Y&R help Wanted Fast
Diva
Y&R in regard to Clear Springs.
Some things are obvious on the soap like the fact that Amber doesn't
care who googles her yahoo, that Josh Morrow has signed a new contract
but may not be the Nick we know for years, that the Carmen, David Chow
connection has gone into hiding. Will it elude us as long as
resolution about who tainted the cream? And who tainted Gloria's
hairdo? It is very strange lately.
William the new bridegroom seems to be calcifying like a mummy from
Thebes. He has about as much romantic appeal as a slab of drywall.
Phyllis is back to leering. She is positively bizarre.
We need to lodge a character assassination charge against Lynn Marie
Latham and fast before William keels over. Those that she hasn't
killed or dispatched elsewhere are killing me.
Diva
MarkH
>
> William the new bridegroom seems to be calcifying like a mummy from
> Thebes. He has about as much romantic appeal as a slab of drywall.
Amen sister! I realize he's playing "tortured with the growing
realization that his wife might be a criminal"...which is a very tough
card indeed for the law-n-order DA.
But....I don't see the torture. I see a stiffness, mixed with
irritation, that makes him less interesting. We know Gary Ewing is
capable of more than this!
>
> Phyllis is back to leering. She is positively bizarre.
I am officially giving up trying to understand her.
You and me both, in terms of Clear Springs confusion. It seems that
Clear Springs and the campaign are the same thing? But people who
were against it (e.g., Nikki) are now for it, and suddenly there are
mob intimations and it's no longer a mall + condos, but a restoration
project? How is this politics? And what does legal prostitution have
to do with a state senate race?
This story is KILLED by several facts. First, the bizarre Clear
Springs tie in. Second, the inattention to plausible real issues that
might happen at the State level (property taxes, state gun laws,
funding for education). Third, the fact that EVERYTHING takes place
in Victor's office. Fourth, the fact that (like the awful Saffra-
Tuvia story of a few years ago) everyone--all the rivals--are married
and ex-spouses and so forth. Y&R has a big enough canvas that all
this incest isn't needed.
I'm sitting here lamenting poor Nikki. I never loved Nikki and Victor
more than last summer. When he crumbled and softened...buying a dog,
building shelves with his son...I so hoped that that clear
undercurrent of gentleness and love for family would persist, even
after he got his cojones back. And Nikki! What a rock! She showed
more strength of character and growth last summer than ever before.
For the first time, she wasn't lamenting Victor's inattention...but
EARNING his attention by being a loving, supportive pilot for their
family.
Now...all is lost. Victor's softness returned briefly at Nick's
funeral...but everyone is hard and mean. The Newmans I know might
_snark_ at Phyllis, but they'd involve her in every move because of
Summer. We'd feel Phyllis still embraced by the (sometimes
suffocating) love of the Newman family. Instead, they kicked her and
their granddaughter to the curb...and that's NOT the Newman way...at
least not since 1981.
Shirl
[snip re Victor/Nikki and the story built w/the epilepsy, the dog, etc.]
> Now...all is lost. Victor's softness returned briefly at Nick's
> funeral...but everyone is hard and mean.
I made the comment a long time ago, about not seeing enough "softness",
no *genuine* love, care and concern, and about how everyone was
bickering and backstabbing way too much. Despite noting that *of course*
there has to be MORE conflict than harmony but that wall-to-wall
conflict falls flat, the response was that "we don't want to see
harmony," and "you're just too negative" ... you said the conflict is
the part you love, bring it on!
But this is exactly what was happening then and continues now with even
less "softness" between -- characters' personalities changing on a dime
for whatever conflict the current plot dictates, changing partners and
loyalties like changing socks, and no proof of real, genuine love, care
and concern. There's still some interest, but how *compelling* or
dramatic is it? The Jerry Springer show was dramatic the first time we
saw it, but once you figure out that it's consistently hair-pulling,
clothes-tearing, "who's the daddy?" fighting EVERY time, it's not
dramatic anymore -- it's "been there, done that" and "I don't know these
people anyway, so who cares?" ... click (shutting it off)! No different
when a soap does something consistently with people we no longer "know".
>I am officially giving up trying to understand her.
