DramatistDreamer

I also feel as if she wanted to extrapolate on her "alternate" denouement to the Maureen story, where Roger secrets her onto a private plane, but felt that she might not have had the time to give more precise details about the mechanisms on how that proceeds and what the implications of those actions will be. For the last decade and a half, I've suspected that these writers don't even outline their story projections, as though they are just adding and filling in as they go along. That's how it plays out onscreen to me. I don't necessarily like writing outlines, but I appreciate how important they can be in order to create coherent stories, and when you are doing more than one storyline, as most television dramas and sitcoms require, it becomes critical, or you end up with a muddled mess, or something middling and insipid I'm not sure how many people have participated in a focus group. I have and the ones I have participated in, the environment is rife with group think. It's similar to a sequestered jury that wants to make sure there is no dissenters that will keep them from reaching a verdict so they can collect their things and go home. In short, the business. The natur of how it works and how writers have to present their work. For women, in particular, when you leave, you can more often than not, lose your "place". I'm not saying it's impossible, bit that it becomes especially challenging and she has to be 'up to' the fight. Also, the unfortunate reality is that the work of a writer whose resume focused on daytime dramas is not likely to be regarded in the same way as a writer who wrote for Grey's Anatomy, even though, at heart, both are soaps. It's a savage reality of the business. It would be good if it changed. If she has some primetime credentials, that might make a bigger difference.

I just saw that. He must've blocked that out. His response tells me that the work was forgettable.

This is something that strangely, didn't surprise me. I have already said that cancel culture doesn't exist. Society will diminish and defame even women who are supposed to be in power, so how do you think it will treat those who are regarded as being without power? Cosby proves that money makes all the difference in the world, in how people are treated within the criminal justice system. There are non-violent offenders who got out due to COVID-19 running rampant in prisons, who have lived exemplary lives while under house arrest who must now face re-incarceration because the prison industrial complex now says that Covid-19 is over. They do not have money so they have to hope that someone with clout can amplify their cause, if they are lucky. As for Rashad, she no doubt, backtracked out of fear for her new job as Dean of the Fine Arts school but this is not the first time she has vocalized her support for Cosby, at the expense of the victims and Howard University decided to make her dean anyway-- they knew what she was about. This was a reason why I was concerned about Howard naming their Fine Arts school after Boseman because with his much talked about connection to Phylicia Rashad, I just knew she would be chosen for a critical position in that school, proving that in many cases, who one knows can trump any qualifications someone else might have. But again, wasn't the least surprised. Also, all of these prosecutors were very very sloppy. Knowing the sad reality that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, they needed to present a meticulous case, which includes doing homework to make sure there were no loopholes, and they didn't. They let their ego get in the way of doing due diligence and now, look.

The introduction of the Rosales family had all the subtlety and appeal of a bull in a china shop. If they had just brought back David Lago for a five, six week story arc and introduced one or two Rosales members as his kin, and set up their introduction through Raúl, it could've worked, but heaven forbid there be any connection to any characters created by a previous regime.

Imagine working for a show where you have to "fight" to get Nia Long on the show. The soaps always had issues, even in the "good old days". Curlee laid it down that the focus groups were pretty much no bueno when it came to effective writing. She did mention the...wait for it...six month rule in being able to write Holly and Roger getting together after all that bitter history because Roger raped Holly.

My condolences to the GH fans. Even if you were only a sporadic GH viewer like me, you know who Damon was and you knew of the character Alan Quartermaine. It will never not be sad how badly these daytime soaps have handled their elder veteran actors and the characters they played. Now in typical fashion, after briefly expressing condolences, members of the production are now engaging in the game of shifting blame. Sad all around.

Things were going well during morning session. Then Dove into flustercluck territory in the late afternoon. I have read that other players have been slipping and falling since day 1. I only saw clips but it is really unfortunate what happened to Serena and Mannarino today.

I did say it wasn't over yet, from the getgo. One interesting thing that I am seeing is the reports concerning the precincts that are reporting the most absentee ballots. And NYC elections are as messy as I remember.

Isn't she on a sitcom on CBS now?

Same. The writing that first season was bad. Debbie Allen wanted to keep Marisa/Maggie but Cosby said no.

I came across this and found it to be a salient point and the reason why many in the Twittersphere were quick to dismiss Adams, which didn't jibe with the reality in actual NYC neighborhoods. I guess this is the reason why I was so confused about the fact that so many people were claiming not to know who Adams is, while I thought he was probably going to be the candidate that people had the most familiarity with (which can be a double-edged prospect).

I was hoping for something that is focused on the daytime drama, but I guess daytime dramas don't have the caché to stand on its own, even though there are more than enough topics and chapters to explore.

