Members danthig Posted March 12, 2007 Members Share Posted March 12, 2007 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 More sharing options...
Members bellcurve Posted March 12, 2007 Members Share Posted March 12, 2007 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 More sharing options...
Members Adam Posted March 12, 2007 Members Share Posted March 12, 2007 I pretty much agree with what bellcurve said. I don't care how fast or slow the actual resolution to the storyline is, I just want to be entertained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members px780 Posted March 12, 2007 Members Share Posted March 12, 2007 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 More sharing options...
Members DrewH Posted March 12, 2007 Members Share Posted March 12, 2007 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 More sharing options...
Members billyjill Posted March 12, 2007 Members Share Posted March 12, 2007 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 More sharing options...
Members DruRocks Posted March 12, 2007 Members Share Posted March 12, 2007 LML is awful at BOTH. I.e. Kay/Jill and Relizzzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeeeDee Posted March 12, 2007 Members Share Posted March 12, 2007 Bill Bell (more often than not) was almost perfect at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members aMLCproduction Posted March 12, 2007 Members Share Posted March 12, 2007 very well put bell curve. I loved the rielly stories of the 90's they moved slowed but yet something was always happening I do love indeed LMLs faster paced Y&R days has really slowed down a lot Passions does seem like its pace has picked up some what Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KMan101 Posted March 12, 2007 Members Share Posted March 12, 2007 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 More sharing options...
Members RionPassions Posted March 12, 2007 Members Share Posted March 12, 2007 Slow. Passions slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Shawn Posted March 12, 2007 Members Share Posted March 12, 2007 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 More sharing options...
Members bellcurve Posted March 12, 2007 Members Share Posted March 12, 2007 C'mon, you don't even give him credit for his first DAYS stint?! Not challenging you at all, just wondering what you thought was bad about his first run. That, to me, was Reilly at his absolute best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Shawn Posted March 12, 2007 Members Share Posted March 12, 2007 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 More sharing options...
Members KLN Posted March 12, 2007 Members Share Posted March 12, 2007 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.