I don't get the criticism of ATWT's shoots, which I think add a lot to the show. B&B's, otoh, seem to be really random and look bad to boot, imo. What "advantage" does B&B have by shooting on their rooftop? That's the only "outdoors" scenes I've seen since the revamp.

FC (or at least it's modern shipping complex) has been established as an outdoor set suspiciously looking like CBS Television City. They went to a beach in Malibu just last Friday and had one or two more outdoor shootings

MarkH I totally agree--even if SOD and all did in depth, detailed, critical soap reviews, I'd be more likely to pick up (if anythign ti seems like they're even more scared to do such things than they used to be)

Sara posted a fascinating new blog today.

http://thebiz.fancast.com/2008/08/deep_soa...es_to.html#more

Deep Soap: Daytime Continues To Chew Off Its Own Leg

By Sara A. Bibel

Fancast.com

Unhealthy Dialogue

Another weekend, another set of shocking behind-the-scenes events. Just as Jossip-gate faded, Firing Friday began. The news trickled out. First Daytime Confidential broke the story that Ed Scott was out as Days of Our Lives Executive Producer. Then, Sunday night TV Guide Canada’s Nelson Branco revealed that The Young & The Restless’s Executive Producer Josh Griffith was also let go Friday. Scott’s replacement is Gary Tomlin, a veteran EP whose credits include Sunset Beach and One Life To Live. Y&R has not yet named a new Executive Producer. Both men were allegedly fired for the same reason: rewriting scripts without the headwriters knowledge or permission. Writers from each show separately complained to the writers’ guild, which responded by issuing cease and desist letters to the producers. Both shows are produced by Sony. It seems like the studio was wary of possible legal action and decided to make a pre-emptive strike.

This is a tough story for me to cover. I worked for both of them. Ed hired me and became a friend and mentor. In the few encounters I had with Josh, I felt he treated me fairly. Neither one of them has spoken publicly about the situation, so nobody knows their sides of the story. Before I ever met them, I was a fan of their work. Scott was responsible for Y&R’s signature, lush look. Griffith’s early 90s co-headwriting tenure with Michael Malone on OLTL changed the genre with contemporary, socially relevant stories. It’s sad that these two giants of the industry now have tarnished reputations.

Sadder is that this is one more sign that the wheels have come off in daytime. The industry used to be like the mafia: nobody talked. What happened in Genoa City stayed in Genoa City. I’m sure that producers have taken it upon themselves to rewrite scenes countless times over the years. Does anyone think that Gloria Monty had any trepidation about changing scenes she found unsatisfactory during General Hospital’s glory days? When people had conflicts they’d settle them internally. There would definitely be a lot of yelling, office supplies might be thrown, and the staff might dissolve into factions. When it was all over people would still be angry at each other. But the problem would be solved without involving outside parties and the fans would never even know there were any issues. I don’t understand why the studio, production company, and network executives didn’t step in and resolve these disputes before they got out of hand.

It seems like the writers’ strike ushered in a new era of nastiness in daytime. While the rest of the entertainment industry shut down, daytime, as it has during every other strike, kept going. During past strikes, the shows were written by scabs, some of whom ended up being hired permanently in the place of the striking writers. The last strike happened in 1988, when the industry was still healthy. This time, a significant number of writers opted to take financial core status, effectively resigning from the union so that they could keep working. Daytime writers were the only writers forced to choose between their union and their job, the only ones with anything to gain by leaving the union. If a couple of primetime writers went financial core, NBC wouldn’t have handed them Heroes. It’s only in daytime that writers are considered to be interchangeable and expendable.

The motivations of those who went financial core ranged from financial need to concerns that they would be fired if they walked the picket line to a belief that it was an unfortunate but necessary step to keep their show alive. Some shows prepared for the strike by hiring people the week before the WGA contract expired that had clearly already agreed to keep working if the strike happened. That’s how Higley, recently fired by OLTL, came to em>DOOL and Tomlin, working on the already cancelled Passions came to em>OLTL. Based on what’s transpired since, they weren’t sacrificing their union membership for the good of daytime. They were seizing the opportunity to advance themselves. Higley didn’t even go Financial Core – she let her husband do it – until she got publically outed as the show’s interim headwriter in a column by last week’s villain, Carolyn Hinsey.