Diminishing returns is an apt description. It's more sad than anything. The fact that people couldn't check their egos long enough to see what damage was being done. Soap fans were terrified of losing these shows, which is understandable but fawning over mediocre at best writing and incredibly toxic writing at its very worst, only helped hasten the demise of this genre, by not demanding better. And nobody please tell me that soap fans didn't have that type of power. We're all acquainted with at least one story of an actor or storyline that got scuttled because of fan outcry. It's never good to be that desperate. Good point about the parallel universes of trashy blog culture. I would also add that while other entertainment had at least, the appearance of balance with the traditional media (arts and entertainment sections of newspapers, etc.), the soaps seemingly became utterly reliant on those toxic blogs, that often seemed like the only game in town. The one or two blogs that tried to do good quality, comprehensive coverage found it tough sledding and are no longer active.

It does, doesn't it? You're welcome.

Did everyone see the trailer for the Frid documentary?

Wow, I had heard about other things after ATWT's cancellation, but not about this. Although, I have respect for human life and it is always sad when a human being passes from this earth, the hagiography surrounding Sheffer, particularly his work on ATWT, after his passing is an aspect that remains mystifying to me. He always came off as flippant about these shows. It seemed like he was only interested in doing well enough to position himself to move onto something "better". When it became obvious that time wouldn't come, the work got even more sloppy.

Neither have I. All I'm saying is that, why should it matter so much to fans whether actors who used to be on soaps talk about their time on them at all? Why does their approval even matter? Fans of horror and sci-fi never seem to care about this, no matter how many "Trekkie" jokes were made over decades. Now, you have a mainstream culture that can't get enough iterations of Star Trek, Candyman and other sci-fi, fantasy and horror. Get Out won Academy awards and inspired a ton of not-so-good imitations. No because Morgan Freeman talked up those genres, but because fans themselves supported the genre, criticized it and inspired filmmakers that would come along and make it even more relevant, to the point of attracting others. By the way, in between those years, the Evil Dead and Candyman, etc. movies sold a lot on VHS and DVD, which likely sustained interest until that next generation of filmmaker, like a Jordan Peele to elevate the material. I have never understood why soap fans don't target the folks who actually to devalue and denigrate soaps. A lot of them are still around, they block the remaining soaps from being good. Isn't Steve Kent still out there making a mockery of the daytime drama? Isn't P&G still letting thousands of hours of classic daytime drama rot in storage? Who deserves more ire? Who is actually showing the most disrespect for the genre? If anybody here has ever worked in television, you'd know some of the denigrating things many of the executives behind some of these television shows say about many of the fans. It just doesn't seem worth it to focus on the actors.

That was March 20, 1987. I'm taking about the 23rd if March, which is a Monday. That episode is not on YouTube. The 23rd is when B&B debuted, isn't it? That would be the same day ATWT debuted in its new timeslots on the East Coast.

We might have discussed this in this thread previously, but I have a question about the first episode that aired in the 2p.m. EST timeslot on March 23, 1987. (because of the debut of B&B in the 1:30p.m. timeslot): Does anybody know what specific stories and characters appeared on that episode? Unfortunately, it's not on YouTube.

Serena was never going to go to the Olympics. She had already expressed reservations about the issues with COVID outbreaks in Japan. She has a toddler to consider.

What really annoys me about all of these articles and think pieces is how they neglect to mention that NYC voters did trust a progressive mayor for two terms and many came away disappointed. People may not want to remember this but DeBlasio was voted into office in his professed progressive 'bonafides' and disappointed in many areas, the reasons are complex in some regards but the current mayor's defiant stance in wanting to credit himself, even for things he has yet to accomplish probably had a hand (even a small one) in the current standing in the mayor's race, although there have been whispers that DeBlasio had a preference for Adams to succeed him. That alone should've told everyone that things were never going to fall squarely on ideological lines. But somehow when it comes to POCs and politics, many would rather claim we're simple "sheep", rather than people weighing the history and making practical decisions.

Honestly, I think it's myth that the majority of actors who have been on soaps are ashamed of having been on them. I think soap fans are being too sensitive on this. The disrespect that the genre gets is mostly by industry executives, those with actual power to decide what we see on our screens. Are there some actors ambivalent about discussing their time on soaps? No doubt ,there have been a few well-publicized examples, but even out of those, I'd separate those who don't want to discuss their time because they felt their performances were subpar, or that they were so "green" that they didn't really know what they were doing. This is just me talking, but I get far more put out by the lack of acknowledgement of these shows' impact on the television and media landscape, as well as the lack of a rigorous critique of its shortcomings and how this may have led it to where it is now.

The New York Times decided to interrupt their regularly scheduled habit of navel-gazing at Trump supporters to try to analyze something that should have been fairly obvious to anyone paying attention for the last decade. And the analysis still falls short.

I shouldn't be judging by today's standards, where there are all kinds of scholarly think-pieces. I'm still hoping for a Ken Burnsian type of documentary series, or at least a Television In America type of series, which gives a robust insight that can't be so easily dismissed by people outside if the genre. The soaps have, even at their height of popularity, not gotten the measure of respect that they should have gotten. JMO, but I didn't see any if those publications helping in that regard.