Jump to content

All - A question about the histories of the shows


Recommended Posts

  • Members

An earlier post about how long you've been watching got me wondering.

Some posters have been watching 3 years,some 5 or 10 etc.

My question is -How much interest do you have in what went before?

A lot of posters decry some storyline twists because they contradict or devalue what happened in the past.But,if you weren't a viewer at that time, do you care about that or even know about previous events?

For example,a newer ATWT viewer might see Bob,Kim and Lisa as supporting characters and not know they were once leads with tons of history.

Producers and writers seem to operate along the line that anything that happened more than 10 years ago can be pretty much ignored.

Let us know how much interest you have in your shows' histories!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 12
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

It is hard for me sometimes when I read comments from newer viewers who have missed out ont he "hey day" of some of the characters. I am a huge AMC fan, and when I see comments like "Dr. Joe is the worst doctor" or "why is Opal such a cartoon," it makes me sad because I know there are so many more facets to the character, but they are explored because of the nature of today's genre.

I would love if they had stand alone episodes like GL's "Into the Light" where they can just follow round a veteran for a day. I mean if you like at older tapes actors like Ray MacDonnelll, James Mitchell, Jill Larson... they can act! They are captivating.

I hate to do this, but I have a new website for this very fact. It is the All My Children History Project. I have just relaunched my trademark website in html:

Not only does it have a pictoral family tree, but it has over 200 year by year character biographies. If you have a chance, swing by it, PM me or sign the guest book and tell me what you think. I want it to become your one stop source for all things All My Childred related. I want it to be better than the original site!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I so know where you're coming AMCHistory about newer fans opinions of vets. I remember back in 2004 on GL, the show was doing a story involving Holly Reade being held in captivity on some island. Alot of newer fans seemed to find the story and the character boring and lacked interest in the story. I having seen Holly back in her "hey day" found it hard to agree with them on that. Though I would agree that the story, which started out with great potential, turned into a complete mess.

AMCHistory great site by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That was some of the best soap opera television ever! The story rocked, it was characters we loved and it is just sad that it had to be at the expense of Maureen. She was such a fundamental character and was so beloved.

AMC...love the site!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm a 20 year old guy, I've watched GH since I was five with my mom and I have a vivid memory of the 1990s of that show - which, in my opinion, can't be topped. I am so sad that Lucky has gone from a soulful, sensitive artist to a generic and spurned soap hunk cop. Anyone who watched Jonathan Jackson's version of Lucky will definitely agree with me - this Lucky/Liz/Jason triangle wouldn't even be a thought if Jonathan Jackson was still there.

It's so interesting to see how characters have changed. Carly started out really complex and interesting, and she has in earlier years morphed into this one-note diva. Also, new viewers probably have no idea that Jerry Jax was originally engaged to Bobbie Spencer. Hell, new viewers probably see the great Bobbie as a recurring nurse!

All in all, GH is very well written but rather obviously ignores the show's past to make the storytelling easier in the present. I'm still waiting for my Bobbie/Jerry scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To answer Paul Raven's question, it's like any other kind of history. We look to the past to see the "why" of our present. Of course with soaps it's dependent on more than just storylines and plot and character history. A little research into plot and character inconsistencies uncovers any number of backstage events like writer changes and bad blood between performers and the PTB. Ratings also tell the story of why certain paths were taken and others abandoned.

The real history of a soap is so much more than the sum of its parts. The story we see on screen is only a small part of it; the carbon molecules chrystalized into the diamond (or the turd as the case may be).

And to AMCHistory, what a great site! You're certainly off to a good start. Check out this one if you need any ideas on soap history sites in general (not suggesting you need any help. Love your family trees)

http://www.igs.net/~awhp/awhp.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The history of a show REALLY fascinates me. When I first got into my first, and all time fave, soap, AMC back when I was 11-12 (Fall '91 I think--Natalie in the well) even at that fairly young age I would try to find out everything I could about the history of the show. I remember for the first month or so I watched Joe and Ruth were not on once, yet they had the main/'final picture frame in the credits so I tried to figure out who they were--asked my mom's adult friend who had watched a long time, etc. This was before (much) internet access, and before the 1995 AMC coffee table history book (and my library's collection of soap books didn't have the great volumes like Schemering's Encyclopedia)--I remember aroudn that time I finally found two special magazines put out by, I think SOWeekly, one all devoted to AMC which had a 8 page or so synopsis history adn the other devoted to the past storylines of all the soaps--finding them for me was like finding a treasure cove--never midn that I had NO clue who most of the characters were (by '91--at least in that period Phoebe wasn't featured much--she later had one of her last storylines a few yers later with Willow Lake--so I didn't even get that she was the head of a core family)--I'd read the hard to follow descriptions, make character maps, etc. When i did get internet at 15 or so one of the first things Idid was try to start trading for episodes of AM from before I started watching (as sad as I was to see my beloved City canceled you can't imagine how thrilled I was in 97 to see the Daytime to Remember episodes)

LOL. Anyway from years of being obssessed with soaps I think I have a good *basic* idea fo the history of actually all the major shows--but AMC, OLTL and to a lesser extent due to lack of info Loving/The City are the ones I am pretty much spot on about. a Huge part of the appeal of a soap to me is the history fo the characters relaitonships and that backstory that is largely missing from primtime tv--so learning about what I missed is pretty exciting.

Wonderful AMC site!! See if I had had access to that at 12 I woulda been in Heaven. One quick correction--in your 90s history page you mention Ceara and Jeremy being killed off within a year of moving to Loving, at the same time as Loving's demise. Loving ended in 95--a full two years after Jeremy moved to the show (2 and a bit at least--and actually slightly before Angie came to the show) and he was killed off in its final month--Cera had been on Loving for a month or so in 91, then back to AMC but when Jeremy moved she was killed off camera before she could appear on the show--speaking of, two neat ideas to add to your page might be a list of the many cross-overs with OLTL, Loving and GH as well as maybe a list of some of the merchandise (I think AMC was one of the first shows to offer merchandise--I own the 1985 board game as well as the 1990 How to Host a Murder game which I still haven't played so dunno who the killer is)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanx 4 your replies guyz!

I would like to hear from newer viewers -maybe 5 years max - about how much interest they have in past stories and events.

I appreciate that it can be entertaining just watching in the present and too much trouble to read up on a bunch of stuff that may have little to do with the current stories.

Has there been a reference that made you think 'oh,I did'nt know _____ had a sister'or 'fred &ginger were married !?'etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I subscribe to what historian David McCullough once wrote. "Indifference to history is not just ignorant, it's a form of ingratitude." How can anyone know how things got the way they are if they don't know what came before. If someone started watching a primetime show in Season 4, I'm sure they would want to watch the other 3 seasons to get caught up. Why should soaps be any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am only 20 so I wasn't able to watch the golden era of soaps but I'm very interested in history. I try to write a French encyclopedia of soap-operas because French viewers are not really into soap history (it is not their fault, they can only watch a few soaps and not for a long time)

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.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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