Jump to content

Christopher Goutman: Q&A on Another World


Recommended Posts

  • 2 years later...
  • Members

This interview just makes me sad.

I don't know what happened to Chris Goutman in the last ten years, but it's depressing as hell. Reading this interview, and his last two with SOD, it's like they're two completely different people.

I want this Goutman back. The one we have now is just a frustrated, jaded, bitter, burnt out mess. He really was such a life preserver for daytime back then, with so much hope. They really ground all the joy and passion out of him over the years, haven't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

At the time of this interview Goutman was breathing new life back in Another World. He had long-term plans for the show, with a focus on bringing the show back to it's roots. After years of disappointment, he gave fans hope - which was no small feat.

He was passionate about the show and the industry, and he did the best he could to help it survive. He brought this same passion when he switched to ATWT. I always wondered was Goutman and Hogan Scheffer could have done if they were working together on AW, instead of on ATWT.

When Another World was cancelled the show was on the cusp of a new renaissance. He put an end to the Lumina/Jordan Stark story, put more focus onto popular vets (I believe he was also responsible for bringing back Carl Hutchins). Fans had reason to love him.

The past 10 years have really changed him. I too wish that this man from 1999 was still working his magic in 2009.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Goutman was heralded back then, but I was watching, and I did not feel much improvement. I felt like people were just desperate to praise the show to keep it from being canceled. NBC may have mandated Lumina, but Leah Laiman was the headwriter, there wasn't going to be quality character-driven story anyway.

The show was already more focused on vets before he got there, thanks to Richard Culliton putting the spotlight back on Cass, Felicia, and Donna the previous year before Culliton asked to be demoted (so the rumor was) after Charles Keating was fired by NBC.

Carl was brought back for a few days when the show was canceled. Goutman's more significant return would probably be getting Alice Barrett Mitchell back, but her character Anne was bland, thank you Leah Laiman.

ATWT when Goutman first started also got immediately worse, with the hiring of bland soap hunk Paul Korver as Chris, replacing the talented (but unconventional-looking) Ben Jorgensen, and the beginning of a permanent backburnering for Bob and Kim. This was followed quickly by the firing of the talented and chemistry-laden (but unconventional-looking) Nathaniel Marston and Jaime Nicole Dudney. Oh yes, (unconventional-looking) Scott DeFreitas was also fired around this time.

There is no "Goutman back then" who was great. Goutman is the same as he ever was -- more focused on surface appearances than on real quality.

He didn't cause the death of Another World (that was NBC), and his ATWT is still good despite flaws, but I've never understood the high praise for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I see many of your points, but you're also leaving out a LOT, jfung. It was obvious that Goutman was much beloved by most of the cast and crew at ATWT, and the few years where they swept the Emmys, there was a general excitement and energy in every interview read/saw with ATWT cast members about how thrilled they were to be a part of the show. And sure, some of that may have seemed like lip service - but when Maura West, Martha Byrne, Michael Park and the Hensleys are all talking about the positive aspects to Goutman EP'ing, that says a lot. Compare that to the last few years - NOBODY talks about Goutman anymore in the press. In fact, I can't remember the last time an actor said something about him, which is a completely different tune than the ones people were singing in 2000-2004.

Yes, Korver wasn't a find, and losing DeFrietas (and Bryggman) were both dumb moves (as well as back-burning the Hughes family). But I don't see ANYBODY clamoring for the return of Eddie and Georgia these days.

He's not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination. But the show looked like a million bucks in Goutman's first few years, and the general vibe you got from most of the cast was that morale was great and he was extremely well-liked. At least back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Good points, brimike.

I still think Gotuman is well-liked ... I don't really get a sense of low morale at the show (but I am not privy to backstage gossip). I also think he is sincere in caring about multigenerational families -- another EP would probably have fired the unused vets by now.

The on-screen results are what I care most about though. To the extent that people were excited about the on-screen results among the cast, I attribute that more to the work of Hogan Sheffer and Carolyn Culliton. I don't remember people gushing about ATWT when Laiman was writing it.

I still think Goutman didn't suddenly lose his touch, he was over-hyped to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's because they weren't, the best thing that ever happened to Goutman's reputation during his first year or so at ATWT was Laiman's firing. The show was in the gutter for a good part of 1999 and 2000, storylines was hallow, characters were dumb as hell, and almost nothing made too much sense.

