Jump to content

All: Do you prefer fast-paced or slow-paced storylines


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I want to ask the posters on the message board if they like fast-paced storylines that are over before you know it or slow-paced storylines which seem to take forever and a day to wrap up.

I like the fast-paced storylines because it builds the urgency if you miss a day you miss a lot .OLTL used to be like that before Higley started headwriting the show and I hated the pace of that show ever since because now OLTL is so slow paced.Even though I hated the real slow pace of Passions for years,but now that it is going off the air the pace is starting to pick up faster.Reilly should have made Passions much faster-paced to begin with or else the show wouldn't be facing the grim repaer right and we wouldn't have had the same unresolved storylines for the past 8 years.There are those that don't like what Latham is doing to Y&R but I like the faster pace.ATWT used to move at lightning speed when Hogan sheffer was writing the show but when JP took over, the show became painfully slow.GH has been a fast-paced show for a long-time.Even with the mob, GH doesn't seem to drag out its stories.When Hogan took over DAYS,I had high hopes for him telling fast-paced stories,but now with budget problems the pace has slowed down.I hope it picks back up soon.GL and AMC seem more even paced to me.B&B seems fast-paced especially with its 30 mintue format.I guess I prefer fast-paced stories because I don't to see the same story go on forever and ever and ever.GH does that for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Just entertain me!

Fast-paced, slow-paced, just keep me glued to my TV set.

People may disagree, but that is one of the reasons why I loved Reilly's version of DAYS the first time around and when I tried to get into Y&R.

Things moved slow, but things *HAPPENED.*

Like, during the never-ending Austin/Carrie/Lucas/Sami story...the story took forever to wrap up, but things happened...Sami got pregnant with "Austin's" baby, Austin and Carrie broke up, but still were in love with each other, things began to unravel at every corner when Kate showed up and accused Sami of lying, then Lynn showed up, etc. I think that slow-moving soaps are good too, but things HAVE to happen!

Fast-paced soaps can be fun too, but if things move too fast, plot points are often forgotten and things are often rushed and convoluted.

I don't mind if it takes a year, even two years to resolve a storyline. But MAKE THINGS HAPPEN!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I like a mixture.

I need a few long-term things- and by that I mean stories like some of the ones on Passions. I love that Sheridan hasn't gotten Marty back yet, and that it took forever for her to even locate him to send Luis to search. In fact, I think almost anything with children like that should be a long-term deal, because it can make it that much more exciting when there's resolution. So long as the writers can leave it alone entirely and not rotate through cycles of nonsense, long-term can work really well.

But I like a lot of faster-paced things in the interim to hold my attention. 6-7 months should be plenty for most stories to play out, if they even need that long. And with mysteries- if they're going to be longer than that they better damn well have decent resolution.

I think, to be totally blunt, I need faster-paced right now because I haven't found a show that has good enough payoff to justify dragging things out forever. Since I have a feeling that things are going to be a letdown, I'd rather get there in a shorter period of time, hoping that the shorter period of time causes them to write more exciting stuff on a daily basis. It's kind of a balance thing- the ending is going to suck, so the middle needs to be tight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It really depends on what's being written in the story. If it's a really simple storyline, then fact-pace is the way to go. However, if it's a really indepth storyline and there can be several twists and turns, then I like slow-paced storylines. I loved Y&R during Smith's days because though his stories took a while to tell, there was something happening all the time. I never felt like the stories were in a stalemate and nothing was happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree that as long as something is happening, I'm good. It doesn't have to be big reveals every other day. In fact if it is then you're probably not developing the characters and emotions well enough.

Go too fast and you sacrifice depth. Go too slow and you're probably dragging things out and ruining their impact on the audience. Just hit all the notes you need to to build the story with depth and then move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Reilly's first run and DAYS was a great example of slow, agonizing storytelling but also the right pace to go at. Nowadays though, I think things should be a little quicker, but not lighting fast. They need a good balance. We need to see every beat played. Not the same beat played out over and over again and then a rush to resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Depends on the story and the potential.

