Y&R: Kay Alden Gone
Nymann
HEAD WRITER OUSTED (pic of Jeanne Cooper, Bill Bell, Lee Bell and Kay
Alden together)
32 year veteran Kay Alden has been let go from The Young and the
Restless. Alden and her team won the Emmy for Outstanding Writing in
2000 and 2006.
"I treasure the friendships I have established with so many of you over
the years," Alden wrote in a letter to the cast and crew. "I take with
me the unparalleled honor of being Bill Bell's protege and right hand.
While I worked at his side, the show moved tot the top of the ratings.
I will always be grateful to have been part of that tremendous
success...I hope that some glimmer of his vision will continue to shine
through in the show that was his life and his passion, as it has been
mine."
Josh Griffith is now co-executive producer, while Lynn Marie Latham
sits at the top as executive producer and sole head writer. She joined
the show in February.
"A lot of the writers are still here," weighs in a setside source. "And
[supervising producer] Ed Scott's still here going strong."
Artifact
"Nymann" <lis...@cg.yu> wrote in message
news:1163073445.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...>
>
Sickening- so who are the remaining writers that are supposed to know the
history of the show? Or is Latham just going to call up the actors on a
Sunday and ask them?
Nymann
Artifact wrote:
> Sickening- so who are the remaining writers that are supposed to know the
> history of the show? Or is Latham just going to call up the actors on a
> Sunday and ask them?
You can find the writers here:
http://boards.soapoperanetwork.com/index.php?showtopic=12737#3.
MarkH
it. I'm sorry to see Bill's protege go...but I also like the new
energy in the show, and the apparent passion and integrity and belief
in history of the show's new leader (see the interview I shared from
another board yesterday).
But, what I'm left with here, is the same brilliant writing we knew she
was capable of...like the subtle slam that Julia Barr delivered when
she left AMC.
Nymann wrote:
> >From OCEANVIEW, SOD, SID:
"I take with
> me the unparalleled honor of being Bill Bell's protege and right hand.
TRANSLATION: He want ME, you idiots, and now you've trashed his
dreams. He trained ME, you idiots, and I was uniquely qualified to
carry the show on.
> While I worked at his side, the show moved tot the top of the ratings.
TRANSLATION: You're monkeying with success. I am a key part of the #1
formula!
> I hope that some glimmer of his vision will continue to shine
> through in the show that was his life and his passion, as it has been
> mine."
TRANSLATION: You're going to bastardize his vision and turn the show
into something different from what he wanted it to be.
Not bad! The sound of graciousness, amidst the subtext of sour grapes.
I'm terribly sorry to lose her, but not all change is bad. AND, the
truth is, if the show starts to tank I'm sure they can throw lots of $$
at her to return :-).
MarkH
Nymann wrote:
>
> "A lot of the writers are still here," weighs in a setside source. "And
> [supervising producer] Ed Scott's still here going strong."
I think this setside source is someone like Stafford or Leblanc, who
love the changes.
I take this as an EXCELLENT SIGN. I hope Scott stays around. It might
help us keep Nikki, but more importantly, the actors have crowed about
him for a long time, arguing he has been the master of the outstanding
performances.
So, if that remains a steady hand at the till, I'm reassured.
Honestly, though, I do believe that with Josh Griffith as Assoc EP,
it'll be a matter of time before he is gone.
Nymann
> I lament this, as I have anticipated it. I'm of mixed opinion about
> it. I'm sorry to see Bill's protege go...but I also like the new
> energy in the show, and the apparent passion and integrity and belief
> in history of the show's new leader (see the interview I shared from
> another board yesterday).
But, Mark, every writer says those things Lynn said. And then they go
and do what they want. I expect them to fire Lynn. Not soon of course,
but one day...
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> But, what I'm left with here, is the same brilliant writing we knew she
> was capable of...like the subtle slam that Julia Barr delivered when
> she left AMC.
Nymann wrote:
> > >From OCEANVIEW, SOD, SID:
>
> >"I take with me the unparalleled honor of being Bill Bell's
> >protege and right hand.
>
> TRANSLATION: He want ME, you idiots, and now you've trashed his
> dreams. He trained ME, you idiots, and I was uniquely qualified to
> carry the show on.
>
>
> TRANSLATION: You're monkeying with success. I am a key part
> of the #1 formula!
>
> > I hope that some glimmer of his vision will continue to shine
> > through in the show that was his life and his passion, as it
> > has been mine."
>
> TRANSLATION: You're going to bastardize his vision and turn the show
> into something different from what he wanted it to be.
>
> Not bad! The sound of graciousness, amidst the subtext of sour grapes.
KA has every reason to feel honored and proud to have been Bill Bell's
protege and to have been so closely involved with the process that took
Y&R to the top and *kept it there* for so many years. If some viewers
are upset, sad, angry, unhappy with all the changes LML has and is
making to Y&R, it is only natural -- human nature -- that KA may also be
feeling protective and sad to see so much of the methodology that she
put so much of herself into trashed as well. Add to that
behind-the-scenes politics that you KNOW exist whenever THIS much of a
shift in power involving THIS many people takes place, and IMO, what she
said was *very* gracious, even with the understandable suggestive
subtext.
You're right, not all change is bad. Not all change is good, either.
This is NOT a change in power/staff that is dedicated to continuing Bill
Bell's successful vision while tweaking some aspects to hone/improve it;
this is a change in power/staff that is throwing out the old undeniably
successful formula to implement its own new, different formula. It *is*
the end of an era, and that's evident to Y&R's faithful long-time
viewers, some of whom are enjoying the change and some who are saddened
and dissatisfied by it.
Shirl
Rthrquiet
MarkH wrote:
> I'm terribly sorry to lose her, but not all change is bad. AND, the
> truth is, if the show starts to tank I'm sure they can throw lots of $$
> at her to return :-).
Irreparable damage can be done in the meantime, however. If Latham's
"vision" for the show turns out to be wrong (which is where my money is
at the moment), there may be no going back, even if Alden can be
persuaded to return. Some things, once wrecked, can't be salvaged.
