Jump to content

DramatistDreamer

Members
  • Content Count

    13,136
  • Joined

Everything posted by DramatistDreamer

  1. Reminds me of the premise behind the musical The Producers. People think the idea of purposely setting out to destroy something is farce but P&G prove the concept it is very real. Lily's a "lifer". They were never going to kill off a character that has been on the show since 1984. I know most people tend to think of Martha as Lily but the character predates Byrne and obviously had as much longevity as Lucinda. The fact that three actresses have played the character speaks to the enduring quality of the character, at least in the minds of the production staff and execs, regardless of what any of us may think. Personally, I just didn't see Rose ever having that type of longevity, since imo, the character was written as overly-broad.
  2. Speaking as someone who writes and has tried to do without outlines, I can tell you that it is likely that ATWT dispensed with any degree of detail in story plans. If they did, it was likely a thumbnail sketch, compared to what Marland did. The stories in the wake of MADD and beyond had all the hallmarks of stories written without much of a plan, certainly not a well-thought out one. It showed so much.
  3. Exactly. I could mention at least one site that has those characteristics that you speak of, but I won't, lol.😬🤐 The echo chambers and lack of critical analysis, out of fear that any critique would somehow land the show in cancellation was far more of a problem, imo. The exec-producers were never challenged to improve or adapt and the show stagnated itself into cancellation anyway. It's likely because the storylines weren't planned beyond a few weeks. One salient point that I have gleaned from these Locher Room livestreams with the actors is that Marland, in particular had storyline projections for at least a year or more. He had it physically mapped out, but wasn't rigid about being able to make adjustments as he saw things unfold. One thing that I learned early on is that the more specific you are in your outlines, the more freedom you have in your capability to adjust for the unforeseen because you've taken the time to build a stronger story foundation in which to lay everything out.
  4. Totally random thought but, have we ever discussed the fact that the show had two characters named Denise just a bit over a decade apart?
  5. ITA with this assessment. Y&R does some awful writing of their women characters. It's disappointing to sometimes read the misogynistic comments on the female characters. The characterizations drove me away from watching these shows many years ago. Sometimes people don't understand that there is a difference between writing a sense of agency for a woman character and simply sticking her in a storyline in order to drive story for the male character. I'm not sure that many viewers take this under consideration but I do think the writing is to blame for this. Writers rooms got stale and became enamored of too much "group-think" and some may not agree but I think there was too much "pulpy" screenwriting-tic tendencies in the writing for ATWT in the last decade or so of the show. As an aside--I've written screenplays and I've written plays and I've even written written a couple television scripts and they are NOT the same, each calls for a different way of thinking and writing. It is not easy and a lot can go wrong when it is not done with consideration. In theater, everyone (including the writer) is prepared to have to do everything in one take, because on stage there are no second chances, which makes it an easier transition to the pace of soaps where things move at a more frenetic, less predictable pace. I've been on stage where an actor fumbled their lines or someone did something that was not rehearsed (I once was onstage where one actor, who had supposedly practiced a slap, ended up slapping a co-star so hard, it left a mark for the rest of the first Act!) and you have to roll with the punches (or slap). I've also been in the front row (or in the back) and had to witness an actor completely garble a piece of dialogue I had written and had to stifle my reflexive reaction. In theater, there are no second takes. Ever been on the set of a film? I have. You can literally have a director who does 12 takes of a character nodding because they want the sunlight to frame the character's face in a specific scene. And if the scene absolutely needs that shot, as long as there is sunlight, they're going to keep doing it until they get the right shot in frame. In soaps, they might do one or two shots, then move on because, no one has a movie budget for daytime (not even in the bigger-budget of the 80s). But I digress...lol.
  6. The Kyle/Summer pairing might have had a lot more zest if Donnelly's Diane were still around. Hell, Phyllis likely would've had more zest from the boring incarnation that occupies the latest iteration.
  7. Sanchez of Bel Air is the first series that comes to mind whenever I saw Santoni but I guess since it was so short-lived not many people remember this. Looking back from a cultural context, it makes me wonder whether there were any complaints about an actor of European portraying what was essentially supposed to be a Mexican-American character, although I'm not sure whether the country of origin was made explicit during the series.
  8. Thanks @slick [email protected] foxton I came across scenes of Newman and Walker together and wondered whether this was the reason they decided to pair the two on GL.
  9. Wasn't sure where to put this article but it might fit in this thread, in an odd way. While reading this article on when Black people appear on Seinfeld, I couldn't help but irony of Sonya Eddy's character Epiphany and her relationship to the GH canvas (an oft-discussed topic on this board), juxtaposed with Eddy being mentioned here as portraying one of the few Black characters on Seinfeld who actually gets to drive the comic direction in scenes with the core characters. https://www.vulture.com/2020/08/seinfeld-rewatch-close-read.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab The other character mentioned as having comedic agency, Jackie Chiles was portrayed by Phil Morris, who portrayed Tyrone Jackson, whose controversial role in a oft-discussed mob storyline on Y&R. Surely, I can't be the only one seeing the irony here!