Example:

Great slow paced story: Mike Horton's Paternity, Days (Bill Bell at his best in Salem)

Excruciatingly bad slow paced story: Anything JERk ('nuff said)

Great Fast paced story: Nick and Billie's Affair, Days (revealed early, great drama)

Excruciatingly bad fast paced story: Nancy's Breast Cancer Scare, Days (only cuz of the potential in the story and powerhouse Patrika Darbo)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sorry but the Devil Possession ruined the show's credibility in the daytime world, and made it a joke. I thought it was awful, and it made a show that was once considered the best show in daytime a campy farce. Only with Hogan is it beginning to go back to its great roots.

The ONLY reason I tuned in back then was to see Christie Clark's Carrie and Eileen Davidson's Kristen. They were in horribly written stories, but their talents kept me glued to my screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A mix of both is good.

JER is the king of slow-paced stories. The only problem is that he used to do it much better back in the 90's. The stories were slow, but things happened within the story that always kept it hopping. There was always a new twist at every turn, a new angle.

Like, for example, the Marlena/John/Kristen triangle. The triangle lasted a while, but things happened along the way that kept it fresh. There was 'the letter,' Kristen miscarrying, the entrance of Susan, the birth of EJ, Marlena learning the truth, Kristen locking her away, Kristen drugging Laura, the exhumation of "Peter's" body, Susan locking Kristen up with Marlena, the Holy Matrimony! wedding, and finally Kristen's eventual downfall and the reuniting of John with Marlena. And for that matter, J/M fans had been waiting for much longer than just this storyline to get John and Marlena together romantically. They waited through it all... Possession, Maison Blanche, the whole shebang. But things HAPPENED.

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.



  • Recent Posts

    • The woman who was the co-chair of Latinas for Trump is now complaining about his targeting immigrants that she thought were "safe." I also read a puff piece from yet another "insider" journalist who lives to normalize fascists - this one with a tech bro who was venting off the record because he thought voting for Trump was cool and would show up the Democrats and maybe we'd get Greenland, but now he's getting upset.  These people still support Trump, and Republicans, they just want to make sure they get credit for being respectable. And they will get it.
    • I really do wish someone could. Just a few characters in very simple backdrops, with very real problems that are just a little larger than life, like the '50s and '60s. All the characters having a level of dignity or respect. And their inner lives are what dominate the story, even if there are outside forces at play.
    • It's a lesson to never be loyal because once your use is up, you're shown the door. MSW was the only bright spot for CBS for awhile, and once they were back on top... they promptly sabotaged the show as a repayment for all that the show had done for the network.  
    • The show made a mistake in not bringing in more McKinnon kids, specifically bringing back Ben. Kathleen was leaving, and while I like you am very fond of Sally Spencer as MJ, that didn't seem to be a common view. They also decimated the character in a truly sick storyline. So that just left Cheryl. 
    • Between Gwen and Cat, the show often seems to side with those who cause lots of cruelty to Jack and Jennifer. I am half-surprised that the show hasn't brought Peter Blake back for more of the same.  I don't really know if there is a purpose for them in Salem now, but I do feel a sense of stability and rightness when Melissa Reeves is back in the role of Jennifer and back in the Horton house, in spite of...well, a lot of offcamera stuff we all know perfectly well. 
    • I like to call her an FC-reject character

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I’m sensing you’re not really a John Black fan from your posts. This has been some of the best soap Days has done in many years but you seem completely opposed to it lol.
    • The John Black character has been a part of my life for decades. I like heroes being honored, however imperfect they may be.  I'm glad they are giving him a long farewell and tribute.
    • Annie Dutton was anything, but sane when she was introduced.  She was very tortured and looked like she was on the verge of tears when she was first introduced.   While people, and writers, made it seem as though Annie lost her mind because of Josh.. I truly think that Annie had a lot of untreated mental issues that didn't manifest until her marriage to Josh. Sonni was also anything, but strong when she was first introduced either.   Claire in 1983 was a complete 180 from the Claire that we got in 1986... and I do agree that her character was degraded.
    • I remember seeing him briefly when Rick went to confront her about her blackmailing him. (I briefly forgot that Rick's sleeping with Claire at this time was a retcon - or her lying that she slept with him, whatever that story was). I wonder if he interacted with Kurt given that Mark Lewis later took his ATWT role. I tried to watch some of the full episode and it was all so alien and uninvolving. Roxy having a meltdown on that construction site for Mindy and Kurt's house that never gets built. Ed with Ross and Vanessa dealing with custody issues. Even Ross and Vanessa seemed flat, with Vanessa seeming oddly meek.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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