I had plenty of problems with Y&R in the Bell years, so please don't
confuse me with someone who just can't deal with change. I'll also cop
to loving most of what Latham did on Knots, so I'm not anti-Lynn,
either. But oh my god, what I'm seeing on my screen is so NOT Young and
Restless to me. I think none of the PTB stopped to consider that in
making the kinds of changes they've made, they might be sacrificing the
very things that made Y&R special to people.
Genoa City is currently one of the coldest places on earth, and I find
it rather difficult to care very much what's happening to these
characters. You can throw as much lightning-fast plot at me as you
want: If I don't find the characters worth caring about, it's not going
to hold my interest--and this stuff definitely isn't. (Granted, I'm not
anywhere near the demographic that TPTB care about anyway.)
For better or worse (and I often thought worse, personally), Y&R has
always had its own, very distinctive playing style. (Certain aspects of
this playing style used to drive me absolutely crazy, frankly--the
dialogue conventions being one of them, as well as the way the scenes
were constructed.) What I'm seeing on my screen these days looks more
like Generic Soap to me. (It may be very well written Generic Soap, but
it's Generic Soap nonetheless.) Did nobody in charge stop to consider
that maybe people who had spent years being addicted to Young and
Restless might not find Generic Soap: Genoa City equally captivating? I
should be jumping up and down because the dialogue doesn't drive me
nuts anymore, but instead I'm finding myself longing for the
Good-Old-Bad-Old-Days because at least Bell managed, with remarkable
consistency, to make me feel something when I watched. This stuff
leaves me cold: plot, plot, plot, but very little of it worth caring
about, because one by one I'm crossing characters off my list as
unworthy of interest or concern. That didn't happen--for me, at
least--when Bell was writing it. I tuned out for lots of other reasons,
but never because I couldn't find characters worth investing in.
LML can do far better than this, and maybe she will. But I'm struck
with the feeling that for all of her experience in the field and all of
her professed admiration for the show's history, she doesn't really get
what made Y&R successful and distinctive. Not every soap writer is
right for every soap, and even a good soap writer can have disastrous
results when he/she is put to work on the wrong show. I'm really
worried that that's what's happening here.
Kay Alden clearly was not able to maintain the ratings of the Bell
years, but Y&R's ratings were still well above those of the other shows
before LML was hired, and I'm wondering if ANYBODY besides Bell could
have pulled off the numbers he was getting. Clearly TPTB are banking on
the idea that better ratings are possible and that Latham can bring
them in. I'm thinking that in a year or two, they may look back on this
with regret and decide that they should have stuck with Alden.
Michael
record hunter
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> Genoa City is currently one of the coldest places on earth, and I find
> it rather difficult to care very much what's happening to these
> characters. You can throw as much lightning-fast plot at me as you
> want: If I don't find the characters worth caring about, it's not going
> to hold my interest--and this stuff definitely isn't. (Granted, I'm not
> anywhere near the demographic that TPTB care about anyway.)
Michael, IMO, you've always had terrific insight, so your weighing-in
with these perceptions doesn't surprise me.
I'm convinced the two main reasons why it's become nearly impossible to
care about the characters anymore are (1) the lightning-fast speed with
which they race through stories ... it's kind of hard to invest
emotionally when the plots move THAT quickly, and (2) the characters
change their ideals, values and behavior on a moment's notice to suit
those lightning-fast plots ... hard to care for characters who will
change personalities on a dime.
I have been *so* criticized for my negative take on LML's methods, but
it's pretty clear more and more others are coming to the same
conclusions as well.
Shirl
Nymann
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
> I have been *so* criticized for my negative take on LML's methods, but
> it's pretty clear more and more others are coming to the same
> conclusions as well.
>
> Shirl
That's why she will be gone. Soon.
queenie
I hope she leaves before I do.
MarkH
My staccato thoughts :-)
1. I'm sorry Kay is gone. I was comforted by the retention of the
legacy team, to allow connection to history and vision.
2. I'm hopeful Ed Scott remains, but I actually think the writing is
on the wall.
3. I do like the new methodology, although I confess that I care less
about Carmen's murder (even as I enjoy many of the scenes is produces),
and I didn't like how Billy's exit was scripted. BUT, for every little
disappointment like this, there are gains (in the same week, I loved
Gloria's dinner party, the grand jury waiting room, Victor and Mr. Kim
sparring, Gloria's Glo-on-the-Go victory and loss, and a fair bit
more).
4. Let's not elevate history to unrealistic heights.
5. In Bill Bell's waning days, the show started to stink. Evidence:
Nikki married her gynecologist almost overnight, and then was stalked
by his pitchfork-wielding bad-disguise crazy ex-wife. I think Bell was
in pre-Alzheimers even then, because he first announced Nancy Bradley
Wiard as his successor (!), before it was corrected that it would be
Kay Alden. As Shirl's note from 1998 (linked earlier this week) shows,
things were not great...inconsistent character choices and disrespect
for history.
6. The early days of Alden were luminous. (Victor & Nikki reunited on
her deathbed, the whole Diane Jenkins divorce saga) They turned awful.
(A multi-year sperm saga, wasting the incredible Eileen Davidson).
Apparently, behind the scenes was a mess, because Ed Scott left at that
time. The fact that Scott left and Alden stayed does suggest that
Alden WAS the chosen protege. With her and Shaughnessy as EP...the
show...ahem...really became a bit malodorous.
7. Jack Smith's apparent coup of a return didn't set off the same
flares as the Latham hire. Sure, he had history, but with Brad Bell
he'd already driven B&B into its' swan dive, and when he came to Y&R he
really irritated me. He started talking about all the creative
decisions on the show in the first person. He quickly got rid of
Shaughnessy. Still, he made good decisions (Ed Scott came back) and
launched some great stories (e.g., the Fishers, Cameron Kirsten, the
first JT and Colleen). For the most part, there was a lot of dreck too
(Brittany!!). The loss of Heather Tom, though, in my view (I know many
disagree) was a sign of poor decision making.
8. Critically, pacing was reviled. Y&R remained #1, but it's
disproportionately aging demographics, and it's inability to stay ahead
of the general industry ratings slide suggested that it was NOT
positioned for future viability. It might be the LAST soap to die, but
it was definitely in the same death trajectory as every other soap.
