Members DaytimeFan Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 I have to say, after watching GL the last two weeks I am appalled at the new production model. It is now evident that this model is not about being progressive, rather, it is about cutting costs. I found the first scenes from 'The City' and I find it shocking that GL wasn't inspired to, at the very least, mimic the camera work employed on this short lived soap. Granted, the production values of 'The City' must have been sky high, but it looked gorgeous whereas GL is starting to look like a cheap adult video. I give you, 'The City' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNVV2-TnyeU#O6hPd5TmvNg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members detroitpiston Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 I agree completely, The City looked gorgeous visually, and the camera work wasn't so shaky that I felt like I wanted to throw up. The City look great and real, where as GL just looks like a cheap porno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 The City wasn't shot with unrefined digital cameras, though. Of course GL went for a cost cutting measure. Hardly anything Ellen Wheeler said about the new techniques implied that her show would look better, let alone improve its stories. All she did was pare down the crew and build enough sets to give writers more options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 Can you explain this to me? Every Sunday football game is shot with handheld digital cameras--in a fast moving sport--with real-time editing. But it is broadcast in full beautiful HD. Also, I can go to Best Buy right now and buy an HD digital camera (although I can't vouch for how good it looks...never tried it). Couldn't GL have gone to this production model but still upped the quality of its' picture? Wide screen and high resolution? Or would this have cost too much? I'm seriously asking someone here who might have some expertise in these areas.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GoldenDogs Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 Hey Mark, I'm not sure what Sunday games you are referring to, but regardless of what type of cameras they employ, they are mounted on high-dollar pedastals and operated by seasoned operators. Handheld sideline cameras are actually shoulder-mounted, similar to what a news shooter would use. The cameras GL is using are cheap junk by comparison. The proper way to shoot handheld for broadcast is with a steadycam... and they aren't so expensive for a show with GL's budget that they couldn't have been purchased. Much like AMC a few years ago, somebody thought "the shakes" was somehow equivalent to reality. The effect we've seen used more effectively in primetime is much more controlled than people think... and GL just can't pull it off with the equipment they are using. And I'm totally confused at what looks to me to be a complete failure in presentation. I work regularly with a Sony HD camera, shooting out in the field a variety of events and subjects, even some in-studio under controlled lighting, but the majority of stuff where I am at the mercy of the elements, and everything I have shot has turned out awesome. Let's not even talk about the lighting. Ugh! Nothing will EVER look better for daytime than proper 3-point studio lightning. I've posted this elsewhere, and I'll post it now... I firmly believe this to be the final nail in GL's coffin. I'm wondering who will go first... Ellen or the show, itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AddictedToSoaps Posted March 16, 2008 Members Share Posted March 16, 2008 Ever since news broke of the changes, it was always apparent that these were cost cutting measures - at least they were for me. Ellen Wheeler can babble on all she wants about realism and getting closer into the characters lives, but she fooling very few people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted March 17, 2008 Members Share Posted March 17, 2008 Thank you! Inscrutable production decisions. The show, sadly, looks cheap.... They need some consultation to improve the quality...or it will drive more folks away. The aging actors, in particular, are shown in the most unflattering light. But I know what matters to you is storytelling...and this jagged ADHD style hurts the storytelling too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Noel Posted March 17, 2008 Members Share Posted March 17, 2008 I've kind of noticed that too with certain actors and not just the ones that I would expect to show signs of aging but the ones that I don't expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JackPeyton Posted March 17, 2008 Members Share Posted March 17, 2008 Robert Newman and Crystall Chappel rock it. thats all that matters for me, lol. as they are the only reason i try and watch this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Noel Posted March 17, 2008 Members Share Posted March 17, 2008 Saw this over at the official Proctor & Gamble message board... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JackPeyton Posted March 17, 2008 Members Share Posted March 17, 2008 I do think that P&G/TPTB want to try and find a way to make this work. And yes it was done to save money, but i do think it was also to try and help daytime and find a new way, a cheaper way, of filming. the worst part is the shake's, if they cut that out and stopped zooming in & out on nose hair and stopped shooting from between branch's i think it would look great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kwing42 Posted March 17, 2008 Members Share Posted March 17, 2008 How many final nails does Gl's coffin have in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members P.J. Posted March 17, 2008 Members Share Posted March 17, 2008 ^^^I'm sure whatever the minimum number needed to keep the lid (and production costs) down. I don't see why GL needs "time" to figure this stuff out...they'd been shooting outdoor scenes for months already with the new equipment. Why they suddenly needed to "artsy" it up and shoot from between branches, etc. is beyond me. I'm not as impressed with the new sets. Some are okay (the Spaulding study..). Most of them feel like 8x8 cells. I couldn't care less if Lizzie's room now has a closet...it's unbelievable that the Spaulding mansion has a claustrophic feel to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Chris B Posted March 17, 2008 Members Share Posted March 17, 2008 I do think they were too ambitious with the amount of sets and should knock some down so bedroom sets could be larger. Whatever Gus and Natalia were in was way, way too small, as was Jonathan's motel room. It would be nice to keep one around so you could have a realistically poor character, but Jonathan and Gus shouldn't be sleeping in a fricking box. Overall the look is improving and has gotten me to watch GL again, despite the bad writing. It was unbearable to watch previously with the poor set design. This has it's problems, but is a million times better than what we were getting. I hope they burned that Main Street set. I also must say that I never realized what a fierce bitch Crystal Chappell was. TVGC was right when they called her the sexiest woman in daytime. She doesn't even have to try! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members P.J. Posted March 17, 2008 Members Share Posted March 17, 2008 What is that thing Gus and Nat have sex in? Is it a room? It looks like a forgotten storage room at the Beacon. Gross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.