would have remembered.
Shirl
Diva
On Jan 15, 6:10 pm, queenie <quee...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2007 14:49:54 -0800, "MarkH" <slipr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >This is not a challenge to your opinion. This is simply saying that
> >the impression created here and elsewhere--that dissatisfaction is
> >widespread--does not yet seem to be reflected in viewer behavior.
> >After a full 12 months of new methodology, it seems fair to say that
> >the new regime has not put ratings in the toilet."Hope springs eternal"--people hate to give up on a beloved show--we
> keep watching because we hope it will get good again.
It seems like my recent return to ratsc was just post mortem twitching.
What you will see on today's U.S. show in the closing moments finally
put me over the edge. After eleven years of never missing an episode
and several months of complaining (bordering on snobbery in the opinion
of some) I'm done with it. No more Y&R under the current regime. It
doesn't put me to sleep, it gives me heartburn and anxiety. Jana,
Sheiliss, David Chow, Amber, Brad's pursuers all creep me out. Cages,
stolen identities, constantly playing switch,the inconsistent pace of
plot progression..it's not my cup from Crimson Lights. I realize when
writing fibe hours a week of scripts, it can't all be perfectly paced.
My expectations are obviously too high.
I'm off to Blockbuster to peruse good TV series on DVD commercial free.
Some worth investigating which I have never seen on TV are :
24
Nip Tuck
Six Feet Under
Grey's Anatomy
Spin offs of Law & Order
CSI
And of course soon it's Thursday and time for "Ugly Betty,"
Diva
Gave up smoking, overeating and now ditching depressing drama on Y&R
Nymann
Is there a possibility on this board of merging two topics?
DonnaB shallotpeel
<1168955416....@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, "Nymann"
<lis...@cg.yu> wrote:
No. It's not a board. It's a Usenet newsgroup. And, many times there are
multiple threads. That's just the nature of the beast. Or part of it,
anyway.
--
DonnaB : ^> shallotpeel <*> Yahoo Messenger: shallotpeel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSzSBum9uvQ Jake Gyllenhaal on SNL
"When an elephant is in trouble even a frog will kick him." - Hindu proverb
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
[snip]
> I realize when writing fibe hours a week of scripts, it can't
> all be perfectly paced. My expectations are obviously too high.
No, Diva, your expectations are not too high!
They are simply based on the quality you *know* Y&R *was* capable of,
even including the imperfections that occur writing five hours/week of
scripts throughout the year.
This is how the new methodology works these days, not only with Y&R, but
with other products as well. Someone gets an idea that an already
successful product needs changing and/or "modernizing", talented,
knowledgeable people *who care* and that have years of expertise are
eliminated from the process, critical elements that made the product
successful are eliminated because of "budget" or because someone new
says they're unnecessary, and then there is a huge campaign to tell you
that the new product is "better" than it was before, as if you aren't
capable of perceiving the difference and making up your own mind whether
it's better or not.
It's been suggested here that if you quit thinking about what the show
"used to" be, you'd be able to enjoy it more now. Ever think about how
ridiculous it is to try to convince customers -- viewers, in this case
-- that they will like the "new" product better if they just LOWER their
expectations?
It is absolutely true that you can't please all the people all the time.
There would, and always have been, dissatisfied viewers and things we've
*all* complained about. But when you change the methodology and then
have fans who, after DECADES of "never miss" viewership, are suddenly
*so* dissatisfied that they're either quitting completely or not caring
if they miss several days at a time, even if some fans are still happy,
that new methodology IS falling short/failing for an important segment
of viewers.
Few businesses continue to move forward in a direction that they know is
costing them the loss of some of their most devout supporters without
eventual negative consequences (I know someone's going to argue that
there is no evidence of that). Apparently the "new" Y&R thinks they're
going to be the exception. Maybe they will be. What I continue to ask
is, why even take that risk? Why CHOOSE to make changes and "modernize"
the show in a way that turns off your most ardent supporters? Why even
subject something as successful and highly respected as the Y&R to that
risk when changes/modernization *could* be done in a way that
incorporates most of the qualities that kept many of us glued for so
many years?
It didn't have to be done in such a way that lowering expectations is
the only way for many of your biggest fans to continue enjoying.
Shirl
ravelation
record...@gmail.com (record hunter)
wrote:
Good point! After I read Shirley's comments yesterday, I was left
thinking, "Gosh, if they decided to give Neil a mother and a father,
would she complain that it's never been determined he had either of
those before? We've never heard him 'talk' about them, so they must not
exist, right?
I mean, they must've really wanted Philip back on canvas, and rather
than "bring him back from the dead" (something another soap would
do...), they've chosen to embellish history a bit and IMO, it's working.
They're not "changing" history, just tweeking it a bit and I think
that's all right.
Ravl
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> Good point! After I read Shirley's comments yesterday, I was left
> thinking, "Gosh, if they decided to give Neil a mother and a father,
> would she complain that it's never been determined he had either of
> those before? We've never heard him 'talk' about them, so they must not
> exist, right?
Oh, give me a break!
You're comparing giving Neil and Malcolm parents to suddenly saying a
character we watched for 21 years has been "running" and "hiding" all
his life? a character who had his family murdered by Nazi art thieves
and who assumed the identity of his best friend who was killed in a car
accident? a best friend who had ZERO other friends or people in his life
that might have tried to look him up in 21 years? or who might have
known them both and seen the photos of "Brad Carlton" and said, "Hey!!
That's not Brad, that's *dead* George!"
ALL THAT is as believable as giving Neil parents? Puhleeze.
I don't have a problem with giving a character like Brad or Ryan (if he
were still around) or Neil a past ... but at least make it plausible for
people who are capable of having a logical thought process. It *is*
supposed to be a continuing story, not one that requires you to forget
decades of what you saw for it to be plausible.
> I mean, they must've really wanted Philip back on canvas,
Yeah ... instead of thinking/creating new stories and moving forward
what what currently exists and leaving the past in tact, they must be
pretty desperate for stories to resort to going back that far and
UNDOing what was done and over with decades ago to write a new story.