That's how a lot of people feel about LML!
You referring to Phyllis, but that also applies to most other characters
... since their loyalties, motivations and presumed values (what
values?) flipflop so frequently now, you may still be interested in what
they do, but it's impossible to understand them, and *knowing* their
personality can't be used to shock us when they do something completely
out of character because (a) we don't *know* their personalities
anymore, and (b) they're ALL doing out-of-character and STUPID stuff
frequently and simultaneously now...so it's not unique, a focus, or
something thought-out well enough to be motivated by something we can
figure out and/or understand.
The kind of detailed analyses you and I like to do--talking about
character motivations as a way to figure out or understand what's
driving them, etc.--is impossible with this kind of storytelling because
there *is no* continuity of personalities from one story to the next,
and believable motivation isn't a necessary ingredient in this team's
"formula" -- I don't even think they have a "formula".
Shirl
MarkH
Yeah, but I still like conflict. I think we both do, as part of the
mix.
That's why I like Amber...I like the agitator. I think it's needed.
However, I also like character growth and, esp. for long-term couples,
some continuing reminders about why they love each other. Thus,
whereas last summer I praised Nikki and Victor (because I understood
their motivations, and it made sense to me that Victor's illness
brought them closer together), I can't stand the current manufactured
conflict. There is no nuance, and they've lost the gains of the past
summer.
To Eric Braeden's credit, when he barks, at least he's being true to
his image of Victor. But Nikki's current iteration? No resemblance
to 25+ years of the character as we knew her. NONE! I'm guessing she
doesn't care, and I'm guessing her eye is on the exit. Nothing else
explains the ridiculous direction she is now heading in. She would
NEVER go for the New Yawk opportunist! She would NEVER treat her ex
husband/fiances (Brad, Jack), children (betrayal of Nick and Victoria)
or grandchild's mother (Phyllis) as she is doing. Oh, I could imagine
her snarking at Phyllis (although I preferred it where Phyllis was
Nikki's new fav, in opposition to Sharon), but she'd still actively
include her in all family events for Summer's sake. What we're seeing
now is NOT Nikki. It's so bad, I'm wondering if Sheila lives and has
taken over Nikki's body.
So, yes, I like conflict and agitation. But I don't like what we're
seeing now, which is inconsistent and not respecting history.
Examples:
- Why aren't Cane and Jill and Kay getting to KNOW each other?
- Why isn't Amber feeling the pangs of her lost babies, and her fear
of losing another family? Why doesn't Plum remind her of Deacon
Sharpe?
- Why isn't Neil grieving Dru? Why isn't he tempted by the bottle?
Why is Lily so obsessed with porn that she seems to have completely
forgotten her mother?
- Why isn't Brad mentioning his mother? Even if the "crisis has
passed", why isn't Brad paranoid about Nazis and threats to his
family?
- Why is Victoria--a hawk to control her company--so willingly
relinquishing control to Neil...just because of a pregnancy?
- Why aren't Korbel and Colleen progressing in their relationship, and
getting to know one another?
- Why isn't Lauren defending her husband and son against shark Gloria?
- Why are Lily and Colleen tolerating Kevin? Or more correctly said,
why are they BEFRIENDING him?
- Why isn't Daniel questioning Kevin's credibility, given his own porn
past on the internet?
- Why aren't Amber and Kevin discovering one another as kindred
spirits?
- Why are Nikki/Victor/Jack/Sharon/Phyllis doing ANY of the things
they are currently doing? I don't understand any of their motivations
right now. I don't understand how Clear Springs connects to
politics. I don't even understand what NVP is. A chain of resorts?
Or botox-in-the-malls-with-spas (which is how it was originally
described)
- Why doesn't Jill ever mention her farflung brood, including Billy
and Phillip IV? What has the revelation of Cane's identity done to
Billy? to P-IV?
- With Christine now in LA, where Nina lives, will the Bug visit her
best friend? Mention her?
- Where is Doug Davidson? I know Paul is looking for Jana, but Doug?
