Jump to content

Santa Barbara Discussion Thread


dm.

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 4.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

I've gotten up to episode 85, 11/26/84. Louise Sorel and Nicholas Coster are really carrying the show. 

I'm just stunned by the lackluster writing. In this episode, two storylines have their climax, and there are no pay-offs whatsoever. One is Joe being exonerated, a story that goes back to the first episode. You'd think this would be exciting, with Joe finding the killer or something. But no; instead, Peter, who just got shot trying to kill Joe, now reveals that he was there at the time of the murder and can vouch that Joe didn't do it. Everyone believes this, and this clears Joe. It's so silly and anticlimactic. The writers keep giving Peter things that come out of no where, ruining the character. They also have lost interested in Joe; he's not even in the episode where he's cleared. Both characters are dead 3 months later. In hindsight, they should have gotten rid of both of them in the earthquake.

The second story that climaxes is the "adventure" of the 4 teens buying a haunted hotel, fixing it up and trying to run it, all the while being harassed by their teacher Ray Walston. I felt so bad and embarrassed for My Favorite Martian Ray Walston; through a comedy of errors, he's caught with a hooker. This is his last appearance and the last time we see any of this. It was all supposed to be "funny," but what a waste all around. The show had no idea what do with the younger characters.

The show in general has no idea what to do. The show in 1984 is not working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wonder if that's due to good, old-fashioned network interference, or to the Dobsons realizing that what worked on the page as they were creating the show wasn't working on the screen.  Either way, I think they realized early on that they had made some poor casting decisions that, in turn, hampered many of their original plans for the show.

As for the story centering around the teens, however, I tend to think the Dobsons' hearts simply weren't in writing for them - that, in fact, they were forced to write for them, even though SB was their creation, because NBC was chasing after the youth markets, and they believed featuring younger characters in their own stories would lure younger audiences to the show and away from GH.

If you look at the Dobsons' material on other shows - GH, GL and ATWT - you'll notice that they didn't write much (if at all) for the teenaged characters.  I can't say that I blame them either.  Teenagers aren't that interesting to watch.  The only ones who could write for them honestly and still hold viewers' attention were Douglas Marland and Agnes Nixon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That stuff with the teens was AWFUL. I've never managed to sit through it.

It's funny- I started watching SB late in its run and got hooked. If I had started from scratch as it aired I don't know if I would have stuck.

I didn't mind the story with Peter. Found Joe and Kelly boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The pilot always made me think that all of the good stuff happened off-screen.

I would have preferred a flashback to Sophia's drowning followed by the first months telling the story of the summer that lead to Channing's murder.  In that scenario, we could watch Peter's double life as a teacher and gigolo (hired by Augusta).  The beginnings of Joe and Kelly's romance.  Channing's gay love life and his affair with Santana.  Gina adopts baby Brandon and lives as a sugar baby. The adventures of Channing and Warren to find the coins.  Culminating in Channing's party where Lionel returns to town, Channing plans his revenge, and Sophia sneaks back in disguise.  Then, Channing is murdered, Eden returns to help investigate, and falls in love with Cruz. 

To me, Channing was such a black canvas.  Eden and Mason envied him.  Santana was his beard and had his child.  His presence was felt so deeply, that it would have been nice to get to know him a bit.

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When Marland arrived at GL he praised the Dobsons but immediately pointed out there were no young stories hence the arrival of Morgan/Kelly/Tim etc

Marland said he liked writing about the young ones because their lack of maturity and experience meant you could write jealousy/misunderstandings/fickleness much easier and more believably than with older characters who could look dumb or selfish.

It didn't help that the SB youngsters were played by green actors given 'hi jinks' stories. If they had committed to  young love/serious stories things might have worked better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Liberty City- well 900 is 1988, which is pretty bad imo. 

Re the pre pilot stuff- occasionally I come across people hoping for a reboot, and they envision a focus say on the grown Chip and Adriauna, etc.

I think you could do a better show going back in time. Young CC, conflict with his brother in business and relationships, the Lockridges could still be around. 

Could mine and expand the history of both Pamela and Sophia with the family.

And go up to say the pilot. 

They would need to come up with more stories than just the known history though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

IMHO, Santa Barbara is typical of a show that really doesn't need a reboot and people would probably be better off creating a show that's similar instead. There's not really a strong "hook" that would be enough to reboot, ie Dark Shadows being a gothic soap opera with a vampire (and horror movie tropes) or like Edge of Night being a soap version of Perry Mason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The issue is none of the characters are rootable, in my eyes. Jill Farren Phelps came in and re-shifted the canvas to be the Cruz & Eden show, and they are a couple that I simply detest. And it's oversatured. And no other storylines are gripping. I understand the transition when EPs change, but this is just.... jarring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My comments are nothing new but SB's problem was consistency. An individual episode could be brilliant, and the next one would be an absolute mess. The dialogue was usually the saving grace, but that wasn't always the case especially in the early years. The revolving door of writers and producers meant there was constant whiplash. There was little long-term plotting and most stories just fizzled out. It always felt as if the writers (whichever ones were working at the time) were just making stuff up as they went along. Yet when SB was on a roll, it was fantastic t.v. so it's annoying that someone couldn't step in and maintain that quality for longer than three months at a time. 