The first day of the strike, I was shocked when Josh Griffith, Lynn Latham’s handpicked lieutenant, chose to go financial core. He took over as the show’s co-head writer along with Maria Bell, who hadn’t written in years. I couldn’t help being reminded of Caesar and Brutus. Ironically, Latham fired Ed Scott from his Supervising Producer position and placed Griffith in charge of the booth. If she hadn’t done that, Scott would probably still be at Y&R and this entire ugly mess might have been avoided. The fans seemed thrilled with Griffith and Bell’s work and the ratings actually rose. When the strike ended, Griffith, apparently by his choice, returned to producing while Bell became the sole headwriter. The ratings started to fall. Things clearly went sour between the two of them at some point.

Daytime is imploding. More and more energy is being wasted on in-fighting. It seems to me that the only way soaps are going to improve their quality and their ratings is if everyone sets aside their egos and their hunger for power and focuses on the common goal of making an entertaining show. I’ve spent the past week watching the Olympics. It’s inspirational to see talented people from all over the world striving to do their best. I was so impressed by the way the United States gymnasts Shawn Johnson and Nastia Liukin handled their rivalry. Both wanted the gold. Only one could have it. Yet after Liukin beat Johnson, they embraced and Johnson appeared to be sincerely happy for her. They’re both teenagers, competing under unimaginable pressure in a brutal sport with the whole world watching. They’re handling it with a lot more grace than any of the so-called adults who are running daytime can muster right now.

Edited August 19, 200817 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

Like the oil supply is diminishing, daytime's dying. So people are becoming desperate and gaining power no matter the cost.

It'll probably take the demise of a big'un like GL for them to wake up and stop all these shenanigans.

Fantastic blog by Sara! 2008 really has been a nasty year for soap operas. I wonder what else is going to happen before the year is over!

My pet peeve (as a hearing impaired, time-limited person): I like it in print . (I also think the impact of these shows would be HUGE if they were transcribed...so HUGE the stars might actually get nervous and less candid, which would be bad).

You want transcripts of what shows? I lost which what you meant.

But I think the magazines COULD flourish if they understand how hard-core many remaining soap fans are. Which means there should be writer, producer, director, casting profiles, interviews.

Our love for Sara shows the HUNGER for behind-the-scenes insights. (And our love for Tom Casiello, for Michael Fairman, and so forth). This is an audience niche that the magazines don't get.

For every STUPID filler-roundup ("maps of the cities on which the shows take place"; "review of memorable weddings on all eight surviving shows"; etc.), devote that space to IN DEPTH actor interviews and interviews with the creative people.

Don't waste your time on "news" (literally...that's what SOW now believes it is doing! That is not news...Obama vs. McCain is news...global warming is news....not 'what will happen next' on GL). Don't waste your time on fashion-and-makeup nonsense that MIGHT get you an extra Maybelline ad. Nobody wants that crap from your newsprint :-). (It looks much better in other glossy mags).

They have a very real problem & have had it for a very long time. And, that is the diversity of the audience. For example, I would cringe over a soap magazine spending a week with any that you listed, but I also know that it would be nearly impossible to achieve. I find many of the regular features interesting. Now, when they do the same wraps over & over just in different years, yes, that's repetition & you will find repetition everywhere in everything. It is just a very important matter whether the given 'rerun' is warranted. This past issue, for example, I really found myself very very interested in the wrap 'Common Bonds', all of that trivia was great fun, to me. I don't mind Round-ups especially since it so often involves asking actors about other actors they admire. And, it's only 2 facing pages.