With the Bug in LA, and his son in LA (Ricky is with Isabella Brana's
parents), why doesn't Paul just go to LA where he might be appreciated
and be a love interest for Felicia Forrester? Nobody cares about him
in Genoa City, except Maggie Sullivan, who'll likely beg him for love
AGAIN the next time she sees him. Why isn't Paul all conflicted about
the children he wanted, but is not raising
- Similarly, why does Jack NEVER EVER mention his two missing sons?
As he cares fondly for Daniel and Noah and the recently dead stepson
Nicholas, shouldn't he be yearning for more of a relationship with his
two sons? As Jack misses his dad so much, and now Victor's
"friendship", shouldn't he be trying to rebuild ties with his sons.
Argh...I'm driving myself nuts. So many missed opportunities.
Shirl
> <in response to lots of good stuff by Shirl>
Thank you for listening and understanding.
> Yeah, but I still like conflict. I think we both do, as
> part of the mix.
Absolutely. Conflict MUST be part of the mix, no doubt ... but that
"softness" you said you miss, and characters showing genuine love, care
and concern MUST ALSO be part of the mix; otherwise, there is no "mix"
and it becomes one-note, as we've witnessed.
And it isn't tempered any more on a soap when a character recites one or
two lines of tender words and then reverts back to mean, backstabbing
behavior than it is in real life. We generally don't keep those kinds of
people in our "circle" in real life if we don't have to, so why would we
continue to care about soap characters who are ALL demonstrating this
kind of distrustful, devil-behind-the-door-when-they're-nice behavior?
> That's why I like Amber...I like the agitator. I think it's needed.
See above. It's needed, just not from ALL the characters ALL the time.
Turmoil in real life makes it interesting, and we learn and grow from it
... but turmoil 24/7, 365 days/year, year-in and year-out doesn't put
smiles on anyone's faces. Most don't stay in those consistent
trauma/turmoil situations IRL, so why would we want to continue to tune
in JUST for that on a soap opera? You are absolutely right in that the
Chris/Snapper furniture argument went on far too long, and if there was
one thing that the old methodology didn't have quite right even from
that far back, it was timing (many story foundations were built quite
well, but then stalled in the middle and went on far too long before
reaching their peak and resolutions, to the point where at times, you
gave up caring cuz you were tired of waiting...granted, some of that was
due to behind-the-scenes, unforeseeable stumbling blocks); however, I
believed in their love for each other and loved seeing their tenderness,
playfulness, how they enjoyed each other ... that's what made their
turmoil something to care about.
> However, I also like character growth and, esp. for
> long-term couples, some continuing reminders about
> why they love each other.
EGGGGSactly!
> Thus, whereas last summer I praised Nikki and Victor
> (because I understood their motivations, and it made
> sense to me that Victor's illness brought them closer
> together), I can't stand the current manufactured
> conflict. There is no nuance, and they've lost the gains
> of the past summer.
ICAM. Even with all my negativity, you may remember that I, too, praised
the Victor/Nikki story.
> To Eric Braeden's credit, when he barks, at least he's being true to
> his image of Victor. But Nikki's current iteration? No resemblance
> to 25+ years of the character as we knew her. NONE!
Agreed. There is NO WAY that on the death of her SON, Nikki would weep
for a couple of days and then move right on as though her pet bunny
died, not to mention the other ridiculously out-of-character items you
listed for Nikki.
> I'm guessing she doesn't care, and I'm guessing her eye is on
> the exit.
You're talking about MTS now, and it's doubtful she has any more say in
her character's direction than any other actor. But yes, IMO, the
feeling you get when you watch Nikki is not much different than that
when watching Ashley in her last several months, and ED even admitted
that she wasn't putting as much into it as she could have. JMO, but when
an actor loses interest in their own character, that's the kiss of
death, isn't it? How are WE supposed to remain interested if the *actor*
isn't even interested?
It's no secret (it's been publicly discussed) that anyone who isn't 100%
on board with LML's ideas has been rapidly dismissed. Not that I think
actors *should* have a say in their character's stories -- FAR too many
problems when you start crossing that line because then where do you
DRAW the line? ... and it creates problems with which actors' opinions
are considered and which are not.
