GL - Will anything be done about EW/DK

[Greg's GL]

^^^ IA, Michael. The last two regimes are what has done in GL for me.

I was ACTUALLY thinking back to B&E/Rauch's tenure on GL. And believe it or not, I think I would prefer them over EW/DK. Sure, they had some pretty bad stories, namely Reva/Dolly, but at least it was well-produced, semi-well written and the story continuity didn't suffer like it does today. And actually, B&E brought us Annie Dutton (and the incredible Cynthia Watros), Rick/Abby, Selena/Drew, Michele/Danny/Drew, etc. So some of their stuff wasn't completely untolerable.

I just wish they would have given Millee Taggart a better opportunity. She could have brought some great stories to GL.

Sometimes (and I feel like a Benedict Arnold by saying this), I think GL would be better off canceled than to die this horrible death at the hands of EW/DK.

[sungrey]

B&E wrote some marvelous stuff at GL... anything featuring Annie was a treat.

Ellen Weston couldn't have been fired soon enough for me. Her killing off Ben Reade was the one time I e-mailed CBS and told them to look at GL and realize what a hack they had writing it. Soon after, she was canned. (I suspect a few million more wrote in, not just me. )

So far, I've had few problems with DK. His busting up Coop/Ava for the lame Coop/Ashlee story was a mistake, although I gotta admit Ava as bitch is more interesting to watch.

[Khan]

>> How is it that all of the fan protest and falling ratings has not resulted in a change?

Because, no one is there with the authority to make the changes. CBS doesn't own GL (and no, having them outright own the show would not make things easier); therefore, they can't call the shots. (All they can do, really, is elect not to renew their contract w/ the show.) And thanks to PGP/Televest's questionable decision to eliminate the "Executive in Charge of Production" position, no one is there on the sponsor's side to say, "You know something, Ellen (and Dave)? I don't think this is working out," either.

If EW answers to anyone, it's probably Televest VP Phil Dixson (sp?). History tells us, though, he tends to be hands-off where his shows (ATWT, as well as GL) are concerned.

>> Does no one else want the job? Or can the show not afford a more experienced EP/HW?

Yes, and, unfortunately, yes.

At this point, GL's cancellation is a foregone conclusion. One of those not-a-question-of-if-but-when kind of things. The only thing GL fans (if there are still any around) can do is enjoy (...more or less...) what they can of the show while it's still around.

[AMCGio83]

See..I dunno. B/E pretty much ruined it by the time LAbine took over and in 2003. She wasn't a good fit but the show was ok. when Millie Taggert was writing GL it was fantastic but it had been anther 2 years of Blind Reva and time travel Reva. Then Weston came on and she ruined the show. It hasn't recovered and probaby won't.

[Dan]

Agreed. I would have rather had the show canceled way back in 2005 then have had the show gutted alive. Although the cuts gave GL a short reprieve, the loss of all that was left of an identity pretty much secured GL's cancellation anyway.

[EastMA2]

What I don't get about GL and soaps in general, is why they keep trying to 'fix' what isn't broken. I sure hope that we don't get another year of Into The Light Wednesday episodes. 2 years has done enough damage. You could probably count on one hand the number of times that a Wednesday episode was the most watched of the week. I hope we don't get the same shaky camera syndrome that has overtaken ATWT and made that show very difficult to watch for me.

I'm conceding that this will probably be GL's last year. It's time. The viscious circle has to end of trying to reinvent the wheel, only to do more damage and further make ratings drop because nothing was broken to begin with.

[RuAsRuAnAu]

You are only coming to this conclusion now? GL's cancellation (the infamous budget cut of 2005) has been a foregone conclusion for a few years.

AW's cancellation wasn't exactly a foregone conclusion b/c for several years before the announcement of cancellation, its ratings were stagnant, and its quality was better in its last remaining years than GL's 2004-current state. GL's has undergone massive ratings decreases over the years. (1995, 2001, 2004, 2007)

[PJA]

I do think they need to get rid of those in the light episodes. When the show does appear to be gaining momentum, we are interupted by a boring in the light episode and it just throws everything off. I admit...some of them have been good, but 90% of them have not.

[Dan]

I knew that was going to happen the second I heard about those ITL episodes way back in December 2005. David Kreizman's pacing was already haphazard. Throwing those ITLs into the mix just exacerbated the problem.

[Khan]

Word, Dan.

If I were coming aboard GL as EP or HW, the ITL's would be among the first things to go.

I'd also refocus the show around Company and the former Reardon boardinghouse...but that's for another post.

[AMCGio83]

You know, that would certainly fix SOME things. At leeast we'd have the show's setting be historically meanningful. You know, once upon a time soaps were produced on a shoestring budget (much in the manner of GL today). I think if the show was generally "good," I mean like 1997 good the overall feel of the show wouldn't be so gloomy. We'd be like, damn the show looks cheap but I can't stop watching. Remember the 70 year anniversary episode? It was fabulous because it was so imaginative, creative and portrayed history and family. THAT's what GL and all soaps need. Not this superhero in Springfield nonsense.

[MichaelGL]

Hopefully it's a Cooper-less one. I can't believe how much DK has made me dislike that family. The only Cooper I like these days is Buzz, but at times he can be holier-thou.

[kade]

GL was the first soap I got hooked on and seeing the state of it I just say cancel it. There was a part of me that kept hoping if enough classic characters came back it could be saved BUT seeing what they do when they get these type characters back shows me that there is no hope for this mess of a show.

Kade

[Sylph]

Well, after all these discussions, bellcurve and I seem to be a pair of Cassandras (a prophet[ess] of disaster, whose predictions were true, but never believe). I remember when we had a similar discussion back when I started posting here and the contents of the thread was pretty much the same.

[Khan]

>> We'd be like, damn the show looks cheap but I can't stop watching.

Exactly! You don't need state-of-the-art production values if the stories were realistic, and the characters were well-drawn. A lack of funds might limit the venues in which to tell your stories, but it shouldn't affect how you flesh out your characters.

>> Hopefully it's a Cooper-less one.

Oh, you needn't worry about that, MichaelGL, lol!