Laiman doesn't get too much credit for the hack she is. She's right up there with McTavish and Higley, if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The only story I really liked from those two years was the All About Eve story at WOAK. I know a lot of people had problems with it, but I really enjoyed it. Oh, and the Parker reveal when CG/LL FIRST started, but you can't really count that since they were wrapping up Broderick's story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Community Posts

    • I hear what your saying regarding Carrie Brady's place on the canvas. There is no arguing that. As I think I was saying poorly above, Karen was introduced during a transition period very early in Riche's run (as was Jagger). There were a lot of things that happened during that period that feel very against the soap opera grain. For example, David Langdon, Monica's ex and Dawn's father, arrives in Port Charles in a medical story where Monica inserts herself with the intention of telling David that Dawn was their daughter. David dies suddenly and Monica never reveals this information to David. This feels very untraditional. Similarly, the whole Joseph Adkins arc with Bobbie writing to a murderer and the women of Port Charles all fawning over his book is not something I felt was the type of story soaps in 1992 did. Similarly, introducing a character like Karen without any family ties and anchoring a younger part of the story with another outsider Jagger wasn't how things would typically work (effectively) on the soap.   I think my issue with the idea that Brenda had a direct goal is that is all there was to her. She had nothing to her outside of that in early 1993. Jagger had wanting to find his family. Karen was working to get into medical school. Brenda had Jagger, who only wanted her when he couldn't have Karen. Even Ruby called Jagger out on this. Brenda's point of view was so limited. The fact that she nearly gets bested by Jenny Eckert of all people in a confrontation in March, 1993, is pretty wild given how milquetoast Jenny is.  I can see why you would think Karen was taking a middle of the road approach to things. It might not have been presented well, but her pursuing her career and going to college was going to come first. Working at Kelly's and maintaining her grades was going to come before her romance with Jagger. With Rhonda around, meddling in her life, Karen definitely had more reason to be conflicted. Rhonda saw Karen's relationship with Jason as the key to Karen's success, both by marrying into a wealthy family and by building a network of connections in Karen's career field.  Having watched some of her "General Hospital" run, I would like to at the early years of Karen's run on "Port Charles" to see how that all this continues in terms of her characterization. I think Karen remains very passive romantically deferring to Courtney Kanelos, who was just a much stronger adversary for Karen than Brenda was based on where Brenda was in her journey given that Courtney had Neil which tied her to the entire Scanlon clan. I do remember Karen having some outbursts, but I vaguely think that Shayne's Karen could also be pushed to her limits and she would fire back. This just wasn't her modus operandi as it was for characters like Courtney and early Brenda.  In Brenda's defense, I think part of the issue was the underdevelopment of her character. I think there was an intent on either Levinson's (or Riche's) part to craft Brenda as a "poor little rich girl" type who had no moral compass because her father was a business tycoon who ignored her and had loved Julia's mother more than her mother. If this was true, and the intent to solicit sympathy, or least empathy, for Brenda, it wasn't played enough for this to be effective. Brenda rejected Julia both in terms of her role as a parental figure and any sisterly advice she gave.  I would even go further and say that the issues I have with the Brenda/Karen rivalry were inherit to Bill Levinson's writing. By comparison, if you look at what was being done in the other female rivalries, the issues were mostly consistent. Jenny and Julia, for example, had the potential to be interesting but Julia was so passive and Jenny was sound brash and unfeeling that there was no one to root for. Also, the rivalry between Tiffany and Bobbie took Tiffany into a very narrow view with her solely trying to secure custody of Lucas at the cost of everything else including her friendship with Bobbie and Tony as well as her marriage to Sean. I'd be curious to see if Levinson had similar issues when he was at "Loving," but I'm spacing at the moment.   
    • Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka talk new show, ‘Drag Me to Dinner’ l GMA  
    • Jimbo & Alexis Spill Tea on Heidi's Drama (Unaired)

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Do these tournaments still test for COVID? https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/65794974?xtor=AL-72-[partner]-[bbc.news.twitter]-[headline]-[news]-[bizdev]-[isapi]&at_link_origin=BBCWorld&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_type=web_link&at_format=link&at_link_id=085D161A-01FB-11EE-91C3-39FFD772BE90&at_campaign_type=owned&at_bbc_team=editorial
    • What's truly Kafkaesque is how deluded he seems about himself and his views, and how when challenged to drill down in what he's actually saying about 'truth' and 'moderation' he just cycles back around to doublespeak. What he means is his desire to espouse conservative Republican views, but as someone who spent years working for Colbert and probably considers himself a liberal he can't fully admit that to himself or the entire game collapses. Same with his dancing around the topics of trans rights and his strange COVID beliefs - he doesn't want to fully articulate what he is trying to say. That would ruin things and make him realize he's just mouthing more of the same right-wing apologia as Joe Rogan and Dave Chappelle. Say what one will about the awful Zaslav and his sweater vests but at least he seems to know who he is. Licht is willfully clueless. And there were many valid reasons to fire Don Lemon, but being one of few prominent and outspoken gay and Black voices in media who could speak to what Trump and his kind are actually doing to people like him on-camera was not one of them.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy