Jump to content

Sara A. Bibel's Blog


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 264
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

QUOTE (Donna B @ Aug 18 2008, 09:12 PM)
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....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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? :unsure:  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. :D 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?  :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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?

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

    • Too many returns, that's when you know a show has run out of ideas and doesn't care anymore.  Zoe annoyed the sh!t out of me most times, but the Kat/Zoe storyline will always be iconic and close to my heart (that's the era I first started following the show in near real-time), and probably the only storyline in 21st century EastEnders that had long-term value for the characters involved during their initial run together. However, after all this time and the writing choice that Zoe never wants to see Kat again, I think that ship has sailed and I don't know that it makes sense to revisit it at this point. 
    • Former EastEnders star Michelle Ryan is reprising her role as Zoe Slater on the BBC soap following an absence of over 20 years.  It’s been reported that Zoe will return to Albert Square later this year and that she’ll take centre stage in a dramatic new storyline involving her family.  The news comes amidst news of other big returns, which include Max Branning (Jake Wood), Tanya Cross (Jo Joyner), Shirley Carter (Linda Henry) and Ben Mitchell (Max Bowden), who will also be back in Walford later in the year.
    • I actually love the new fashion.
    • Admittedly, I was a latecomer to ATWT (first becoming a regular viewer in 2000). But I really liked KMH's Emily. I thought she was a very specific kind of neurotic professional character, and I loved her prickly relationship with MM's Susan. I will say I don't think the show did her any favors after Hal died, stranding her in storylines with several of the show's dullest characters: nu-Paul, nu-Meg, and nu-Dusty. I actually quite liked one of her last major storylines, when she discovered she had a grown-up biological son with Larry named Hunter. But then Hunter just sort of disappeared, and the story fizzled out, which was pretty typical of the late Goutman years. 
    • I know the fashions have gotten mixed reviews but I actually like what the new costume designer is putting the cast in. It feels more modern and the more tacky pieces I feel make sense for rich people. They're buying for the brand and the price and we often see celebs in things like this. Especially for a character like Nikki, I feel the more over the top (and tacky), the more realistic it is.
    • Well, her staff pointing out the movie connection never seemed to stop Long from using those plots.  She was right about Vanessa--she needed a man who loved her, which she'd never really had up to then. But as others have pointed out, Long borrowed heavily from Taming of the Shrew to get it done. (which while I kinda disputed that, I get more now, having watched Kiss Me Kate a few times since.)
    • "Holly had her share of the blame..." NO, she did NOT. WOW. That's what you get for trying to be fair and giving these people the benefit of the doubt! The Rita rape episodes do not seem to be available. It sounds like Calhoun thought it was not dramatized, but it was. I saw it when it aired. Yes, it's close to 50 years ago, and memories aren't 100% reliable. I also know that Zaslow reportedly complained that it was written too much like a seduction and that's why the Dobsons portrayed Holly's rape differently. Maybe it started like a seduction and she rejected him and that's when it turned violent. I don't remember that part, if it exists. What I do remember is that Roger threw Rita so violently to the floor that she hit her head. They showed him coming at her from her point of view and he looked all fuzzy. It was an act of violence, not a seduction. Rita kept it a secret until it looked like Roger might be acquited, and then finally admitted it. She didn't make it up, it definitely was not a ploy.
    • I was actually referencing another scene between Roger and Alex, which I think is right after they marry.  But yeah---I'm not really impressed with Calhoun's reasoning. Or the "both recall it wasn't unprovoked" line. Wasn't Holly trying to leave him when he raped her? Oy vey.
    • I know we have discussed the location of Bay City in the Another World thread and the fact that originally Irna conceived of it as being the real Bay City MI, and it was later writers that treated it as a fictional Bay City [probably IL]. This article seems to suggest that that idea was well-established by 1981. I wonder when it started.
    • Desert Sun, 22 December 1983 Guiding Light’ writer looks for fresh ideas By TOM JORY Associated Press Writer NEW YORK (AP) - “Guiding Light” has been a daytime companion for millions since 1937, starting on radio and switching to TV after 15 years. Can anything new, really new, ever happen to the Bauers or the Reardons or any of the other folks in Springfield? “I get really upset,” says Pamela Long Hammer, principal writer for the CBS soap opera since March, “because I’ll come up with this neat scenario and someone will say, ‘That’s like “Strangers on a Train.’” “I think, ‘They keep stealing my material.’ “The way I figure it,” she says, “there are only so many stories in the world. It’s the characters who keep the show new and exciting. All of our stories come from them: I don’t come up with a plot, and then work a character into it.” Continuity is important. Someone out there surely knows all that’s happened, to everyone on the show, in 46 years. How about Miss Long Hammer? "Nope. I care about what our core families have been doing,” she says. “I’m always interested in what happened to Bert Bauer (played since 1950 by Charita Bauer) 20 years ago, but as far as going back and reading scripts, no. “Others on the show keep track,” she says. “I’ll suggest something, and be told, ‘You don’t remember, but five years ago, they had this terrible fight. They would never speak to one another now.”’ Miss Long Hammer, a former Miss Alabama who came to New York as an aspiring actress in 1980, began writing for daytime television while playing Ashley on NBC’s “Texas.” She eventually wrote herself out of the story. Her staff for “Guiding Light” includes nine writers, among them her husband, Charles Jay Hammer, whom she met while both worked on “Texas.” NBC dropped “Texas” after two seasons, and episodes from the serial currently are being rerun on the Turner Broadcasting System’s cable-TV SuperStation, WTBS. Gail Kobe, who was executive producer of “Texas,” now has the same job on “Guiding Light.” And Beverlee McKinsey, who played Iris Carrington in “Another World” on NBC, and later in "Texas,” will join the Light” cast of the CBS soap in February. Miss Long Hammer is reponsible for the long-term story, which can mean looking ahead 18 months or more. Staff writers deal with specifics, including the scripts for individual episodes. She says she draws on “imagination and instinct” for the “Guiding Light” story. Often, that involves inventing new characters. “‘I look at Vanessa (Maeve Kinkead), one of our leading ladies,” Miss Long Hammer says. "What could make the audience care more about her? “Then I think, ‘Why can’t she find a man she can love, who will also love her?’ Voila, here comes Billy Lewis (Jordan Clarke). “Another example,” she says, “is Alan Spaulding (Christopher Bernau). All of a sudden, he’s got a sister no one ever knew about. “They come complete,” says Miss Long Hammer of the serial’s characters, including the new ones. “We know who they are and where they came from long before the viewer gets all that information. That’s one of the most interesting things about daytime, the complexities of the characters.” The writers make a big effort to keep the show contemporary, and four of the leading players are in their late teens or early 20s Judi Evans, who plays Beth Raines, Kristi Tesreau (Mindy Lewis), Grant Aleksander (Philip Spaulding) and Michael O’Leary (Rick Bauer). “Guiding Light,” longevity notwithstanding, is a moderate success by that ultimate yardstick of the industry; ratings. The show is behind only “General Hospital,” “All My Children” and “One Life to Live,” all on ABC, and CBS’ “The Young and the Restless,” among soaps. And Miss Long Hammer says she’s convinced writing is the key to even greater achievement. “When I say I love the characters, it’s not a light thing,” she says. “I think what the audience senses is an enthusiasm and an energy among the people who do the show.”
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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