Members sheilaforever Posted August 5, 2008 Members Share Posted August 5, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted August 5, 2008 Members Share Posted August 5, 2008 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted August 19, 2008 Members Share Posted August 19, 2008 Sara posted a fascinating new blog today. http://thebiz.fancast.com/2008/08/deep_soa...es_to.html#more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rhythmchyc Posted August 19, 2008 Members Share Posted August 19, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Toups Posted August 19, 2008 Author Administrator Share Posted August 19, 2008 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Contessa Donatella Posted August 19, 2008 Members Share Posted August 19, 2008 You want transcripts of what shows? I lost which what you meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Contessa Donatella Posted August 19, 2008 Members Share Posted August 19, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted August 19, 2008 Members Share Posted August 19, 2008 QUOTE (Donna B @ Aug 18 2008, 08:47 PM) You want transcripts of what shows? I lost which what you meant. sorry...the podcasts...like In The Zone, Daytime Confidential... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Contessa Donatella Posted August 19, 2008 Members Share Posted August 19, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted August 19, 2008 Members Share Posted August 19, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Members Sylph Posted August 19, 2008 Members Share Posted August 19, 2008 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted August 19, 2008 Members Share Posted August 19, 2008 Yes, isn't the lush look (and the tendency to be musical) widely attributed to John Conboy? That's what I seem to remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sylph Posted August 19, 2008 Members Share Posted August 19, 2008 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted August 19, 2008 Members Share Posted August 19, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Members Sylph Posted August 19, 2008 Members Share Posted August 19, 2008 And this is all I'm getting from you?! Yes, we knew it. What were the reasons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.