When Bill joined B&B he was a breath of fresh air and I enjoyed his journey to his first marriage to Katie, but since then he has become one of the daytime characters I can't stand the most. Either he's trying to control one of his sons' lives or he's about to win Katie back only to leave her again for her sister. I'm glad to be able to watch him with Li in a completely different storyline, so I hope it's going to be good.
I don't see much resemblance between Bill Spencer and Victor Newman. Victor is an entertaining villain while Bill has been cartoonish for years. The conversations between Bill and his sons are geared toward laughter, while Victor is amusing just the way he is.An online friend who watches B&B much closer than I once remarked that they seem to be writing Bill Spencer to be "B&B's version of Victor Newman". He's constantly comparing the two shows (usually unfavorably), and like you, noticed Bill spends too much time trying to run his sons' lives (like Victor does with his).
Y&R indeed bugs the crap out of me lately with the fights for various CEO positions, as if there are no other positions in the companies. Maybe the 'lazier' vibe of B&B is reflective of the easy-going California lifestyle? Then again, no one seems to work very much on GH, either...or mind their children.Y&R and B&B have the CBS soap vibe in the way scenes are shot, but I find them very different story wise at the moment. Y&R is about who has what job and who wants to make a career change, while on B&B no one seems to work anymore or has any career goals.
Y&R indeed bugs the crap out of me lately with the fights for various CEO positions, as if there are no other positions in the companies. Maybe the 'lazier' vibe of B&B is reflective of the easy-going California lifestyle? Then again, no one seems to work very much on GH, either...or mind their children.
The last time I checked in to any of the three soaps; DOOL, Y&R or B&B is was just scene after scene of banal chatter. I like conversation but the characters were chatting just for the sake of chatting without any of the story moving forward. Y&R and B&B appear to be the worst of this. Characters are having the same tired old conversation they had 3scenesyears ago: wash, rinse, spin...repeat.
I have not seen their reunion scenes in Monaco, but I can say from experience (other soaps, other remotes) that they occasionally put distinctive wardrobe pieces on actors when sending them out for remote filming. If you depict an actress wearing a big hat or a scarf just before they "go out for a walk," they can employ a stand-in to film the walk (filmed from a distance). A mix of stand-ins and the real actors can be out filming simultaneously in the same place or close to one another, essentially collecting twice the footage of a normal shooting day. The viewer sees a close-up scene of the actor in the scarf/hat/whatever, so when you see the stand-in in an exterior shot filmed from a distance, the viewer equates the scarf with the actress and makes the viewer less likely to notice it's a stand-in.First of all who in the wardrobe department thought that scarf on Steffy's head was a good look? It aged her.
Sorry to burst the bubble of what the writers think 20 somethings talk about these days but it's certainly not that dribble.
35? How is this possible? B&B premiered in 1987 making the show 35 years old. Steffy wasn't born until 1999 technically making the character 23. Jacqueline MacInnes Wood is aged 35. Of course @Emelee I type this with a sense of humour as I know how these soaps like to age children to rapidly to bring them up to speed with the drama.They're about 35
I’ve often wondered how we’re supposed to look at this. The show is 35 but haven’t we seen more than 35 years worth of story? Can you marry 15 times in 35 years? Is that even possible? Or are we supposed to assume much more than 35 years has passed, and like the rapid aging of the children, everyone else is much older than they really should be too?B&B premiered in 1987 making the show 35 years old.