The Bold and the Beautiful Watching The Bold and the Beautiful

[Rove]

To be fair,

Soaps only have themselves to blame. How many times can you put a different spin on an unexpected pregnancy? How many times can a soap get away with resurrecting the dead? How many times do we need to suffer the evil twin story...or worse...plastic surgery? Why must we accept a recast of a character (Ridge) after an actor played it for 25 years? Perhaps the genre of daytime soaps needs a reset...and fast. Do they really to screen 5 days a week when possibly 3 would do? The last time I caught up with B&B it felt like I was watching the same episode 3 times over as characters kept rehashing the same dialogue from the previous ep. DOOL, Y&R and B&B desperately need new energy and vigour otherwise I cannot see them lasting another 5 years.

 

[DallasFanForever]

The last time I caught up with B&B it felt like I was watching the same episode 3 times over as characters kept rehashing the same dialogue from the previous ep

This is what drives me absolutely mad the most. I feel like I’m constantly watching the same scenes over and over. There seems to be such a lack of creativity now. It’s more like watching one show a week now with four recaps as opposed to watching five different shows.

 

[cws]

There is nothing exciting anymore. That's why I gave up watching it daily. It got to a point where I said, that's a half hour I can never get back again!! I prefer watching the classic shows daily. Susan and Ronn are there and it's enjoyable.

 

[DallasFanForever]

I prefer watching the classic shows daily. Susan and Ronn are there and it's enjoyable

I know what you mean. I am addicted to classic B&B! I can’t stop watching the 1988 episodes now. I know it’s living in the past but I’m fine with it. It’s a lot more fun back there.

 

[cws]

I know what you mean. I am addicted to classic B&B! I can’t stop watching the 1988 episodes now. I know it’s living in the past but I’m fine with it. It’s a lot more fun back there.

ABSOLUTELY!! It's just like The Golden Girls!!!!! I know what's going to happen, but I still enjoy it!!!

 

[Daniel Avery]

The last time I caught up with B&B it felt like I was watching the same episode 3 times over as characters kept rehashing the same dialogue from the previous ep. DOOL, Y&R and B&B desperately need new energy and vigour otherwise I cannot see them lasting another 5 years.

In the new production model, the actors often end up taping multiple scenes in succession that get edited into multiple episodes (as opposed to the old model of filming complete episodes in a set amount of time). This must make it even more obvious (and IRRITATING) to the actors and crew members that they're doing repetitive dialogue/activity, since they're repeating themselves within minutes of each other, multiple times in a day's taping.

As for the need for "new energy," that's a sentiment I've heard among fans for decades. Executive Producers especially are looked at as the "change agent" when they are hired, with Head Writers in second place. When a new EP comes in, they invariably go to a soap magazine and promise to "shake things up for the better" and make it like "the good old days" to re-attract lapsed viewers. What happens, however, is that the EP goes in one of two directions: they either rehash stories and events they've produced in previous jobs at other soaps, or they genuinely DO try to produce some innovative work that makes longtime viewers nervous, if not outright hostile. If they try to rehash past successes, it feels derivative and unsatisfying. If they try to be "too innovative", the established fan base whines and pushes back because this outsider is "messing up the show they love". For every person who claims they want the show to try new things and "get with the times," there will be another who wants the show to stay just as it is, to be reliably predictable "comfort food". The EP trying to repeat their past successes using other characters on other shows experiences "diminishing returns" or worse, is accused of lacking originality. An EP with lots of originality who tries too hard to shake things up is soon painted as "the enemy" out to destroy the show's history. In order to keep their job they tone down the lofty ideas and become less willing to rock the boat. In both cases, the EP eventually gets rewarded for mediocrity, and the cycle begins again.

 

[Monzo]

I'm not a fan of this "I don't know where I'm going but I'm going" attitude of characters. Right now Paris is the one who's doing it. Her changes of direction appear to be too quick to adapt to negative fan reactions of a possible new pairing. Finn was briefly on her radar, Thomas too, now Carter, while she is madly in love, now not so madly in love anymore with Zende. Is there any masterplan when it comes to Paris? She's not the first to suffer from this clueless writing, Zoe would probably still be without a personality if the actress hadn't decided Fantasy Island was a better place for her than Forrester Creations.

 

[Monzo]

I recently read a summary of Sheila's atrocities. This part said:

In 1998, Sheila spied Stephanie kissing her love, James, with whom Sheila shared a child. Sheila tried to drown Stephanie in a swimming pool, then promised she’d kill Stephanie’s grandson, Thomas, if she didn’t back off. Sheila was shipped off to jail but when she learned Stephanie was helping James raise their daughter, Mary, she escaped and shot her rival. Amber interceded before Sheila could fire a fatal bullet, so Sheila grabbed Mary and went on the lam.

Stephanie & James?!? I have no recollection of it at all, but I do remember the rest of the summary. If Stephanie was helping James raise Mary, it must have been serious, right?

