Jump to content

Bernard Lechowick a candidate for WGA Board


Recommended Posts

  • Members

DESTROYED?? DESTROYED???

Look, I joined the anti-LML bandwagon in the end...because the show had gone awry.

But this is a very astute, bright group. On the LML/Lechowick balance sheet for Y&R there is good AND bad. Let's argue with nuance here....

They lost sight of Y&R's core identity and, more importantly, what each character would or would not do. They also energized the show, initially brought some innovative and surprising storylines, improved the dialogue, staging and pacing. (Yes, I know each of these are matters of opinion, and some would dispute me). But I am not alone in thinking these things.

All these people we roundly trash, it is as though we need to subscribe to a black-and-white view rather than a more realistic grey one. A lot of these folks bring genuine innovation and freshness to the start of their regimes (e.g., Hogan at Days or ATWT), and then they peter out. Some peter out faster than others...probably due in part to the interference of other forces.

Nobody DESTROYED Y&R. The show continues to tick, with many of its veterans front burner and still acting like themselves. Many of LML's innovations remain on screen now (e.g., the delightful Daniel-Amber and Kevin-Jana pairings). Y&R entered a phase of malaise...one that was perpetuated by Maria Bell (another writer who immediately brought improvements, but who could not sustain). Even greats like Bill Bell, Agnes Nixon and Douglas Marland made HUGE mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Yup. (See how I ignored the whole of your post and just focused on what I wanted to focus on. :P)

They were the last drop in an already full glass. One can say that I should have honoured their effort in introducing new elements, but the problem is – they did it in the wrong way. By now, people who watch soap operas are hardcore fans who will pretty much hate any sort of innovation the form throws in their way. They don't want primetime in daytime. Simple.

All they want is some sort of coherent, well-written long-term story with serious consequences for characters involved. And lots of pay-offs. (I'm oversimplifying, but you get the picture.)

You cannot ask – and of all people LML! – someone to transform a form which existed in certain frameworks for 50 years in one night. And most importantly, that cannot be achieved in one night.

And Y&R is a case of something that was pretty (relatively) successful and they came and destroyed the formula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's 100% subjective. Your opinion, my opinion. Neither one is more important than the other.

Well, they've been in the wrong profession for 25 years now and are still managing to get work, for whatever that may be worth.

And please, let's judge everyone's career based on what they did in their worst job. Claire Labine's GL was a mess, or so I've heard. Well then, she's a fricken hack! "Ryan's Hope" was canceled for a reason, you know! When Irna returned to soaps to write ATWT in the early 70s, her stories dropped the show out of first place for the first time in years, so I guess that makes Irna Phillips a hack, too!

That's exactly it. You can win the Daytime Emmy for writing one show twenty times in a row, but the second you move to another and do a subpar job, you're labeled a hack by some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Personally, I struggle with my feelings toward LML and BL as writers. On the one hand, the two are capable of fantastic work; their years on KL (and on "Homefront," even though, as Sylph pointed out before, it was ultimately cancelled) prove as much, IMO. Yet, there are so many shows of theirs - "Second Chances," "Hotel Malibu," "Wild Card" - I'm either lukewarm about, or just plain hated.

I admire the Lechowicks (again, as writers, I won't go into some of the stories I've heard about them as people), but man, I knew practically from day one their coming to Y&R would be a disaster (even as part of me still hoped for the best).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ryan's Hope wasn't canceled because of Claire Labine. When ABC bought the show in the early 80s they tried several different ways to change the show which included firing Labine several times. They'd screw up trying to make it General Hospital and come running back to her to clean up their mess. By the late 80s they'd moved it to a horrible timeslot in favor of Loving (which never matched it's success) which immediately slashed it's ratings. Towards the end they brought Labine back one more time and she was able to end that terrific show in a high note. So I agree, Ryan's Hope was canceled for a reason, but that reason was ABC and there's really no debating that.

As for GL and OLTL, she had less creative control (especially at GL) and no every writer is going to click with everyone show. I've seen some of her OLTL and it wasn't horrible, just not her show. I admire that she can look and admit this and learn from her mistakes. A hack cannot do that. A hack feels they're being picked on (see: Dena Higley) and want to force their vision on "difficult" viewers who love to complain.

Bernie Lechowick and Lynn Marie Latham suffer from not liking soaps. For all the soaps they've written for that's ironic, but their writing shows them longing to be elsewhere. I loved their changes as Knots Landing which did successful modernize the show and keep it on the air (and a success), but that isn't going to work everywhere. At the time soaps were out of fashion so stripping down the romance, making it darker with more workplace drama and mystery was smart. When they did the same thing to Y&R, it didn't work because it was poorly written, planned and executed overall. It was too much and the exact opposite of what is popular now. Soaps are popular again, the more campy the better, but LML and co. decided to drain all the soap out of Y&R. What sense did that make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh, I know. One of my friends is a major RH fan and even ran a website for it for several years. I was just being sarcastic about the Labine/RH/cancellation comment.

Good point. I think a lot of people suffer from the very same thing. Anytime a new headwriter and/or EP announces that "*daytime soap* is going to be a daytime version of *primetime drama*!" they're pretty much saying "I wish I was writing *primetime drama*!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

An excerpt:

QUOTE (Chris B @ Jul 28 2008, 12:17 AM)
Soaps are popular again, the more campy the better, but LML and co. decided to drain all the soap out of Y&R. What sense did that make?

I'm trying to figure out what you mean. Ugly Betty? Desperate Housewives?

Daytime soaps clearly are NOT popular again. And the two shows I list above had strong first seasons, and have been in decline ever since.

I do believe that the serial format is a strong one (Sylph and I have debated this), but I think serial format has permeated most of primetime and cable. That said, with the exception of the shows I list above, virtually NONE are campy.

I do not believe that camp is the secret to the future of soaps. Indeed, I relentlessly (and many other fans) tune out the campy shows, because they make us feel stupid. It's not just DOOL/Passions...I groan when Carlo Hesser or Dorian Lord over-act on OLTL, and I don't even like the ruination of Henry/Vienna as comic relief on ATWT.

I do believe there is room for humor and EVEN camp (I miss Sally Spectra every day)...but only as one small ingredient in the dish.

Chris B, even you liked early LML. Draining SOME of the worst excesses of soap is NOT a bad thing. LML could have flourished if she hadn't so fully let go of Y&R's history and characterization history, and if she had better planning/coordination/long-range plotting abilities.

There is nothing wrong with being the "sophisticated soap". I know previous holders of that mantle (e.g., RH, Santa Barbara, earlier Another World) all died eventually...but Y&R managed somehow to retain a core intelligence even while delivering everything from aching reality (e.g., the rapes of Peggy and Chris Brooks, and Christine Blair) to psychodrama (Phyllis, Sheilla). Notably, at least in their initial incarnations, neither of these two psycho ladies was ever over the top.

I think camp needs to be used like jalapeno sauce...two drops.

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.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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