  10. Wow, that's a definite reason to tune in. On a separate note, I had no idea that Robert Newman (Josh) made a detour to Santa Barbara. Does anyone know how long he was on the show?
  11. So glad that I missed the most recent episode of The Locher Room as I have a very low tolerance for bull-s*hit. Hopefully Victoria Rowell can have Susan Dansby on her podcast where I can listen. Maybe she can have Tamara Tunie too, seeing as Tunie clearly can't stand the prospect of having to go on this livestream and have to lie and make nice regarding her experience on ATWT.
  12. Corruption at the highest levels.
  13. Tbh, I stopped watching in the last few months of the show because I just couldn't be bothered. The show had become of shell of its former self and I had gotten tired of waiting for it to return to some semblance of coherence. I mean, the show was pretty bad in its last decade but there had been talented actors and occasionally decent storylines but by the summer, it seemed as though the production values had given up and out.
  14. I guess they thought Liberty and Janet made our collective world turn. More like eyes roll.
  15. The show missed the big ticket, which would've been Dani and Craig's son Bryant. Bryant should've been relentlessly pursuing Dani to the point that Craig would become worried that Bryant would follow his path with Betsey. I remember a few years ago, watching the wedding between Craig and Sierra after Bryant was born and Craig introduced Danielle to baby Bryant and Craig said something like "I have a feeling you two will be getting in lots of trouble together in years to come". Then looks at little Danielle and says "Do you like him?" I mean c'mon, wasn't that meant to be a foreshadowing? Also, Dani should've been pursuing what happened to her father, even going to Greece, leading Bryant to pursue her there. When Dani was in Oakdale in the mid-late 90s, the writing as much as set that up with Dani making up this image of her father in her mind, etc. I agree that it would've made sense to bring Christina Nancy Hughes onto the canvas. She had no history and would have been a blank slate for writers to write for her as if she were brand new. Same with Hope Dixon. Bringing back that group of young legacy characters would inevitably brought up chances to bring in their parents (Betsy, Andy, etc.). It's so sad that the writers discarded so much of the show's history.
  16. They made such of mess of several characters in the show's last decade. I'm glad I missed that six month period as it would've tested my gag reflexes. By never even bothering to bring back many of those characters, it seems as if they were hoping the viewers would forget about the mess the show had made. You know what I don't understand, what I'll never understand? Instead of wasting time "tying up loose ends" with inconsequential characters why couldn't the show have brought back some characters of substance. They sort of did this with the return of John Dixon. There are plenty of characters that they could have done this with and it would've been meaningful, but instead what do they do? Resolve Liberty and Janet's storylines. What an entire waste.
  17. Sometimes this thread is just too sad to venture into. Our House was a series that I looked forward to watching on Sunday evenings as a child. I had not watched Days as a child so this series was pretty much my first time seeing Deidre Hall and Shannen Doherty (that I remember), as I didn't recognize Doherty from Little House until several syndication rounds later. About Regis Philbin, that comment from Kathy Lee Griffin about them never having a cross word makes me wonder what Kelly Ripa really thinks (beyond the PR driven rosy colored memories delivered in statements). It can't feel good to realize that your relationship with someone was not left in a good place, especially when that someone was an icon with an enduring popularity. The losses this year are just astounding.
  18. Same. If Lindsey Frost didn't want to stay, they could've brought back Kim Johnston Ulrich as Betsy. I know she played Diana but since the McColl family was pretty much gone by the late 80s, I think the viewers would've accepted it.
  19. Oh that is interesting, although I do think because the show had a good number of female supporting characters and leads at that time, the canvas could very well have gotten by on having Frannie turn up for storyline arcs, here and there.
  20. This storyline obviously had limitations but today's daytime soaps don't even acknowledge that Native Americans exist, let alone create a third dimensional Native American character. Whomever said soaps are going backward, not forward, ICAM. With the coming and going of Penny and Don Hughes, I do think that Marland intended for more than just the Snyders to be able to come and go and maintain a presence. Of course, cameos are different from storyline arcs. I do think that had Marland lived, a character like Frannie definitely would've been like Penny Hughes, popping up here and there. It seemed as though the show wanted that for Henderson Forsythe's character David Stewart until for whatever reason, that model became unsustainable. I wonder if Forsythe requested an end to the character to focus on the stage or if someone decided that it no longer worked. Several other Snyders could've used a good "talking to" from Kim,lol. I always appreciated how Kim didn't have to scream or shout to give someone a good dressing down. Although I thought middle aged Meg was borderline useless, teenage Meg was a great foil for Lily and made that small teen circle very interesting.
  21. Michael David Morrison was a great find, imo. To be fair, it probably threw everybody for a loop losing him. Some actors are more difficult to replace than others.
×
×
  • Create New...