So, INACTION by the parent corporations (Bell, Sony, CBS) would have
been the kind of "laissez faire" that got America into the Great
Depression. If someone at Coke, or IBM, or HP, or whatever, let their
market share steadily decline, their income decline, their demographics
decline (i.e., get older)...and those companies did NOTHING...they'd
get slaughtered in the business pages.
To their credit:
1. CBS/Sony/Bell decided to make a change. In this soap era, taking
ACTION as opposed to letting the bleeding continue unabated should be
lauded.
2. The parent companies did NOT act in haste. They hired two
consultants (Latham, Sussman Morina) who appparently watched the show
for a year. I'm guessing that both were asked to submit long-term
story projections, and suggestions for stylistic improvement.
3. Obviously, in the competition, Latham won...although Morina is also
on the team. She is a strong connection to history (she wrote during
the Abbott introduction era), and she has some headwriter chops of her
own (Days, Generations).
4. Thus, when Latham came in, it was after a long period of sober
reflection, with multiple solutions considered. I could not ask a
business to do more!
5., One presumes that the same long-arc view will be used to evaluate
the consequences and cost/benefits of the switch. AT LEAST a year, I
imagine.
6. Latham's dismissal of long-term staff is worrying, but note how
differently it's been done relative to other soaps. She worked with
these people for a long time. The easing out was done over time, not
rashly. If you accept my premise above that the show as in free fall,
to NOT make these high level management changes would have been
irresponsible.
7. Latham's executive decision are not much more cutthroat than the
last ones were. Under Smith, Wiard and Shaughnessy got dumped, for
example.
8. You must credit Latham for not bringing in novices. She's staffed
with a raft of former headwriters now (many of whom received critical
praise during their tenures), AND she's still retained a few long term
Y&R writers. MOST of the behind the scenes staff and the on camera
staff remains stable.
Assuming that the business leadership at Bell/Sony/CBS remains strong,
they are going to monitor what's going on very closely. If the show
declines, its seems we can count on them to make sober, measured
changes as they did in the last year.
One other thing....compare what Latham has done to what Sheffer is
doing at Days. Sheffer is REBUILDING the show. Many of the cast
members were fired. Most story points were stopped abruptly, and
characters changed, to move in a new (healhier) direction. Thus,
Marlena becomes a heroine again, Belle grows up, the "men get their
penises back", Sami matures...and so forth. Many new characters are
being introduced (wisely, with family ties to long-term Salem
families). Still, the show today feel like a new show, relative to a
few months ago.
Now, compare what Latham did. She rebuilt NOTHING. It's the same
characters, with the same ties, often filling historical plot holes
that were left to dangle (Lily's paternity, Brad's past, etc.). Yes,
she changed pacing, and she punched up the writing and the
characterizations.
I realize there can be a bandwagon of negativity. I realize change is
hard. I realize that not everything that has changed has been for the
better. BUT, and I say this as a student of the genre: This has been
the most seamlessly handled behind-the-scenes shakeup in my memory. I
cannot think of another HW/EP switch that has done less damage to the
core of the show.
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> 1. I'm sorry Kay is gone. I was comforted by the retention of the
> legacy team, to allow connection to history and vision.
The writing was on the wall (no pun). It was not hard to see, from the
beginning, that LML was not going to keep and make improvements to the
existing successful formula, despite its faults; she was going to change
it completely. That doesn't automatically mean that doing so would have
been bad (and some things initially improved) **IF** the new technique
would have incorporated enough of the prior look-and-feel to please a
majority of long-time viewers as well as perhaps attracting new ones.
I don't believe any such plan was formulated. It isn't as if LML took
time to carefully determine which parts of the methodology that Bill
Bell and KA developed were meritorious and worth incorporating into her
own new strategy, an approach that would have also included the years of
background, experience and cooperative effort of KA and other
long-tenured staff.
Instead, that previous formula was thrown out completely in favor of
LML's new methodology, and to many viewers, it didn't/doesn't look or
feel like there's a well thought-out, finely tuned plan in place; it
looks and feels like they come up with ideas on the fly, throw them out
there, and if they stick, great ... if not, oh well, they're on to
something else before you can blink anyway. Viewers are *not* oblivious
to that. The same lack of personal care and concern for the characters
and stories behind-the-scenes is felt and reflected by people (viewers)
on this side of the cameras, too.
By lack of personal care and concern, I don't mean that LML isn't trying
to do a good job. The ideas for stories themselves may be great ones,
but that doesn't automatically guarantee that they will be great FOR ANY
EXISTING CHARACTER. Having characters whose personalities we have known
for so long doing and saying some of these things simply DOES NOT fly if
you're a long-time viewer.
> 4. Let's not elevate history to unrealistic heights.
I don't think anyone is doing that. Y&R's history is what it is. It was
highly successful. It had peaks and valleys like anything else that
lasts 3+ decades. It had both celebrations and problems. It had
qualities that should have been retained, and it had areas that needed
improvement. Some things they did were very memorable; other things they
did are better forgotten.
> So, INACTION by the parent corporations (Bell, Sony, CBS) would have
> been the kind of "laissez faire" that got America into the Great
> Depression.
More importantly, how has the ACTION by the parent corporations helped?
Say what you want about it "starting to sink" ... the overall formula
was not so bad or in so much trouble that it needed to be trashed
completely in favor of something COMPLETELY new. And if was starting to
sink then, what is it doing now? Is it soaring to new heights under
LML's pen? No. In fact, it appears to be getting much more severe
criticism now than it did when you and others say it was stale and
sinking. So how has this change that you and others insist was necessary
HELPING? The previously successful formula is gone, most of the people
who knew the show's history like the back of their hands are gone, and
many viewers are unhappy. I don't see a lot of benefits being derived
from the action that caused all this upheaval.
> 2. The parent companies did NOT act in haste.
I strongly differ with that statement. Look back over the past 15 months
and tell me that the show has not gone through a major metamorphosis
during this period, both on-screen and off, and I don't mean *in
comparison* to what's happened on other shows, I just mean to Y&R
specifically. Just because something is better "in comparison" to
something else isn't a measure of its own merit.
