ATWT: Lily, Simon, Holden: Who Am I Supposed to Root For?
Rthrquiet
spoiler space:
O
H
H
O
W
I
W
I
S
H
W
E
H
A
D
W
R
I
T
E
R
S
OK. I watched the entire show today, rather than tape and FF (or tape and skip
it entirely, which has been my choice fairly often lately). I was pleased to be
spared a session with Waaaaaahbigail. Let me rant a bit about this Lily and
Holden story, however. (And this is extremely long, so if you don't want to
read a long post, you might prefer to skip it.)
Who or what, exactly, am I supposed to be rooting for in this entire convoluted
mess? We have Lily tarting herself up as "Beloved" to somehow convince Simple
Simon not to leave town. (Why that should keep him around is beyond my
comprehension at this point, but perhaps Monday's show will shed some light on
that. I'm not optimistic, based on the way the rest of the story has been
written, but I am willing to give TPTB the benefit of the doubt until proven
wrong.) From the coming attractions, I gather Holden is going to see Lily all
dressed up as "Beloved" and coming on to Simple, and I'm sure he'll do the
Ballistic Holden thing that they've been making him do almost constantly
lately. (As I said elsewhere, Holden now has two modes: clueless, and
belligerently stubborn. He used to have more dimension than that. His
hot-headedness and his tendency to strike out physically as a way of solving
problems used to be interesting in the context of his character, because he
recognized these elements in his character that made him do things that were
not endearing, but now he's just smug and self-righteous, so they're just
tiresome personality characteristics.) OK--who am I supposed to be rooting for?
My instinctive sympathy is with Holden: Since Lily hasn't told him what she's
up to, he's got a perfectly good reason to be angry. But since he's been so
ridiculous lately, flying off the handle, yelling, raving, nope, can't
sympathize. Perhaps I'm to sympathize with poor Lily the misunderstood? Nope,
don't think so. She said something today about "If Holden knew I had doubts
about Simon . . ." indicating to me that her motivation for lying to Holden
(and that's exactly what she's doing, whether she tells herself otherwise or
not) is that he'd wreck her chances for finding out the answers to the big
"mystereeeeeee" about her "historeeeeeeeeeeeeeee." Sorry, hon, there's another
solution: Get tough with your hubby about his need for anger management. If you
don't like his attitude toward Simple, tell him you won't tolerate it. My
stars, you've had to do it often enough in your 15-year relationship with him.
Since Lily's choosing to be sneaky and deceptive about the whole thing instead
of confronting Holden and dealing with things, sorry, I can't be sympathetic.
If her husband doesn't trust her after catching her flirting with Simple, she's
got no one but herself to blame. So, maybe I'm supposed to root for Simple
Simon? Decidedly not. I haven't known Simon very long, what I do know about him
doesn't make him at all interesting to me, and I don't care whether he finds
his stupid diamond necklace or not. Or maybe I'm just supposed to care about
the answer to the big "mystery"? Well, I don't. I'm only mildly curious, if
that, about Lily's link to her look-alike ancestor. She never cared about her
Carpenter lineage in the entire decade since she found out about it (up until
this sudden preoccupation the last couple of months), and I'm sure that once
this plot is over with, whatever big secret she finds out will have zero
lasting impact on her life. (Go ahead, writers: surprise me on that one. Make
this story have repercussions and reverberations. I dare you. Prove me wrong.
PLEASE prove me wrong.) So I see no reason to care about this big link with her
past. Well, that about covers it, so let me reiterate: Who or what am I
supposed to be rooting for in this story? What am I supposed to be caring
about?
I think this storyline probably had potential in theory. I can see evidence
that somebody put some thought into attempting to do a story that arose out of
character and still satisfied the perceived need for plot, plot, plot. Having
conflict develop between Lily and Holden because Abigail's needs and his need
to "rescue" Katie led him to neglect Lily, Luke, and Faith was by no means a
bad idea. The problem is, it's being written almost entirely as plot, devoid of
any real depth or character exploration that might make it believable and
interesting. There's some precedent in Holden's character for wanting to be a
"rescuer" (e.g., it was almost the entire basis of his marriage to Angel Lang).
So why isn't that being explored? I might buy into Holden's need to help Katie
if I were being given any real insight into what's driving it. But no, we're
just sort of asked to accept that Holden would put Katie's needs ahead of his
family obligations. For that matter, why is Katie so attracted to Holden? I
might be more interested in her focus on him if we were being given any kind of
exploration of why she's so fixated on him. Part lover part Daddy figure, since
she grew out without a father? Fine, I'm willing to buy into it, but for
heaven's sake, explore it and give me something satisfying out of it. And
what's driving Lily's need to explore this link with her past all of a sudden,
after ten years of could-not-care-less-about-the-Carpenter-part-of-me? I might
be able to buy into that too, I am just being expected to swallow it, with no
explanation or exploration of what this means for her as a person. It's just
plot, plot, plot, and as such, it isn't especially interesting.
In one key aspect, it's frighteningly similar to the Emily-Margo-Tom debacle of
1998-99. The idea of Tom being driven to infidelity was promising on paper, but
the execution turned everybody involved into shallow caricatures and made them
thoroughly unlikable. If Margo and Tom cared as little about their marriage as
they appeared to (oh, I know, they kept *saying* they cared about the marriage,
but their behavior showed they weren't willing to fight very hard to save it),
I found no reason to care about it either. And I got no real character
exploration to show me why they were acting as they were. The same thing is at
work in this story. If Lily and Holden are going to risk their relationship so
easily, and I'm not going to get any character exploration to show me why the
issues that are threatening them are sufficiently important to them that
they'll put their relationship on the line to pursue them, why should I as a
viewer care whether they split up, stay together, die, eat dirt, or join a
circus?
The whole thing is making me tired. What I find most disheartening is that as I
said, I think somebody actually put some thought into this and tried to produce
something of interest. But it's failing miserably (in my opinion) because the
execution is so shallow and plot-driven. (As Cheryl pointed out in another
thread, Simple's acting isn't helping, but if they were making the Holden-Lily
conflict the least bit interesting, I'm betting I'd care about that a lot
less.)
Michael
Cory
sbo...@nycap.rr.com says...
> Michael, you captured the numerous reasons why I now fast forward scenes
> with Lily & Simon and many of Lily & Holden - I don't care about them.
> Thanks for a great analysis . I sincerely wish the writers, producers etc
> of ATWT would read this and act on it.
> jane
Maybe they are. Maybe TIIC are so intent on the fans NOT caring about
Lilden or destroying them because they want an excuse to write them out
without a lot of complaining from the fans (IOW, if they wreck Lilden to
the point where we don't give a damn what happens, it'll be that much
easier to write them out because maybe we'll be glad when the whole
farce is over).
--- Cory
--
The Wisconsin Badgers and their fans are the best there
is in college sports. CONGRATULATIONS to the Badger mens'
basketball team!!!!!
*REPLACE 'mindspring.edu' with 'xoommail.com' to reply*
Sal Bono & Jane Reel
with Lily & Simon and many of Lily & Holden - I don't care about them.
Thanks for a great analysis . I sincerely wish the writers, producers etc
of ATWT would read this and act on it.
jane
(deleted the original post).
Rthrquiet <rthr...@aol.com> wrote in message
David Ballarotto
this newsgroup who also watch the show..........and not a single person is
enjoying this plot line. Everyone is asking the same question that you're
asking, and the end result is no one is interested in any of it.
I hate to be blunt, but someone needs to be fired for this. This is the
most indifferent storyline I've seen in a long time. It's nice to see that
others are fast forwarding through this, because there's just nothing of
interest at all in any of this.
Rthrquiet
I suppose firing over this is a little strong, but I agree with the sentiment.
And "indifferent' is exactly the word, David--it captures perfectly the
reaction I'm having, at least so far. It's not absolutely wretched, like the
Margo-Tom-Emily stuff or (especially) the Ravid stuff, it's just . . . there.
I have a hard time going to the extreme of thinking someone should be fired
over this because as I said in the original post, I see evidence that somebody
along the way was trying to do a decent, character-based story that honored
history. But it isn't playing that way on screen.
Now when you take this in the context of the other four or five equally
indifferent storylines going on at the moment, gee, David, maybe I should
change my mind and agree with you that heads should roll. (I was going to do
another post last night about the equally indifferent Isaac-Camille-John
storyline--which was the other thing that struck me as a non-starter on
Friday's show--but I was too tired and discouraged after my Lily and Holden
post to write out my thoughts.)
I will confess, however, that I'm thinking we should get a good, emotional week
or two out of this thing with Andy. I'm looking forward to grief-stricken Kim
and also to John in full barracuda-daddy mode. And it looks to me as though Iva
might be around a while longer--and that was the only truly pleasurable thing
about the Simple storyline yesterday.
Michael
Rthrquiet
somewhere along the line it got stripped out:]
Elean95177
thing----sort of linked to the interest in Fantasy we saw when Laiman first
came on (remember Christopher-as-sheik in a tent with his nightingale,
Abigoo?---sorry--- don't try to remember it if you have the good fortune to
have forgotten it....)Anyway, I suspect we are supposed to think that this is
all very fraught with whatever Harlequin Romance novels are fraught with. The
fact that it ruins ATWT core characters isn't supposed to matter since we are
supposed to be caught up in how very Romantic it all is.
I'm rooting for Emma and Iva to debunk all the nonsense, tell Lily to get on
with her life and Holden to go tend the horse he somehow has forgotten (which
could maybe throw Simon into a ditch?)
Eleanor
Barbara Wolfe
Sal Bono & Jane Reel wrote:
> Michael, you captured the numerous reasons why I now fast forward scenes
> with Lily & Simon and many of Lily & Holden - I don't care about them.
> Thanks for a great analysis . I sincerely wish the writers, producers etc
> of ATWT would read this and act on it.
> jane
HOWEVER ... If forced to choose between watching Lily and Simon or
Holden and Katie, I'd definitely go for for the former any time. At least I
know there will be signs of an IQ over 75 and the threats of violence are
nil. I've never been a big Holden and Lily fan - I think she lost the last
vestiges of being an interesting character when she left Damien for Holden.
Somehow when she is with him, the writers seem to make her sort of dim-
witted and spiritless. My favorite incarnation of Lily was the Heather
Rattray era, when she was involved in busines. Actually, my favorite memories
of the show all are from the time when the stories either centered around, or
at least made reference to, people's work lives.
Barbara
David Ballarotto
Christopher Goutman should start handing them out otherwise he may be given
one.
The justifications for them are as follows:
1. The ratings are the worst they've been in a long time, and may be the
worst they've been in the show's history. People are turning this drivel
off in droves because......
2. There are too many storylines going on to which the audience is
indifferent. I've yet to see a single post anywhere, read anything in print
anywhere to indicate anyone is finding any satisfaction in some of the major
storylines receiving air time right now. They include
Sigh-mon/Lily/Holden/Katie. And the "mysterious" I-suck. However, if
someone were to do a cast breakdown to determine how many scenes each of
these characters has had over the last two or three weeks, I'm sure we'd
find these five characters would all come in very high in terms of
frequency. However, as the ratings would indicate, there is little fan
support for any of these.
3. The mysterious nature of these plots. As the original post asked, "Who
Am I Supposed to Root For?" No one seems to know the answer to this. I
assume we're supposed to think that Simon wants to be with Lily because he
thinks he's his great grandfather and she is his (great grandfather's
"Beloved.") Okay, if that's the case, isn't this incest? Or is he just
after a necklace? If that's the case, it certainly doesn't justify the
amount of screen time this has received.
4. Assuming a lot of thought has gone into this, that still doesn't warrant
maintaining the status quo in terms of staffing because even if a lot of
thought has gone into it, it still isn't working. Someone can put a lot of
time and energy while working as a sewing machine operator at a shirt
factory, but if the product they're turning out after a considered period of
time is still substandard, then that person has to be let go, regardless.
5. The wild inconsistencies from show to show. Some days the program is th
e best it's been in nearly ten years. Others, it's the worst it's ever
been. If the so-called "second staff" is the one turning out the enjoyable
programs, then that's the staff that should be retained. Those who've been
turning out the ones designed to create audience apathy really need to be
let go.
6. As we stated around this time last year when the problems were equally as
bad, this program belongs to the viewers who've tuned in year after year for
44 years. This program is different than other shows of this genre, in that
it's always supposed to have been steeped in reality with strong emphasis on
family. The fans of this program have repeatedly demonstrated by turning
it off that they do not want this to be a Harlequin Romance, nor do they
want it to be "One Life to Live." This program has always performed well
when it was rooted in the simple yet effective themes of family, honesty,
and consequences. No one seems to want to pursue consequences to actions
any more. Why didn't Christopher sue Holden for slander? Why are Kim and
everyone else being so forgiving of Margo for calling on Chris to be held
without bail?
These were extraordinary actions taken by these characters and it's just too
unbelievable to assume that someone would be so willing to forgive so freely
after they'd just been forced to spend some time in jail for something which
they didn't do. Margo's forgiveness is especially hard to swallow since she
and Tom only reconciled a few months ago, and it's hard to believe that a
marriage that is likely still in a fragile state would be able to handle
something like this. Of course, maybe they did have a hard time and maybe
they did argue a lot about it. The problem is, we the fans never got a
chance to see this because while it may be as obvious as the nose on your
face, it apparently never ocurred to the writers and staff to explore
something like this which a Marland, a Dobson, or a Phillips would have
seized upon for all of its value.
7. Too much time is being given to newcomers with whom the audience either
doesn't care about or whose back story was never fully established to
sustain our interest. Or else they're given questionable material to try
and thrive upon. This is the case for the actors playing Abigail, Simon,
Isaac, Bryant, Jennifer, Katie, and usually, though not always, Chris.
8. Based on the above and seeing that this current crop of writers has had
almost a year now to try and salvage a sinking ship, then there are only so
many options.
a. Maintain the status quo
b. Dismissal of those responsible for the show's plummeting in the
ratings.
c. Cancel the program.
The most viable options are either choice (b) or (c). The most feasible to
execute would be choice (b.)
Jim Gray
>I really do think pink slips are
>appropriate at this point and I
>think Christopher Goutman
>should start handing them out
>otherwise he may be given one.
The main problem being, of course, that the person most responsible for
the sinking of the good ship USS Oakdale can't be fired by Goutman.
The MADD Scientist has more control over casting, storylines, and
overall feel of the show than the exec producer or head writer(s) do.
She's run AW into the ground and is working on GL and ATWT with a
vengeance. ATWT is in worse shape than GL at the moment (although GL's
clone story last year certainly signaled a certain shakiness), and I
don't see much improvement in the near future.
Again, though, this is most easily laid at the door of MADD's office.
While Valente and Black, who took over the writing after Marland died,
were bad (think Sarah....think Zoe), that period of time was actually
good compared to what we get today, even with FakePaul sharing blank
stares of pseudo-passion with Sarah "Colorblind and Fashion-dense"
Kasnoff and Dr. Ben sniffing along behind Zoe the Airhead Supermodel
with his tongue dragging the sidewalk. And that's saying something!
While we complained (I wasn't on this board, but at the ATWT board at
AMCPages at the time), we found out just how much worse things could get
when MADD and Fluffy-Behr began their Reign of Terror (and Robespierre
would be so proud of them!) This was when Pod-Conner appeared, when
David showed up as the previously unmentioned product of a previously
unmentioned liaison between James and Lucinda (who, when they were
keeping those satin sheets on Lucy's bed warm back in the late 80's,
never once mentioned even knowing each other before they met on the
show), when Oakdale turned into the afternoon version of Ellis Island
(new characters came in by the millions...okay, slight exaggeration, but
it was an explosion of people we couldn't have cared less about even
then), and when Peeeelar was obsessing over her dead brother, the
Devil's own child...
Sorry...I tend to rant when talking about MADD. She is the Anti-Marland
and should, by all rights, have rated a verse or two in the Book of
Revelation....
Jim
..........................................
The Soapster
Rthrquiet
>The main problem being, of course, that the person most responsible for
>the sinking of the good ship USS Oakdale can't be fired by Goutman.
>
>The MADD Scientist has more control over casting, storylines, and
>overall feel of the show than the exec producer or head writer(s) do.
I think you are right; both ATWT and GL are suffering from the "too many cooks
in the kitchen" syndrome, and MAlice is the chief meddler. She said enough
things in various interviews over the years to tell me that, in particular,
she's responsible for a lot of the dumbing down that's gone on, and a lot of
the focus on "romance" instead of a good balance of stories involving the rest
of people's lives. (In particular, she thinks the typical soap viewer, which
she described in an interview as an "uneducated housewife," is not interested
in stories that involve businesses. (Never mind that the successful
intertwining of business stories with love stories made the show very popular
during the 1980s and early 1990s.) I suspect that Goutman and the writers come
up with reasonable stuff, and then MAlice tinkers with it until it becomes the
tripe we see on screen. She may not be the only culprit, but I'll bet she's the
main one.
>She's run AW into the ground and is working on GL and ATWT with a
>vengeance. ATWT is in worse shape than GL at the moment (although GL's
>clone story last year certainly signaled a certain shakiness), and I
>don't see much improvement in the near future.
No, I don't either. And given that she's now had more than three years to "fix"
the P&G shows, and in that time, one has been canceled and two have ratings
lower than when she took over, one certainly wonders why her bosses at P&G have
not fired her.
>Again, though, this is most easily laid at the door of MADD's office.
>While Valente and Black, who took over the writing after Marland died,
Small factual correction: There were two head writing teams between 1993, when
Marland died, and late 1995, when Black and Decker took over.
>were bad (think Sarah....think Zoe), that period of time was actually
>good compared to what we get today, even with FakePaul sharing blank
>stares of pseudo-passion with Sarah "Colorblind and Fashion-dense"
>Kasnoff and Dr. Ben sniffing along behind Zoe the Airhead Supermodel
>with his tongue dragging the sidewalk. And that's saying something!
I think so too, Jim, and I'm glad somebody else agrees with me. I long
maintained, during the Fluffie era, that ATWT was actually *worse* than under
Valente/Black and Decker, but I got very little support.
>While we complained (I wasn't on this board, but at the ATWT board at
>AMCPages at the time), we found out just how much worse things could get
>when MADD and Fluffy-Behr began their Reign of Terror (and Robespierre
>would be so proud of them!) This was when Pod-Conner appeared, when
>David showed up as the previously unmentioned product of a previously
>unmentioned liaison between James and Lucinda (who, when they were
>keeping those satin sheets on Lucy's bed warm back in the late 80's,
>never once mentioned even knowing each other before they met on the
>show), when Oakdale turned into the afternoon version of Ellis Island
>(new characters came in by the millions...okay, slight exaggeration, but
>it was an explosion of people we couldn't have cared less about even
>then), and when Peeeelar was obsessing over her dead brother, the
>Devil's own child...
