DramatistDreamer

Even the Banbury Cross storyline had missing episodes. I mean, we know how it ends but it's not as satisfying when you don't see the steps that get to the storyline's conclusion. It's like that for basically every major storyline in the 80s up to at least 1990-91 posted on YouTube, which, tbh is annoying. And, I bet the Banbury Cross storyline would look visually stunning if it were remastered in digital and/or HD. Even the exteriors of the Synder Farm would look great in HD. The SoapClassics people should definitely have included some episodes that were shot in England/Venice and Venice. Don't know what they were thinking in not doing so.

😳😂😂🤭😩 Cheerios!

🤣😂 When I say that I'm here for the comments in this thread despite not even watching the show these days, I mean it. This is one of many reasons why.

Speaking as someone who has been on film shoots, these things are usually planned. Streets are often times blocked off to both vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Those people who are often just happen to walk by, are often extras, who may have to walk by, again and again, depending on how many 'takes' must be shot. If you look at those scenes closely, even the street scenes in London and Cambridge (where exteriors were mostly filmed), although the scenes were obviously meant to take place in the middle of the day, the streets are sparsely populated, which means that 1) these scenes were likely shot early in the morning, when filming would be the least disruptive and 2) filming was most likely highly controlled--proper permits, no one who wasn't supposed to be there. There is a chance that a Schweppes truck just happened to roll by during filming but it is unlikely that a company like P&G would allow that footage to be used on a television show that could be accessed by a representative from Schweppes--P&G, CBS could all be 'on the hook' for use of a company logo without permission. Schweppes could easily argue that their product was being shown in a way that they never intended. It's more likely that something was worked out to make sure that the footage was useable. An indie director could probably get away with filming without permission in a "gonzo" type shoot but I doubt a huge multinational corporation like P&G could get away with that. And Schweppes, a brand older than Coca Cola, that is considered a heritage brand, so closely associated with Great Britain, I doubt they'd just let some Yanks come in a film their property and brands as they please. I briefly lived in London and I have been to Cambridge and they don't even let you set foot on the [!@#$%^&*] grass unless you're a University "fellow" 🙄. They take that [!@#$%^&*] seriously. Whew, that brought back some memories! Especially since these shows were started with the purpose to literally sell soap. They were 15 minute ad placements with some drama sandwiched in between. It so happened that the drama became the most compelling element. Product placement done well seems a ton more dignified than shooting on a handheld in Peapack, NJ, or any other number of desperate techniques employed over the last fifteen years of daytime soaps. It is pretty hilarious (and sad at the same time) to see those soap dollars commercials in ATWT's final five years. They look cheap and gimmicky as hell!

Speaking of Tonio, I'm watching a 1987 episode where Tonio is trying to conceal the fact that he's seeing Meg Sunder on the sly and he's in the office and Lucinda tells him that she thinks he should give himself and "whoever your doing 😳🤭 with a bit of a rest, because you don't look well".🤣 This episode is filled with spicy dialogue, but you have to pay attention because it's so subtle, you may miss it. EDT. Seeing the clumsy attempts at product placement in the final years of ATWT, it's almost hard to believe that the show actually used to be able to do product placement quite expertly. Seeing these episodes where the Hughes family are in England and Virgin Atlantic was obviously a major sponsor during this time. Also, a street scene between Frannie and Seth, where a Schweppes truck drives by was hard to miss but fit the scene. Also the caliber of products being placed was a cut above what the show would have fifteen, twenty years later.

Trigger warning: it's the New York Times but this Op-ed reminded me of two things: a post about AT&T and Warner Bros. and the whole Discovery deal and how often these ventures become huge drains of money and resources, then flop before these corporations dump it, then move on to the next sure- to-eventually flop venture. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/12/opinion/att-warner-bros-discovery.html?campaign_id=2&emc=edit_th_20210613&instance_id=32915&nl=todaysheadlines&regi_id=15118680&segment_id=60585&user_id=5082fbe815e6ec912cf191e049f334da

Was it an off-street death, or was he onscreen at the time? I thought about it last night after posting and had wondered whether he had been killed but I couldn't really remember. So much of that period is missing from YouTube. Just scraps.

Didn't he and Sabrina elope then divorce? I thought that once he was no longer connected to Sabrina, he just faded. A thorough, year by year storylines synopses would be great but about every website I've seen looks a mess and is incomplete to boot. Does anybody remember when Wikipedia had that extensive, encyclopedic section on ATWT? It got removed many years ago (well over a decade) but that was the most thorough listing of characters and storylines I had ever seen. I had even tried to save it. Pity it was removed. We fans can never seem to get nice things for long.

Tamara Tunie, who's about twenty years younger (and has never been shy to do interviews) doesn't want to participate, so it may not be that serious.

Oh America, when will you do the right thing??

The contrast between pictures of Chancellor Angela Merkel when she had to meet with 45 compared with her expression in photos where she's meeting with Biden are sending me, lol. I honestly don't remember her smiling in the last four years.

Clay is not my favorite surface to watch tennis on, so perhaps this figures into it. I'm watching a world feed. I don't think I could bear NBC or TC commentary at this time.