But if there isn't going to be any collaboration among writers, why have
a "team" at all? Might as well just pay one writer to do it all! And by
"collaboration," I don't mean one headwriter and nine yes-people; I mean
a mix of storytellers agreeing AND disagreeing, with each making
compromises. Judging by what we've been seeing, hard to believe much
brainstorming occurs ... even some of the dialogue doesn't make sense
with what's happening, and leaves one wondering if *the scriptwriters*
even understand the plot.
> What we're seeing now is NOT Nikki. It's so bad, I'm
> wondering if Sheila lives and has taken over Nikki's body.
That's true, but it's true of nearly all the characters, not just Nikki,
though Nikki is one of the more drastic flipflops. One could list
numerous character inconsistencies about Victoria, for example, also.
> So, yes, I like conflict and agitation. But I don't like what we're
> seeing now, which is inconsistent and not respecting history.
I think we've agreed about that from the start.
> Examples:
> - Why aren't Cane and Jill and Kay getting to KNOW each other?
That's what I mean about not having a thought-out plan. It appears that
baby-switch story was started with the idea of bringing Kay and Jill
back into the forefront with a reason to be at each other's throats
again. But no long-term thought was given to what the outcome of the
story itself was going to be OR to respect for history that many of us
invested in. Add to that the extreme change it makes in Nina and Little
Phillip's lives, which we aren't seeing, and it makes zero sense to
bring conflict to Kay and Jill *with that story*. Jill was ADAMANT about
being part of Little Phillip's life, and she and Nina forged a fairly
civilized relationship, painfully at times, with each other in order for
Jill to be his "grandmother" ... but we see/hear *nothing* about that
now.
> - Why isn't Amber feeling the pangs of her lost babies, and her fear
> of losing another family? Why doesn't Plum remind her of Deacon
> Sharpe?
Amber doesn't have feelings that last more than two minutes.
> - Why isn't Neil grieving Dru? Why isn't he tempted by the bottle?
> Why is Lily so obsessed with porn that she seems to have completely
> forgotten her mother?
> - Why isn't Brad mentioning his mother? Even if the "crisis has
> passed", why isn't Brad paranoid about Nazis and threats to his
> family?
All totally valid questions that SHOULD have been considered by LML&Co.
> - Why is Victoria--a hawk to control her company--so willingly
> relinquishing control to Neil...just because of a pregnancy?
She's doing the total opposite of Nikki -- a hawk to protect her
family/children -- so easily moving on after the death of her SON...just
because of a political campaign.
Again, these are ALL valid questions and concerns that THE WRITERS
should have brainstormed and at least had planned potential answers for
before ever offering us these stories.
> Argh...I'm driving myself nuts. So many missed opportunities.
ICAM. And IMO, TOO MANY opportunities to be dealing with simultaneously.
You simply can't do THIS MANY major stories justice all at the same time!
There used to be a flow ... the foundation for some stories were being
built, some stories were rolling with good momentum, a couple were
peaking, and some were on the downhill side of the peak, with characters
adjusting to resolutions and leveling-off before getting all involved in
new stories. There *IS NO* flow now ... it feels like a dozen musicians
in the same room playing twelve different songs at the same time at the
highest volume they can...if one or two stop playing, you don't even
notice because you can't clearly hear the melody of ANY of them.
Shirl
Shirl
> I'm guessing she doesn't care, and I'm guessing her
> eye is on the exit.
Ya know, after watching only a bit of today and thinking how MTS's
performances have come across in recent history, if I didn't know
better, I'd guess MTS is sticking around to help more dramatically show
how LML is destroying Y&R's long-time characters.
IMO Sharon looked beautiful in the yellow top ... great color for her.
And Jack's campaign manager's (whose name escapes me at the moment)
mannerisms remind me of Michael J. Fox (if someone already said that,
sorry for the repeat).
Shirl
MarkH
>
>> I'm guessing she doesn't care, and I'm guessing her eye is on
>> the exit.
>
> You're talking about MTS now, and it's doubtful she has any more say in
> her character's direction than any other actor. But yes, IMO, the
> feeling you get when you watch Nikki is not much different than that
> when watching Ashley in her last several months, and ED even admitted
> that she wasn't putting as much into it as she could have. JMO, but when
> an actor loses interest in their own character, that's the kiss of
> death, isn't it? How are WE supposed to remain interested if the *actor*
> isn't even interested?