>
>Sorry...I tend to rant when talking about MADD. She is the Anti-Marland
Jim, that's TERRIFIC. The Anti-Marland! You're killing me! Perfect. (And what
absolutely floors me is the way she and Fluffie Bear both used to say in
interviews how much they revered Marland and respected what he had done during
his time on the show--all the while systematically dismantling what was left of
the show that was a pleasant reminder of the Marland days.)
>and should, by all rights, have rated a verse or two in the Book of
>Revelation....
And yet they are near universally praised within the industry as talented,
creative people. Go figure.
Michael
chica...@nowhere.com
>
> Actually, my favorite memories of the show all are from the time
> when the stories either centered around, or at least made reference
> to, people's work lives.
>
> Barbara
I wonder if we took a poll of long term viewers, how many would
say the same thing, Barbara? I know I would, and at least 5-6
more in ratsc. I wonder about the silent fans? :)
bjw
Kelly Alise South
formed another company with Kirk as the President, Hank designing for BRO,
Iva working in a construction office, Cal actually had an oil company, the
hospital stories involved the participants at work, Hal and Margo worked on
cases that had nothing to do with family members, etc. etc...
You could look at the ratings and ATWT could be as high as 3rd or 4th some
weeks, the actors were consistently nominated for Emmies as were the writers
and the show itself. With Marland at the helm it was the best on the air at
the time.
<chica...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:38FA3479...@bellsouth.net...
Cory
rthr...@aol.com says...
> <chica...@nowhere.com> posted:]
>
> >I wonder if we took a poll of long term viewers, how many would
> >say the same thing, Barbara? I know I would, and at least 5-6
> >more in ratsc. I wonder about the silent fans? :)
>
> conduct such a poll, because they do not care about long-term viewers.
Bingo... give that man the grand prize. Thanks for playing "Why 'As The
World Turns' will never be the wonderful show it once was as long as the
current PTB are at the helm!" (alright, so it's a long title for a game
show... work with me please, gang).
> They are after what they consider to be the "next generation" of viewers (women
> 18-35 or even younger), and those of us who have been around a while (or, perish
> the thought, are *male*) are welcome to stay tuned, but they're not going to do
> anything to keep us, and our presence cannot be allowed to get in the way of
> their recasting the show to attract youthful viewers.
Aw, but why not? ;-) IOW, if we make a big enough noise to make TIIC
take notice of us... but first we gotta find a way to actually entice the
"original generation" of ATWT viewers to MAKE that noise, because a lot
of the "original generation" of ATWT viewers are tuning out in droves as
I write. They just don't care anymore.
Oddly enough, that apathy toward the long-time viewer shows in the
ratings. They are losing original viewers, and they aren't gaining
enough of the "next generation"'s viewership to make up for the viewers
they are losing. Yet they are doing nothing to make up for the lost
viewership, such as getting old fan favorites from years past (Kirk, for
example) back on-screen full-time (note that I said 'full-time', as
opposed to the recurring character garbage).
> Now, they've never come out and said that, but after a while, when you pay attention
> to the interviews that the Anti-Marland in particular gives, that's the message you get.
> Unmistakably.
Among other messages (ex: those "crazy internet fans"...)
> I'd be reasonably happy with carefully crafted, character-driven, compelling
> stories involving the teen crowd. But if Waaaaaahbigail and Chris, Katie the
> Miracle Anchor, and Bryant the Wonder Boy Day-Trader
Your characterization of Bryant made me LOL.
> are examples of what they consider compelling stories for the teen characters,
> we're in for a bleak time of it until the pendulum swings--if it ever does, and
> if the show doesn't get canceled first.
What do you mean "we're IN FOR a bleak time"?? Aren't we in the middle
of a HUGE one already?? *smirk*
> Michael
--- Cory
--
Rthrquiet
>I wonder if we took a poll of long term viewers, how many would
>say the same thing, Barbara? I know I would, and at least 5-6
>more in ratsc. I wonder about the silent fans? :)
But you've hit upon a key phrase, Barbara: "long-term viewers." TPTB will never
conduct such a poll, because they do not care about long-term viewers. They are
after what they consider to be the "next generation" of viewers (women 18-35 or
even younger), and those of us who have been around a while (or, perish the
thought, are *male*) are welcome to stay tuned, but they're not going to do
anything to keep us, and our presence cannot be allowed to get in the way of
their recasting the show to attract youthful viewers. Now, they've never come
out and said that, but after a while, when you pay attention to the interviews
that the Anti-Marland in particular gives, that's the message you get.
Unmistakably.
TPTB are really foolish and short sighted if they don't realize that a good
story is necessary to attract and keep viewers of all age groups. Much as I'd
love to see the mature characters get more air time, I'd be reasonably happy
with carefully crafted, character-driven, compelling stories involving the teen
crowd. But if Waaaaaahbigail and Chris, Katie the Miracle Anchor, and Bryant
the Wonder Boy Day-Trader are examples of what they consider compelling stories
for the teen characters, we're in for a bleak time of it until the pendulum
swings--if it ever does, and if the show doesn't get canceled first.
Michael
chica...@nowhere.com
>
> TPTB are really foolish and short sighted if they don't realize that a good
> story is necessary to attract and keep viewers of all age groups. Much as I'd
> love to see the mature characters get more air time, I'd be reasonably happy
> with carefully crafted, character-driven, compelling stories involving the teen
> crowd. But if Waaaaaahbigail and Chris, Katie the Miracle Anchor, and Bryant
> the Wonder Boy Day-Trader are examples of what they consider compelling stories
> for the teen characters, we're in for a bleak time of it until the pendulum
> swings--if it ever does, and if the show doesn't get canceled first.
ITA Michael, and I just don't understand why they think young people
don't care about storylines or acting ability. That as long as they
provide some *physically attractive* teens, that is all that matters.
Don't they realize most young people get hooked on soaps because of
someone else in their family watching? Their lives are too busy to
be seeking entertainment on daytime TV; as a rule they get sucked in
by this audience of viewers... THAT THE NETWORK wants to throw away.
Please explain that to me... :-/
bjw
chica...@nowhere.com
> Oddly enough, that apathy toward the long-time viewer shows in the
> ratings. They are losing original viewers, and they aren't gaining
> enough of the "next generation"'s viewership to make up for the viewers
> they are losing.
Because they are running off the generation of viewers that used to
introduce teens to their shows, not to mention the writing problems.
> > I'd be reasonably happy with carefully crafted, character-driven, compelling
> > stories involving the teen crowd. But if Waaaaaahbigail and Chris, Katie the
> > Miracle Anchor, and Bryant the Wonder Boy Day-Trader
>
> Your characterization of Bryant made me LOL.
Do you suppose Bryant is responsible for Friday's stock market "melt-down"??? ;)
> > are examples of what they consider compelling stories for the teen characters,
> > we're in for a bleak time of it until the pendulum swings--if it ever does, and
> > if the show doesn't get canceled first.
>
> What do you mean "we're IN FOR a bleak time"?? Aren't we in the middle
> of a HUGE one already?? *smirk*
LOL... it's kind of "blah" now... maybe headed for bleak or better? ;)
Guess it depends on MADD and the purse strings, but I am confident CG
can, and will do better... IF ALLOWED. :-/
bjw
chica...@nowhere.com
> 18-35? you gotta be kidding. They don't care about anyone over 25. New
> York magazine had an article about this just this past week - an article
> that for once told the truth - those of us in generation X might as well
> not exist.
>
> But I agree with most of what you said. The irony, to me, is that they are
> blatantly ignoring the success of Y&R and GH, both of which are extremely
> successful WITHOUT focusing 95% of the airtime on teens and new
> characters.
Isn't it amazing?!! They just totally ignore that most people who
like soaps, started watching off and on when they were YOUNG, and
they have _always_ been about *all* generations of families. And
that *continuity* of characters and families is what is most
appealing about soaps. They don't need to emulate "Baywatch" or
Melrose Place to get younger viewers. Better writing would help
immensely!
bjw
Dorothy Wayte
>This is the most indifferent storyline I've
> seen in a long time. It's nice to see that
> others are fast forwarding through this,
> because there's just nothing of interest
> at all in any of this.
You got that right David. I FF thru most of it so much I hardly know
what it is about anymore or care. Such a gross waste of our time, imo.
dw
LONNIE
chemistry between Holdumb and Lily since he married Emily. They need to
kill the Simon thing. Iva's returning reminds me of when she was on GL with
Quinton McCord.
"Dorothy Wayte" <dwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8651-38F...@storefull-142.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
toby
out of high school are suddenly running companies (which no one ever
says what they actually do -- do they do anything?) and the issues
facing them are always artificial and dumb.
The hospital stories aren't quite so bad -- John Dixon and his
shenanigans, for instance.
MHO only.
toby.
On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 17:45:29 -0400, chica...@nowhere.com wrote:
>Barbara Wolfe wrote:
>>
>> Actually, my favorite memories of the show all are from the time
>> when the stories either centered around, or at least made reference
>> to, people's work lives.
