Jump to content


Welcome! Please take a second to register.


Photo

GH, GL, ATWT, SB- Brand NEW INTERVIEW with BRIDGET DOBSON!!!


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#1 juniorz1

juniorz1

    Marcy Walker 4Ever!

  • Members
  • 6,087 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:46 AM

PART 1: http://pierin26santa...rview-with.html

PART 2: http://pierin26santa...th-bridget.html
  • 0

#2 Dale

Dale

    Contract

  • Members
  • 679 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:59 AM

Thanks for posting that!  Very interesting.


  • 0

#3 Y&RWorldTurner

Y&RWorldTurner

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 20,210 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:38 AM

The questions and answers don't seem as interesting and in-depth as they should be. I'll await the next part, but so far, not too impressed. 

 

Did Bridget say she didn't want to talk too much about specific GL stories they wrote? blink.png That was such a pivotal era in her and Jerry's career (and possibly, just by reading the synopses and seeing clips, their most consistent work).


Edited by Y&RWorldTurner, 15 January 2013 - 11:39 AM.

  • 0

#4 Khan

Khan

    "May I use your telephone?"

  • Members
  • 18,549 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:51 PM

No doubt about it: Bridget Dobson is a very complicated, frustrating woman.  Genius, but frustrating.


  • 0

#5 juniorz1

juniorz1

    Marcy Walker 4Ever!

  • Members
  • 6,087 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:28 PM

The questions and answers don't seem as interesting and in-depth as they should be. I'll await the next part, but so far, not too impressed. 
 
Did Bridget say she didn't want to talk too much about specific GL stories they wrote? blink.png That was such a pivotal era in her and Jerry's career (and possibly, just by reading the synopses and seeing clips, their most consistent work).


Umm, yeah, I know you're a CBS soap fan, but it's common knowledge that the Dobsons' most consistent work was on 'Santa Barbara,' their baby which they created, writing characters they created, about a California city where they had lived. When people think of the Dobsons, most think 'Santa Barbara,' not 'Guiding Light' (or 'As The World Turns' for that matter).

Also, the interviewer is Italian, so I'm sure the language barrier and translation is playing a part in the questions and answers. wink.png
  • 0

#6 DRW50

DRW50

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 53,908 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:32 PM

Umm, yeah, I know you're a CBS soap fan, but it's common knowledge that the Dobsons' most consistent work was on 'Santa Barbara,' their baby which they created, writing characters they created, about a California city where they had lived. When people think of the Dobsons, most think 'Santa Barbara,' not 'Guiding Light' (or 'As The World Turns' for that matter).

 

It's the "I don't want to comment" that seems odd. Not even that she can't remember. She just won't comment. 

 

I thought the interview was very interesting, as I hadn't heard most of that about her GH run before (although I thought that era of GH was seen as a downward slide in ratings and quality). 

 

I think her GL run was probably some of the most mature and complex soap ever, so that's why some of us wanted more. 

 

I also wish someone would ask her how she and her husband write for ingenues (as they did very well at this on GL, and well with Kelly and Hayley on SB). I guess that is probably not a common question though.


  • 0

#7 Y&RWorldTurner

Y&RWorldTurner

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 20,210 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:34 PM

Even by most critics who adored the show, Santa Barbara was never considered a consistent showGreat single episodes, good dialogue, and fantastic characters played by some brilliant actors? Yeah. Patrick Mulcahey often talks about how the show had many great elements that made it great or unique, but in terms of long-term stories and lengthy periods of creativity, there weren't many in the 9 years the show was on. I'm inclined to agree with his assessment. Unlike other soaps, I don't think the stories themselves made Santa Barbara stand out or great - it was a combination of many other things that came into play. 

 

A long period of consistent storytelling? No - not even when Bridget and Jerry were steering the ship. The show took a good year and half before it found its footing by most accounts, and lest we not forget that Bridget and Jerry were forced out during the era many think the show really hit its stride (the very late 80s). 