Can't they come up with something new for these characters while still
respecting what viewers invested their time and emotions in? Reaching
back that far and creating something preposterous didn't go over that
well with the Reliquary story, so ... hey, let's do it again! ... great
thinking (NOT).
> and rather than "bring him back from the dead" (something
> another soap would do...), they've chosen to embellish history
> a bit and IMO, it's working.
For you, maybe. Not for a lot of us who remember Katherine's
astonishment at how much grown Phillip looked so much like her former
husband. This is NOT embellishing history, it is desecrating it.
> They're not "changing" history, just tweeking it a bit and I think
> that's all right.
Glad you think so. Judging by some of the angry posts, not everyone
shares that opinion. Suddenly having Katherine have this revelation that
she SWITCHED Jill's baby and that ALL the history we saw with her and
Jill and Phillip Jr, including marrying Nina and Phillip III, "is not
changing history"? it is just tweaking history "a bit"? So if you
suddenly found out that someone switched your son 20 years ago, you
wouldn't think it was changing history? Yeah, you, and everyone in your
life, would just think it was "tweaking it a bit". Riiiiight.
Unfrigginbelievable.
Shirl
record hunter
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
> It is absolutely true that you can't please all the people all the time.
> There would, and always have been, dissatisfied viewers and things we've
> *all* complained about. But when you change the methodology and then
> have fans who, after DECADES of "never miss" viewership, are suddenly
> *so* dissatisfied that they're either quitting completely or not caring
> if they miss several days at a time, even if some fans are still happy,
> that new methodology IS falling short/failing for an important segment
> of viewers.
>
> Few businesses continue to move forward in a direction that they know is
> costing them the loss of some of their most devout supporters without
> eventual negative consequences (I know someone's going to argue that
> there is no evidence of that). Apparently the "new" Y&R thinks they're
> going to be the exception. Maybe they will be. What I continue to ask
> is, why even take that risk? Why CHOOSE to make changes and "modernize"
> the show in a way that turns off your most ardent supporters? Why even
> subject something as successful and highly respected as the Y&R to that
> risk when changes/modernization *could* be done in a way that
> incorporates most of the qualities that kept many of us glued for so
> many years?
You still don't accept the fact that viewers like myself -- not *new*
viewers, but people who thought Y&R under Bill & Kay was The Dullest
Show on Earth -- are *only* able to watch Y&R because of changes that
were *finally* made to the old stodgefest. I don't know if there's
anyone else like me who's reading this board, but adding Gloria and
Kevin, plus allowing people -- finally, after 20+ years of sounding
like puppets with fists up their asses -- to speak dialogue that
actually bore some semblance to the way people actually talk, were
wonderful, liberating changes.
These major changes were made pre-LML, so this isn't really about her,
but if these changes hadn't been made, I'd likely have watched for a
week in 2004, continued being "a viewer who still can't stand the way
Y&R sounds/is written" and then given up for another couple of years
BECAUSE THE SHOW WAS *STILL* SO DAMNED DULL.
What you loved, everyone didn't love. Change was necessary. Change
brought some new viewers in. Certain things, like dialogue, have
improved even more under LML.
ICAM that Phyllis as Sheila blows dead bears, but for the most part I
continue to enjoy the show. I even am enjoying David Chow as the
evildoer du jour (but they'd better not expect to turn him into a
character I'm supposed to like).
Keep coming back, LML. It works.
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> You still don't accept the fact that viewers like myself -- not *new*
> viewers, but people who thought Y&R under Bill & Kay was The Dullest
> Show on Earth -- are *only* able to watch Y&R because of changes that
> were *finally* made to the old stodgefest.
I have accepted that ... and I've acknowledged in nearly every post I've
written that I know many viewers, some who weren't enjoying before, are
enjoying.
> I don't know if there's
> anyone else like me who's reading this board, but adding Gloria and
> Kevin,
I've agreed that Gloria and Kevin are valuable new additions, but they
were added by the old regime.
> plus allowing people -- finally, after 20+ years of sounding
> like puppets with fists up their asses -- to speak dialogue that
> actually bore some semblance to the way people actually talk, were
> wonderful, liberating changes.
The dialogue is an improvement, yes. Too bad the *stories* are getting
so preposterous that even though the dialogue is good, the story itself
(in most cases) is too ridiculous for words (no pun).
> These major changes were made pre-LML, so this isn't really about her,
> but if these changes hadn't been made, I'd likely have watched for a
> week in 2004, continued being "a viewer who still can't stand the way
> Y&R sounds/is written" and then given up for another couple of years
> BECAUSE THE SHOW WAS *STILL* SO DAMNED DULL.
Understood. And I know you're one of the viewers that is "for" all these
changes, and that's not what I have issue with.
> What you loved, everyone didn't love.
Clearly, what you're loving now isn't something "everyone" is loving,
either. I'm certainly not the ONLY person expressing extreme
dissatisfaction in these groups and elsewhere.
> Change was necessary.
I've never argued that Y&R didn't need *some* changing.
> Change brought some new viewers in.
And it turned some away. So where is the big advantage?
> ICAM that Phyllis as Sheila blows dead bears, but for the most part I
> continue to enjoy the show.
And I'm not suggesting you shouldn't. I'm just saying that changes could
have been made (improving dialogue, etc.) that caused you to start
enjoying again in such a way that did not turn off so many of us who
WERE there throughout.
> Keep coming back, LML. It works.
Go away, LML. It doesn't work.
(Is one or the other of those statements more valid? I don't think so.)
Shirl
record hunter
Xmnusha...@aol.communicate wrote:
> ravel...@webtv.net (ravelation) wrote:
> > Good point! After I read Shirley's comments yesterday, I was left
> > thinking, "Gosh, if they decided to give Neil a mother and a father,
> > would she complain that it's never been determined he had either of
> > those before? We've never heard him 'talk' about them, so they must not
> > exist, right?
>
> Oh, give me a break!
> You're comparing giving Neil and Malcolm parents to suddenly saying a
> character we watched for 21 years has been "running" and "hiding" all
> his life? a character who had his family murdered by Nazi art thieves
> and who assumed the identity of his best friend who was killed in a car
> accident? a best friend who had ZERO other friends or people in his life
> that might have tried to look him up in 21 years? or who might have
> known them both and seen the photos of "Brad Carlton" and said, "Hey!!