>>
>> Barbara
>
>I wonder if we took a poll of long term viewers, how many would
>say the same thing, Barbara? I know I would, and at least 5-6
>more in ratsc. I wonder about the silent fans? :)
>
>bjw
TM Wheaton
my all time favorite storylines was when Connor and Evan took
over Walsh Enterprises from Lucinda. No teenagers here! But
lots of nail biting tension waiting for Lu to realize that the
lovely young lady she'd taken under her wing was actually out to
steal her company while at the same time watching Connor struggle
with admiring and liking Lucinda while trying to get her
grandfather's company back. OOOh, I still get chills thinking
about the revelation in the stockholder's meeting. That was great
drama.
And I liked the competition between M&A, Worldwide and Walsh.
And I loved how everyone had a private jet. Admittedly, I don't
remember exactly what services and/or products M&A, Worldwide and
Walsh provided exactly, but it was fun while it was happening.
sigh.
Tina (from NY)
JBrit4848
M&A, Worldwide and Walsh provided exactly, but it was fun while it was
happening.>
They did marketing...introducing new products, creating corporate images, etc.
And yes, the business-related plots were some of the most exciting, IMO. Now,
we have previous-powerhouse females like Lucinda playing second-fiddle to
Jake-the-editor, and Lisa, fluttering her eyelashes and twirling her feather
boa at a Generation X thug. What utter garbage!
William Cox
142.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, dwa...@webtv.net (Dorothy Wayte)
wrote:
>Hey. why don't we take our own poll just for the fun of it on
this
>board. See how many feel that ATWT is going down. Losing their
long
>time viewers/fans. I don't care if TPTB read it or not. I for
one, am
>just curious to know. Anyway, you can put me at the top of the
list.
>Right now the show is the most boring it has ever been, imo. I
say TIIC
>better do something and fast!!! What do the rest of you think.?
>dw
I posted the following message in two threads on Cheryl's "Soaps
R Hard 2 Digest" board. One thread had to do with P&G wanting
to get out of the soaps business, the other had to do with the
Beth Ehlers (Harley, GL) situation:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In all fairness to P&G, AW's downturn really began under the
leadership of Charlotte Savitz, an executive producer handpicked
by NBC (do you smell a rat?). I hadn't watched AW since the
late '70's, but it was always my understanding that NBC wanted
AW to be more like DOOL, and do DOOL-type stories. NBC wanted to
attract the demographic that watches DOOL to AW.
Unfortunately, AW was never that type of show historically.
Instead of attracting new viewers they alienated longtime ones.
But, according to Linda Dano, it wouldn't have mattered what
TPTB did at AW. NBC wanted the show off their schedule so they
could have that time period for Passions (which NBC owns BTW),
so that it would directly follow DOOL in most of the country.
Why else would NBC cancel a show that was not the lowest rated
of its soaps?
As far as what is going on with ATWT and GL, CBS has also been
doing some "butting in" of its own. I haven't read if CBS has
interfered with ATWT in any way, but it has been stated in many
places that GL's "Cloning Reva" storyline was the brainchild of
a CBS programming executive, as was the San Cristobel storyline
and the Macauley West storyline from several years ago.
The problems with all of these storylines have been in their
execution. Rauch & Co. could have done great things with Cleva,
because cloning is a reality and not science fiction, but they
made it so campy (again because CBS wanted a DOOL-type
storyline) that it became just a complete farce. The San
Cristobel storyline was just given too much prominence, and the
viewers got sick of it.
Also, all of the soaps are down nearly 1 full rating point from
what they were a year ago. Y&R was pulling 6.7 - 7.0, and lately
it hasn't even reached 6.0. B&B, which was averaging 4.7-4.9,
has been running 3.9 - 4.1. Even though it's overall ratings are
the lowest of the four CBS soaps, GL tends to always come in 2nd
behind Y&R in the important demographic rating. So, it leaves
the execs at CBS in a quandry.
All of that being said, P&G does need to do some work on both
ATWT & GL. The problem I see is that Mary Alice Dwyer-Dobbin, in
addition to her major errors in judgment regarding the actors on
her shows, has pinched pennies so much she has rubbed the
whiskers off of Abe Lincoln's face. I understand that she needed
to make P&G Productions a leaner, more efficient operation. But,
at the same time, you have to pony up the money to pay for
quality talent.
When MADD was hired by P&G, she hired folks she was familiar
with from her days at ABC (FMB at AMC and Rauch at OLTL). That's
standard practice in any industry: to create an executive team
of people you know and trust with whom you know you can work.
Rauch showed he can rally the troops, with the storyline
surrounding Annie, Reva and the trial in the summer of '97. FMB
greatly improved upon the previous regime of Valente/Stern &
Black.
Therein lies the crux. The problem has been that TPTB have tried
to make both of these shows more ABC like. Of course, this isn't
true to the history of either show. Also, they have tended to
focus only on two storylines at a time: A primary story getting
the bulk of the air time, and then a secondary one that is
prominent but maybe shown two to three times a week. Both types
of stories (with hopes of attracting the desired demographic)
have tended to focus solely on new, younger characters, with
veterans providing occasional support. As a result, they have
alienated core viewers rather than attracting new ones.
And, let's face it, the writing just isn't up to par. The ideal
pace, to me, would be several WELL-WRITTEN stories, each given
equal air time, that are multi-generational in scope. Stories
that utilize everyone from the newest cast member to the longest
running member. And, stories that are true to the histories of
the show.
If I were in the positiion to do anything about it, I would
rehire Laurence Caso as an Executive Producer, pair him with
Claire & Matt Labine as head writers, but put them at the helm
of GL. I would get rid of the current head writers at ATWT and
get Nancy Curlee to come out of retirement. I would reteam Nancy
with her husband, Stephen Demorest, possibly add one additional
person, and let them see what they can do with Oakdale. It might
be easier to put Caso back at ATWT and Curlee/Demorest back at
GL, but this might be the fresh approach these shows need.
Since all of the Soaps are losing ground, I don't think the
answer to the problem is to cancel existing shows in favor of
new ones. A new soap isn't necessarily going to sustain or
improve upon the ratings of a predecessor. Look at Passions, it
has never pulled a 2.0, and AW almost always scored a 2.5 or
higher. People are finding a lot of other things to do with
their time rather than taping and/or watching the soaps. The
best thing all of the networks can do is keep their existing
shows, but do everything possible to make each show the absolute
best that it can be.
Time will tell if the suits will listen. But, if both ATWT & GL
are given the ax, it will end my more than 20 years of soap
viewership. I have tried watching the other soaps, but they have
never sustained my interest.
Bill
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
cka...@erinet.com
>In article <38FF6DC3...@cas.syr.edu>, TM Wheaton wrote:
>>toby wrote:
>>>
>>> Not me! The "business" stories are too stupid for words. Kids barely
>>> out of high school are suddenly running companies (which no one ever
>>> says what they actually do -- do they do anything?)
Remember nuPaul and Sarah Kasnoff. There was a business couple to
barf for.
Cheryl 8-0
queenmother
<18282-38...@storefull-142.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>Hey. why don't we take our own poll just for the fun of it on this
>board. See how many feel that ATWT is going down.
Okay, but how about if you add a header so not all of us have to deal with a
thread that will only get longer? Thanks.
~~Judy
~~Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
Cory
says...
Or you could do it yourself, but since Outlook Express has that stupid
little header problem that we all know and have bitched about until we're
blue in the face (*hint hint*), it'll probably get stripped anyway.
Rthrquiet
>In all fairness to P&G, AW's downturn really began under the
>leadership of Charlotte Savitz, an executive producer handpicked
>by NBC (do you smell a rat?).
If you really want to get down to it, AW's demise began in 1978, when the
ratings dipped a little and TPTB lost faith in the writing of Harding Lemay,
despite the fact that Lemay had kept the ratings high for a number of years
prior to that, and then expanded the show to 90 minutes when its ratings were
on the downturn. AW's ratings never really recovered, even after the show
returned to a 60-minute format. And then the parade of ExecuProds, headwriters,
and other staff throughout the 80s and 90s didn't help. Savitz and the
Anti-Marland just put the final nails in the coffin. I think AW could have been
saved if the Anti-Marland had come up with an approach to saving the show that
drew on its strengths and history instead of stripping it of veteran
performers, thinning out the stories, and parading a number of pretty newcomers
with weak acting skills in front of us.
>I hadn't watched AW since the
>late '70's, but it was always my understanding that NBC wanted
>AW to be more like DOOL, and do DOOL-type stories. NBC wanted to
>attract the demographic that watches DOOL to AW.
That was really only the case once DOOL started making ratings progress in the
mid-1990s. Prior to that, I think there was less pressure to make AW into a
DOOL clone, because DOOL's ratings didn't justify it.
>Unfortunately, AW was never that type of show historically.
>Instead of attracting new viewers they alienated longtime ones.
>But, according to Linda Dano, it wouldn't have mattered what
>TPTB did at AW. NBC wanted the show off their schedule so they
>could have that time period for Passions (which NBC owns BTW),
>so that it would directly follow DOOL in most of the country.
>Why else would NBC cancel a show that was not the lowest rated
>of its soaps?