Edited by Y&RWorldTurner, 15 January 2013 - 09:37 PM.

  • 0

#8 juniorz1

juniorz1

    Marcy Walker 4Ever!

  • Members
  • 6,087 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:04 PM

Even by most critics who adored the show, Santa Barbara was never considered a consistent show


Again, you're wrong. Most critics agree that the show was consistently excellent from 1985-early 1988, which was the Dobsons' original run. The inconsistencies began when the Dobsons were locked out of the studio.

Edited by juniorz1, 16 January 2013 - 03:57 AM.

  • 0

#9 juniorz1

juniorz1

    Marcy Walker 4Ever!

  • Members
  • 6,087 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:06 PM

 A long period of consistent storytelling? No - not even when Bridget and Jerry were steering the ship. The show took a good year and half before it found its footing by most accounts, and lest we not forget that Bridget and Jerry were forced out during the era many think the show really hit its stride (the very late 80s). 


Again, not true. The show came into its own in 1985, when the Who Murdered Channing Capwell? storyline hit its peak and was consistently excellent from then on. If you go back and watch the 1985 stuff with Lane Davies, Marcy Walker, Robin Wright, A Martinez, Nicolas Coster, Louise Sorel, and Judith McConnell leading the show, you'll find it to be consistently brilliant.

Sorry, but I get rather annoyed when people who didn't watch the show comment on its consistency. How the hell would you know if you were watching 'Guiding Light' at 3PM and not 'Santa Barbara'?
  • 0

#10 Soapsuds

Soapsuds

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 23,711 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:24 PM

Even by most critics who adored the show, Santa Barbara was never considered a consistent showGreat single episodes, good dialogue, and fantastic characters played by some brilliant actors? Yeah. Patrick Mulcahey often talks about how the show had many great elements that made it great or unique, but in terms of long-term stories and lengthy periods of creativity, there weren't many in the 9 years the show was on. I'm inclined to agree with his assessment. Unlike other soaps, I don't think the stories themselves made Santa Barbara stand out or great - it was a combination of many other things that came into play. 

 

A long period of consistent storytelling? No - not even when Bridget and Jerry were steering the ship. The show took a good year and half before it found its footing by most accounts, and lest we not forget that Bridget and Jerry were forced out during the era many think the show really hit its stride (the very late 80s). 

The show was a joke amoung many at the time. If you watched SB at the time you were considered weird.....lol  The show was a piece of trash IMO...not even a ratings winner.


Edited by Soapsuds, 15 January 2013 - 10:25 PM.

  • 0

#11 Y&RWorldTurner

Y&RWorldTurner

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 20,210 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:22 PM

Even by most critics who adored the show, Santa Barbara was never considered a consistent show


Again, you're wrong. Most critics agree that the show was consistently excellent from 1985-early 1988, which was the Dobsons' original run. The inconsistencies began when the Dobsons were locked out of the studio.

Again, the reaction from the press was always mixed from various articles I've read. The show seemed deeply polarizing to many - I've never seen any of this consistent praise you speak of (other than from hardcore fans).


Edited by Y&RWorldTurner, 15 January 2013 - 11:23 PM.

  • 0

#12 Mr. Vixen

Mr. Vixen

    Red is Not Here for Your [!@#$%^&*].

  • Members
  • 12,900 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:27 PM

The show was a joke amoung many at the time. If you watched SB at the time you were considered weird.....lol  The show was a piece of trash IMO...not even a ratings winner.


Well, that escalated quickly.
  • 0

#13 Y&RWorldTurner

Y&RWorldTurner

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 20,210 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:29 PM

Again, not true. The show came into its own in 1985, when the Who Murdered Channing Capwell? storyline hit its peak and was consistently excellent from then on. If you go back and watch the 1985 stuff with Lane Davies, Marcy Walker, Robin Wright, A Martinez, Nicolas Coster, Louise Sorel, and Judith McConnell leading the show, you'll find it to be consistently brilliant.
 