I really do think you have something here. I have also perceived the
same thing from Doug Davidson for a long time. Even during his Pheila
storyline (which was totally out of character), it seemed clear to me
that he wasn't exactly welcoming the showcase. But he _was_ more
enthusiastic than he'd been in a while, which is saying a lot.
>
> It's no secret (it's been publicly discussed) that anyone who isn't 100%
> on board with LML's ideas has been rapidly dismissed. Not that I think
> actors *should* have a say in their character's stories -- FAR too many
> problems when you start crossing that line because then where do you
> DRAW the line? ... and it creates problems with which actors' opinions
> are considered and which are not.
Well, I haven't actually seen that actors not on board with LML are
dismissed, but I could imagine that. I have disagreed with you a little
bit on this score. Last summer brought tales of "happy actors", and LML
said that the actors were the custodians of their character histories.
I applauded this. But, what we've seen in the ensuing year is that
either (a) LML stopped listening to the actors as they tried to protect
their histories, or (b) actors are lousy custodians of history...which
is why they are not soap writers.
There is a strange ambiguity here. Even as Victoria Rowell left, she
actively praised LML. So, her departure seemed to have more to do with
not getting an Emmy prenom, and not being able to have a
behind-the-scenes role on the show.
>
> But if there isn't going to be any collaboration among writers, why have
> a "team" at all? Might as well just pay one writer to do it all! And by
> "collaboration," I don't mean one headwriter and nine yes-people; I mean
> a mix of storytellers agreeing AND disagreeing, with each making
> compromises. Judging by what we've been seeing, hard to believe much
> brainstorming occurs ... even some of the dialogue doesn't make sense
> with what's happening, and leaves one wondering if *the scriptwriters*
> even understand the plot.
I have almost the opposite impression. I have the feeling that everyday
is written by a different person (they always have been...but I never
FELT that before, because clearly HWs andscript editors strung it all
together with a consistent voice), and except for some gross long-range
plan, like you, each day seems like a capricious reshuffling of the deck.
As evidence, David Chow. (1) Offscreen, Carmen's married lover whom she
sued for sexual harrassment; (2) Next, on-screen, the married lover who
left his wife for Carmen, and became affianced to her; (3) Next, the
vengeful man who brought Carmen's identical cousin (even _I_ roll my
eyes at that) to gaslight her; (4) Next, an executive with Granville
Global, now a subsidiary of Newman, now working with Newman; (5) Next,
an EX-political consultant, hired by Victor to work with Jack; (6) Next,
an opportunistic political consultant, who quickly works for Jack's
rival; (7) next, a serial lover, known for having sex with multiple
campaign colleagues (what about that aforementioned wife? his true love
Carmen?).
This character is RUINED. I don't know from DAY TO DAY what he is
about. And now he's getting too cozy with Nikki. Nikki would NEVER go
for this guy.
Yech.
>
> That's true, but it's true of nearly all the characters, not just Nikki,
> though Nikki is one of the more drastic flipflops. One could list
> numerous character inconsistencies about Victoria, for example, also.
The Newmans are really suffering from this.
The Winters were reinvented last year (only Neil is really around). I
dig his reinvention, though (cool, jazzy dude). I like the new Neil so
much--a strong, principled man...he behaves consistently and strongly in
multiple situations...that I can tolerate it.
But yes, I confess you're right. Kay is suddenly a smart businesswoman
and baby-napper. Jill is, basically, a strong stable woman...tart
tongued, but where is her OUTRAGE?
> That's what I mean about not having a thought-out plan. It appears that
> baby-switch story was started with the idea of bringing Kay and Jill
> back into the forefront with a reason to be at each other's throats
> again. But no long-term thought was given to what the outcome of the
> story itself was going to be OR to respect for history that many of us
> invested in. Add to that the extreme change it makes in Nina and Little
> Phillip's lives, which we aren't seeing, and it makes zero sense to
> bring conflict to Kay and Jill *with that story*. Jill was ADAMANT about
> being part of Little Phillip's life, and she and Nina forged a fairly
> civilized relationship, painfully at times, with each other in order for
> Jill to be his "grandmother" ... but we see/hear *nothing* about that
> now.