 

[Emelee]

I recently read a summary of Sheila's atrocities. This part said:

In 1998, Sheila spied Stephanie kissing her love, James, with whom Sheila shared a child. Sheila tried to drown Stephanie in a swimming pool, then promised she’d kill Stephanie’s grandson, Thomas, if she didn’t back off. Sheila was shipped off to jail but when she learned Stephanie was helping James raise their daughter, Mary, she escaped and shot her rival. Amber interceded before Sheila could fire a fatal bullet, so Sheila grabbed Mary and went on the lam.

Stephanie & James?!? I have no recollection of it at all, but I do remember the rest of the summary. If Stephanie was helping James raise Mary, it must have been serious, right?

James was there for Stephanie when Eric left her after some big fights with Brooke that left Rick and Bridget sad. Eric dated Lauren and Stephanie started dating James. Sheila was a handful and James just wanted something else. Stephanie convinced James to give up on trying to fix Sheila. He took Mary and moved in with Stephanie. Sheila was livid. She threatened and manipulated, but Stephanie didn't scare easily until Sheila threatened Thomas' life by sending Stephanie a decapitated doll. Another time she and Stephanie fought and fell into the pool together where Sheila held Stephanie down under water before she let go. But Stephanie and James didn't give in to threat and Sheila was arrested. She escaped and shot Stephanie. Amber tackled Sheila before she could shoot again, but Sheila knocked Amber out. That probably resulted in the death of the baby Amber was carrying, the whole reason she took her cousin Becky's baby to pass off as hers and Rick's. Little Eric.

Anyway, Sheila took Mary and left town. James was devastated and left town to search the world for his daughter. Meanwhile, Eric's relationship with Lauren fizzled out and he went back to Stephanie.

 

[cws]

In the new production model, the actors often end up taping multiple scenes in succession that get edited into multiple episodes (as opposed to the old model of filming complete episodes in a set amount of time). This must make it even more obvious (and IRRITATING) to the actors and crew members that they're doing repetitive dialogue/activity, since they're repeating themselves within minutes of each other, multiple times in a day's taping.

As for the need for "new energy," that's a sentiment I've heard among fans for decades. Executive Producers especially are looked at as the "change agent" when they are hired, with Head Writers in second place. When a new EP comes in, they invariably go to a soap magazine and promise to "shake things up for the better" and make it like "the good old days" to re-attract lapsed viewers. What happens, however, is that the EP goes in one of two directions: they either rehash stories and events they've produced in previous jobs at other soaps, or they genuinely DO try to produce some innovative work that makes longtime viewers nervous, if not outright hostile. If they try to rehash past successes, it feels derivative and unsatisfying. If they try to be "too innovative", the established fan base whines and pushes back because this outsider is "messing up the show they love". For every person who claims they want the show to try new things and "get with the times," there will be another who wants the show to stay just as it is, to be reliably predictable "comfort food". The EP trying to repeat their past successes using other characters on other shows experiences "diminishing returns" or worse, is accused of lacking originality. An EP with lots of originality who tries too hard to shake things up is soon painted as "the enemy" out to destroy the show's history. In order to keep their job they tone down the lofty ideas and become less willing to rock the boat. In both cases, the EP eventually gets rewarded for mediocrity, and the cycle begins again.

The problem with B&B is Brad Bell isn't going to fire himself. He's the head writer, executive producer, and his family owns the show.

 

[DallasFanForever]

The problem with B&B is Brad Bell isn't going to fire himself. He's the head writer, executive producer, and his family owns the show.

I guess I’m still holding a slight ounce of hope that he can perhaps channel the glory days of the show and somehow make me watch full time again but I’m probably asking a lot of him.

 

[cws]

I guess I’m still holding a slight ounce of hope that he can perhaps channel the glory days of the show and somehow make me watch full time again but I’m probably asking a lot of him.

The show is a totally different show. In 2012, after Susan's show, the first credit was Executive Producer, Bradley Bell. The last credit was Created by William J Bell and Lee Phillip Bell. Since the show's inception, it was the reverse: Created by was first and Executive Producer last. I guess Brad was telling the world that it isn't my parent's show anymore. And boy, it sure shows!!!!!

 

[Daniel Avery]

To be fair, they were the last show to switch those credits around. All the way back in the mid-1990s, the Procter and Gamble shows (GL, ATWT, AW) re-arranged their end-credits and got people talking. Up to that point it was the writing team first, followed by the EP, then everything else. In the new order, the show's title obviously came first, then EP, then writers in the scrolling credits. They didn't super-impose any credits over the actual scenes, but it was a noticeable shift, nonetheless; the folks at the time theorized the production company wanted the EP to be viewed as what we today call the "show-runner" (top billing) as opposed to the past feeling that soaps were writer-driven. Soon the ABC soaps arranged their end-credits in the same way, and the Bell soaps were the only ones to leave their credits alone, mostly because the writers were also the producers and owners. Y&R and B&B were the last shows to still be run by their creator(s). But it was the Bell shows who started super-imposing certain crew credits over the opening scenes to resemble primetime shows, as well as crediting actors (with actor names onscreen) in the opening sequence, so they weren't dragging their feet on changes. Soon most soaps started letting the writers and higher-level producers names appear over the opening scenes, though the Bell soaps are the only ones who still include actors' names in the opening.

