Members EricMontreal22 Posted January 16, 2013 Members Share Posted January 16, 2013 That is an, errrr, odd, interview. But I'll read the rest 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 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Paul Raven Posted January 16, 2013 Members Share Posted January 16, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members juniorz1 Posted January 16, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 16, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted January 16, 2013 Members Share Posted January 16, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members juniorz1 Posted January 16, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 16, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Paul Raven Posted January 16, 2013 Members Share Posted January 16, 2013 I think the Hursleys started on Search in 58.That was at a time when the ratings were softening and Search got a new producer.They killed off Jo's infant son,which Mary was not happy about. When they created GH in 63 they were still officially tied to SFT so other writers (Theodore and Mathilde Ferro) were listed as headwriters. Also during their time on SFT they were working on other proposed soaps that never were picked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members juniorz1 Posted January 16, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 16, 2013 Ok. She started writing 'GL' 38 years ago. Do any of you who are that old remember every tedious detail of what you did at work 38 YEARS ago? As for 'SB,' they started it 29 years ago and last wrote it 23 years ago. That's a LONG time!! BUT they OWNED 'SB,' they created it, it was their baby, and the interviewer is a 'Santa Barbara' fan who I believe led Bridget into thinking she'd be specifically interviewed about that show and not the others. I think her answers are OH-SO Bridget and mostly spot on. To each their own, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members juniorz1 Posted January 16, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 16, 2013 Bridget is a writer, not a soap fan who's been reading all the Soap Encyclopedias over the years. She started at 'GL' 38 years ago and the show went to an hour 36 years ago. Cut the woman some slack, will ya? God, I'm actually sorry I even bothered to post this interview here. Why is it of the 400 some odd hits that this thread has gotten, only the ones who want to spread negativity (save Khan, Eric, and Carl) are the ones who decided to comment? Didn't your mother ever teach you that if you don't have something nice (or constructive) to say.....then to shut your DAMN MOUTH?!? Since 'GH' started in 1963, they must have been writing 'SFT' in the mid-to-late 50s and/or early 60s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted January 16, 2013 Members Share Posted January 16, 2013 I agree with you on that. I think it jumped out at me because it sounded more like she just didn't want to talk about that time at all, moreso than not remembering. I can understand why she spoke more about GH, because that was family, moreso than a job, but if she'd said, "I'm sorry, I don't remember most of what I did at GL," I wouldn't have noticed it as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted January 16, 2013 Members Share Posted January 16, 2013 Considering the fact that AS THE WORLD TURNS posted much higher ratings than SANTA BARBARA throughout the latter show's run, I really doubt they give the Emmy wins, or lack thereof, much thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members juniorz1 Posted January 16, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 16, 2013 Well one viewer in particular seems like they do. Frankly, if you want to know, soap fans in 1987-1990 were more interested in the Daytime Emmys than the ratings. The ratings were just little boxes in the magazines that the fans didn't care all that much about if the quality of their show was no good. I can empathize with 'ATWT' fans who felt slighted when 'SB' won 3 years in a row. They were the first soap to do it, and I think many (including myself) feel the same way about 'GH' in the 2000s that people did about 'SB' in the late 80s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members juniorz1 Posted January 16, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 16, 2013 Look, maybe I'm feeling extra sensitive because yesterday was the 20th Anniversary of my first (and worst) brush with the death of MY soap, Santa Barbara. It was a dark day and even sadder that I had to set my alarm for 2AM in St. Louis to make sure I was awake to watch it live. I woke up and bawled most of the way through. Not because I was invested in the writing or the characters on the episode, but because we got no returns and no mention of Cruz & Eden, nor a happy ending for them. SB was cancelled in September and off the air in January, meaning they had 2 1/2 months to wrap everything up. (Note- they were about a month ahead at the time, plus the last episode was filmed out of sequence and not on the set- the last on the set episode & the one filmed last sequentially was not the last episode of the show) 'AMC,' 'ATWT,' 'GL,' and 'OLTL' fans bitch and moan about what little time their shows were given and how few returns there were, yet ALL of those shows had more time to wrap than SB did and at least had SOME returns. 'SB' had none, even the leads of the show, both of whom were willing to come back to wrap things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted January 16, 2013 Members Share Posted January 16, 2013 Apologies for sounding negative--despite how odd I found the review, I also really enjoyed reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members juniorz1 Posted January 16, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 16, 2013 For those of you bitching and moaning about how much 'SB' sucked, then tell me this: where else on EARTH would you ever see a scene like this on a SOAP? And YES, this was during the period from 91-92 where the Dobsons had returned as head writers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31o11RMb1nY No need to apologize. You were one of the 3 I cited who I don't feel came in here to spread negativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members juniorz1 Posted January 16, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 16, 2013 That scene ALWAYS makes me laugh, cry, and smile, all in a matter of 4 minutes. NO OTHER SOAP has ever or will ever do that for me or be written as spectacularly and uncompromisingly as Santa Barbara was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.