All correct here. There was obviously no plan for Jill Kay except to
introduce Cane (and that, apparently, was a CBS-mandated hire). But,
the story fell flat because the emotional repercussions were dropped.
It should also outrage fans, because Kay never got any consequences for
what was ultimately an EVIL act.
>
> Again, these are ALL valid questions and concerns that THE WRITERS
> should have brainstormed and at least had planned potential answers for
> before ever offering us these stories.
>
Yes, here is what I think happened:
For six months, LML consulted with the show. As a result of that, she
was asked to do a six month bible.
She did it, and was hired. THIS IMPLIES THERE WAS A SIX MONTH PLAN,
WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED IN SPRING-SUMMER-FALL 2006.
During that period, legacy staff (Kathryn Foster, Jim Houghton, Ed
Scott, Jack Smith, Kay Alden, Sally Sussman-Morina, Janice Ferri-Esser,
Michael Minnis...all folks who are now gone) took Latham's plan and spun
it into something that (for me at least) still RESEMBLED Y&R.
But then, two things happened. First, the six month plan ended, and LML
stopped long-range planning. So, the stories since, say, Fall 2006 have
been more spur of the moment...and we see that on screen. Second, the
stories were no longer tweaked and polished by the custodians of
history...they were all purged.
No planning. No basis in history. Now we get today's Y&R.
What is _good_ about today's Y&R? Legacy characters, still well acted
and produced. And dialogue that is still the best on daytime. On
individual days, in individual scenes, this is still a great show! But
the total package that is now damaged.
>
> There used to be a flow ... the foundation for some stories were being
> built, some stories were rolling with good momentum, a couple were
> peaking, and some were on the downhill side of the peak, with characters
> adjusting to resolutions and leveling-off before getting all involved in
> new stories. There *IS NO* flow now ... it feels like a dozen musicians
> in the same room playing twelve different songs at the same time at the
> highest volume they can...if one or two stop playing, you don't even
> notice because you can't clearly hear the melody of ANY of them.
>
Well, it may actually be worse than that! Think about Colleen and
Korbel. They STOLE precious airtime all through the Spring. They
survived the Dean's inquiry into their relationship.
Then, they were *dropped* for the dual tragedies of Dru and Nick's deaths.
Then, their story resumed (kinda)...but redone. Colleen had apparently
forgiven her dad for cutting her off. No one was feeling any more
guilt. Korbell had to quit his job. And, there is no more real sense
of a relationship between Korbel and Colleen. They never have scenes
together.
That's bad daytime TV: You have to invest in these relationships if
audiences are supposed to care.
Shirl
> > You're talking about MTS now, and it's doubtful she has any more say in
> > her character's direction than any other actor. But yes, IMO, the
> > feeling you get when you watch Nikki is not much different than that
> > when watching Ashley in her last several months, and ED even admitted
> > that she wasn't putting as much into it as she could have. JMO, but when
> > an actor loses interest in their own character, that's the kiss of
> > death, isn't it? How are WE supposed to remain interested if the *actor*
> > isn't even interested?
MarkH:
> I really do think you have something here. I have also perceived the
> same thing from Doug Davidson for a long time. Even during his Pheila
> storyline (which was totally out of character), it seemed clear to me
> that he wasn't exactly welcoming the showcase. But he _was_ more
> enthusiastic than he'd been in a while, which is saying a lot.
I have always thought DD did a good job playing Paul. I haven't been
thrilled with some of Paul's storylines from the past regime, either --
kissing Christine's feet, never standing up to his mother's constant
interference (yeah, he'd say the words, but he never actually put a STOP
to it), the questionable sex w/Christine, and the instant way he got
over Ricky moving to CA after the "I REALLY WANT/NEED a baby" storyline.
But I always thought the actor himself did an adequate job, and Paul's
personality doesn't seem as drastically changed as some of the others
... maybe that's BECAUSE he hasn't has a major storyline of his own
since the new regime took over.
> Last summer brought tales of "happy actors", and LML
> said that the actors were the custodians of their character
> histories. I applauded this.
I think that was parroted, new-kid-on-the-block dialogue on LML's part,
not anything she ever intended to actually incorporate or keep.