> 4. Thus, when Latham came in, it was after a long period of sober
> reflection, with multiple solutions considered. I could not ask a
> business to do more!
I could! I could have asked that Latham (new blood for Y&R) be
commissioned to work WITH existing staff to incorporate new ideas,
techniques, stories and characters into the existing successful formula
... vs giving LML full power to prune Y&R's inner structure with her
chainsaw and throw out the prior established formula completely so she
could do whatever she wants to the characters, stories and methodology
*assuming* that everyone is just going to readily accept and love it.
This wasn't done slowly to see what viewer reaction would be; it was
done overnight, and there has never been pause to see how well the
changes are being received. Yes, some viewers are happy, but there's no
denying that many are not.
> 5., One presumes that the same long-arc view will be used to evaluate
> the consequences and cost/benefits of the switch. AT LEAST a year, I
> imagine.
That's way too long, IMO.
By the time a year of this has passed, *if* the consequences are a large
percentage of dissatisfied and/or lost viewers, cost/benefits are of
little value. After a year, the damage may be too widespread to repair.
Maintaining viewers isn't as difficult as winning them back once they're
gone, or as luring new ones. There's no evidence LML has attracted a
significant number of new viewers. So again, what has been the big
benefit of this major change that you and others insist Y&R needed and
that the parent corporations would have been irresponsible to not have
done?
> 6. Latham's dismissal of long-term staff is worrying, but note how
> differently it's been done relative to other soaps. She worked with
> these people for a long time. The easing out was done over time, not
> rashly.
What? Did you watch the same process I did?
LML has been in that position less than a year, and already her two
former co-headwriters, some of her senior staff writers, and other
long-tenured crew are GONE. That's not a long time, IMO. And they may
have still been on the payroll, but saying she worked "with" these
people is highly questionable. Once she took over, there was little
evidence that KA, JS or anyone else that had been part of the old regime
had any influence whatsoever, IMO. The fact that so many are gone are
proof of that ... if they'd been consulted, or if their expertise,
experience or knowledge of Y&R had been sought, utilized, and/or valued
by LML, why would they ALL be gone? In less than a year, all that
combined knowledge and expertise is no longer needed? Riiight.
> If you accept my premise above that the show as in free fall,
> to NOT make these high level management changes would have been
> irresponsible.
Well, certainly not everyone accepts your premise that the show was in
"free fall". Y&R wasn't declining any more rapidly than any other soap
or than the soap industry itself, which is still declining.
And again, how has making these "high-level management changes" been
"responsible"? Tell me what significant, noteworthy things the show has
gained? Then tell me what significant, noteworthy things the show has
lost.
> 7. Latham's executive decision are not much more cutthroat than the
> last ones were. Under Smith, Wiard and Shaughnessy got dumped, for
> example.
Staff changes occurred, but the overall formula, look and feel of the
show did not. Behind-the-scenes changes should *not* be felt by viewers
except in positive ways (improvements to the show). That has not
occurred with these changes ... yes, there were some improvements, but
the behind-the-scenes upheaval has been very, VERY evident to viewers,
and the resulting on-screen changes have hardly had all positive
feedback.
> Assuming that the business leadership at Bell/Sony/CBS remains strong,
> they are going to monitor what's going on very closely.
If anyone is monitoring what's going on closely, then surely someone
should be seeing, reading, hearing, listening to the many dissatisfied
viewers. Are they being ignored? overlooked? disregarded? Do they
matter? Does anyone care? Is LML being counseled about the fact that not
all her changes are being well received? about viewer concerns and
dissatisfactions? What is she doing about it? All I see her doing is
getting rid of more and more long-tenured people that she obviously
feels are of no value to her.
> If the show declines, its seems we can count on them to
> make sober, measured changes as they did in the last year.
Many of us don't see the changes made in the last year as "sober" or
"measured" ... not by a long shot. More like rash, hasty and without
long-term vision.
> Now, compare what Latham did. She rebuilt NOTHING. It's the same
> characters, with the same ties, often filling historical plot holes
> that were left to dangle (Lily's paternity, Brad's past, etc.).
It is HIGHLY debatable that filling the two historical plot holes that
you mentioned was smart or done well. I wasn't the only one who thought
the Brad's past story was not only implausible, but also haphazardly
done and sloppy. And I personally don't see what revisiting Lily's
paternity accomplished. Discord between Neil and Dru? for what? So he
could get involved with Carmen? So Dru could turn into an obsessed,
fatal-vision psycho? So they could, **overnight**, suddenly find each
other again?
As asked before, if LML is such a creative genius, why, in a year,
hasn't she created something NEW of her very own to show us how worthy
she is to have been handed the honor of being named headwriter to the
number-one soap? I haven't seen anything that shows that LML is any more
creative than anyone else that has been at the helm at Y&R ... and in
fact, her work in a year has had more loopholes and twists that have
viewers saying, "WTH? did I miss something?" than Y&R has had in the
past decade. Not to mention racing through stories so fast that if you
blink, you're SOL.
It isn't about change being hard, and record hunter and Ravl can
personally attack me as much or as often as they wish for expressing
negativity, but I don't see any evidence to support either that this
huge upheaval and change was "necessary" or that it has accomplished
anything great or advantageous for Y&R.
> This has been the most seamlessly handled behind-the-scenes
> shakeup in my memory. I cannot think of another HW/EP switch
> that has done less damage to the core of the show.
Wow, I could not disagree more. I would hardly call this
behind-the-scenes shakeup "seamless" -- no way. The seams are evident
all over the place, and have been since the change began. As for damage
to the core of the show, you've got to be kidding ... the Newmans are
still there, but the Abbott family has all but been destroyed. And the
behind-the-scenes "core of the show" is GONE. IMO, that's *considerable*
damage.
Shirl
Nymann
> her deathbed, the whole Diane Jenkins divorce saga) They turned awful.
> (A multi-year sperm saga, wasting the incredible Eileen Davidson).
> Apparently, behind the scenes was a mess, because Ed Scott left at that
> time. The fact that Scott left and Alden stayed does suggest that
> Alden WAS the chosen protege. With her and Shaughnessy as EP...the
> show...ahem...really became a bit malodorous.