Edited by chrisml
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the main problem Santa Barbara had in 1984 is that none of the characters are especially interesting, memorable, or even likeable. They all are so generic and boring that it's hard to care or be invested in any of them.

Augusta and Lionel come the closest to breaking the mold.

It's crazy to see Mason, who later becomes interesting, being such an unlikeable non-entity in these early episodes. He could just stop appearing, and no one would care or notice. 

Robin Wright is so beautiful, but boy her character sucks, especially after Dane was fired; the character is so grating. It's the writing.

Edited by Jdee43
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think you have to credit Frank Salisbury for making Mason the interesting character that he was.  IMO, Salisbury's work on other soaps could approach poetry, and poetry was right up Mason Capwell's alley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I can definitely see that airing the same week as The Love Boat colliding with an iceberg and sinking while crossing the North Atlantic on the Titanic anniversary with a “Who lives and dies?!” Promo next to Mr Belvedere being blackmailed over his wanted fugitive status back in the UK

      Please register in order to view this content

        Agree with you both. I am also going assume that while Hotel may had some big numbers the first 2 seasons BUT the demographics weren’t great. Reason I say this is I distinctly remember my parents watching St Elsewhere and/or The Equalizer after Dynasty.    I still don’t get Hotel’s designation as a primetime soap opera either lol. ABC should have aired Paper Dolls in the 10/9 slot on Wednesdays in the fall of 1984 to give that show some more legs.    Obviously ABC was eyeing a double bill night in the same vein as Dallas & Falcon Crest and that might have worked better than leaving Paper Dolls to the wolves in an untested timeslot.
    • I tend to stay out of EP discussions, simply because I rarely know who EPs when. And they all have their good and bad sides. But how are we supposed to judge JFP on anything other than what we see? I didn't know she was a director or a music director. (and unlike say, Chris Goutman, I never saw her credited as anything other than an EP) Specifically in the matter of casting Crampton, she took credit for it (or at Crampton gave her credit for it, whatever) and it was arguably, one of the worst recasts of the '90's (and either as bad or worse than the actress she fired).  She lost two important actresses in '92 and still decided to kill Maureen.  She had a wildly uneven tenure at GL. It's no wonder she's polarizing. But it kind of proves a point--great soap is always a that rare combination of everything clicking at the same time.  And believe me, if I could bring myself to watch her male successors who were responsible for bringing back Reva and allowing her to eat the show again, or hiring Hunt Block, or being too chicken to stand up to stans who and hamstrung the show with boring couples stuck in the same repetitive stories (Vanessa/Matt, Chelle/Danny or Richard/Cassie, take your pick) not to mention San CristoHELL....I'd be more than happy to roast them on open spits. I guess we end up talking about JFP because she's in a period we can nominally agree was one of the last "best" periods of the show.
    • A degree does not make one an expert at their job, it just shows that you can follow directions from a technical standpoint.  It doesn't mean that they're creative. JFP was all about the look of a show without considering that technical beauty can only carry a show so far if there is nothing interesting to go along with it.  Equality means calling out flaws equally in both genders. 
    • NBC or P&G was even fool enough to take a full page ad for two consecutive weeks in TV Guide promoting this horrible storyline.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • JFP has had more defense for her decades of terrible producing than many male producers ever had.
    • It makes sense that she got a degree in directing. I've always said she should have been a director. I think she works better at the technical aspects of the show. I think her problem is the emotion/heart of a show.  She always guts the heart of the show she's on and she makes decisions that stop longtime viewers from watching a show. I don't think it's sexism to call that out especially as I've said similar things about Conboy. I've called out Rauch for much worse. 
    • "Aunt Blanche" first appears toward the end of this episode, about 57 minutes in.

      Please register in order to view this content

         
    • You're probably right. They may have just wanted edits of certain characters. Hopefully the rest is around.
    • Of course!

      Please register in order to view this content

      I'm wondering if there were bits cut from this footage, because to me it seems that may be the case. At 11:23, Laurie tells her psychiatrist that the bar phoned and told her Mark got into a fight and needs to be picked up. It starts to fade to the next scene, you hear some different music begin and get cut off between the static, and where you'd expect to see the aftermath of the fight, we cut back to a later scene of Laurie in bed worrying about what's happening. The credits at the end also show that more than Mark, Laurie and Dr. Northcote should have been in this episode. Another character, Brody, played by Ed Setrakian, is mentioned but not shown. If this is the case, perhaps the original fan who saved this episode has the additional scenes.
    • Anyway… It’s a shame that the video that depicted Leticia’s death was removed from YT.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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