> But, what we've seen in the ensuing year is that either (a)
> LML stopped listening to the actors as they tried to protect
> their histories, or (b) actors are lousy custodians of history...
> which is why they are not soap writers.
Come on, Mark ... you know that reading through scripts to determine if
new stories respect their characters' histories isn't part of their job.
Again, I don't think LML ever intended to "listen to the actors" as they
tried to protect their histories ... she didn't listen to or want the
input of the people who CREATED many of those characters any longer than
she absolutely had to, so why would she listen to the actors?
> There is a strange ambiguity here. Even as Victoria Rowell
> left, she actively praised LML. So, her departure seemed to
> have more to do with not getting an Emmy prenom, and not
> being able to have a behind-the-scenes role on the show.
Rowell, like Alden (who has been genial despite read-between-the-lines
bitterness), has class and is smart enough to not burn bridges. You know
people in these situations only shoot themselves in the foot by
badmouthing anything about where they were employed for that many years.
> > But if there isn't going to be any collaboration among writers, why have
> > a "team" at all? Might as well just pay one writer to do it all! And by
> > "collaboration," I don't mean one headwriter and nine yes-people; I mean
> > a mix of storytellers agreeing AND disagreeing, with each making
> > compromises. Judging by what we've been seeing, hard to believe much
> > brainstorming occurs ... even some of the dialogue doesn't make sense
> > with what's happening, and leaves one wondering if *the scriptwriters*
> > even understand the plot.
>
> I have almost the opposite impression. I have the feeling that everyday
> is written by a different person (they always have been...but I never
> FELT that before, because clearly HWs and script editors strung it all
> together with a consistent voice), and except for some gross long-range
> plan, like you, each day seems like a capricious reshuffling of the deck.
It is, and was written by a different person each day (with bits and
pieces filtered in from others), and there WAS specific attention to
making it consistent, assuring there were no glaring discrepancies from
one show to the next.
Speaking of which ... on today's show ...
First we saw Nikki, Victoria, Michael and Lauren meeting to discuss
Fenmore's being the initial draw to Clear Springs, with Lauren saying
that if the success of Clear Springs *depends on* the success of
Fenmore's, it was too risky; then, in the next of Nikki's scenes, she
was talking about how wonderful it was to have Fenmore's on board. ??
Did I miss a scene? or are we supposed to assume the meeting continued
and they talked Lauren into it?
This kind of thing happens now all the time, and while a sped-up pace
was an improvement, leaving out entire scenes that make viewers feel
like they must surely have missed something is not.
> As evidence, David Chow. (1) Offscreen, Carmen's married lover whom she
> sued for sexual harrassment; (2) Next, on-screen, the married lover who
> left his wife for Carmen, and became affianced to her; (3) Next, the
> vengeful man who brought Carmen's identical cousin (even _I_ roll my
> eyes at that) to gaslight her; (4) Next, an executive with Granville
> Global, now a subsidiary of Newman, now working with Newman; (5) Next,
> an EX-political consultant, hired by Victor to work with Jack; (6) Next,
> an opportunistic political consultant, who quickly works for Jack's
> rival; (7) next, a serial lover, known for having sex with multiple
> campaign colleagues (what about that aforementioned wife? his true love
> Carmen?).
>
> This character is RUINED. I don't know from DAY TO DAY what he is
> about. And now he's getting too cozy with Nikki. Nikki would NEVER go
> for this guy.
Well, IMO he isn't ruined because he was never defined by much to begin
with. We never *did* know from day to day what he was about with any
amount of trust that what we saw/heard was actually true.
But you're right ... Nikki turning SO AGAINST people she has known
forever and trusting this new guy? Nope. That's not Nikki.
> > That's true, but it's true of nearly all the characters, not just Nikki,
> > though Nikki is one of the more drastic flipflops. One could list
> > numerous character inconsistencies about Victoria, for example, also.
>
> The Newmans are really suffering from this.
>
> The Winters were reinvented last year (only Neil is really around). I
> dig his reinvention, though (cool, jazzy dude). I like the new Neil so
> much--a strong, principled man...he behaves consistently and strongly in
> multiple situations...that I can tolerate it.