It's really difficult for me to assess her as a head writer, since she
only wrote for about 3 years by herself (1999-2002). And the rest of
those 32 years in daytime, she was a co-writer. And 1999 was the year
of Diane Jenkins divorce, eg.
So, I think she would be perfect for AMC. Maybe Frons will be
successful in his attempt to hire her. I know Agnes Nixon always wanted
her.
And if she stays at CBS, she'll have a GREAT salary. Perhaps $3m a year
or more.
Niki
> HEAD WRITER OUSTED
Bye Bye Y&R.
LML you suck.
I'm gone.
--
Niki
MarkH
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
> "MarkH" <slip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Shirl: It was not hard to see, from the beginning, that LML was not
going to keep and make improvements to the existing successful
formula, despite its faults; she was going to change it completely.
characters, same sets, mostly same behind the scenes crew, mostly same
on camera crew. There were four discrete changes: (1) pacing, (2)
writing staff, (3) filling old plot holes, and (4) boosting realism and
naturalism of scenes.
==============
Shirl: It isn't as if LML took time to carefully determine which parts
of the methodology that Bill Bell and KA developed were meritorious
and worth incorporating into her own new strategy, an approach that
would have also included the years of background, experience and
cooperative effort of KA and other long-tenured staff.
YEAR before acting. I suspect their feedback was not taken seriously
by Smith/Alden. Also, CBS/Sony/Bell used the smart strategy of
"competitive bids" (hiring two seasoned outside consultants to watch
for a year), then hired the best of the two. That's about as long-haul
and reasoned a decision you can make in this industry.
==============
Shirl: Instead, that previous formula was thrown out completely in
favor of LML's new methodology
completely changed.
==============
Shirl: Having characters whose personalities we have known for so long
doing and saying some of these things simply DOES NOT fly if you're a
long-time viewer.
some have been deepened (e.g., Neil, Brad, Sharon, Nick, etc.), but
it's been shown that time and events have matured and complicated
them...they're not completely changed. Brad's still trying to be a
good family man...but his past is now more transparent. Characters are
now richer, but they're still the same
==============
Shirl: More importantly, how has the ACTION by the parent corporations
helped? Say what you want about it "starting to sink" ... the overall
formula was not so bad or in so much trouble that it needed to be
trashed completely in favor of something COMPLETELY new.
I've tried to list the minor tweaks, many of which are stylistic, and
some of which speak to deepening character and dialogue. Anthony
Langford's post suggest that Y&R may have accomplished the goal. Other
soaps are SINKING (AMC is now second-lowest), while Y&R remains stable
(based on household viewers) or grows (based on maximum-household
achieved some days [4.5 or 4.6] or total number of viewers in
millions). Don't forget that Y&R is often #1 or #2 in the women 18-49
demo...which is even more important. So, it appears corporate action
was wise. The trick is to try to pull away from the circling-drain of
all the other shows. Maybe it's working. Maybe, at least, they've
delayed the inevitable.
If you consult a broad sampling of public fora, it appears that viewers
and critics are at most SPLIT on the changes. For every negative
viewer, you can find a positive. Thus, with ratings stability/growth
in a slipping market, and at least 50% of viewers satisfied...the new
methodology in its first year appears to be achieving its goals.
Remember, classically, the rule was that a new show needed 5 years on
the year before you could judge its success...it took that long to
reach a stable audience. Thus, if that metric holds, the new
methodology needs a 5-year proving period. Growth/stablity in the
first year, in the face of declines on other shows, means that there is
great promise.
==============
Shirl: And if was starting to sink then, what is it doing now? Is it
soaring to new heights under LML's pen? No. In fact, it appears to be
getting much more severe criticism now than it did when you and others
say it was stale and sinking.
put forward here. Every single one, with some evidence. I find no
evidence that criticism is "more severe" (witness the thread I linked
from 1998!). I find 50% of critics/viewers are MORE favorable.
==============
Shirl: The previously successful formula is gone, most of the people
who knew the show's history like the back of their hands are gone, and
many viewers are unhappy.
Long-time writers are still around. MOREOVER, actors who have played
the roles for 25-35 years are now more empowered. So history is in
good hands.
==============
Shirl: I strongly differ with that statement [that CBS/Bell/Sony did
not act in haste by bringing in LML. Look back over the past 15 months
and tell me that the show has not gone through a major metamorphosis
Mark: They did not act in haste. Hiring consultants for 12 months
before you make a move is NOT in haste. The show has NOT made a major
metamorphosis. See details above.
==============
Shirl: I could have asked that Latham (new blood for Y&R) be
commissioned to work WITH existing staff to incorporate new ideas,
techniques, stories and characters into the existing successful formula
Mark: I believe that is exactly what happened. She consulted for a
year. Not much happened (except we were subjected to the rec center,
Nikki the child murderess, Marsino's mob, Brittany the
show-tune-belting-stripper-who-stays-dressed). I think CBS/Sony/Bell
saw that the existing regime could not respond to constructive
criticism...they were too entrenched in an old methodology. So, after
a long year of consulting, a new "CEO" was brought in. You can't
expect the new CEO to work with the old CEO. It doesn't happen. They
DID try for nine months! The new team has been soooo respectful,
keeping most of the cast and the behind the scenes crew. There have
been no major changes...just much-needed tweaks in pacing, etc.
==============
Shirl: [One year is] way too long, IMO [to evaluate the success of
regime change]
Mark: First, tell that to the Bush admin. about Iraq :-). Second, see
above about the old "five year rule". Third, Smith and Alden both got
more than a year. Fourth, CBS/Bell/Sony believed that one year of
consulting by LML and Morina was not too long. Nope. This is sober,
rational, smart-business decision making.
==============
Shirl: So again, what has been the big benefit of this major change
that you and others insist Y&R needed and that the parent corporations
would have been irresponsible to not have done?
satisfied viewers on all fora. See the positively giddy actors (by
now, most of the cast) in the press. See the richer characters, faster
pacing, use of suspense and surprise. I've gone over all of this
territory, but if you REALLY want me to count ALL the ways the show is
better today, let me know.
I'm NOT saying it's perfect, or there haven't been missteps. But gains
outweigh losses.
==============
Shirl: [In response to the claim that regime change was gradual]. What?