> That's not Brad, that's *dead* George!"
>
> ALL THAT is as believable as giving Neil parents? Puhleeze.
Since the Reliquary story *improves* Brad's character, my brain is able
to accommodate the leap in logic very, very easily. [DOING JUSTICE
SCALES] On the one hand: "Brad as serial-rich-girl-marrying-cipher." On
the other hand: "Brad as part of heroic Jewish art family with
Holocaust bkgd." On-the-other-hand rules. Rocks. Dominates. Kicks
on-the-one-hand's ass.
I don't have any history with, or knowledge of. the original storyline,
but if it is as enhancing to the story as it seems, I'm alright with
it. The biggest mistake MADD made at ATWT was to make Holden and
Lucinda buddies, and it seems Y&R might have done the same thing by
making Jill and Kay mother and daughter. Ergo, let's have some
conflict.
I hate 'because we said so' writing as much as the next person, but
this kind of retcon doesn't seem as if it could be logically
*completely impossible*. There are all kinds of 'child you didn't know
you had' storylines, all over daytime, some of which I've enjoyed
enormously because of the new character and new relationships that are
created. Dylan on GL and Paulina on AW are two such characters. At the
time I was watching the shows, I couldn't imagine the shows without
either of them, but they'd come to us through rewritings of show
history.
Maybe your problem is with the relative ease with which sperm mixes
with egg on these shows rather than the writing and rewriting.
Sexuality is so fluid on daytime, anyone can be almost anyone's child,
it seems to me.
record hunter
Xmnusha...@aol.communicate wrote:
> "record hunter" <record...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You still don't accept the fact that viewers like myself -- not *new*
> > viewers, but people who thought Y&R under Bill & Kay was The Dullest
> > Show on Earth -- are *only* able to watch Y&R because of changes that
> > were *finally* made to the old stodgefest.
>
> I have accepted that ... and I've acknowledged in nearly every post I've
> written that I know many viewers, some who weren't enjoying before, are
> enjoying.
In the post to which I'm responding, you didn't, until your fourth
paragraph, in which you inserted weasel words like "you can't please
all the people, etc." Your first three paragraphs put forth (qualifying
phrase: what I and others think of as) typical Shirl absolutes about
the way the NM has changed your show, and not for the better.
>
> > I don't know if there's
> > anyone else like me who's reading this board, but adding Gloria and
> > Kevin,
>
> I've agreed that Gloria and Kevin are valuable new additions, but they
> were added by the old regime.
Which I stated in my response to you, and you edited out for some
reason.
> > plus allowing people -- finally, after 20+ years of sounding
> > like puppets with fists up their asses -- to speak dialogue that
> > actually bore some semblance to the way people actually talk, were
> > wonderful, liberating changes.
>
> The dialogue is an improvement, yes. Too bad the *stories* are getting
> so preposterous that even though the dialogue is good, the story itself
> (in most cases) is too ridiculous for words (no pun).
Opinion stated as fact.
> > These major changes were made pre-LML, so this isn't really about her,
> > but if these changes hadn't been made, I'd likely have watched for a
> > week in 2004, continued being "a viewer who still can't stand the way
> > Y&R sounds/is written" and then given up for another couple of years
> > BECAUSE THE SHOW WAS *STILL* SO DAMNED DULL.
>
> Understood. And I know you're one of the viewers that is "for" all these
> changes, and that's not what I have issue with.
>
> > What you loved, everyone didn't love.
>
> Clearly, what you're loving now isn't something "everyone" is loving,
> either. I'm certainly not the ONLY person expressing extreme
> dissatisfaction in these groups and elsewhere.
But for the most part, I'm not complaining. If change is going to make
some people happy, it's going to make some unhappy. Some, completely
miserable, I guess. But I've now got a show that *finally* respects my
intelligence. You'll forgive my resistance to anyone who holds in great
regard a show that for 20 years, on every day I watched it, *insulted*
my intelligence. IOW, whatever accomplishing this degree of betterness
sacrificed, that's fine by me. It's *that* much better now.
> > Change was necessary.
>
> I've never argued that Y&R didn't need *some* changing.
>
> > Change brought some new viewers in.
>
> And it turned some away. So where is the big advantage?
For me, a show I can watch.
> > ICAM that Phyllis as Sheila blows dead bears, but for the most part I
> > continue to enjoy the show.
>
> And I'm not suggesting you shouldn't. I'm just saying that changes could
> have been made (improving dialogue, etc.) that caused you to start
> enjoying again in such a way that did not turn off so many of us who
> WERE there throughout.
>
> > Keep coming back, LML. It works.
>
> Go away, LML. It doesn't work.
> (Is one or the other of those statements more valid? I don't think so.)
>
> Shirl
I've mixed my materials. The "Keep coming back, it works," line, as
applied here, is an AA-related joke. I've been poking sticks in Dana's
eye for dissing AA, and getting e-mails about it, so a number of people
will get the joke. It's for them. (I hate having to explain jokes,
though. Sorry it didn't play.)
DonnaB shallotpeel
<1168967238.8...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, "record hunter"
<record...@gmail.com> wrote:
I got it. <G>
--
DonnaB : ^> shallotpeel <*> Yahoo Messenger: shallotpeel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSzSBum9uvQ Jake Gyllenhaal on SNL
"One may have good eyes & yet see nothing." - Italian proverb
Diva
On Jan 15, 9:46 pm, DonnaB shallotpeel <shallotp...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on 15 Jan 2007 18:08:06 -0800 in Msg.#
> <1168913286.093421.316...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Diva"
>
>
>
> <c.fril...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 10:19 am, ravelat...@webtv.net (ravelation) wrote:
> > > c.fril...@sympatico.ca (Diva) wrote:
> > > >>Standings
> > > >>1.(1) Y&R 4.5 (+.2)
> > > >Losers with no dates to dress for must >have all been watching! LOL
>
> > > Funny, but the masses were thinking that of you just a few short months
> > > ago. I guess now that you don't like Y&R, it's made you much smarter
> > > than the rest of us losers who still like it?
