Jump to content

Passions: CANCELLED by DirecTV


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Passions, in comparison to other soaps, has never really been stable in terms of quality. True to itself for the most part? Yes! However, I would never go as far as to say the show had a creative renaissance or golden era, it was just way too inconsistent, even when for the most part it was good. I've never held Passions to the same standard that I've held the other 8 soaps to, but that formula doesn't correlate at all with what Passions is and what the show's target audience wants. Passions, like it or not, has its devoted cult following that will follow and support it no matter what, they really don't care about the standards non-fans hold it to and they shouldn't either.

All soaps right now could be better, but they're not. Passions fans deserve to like their show without ridicule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Hehehe. :D

Yikes. Have you even SEEN SB before?

I mean, I've yet to watch it on a continual basis, but I got some tapes through a trading ring and it looks fun and interesting. I'd have to watch way more before I can make a judgement on whether or not it was overrated.

And I figure you of all people could appreciate SB, if not for anything else, what it contributed to the genre. A lot of what you like and watch on GH(and shows like BEACH and even to a certain degree, GAMES) is rehashed, corporate-driven, poorly copycatted SB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Every soap in some way has given something to the genre. Be it a pregnant hermaphrodite or an Emmy winning preformance where a housewife reveals her life as a call girl. I personally would love to see Santa Barbara and Another World back.

Every soap entertains someone. Just some more than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Should we just stop hoping? Should we just accept the status quo and just "get over it"?

PASSIONS can't even hold itself to its own standard! In the first few years and even now, PASSIONS has suffered from this identity crisis...do they want to be taken as serious soap(i.e. Theresa/Ethan/Gwen) or do they want to be considered a parody(i.e. Hell In a Closet, Vincerie, Tabitha)? I think Jimmy Reilly assumed he could balance the two and you can't do that in soaps.

One of the reasons(for me), why his DAYS(first cycle) worked so well was because, yes, they DID have funny moments on that show, but through it all, we were laughing WITH the characters, not AT them. Or, maybe some of you were laughing at them.

Reilly created the show, but I honestly don't think even he knows what he wants or to expect from his own show.

PASSIONS did try to tell more realistic stories, but it was still with this flippant attitude toward soaps.

Again, I think Reilly is a decent writer, but he's also the fat kid with ADD who needs LOTS of supervision in the candy store.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"Rage, rage against the dying of the light..."

I won't pretend that keeping PASSIONS alive and on the air in its present state will benefit the soap genre as a whole. If the future of soaps rests on PASSIONS's shoulders, then this industry deserves exactly whatever it gets.

I'm sorry, Toups. I know how much you admire James E. Reilly. I, myself, feel the same about Douglas Marland and Patrick Mulcahey. But, perhaps if Jimmy had realized much earlier that his peculiar brand of storytelling wasn't clicking with America, PASSIONS fans wouldn't be on the verge of attempting to save the show for the second time in less than twelve months.

Word, bellcurve. A soap opera cannot be all things to all people. It's either character-driven, or it's plot-driven. Either you take the characters and their predicaments seriously, or you regard it all as a complete farce or parody. It just doesn't work both ways.

IMO, PASSIONS tried initially to be unique - and they were noble for doing so. However, at a certain point, JER needed to acknowledge that, unless he wanted his show to stay a cult favorite (and in the ratings basement), he must make the show more traditional. After all, that's what I think hurt SANTA BARBARA in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

ITA. I mean, soaps are generally considered by the rest of society to be one of the lowest forms of entertainment. We know this. We know that most soaps are pretty terrible. And yet, we watch. Are viewers of the other eight soaps really in any position to judge? I don't think Passions fans take their show seriously at all. They know it's bizarre. But they like it, and they're entitled to like it. For them, and for the future of soap operas, I hope Passions finds a way to survive.

I'm not a Passions fan at all. I watched it for a little while back in 2003, and eventually stopped because I couldn't handle the way that secrets that a single conversation about Eve and her sister lasted multiple weeks.

HOWEVER, the show definitely had it's good points. It was nice to see a soap that didn't take itself seriously, and that was willing to employ a chimpanzee as a nurse for an elderly woman. It was seriously cracked out, but I did it enjoy sometimes.