I've long been a critic of the mags not including more 'nostagia' or as I would say, information about 'Classic Soaps'. And, of the mags not including tons of information about EPs, HWs, and everything that goes with that. And, of the mags loss of ratings analysis with the loss of Kape/Coons & other partner's mag. And, of the loss of really significant critique, which came from Mimi & the way she structured SPW and, of course, from Marlena. None of the mags have ever really tried to give perspective & I think it's needed information. Last but not least it has long bugged me not to see actors talk about 'the work'. They, and when I say they at this point, I mean the top person on the masthead, think that fans don't want to read about 'the work' or people who aren't onscreen (EPs & HWs & the like) and that fans don't buy mags to read about soaps that are no longer on the air. They also think that the fans are interested in all of the fashion & make-up & glam aspects.

Marketing research shows that certain covers sell off the rack, so they feed that vicious cycle of more coverage for some soaps, less for others, which does nothing but alienate those viewers who don't watch Y&R, DAYS or GH.

Marketing research shows that of the entertainment magazines today, the ones that sell better are the ones with lots & lots of ... photos. WEEKLY is on a particular kind of paper, which is what it's supposed to be on as a tabloid but it doesn't show off great photography of great actors. DIGEST is a digest format & is too small, therefore, to use photos the way Entertainment Weekly does. And, if the problems within soaps teaches us anything, it's that we should do what we do well & leave the other stuff to others.

Then, there's the advertising & they are just strange when it comes to the constraints they put on what their ad can be on the same page with, opposite, following, or being followed by. I would be willing to bet that superficial, arbitrary marketing research is what's behind those ad agency strictures, too.

Now, if DIGEST were as long as it was 10 years ago, had that many pages, it could do all of this & expand Classic Lines, Where Are They Now and the tunes on the show. But, it's not.

And, I understand that what is soap opera news is not the same as world news or political news, or even sports news, but nonetheless there's news & notnews in all of them. But, DIGEST needs to address the issues of lead time & what to include in print rather than put on their website. Yes, there are many soap fans who either are not online or simply do not think to go looking for soap info online, so it is news to some.

I'd love to see some mag devote some space to things that have already happened onscreen! And, I'd love to see some mag deal creatively with the problem that some people don't want to read spoilers (news). But, I'm a pipe dreaming idealist sometimes.

Edited August 19, 200817 yr by Donna B

You want transcripts of what shows? I lost which what you meant.

sorry...the podcasts...like In The Zone, Daytime Confidential...

sorry...the podcasts...like In The Zone, Daytime Confidential...

Gotcha. Thanks. Ya know, I would be more likely to read them, come to think of it. I always have to make different time for podcasts because I usually am multitasking in a way that includes watching something with both audio & video while doing other tasks on the computer. But, I am also just more visually attuned. Sometimes I think in typesetting, word by word.

Edited August 19, 200817 yr by Donna B

They have a very real problem & have had it for a very long time. And, that is the diversity of the audience. For example, I would cringe over a soap magazine spending a week with any that you listed, but I also know that it would be nearly impossible to achieve. I find many of the regular features interesting. Now, when they do the same wraps over & over just in different years, yes, that's repetition & you will find repetition everywhere in everything. It is just a very important matter whether the given 'rerun' is warranted. This past issue, for example, I really found myself very very interested in the wrap 'Common Bonds', all of that trivia was great fun, to me. I don't mind Round-ups especially since it so often involves asking actors about other actors they admire. And, it's only 2 facing pages.

I've long been a critic of the mags not including more 'nostagia' or as I would say, information about 'Classic Soaps'. And, of the mags not including tons of information about EPs, HWs, and everything that goes with that. And, of the mags loss of ratings analysis with the loss of Kape/Coons & other partner's mag. And, of the loss of really significant critique, which came from Mimi & the way she structured SPW and, of course, from Marlena. None of the mags have ever really tried to give perspective & I think it's needed information. Last but not least it has long bugged me not to see actors talk about 'the work'. They, and when I say they at this point, I mean the top person on the masthead, think that fans don't want to read about 'the work' or people who aren't onscreen (EPs & HWs & the like) and that fans don't buy mags to read about soaps that are no longer on the air. They also think that the fans are interested in all of the fashion & make-up & glam aspects.