>
> > > Ravl
> > > soaps have ALWAYS been thought of as dog doo by the masses, so now why
> > > the digs from you at those of us that still do like it??
>
> > Maybe it does sound like I'm singing a different tune now.
>
> > The above isn't logical.Sure it does. Ravl made a great point. I suspect that you just 'called'
> those people watching the name 'losers' as a joke because it was associated
> with New Year's Eve, but, if you really think people who like Y&R now are
> losers, ... it's completely logical to point out that soap fans have taken
> verbal abuse from non-soap fans forever (still do) and we don't really need
> to turn it on each other, do we?
>
I just shared my objections to the "new and improved Y&R" wiith CBS.
Nothing like spitting in the wind!
Diva
queenie
<record...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I even am enjoying David Chow as the
>evildoer du jour (but they'd better not expect to turn him into a
>character I'm supposed to like).
Please no, Kevin was enough. But OTOH, I think I could forgive any
crimes committed by David Chow because Vincent Irizarry has the acting
chops to pull it off. And he doesn't look like a guppy when he
kisses.
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> > I have accepted that ... and I've acknowledged in nearly every post I've
> > written that I know many viewers, some who weren't enjoying before, are
> > enjoying.
record hunter:
> In the post to which I'm responding, you didn't, until your fourth
> paragraph, in which you inserted weasel words like "you can't please
> all the people, etc."
Why must you start the insults? Now it isn't enough to acknowledge that
there are many viewers that are enjoying, it has to be placed in a
certain spot in the post -- before the fourth paragraph --and in words
that YOU don't consider "weasel words" in order to be a valid
acknowledgment in your eyes? Plenty of people are expressing
dissatisfaction in much more offensive terms than I, with no
acknowledgment whatsoever about happy viewers. Seems there is no
non-offensive way to disagree if your opinion is negative. Oh well.
> Your first three paragraphs put forth (qualifying
> phrase: what I and others think of as) typical Shirl absolutes about
> the way the NM has changed your show, and not for the better.
Yeah, so?
You, MarkH, Ravl, DonnaB or anyone else that happens to be enjoying the
show put forth your absolutes about the way the NM has changed your show
for the better, too. So what? We're here to post and exchange opinions,
aren't we? I'm no more "absolute" about my extreme dissatisfaction than
you or any of the pro-NM people are about your delight.
> > The dialogue is an improvement, yes. Too bad the *stories* are getting
> > so preposterous that even though the dialogue is good, the story itself
> > (in most cases) is too ridiculous for words (no pun).
>
> Opinion stated as fact.
You're right, I should have said IMO after that. Have you or any of the
other pro-NMists made any favorable statements about anything you've
seen lately without saying IMO? Please don't insult me by saying "no".
Shirl:
> > Understood. And I know you're one of the viewers that is "for" all these
> > changes, and that's not what I have issue with.
record hunter:
> > > What you loved, everyone didn't love.
Shirl:
> > Clearly, what you're loving now isn't something "everyone" is loving,
> > either. I'm certainly not the ONLY person expressing extreme
> > dissatisfaction in these groups and elsewhere.
> But for the most part, I'm not complaining.
Those of you who are enjoying the NM are not complaining; those of us
who are not, are. Hard to imagine it being any other way. Why is this a
problem for you?
> If change is going to make
> some people happy, it's going to make some unhappy. Some, completely
> miserable, I guess. But I've now got a show that *finally* respects my
> intelligence. You'll forgive my resistance to anyone who holds in great
> regard a show that for 20 years, on every day I watched it, *insulted*
> my intelligence. IOW, whatever accomplishing this degree of betterness
> sacrificed, that's fine by me. It's *that* much better now.
There were times when the old show insulted our intelligence, too, of
course, just not on THIS grand a scale, *IMO*. As for how you feel about
the new Y&R, I'm glad that you now find a reason to keep tuning in. The
point of my objection is NOT that the show isn't pleasing ANYONE
anymore; the point is that they could have made changes that respected
YOUR intelligence *and* that did not turn off those who held in great
regard the show that you couldn't watch. Even those of us who watched
religiously have not said that it didn't need some changes/improvements.
I feel bad that it bothers you that anyone could object so strongly to
something you're enjoying so much ... but whether you believe it or not,
it isn't ONLY me, RH ... there are others expressing the same or similar
objections to the NM in FAR more angry, emphatic terms than I. For some
reason, you, MarkH and Ravl seem to think if it weren't for me, everyone
would be loving it as much as you, and that's simply not the case.
There's NO WAY my words could reach everyone that is posting their
disgust with what the show has become since the new regime took over.
> > > Change was necessary.
> >
> > I've never argued that Y&R didn't need *some* changing.
> >
> > > Change brought some new viewers in.
> >
> > And it turned some away. So where is the big advantage?
>
> For me, a show I can watch.
Right. But we aren't talking about pleasing ONLY you. We're talking
about how the changes that made the show watchable for YOU made it
UN-watchable for others who had been devoted when you couldn't stand it.
Getting you back as a viewer is great, but not if the way they went
about it caused one or more previously-faithful viewers to shut it off.
> > > Keep coming back, LML. It works.
> >
> > Go away, LML. It doesn't work.
> > (Is one or the other of those statements more valid? I don't think so.)
> >
> > Shirl
>
> I've mixed my materials. The "Keep coming back, it works," line, as
> applied here, is an AA-related joke. I've been poking sticks in Dana's
> eye for dissing AA, and getting e-mails about it, so a number of people
> will get the joke. It's for them. (I hate having to explain jokes,
> though. Sorry it didn't play.)
No problem. I appreciate the explanation.
Shirl
record hunter
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
> Shirl:
> > > I have accepted that ... and I've acknowledged in nearly every post I've
> > > written that I know many viewers, some who weren't enjoying before, are
> > > enjoying.
>
> record hunter:
> > In the post to which I'm responding, you didn't, until your fourth
> > paragraph, in which you inserted weasel words like "you can't please
> > all the people, etc."