And now I really want Passions to keep going.

I know it sounds weird to say that Passions holds the future of the soap genre in its hands, and that is a bit of an overstatement, but it is carving a path that could be an indication about the future of the other soaps. The move to cable was pioneering, and now we're just going to have to wait and see what happens next, and whether it is salvaable for another network.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One trap that many beginning writers encounter - especially those who’ve read some of the more notorious screenwriting books - is taking the truism "character-driven story" too literally. Yes, the most successful and engaging movies are those where the characters seem to be in control of their own destiny, where every turn of the plot seems to derive from an element of their personality.

But it’s naïve to think that all a writer has to do is come up with amazing characters and watch them go to work. The truth is, great characters are useless unless we see them doing interesting things - and coming up with those things is the screenwriter’s job. Don’t start writing until you know both who your characters are and what they’ll be doing.

—John August

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

/\

I don't think so. I think Sylph was just playing devil's advocate and making an interesting point in the process.

The key is finding the balance of the two.

The plot matters, because that's what keeps us intrigued. But you can have a GREAT idea and still have a crap show if the characters are making unrealistic choices just for the sake of the plot.

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

    • Shouldn't it be the other way? I don't think Taylor Hayes is playing Rebecca Budig.   

      Please register in order to view this content

    • And the most detailed discussion I've seen from an industry figure about some of JFP's worst choices as a producer (steamrolling over writers) was from another woman, Megan McTavish.
    • IMDb is definitely incorrect, because the final week of episodes in 1974 is uploaded to Youtube in audio form, and Mark and Laurie are there until the very end. The last episode shows Mark going back to the priesthood. I looked at the newspaper and the earliest reference to their house being haunted by Georgina is in December of 1973. This is dated Dec 14, but this same synopsis ran in the papers until the end of December in other publications. So it must have been within those last 3-4 months. I think Stephanie Braxton joined around 1969-1970 so that's probably right. I saw it stated in other newspapers that David Gale joined around September 1972.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Opal having siblings could add to the story. However, it raises questions about Tad's adoption. Why were the Martins allowed to adopt him if Tad had aunts or uncles who could have cared for him?  Logic limited the number of possible Gardner's (and whatever Opal's maiden name was).  Even though Linda Thorson would have been a hysterical choice given her British accent.  Especially because SOD often published questions by readers who wondered why Tad and Jenny didn't speak like their mother.   All of which is still not an excuse for Tad's evil doppelgänger Ted. 
    • And if I remember correctly, at one point, they were considering having Linda Thorson play Opal's sister.
    • Interesting. Makes me wonder how the day to day looked for Secret Storm at this point in the run. This seems very to deal with the psychological aspect, I guess the "inner storm", and the music is almost sinister. If this is from 1974 there's not much room for dates it could've been from as it ended on February 8th.  It's hard to tell from an edit featuring just one storyline, but if this was the day to day it might've been heavy for the casual viewers.   ETA: Stephanie Braxton is credited to have appeared as Laurie from 1970-1973. David Gale is credited only in 1973 and Alexander Scourby from 1972-1973. I know IMDB isn't always right, but I'd say this is likely 1973 - I'm guessing all these characters exited before 1974 and this might be a part of their final storyline. 
    • Well, they were both involved with Ray Gardner.  Then, the actress left in 1980, only to return as a somewhat broader interpretation of the character after Dottie was SORASed.  By that time, Opal had left in 1983.  So, while they serve the same story function,(verbally abusive/neglectful mothers who make you feel sorry for their daughters), one could argue that Edna was the carbon copy.
    • Okay, now it's my turn to ask about the Thorntons, namely Edna. Did she and Opal have any scenes together? I ask because I was familiar with Opal first, so when I found out about Edna, my biased mind saw her as the first try for that type of character.
    • There is no dispute that Jill Farren Phelps had a successful career in daytime based on longevity, but that does not preclude discussion and dislike of her decisions at various shows. Sure there may have been some misogyny involved BITD(we don't know as I don't recall JFP ever mentioning that) but the head of CBS Daytime at that point was a woman and there were other women involved BTS. I think that so long as an EP could deliver, or at least talk a good game they would be respected.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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