Did you watch the same process I did? LML has been in that position
less than a year, and already her two former co-headwriters, some of
her senior staff writers, and other long-tenured crew are GONE.
The existing executive is unceremoniously dismissed. Maybe there is an
interim. The new regime comes in with fanfair and does not work with
the old regime. The new regime fires half the cast, ignores the vets,
ignores history, and starts over with new players. The extent of this
varies by example. But NO show switch has been as slow and
overlapping, with old-and-new working together, as this one. NOW, you
legitimately ask if they REALLY worked together...and I have no way of
knowing that. But, on paper, they did. Smith said as much in his exit
interviews...he "bridged" the old and new, the writers and the
production staff.
==============
Shirl...if they'd been consulted, or if their expertise, experience or
knowledge of Y&R had been sought, utilized, and/or valued
by LML, why would they ALL be gone? In less than a year, all that
combined knowledge and expertise is no longer needed? Riiight.
different executive team today than they did when they started.
Moreover, the product is now made differently and tastes different from
when the country is founded. Indeed, if you visit the Atlanta museum,
you realize the product tastes different all over the world. My point.
It's still Coke, and it's still successful. LML came in, and took
what she felt she could from the past. She now has experience "old
guard" writers (like Ferri and Morina), lots of top-drawer writers from
other shows (like Griffith and Cwickly and Hamner). She has actors who
are the custodians of history for her. She's well set up to honor
history while moving forward. Nothing to worry about here. No budget
can keep all the old-timers forever if the corporation is trying for
new market innovation. You know better than I that business doesn't
work that way.
Shirl: Well, certainly not everyone accepts your premise that the show
was in "free fall". Y&R wasn't declining any more rapidly than any
other soap or than the soap industry itself, which is still declining.
And again, how has making these "high-level management changes" been
"responsible"? Tell me what significant, noteworthy things the show has
gained? Then tell me what significant, noteworthy things the show has
lost.
losses. Laissez-faire is not corporate reponsibility. Sony/Bell/CBS
used its' leadership to try to buck the soap trend of continuing
decline, and they seem to have succeeded so far, but this is a moving
target with no laurel-resting EVER possible. See above for a list of
gains, and a promise of an extensive list of gains if you insist.
==============
Shirl: but the behind-the-scenes upheaval has been very, VERY evident
to viewers, and the resulting on-screen changes have hardly had all
positive feedback.
Mom and pop back home (and yes, I've asked them) don't notice a thing.
It's the same old Victor and Nikki to them.
==============
Shirl: If anyone is monitoring what's going on closely, then surely
someone should be seeing, reading, hearing, listening to the many
dissatisfied viewers. Are they being ignored? overlooked? disregarded?
Do they matter? Does anyone care? Is LML being counseled about the fact
that not all her changes are being well received?
positive..it balances out the negative. BUT, you know what
CBS/Bell/Sony care about (in this order): (a) ratings, (b) focus
groups they commission, (c) viewer mail to CBS/Sony, (d) some mail to
the soap publications. They don't monitor internet/etc. very closely,
precisely because it gathers hotheads and pilers-on. From that
perspective, the ratings indicate stability-growth, esp. in that
all-important 18-49 demo, I don't know what the focus groups/mail say,
and the mail in the press is AT LEAST 50% positive.
==============
Shirl: As asked before, if LML is such a creative genius, why, in a
year, hasn't she created something NEW of her very own to show us how
worthy she is to have been handed the honor of being named headwriter
to the number-one soap?
yours that INFURIATES some folks on here :-). If she disregarded
history, and did all new characters/stories, you'd say "disrespect for
the past". If she takes existing characters and situations and propels
them forward, you say "nothing new" or, worse yet, "mishandled and
disregards what viewers saw 20 years ago". I'd say that her effective
use of veterans and their history to drive future story is all new.
This is the mark of a good headwriter. Build on the past. In the
meantime, lots of future seeds are planted.
==============
Shirl: Her work in a year has had more loopholes and twists that have
viewers saying, "WTH? did I miss something?" than Y&R has had in the
past decade. Not to mention racing through stories so fast that if you
blink, you're SOL.
We've debated the merits of that recently, but it' not "sloppy"..it's
an intended approach. I also think that the team is getting it's legs
on this issue. I've lamented that Brad's strangling Nazi with his
thighs was only shown once so..if you missed it..you were IN FACT SOL.
I must not be the only one who complained about that, because they've
now flashed back 2 times (I think) on the thigh-killing! So, I think
they're realizing that _selected_ flashback and expository dialogue
(the latter a holdout from the old regime) is useful. You're seeing
more and more of it...indeed, the whole day of speculation (who killed
Carmen? with black and white) was devoted to it.
==============
Shirl: [in response to contention that this switch has been seamless]:
Wow, I could not disagree more. I would hardly call this
behind-the-scenes shakeup "seamless" -- no way. The seams are evident
all over the place, and have been since the change began. As for damage
to the core of the show, you've got to be kidding ... the Newmans are
still there, but the Abbott family has all but been destroyed.
Jack. Colleen left town, as did Billy, and Traci was long gone. In a
stroke of brilliance, Smith's team joined the Fishers and the Abbotts,
effectively expanding the family AND making it richer and more
dysfunctional (Abbott-Fishers). This dysfunction now drives a key arc
on the show. It's true John was killed, but Colleen and Billy were
returned, and we even saw Traci briefly.
We don't see the Abbotts _as_ a family right now (no breakfast scenes,
for example), but that's a dramatic choice, not the "decimation of the
Abbotts" necessarily. The center of the family is gone, and the family
has fallen apart. Seems realistic to me. Most of the family is
actually THERE...but the family is terribly untogether. That's the
fodder for soaps...as the family finds its' way together over time.
That said, I believe belt-tightening is going to be necessary, and they
ARE going to have to cut some seasoned vets at the end of their
contracts. I believe the two Davidsons (Eileen, Doug) have been
islanded...in part because the actors aren't conveying a ton of
energy/enthusiasm on screen either. My prediction is that both of them
WILL be cut loose soon, and the show won't miss them too much for now.
[They can always be brought back, although Days _does_ seem to be
hungering for "Susan" soon].