>
> Why must you start the insults?
Does it never occur to you that you are insulting to me?
> Now it isn't enough to acknowledge that
> there are many viewers that are enjoying, it has to be placed in a
> certain spot in the post -- before the fourth paragraph --and in words
> that YOU don't consider "weasel words" in order to be a valid
> acknowledgment in your eyes? Plenty of people are expressing
> dissatisfaction in much more offensive terms than I, with no
> acknowledgment whatsoever about happy viewers. Seems there is no
> non-offensive way to disagree if your opinion is negative. Oh well.
Back to where we started. I'm resigning ASAP from arguing with you.
It's more typing than my hands can take.
> > Your first three paragraphs put forth (qualifying
> > phrase: what I and others think of as) typical Shirl absolutes about
> > the way the NM has changed your show, and not for the better.
>
> Yeah, so?
> You, MarkH, Ravl, DonnaB or anyone else that happens to be enjoying the
> show put forth your absolutes about the way the NM has changed your show
> for the better, too. So what? We're here to post and exchange opinions,
> aren't we? I'm no more "absolute" about my extreme dissatisfaction than
> you or any of the pro-NM people are about your delight.
Well, the show is better.
>
> > > The dialogue is an improvement, yes. Too bad the *stories* are getting
> > > so preposterous that even though the dialogue is good, the story itself
> > > (in most cases) is too ridiculous for words (no pun).
> >
> > Opinion stated as fact.
>
> You're right, I should have said IMO after that. Have you or any of the
> other pro-NMists made any favorable statements about anything you've
> seen lately without saying IMO? Please don't insult me by saying "no".
There apparently is no way for us to talk. If I'm not kissing your ass,
I'm insulting you, and I feel pretty much the same way about the way
you dismiss and denigrate my opinions.
When I hated a show as much as you hate this one, I stopped watching
it. Beyond a certain point, (let me tiptoe around on eggshells a little
here) I don't see why a person would watch something so displeasing to
that person. That phenomenon, in time, becomes worth noting in its own
right. (I hope that was neutral enough.)
Well, they can't read your mind, and anything short of that seems to
rile you up.
> I feel bad that it bothers you that anyone could object so strongly to
> something you're enjoying so much ... but whether you believe it or not,
> it isn't ONLY me, RH ... there are others expressing the same or similar
> objections to the NM in FAR more angry, emphatic terms than I. For some
> reason, you, MarkH and Ravl seem to think if it weren't for me, everyone
> would be loving it as much as you, and that's simply not the case.
> There's NO WAY my words could reach everyone that is posting their
> disgust with what the show has become since the new regime took over.
I would stop watching if I were you. I am not telling you what to do. I
am simply stating that I couldn't take watching a show if I were as
displeased with that show as you are. I gave up on two shows. I did.
They were so awful. My complaints were probably a lot like yours. But I
just gave up. I didn't start fights with people on the internet over
it. In truth, no one on the internet disagreed with me--everyone
(except Donna, I guess) thought AW and ATWT blew chunks through most of
the 1990s.
> > > > Change was necessary.
> > >
> > > I've never argued that Y&R didn't need *some* changing.
> > >
> > > > Change brought some new viewers in.
> > >
> > > And it turned some away. So where is the big advantage?
> >
> > For me, a show I can watch.
>
> Right. But we aren't talking about pleasing ONLY you. We're talking
> about how the changes that made the show watchable for YOU made it
> UN-watchable for others who had been devoted when you couldn't stand it.
> Getting you back as a viewer is great, but not if the way they went
> about it caused one or more previously-faithful viewers to shut it off.
And we aren't talking about pleasing ONLY *YOU*, either. And I don't
agree with you that one viewer is more important than any other viewer.
That "I was here first" thinking just doesn't work for me.
I'm done. No more long paragraphs. I just don't care anymore. I give
up. You can complain for the rest of time if you like. I'm just going
to watch the show and enjoy it (unless they make Irrizary permanent).
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> Since the Reliquary story *improves* Brad's character, my brain is able
> to accommodate the leap in logic very, very easily. [DOING JUSTICE
> SCALES] On the one hand: "Brad as serial-rich-girl-marrying-cipher." On
> the other hand: "Brad as part of heroic Jewish art family with
> Holocaust bkgd." On-the-other-hand rules. Rocks. Dominates. Kicks
> on-the-one-hand's ass.
As previously stated, making Brad more interesting wasn't the problem
... Brad could have been improved, even been given a past with a much
more creative, well-written story that wasn't full of holes.
> I don't have any history with, or knowledge of. the original storyline,
> but if it is as enhancing to the story as it seems, I'm alright with
> it.
That's where I think part of the problem lies, RH. You weren't here
through the Jill/Katherine/Phillip story, and the other stories that
emerged from the young adult, Phillip Chancellor involving
Jill/Katherine, Cricket, Nina, Little Phillip, etc. His infancy and his
return as a young adult covers some years that some of us invested in.
There was a *LOT* of story based on the fact that Phillip II was Phillip
and Jill's son, not just ONE brief story.
You mentioned feeling like your intelligence was insulted when you
couldn't watch Y&R ... to go back and CHANGE this story now (and yes, by
God, that *IS* changing it, not just "tweaking it a bit"), you don't
think those of us who watched diligently day after day, investing
emotions and energy, don't feel like our intelligence is now being
insulted? Are you able to see this from that point of view *at all*?
> The biggest mistake MADD made at ATWT was to make Holden and
> Lucinda buddies, and it seems Y&R might have done the same thing by
> making Jill and Kay mother and daughter. Ergo, let's have some
> conflict.
ICAM that making Jill and Kay mother and daughter was a huge mistake.
Many of us expressed that at the time. But it's done. Going back to undo
it now would be an even BIGGER mistake ... the, "ooops, just kidding"
kind of thing. If we now need conflict, bring it on, but not by going
back over two decades to undo THAT much of Y&R's history. That's no
little "tweak".