I'm finding it difficult to stay interested in this match. I don't remember their face-offs always being this dull.

Nice summary of what I was trying to say. Sometimes I know I use too many words. Occupational hazard. Also, it was only two years ago that P&G was out there trying to promote the idea of "Choose Your Own Adventure" programming via streaming where they would produce content that sounded a lot like television shows. They probably didn't really mean any of it, but the fact that they mentioned it, said a lot.

There seem to be a number of people on my TL who don't care for Sakkari and I don't know why. Can anyone fill me in?

Continues to come good too.

Can we get a cameo from Marie Masters?

Even though I don't follow this man, I have come across his tweets because they often trend. I admit to reading the tweets that have come across my timeline or have been posted here, not knowing how or if he is actually connected to the journalistic universe. Anyway, I haven't yet read this but it seems intriguing.

What is Gillibrand's reason for missing a crucial vote? I guess Cher can now feel justified in accidentally tagging her in a scolding tweet that was really meant for Sinema.

It's rare that a player is able to repeat the next year after they win their first major title. In the last 25 years, Venus did it at Wimbledon and The US Open, I believe. Maybe Rafa at RG?

Which is why I suggested streaming, instead of selling boxed sets, which are more easily pirated and resold, which seems to be the bane of most artists. It's much more difficult for pirates to profit from any film or television show that is being streamed (even those who do aren't making profits since the days of KimDotCom), as opposed to making physical copies for sale. I agree that much depends upon the artist and more often, the company, but I still think the streaming vs. DVD is as important an issue in who gives permission to use their music. An example: there was a film by an indie French director that was streamed by Netflix. The director really wanted a song by Rihanna, written by Sia, for one particular scene but didn't think she could get permission. Everyone told her that it was impossible. The director elected to try anyway. She wrote a letter to Rihanna and the record company, sending a clip with the pivotal scene. She was shocked when she heard back from Rihanna personally saying that she loved the scene and the record company gave this particular director permission. I saw the film and the scene was so beautiful it moved me to tears. What artist wouldn't want to be associated with such moving art?! If it's junk, I could imagine musicians saying no. If the song has nothing to do with the scene or episode/movie, I can also see a musician saying no. A Deodorant brand once wanted to use "Don't Stand So Close To Me' and Sting/The Police said no (very understandable). The music of Dolly Parton, unfortunately, has been known to have a history of being tied up by onerous contracts, especially songs from her early catalog. I do think streaming has proven to be a different ball game (Dolly Parton herself has a series that streams on Netflix using songs from her catalog) than DVDs, which is why I specifically said streaming, not DVD or even download--the aspect of piracy and resale looks too large for physical copies being sold, with the probability of being resold with no profits going to the artists or their record company and artists and their record companies hate this. It would probably be easier to negotiate a song like "Nobody Loves Me Like You Do", which is rarely heard anywhere other than YouTube than a Phil Collins song. There is still the possibility of using generic music, which is not ideal but with today's technology is not as difficult and definitely not as expensive as it once would've been years ago. And that would be better than nothing, I think. I still think it is short-sided thinking to let so much of that catalog of episodes go to waste. It's an especial shame in this time of peak reboots, revivals, reissues and reunions. Also, it is dumb to not even try a subscription streaming service or at least, a Peacock or Roku Originals type streaming service since they're quite profitable. Then again, P&G is a mess of a company, so no surprise that they can't get anything together and because they are so messy, no other third party wants to partner with them the way the SoapClassics people once did.

🤭😂

If characters can be SORASed and be accepted, fans should definitely accept the possibility of de-aged characters to right/write the ship, so to speak. My only concern is that some rabid fan base would try to use it to weasel in, well...you know who, back to the show and nobody needs that. I'm not watching Y&R and even I don't want to see that, lol.

Once upon a time there was a thread about soaps and the use of licensed popular music, which has since been archived. I came across this YouTube article this morning, which made me think of that thread because for years, I've been saying that I believed that streaming was a way for soaps to keep the original music in their episodes, while placating artists who could get a small share of ad revenue, depending on clicks, the way YouTube does it. A subscription service that offers something that no uploader on YouTube or Dailymotion can offer- selected complete storylines presented in crystal-clear HD. Does anybody think that some 80s singer whose song is no longer charting or selling otherwise would refuse the possibility to make a bit of change from the clicks? Actors may joke about paltry residuals, but they never refuse them. Recently, the series Freaks And Geeks managed to do what had been said was impossible, put out a collection for their series with the music featured during the series' original broadcast run, and they used some pretty popular songs! A streaming platform, similar to YouTube would also have more control over preventing piracy, which is the second most cited annoyance by musicians, as to why most don't allow permission for their music to be used beyond the original one-time run on a show. With some imagination, it is indeed possible to work out a solution, provided all parties have the will to do this. As a corporation, I don't believe P&G has the imagination or the will to do this, despite the genuine likelihood that it would be profitable for them. I guess they would prefer to just arbitrarily raise prices on their consumers for mostly mediocre products. There's a link to avert the paywall by copying and pasting the URL: https://archive.is

Is the match still on? I couldn't watch after the 2nd set.