DramatistDreamer

Something very interesting that I picked up on when I watched an episode from November 1986. Frannie Hughes, while in London, was having a conversation with a PhD candidate in child clinical psychology, Dr. Hildebrand whose focus, among one other speciality, was autism. I wonder whether this was there earliest reference to autism in a daytime soap? The quality of this episode is poor, so, at times it can be hard to make out some bits, here and there but Dr. Hildebrand was definitely clear on autism.

Some WTA players are beginning to ask "Where Is Peng Shuai?"

From what I have heard, he's not but I admit that I am usually wary of American players, especially the guys. Paul is, at this for this weekend, standing in the way of having us have to listen to the endless carping about American men not coming through in tennis tournaments.

Good for Paul though. He's seized the opportunity while it was available.

Facts. Easily.

I'm not really going to get into other people's feelings on the interview but having just read it myself, I take much of what Sorkin says with a grain of salt. There really is no such thing as "Cancel Culture". There are criminals like Harvey Weinstein, R. Kelly and Bill Cosby and remains to be seen whether any of them will do any real time. Dave Chappelle is a millionaire several times over, who did a 'hit and run' stand up piece and will likely return with another special on some media vehicle, whether on streaming or in some comedy club. His career won't be hurting at all, no matter the number of denunciations. Also, Sorkin is no one to decry cancel culture when he practically threatened to sue some middle-schoolers for staging a play at their schools because he didn't want any competition for his star-studded Broadway version of To Kill A Mockingbird. Yes, you heard that right, the producers of the Broadway production threatened to sue any production of the stage adaptation that was being staged anywhere within 50 miles of the Broadway play. Now that sure seems like cancelling something. It's also hard for me to believe that someone of Sorkin's age never knew that Lucille Ball had to face the HUAC. It's a well known quote that Desi Arnaz said to the press that "The only thing "red" about Lucy is her hair!" There are no big screen movies about Ball but there are some excellent documentaries on her. One on U.S. public television, than be found in any public library gives a great deal of insight into Ball. I do agree with Sorkin's statement that looks are not very important in casting Ball, but then he goes on to call Kidman a wonderful mimic of Ball, despite so many people claiming to hear Kidman's Aussie accent in the trailer. He's also assuming that those who are critical of Kidman as the choice is simply because they are confusing Lucille Ball and Lucille Ricardo, when there is more than enough footage of Ball in non-Lucy situations to discern her manner outside of the sitcom. I also get the fact that he wants an experienced actress and not a "beginner" as he puts it, but honestly there are plenty of highly experienced actresses who are still not household names, he only need to look at Broadway, but Sorkin is only interested in big stars, even his B'day play proves this. It also made me chuckle when he says he doesn't wish to hide behind the casting director in his explanation for why he hired a European actor to play a Caribbean Latin American man, yet still proceeds to throw her under the bus by saying she was fine with it and she's a Latina. Sorkin did unwittingly reveal the fact that he wasn't going to say no to two big stars who express the desire to be in the movie. (In a way, this is a strangely ironic twist to the recurrent theme of I Love Lucy where Lucy always wanted to be featured at her husband's club but he would always refuse her, so she had to scheme to get in). The money aspect and the star vehicle seems like the most honest part of this interview. At the risk of getting into an aspect that I usually avoid, for not wanting to sound critical of someone's looks, Sorkin goes on about how gorgeous Ball was in her prime (and she was stunningly beautiful), comparing her to Jessica Rabbit or Rita Hayworth, nothing about Kidman in this trailer gives off that vibe. Perhaps I would have to watch the movie to get a better look. Kidman as Lucy, even in casual settings, looks extremely "made up" and not in a flattering way--they've sort of made her look "plastic-y". I guess when the movie comes out and people actually see it, will be the best way to discern whether this is all just talk.

Even the Metro North is terrible, in some ways it's worse--such a slow moving train (that's if you're not on a train that gets derailed) that has only gotten worse with the passage of time mostly because of old tracks. There was a time when I had to take it 5, 6 days a week for a few months-- boy, was I ever miserable!