> I hate 'because we said so' writing as much as the next person, but
> this kind of retcon doesn't seem as if it could be logically
> *completely impossible*. There are all kinds of 'child you didn't know
> you had' storylines, all over daytime, some of which I've enjoyed
> enormously because of the new character and new relationships that are
> created.
This isn't the "child you didn't know you had" story. It is "sorry, the
child you THOUGHT was yours wasn't" story, and it follows years of
story, not only for Kay and Jill, but also for numerous other characters
that followed when Phillip Jr. was brought back as a young adult that
all becomes invalid if the Phillip Jill raised was not actually Phillip
Chancellor's heir.
> Maybe your problem is with the relative ease with which sperm mixes
> with egg on these shows rather than the writing and rewriting.
My problem is with reaching so far back to REWRITE history, period.
Everyone's been expounding on how the show needed modernizing and what
is LML doing? she seems to have a fixation on going back two or more
decades to either create a story full of holes because of what we
watched for 20 years, or to UNDO a TON of history the way it was written
just to give Jill and Kay some new conflict. This is "modernizing" the
show? Not in my opinion! Take the existing characters, respect the
backgrounds that made them what they are, and move the show FORWARD by
writing/creating some NEW stories for them that don't depend on
desecrating their histories. JMO, but I think if she were as brilliant
as many think she is, she would be able to make her splashes without
going back and destroying 20 years of previous Y&R history.
> Sexuality is so fluid on daytime, anyone can be almost anyone's child,
> it seems to me.
That's the way it's been on many soaps. Y&R did some of that too, but
one of its qualities was that it didn't *as frequently* stoop to the
levels other soaps did, expecting viewers to use huge amounts of
suspension of disbelief just to make a current story work. They were a
cut above the rest in that respect. Not so anymore. And THAT is a big
part of the extreme dissatisfaction you're hearing.
Shirl
Cheri
record hunter wrote in message
> In truth, no one on the internet disagreed with me--everyone
>(except Donna, I guess) thought AW and ATWT blew chunks through most of
>the 1990s.
I sure do agree with ATWT. I hated having to leave it behind, but just
couldn't do it anymore. Same with AMC. I hate a lot of what's happening
on Y&R, but not enough to leave it yet. I'm trying not to complain as
much though, and trying to focus on things I do like. Now, if I could
just think of a couple of them. ;-)
Cheri
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> Does it never occur to you that you are insulting to me?
No. I haven't called your words "weasly" or gotten on your case because
your disclaimer appeared in the fourth paragraph instead of the first.
> > Now it isn't enough to acknowledge that
> > there are many viewers that are enjoying, it has to be placed in a
> > certain spot in the post -- before the fourth paragraph --and in words
> > that YOU don't consider "weasel words" in order to be a valid
> > acknowledgment in your eyes? Plenty of people are expressing
> > dissatisfaction in much more offensive terms than I, with no
> > acknowledgment whatsoever about happy viewers. Seems there is no
> > non-offensive way to disagree if your opinion is negative. Oh well.
>
> Back to where we started. I'm resigning ASAP from arguing with you.
> It's more typing than my hands can take.
Okay.
> Well, the show is better.
Opinion stated as fact. But that's okay when YOU do it.
> There apparently is no way for us to talk. If I'm not kissing your ass,
> I'm insulting you, and I feel pretty much the same way about the way
> you dismiss and denigrate my opinions.
Don't play the victim! I never asked you to kiss my a** ... calling my
words "weasly" when I've been honest about acknowledging that some
viewers enjoy is an insult. I haven't insulted or denigrated your words
or your opinion. Disagreeing is not denigrating. Some of us have reasons
that are just as valid as yours for NOT liking what we're seeing. You
can't seem to accept that without the discussion deteriorating.
> When I hated a show as much as you hate this one, I stopped watching
> it. Beyond a certain point, (let me tiptoe around on eggshells a little
> here) I don't see why a person would watch something so displeasing to
> that person. That phenomenon, in time, becomes worth noting in its own
> right. (I hope that was neutral enough.)
I explained in another post why I still tune in a couple times/week. And
that phenomenon of still tuning in when we're so disgusted was also
addressed. I'm not going to shut it off completely just because it
bothers you when I post negative opinions here. Sometimes you and the
others can go on as much as you want about how wonderful it is and I'm
not inspired to respond; other times, I respond. I've even posted an
occasional kudo, but of course, those are quickly forgotten/ignored.
> > There were times when the old show insulted our intelligence, too, of
> > course, just not on THIS grand a scale, *IMO*. As for how you feel about
> > the new Y&R, I'm glad that you now find a reason to keep tuning in. The
> > point of my objection is NOT that the show isn't pleasing ANYONE
> > anymore; the point is that they could have made changes that respected
> > YOUR intelligence *and* that did not turn off those who held in great
> > regard the show that you couldn't watch. Even those of us who watched
> > religiously have not said that it didn't need some changes/improvements.
>
> Well, they can't read your mind, and anything short of that seems to
> rile you up.
<shaking head> Yeah, me and all the other people posting the same
extreme dissatisfaction. We're all nuts. Only you, MarkH, Ravl, DonnaB
and anyone else that is enjoying are sane.
> I would stop watching if I were you. I am not telling you what to do. I
> am simply stating that I couldn't take watching a show if I were as
> displeased with that show as you are. I gave up on two shows. I did.
> They were so awful. My complaints were probably a lot like yours. But I
> just gave up. I didn't start fights with people on the internet over
> it. In truth, no one on the internet disagreed with me--everyone
> (except Donna, I guess) thought AW and ATWT blew chunks through most of
> the 1990s.
Oh for Pete sake. I'm NOT starting fights. If someone says, "LML is
doing a great job," and someone comes back with, "LML is doing is
destroying the show" ... is that "starting a fight"? That's disagreeing,
and we're supposed to be able to do that here without insults or fights.
Sorry if you view it as a "fight". It's not.
> > Right. But we aren't talking about pleasing ONLY you. We're talking
> > about how the changes that made the show watchable for YOU made it
> > UN-watchable for others who had been devoted when you couldn't stand it.
> > Getting you back as a viewer is great, but not if the way they went
> > about it caused one or more previously-faithful viewers to shut it off.