I buy all of that, but none of it changes my contention that had MADD come in
with real, workable ideas, insisted on replacing the EP, and addressed the
show's problems, the show's ratings could have gone on the upswing (the loyal
core viewership was always potentially there, just waiting--begging,
practically--to be lured back), making it awfully difficult for NBC to justify
cancelling it. It still left a bitter taste in many people's mouths that NBC
cancelled a show that was not its lowest-rated, but it was also hard to make a
real argument that AW's ratings had shown enough growth to make it a promising
candidate for strong ratings in the future. (Most any viewer knew it, but there
was no evidence that P&G could point to in terms of solid ratings growth.) Of
course, I do take a certain wicked pleasure in the fact that Passions hasn't
yet, even in its best week, equaled the lowest rating that AW ever got.
Bwahahahahahahahahaha! Take that, NBC.
>As far as what is going on with ATWT and GL, CBS has also been
>doing some "butting in" of its own. I haven't read if CBS has
>interfered with ATWT in any way, but it has been stated in many
>places that GL's "Cloning Reva" storyline was the brainchild of
>a CBS programming executive, as was the San Cristobel storyline
>and the Macauley West storyline from several years ago.
To quote the Anti-Marland herself (well, I'll paraphrase, actually, since I
don't have the article anymore): The networks only butt in when there's a
leadership vacuum with the shows. Not kidding, she actually said that, in
Michael Logan's column in TV Guide, at about the time she took over the P&G
soaps. She continued confidently by predicting that once she exerted her
leadership skills, the networks (at that time, it was both CBS and NBC, because
AW was still on the air) would regain their confidence that P&G knew best and
would stop interfering. So if CBS is continuing to interfere (and my
understanding is that they do interfere with ATWT as well as GL; for example,
Fluffie had a very hard time getting her storyline ideas approved), it must be
because they don't have faith in the Anti-Marland and the staff she has put in
place to guide the two shows.
>The problems with all of these storylines have been in their
>execution.
And that's true a lot, even now, don't you think? It's certainly still a real
problem at ATWT. I suspect it is directly related to the Anti-Marland's
decision to stop paying for long-term story.
>Rauch & Co. could have done great things with Cleva,
>because cloning is a reality and not science fiction, but they
>made it so campy (again because CBS wanted a DOOL-type
>storyline) that it became just a complete farce. The San
>Cristobel storyline was just given too much prominence, and the
>viewers got sick of it.
>
>Also, all of the soaps are down nearly 1 full rating point from
>what they were a year ago. Y&R was pulling 6.7 - 7.0, and lately
>it hasn't even reached 6.0. B&B, which was averaging 4.7-4.9,
>has been running 3.9 - 4.1. Even though it's overall ratings are
>the lowest of the four CBS soaps, GL tends to always come in 2nd
>behind Y&R in the important demographic rating.
It's been a while since TV Guide has posted actual ratings, rather than
Reiner's wimpy summary, so I don't have information more recent than, say, 6
months ago, but that wasn't true as of then. B&B was always second among the
CBS soaps in the youth demographic, though well behind Y&R, and ATWT and GL
were at the bottom of the pack save the newest soaps, with GL barely beating
ATWT in the key demos.
> So, it leaves
>the execs at CBS in a quandry.
>
>All of that being said, P&G does need to do some work on both
>ATWT & GL. The problem I see is that Mary Alice Dwyer-Dobbin, in
>addition to her major errors in judgment regarding the actors on
>her shows, has pinched pennies so much she has rubbed the
>whiskers off of Abe Lincoln's face. I understand that she needed
>to make P&G Productions a leaner, more efficient operation. But,
>at the same time, you have to pony up the money to pay for
>quality talent.
>When MADD was hired by P&G, she hired folks she was familiar
>with from her days at ABC (FMB at AMC and Rauch at OLTL). That's
>standard practice in any industry: to create an executive team
>of people you know and trust with whom you know you can work.
>Rauch showed he can rally the troops, with the storyline
>surrounding Annie, Reva and the trial in the summer of '97. FMB
>greatly improved upon the previous regime of Valente/Stern &
>Black.
Whoa, whoa, WHOA. No way. I'll agree with you about Rauch and the Annie story,
but not about Fluffie. Her three years in Oakdale were no better than
Valente/Black and Decker, and in some ways were far, far worse. If you are
going to credit her with any improvement at all, the phrase you want is
"improved, but only minimally," not "greatly improved."
>Therein lies the crux. The problem has been that TPTB have tried
>to make both of these shows more ABC like.
Not just ABC like, but 1980s ABC like. The approach is not only inappropriate
to the P&G shows, it's outdated. Even ABC isn't doing now what it was doing in
the 1980s.
>Of course, this isn't
>true to the history of either show. Also, they have tended to
>focus only on two storylines at a time: A primary story getting
>the bulk of the air time, and then a secondary one that is
>prominent but maybe shown two to three times a week. Both types
>of stories (with hopes of attracting the desired demographic)
>have tended to focus solely on new, younger characters, with
>veterans providing occasional support. As a result, they have
>alienated core viewers rather than attracting new ones.
On that, I agree with you wholeheartedly. If the Anti-Marland could point to
any ratings success within the key demographic with her strategies, I'd at
least understand why the shows were continuing with those same strategies. But
they haven't attracted any more young viewers, at least not substantial
numbers, and overall viewership is way down--it's been three years, why are
they not seeing that this strategy has not work, does not work, and is not
likely to work?
>And, let's face it, the writing just isn't up to par. The ideal
>pace, to me, would be several WELL-WRITTEN stories, each given
>equal air time, that are multi-generational in scope. Stories
>that utilize everyone from the newest cast member to the longest
>running member. And, stories that are true to the histories of
>the show.
In other words, the kinds of stories the P&G soaps used to excel at, with
writers like Marland, Curlee, Lemay . . .
>If I were in the positiion to do anything about it, I would
>rehire Laurence Caso as an Executive Producer, pair him with
>Claire & Matt Labine as head writers, but put them at the helm
>of GL. I would get rid of the current head writers at ATWT and
>get Nancy Curlee to come out of retirement. I would reteam Nancy
>with her husband, Stephen Demorest, possibly add one additional
>person, and let them see what they can do with Oakdale. It might
>be easier to put Caso back at ATWT and Curlee/Demorest back at
>GL, but this might be the fresh approach these shows need.
I'd certainly watch any show written by the Labines or Curlee. GL under Curlee
was phenomenally good most of the time.
>Since all of the Soaps are losing ground, I don't think the
>answer to the problem is to cancel existing shows in favor of
>new ones. A new soap isn't necessarily going to sustain or
>improve upon the ratings of a predecessor. Look at Passions, it
>has never pulled a 2.0,
Yes it has, actually. It's been as high as 2.1.
>and AW almost always scored a 2.5 or
>higher. People are finding a lot of other things to do with
>their time rather than taping and/or watching the soaps. The
>best thing all of the networks can do is keep their existing
>shows, but do everything possible to make each show the absolute
>best that it can be.
>
>Time will tell if the suits will listen. But, if both ATWT & GL
>are given the ax, it will end my more than 20 years of soap
>viewership. I have tried watching the other soaps, but they have
>never sustained my interest.
I've watched most of them at one time or the other, but if the current trend
continues, and in particular if somebody doesn't rediscover the idea that THE
WRITING MATTERS (and I'd better add, THE ACTING MATTERS), I don't see much
likelihood that the soaps will be holding much interest for me in the future
either. And like you, I've been watching a long time (25 years or so).
Michael
Dorothy Wayte
>Okay, but how about if you add a header
> so not all of us have to deal with a
> thread that will only get longer? Thanks.
>~~Judy
Ok, I'll give it a try. Here goes:-
1. Do you like ATWT as it is being written today, and why?
2. Do you think ATWT is failing miserably and are you losing interest in
it , and why? Is it because there is not enough of the show's rich
history, too many new characters , too many teen storylines? If this
trend continues, will you quit watching it?
My answer: #2
dw
Cruisin'Babs
> Or you could do it yourself, but since Outlook Express has that stupid
> little header problem that we all know and have bitched about until we're
> blue in the face (*hint hint*), it'll probably get stripped anyway.
>
> --- Cory
(This is NOT directed at you Cory, or anyone in particular, so don't take it
personal :) )
Or could we find some more serious things to bitch about than whether or not
the header is on, or whether or not we have signatures, or the newest bitch,
where are post are, top or bottom. Sheesh, we are all human and make
mistakes. I thought this was a friendly news group, but everyone is so
damned picky about good and bad "Netiquette". I mean if we want to talk
about good Netiquette, then what is yelling at someone about
headers,signatures, and where freakin' posts are? Is that GOOD Netiquette??
Sheesh, if we want to get really picky, I am probably not displaying good
netiquette right now, huh?? OH WELL! Life goes on, get over it already! Lets
have fun! Can't we all just get along? <------I know bad joke.. :)
--HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND! AND A HAPPY EASTER!
:)Laurie
DonnaB
rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs netizen dwa...@webtv.net (Dorothy
Wayte) danced over to the MC with a note that said:
| Ok, I'll give it a try. Here goes:-
|
| 1. Do you like ATWT as it is being written today, and why?
Yes, because I think it's so much better than it was a year
ago & has worked hard & patiently to solve certain problems
that are now out of the way.
| 2. Do you think ATWT is failing miserably and are you losing interest in
| it , and why? Is it because there is not enough of the show's rich
| history, too many new characters , too many teen storylines? If this
| trend continues, will you quit watching it?