Ted Corday inherited Days from his parents who created that show, but I don't watch it so I have no idea where the parents' credit ends up as opposed to his. GH still credits its creators in the opening scenes alongside writers and producers, too, even after 55 years.

 

[DallasFanForever]

Interesting subject I have to say, and also very telling. I’ve never been one to pay much attention to the credits to be honest. But I do like the actors’ names being included in the opening scene. No disrespect to the writers, the EP, the crew, etc. but the actors and their characters are what I’m watching for. Everyone else should be in the end credits.

 

[cws]

Interesting subject I have to say, and also very telling. I’ve never been one to pay much attention to the credits to be honest. But I do like the actors’ names being included in the opening scene. No disrespect to the writers, the EP, the crew, etc. but the actors and their characters are what I’m watching for. Everyone else should be in the end credits.

I paid attention to it because I LOVED the music in the 80's and 90's. I remember hoping that it was the long version being played. Listening to it now on the official YouTube channel brings back so many memories!!!!

 

[Daniel Avery]

Most soaps have to air one set of cast and/or crew members' credits once per week (a "long credit"). This was dictated by their respective unions. In the old days if the show ran short (that is, the episode did not fill up the allotted time period completely) the producers would air a long credit to fill that extra time, and if the show ran long they would run an abbreviated credit (maybe just the show's logo and a copyright date). If you were really lucky, the network would not do one of those annoying voice-over promos during a long-credits sequence, giving the chance to hear the long version without interruptions.

In the 1990s this was slowly taken away as the networks standardized the end-credits of its soaps by pushing the credits to one side, then doing a split-screen thing with promos for other programs airing in the other portion of the screen. Once the networks "ate" the closing credits, they basically made it impossible to enjoy the end-credits version of the theme music. I think B&B is the last show that has full-screen credits like all the soaps used to, and they probably only have it to this day because of their international distribution. When a soap is rerun, they have to re-insert 'traditional' end-credits, which is probably expensive.

I do like the actors’ names being included in the opening scene. No disrespect to the writers, the EP, the crew, etc. but the actors and their characters are what I’m watching for.

I think the main reasons it took so long to do this has to do with the size of the casts and the size of the egos involved. When a show has 25-30 contract cast members, you can't do justice to everyone unless you want a five-minute title sequence (which...they wouldn't). Editing three or four versions of the opening, with eight or nine cast members in each version and alternating their airing would seem fair, but then you have to contend with your "stars". Such a titles plan would only work if everyone was regarded as equal players, and we all know some are more equal than others. It ends up entering the realm of contract negotiation, since some actors will decide they ought to have larger or longer representation in the opening credits than "lesser stars," and if one star gets their way then others will want similar treatment until you have chaos.

I always thought a better approach would be super-imposing the actors' names (at least, the names of the actors who would appear that day) over the post-opening-credits scene in the way they do producers and writers now. But what do I know? I love the quick, bouncy title sequence of B&B and it doesn't have to employ the actors' names to "set the table".

 

[Monzo]

No more flashbacks, please!

So, Paris' mother is the kind of mother who raises her children to be independent, strong persons who, as adults, no longer need their mother, no matter whether good or bad things happen, and then übermother appears out of the blue and it's just great... I've never seen that before! Oh wait, I just saw that a few weeks ago when Taylor returned.

 

[DallasFanForever]

No more flashbacks, please!

It’s funny because I’m watching the 1988 episodes currently and I’m seeing a lot of flashbacks back then as well. It seems like this show always loved doing flashback scenes but of course I’ll give them a pass in 1988 as at least they had some good scenes to flashback to.

 

[Monzo]

If I didn't know how plot-driven the conversation is, I'd think Steffy would have totally lost her mind. First and foremost she should prevent Taylor from ever being interested in Ridge again, to save her mother from renewed heartbreak, then Brooke was often enough a good surrogate mother for Steffy when Taylor was dead or just gone.

I recognize some traits of the real Taylor in NuTaylor, but unfortunately everything that Taylor did in the 2000s (that changed her character very much) seems to have been erased.

 

[DallasFanForever]

Watching these scenes this week has reminded me how much of a shakeup this show needs. Thirty years later and Brooke and Taylor are still fighting over Ridge? It just feels like the same old recycled storylines. I can’t even blame the recasts to be honest. It’s more about the writing at this point.