>
> And we aren't talking about pleasing ONLY *YOU*, either. And I don't
> agree with you that one viewer is more important than any other viewer.
> That "I was here first" thinking just doesn't work for me.
That's NOT what I said! I said if gaining you as a viewer means losing
another long-time viewer, what have they accomplished? I was NOT saying
one viewer is more important than another. When I mention those who have
been here all along, I'm pointing them out as the fans who *should* be
LEAST likely to turn the show off ... yet many of those are the ones who
are MOST disgusted, as far as the posts on these groups are concerned.
My point was that if your biggest, most loyal fans are disgusted,
something is wrong, even if there are others that are enjoying.
You completely misunderstood my point in that. I'm not expecting them to
ONLY please me. Far from it. I'm talking about the group that has been
here since day-one that is now disgusted. That group isn't more
important that YOU, but it *IS* important, nonetheless.
> I'm done. No more long paragraphs. I just don't care anymore. I give
> up. You can complain for the rest of time if you like. I'm just going
> to watch the show and enjoy it (unless they make Irrizary permanent).
<shrug> Continuing to watch and enjoy is what I've been saying y'all
should do all along, if you like what you're seeing.
Shirl
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> > In truth, no one on the internet disagreed with me--everyone
> >(except Donna, I guess) thought AW and ATWT blew chunks through most of
> >the 1990s.
Cheri:
> I sure do agree with ATWT. I hated having to leave it behind, but just
> couldn't do it anymore. Same with AMC. I hate a lot of what's happening
> on Y&R, but not enough to leave it yet. I'm trying not to complain as
> much though, and trying to focus on things I do like. Now, if I could
> just think of a couple of them. ;-)
That's cool, but ... if someone has complaints and wants to post/discuss
them, is it a crime to post them just because some people are enjoying?
I don't follow that line of reasoning. People have always posted
complaints here, even some of the people who are now doing the most
praising. That's just how it goes. Why does anyone have to be made to
feel that they should shut up just because certain people are currently
enjoying?
I used to watch AMC religiously. Tuned in the other day. It was shocking!
Shirl
Cheri
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote in message ...
>That's cool, but ... if someone has complaints and wants to
post/discuss
>them, is it a crime to post them just because some people are enjoying?
Absolutely not. That would be really boring, and then I would have to
leave the newsgroup behind as well as ATWT and AMC. LOL
Cheri
MarkH
ravelation wrote:
>
> I mean, they must've really wanted Philip back on canvas, and rather
> than "bring him back from the dead" (something another soap would
> do...), they've chosen to embellish history a bit and IMO, it's working.
> They're not "changing" history, just tweeking it a bit and I think
> that's all right.
>
What a terrific, terrific point! Yes, you're right! Every other soap
would have done a return from the dead.
It was a mistake to kill off the next generation--Phillip III--all
those years ago. This is an inventive way to correct this error, and
the error of Jill-and-Kay-loving-each-other-and-taking-tea at the same
time!
MarkH
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
>
> Oh, give me a break!
> You're comparing giving Neil and Malcolm parents to suddenly saying a
> character we watched for 21 years has been "running" and "hiding" all
> his life? a character who had his family murdered by Nazi art thieves
> and who assumed the identity of his best friend who was killed in a car
> accident? a best friend who had ZERO other friends or people in his life
> that might have tried to look him up in 21 years? or who might have
> known them both and seen the photos of "Brad Carlton" and said, "Hey!!
> That's not Brad, that's *dead* George!"
>
> ALL THAT is as believable as giving Neil parents? Puhleeze.
>
> I don't have a problem with giving a character like Brad or Ryan (if he
> were still around) or Neil a past ... but at least make it plausible for
> people who are capable of having a logical thought process. It *is*
> supposed to be a continuing story, not one that requires you to forget
> decades of what you saw for it to be plausible.
>
I cannot see this point. Within the constraints of the soap genre
(which imposes few constraints), there have been many approaches to
filling in missing backstory. Y&R has been consistent...since its'
origins...for bringing in characters with unwritten pasts. Sometimes
those pasts get written in (e.g., when Neil's half brother was
introduced, or when Victor's mother was brought in)...sometimes they
don't.
Brad's past--a fugitive with a family in danger--is not more or less
believable than any other past. The motivations for this particular
story (i.e., to make Brad Jewish, and to explain why he didn't reveal
his family past for 2 decades) have been made very clear. It now leads
to a longer-term payoff (getting Victor involved in an action story,
which is his forte).
I don't see the problem. I've been critical of the reliquary story
too...but the "bones" of this story seem solid, and have made Brad much
more interesting. I no longer ff his scenes.
MarkH
I am not aware of another topic on this. I followed your link, but it
went to an empty shell.
While this thread was inspired by your thread post-Thanksgiving about
Y&R's "fall" in the ratings, the present thread is not consistent with
that, since it is about Y&R's "climb" in the ratings.
queenie
wrote:
<g> Me too.
Nymann
MarkH wrote:
> Nymann wrote:
> > Hate to tell you, but we already had a topic about this.
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs/browse_thread/thread/f46fe54a60af1128/76faa8aec219da4a?lnk=gst&q=4.5&rnum=2#76faa8aec219da4a
Someone deleted it.
DonnaB shallotpeel
<1169025142.0...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Nymann"
<lis...@cg.yu> wrote:
From Usenet? Not likely.
At any rate, I saw it.
DonnaB shallotpeel
>
> > In truth, no one on the internet disagreed with me--everyone
> >(except Donna, I guess) thought AW and ATWT blew chunks through most of
> >the 1990s.
You & I never discussed a break down of what was going on with AW during the
1990s. And, what I've said about ATWT during the 1990s was that it began
with me loving it (Royce storyline), and in the middle I hated it so much
that I couldn't watch it (Not Connor through MADD late 1996, up until 1999),
the end of the 1990s when I found I could enjoy it again & also when I
returned to begin watching it again. I doubt very seriously if I stand alone
in that assessment of ATWT in the 1990s. But, 'most of' is probably
equivalent to the period after Marland's death when they weren't finishing
Marland storylines, just pre-MADD and FMB (ATWT's uber-hated Fluffy period)
until the very end when Chris Goutman came in from AW after its
cancellation. I didn't do a 'count'. Instead I broke it down between
beginning, middle & very end of the decade.