>
> But yes, I confess you're right. Kay is suddenly a smart businesswoman
> and baby-napper. Jill is, basically, a strong stable woman...tart
> tongued, but where is her OUTRAGE?
Goes back to PLOTPLOTPLOT -- any character doing/saying anything to suit
whatever the current plot needs are, regardless of whether it's
something that character would ever do/say or not.
[snip paragraph listing why the Jill/Katherine baby swap is lame]
> All correct here. There was obviously no plan for Jill Kay except to
> introduce Cane (and that, apparently, was a CBS-mandated hire). But,
> the story fell flat because the emotional repercussions were dropped.
And that's another example of what I mean by no long-term planning.
Aren't the "emotional repercussions" of characters *we know and care
about* precisely why we watch?
> Yes, here is what I think happened:
>
> For six months, LML consulted with the show. As a result of that, she
> was asked to do a six month bible.
>
> She did it, and was hired. THIS IMPLIES THERE WAS A SIX MONTH PLAN,
> WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED IN SPRING-SUMMER-FALL 2006.
>
> During that period, legacy staff (Kathryn Foster, Jim Houghton, Ed
> Scott, Jack Smith, Kay Alden, Sally Sussman-Morina, Janice Ferri-Esser,
> Michael Minnis...all folks who are now gone) took Latham's plan and spun
> it into something that (for me at least) still RESEMBLED Y&R.
Agreed. This was the period during which LML *had* to work with these
people, did not have the power to make changes, and had lunch with
actors, letting us (and them) believe their input was important.
> But then, two things happened. First, the six month plan ended,
> stopped long-range planning. So, the stories since, say, Fall 2006
> have been more spur of the moment...and we see that on screen.
> Second, the stories were no longer tweaked and polished by the
> custodians of history...they were all purged.
The second occurring because LML was then given absolute power, and the
"custodians of history", those you listed -- Kathryn Foster, Jim
Houghton, Jack Smith, Kay Alden, Sally Sussman-Morina, Janice
Ferri-Esser, Michael Minnis -- were dismissed, which was, IMO, her plan
all along.
> No planning. No basis in history. Now we get today's Y&R.
Yeap!
> What is _good_ about today's Y&R? Legacy characters, still
> well acted and produced.
Y&R's actors continue to do an excellent job, as they always have.
However, even excellent acting can't carry these sloppy, inconsistent
stories or save a show over the long haul.
> And dialogue that is still the best on daytime.
Too bad it doesn't support the stories!
> On individual days, in individual scenes, this is still a
> great show! But the total package that is now damaged.
I agree that some *individual scenes* are great, but IMO, unless the
overall total package can be described as great, then it isn't "still a
great show". Most of us can write great individual scenes, maybe even an
entire great episode, especially with these wonderful, professional
actors; it's stringing all the scenes and episodes together in a way
that is pleasing and compelling to viewers that is the hard part, and
that done well, makes a show great. That's the part that LML doesn't
deliver.
> > There used to be a flow ... the foundation for some stories were being
> > built, some stories were rolling with good momentum, a couple were
> > peaking, and some were on the downhill side of the peak, with characters
> > adjusting to resolutions and leveling-off before getting all involved in
> > new stories. There *IS NO* flow now ... it feels like a dozen musicians
> > in the same room playing twelve different songs at the same time at the
> > highest volume they can...if one or two stop playing, you don't even
> > notice because you can't clearly hear the melody of ANY of them.
>
> Well, it may actually be worse than that! Think about Colleen and
> Korbel. They STOLE precious airtime all through the Spring. They
> survived the Dean's inquiry into their relationship.
>
> Then, they were *dropped* for the dual tragedies of Dru and Nick's deaths.
>
> Then, their story resumed (kinda)...but redone. Colleen had apparently
> forgiven her dad for cutting her off. No one was feeling any more
> guilt. Korbell had to quit his job. And, there is no more real sense
> of a relationship between Korbel and Colleen. They never have scenes
> together.
>
> That's bad daytime TV: You have to invest in these relationships if
> audiences are supposed to care.
OMG. Where have I heard that before? Be careful, Mark, you're starting
to sound just like Shirl!
;-)
Shirl