FrenchBug82

Broadening the conversation, the utter inconsistency of runs for a same HW - great once, middling others, terrible here and there - is a reminder that a HW doesn't write alone.

If it was down to them, you'd see more consistency. The producing team on one hand and the writing team under them on the other clearly - as examplified by all this - have a huge influence on whether a run is good or bad.

It might go both ways btw: maybe a run was good because producers vetoed the bad ideas and the writing team pitched great stuff. And then the HW gets a bad run because the producers let them run free and the writers under them are not that good or not comfortable pushing back.
Or a HW has a bad run because a producer vetoes the good ideas and the breakdown writing team is not gelling right but gets a good run when everyone is rowing in the same direction.
My personal sense is that the former is probably closer to the truth: bad runs tend to happen to HW later - it is generally her first few ones that are highly praised.
By then they have a reputation and people under them probably don't dare push back or be too bold in pushing things. And producers trust the track record and don't oversee the writing as much. Also, as time goes by, a lot of people upstairs don't seem to care to micromanage as much which means a HW with bad judgement has more leeway than in the 80s.
Either way soaps, like most businesses, need a clear line of authority - meaning one headwriter - but a strong team under them. It goes to finding good writers, nurturing them, listening to them. And a producer that is discerning about how they manage the writing.
It is easier for fans to sum everything up with who was HW at the time but I really think that misses a lot of the real dynamic that makes for a decent or terrible show. 

On 3/4/2021 at 9:13 PM, ChickenNuggetz92 said:

 

It's JG's way of setting up Summer and Kyle to be the next "it" couple. It's also his way of setting up both characters to be the noble hero/heroine from their age grouping. It's obviously not working.

Ironically, overcoming drama is what turns a soap couple into an "it" couple. If we root for them to get back together after rows, fights, secrets, lies, cheatings, you have it made.
Having it all be easy and smooth is... not the way.

On 3/6/2021 at 2:13 PM, Chatty Cakes said:

Why does Sally keep engaging the disgusting Summer?

I continue to say that while I could buy the underlying story of rivalry, the way it has been set up is making me not care that much. I need them to have a real good soapy reason to hate each other, not just "dislike each other on sight".

On 3/6/2021 at 8:44 PM, Antoyne said:

Nah Ben can be a serial killer. The problem is making that serial killer a hero and anyone that has a problem with it, wrong.

In isolation this is true but the pattern of Days turning its young attractive decent-acting and popular male leads into criminals is abysmal and short-sighted. As far back as Nick as the stalker.
 

I have literally loved every English-language soaps I have watched so maybe I am too much a fan. LOL There are storylines I do not connect with (science-fiction is a no for me) but there has never been a soap that has instinctively repulsed me. Even Passions where there was a lot of science-fiction but the soap beats were still fun, even when poorly acted.
French soaps (I am originally French) on the other hand make me very uncomfortable. The production values are below cheap.

On 3/6/2021 at 10:34 AM, victoria foxton said:

 
That is true although, for the actor himself, he might read it as him/her not being able to pull off the role even with their best acting and it hurts their pride. That's what Ramsey gets at in his admittedly way too convoluted response: if he is an actor, he is supposed to be able to handle everything that is coming at him.
TR's comments, coming as they did in the midst of big scenes that unfortunately WR kinda whiffed on (and I say that as someone who doesn't mind his acting 80% of the time) read as a read even if TR didn't intend them that way.
What TR said was all true and I think he was more intent on calling the show out. But it is a reminder of the golden rule of "speaking truths":
- Does it need to be said?

- Does it need to be said by me?

- Does it need to be said by me here and now?
I think this was off-base on the latter point. This commentary was true but with the character still on-screen, there was nothing to gain even if we fans enjoyed the T.
 

On 3/6/2021 at 1:14 PM, Vizion said:

All of this "what Nina did was SO wrong" stuff is melodramatic.