And, if you choose #2, I personally would be interested in
what you thought about it a year ago.
--
DonnaB <*> BA*RF GAG, RATSFuzz, CCWF, MPW, LGAW, GRITS,
SWATCHr, ARIAA, SAMC/TINC ICQ: 308592 AIM: ShallotPeel 8^>
http://www.delphi.com/soapopera
"It is the ability to choose which makes us human." -
Madeleine L'Engle (Walking on Water)
toby
wrote:
>In article <38FF6DC3...@cas.syr.edu>, TM Wheaton wrote:
>>toby wrote:
>>>
>>> Not me! The "business" stories are too stupid for words. .[snip]
>>>
>>Not me! I loved the way ATWT told the business stories. [snip]
>
>I got the feeling Toby was referring to the *current* business stories, not
>the ones that were so well-told about 8-10 years ago. Tina, I agree
>wholeheartedly with you about those.
No, actually I never liked any of them. The present takeover on Y&R
is the one exception I can think of, and that's because of the
conflict within the GVN, wanting to Get Jack, yet not wanting to hurt
Ashley.
I think where soaps are the best medium is for long stories of real
characters in real situations, particularly those where there's no
easy answer. That's why I like the Abigail/Chris story -- Chris was a
nitwit, but grew up a lot when he fell for Abigail -- but he'd made a
major booboo messing around with Molly -- does that make him
terminally evil? no, it doesn't. yet I can see how Abigail would be
upset.
Or Andy marrying Denise and wanting to make a real life, yet she wants
her real life with Ben. That's a real, human, understandable, no
easy-answers situation.
toby.
David Ballarotto
>
> 1. Do you like ATWT as it is being written today, and why?
>
> it , and why? Is it because there is not enough of the show's rich
> history, too many new characters , too many teen storylines? If this
> trend continues, will you quit watching it?
>
My answer is somewhere between the two. On some days, it is almost as good
as I can remember in terms of dealing with simple, human plot elements. Too
often, though, the other story lines are just plain uninteresting.
The strange thing is, every time I say I'm going to shut it off for good,
something of interest actually does happened. I liked the Hughes/Dixon
scenes over Andy, and found the scenes with Abigail, Jake and others around
Molly in her hospital bed were also pretty good.
But then why would they spend so much time on this Simon and the Diamond
storyline? This was quite a build-up for something of little interest.
I think the stuff with Bryant and the other teens could be better
written. This really isn't at all interesting, either.
My solution, is to ditch the current head writing team and promote the
team handling the scenes with the Kim, Bob, Denise, Andy, John and Tom and
Margo (and today's scene with Margo saying good bye to Casey shows they DO
at times understand what the show is supposed to be.)
Dorothy Wayte
Cyndi Glass wrote:-
>You've written a very slanted poll,
> assuming that this trend does in fact
> exist (why even ask us if we think it
> does when your poll is constructed as if
> it does?).
You are right Cyndi, after rereading my so called poll, I see what you
mean, kind of redundant 'cause this is what we have been discussing for
a good while and it does seem like I would like you to believe what I
do. Didn't mean to do that. :)
Anyway, no big deal. It's just that I have been watching this soap for
most of my life and I'm here to say, it is nothing today compared to
what a great soap it used to be years ago.
I was curious to know how many like the show today and how many wish it
was more like it was in the 60's, 70's and even the 80's.then I would
tabulate the responses and give the results later. Like I said no big
deal. I guess so many of you are too young to remember those good ole
years, anyway :)
dw
Barbara Wolfe
Tim Kynerd wrote:
> In article <TcAAOVvfVYJnQi...@4ax.com>, toby wrote:
>
> >I think where soaps are the best medium is for long stories of real
> >characters in real situations, particularly those where there's no
> >easy answer.
But this can encompass the characters' work lives as well -
I personally have a lot going on at work that doesn't involve dry business
dealings; one of my best friends there recently died, my favorite super-
visor in 36 years of working retired, people get promoted and there is
jealousy and so on. The vast majority of people 18 and older have some
sort of work life and it just doesn't seem right that we don't get to see
that facet of the ATWT characters' lives as well. Besides, the stories
don't have to be centered around their jobs - most of Lucinda's didn't
but we still saw her at work most days. I just want to have that
incorporated into the show at times when it isn't part of the plot.
> I understand what you're saying (I hope), but I think that developing these
> kinds of stories ("real, human, understandable, no easy answers") in a
> business context, *in addition to* the more traditional family conflicts, is
> something ATWT used to be good at.
Exactly! I remember Lily and Emily running their consulting firm.
(for those who asked what all these companies did - at first Walsh and
Worldwide did all sorts of things, then when these two started their firm,
that's all they did. I used to wonder if anyone in a 200 square mile radius
of Oakdale could manage their own business without help, since they kept
these three companies going.) There was personal and corporate intrigue,
not just love lives and more love lives.
Barbar
Tim Kynerd
>wrote:
>
>>In article <38FF6DC3...@cas.syr.edu>, TM Wheaton wrote:
>>>toby wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not me! The "business" stories are too stupid for words. .[snip]
>>>>
>>>Not me! I loved the way ATWT told the business stories. [snip]
>>
>>I got the feeling Toby was referring to the *current* business stories, not
>>the ones that were so well-told about 8-10 years ago. Tina, I agree
>>wholeheartedly with you about those.
>
>No, actually I never liked any of them. The present takeover on Y&R
>is the one exception I can think of, and that's because of the
>conflict within the GVN, wanting to Get Jack, yet not wanting to hurt
>Ashley.
>
>characters in real situations, particularly those where there's no
>nitwit, but grew up a lot when he fell for Abigail -- but he'd made a
>major booboo messing around with Molly -- does that make him
>terminally evil? no, it doesn't. yet I can see how Abigail would be
>upset.
>
>Or Andy marrying Denise and wanting to make a real life, yet she wants
>her real life with Ben. That's a real, human, understandable, no
>easy-answers situation.
I understand what you're saying (I hope), but I think that developing these
kinds of stories ("real, human, understandable, no easy answers") in a
business context, *in addition to* the more traditional family conflicts, is
something ATWT used to be good at.
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden tky...@my-deja.com
Sunrise in Stockholm today: 5:16
Sunset in Stockholm today: 20:15
cka...@erinet.com
>1. Do you like ATWT as it is being written today, and why?
>2. Do you think ATWT is failing miserably and are you losing interest in
>it , and why? Is it because there is not enough of the show's rich
>history, too many new characters , too many teen storylines? If this
>trend continues, will you quit watching it?
>
>My answer: #2
>dw
I think a third question would be about the quality of talent hired by
TPTB. Somy new characters are talented actors, and some are
models/pretty faces that can strike a pose but not act. For example,
I still have some tapes of when Michael Park was a new character, and
it is obvious that he can act. But whoever-it-is playing Simon is
not, IMHO, a very good actor. If this 'beloved' story had a more
talented actor involved, I might enjoy it more.
Cheryl 8-0
Cheryl 8-0
toby
wrote:
>
>
>Tim Kynerd wrote:
>
>> In article <TcAAOVvfVYJnQi...@4ax.com>, toby wrote:
>>
>> >I think where soaps are the best medium is for long stories of real
>> >characters in real situations, particularly those where there's no
>> >easy answer.
>
> But this can encompass the characters' work lives as well -
>I personally have a lot going on at work that doesn't involve dry business
>dealings;
oh, it can, it can. And I'm sorry for your recent loss. But the
difference is that you and the folks you work with know what you're
doing there, and presumably most of you are reasonably qualified to do
what you're doing. Whereas on soaps, the biz chaqracters are
uneducated, oblivious to real biz issues, and the businesses
themselves are simply "business." Big business, to boot, albeit
centered in the backwater towns of soapdom. It's just too silly.
one of my best friends there recently died, my favorite super-
>visor in 36 years of working retired, people get promoted and there is
>jealousy and so on. The vast majority of people 18 and older have some
>sort of work life and it just doesn't seem right that we don't get to see
>that facet of the ATWT characters' lives as well.
It would be just fine if the people were doing real jobs like real
people do, at reasonable levels for who they are. But that's not
terribly Significant, I guess.
Besides, the stories
>don't have to be centered around their jobs - most of Lucinda's didn't
>but we still saw her at work most days.
Yeah, that's another of my beefs. Many characters are at work often
when we see them, but it never seems to matter if they get interrupted
by their friends/relatives/enemies to talk about matters that have no
significance to the workplace. Whose job is so free with their time
as that? none I ever held...
But you're absolutely right that people do work, and they should be
shown doing that.
I just want to have that
>incorporated into the show at times when it isn't part of the plot.
And that I can go along with happily.
>
>> I understand what you're saying (I hope), but I think that developing these
>> kinds of stories ("real, human, understandable, no easy answers") in a
>> business context, *in addition to* the more traditional family conflicts, is
>> something ATWT used to be good at.
>
> Exactly! I remember Lily and Emily running their consulting firm.
>(for those who asked what all these companies did - at first Walsh and
>Worldwide did all sorts of things, then when these two started their firm,
>that's all they did. I used to wonder if anyone in a 200 square mile radius
>of Oakdale could manage their own business without help, since they kept
>these three companies going.)
That's my point exactly! here are these young ladies, barely out of
their teens, suddenly helping all the big guys to run their companies.
