Toups, you can't post breathtakingly good stuff like that without a source!!! I wanna read the whole thing.

It's in PDF form, so I don't have a link. When I get the chance, I'll post the entire thing in the Interviews & Articles forum.

You know, I think there are two issues.

First, vis-a-vis rain1...sometimes it becomes VERY tempting to guess the identity of such a person. Especially for someone like me...rain1 is an example of a handful of posters I have carefully studied...writing style, posting times, what shows s/he was posting about, etc...to try to make a match with the real person. And I think I might have made such a match. I am not alone...I'll suspect 50% of us have excellent guesses about who rain1 is.

My point is that rain1 may have felt the need to be self-protective...and I fully support that. As much as I loved her/him, I don't want her/him to do jeopardy to her/himself.

At the same time, you're right about the CRUSH of questions for rain1...or anyone who evinces insider knowledge. What this reflects, I feel, is the failure of the soap press.

When Toups prints a brief exchange between Bell and Labine about writing process, I (and others) suck it up! Why? Because there is so little out there.

SOW is now asking for opinions about how to "revamp"...and I mentioned this hunger that a segment of their audience has for behind-the-scenes PROCESS. I strongly urged them to consider making SOW more of a "trade publication, but for typical readers". Rain1 was the victim, if you'll forgive my pun, of the drought of reliable process information. I'm not talking about gossip...I'm talking about information on how these shows tick.

I don't disagree with any of this, Mark - in fact, I was sorta half-joking about the "onslaught of questions" post. (You know, that whole sarcasm-as-humor approach so popular around here. ) But I think you've hit on something really important - there is no other source for this kind of information. So when a source appears, people leap all over it. They soak it all up like a sponge, and constantly want more. I do think if SOW or SOD were doing their jobs right, this wouldn't be an issue. But much like the shows themselves, the magazines cater to the lowest common denominator, believing their fans to be morons who are just interested in lip gloss and cattiness. And don't get me wrong, there is in fact a market for that. And it should be included - but that doesn't mean you can't throw out some hard-hitting questions for executives and head writers.

Let's face facts - there's been this fear that the shows will cut the press off (like what Corday did with Days back in the 90's). But the 90's were a whole different time. I don't think any soap can afford to cut themselves off from the press anymore. So what do they have to lose? Chris Goutman or Ken Corday might stomp around and threaten to cut off SOD and SOW, but come on... you're telling me they'd really turn down free press (good or bad) with the demos plummeting the way they are?

Much like the shows themselves, the magazines need to stop living like it's fifteen years ago. Times have changed, and with them, time for a new business model.

I've been onlne pretty much as long as there's been an online, and in soap groups, music groups, primetime groups, maybe movie groups, etc. ... oh, yeah Broadway groups, it's always been this way that anyone who had info stuck their head out at risk, in one or more ways, and that it was really very wearing on them & caused more than one person to give it up or take long breaks, etc. There once was a tradition, for example, in RATS, in the mid to late 90s that if you realized that someone did have good information that you (1) didn't harangue them asking them how they knew what they knew, (2) didn't overwhelm them with questions. It was just a culture of being cool, frankly. And, we had lots of people who had inside info.

Today's GL; the credits were back to the old..with DK and DS listed as headwriters.

I don't disagree with any of this, Mark - in fact, I was sorta half-joking about the "onslaught of questions" post. (You know, that whole sarcasm-as-humor approach so popular around here. ) But I think you've hit on something really important - there is no other source for this kind of information. So when a source appears, people leap all over it. They soak it all up like a sponge, and constantly want more. I do think if SOW or SOD were doing their jobs right, this wouldn't be an issue. But much like the shows themselves, the magazines cater to the lowest common denominator, believing their fans to be morons who are just interested in lip gloss and cattiness. And don't get me wrong, there is in fact a market for that. And it should be included - but that doesn't mean you can't throw out some hard-hitting questions for executives and head writers.

I agree. SOW is asking for feedback on how to revamp and move forward. Earlier in the week, I wrote something similar to you paragraph directly to them.

It is time to become a bit more like a "trade mag". Not Variety...but to write for the fans who care about the creative process behind the scenes.

There is another element too. Media has become more interactive, across the board. In many venues, the "us vs them/creator vs audience" barrier is breaking down. So, the opportunity to interact with creative folks actually helps bring soaps into the modern era. I fully realize the danger and the slippery slope...you don't want the audience to PERVERT the creative product. (Although I would argue that the use of focus groups, etc. essentially represents a perversion too).