Sorry, but I get rather annoyed when people who didn't watch the show comment on its consistency. How the hell would you know if you were watching 'Guiding Light' at 3PM and not 'Santa Barbara'? 

I fail to see how a period of two and a half years or so (by your estimate) amongst a 9 year run somehow adds up to a consistent show overall. Again, I've never seen all this critical acclaim you've seen. I've seen very strong critics who loved the show, and others who just never "got" it from very early on, which gives me more of a polarizing feeling than anything else.

 

The 3 Emmy's for Outstanding Drama Series mean nothing, really, in terms of critical acclaim (and actually two of those were for work Bridget and Jerome had no part in anyway). 

 

I've also seen cast members (like A and Grahn) comment that though they respected Jerome and Bridget and the foundation they built, they strangely preferred working for JFP's leadership and her "vision" of the show. 

 

Most fans I've seen tend to claim that the show didn't really start to lose touch with itself until John Conboy (and later more aggressively with Rauch and Long) came on, not necessarily because Bridget and Jermone were no longer there.


Edited by Y&RWorldTurner, 15 January 2013 - 11:45 PM.

  • 0

#14 Soapsuds

Soapsuds

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 23,711 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:39 PM

I fail to see how a period of two and a half years or so (by your estimate) amongst a 9 year run somehow adds up to a consistent show overall. 

 

I've also seen cast members (like A and Grahn) comment that though they respected Jerome and Bridget and the foundation they built, they strangely preferred working for JFP's leadership more and her "vision" of the show. 

 

Most fans I've seen tend to claim that the show didn't really start to lose touch with itself until John Conboy (and later more aggressively with Rauch and Long) came on, not necessarily because Bridget and Jermone were no longer there.

During Long's time is when Kim Zimmer joined correct?? I like the family she had there..it was less tedious than Reva had become.....I know many hated that time on SB but I thought it was better than what the Dobsons did. I still cant believe they are the same writers who wrote brilliant GL and ATWT stories.


  • 0

#15 Khan

Khan

    "May I use your telephone?"

  • Members
  • 18,549 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:43 AM

During Long's time is when Kim Zimmer joined correct?

 

Yep.  Pamela K. Long created the character of Jodie Walker specifically for KZ.

 

Overall, I feel like that was a period when SANTA BARBARA -- and specifically, Long and Paul Rauch -- stopped trying to outdo GH and started to morph into another GUIDING LIGHT.  For SB fans, then, you either ate it up like candy, or you hated it with the heat of a thousand suns.  There was no in-between.


  • 0

#16 EricMontreal22

EricMontreal22

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 16,593 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:46 AM

That is an, errrr, odd, interview.  But I'll read the rest :D  I also find it beyond weird that she seems to refuse to talk about any specific stories or characters--maybe she's losing her memory :P  I mean the reaction seems to be "Well every moment felt great to me--I cried with this character, Iaughed with that one, I danced like a demonic witch with this one..." (OK I made up the last one, but it doesn't sound too far away from what she'd say).

 

With all due respect, Juniorz, as someone who only watched the last year of Santa Barbara "live" (by that time anyway it aired at 10am on our Seattle affiliate), as well as the first week and the rape and eathquake episodes on wost.org way back when, and some other scattered episodes...  I think a lot of people do think their best work, or at least equal to their SB best work, was on GL.  They saved the show from the myriad of (according to Schemering's great GL 50th anniversary book) of writers who had followed GL after Agnes Nixon's long term run ended in 1966 (including an apparently bad near year long return by Irna Phillips, and a 2 year successful run by Robert Soderberg and Edith Sommer whothen were quickly shipped off to ATWT since P^G at the time believed in circulating writers between their shows)--and really made it a winner, and helped modernize it.  I always found it odd that Marland was at ATWT briefly (13 weeks) in '79 but then was switched with the Dobsons for GL--only to later return to ATWT.  I *believe* many felt their shorter run at ATWT wasn't as successful as GL and they reused similar stories, but I still would have loved to read more about all that shuffling.