Here is a thing I know we GH viewers are not used to so maybe we missed it: how about both women have good points and grievances AND are completely making the situation worse? How about there is nobody to root for or against but a very complicated situation being messy because real people don't always react wisely to tough calls?
I like that story - at least so far - because it is indeed, as many above have said, easy to side with one one scene and then realize the other has a point the next.
That's good writing. If they manage to add Ava to the mix later, I might thoroughly enjoy this as good soap stuff.
And additionally: Carly is a shrieking harpy but that's the way she is written. LW is giving them exactly what they want and she is doing a good job at it. I have problems with the character and the writing choices but not with her acting.

On 3/2/2021 at 8:52 PM, Pine Charles said:

 

Can I point out that one reason this really works is not just the one-liners but because Barbara is actually right about the name? That's good writing where not everything is black and white and the antagonist can actually be the one that makes a reasonable point. That makes the scenes more interesting.
 

On 3/6/2021 at 3:24 PM, DeliaIrisFan said:

I found this period fascinating, in part because the backstage drama I've read about was so obviously spilling over onscreen. 

For someone for whom this is a bit earlier than what I am familiar with, what drama are we talking about? And how do you see it spilling on-screen? 
 

16 hours ago, KMan101 said:

we wasted so much time on say, Krystal ...

 

Also in 1999 it was a shame the Erica/Dimitri/Brooke triangle fizzled out. That was fun.

I get the Krystal hate, I really do. But I don't think introducing another actress in that age range with no established ties was a bad idea. Injecting an outsider can sometimes help.
Of course, on the other hand, it is a real shame they completely lost the plot for Brooke for so long because she should have continued to be the other anchor of the show vs Erica. Julia Barr is a wonder and I will never understand what happened there.

2 minutes ago, Forever8 said:

Alan Locher is hosting a trio of soap alums on his YouTube show, The Locher Room, to benefit the nonprofit organization, Chrysalis. Real-life girlfriends and former soap stars, Rebecca Gayheart (ex-Hannah, LOVING), Sharon Leal (ex-Dahlia, GUIDING LIGHT) and Yvonna Kopacz-Wright (ex-Mel, GL) will participate in the live interview and discuss their two-plus decades as friends, motherhood and their careers to help raise money for the organization. This interview will take place on Thursday March 11, 3 p.m. ET and can be viewed herefor the full story. Chrysalis is a nonprofit organization dedicated to creating a pathway to self-sufficiency for homeless and low-income individuals by providing the resources and support needed to find and retain employment.

I am excited to hear how RG talks of her experience on Loving. Have not heard her talk about it before.

1 hour ago, Ponds said:

Other than Brooke and Donna, who HASN'T Wyatt had an affair with on this show?  Seeing him talk to Katie like nothing transpired between them feels sort of off to me.

It has been so thoroughly memory-holed and the bed-hopping goes on so fast that *I* actually had forgotten about it. 

I will be in the minority and say I don't mind having another place of work/different line of work added to the mix. Having everyone work at the same two companies would end up being tiresome.
Now this doesn't work so far because Phyllis and Abby are not working right now but hotel/restaurant allows for a lot of character mingling so at least in theory it doesn't bother me.
I'd add that they did this with Nick and the coffeehouse back in the day.
It is actually weirder to see characters in their 20s (cough, Kyle, cough, Summer, cough) suddenly being high management at businesses we are supposed to believe are huge corporations than to believe they would try out entrepreneurial careers different from their forebears.

59 minutes ago, All My Shadows said:

AMC was great at humanizing those supercouple spoilers.

I wish soaps would learn indeed that it is a more compelling story to see a real layered likeable human falling in love and competing for half of supercouple than whatever caricatures of evil vs supercouple-we-are-supposed-to-root-for writers go for 90% of the time.
I hate that they think the audience is so simple-minded that we can't deal with anything other than the spoilers being evil, crazy or unlikeable (including turning established characters into this when needed) and would not accept "It is complicated" as a story.

