Build new characters slowly. Everyone knows that it takes six months to a year for an audience to care about a new character. Tie them in to existing characters. Don't shove them down the viewers' throats.

Don't fire anyone for six months. I feel very deeply that you should look at the show's canvas before you do anything.

These two, esp. the first one, are the two that most writers neglect today. They want to get to their characters right off the bat. And viewers could care less.

Learning the history AND listening to what the VIEWERS want! That should be top priority!

I disagree on "listen to what viewers" want. If you are writing interesting and compelling storylines, then the viewers will come. That's what made Bill Bell exceptional. Learning the history should be an expectation.

IA with Steve, those two are very important and right now LML is failing at that. Not to say her stories are interesting either.

I disagree on "listen to what viewers" want. If you are writing interesting and compelling storylines, then the viewers will come. That's what made Bill Bell exceptional. Learning the history should be an expectation.

IA with Steve, those two are very important and right now LML is failing at that. Not to say her stories are interesting either.

Looking at the things that Douglas Marland said, I don't think he meant to change stories or give the viewers the exact stories they want. He did say to listen to them about characters because the characters you like may not be the ones they like. If only Jean Passanante, Megan McTavish, Bob Guza, and Dena Higley could heed that one. They constantly give the same characters over and over and they are not the characters that fans want to see. I think all of them do it a bit, but those 4 are the worst offenders.

He did say that to listen to them about what characters please them, and also if the audience says a character would never do that then you have gone wrong.

So I think that is what he basically meant.

Some viewers though want to dictate what they see on the screen and that should never be the case. Days has specifically been plagued with this, and Corday many times has given in to them when he shouldn't.

I agree with Dru if you give them good stories around the characters they know and love then people will tune in.

I disagree on "listen to what viewers" want. If you are writing interesting and compelling storylines, then the viewers will come. That's what made Bill Bell exceptional. Learning the history should be an expectation.

I totally agree with you.

It is the writers' job to know what makes good television. They're supposed to be creative and savvy about audience psychology, that's their job. They are people, we are people. What they find interesting, compelling, and entertaining, we should more or less find so also. You gotta have faith in that, else you'll get into too many loops trying to figure out what's fair to expect from a show and what isn't. I am a big believer in the "If you build it, they will come" attitude. Often an audience doesn't know they like something until they see it. That's not meant to come off as snobby, that's just human nature.

However it's only fair to say that the pendulum can swing the other way, when the writer is the only one who thinks what he is writing is entertaining. In that case, the viewers are the only remaining source of reason. That doesn't mean everything they say is reasonable and ought to be listened to. A writer worth their salt can sift through and pick out what is fair to change based on viewer opinion, and what isn't. (For point of reference on this last point, I am a Days fan that has survived two regimes of JER, hack extraordinaire. I can't not mention the other side here )

Just to remind people of what Douglas Marland's Creed was. Here it is.

Steve, is this available somewhere on the web for bookmarking? I would love to have it available as a ready reference for some message board debates

Here is the link to the current permanent place on the Web. The person there has not updated the site in awhile so not sure how long it will stay.

http://www.soap-news.com/gl/marland042793.htm

One thing to remember on the Listening To Fans Thing. I am a firm believer that fans should let the writers write, but on the point of them listening to the fans at times. Megan McTavish basically said that the fans were wrong when we didn't like the Josh being Erica's son - unabortion thing. If only she had listened to the fans.

Source: Jason47's Days site

More ratings, from June 1985:

June 10-14, 1985

1.General Hospital 9.2

2.All My Children 8.8

3.Young & The Restless 8.3

4.One Life to Live 7.8

5.Days of Our Lives 7.1

5.Guiding Light 7.1

7.As The World Turns 6.4

8.Another World 5.7

9.Capitol 5.3

10.Loving 4.4

11.Santa Barbara 3.8

12.Search for Tomorrow 3.4

13.Ryan's Hope 3.0

June 17-21, 1985

1.General Hospital 9.2

2.All My Children 8.7

3.One Life to Live 7.8

4.Young & The Restless 7.7

5.Days of Our Lives 6.6

5.Guiding Light 6.6

7.As The World Turns 6.5

8.Capitol 5.5

9.Another World 5.2

10.Loving 4.3

11.Santa Barbara 3.5

12.Ryan's Hope 3.2

12.Search for Tomorrow 3.2

You can see how much the numbers could change back then even within a week!

Source: Jason47's Days site

More ratings, from June 1985:

You can see how much the numbers could change back then even within a week!

And even when they did drop .5, the ratings were still good!

Source: Jason47's Days site

More ratings, from June 1985:

June 10-14, 1985

1.General Hospital 9.2

2.All My Children 8.8

3.Young & The Restless 8.3

4.One Life to Live 7.8

5.Days of Our Lives 7.1

5.Guiding Light 7.1

7.As The World Turns 6.4

8.Another World 5.7

9.Capitol 5.3

10.Loving 4.4

11.Santa Barbara 3.8

12.Search for Tomorrow 3.4

13.Ryan's Hope 3.0

June 17-21, 1985

1.General Hospital 9.2

2.All My Children 8.7

3.One Life to Live 7.8

4.Young & The Restless 7.7

5.Days of Our Lives 6.6

5.Guiding Light 6.6

7.As The World Turns 6.5

8.Capitol 5.5

9.Another World 5.2

10.Loving 4.3

11.Santa Barbara 3.5

12.Ryan's Hope 3.2

12.Search for Tomorrow 3.2

You can see how much the numbers could change back then even within a week!

DAMN ABC ruled the ratings in '85, look at ABCD now.

DAMN ABC ruled the ratings in '85, look at ABCD now.

ABC actually receded slightly compared to the numbers they got in the early 80s, as the week of Luke & Laura's wedding in 1981 showed. They introduced Loving, then moved Ryan's Hope to a new timeslot which caused its ratings to plunge to the basement. Those numbers, IIRC, were probably the best Loving ever got.

But the big difference between '81 and '85 was at NBC. The 1980-83 years were really bad for NBCD because its two biggest shows hit rock bottom. By 1985, however, things were looking up.

Aw GL might have not been in the top five that week, but GL was definitely the soap to watch back then. One of the most character driven dramas among the soaps back then. Written by a soap opera fan, a fan who watched and adored the soap. Gah I miss Nancy Curlee and her husband.