I remember when I briefly overlapped with Jim Houghton, back when he was posting on ratsc. This was when Ashley was re-introduced (1989?). And somehow it came up that the writers thought that John KNEW that Ashley was not his bio-daughter. And we debated with him. That was fun :-). In the end, the writers never made that historical mistake...John remained ignorant that his "beauty" was not his flesh and blood.

Around that time, I lamented how much I missed "Abbott family breakfasts". And Jim shot back a single phrase: "Tune in next week".

That little bit of exchange...that gift between a writer and his audience...really buoyed me. Others on the board loved Jim too. I honestly believe that it helped Jim better understand what kind of fans he had (passionate, mostly respectful)...and it helped the audience know that Jim cared, that he was not a "hack". I saw little downside to the exchange (although obviously Jim did, since he stopped posting after a time).

For me, Dena Higley's blog was actually humanizing. I don't watch her shows, but having her so villainized on these boards, it was wonderful to see a bit of the "real" woman behind all the negative verbiage.

Edited August 29, 200817 yr by MarkH

There is another element too. Media has become more interactive, across the board. In many venues, the "us vs them/creator vs audience" barrier is breaking down. So, the opportunity to interact with creative folks actually helps bring soaps into the modern era. I fully realize the danger and the slippery slope...you don't want the audience to PERVERT the creative product. (Although I would argue that the use of focus groups, etc. essentially represents a perversion too).

For me, Dena Higley's blog was actually humanizing. I don't watch her shows, but having her so villainized on these boards, it was wonderful to see a bit of the "real" woman behind all the negative verbiage.

Now, of course, who owns the soaps versus how do we control our product, IOW who owns the text, is the very very long time issue with the US daytime soap opera. Maybe we led the way, again. But, even though the US daytime soap opera is the most susceptible to a struggle between the owners & the fans, to a certain degree all serials are offered up there.

Meanwhile, FYI, for some time now I've seen Variety and the Hollywood Reporter (both) villainized as being worthless because they've become too commercialized & prey to lowest common denominator writing.

And, what Dena blog?

Aww, some of Jim's posts are still archived at ratsc. It was so nice of him to do that! He's greatly missed at Y&R, and I wonder what's become of him on the writing front.

AMC:

- James Harmon Brown last listed as Co-Head Writer on August 26

- Barbara Esensten last listed as Co-Head Writer on August 26

- Charles Pratt Jr. first listed as Head Writer on August 27

Somewhat tangential but he retained his Consulting Producer Credit.

Now, of course, who owns the soaps versus how do we control our product, IOW who owns the text, is the very very long time issue with the US daytime soap opera. Maybe we led the way, again. But, even though the US daytime soap opera is the most susceptible to a struggle between the owners & the fans, to a certain degree all serials are offered up there.

Meanwhile, FYI, for some time now I've seen Variety and the Hollywood Reporter (both) villainized as being worthless because they've become too commercialized & prey to lowest common denominator writing.

And, what Dena blog?

SPeaking of the Higley blog, do we wonder if maybe she's done writing it, with all of the BTS nonsense? The autism story is sinking fast, and her name's been dragged through the mud AGAIN (With half the cast at the Burlington fan event saying "the wrong person was fired" to the fans there!). I wonder if she'll even try to go back to the blog again.

HMM, that's weird about the credits of GL ...when is the new headwriting format supposed to hit (not that it will help this turd of a show.)

Oh, if all TPTB would have their own blogs. I would pay money to see what Wheeler would write about...."ooohh, we have this great story about a murderer screwing his victim's cousin...and we are shoe horning Brad Cole into yet another storyline to try to immerse him in the core of the show..and hey, great news, megastar Frank Dicipolous has just re signed with us! Who says we dont value our vets and the core!"

Toups, have you prepared a few scoops for September 1st?

(With half the cast at the Burlington fan event saying "the wrong person was fired" to the fans there!).

Are you serious?! LMAO!

And, what Dena blog?

SPeaking of the Higley blog, do we wonder if maybe she's done writing it, with all of the BTS nonsense? The autism story is sinking fast, and her name's been dragged through the mud AGAIN (With half the cast at the Burlington fan event saying "the wrong person was fired" to the fans there!). I wonder if she'll even try to go back to the blog again.

Does someone have the Dena blog link for DonnaB?

There's a Dish With Dena and there's this. I just Google-ed it.

There's a Dish With Dena and there's this. I just Google-ed it.

Thanks, I'll check it out. I thought that there was a specific blog entry being talked about, but maybe not. Reading will let me know.