As someone familiar with that commute and has done it a number of times, even to film locations, I can tell you that, after awhile, it gets old fast. I have also experienced wage theft once or twice in those situations, and it leaves a bitter taste in one's mouth. I know more than you think I do on this topic. I was not interested in easily decipherable data points that can be found with a simple search. I was looking at, thinking aloud, really, regarding the aspect of accountability, which was more rhetorical, as I know perfectly well, it is something we'll never truly get.

Patrick telling a compelling personal story of being committed to a psych ward by his parents for being gay- Alan- "Hey Patrick, I'm gonna have to kick you off for a moment..." These constant technical problems, coupled with bad interview technique, I don't think I'll be able to hang with this interview.

Are we all so burnt out on politics that this indictment came down and nobody can be bothered to post an article about it? Or is it just me?

Tbh, Susan Bedsow wouldn't have needed a co-HW. If it were up to me, I would have tried to get her back to ATWT in the wake of Marland's passing. She would have been more than capable. I wonder whether anyone in charge, or at least near the seat of power will honestly go on the record to discuss what really went wrong. The thing that irritates me about the soap industry is that there seems to be a distinct lack of introspection. Most people are too busy equivocating, trying to make themselves the hero of the piece. FWIW, I agree with those who say that the PP/TOLN soaps were much closer to the model of what a 21st century daytime drama should be. This is why I am absolutely immoveable on the idea that the network television daytime soaps really haven't been innovative in the past 20+ years. Not genuinely innovative.

IMO, Broderick desperately needed a co-HW, someone like Susan Bedsow-Horgan, who knew how to write stories with some interest and also knew the show's storyline architecture.

Unfortunately, Jeff Kwatinez seems to be an unscrupulous guy. I don't like the way the actors were left feeling after the fallout. A few took it on the chin as being the nature of the business but I know a few claimed, if asked, they would not work with PP ever again and I can't blame them. I think you may be right about fans complaining more about OLTL and the swearing, some of this seemed to be driven by a few bloggers who may have been upset that their fave HW wasn't chosen for the task. Another aspect was the fact that a few production people may have promoted the cursing a little too much as something of an innovation, when they really shouldn't have. It became a big deal. I also think you have a point about the time jump. In a way, it's understandable since the show did end on a cliffhanger on ABC but it made more sense to mark some type of passage of time, especially when you couldn't secure some of the vital characters, who had last been seen in the cliffhanger. In looking back yes, but unfortunately the actions of the executives at PP/TOLN negatively impacted these shows and left quite a few of the actors reluctant to work on another such venture. Perhaps minds can eventually change but when you have Debbi Morgan saying she'd never do this again, that's bad and likely to make others wary of the next independent production company expressing the desire to take on such a venture. At this point, the only companies likely to take on such a venture are newer, more independent production companies.

Yes, such a good example! Thank you. The TOLN soaps, while unfortunately being saddled with some less than ethical producers, produced a soap that was at the very intersection of technology and storytelling innovation. Some complained about the sex trafficking storyline, which seemed to suggest that it was too gritty for them but I thought it was exactly the type of story that could be told when you have the freedom of an online medium in which to tell these stories, unfettered by a network. Why would you squander it by telling the types of milquetoast stories that got these shows cancelled in the first place? Those fans seemed to want a return to the type of show that saw its ratings drop and then hung by a slim thread in a march to cancellation. Why would anyone want this? Yes, the language could be gratuitously strong at times, but that was a minor issue that could easily have been resolved had it gotten a second season. Those shows didn't need to be relentlessly mocked the way they were. Sal Stowers, for one impressed the heck out of me, as I had only identified her by her stint on ANTM. Clearly, others were impressed as she was snapped up by Days. And not just the casting directors were watching... I remember half-watching Y&R's attempt at concocting a story about sex trafficking and thinking "These folks really think they did something here". It used characters that were so new to the canvas and so poorly drawn as characters that few people cared about what happened to them, so there were no stakes. And in typical daytime soap fashion, Y&R glamorized the guy committing the crime. It was bad. It's too bad that the TOLN soaps collapsed under the weight of poor business practices by the production company, because it was a great synthesis between an emerging technology coming together with storytelling that was actually relevant to the times we are living in.