Now if they made them some kind of specific consulting firm -- design,
say, just to pick as aspect where they wouldn't be so completely out
of their element -- that would be fine. But overall management
consulting? get real.
There was personal and corporate intrigue,
>not just love lives and more love lives.
fine with me when it rings true. It just doesn't, very often.
>
>Barbar
thanks for the conversation.
toby.
William Cox
Rating for w/e April 14, 2000
Soap: Overall Rating/Demographic Rating
Young & Restless: 5.7/3.0
General Hospital: 4.4/3.1
Bold & Beautiful: 4.2/2.2
Days of Our Lives: 4.1/2.5
All My Children: 3.9/2.9
As The World Turns: 3.7/1.9
One Life to Live: 3.5/2.8
Guiding Light: 3.4/1.8
Port Charles: 2.1/1.2
Passions: 1.8/1.2
Rating for w/e April 7, 2000
Young & Restless: 5.6/2.7
General Hospital: 4.3/3.1
Days of Our Lives: 4.1/2.5
Bold & Beautiful: 4.1/2.0
All My Children: 3.7/2.9
As The World Turns: 3.5/2.0
One Life To Live: 3.4/2.6
Guiding Light: 3.2/1.9
Port Charles: 2.0/1.2
Passions: 1.8/1.2
URL for Cheryl's Board:
http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb694454
chica...@nowhere.com
> Tim Kynerd wrote:
> > In article <TcAAOVvfVYJnQi...@4ax.com>, toby wrote:
> > >I think where soaps are the best medium is for long stories of real
> > >characters in real situations, particularly those where there's no
> > >easy answer.
>
> But this can encompass the characters' work lives as well -
> I personally have a lot going on at work that doesn't involve dry business
> visor in 36 years of working retired, people get promoted and there is
> jealousy and so on. The vast majority of people 18 and older have some
> sort of work life and it just doesn't seem right that we don't get to see
> don't have to be centered around their jobs - most of Lucinda's didn't
> incorporated into the show at times when it isn't part of the plot.
ITA Barbara, since most of us spend as much of our lives working as we do
"socializing or following our dreams". Showing all aspects of their lives
gives them more storyline opportunities as you've pointed out. I'm sorry
to hear about your friend, and know exactly what you mean about the ties
to people you work with. My long term friendships on two jobs I held over
12 yrs, are what made me so empathetic to the AW employees that had spent so
much of their work lives on that show. Thinking about the bonds they had
to each other, they were about to lose. :-/ I think it is a real waste
that TPTB can't seem to recognize the material for good story telling in
the *daytime* lives of people.
> > I understand what you're saying (I hope), but I think that developing these
> > kinds of stories ("real, human, understandable, no easy answers") in a
> > business context, *in addition to* the more traditional family conflicts, is
> > something ATWT used to be good at.
It sure did; unless I am remembering only what I liked, most of their stories
had many view points, none totally good vs evil. As we all keep saying, it
was more like life... period. You struggle, you win some and you lose some. ;)
> Exactly! <> There was personal and corporate intrigue,
> not just love lives and more love lives.
>
> Barbar
And.... "fantasies" of love lives to boot. ;-D Those people have to give
it a rest some time... don't they? ;)
bjw
Debbie
Remember nuPaul and Sarah Kasnoff. There was a business couple to
barf for.
Debbie
Soap Suds
Crimson_Ligh...@egroups.com
Cafe_Russe...@egroups.com
Java_Undergro...@egroups.com
Boarding_Hou...@egroups.com
Debbie
Ok, I'll give it a try. Here goes:-
1. Do you like ATWT as it is being written today, and why?
2. Do you think ATWT is failing miserably and are you losing interest in
it , and why? Is it because there is not enough of the show's rich
history, too many new characters , too many teen storylines? If this
trend continues, will you quit watching it?
I know it sounds strange...but a little of both. There are PARTS of ATWT that I think are being very well-written. There are also PARTS of ATWT that I think really stink. I would never, however, quit watching. Too many of the characters are like family to me.
What I like: I like the way we're seeing more of the veterans...such as Bob, Kim and Susan.
What I DON'T like: I don't like the way that so many more of the veterans are rarely seen at all...such as Lisa and Emma. And where in the world is CAL???
What I like: Most of the characters. I LOVE Jake. It doesn't matter who he's with...he lights up the screen. It's the same thing with Jack. I've read a lot of debate about whether he should be with Carly or Julia...and quite frankly, I am stuck in the middle. I like both couples. I like Jack/Carly AND Jack/Julia. Jake is the same way. I would like to see Jake/Molly, but I'd also like to see Jake/Julia.
I also like Bryant. I like Isaac. I would really like to see a Camille/Isaac/John triangle. I like the veterans. All of them. I wish we could see more of them. I like Christopher. Like I said, I like MOST of the characters...which brings me to:
What I DON'T like: Emily, Henry or Katie. Enough said.
What I like: As far as storylines, I am enjoying the Beloved storyline...even though I DON'T like Simon. I am enjoying the MIA Andy story. I am enjoying the Bryant/Jennifer stuff. I LOVED the scenes at the benefit between them and Hal. I liked the stalker story, even though I DON'T like Katie...and I like the Tom/Emily custody battle that's brewing...even though I DON'T like Emily.
There are definitely things that I would like to see TPTB do differently, but then again...there are a LOT of things I'd like to give them credit for.
cka...@erinet.com
>Yeah, that's another of my beefs. Many characters are at work often
>when we see them, but it never seems to matter if they get interrupted
>by their friends/relatives/enemies to talk about matters that have no
>significance to the workplace. Whose job is so free with their time
>as that? none I ever held...
This gripes me too. They just drop whatever they're doing to react to
someone who shows up at their office. Then they take off, tell the
boss they're leaving, and out they go. Can you imagine doing that in
real life?
>That's my point exactly! here are these young ladies, barely out of
>their teens, suddenly helping all the big guys to run their companies.
I don't like this either. It sends a message that a young person can
rise to the top with little education or experience. Even if they
start at the bottom, they're at the top within a week or too. The
funniest instance of that I ever saw was on GL when Rick Bauer became
a doctor in a few weeks. At least on ATWT people keep saying that
Camille is in an 'accelerated program' which I interpret to mean that
she too will be a full-fledged doctor before summer's over.
Cheryl 8-0
Barbara Wolfe
you point out how preposterous the careers most of these people
have are, but then again, how many of us have had previously
unknown children show up out of the blue? Not just the men, but
the women! Or been married 4 times before we are 30? Or been
kidnapped every 3 or4 years? Okay, so I've been robbed at gun point
and mugged a few times, had a couple of bags taken from me, but I
live in a large city, not Oakdale.
I think my jaded take on the whole thing is that so much of the show
is unrealistic anyway, why not expand the plots to cover improbable work
lives as well as the improbable personal ones.
Barbara
toby wrote:
>
> fine with me when it rings true. It just doesn't, very often.
> >
> >Barbara
>
> thanks for the conversation.
>
> toby.
Toby, I th
David Ballarotto
my own (as opposed to being familiar with the show because my mother always
watched it) Holden had been working as a consultant at Walsh Enterprises
with no background whatsoever. Linc got to wear jeans because he was a
"liason"....go figure.
A lot of it was unrealistic, but at least it was usually interesting.
I can also recall Kelly on Santa Barbara picking up a pencil and pad of
paper and the next thing you knew she was an artist. And Eden suddenly
became a TV anchor. Or was that Katie on ATWT?
I think it was also unrealistic as to how Lucinda was able to just start
her own company after the Connor ouster. At first it started off as
realistic and was important in terms of bonding Lily and Lucinda at a
critical time. But the next thing you knew, Worldwide was no longer a
struggling company. And I also recall the unrealistic scene where Lucinda
gave Kirk "a company" for a wedding gift when he married Sam.
Cory
says...
> I sort of agree with a lot of this.
A lot of what? Gang, when posting, PLEASE try to include a little of the
previous post, so that we can follow along better. I'm not flaming or
anything here, because I've not included previous posts when I probably
should have before, also. I'm more or less just pointing this out as a
reminder (even to myself). It's also true that we can go back to the
previous post on our own, but it's a lot less of a PITA not to have to.
OTOH, you don't want to see a 1,000 line post that more or less just
reposts the entire previous post, either.
> I remember when I started watching on
> my own (as opposed to being familiar with the show because my mother always
> watched it) Holden had been working as a consultant at Walsh Enterprises
> with no background whatsoever.
Kinda like he's doing now as a station manager (or whatever the hell he
is) without any college courses or a degree or anything, right? I also
find it REALLY hilarious, just like a lot of other people in the NG, that
Katie is Oakdale's On-Air Sensation without ever having gone to
broadcasting school or anything. This show has been famous for giving
people instant jobs without the right training, but a lot of shows have
probably done the same exact thing, also.
<snip...>
> I can also recall Kelly on Santa Barbara picking up a pencil and pad of
> paper and the next thing you knew she was an artist. And Eden suddenly
> became a TV anchor. Or was that Katie on ATWT?
LOL... see above. Good one, David.
> I think it was also unrealistic as to how Lucinda was able to just start
> her own company after the Connor ouster. At first it started off as
> realistic and was important in terms of bonding Lily and Lucinda at a
> critical time. But the next thing you knew, Worldwide was no longer a
> struggling company. And I also recall the unrealistic scene where Lucinda
> gave Kirk "a company" for a wedding gift when he married Sam.