I have no idea what in the hell this has to do with Y&R hitting 4.5!
record hunter
DonnaB shallotpeel wrote:
> > record hunter wrote in message
> >
> > > In truth, no one on the internet disagreed with me--everyone
> > >(except Donna, I guess) thought AW and ATWT blew chunks through most of
> > >the 1990s.
>
> You & I never discussed a break down of what was going on with AW during the
> 1990s. And, what I've said about ATWT during the 1990s was that it began
> with me loving it (Royce storyline), and in the middle I hated it so much
> that I couldn't watch it (Not Connor through MADD late 1996, up until 1999),
> the end of the 1990s when I found I could enjoy it again & also when I
> returned to begin watching it again. I doubt very seriously if I stand alone
> in that assessment of ATWT in the 1990s. But, 'most of' is probably
> equivalent to the period after Marland's death when they weren't finishing
> Marland storylines, just pre-MADD and FMB (ATWT's uber-hated Fluffy period)
> until the very end when Chris Goutman came in from AW after its
> cancellation. I didn't do a 'count'. Instead I broke it down between
> beginning, middle & very end of the decade.
Yes, just after DM died it became strange, and I started to watch OLTL
to check out Michael Malone. I quickly dropped it, then went back to it
around the time Megan got sick. Eventually, I got tired of OL and went
back to WT, but it was usually horrible. Connor didn't bother me the
way she did some people. I could'nt stand that Diego person, and his
seester who called Lily "Leelee." Plus P&G doing both the Orlena/lemon
drops/envelope glue story and the Justine stories
simultaneously...eeeeewwwww.
> I have no idea what in the hell this has to do with Y&R hitting 4.5!
When people complain about Y&R, I compare it to how I felt when my
show(s) got awful (see above), and how I had to give them up.
FWIW, there *was* one good post-Marland period, when Lisa sued John and
Andy had to testify against him. That was as good as soap opera gets.
The Cullitons were writing then, I believe. AW was bad for many years.
I liked the JFP years more than most people did. AW got awful again for
me when, as I told you not long ago, they brought in Lila and Shobby.
Though I did like Jake and Vicky together.
Off-topic: I just finished reading Julia Child's autobiography, and she
and her husband Paul called themselves "Pulia" back in the 1950s,
before Brangelina and (back to CBS topic) Lilden were even born.
DonnaB shallotpeel
<1169045313....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "record hunter"
<record...@gmail.com> wrote:
> DonnaB shallotpeel wrote:
> > You & I never discussed a break down of what was going on with AW during the
> > 1990s. And, what I've said about ATWT during the 1990s was that it began
> > with me loving it (Royce storyline), and in the middle I hated it so much
> > that I couldn't watch it (Not Connor through MADD late 1996, up until 1999),
> > the end of the 1990s when I found I could enjoy it again & also when I
> > returned to begin watching it again. I doubt very seriously if I stand alone
> > in that assessment of ATWT in the 1990s. But, 'most of' is probably
> > equivalent to the period after Marland's death when they weren't finishing
> > Marland storylines, just pre-MADD and FMB (ATWT's uber-hated Fluffy period)
> > until the very end when Chris Goutman came in from AW after its
> > cancellation. I didn't do a 'count'. Instead I broke it down between
> > beginning, middle & very end of the decade.
>
> Yes, just after DM died it became strange, and I started to watch OLTL
> to check out Michael Malone. I quickly dropped it, then went back to it
> around the time Megan got sick. Eventually, I got tired of OL and went
> back to WT, but it was usually horrible. Connor didn't bother me the
> way she did some people. I could'nt stand that Diego person, and his
> seester who called Lily "Leelee." Plus P&G doing both the Orlena/lemon
> drops/envelope glue story and the Justine stories
> simultaneously...eeeeewwwww.
I just so loved the real almost regal corporate Connor type. And, I loved
Connor with Cal! So, when Connor got with IronJaw Mark Kasnoff, I was
appalled. Then, they recast, leaving me looking at a big mess. I left ATWT.
Couldn't stand Diego. Heck, couldn't stand the actor later in another role
on AW even! Didn't watch Orloonie, I mean Orlena except just to catch a
glimpse, since it was stunt casting with a fine actress. Sucked. I didn't
stay.
> > I have no idea what in the hell this has to do with Y&R hitting 4.5!
>
> When people complain about Y&R, I compare it to how I felt when my
> show(s) got awful (see above), and how I had to give them up.
Oh, okay, got it. <G> With me it goes all the way back to when they began to
change DOOL and then AW got inconsistent, good, bad, great, awful, up, down,
... and Santa Barbara was magnificent but only on part of the affiliates
part of the time.
> FWIW, there *was* one good post-Marland period, when Lisa sued John and
> Andy had to testify against him. That was as good as soap opera gets.
> The Cullitons were writing then, I believe.
I didn't see it then.
> AW was bad for many years.
> I liked the JFP years more than most people did. AW got awful again for
> me when, as I told you not long ago, they brought in Lila and Shobby.
> Though I did like Jake and Vicky together.
The Savage Charlotte Savitz EP with Michael Malone HW time was bizarre to
say the least. Better discussed elsewhere at any rate. Funny, I loved Bobby,
liked Shane, adored Lila, but could not stand what Malone did with Jake &
Vicky. It was unforgivable. And, JFP, well, she's a soap killer, but her at
AW, it's also too complicated for a Y&R thread.
I am a fan of the Cullitons.
> Off-topic: I just finished reading Julia Child's autobiography, and she
> and her husband Paul called themselves "Pulia" back in the 1950s,
> before Brangelina and (back to CBS topic) Lilden were even born.
Oh my lord!!! LOL
--
DonnaB : ^> shallotpeel <*> Yahoo Messenger: shallotpeel
"Disagreeing in little things & agreeing in great ones is what forms & keeps
up a commerce of society & friendship among reasonable men." - Robert
Southey