 

Anyway, back to SB--I do have great respect for the show from what I've seen, and wish I could see more of the Dobsons' eras.  But from all the soap books and press of the 80s I've read, it did really divide critics.  Unlike their GL or ATWT, SB took on an often irreverent, even some said self mocking tone that was new to soaps--some found this very refreshing, others didn't get it at all.  So I don't think it's fair to say *everyone* thought it was hands down their best work, though your points are valid.  Schemering touches on some of this in his entry in the Soap Encyclopedia.


  • 0

#17 Paul Raven

Paul Raven

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 3,965 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:57 AM

I am puzzled that Bridget says that a matter of days or weeks after she arrived at GL,the show went to an hour. The hour long GL began in November 77 and I believe she started on GL in 75.Am I mistaken or is Ms Dobson retconning her own storyline?
  • 0

#18 juniorz1

juniorz1

    Marcy Walker 4Ever!

  • Members
  • 6,087 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 04:01 AM

I fail to see how a period of two and a half years or so (by your estimate) amongst a 9 year run somehow adds up to a consistent show overall. Again, I've never seen all this critical acclaim you've seen. I've seen very strong critics who loved the show, and others who just never "got" it from very early on, which gives me more of a polarizing feeling than anything else.


I was speaking to its consistency under the Dobsons, not over its entire run, though I thought it was still damn good all the way through to 1991. But most critics and fans alike agree that its zenith and most consistent period was from 1985-1988. Every soap has a rough first year until it finds its footing. SB was no different. And the Behind The Scenes drama is what contributed to the inconsistency, not the Dobsons, which again, was the point I was trying to make.
  • 0

#19 EricMontreal22

EricMontreal22

    Lifetimer

  • Members
  • 16,593 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 04:01 AM

Schemering`s book--as well as other sources, say 1975...  Like I said, she seems spotty on the details...  (She also makes it sound like Jerome didn`t start co-HW with her till GL because of the stress of an hour show--and yet they have in the interview a clip showing GH credits listing them as co-HWs...)

 

If what she says about P&G paying for her not to work for them for two years is true though, they must have been really impressed with her.

 

Speaking of--she mentions her parents making it big on SFT which got them the job of GH--anyone know what years they wroteÉ


  • 0

#20 juniorz1

juniorz1

    Marcy Walker 4Ever!

  • Members
  • 6,087 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 04:08 AM

During Long's time is when Kim Zimmer joined correct?? I like the family she had there..it was less tedious than Reva had become.....I know many hated that time on SB but I thought it was better than what the Dobsons did. I still cant believe they are the same writers who wrote brilliant GL and ATWT stories.


Give it a rest Ron. You never really watched 'SB' either, so who are you to judge? Do you see me critiquing the Marland years on ATWT? No, because I was watching 'Another World' at the time and I wouldn't know whether ATWT was gold or [!@#$%^&*] and frankly, didn't care. The 'ATWT' fans are just angry that Marland's work only garnered their show 2 Best Daytime Drama Emmys because SB won from 88-90. Let's be real here.

It's the same place where my hatred for Kim Zimmer started (winning Emmys/SOD Awards over Marcy), but at least when I saw Zimmer on the Emmys, I thought she was a total OTT drama queen ass IRL. There is no "real life" Santa Barbara for you to judge, just a show you didn't watch because you likely weren't intelligent enough to 'get' it.

Why do all my SB threads deteriorate into this lately? If you didn't watch the show, then reserve judgment. It just makes you look foolish when you comment on things you have no idea about.

Most SB fans I know (which is A LOT) think the quality of the show went seriously downhill in 88 when the Dobsons were locked out and the writers' strike happened (the first time JFP got to live out her wet dream of being EP and Head Writer of a soap), even if I disagree. BUT, I do agree that the show was at its finest when the Dobsons were there and was SO ahead of its time, it's insane.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users