Thanks for posting this. It's like I posted in a different thread in this section: soaps have a very difficult time with innovation on any level. They don't do it very often. Phillips was voted down when she wanted to ditch the organ music when The Guiding Light was finally brought to television (another change that P&G resisted for years, as they wanted to keep TGL on radio, while Phillips immediately wanted to bring the serial to TV as soon as the technology became available) because Phillips worried that the organ music, which she deemed unnecessary for a visual medium like television, would become a trope that would be easily mocked. Phillips wasn't always right and Lord knows she had a history of being unkind, at times, but she was clearly right in these instances. I think her constant battles with P&G and her even more frequent bouts with self-doubt clearly embittered her and also gave her a world view that a woman in a man's world was always going to be constrained.

So many people are disparaging this Sorkin interview, for so many different reasons, that I am tempted to read it.

Which is truly strange, given the fact that network television often spearheaded innovation at one time. Like I said, the transition from radio to television, the transition from live television to taped shows (with or without a studio audience). Three camera filming technique, which Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball pioneered took place on television, which daytime soap opera would eventually utilize. The transition away from organ music, which came decades after Irna Phillips had wanted to get rid of it. From what I have read, it appears that the advertisers have had too much control over the direction of these shows. Even Phillips complained about it in her day, and it's only gotten worse, clearly. I think this has stifled innovation in daytime, to a certain extent. I think when I speak of innovation, I speak mostly of the technical and programming issues, rather than basic content and subject.

Anyone who is interested in reading the article that I am talking about, I found a link that should (I think) bypass the dreaded paywall.

Maybe it's just me but it seems like this dude's trial doesn't belong in the BLM thread. He shot 3 people, right? Maybe try the Mass Shooter's thread.

I don't even subscribe to cable anymore. I do have access to an account though, lol. Gotta plan.

Sorry, I missed your post. One basic idea that I think of is the aspect of the switch from 15 minutes to 30 minutes to 60 minutes. All major innovations, as was the change from radio to television. It was obvious since the 90s (even before another world was cancelled) that the one hour format was doing a disserve to many of the remaining serials, but there was this stubborn persistence that it could only be one hour for any soap that was already one hour, even if scaling back could be a better use of resources, better storytelling. Others have mentioned incorporating 13 week arc, similar to a telenovela type of storytelling. I am of the frame of mind that you need a more nuanced form of this, since most daytime serials have storyline arcs within the concept of continuing stories, so an abrupt end won't necessarily work, but you can cycle in various groups of characters and storylines and rotate and interweave these, so that you're not committing that atrocious mistake that so many daytime soaps do, which is overusing some characters, while practically ignoring others. Ancillary shows like Days are now just beginning to experiment with online streaming and good for them. Soaps have been unbelievably poor at embracing technology, which is sad, considering Irna Phillips brought Guiding Light to television pretty much at the dawn of television. That's a thumbnail sketch of the type of innovation of which I speak. I have other ideas but this post is already lengthy. On last thing, I was reading an Op-ed article by a technology writer, Farhad Manjoo, who stated in his article that the tech business hasn't had a significant breakthrough in innovation in years... that's right...in years! I thought about it and wondered how this was possible, until he explained what the likes of Facebook, Google and the like had been up to in the last several years and you know what? I had to agree with him. True innovation is not just superficial tinkering around the margins. True innovation is great change which is sometimes even disruptive. If the tech industry hasn't been doing this, I know for sure the daytime industry hasn't been doing this either.

If I can remember, I may check it out.

Diminishing the importance of money in political campaigns is one of the truest way to change things (yeah, right, I know). Another is to raise the horribly low voter turnout during municipal and state elections. Perhaps the latter is more achievable than the former, at this point but ignoring this aspect of elections has been a missed opportunity and a detriment to the Democrats, liberal and so-called progressive alike. If the U.S. doesn't make it easier for people to vote (early voting, no-excuse voting by absentee ballot, curbside voting), guess what? Many won't vote! This may require a state by state strategy, but even if reliably Democratic states implement these options, it would make a noticeable difference. I live in a reliably "blue" state and we don't even have half these options. I voted absentee ballot this year only because I was able to check off wanting protection against COVID-19 as an "excuse". And believe you me, Democrats may not believe that a state by state strategy can be effective but you know who does? Republicans.

May Mr. Douglas R.I.P. John Abbott was such a staple in the Genoa City landscape of my childhood, that when he was killed off, it seemed as if a very important part of that show went with him.