43 minutes ago, KMan101 said:

 

I figured they haven't played the beats at all. It could totally work but the writing isn't there. Shame but expected.

This. This. This.
They haven't played the beats at all. 
And that's what I was saying re: the Phyllis twosome vs Sally. As KMan101 said, it does make sense for them to be insecure. But you can't get them to 1000 unless you SHOW why that initial dislike escalates to a real rivalry. A few tense conversations is not good enough.
Play the beats. Exactly my problem with all of this. Stop telling me about Sally and how everyone feels about Sally. Show me. Write it. Tell a story with a beginning a middle and a to be continued.

1 hour ago, carolineg said:

As far as MB, I don't understand why he would do that.

Yeah I am a bit surprised. I have never doubted he was part of the awful boys' club but he had generally been smarter about not playing with fire when it comes to his public persona.
A consequence of a certain someone's prominence in our country the past few years really seem to be that a lot of people seem to have been liberated to behave in awful manners without any second thoughts.

On the upside, happy that Maura West tweeted in response to support NLG. She could have chosen to stay quiet and let the drama involving others unfold. This makes me happy.

5 hours ago, Dylan said:

They do the same with hunter king i noticed. I don't get it either. 

For the record I don't like MS as an actress and there are some off-the-set stuff I disapprove of but I agree this post was over-the-top.
She is far from an old goat, she is far from the worst when it comes to plastic surgery and as irritated as I am by her acting (or lately lack thereof), she is not repulsive.
I have even less against Hunter King, whose character I do not like, but who is doing fine with the material she is given.

What saddens me is that everytime NLG calls them out, she is the one that is made to take her Tweets down and say she was drunk (which to be fair she sometimes is when she is bolder about calling some costars out).
It is the old stereotype of the nut-busting angry nagging liberal harpie winning over the trash that the cast is filled with.

 

7 hours ago, carolineg said:

 

Sonny and Emily were bad.  I don't necessarily think there was no coming back from that though.  I

Storywise, you are right. I was more talking about her popularity in the fandom. That's, from my recollection, when the irritation became genuine dislike for her, fair or not.

2 hours ago, carolineg said:

 

I never thought her facial work hurt her performance, but maybe?  It was jarring especially for someone so gorgeous naturally.  I thought it was more a lack of energy.  She played Brenda like she was clinically depressed for most of her stint.  She used a lot of weird mannerisms she didn't use in the 90's.  

To be fair, if you think about my criticism of her cosmetic surgery changes, you can recognize how it led to some of the things you noticed.

If she can't smile properly because of face work, she will automatically look less full of life. And she might compensate for her inability to face-act with other mannerisms.
I am speculating but I know it bugged me very much in her case - as many others.

1 hour ago, carolineg said:

I don't think NL is that bad.  She's nothing special, but she's pretty and likable enough.  

For most of her run I was fine with her. Not a fan but she was decent enough. Not Emmy-worthy at all but the stupidity of the Emmys isn't on her and she was fine.

I think what soured everyone was not so much Nik/Emily who, as overplayed as they were, made sense story-wise.
It was Sonny/Emily. Fair or not, there was no coming back from that.

14 minutes ago, KMan101 said:

 

She's made some guest appearances, but that was more under Ron (I know Ron can be a shitshow writer but he knows what we know: those characters should have been on the show and not killed, just like at DAYS, though then he turns around and offs people like it's nothing so ... see, shitshow writer). I have no idea what she is up to in her life now. Does she act?

She has deleted her FB and her twitter hasn't been updated since shortly after her 2018 appearance.

She has probably moved on.

I am not sure why we need to belabor something that I can't prove and that you can't disprove.

I stick to my knowledge that the idea that actors/resses only get fired for "creative reasons" and that "we would have heard about it otherwise" is wrong, and my belief that there was a BTS issue for why NL didn't last on Days.
You don't believe it. Fine.