Marketing research shows that certain covers sell off the rack, so they feed that vicious cycle of more coverage for some soaps, less for others, which does nothing but alienate those viewers who don't watch Y&R, DAYS or GH.

Marketing research shows that of the entertainment magazines today, the ones that sell better are the ones with lots & lots of ... photos. WEEKLY is on a particular kind of paper, which is what it's supposed to be on as a tabloid but it doesn't show off great photography of great actors. DIGEST is a digest format & is too small, therefore, to use photos the way Entertainment Weekly does. And, if the problems within soaps teaches us anything, it's that we should do what we do well & leave the other stuff to others.

Then, there's the advertising & they are just strange when it comes to the constraints they put on what their ad can be on the same page with, opposite, following, or being followed by. I would be willing to bet that superficial, arbitrary marketing research is what's behind those ad agency strictures, too.

Now, if DIGEST were as long as it was 10 years ago, had that many pages, it could do all of this & expand Classic Lines, Where Are They Now and the tunes on the show. But, it's not.

And, I understand that what is soap opera news is not the same as world news or political news, or even sports news, but nonetheless there's news & notnews in all of them. But, DIGEST needs to address the issues of lead time & what to include in print rather than put on their website. Yes, there are many soap fans who either are not online or simply do not think to go looking for soap info online, so it is news to some.

I'd love to see some mag devote some space to things that have already happened onscreen! And, I'd love to see some mag deal creatively with the problem that some people don't want to read spoilers (news). But, I'm a pipe dreaming idealist sometimes.

Great post! Our ideal versions of SOD would differ a lot, but yours sounds interesting and well thought out.

Since you addressed "what to put online", the SOD site debuts a "revamp" today. I wonder if it will address any of the online issues in your post? I guess we'll see....

If she hadn’t done that, Scott would probably still be at Y&R and this entire ugly mess might have been avoided.

As always, I need some clarification. 

This mess would have been avoided if Latham hand't fired him? So now Lynn Antoinette's to blame because he re-wrote Dena Show-killer Higley and gave the power to AS?  I don't think that's true, especially because he showed "re-writing tendencies" and hunger for power during his stay with Y&R.

Plus, I don't agree that he is responsible for Y&R’s lush look. He is not. He might have preserved it in some way, but he didn't originate it.

Second, I don't know if Josh Griffith - who I dislike strongly, just to be clear - is the guy who treated her well or is he "Lynn Latham’s handpicked lieutenant". This is as if brimike was writing this. Then again: is he the guy who's responsible for influx of contemporary social issues together with Michael Malone or is he Brutus, the traitor? 

So... Could someone enlighten me? 

Edited August 19, 200817 yr by Sylph

Plus, I don't agree that he is responsible for Y&R’s lush look. He is not. He might have preserved it in some way, but he didn't originate it.

Yes, isn't the lush look (and the tendency to be musical) widely attributed to John Conboy? That's what I seem to remember.

Yes, isn't the lush look (and the tendency to be musical) widely attributed to John Conboy? That's what I seem to remember.

And this is all I get from you?! I didn't ask just this, you know.

As for Conboy - here's what Wikipedia, a source not loved on SON, has to say:

Conboy is best known for bringing glamorous production values to a show soon after he is hired. Such things as adding elaborate sets, dimming the lighting, hiring beautiful young actors to cast his shows, and using unique camera angles. These things innovatived soap operas in the 1970s when Conboy was Executive Producer of The Young and the Restless.

Edited August 19, 200817 yr by Sylph

John Conboy is responsible for the classic Y&R look, but Bill Bell had many of those ideas for dark lighting, creative camera angles, and alternative blocking methods when he originally created Y&R. Conboy helped bring them into fruition.

H. Wes Kenney, Ed Scott, David Shaughnessy, and John F. Smith preserved the "lush" look for the most part.

Oh, and you all know Conboy and Bill Bell hated one another, right?

Oh, and you all know Conboy and Bill Bell hated one another, right?

And this is all I'm getting from you?! Yes, we knew it.

What were the reasons?