You know, you're right. Wouldn't Lucinda have had to file papers with
some gov't organization/office and go through some sort of "corporation
forming" process first that we, the viewers should have seen (MsLiz or
one of our other legal eagles [anyone heard from Alice lately?] might
know the answers to this, and I quite frankly should, seeing as how I
took a corp. law class [from a paralegal POV] once upon a time, but I'm
drawing a complete blank on the office[s] you need to file any
appropriate paperwork with [as I recall, there was a LOT you had to go
through first, "papertrail-wise", or maybe it depended on the type of
corp.?].)?
--- Cory
--
*REMOVE the 'purrs' to reply*
MsLiz
>In article, ba...@stargate.net says...
> . . . .
>> I remember when I started watching on
>> my own (as opposed to being familiar with the show because my mother always
>> watched it) Holden had been working as a consultant at Walsh Enterprises
>> with no background whatsoever.
><snip...>
>> I think it was also unrealistic as to how Lucinda was able to just start
>> her own company after the Connor ouster. At first it started off as
>> realistic and was important in terms of bonding Lily and Lucinda at a
>> critical time. But the next thing you knew, Worldwide was no longer a
>> struggling company. And I also recall the unrealistic scene where Lucinda
>> gave Kirk "a company" for a wedding gift when he married Sam.
>
>You know, you're right. Wouldn't Lucinda have had to file papers with
>some gov't organization/office and go through some sort of "corporation
>forming" process first that we, the viewers should have seen (MsLiz or
>one of our other legal eagles [anyone heard from Alice lately?] might
>know the answers to this, and I quite frankly should, seeing as how I
>took a corp. law class [from a paralegal POV] once upon a time, but I'm
>drawing a complete blank on the office[s] you need to file any
>appropriate paperwork with [as I recall, there was a LOT you had to go
>through first, "papertrail-wise", or maybe it depended on the type of
>corp.?].)?
Articles of Incorporation, filed with the state where the corporation
is based. I took the law school course, but I don't practice such a
boring area of law. I sure wouldn't want to watch Jane type up the
documents and Ambrose discussing the tax aspects of Chapter S
corporations versus publicly held stocks. Zzzzzz.
MsLiz
Cory
lizg...@mindspring.com says...
> Cory <on...@mindspring.edu> hunted and pecked out the following:
>
> >In article, ba...@stargate.net says...
> >> I think it was also unrealistic as to how Lucinda was able to just start
> >> her own company after the Connor ouster.
> >You know, you're right. Wouldn't Lucinda have had to file papers with
> >some gov't organization/office and go through some sort of "corporation
> >forming" process first that we, the viewers should have seen
> Articles of Incorporation, filed with the state where the corporation
> is based.
THANK YOU! Geez, it's surprising how your brain leaks only the important
information, but yet you can still remember mindless trivia.
> I took the law school course, but I don't practice such a
> boring area of law.
In my paralegal studies, we had to choose three "specialty" courses from
Probate, Corporations, Bankruptcy, Collections and Real Estate law. I
took Corp., Collections, and Probate law. I didn't really like
Collections or Corporations, but really liked Probate, except for the
accounting aspect of it. Accounting is not one of my favorite things to
do, and Probate is full of it, aside from the general planning aspects of
the specialty.
> I sure wouldn't want to watch Jane type up the
> documents and Ambrose discussing the tax aspects of Chapter S
> corporations versus publicly held stocks. Zzzzzz.
But at least it would've been more realistic, IMO, and once upon a time
way back when, we DID see the more mundane side of ATWT characters now
and then.
> MsLiz
--- Cory
--
"...unfortunately for the average fan, Harry isn't
around to stick up for you anymore, either."
- Steve Stone ("Where's Harry" Taylor Pub. 1999)
toby
wrote:
>Toby, I understand and agree with you; You are so correct when
>you point out how preposterous the careers most of these people
>have are, but then again, how many of us have had previously
>unknown children show up out of the blue?
LOL!
Not just the men, but
>the women! Or been married 4 times before we are 30? Or been
>kidnapped every 3 or4 years? Okay, so I've been robbed at gun point
>and mugged a few times, had a couple of bags taken from me, but I
>live in a large city, not Oakdale.
and, fortunately, no one is trying to make an entire interminable
story revolve around YOU. We have to forgive some of the excessive
numbers of Events our favorite characters have in their lives in order
to justify keeping them around. But I have a much harder time with
the children, as you point out, than I do with the many-too-many
marriages.
>
>I think my jaded take on the whole thing is that so much of the show
>is unrealistic anyway, why not expand the plots to cover improbable work
>lives as well as the improbable personal ones.
well, why not is cuz it annoys me! But they're not asking me.
toby.
toby
>> And I also recall the unrealistic scene where Lucinda
>> gave Kirk "a company" for a wedding gift when he married Sam.
>
>You know, you're right. Wouldn't Lucinda have had to file papers with
>some gov't organization/office and go through some sort of "corporation
>forming" process first
>
>--- Cory
In soapland they do this with real estate transactions all the time
too. Someone wants to buy a house, and boom, by the next day it's
done, and they're living there. I wish real life were so simple!
toby.
David Ballarotto
around and see some of the other stuff on daytime television. There are
some very clear problems with the P&G shows. And the strange thing is, it
seems like every other show that I've seen snippets of (though admittedly
that may not be enough to base an observation upon), seems to understand
what P & G doesn't.
First, I saw a little bit of Y&R yesterday. And if not for the
characters, I'd have sworn I was watching a pre 1995 ATWT. They understand
the show's heritage (at least to an extent. The Brooks family disappeared,
from what I recall a long, long time ago.) There was Brock played by the
same actor who played him in the 1970s! And he was sitting there talking to
his Mother (whom he may or may not have called "Dutchess") about someone's
problems with Jill. There! That's how you do it. I remember when I was in
second grade when Jill was messing around with Mr. Chancellor. You keep a
rivalry like that going for a long time. This is how you write a show.
Second, I saw a couple of minutes of AMC. I have no idea who anyone is on
this show. I only saw it because I was watching "Family Feud" and didn't
turn the channel. Still, I know enough that this greying man in bed with a
not-yet-greying woman were most likely veterans of the show who were getting
some storytime. And I saw the opening credits. There was Robin Mattson
(spellling?) and some others who appeared to have been on the show off and
on for a long time.
These shows (particularly ABC's from what I've read) are going out of
their way to provide something for the veterans to do.
I can't speak much about GL because I haven't seen it since the
Kelly/Mogan/Nola days. But I have talked about it with others and they say
it does stink compared to what it used to be. Monday's ATWT was pretty good,
with the John and Camille and Denise stuff. (Larry Bryggman's spitting out
the word "POLICY?!? My son is not a statistic!" was classic ATWT.) I would
prefer we were actually seeing Kim in DC trying to find out what was going
on. So again, and since I'm in a hurry to go, I'll state what I've said
before. They seem to understand some of the nuts and bolts, but won't invest
the time and money to do things the way other shows are doing. Hats off to
Y&R and AMC and whatever other shows that do seem to at least have a basic
understanding of the importance of heritage and veterans in terms of keeping
old viewers and using them as a familiarity to attract new ones.
Cory
<snip...>
> So again, and since I'm in a hurry to go, I'll state what I've said
> before. They seem to understand some of the nuts and bolts, but won't invest
> the time and money to do things the way other shows are doing. Hats off to
> Y&R and AMC and whatever other shows that do seem to at least have a basic
> understanding of the importance of heritage and veterans in terms of keeping
> old viewers and using them as a familiarity to attract new ones.
Others have said it before, or at least alluded to it, and hey, I may
have even said it myself, but ATWT and GL seem to have VERY different
agendas these days than the other soaps on TV (with the exception of
MADD's other show, PASSIONS and maybe even 'Days', even though MADD has
nothing to do with that one). They don't seem to care about the broad
audience demographics anymore.
They seem to be after teens and only teens (there's NOTHING wrong with
teens, either!). What I think they are forgetting is that teens, while
they may have the best buying "influence"/"power"/"clout" in the retail
market, probably don't make up as big a majority of daytime viewers as
P&G, for whatever reason, seem to think they do.
--- Cory, who hopes that made sense...
DonnaB
netizen Cory <on...@mindspring.edu> danced over to the MC
with a note that said:
| Others have said it before, or at least alluded to it, and hey, I may
| have even said it myself, but ATWT and GL seem to have VERY different
| agendas these days than the other soaps on TV (with the exception of
| MADD's other show, PASSIONS and maybe even 'Days', even though MADD has
| nothing to do with that one).
MADD only has something to do with ATWT & GL. She has
nothing to do with anything but P&G's traditional daytime
soaps - ATWT & GL.
Very confusing trying to parse that one.
But, yes, currently the NBC approach & the CBS/P&G approach
can be grouped together, while the CBS/Bell approach & the
ABC approach can somewhat be grouped together.
--
DonnaB <*> BA*RF GAG, RATSFuzz, CCWF, MPW, LGAW, GRITS,
SWATCHr, ARIAA, SAMC/TINC ICQ: 308592 AIM: ShallotPeel 8^>
www.delphi.com/soapopera Now Available: Agent1.8 & AIM4.0.
"Silence, that frail partition between the ill-concealed and
the ill-revealed ... " - Samuel Beckett