Change is often necessary and good :-).
MarkH
Sorry for the spacing on that last one. I had added more, but typed it
in an offline window (because google keeps crashing on me).
Apparently, the program stripped off line feeds!
My apologies.
Donna B
<1163126028....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Rthrquiet"
<rthr...@aol.com> wrote:
Michael, it's so good to see you here. I know how you loathe having to use
Google Groups! I saw you over in RATSa & wondered if you'd be over here,
too. However, this is one of those times when we disagree, not that that
will ever diminish my fondness & respect for you.
> MarkH wrote:
>
> > I'm terribly sorry to lose her, but not all change is bad. AND, the
> > truth is, if the show starts to tank I'm sure they can throw lots of $$
> > at her to return :-).
Honestly, what is completely remarkable is that she has remained at Y&R this
long. At any other soap she'd have left, amicably, and gone on to be writing
at another show, having a chance to actually *be* a HW. That Y&R loyalty
thing is at least a double-edge sword.
> Irreparable damage can be done in the meantime, however. If Latham's
> "vision" for the show turns out to be wrong (which is where my money is
> at the moment), there may be no going back, even if Alden can be
> persuaded to return. Some things, once wrecked, can't be salvaged.
I can't imagine under any circumstances that they would both invite her to
return *and* actually give her another shot at actually HWing. She had her
shot. It didn't work. They moved on.
> ... But oh my god, what I'm seeing on my screen is so NOT Young and
> Restless to me. ...
To me, it is unquestionably still Y&R.
> Genoa City is currently one of the coldest places on earth, and I find
> it rather difficult to care very much what's happening to these
> characters. You can throw as much lightning-fast plot at me as you
> want: If I don't find the characters worth caring about, it's not going
> to hold my interest--and this stuff definitely isn't. (Granted, I'm not
> anywhere near the demographic that TPTB care about anyway.)
Characters are most important to me, too, but I don't see this coldness that
you & others see. In fact, to me, the Y&R of the past was demonstrably
colder! Within family units & other groupings it seems to me that there is
more warmth, not less, and that somehow the people are much more real & less
superficial.
> ... I
> should be jumping up and down because the dialogue doesn't drive me
> nuts anymore, but instead I'm finding myself longing for the
> Good-Old-Bad-Old-Days because at least Bell managed, with remarkable
> consistency, to make me feel something when I watched.
I can't long for something I didn't like. <G> Even though we shared the same
begrudging respect for Bill Bell's Y&R and dislike of it for similar
reasons, ... I don't think it can be replicated. Kay Alden was supposed to
accomplish that & it didn't work. I don't know what the plan was, if any,
with Jack Smith, but overall, it didn't work either. In retrospect, I don't
think that the last of the Bill Bell years were doing it either. I know that
they kept it a secret from the public that he was ill. I don't know how long
they did that, but I think it showed in the latter years, perhaps, even
before Alden was given the go ahead.
> ... I tuned out for lots of other reasons,
> but never because I couldn't find characters worth investing in.
Oh, that was always a huge one for me, that & the fact that they seemed to
constantly tell the same stories over & over with almost no change. So, I'd
have to add that to the dialogue & scene construction. And, it always drove
me crazy, too, that they also had pauses between most words in their line
delivery.
> Kay Alden clearly was not able to maintain the ratings of the Bell
> years, but Y&R's ratings were still well above those of the other shows
> before LML was hired, and I'm wondering if ANYBODY besides Bell could
> have pulled off the numbers he was getting. ...
And the timeslot.
But, Michael, it wasn't Alden's show before they brought Latham in. It was
Jack Smith's show.
And, there's no doubt in my mind that the cut in their licensing/franchise
fees being paid by CBS to Sony/Bell was a final straw. Being ranked #1 in
total HHs wasn't enough.
I wish Kay Alden well. It was time for her to move on. It was long past time
for Y&R to change. But, I hope that the show can settle down & not have more
changes soon, aka keep Latham on & work with her to communicate what they
want if it's not what they're getting, IOW fine tune rather than begin
again. That way leads to disaster.
--
Donna B : ^> shallotpeel <*> Yahoo Messenger: shallotpeel
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> Characters are most important to me, too, but I don't see this coldness that
> you & others see. In fact, to me, the Y&R of the past was demonstrably
> colder! Within family units & other groupings it seems to me that there is
> more warmth, not less, and that somehow the people are much more real & less
> superficial.
Of the two core families, there's hardly more warmth between the Abbotts
-- John is dead and not even happy as a ghost, and there is strain, to
say the least, between Jack and Ashley; and the Newmans have just had
the break-up of a marriage that, despite the problems they endured,
lasted 10 years (long for the soap world). There's warmth between Lauren
and Michael, sometimes, but the other Fishers only seem to show warmth
when they the other to do something illegal. And the "warmth" between
the Winters (Neil and Dru) couldn't have been more instantly contrived
after the way they were getting along, in order to create the drama
surrounding Carmen's murder.
> Oh, that was always a huge one for me, that & the fact
> that they seemed to constantly tell the same stories over
> & over with almost no change.
Much like revisiting stories like Sheila, as if there's going to be some
new magic in them if they mention her name and show Lauren shivering
again.
> But, I hope that the show can settle down & not have more
> changes soon, aka keep Latham on & work with her to
> communicate what they want if it's not what they're getting,
> IOW fine tune rather than begin again.
IMO, fine tune rather than begin again was what the change that was
needed when they brought Latham in. Certainly not everyone agrees that
the show was in dire need of a *complete* makeover ... fine tuning,
sure. But with Latham and her subsequent hirings and firings, they *did*
begin again, and as you said ...
>That way leads to disaster.
Shirl
record hunter
Ah, Donna. The old Y&R: something about which we are completely in
snyc.
I used to HATE the dialogue. Laugh and cackle and scream at its awkward
construction.
I had a Y&R dialog game. I would count how many times characters would
say "a man who..." or "a woman with..." as a means of exposition,
cringing each time I heard it. Eventually, I started to throw last
night's dirty socks at the TV each time I heard "a woman who..." but I
would run out of socks some days, even if I'd been to the gym the night
before. WHO TALKS LIKE THAT?