Moving back on to General Hospital matters now.

1 hour ago, Vee said:

We've all seen how this business works.

That's exactly why I say what I am saying. People don't just get fired and recast three months in because a story doesn't work. 
I know how this business works and the idea that the only reason people are ever fired in soaps is because of creative reasons is just fans forgetting soaps are a workplace with the same kind of human resources issues as everywhere else.

2 minutes ago, John said:

Maybe its because NL was boring as Taylor, even more than the first Taylor in  the 90s

Nah. Tamara Braun was boring as Taylor too and she is a much better actress. The character was badly written and the whole storyline poorly thought out but you don't hire someone and fire them within three months without a good reason. TB was not a bigger catch for them than NL was at the time (for better or for worse, NL is an Emmy winner). 
So let's not be naive. Things happen behind-the-scenes like at any workplace. Not every firing is for "creative" reasons. Three months tenure is absolutely undoubtedly a sure sign this is one of these cases.

6 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

I think we also need to make allowances for the possibility that not everyone may have had a positive experience on their respective shows. Sexiam, racism and discrimination and various forms of ostracization and bullying are all things that exist in any workplace and the soap industry functions like any other workplace. I am not saying it is a factor in many of these cases but we know that it exists and CBS shows were among some of the worst offenders in that regard.

Not everyone will have positive things to say about their time on soaps, and not everyone will want to discuss it either. I also try to keep this in mind.

That's very true. That's why I give Tamara Tunie allowance for her refusal to talk about the show, despite my frustration about it. I get it.
BUT being in the public eye means faking it to an extent. How many movies have sets where everybody hates each other, bad things happen left and right and it is dysfunctional and awful? Probably a huge proportion. How many actors refuse to promote the movie for that reason or spend their PR tour talking about how much they hated it? How many even discuss bad experiences even years later? Very few and when it happens it is generally for movies thar are masterpieces and get BTS documentaries made.
It should be the same for soaps. Even if you weren't happy there, there are easy ways for someone who became more famous later to give a saccharine content-free answer about how grateful you are for the opportunity and the fans you made along the way. And then next question.
When someone like Meg Ryan refused to even entertain questions it was because she was ashamed of that work and as a soap fan, I am offended.

2 minutes ago, John said:

Ok did NL do something at Days to cause her to lose the role of Taylor???

She was fired and immediately recast less than three months after she was hired.
So yeah. Something happened. We just don't know what.

My problem with Sally vs Phyllis/Summer is that nothing has happened that would justify those two going so hard against her.

It is one thing to establish that they are suspicious of her and instantly disliked her but for me to be invested there needs to be actual things that happen that establish detestation between two characters. Here there is nothing. Phyllis is making big speeches about how awful Sally is without an ounce of fact at all.
"She got promoted too fast" is not a compelling hook for her to start breaking the law in pursuit of God knows what..

4 hours ago, KMan101 said:

Emily would work better if they brought back Helena and had it revealed Rebecca was a brainwashed Emily. Boom there you go. Done. 

 

I'd have to think about Georgie.

Yeah. Bringing back Emily would be pretty easy considering the Nikolas connection and with Helena and all.
But NL was so loathed by fans by the end of her stint that I don't think anyone really misses Emily. And based on what happened at Days, I think there must be more to her story.

Georgie is more of a sore point but there are also way fewer ways to bring her back without really testing our ability to suspend disbelief.
For the record, I didn't like Kiki in either of her versions but killing her off was also stupid for the long term, despite the material it gave Maura W.
Don't kill characters in their 10s/20s with a lot of family on the canvas. Just don't

3 hours ago, Forever8 said:

I too had the same thought too!!! 

Ditto.
There would be ways for him to express doubt without necessarily selling out his friend.
I mean, it is not like there isn't a history of bad paternity tests in their family that he could use to justify asking for a second opinion, right?