Plus I *so* prefer the characters over the past 2+ years, even ones I
never liked (the Abbotts, Phyllis). The Abbotts: talk about COLD.
Y&R: such a better program in the '00s.
MarkH
record hunter wrote:
>
> Y&R: such a better program in the '00s.
For me, I'd say I loved the show MOST in the 1980s (esp. 1983, when
Dina Mergeron appeared on the show). This was when Victor and Nikki
married the first time, Kay got her plastic surgery, Victor used a
dungeon, and (towards the end) Paul and the amazing Cassandra Rawlings
story.
The 90s were not, from my perspective, as strong.
The 00s were worse (Britanny!!!!), until the last year or so. Since
Brittany left (and it's not because of her, but because she was
symptomatic of much of what was wrong with the show), the show has been
much better. This happens to coincide more or less with the hiring of
a new EP/HW.
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> The show was not changed completely. Same
> characters, same sets, mostly same behind the
> scenes crew, mostly same on camera crew.
Same characters that look the same but who think, behave, reason
differently and have different values/standards than they had...not just
a couple to make a story interesting, but most of them. The crew does
their job, and certainly using the same *sets* doesn't mean major
changes haven't taken place. I think you know the kinds of changes I'm
talking about, and a show can look *and feel* VERY different even when
using the same old sets.
>There were four discrete changes: (1) pacing, (2)
>writing staff, (3) filling old plot holes, and (4)
>boosting realism and naturalism of scenes.
I'm sorry, but no way #1 and #2 were "discrete" changes!
As for old plot holes, if you're thinking of Brad's past, I doubt they
thought of that as a plot "hole" -- it wasn't as if, without some
explanation of Brad's past, none of the 21 years we saw made sense. We
didn't know where he came from or what his family life consisted of
before getting involved with the Abbott girls (other than Lisa). He went
from gardener/yardman to Jabot exec in short order, but several other
characters have made similar career advancements equally fast, so that
was not unique to Brad. Some wondered about his past and some felt he
was sinister, but it wasn't any more of a hole than other non-core
family characters that have come to GC and stuck around with no
explanations of their pasts (i.e., Ryan). As for boosting realism and
naturalism, a break room, an elevator, and the use of cellphones doesn't
make the show more real or natural than it was before. The realism that
is needed, IMO, is in the writing of the plotlines, not in the places
where people talk.
Shirl:
> Instead, that previous formula was thrown out
> completely in favor of LML's new methodology
>
Mark:
> That's an overstatement. See above. The show
> was *tweaked*, not completely changed.
So much of all the rest of your responses to my comments are differing
*opinions* and your justification for them. Don't take that to mean that
I'm saying your opinions are any less valid than mine. What I'm saying
is that if, for example, you feel the previous formula was thrown out
completely or that characters are no longer consistent, there's evidence
to support those perceptions; if you feel that the show was merely
"tweaked" and not completely changed and that characters are consistent,
there's evidence to support those perceptions, too. I can name ways
characters have flip-flopped, you can name ways they've remained
consistent.
It boils down to each viewer's desires and expectations and whether or
not Y&R, under LML's authority, meets enough of their expectations to
make it worth it to keep watching. Some, like you are quite happy with
"the new" Y&R; others, like me are not.
The numbers are an interesting study. Obviously, if you have continued
to like what LML is doing, you're continuing to watch. Some viewers hung
around long enough to decide they did not like LML's methodology and
have stopped watching. The number of people who dislike what she is
doing *but are still watching* (even if just to see what happens *to the
show* or to voice their complaints online or whatever reason) appears to
be more significant than those that have quit, judging *just* by the
number of such posts in various discussion ggroups ... and I realize
that not everyone who quits announces it here, either, so while no one
knows how many have quit, the ratings have remained fairly stable and
not dropped significantly.
But the dissatisfied-but-still-watching (DBSW) viewers are still part of
the viewership, so Y&R/LML still gets credit for those viewers in the
ratings even if they're unhappy a little, unhappy a lot, or downright
HATING IT but watching (that's always been the case, I realize). The
risky part for Y&R/LML is that if they/she isn't careful making what
some of us are perceiving as MAJOR changes to the entire show (not just
one bad, poorly written, or "out there" story), she may cause a
significant portion of those DBSW viewers, like Niki, to reach that
point where they say, "That's it, I'm done. Bye!" With no formal study
having been done, going by the online feedback alone, it *appears* there
are more highly dissatisfied viewers voicing disdain for what has
happened to the *entire show* than there were previously, when
dissatisfied viewers were more apt to be complaining about how a
particular story or character (Victor!) was being written vs. how the
whole SHOW was being written.
> Maybe it's working. Maybe, at least, they've delayed
> the inevitable.
There are so many unknowns. "Maybe" is the key word. Maybe they've
*hastened* the inevitable. No way to ever know how Y&R under the prior
regime and operating with the prior methodology *with improvements that
were needed* would have fared, long term, in comparison to how it will
under LML's new methodology.
> Growth/stablity in the first year, in the face of declines
> on other shows, means that there is great promise.
> [snip]
> So history is in good hands.
> [snip]
> They did not act in haste. [snip]
> The show has NOT made a major metamorphosis.
> [snip]
> The new team has been soooo respectful, keeping most
> of the cast and the behind the scenes crew. There have
> been no major changes...just much-needed tweaks in
> pacing, etc.
> [snip]
> This is sober, rational, smart-business decision making.
> [snip]
> But gains outweigh losses.
Like it or not, those are all your *opinions*, and some posters will
agree with them wholeheartedly and some will disagree just as
wholeheartedly, and there can be valid substantiation for either POV.
> To fantasy-football players like us, we see the changes.
> Mom and pop back home (and yes, I've asked them) don't
> notice a thing. It's the same old Victor and Nikki to them.
Maybe your mom and pop don't notice a thing, but there have been other
viewers saying that their mom and pop back home have called up and
asked, "What the heck has happened to this show?" The problem isn't with
the moms and pops who don't notice; but the bottom-line question is, how
long will the other moms and pops hang in there if they notice and don't
like what the show has become?
> Change is often necessary and good :-).
Too much change is often unnecessary and bad. :-)
Shirl