Jump to content

1980


Toups

Recommended Posts

May 29, 1980

Created by

Agnes Nixon

Produced by

Jorn Winther

Directed by

Jack Coffey

Written By

Wisner Washam

Jack Wood

Mary K. Wells

Cathy Chicos

Clarice Blackburn

Caroline Franz

Cynthia Benjamin

Associate Producers

Michael Kelly

Gaile A. Burnell

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.


  • Community Posts

    • Until the show brought him back and ruined him anew in the early 00s, the character of Craig Montgomery was definitely put on the road to redemption in his friendship with his ex-wife Betsy Androupolos during mid 1980s ATWT. There were other factors that also helped redeem his character, like his tortured, at times star-crossed romance with Sierra Esteban but his friendship with Betsy (over the vehement objections of Betsy’s husband Steve) and the reaction to it exemplified Craig’s struggles to shed his reputation. Betsy’s insistence that her ex-husband is indeed a changed man and her steadfast loyalty to their friendship got almost everyone who held a harsh judgment against him to reconsider their judgments about Craig.
    • Looking at that cover, did Tristian Rogers and Emma Samms ever have a real life relationship? I know it's the National Enquirer and all...
    • There's going to be a certain amount of freewheeling behavior in any creative space no matter what. It certainly exists in the places I work. A fair amount of it is not okay with me. How you engage with it or don't based on what you feel is right or wrong to tolerate or participate with is down to the individual. But the work I do also isn't nearly as claustrophobic or high-pressure a closed-in environment as the writers' room of a network TV show from 20 years ago. Most of the work I do as a writer is remote and has only a few points of direct contact; if I don't want to engage, I simply don't reply. Most don't have that luxury. I do think you can chalk some of what went down onscreen at Lost to the times generally being very different in the culture in general - the network and creative focus on white leads, white love triangles, etc. above all. But the offscreen frathouse mentality, while also exceedingly and drearily common, reaching such wild heights at a show that prided itself on headlining media criticism courses before it went off the air, on being 'the thinking man's hit' just because it named characters after famous philosophers is... well, also unsurprising. I never thought anyone at that show was a creative genius. I have generally made it a point to avoid following most of the creatives' work since, though some are genuinely talented. I also watched a great deal of the latter half of Lost when it aired once it was given a clear end date, in a period in my life where I had very little to do with my time lol and because I wanted to see if they could possibly square the circle with all the mystery boxes and empty hype they'd built themselves around (I'd watched bits and pieces of the first several seasons). It was hatewatching, and the answer to my above question is they couldn't. Watch it again; for the bulk of the run of the show they simply go back and forth from Point B to Point C, learn nothing and continue to have circular 'character building' flashbacks. It was a formula and it was for treading water. But Lost is still venerated today. Everything it is credited as having done for popular entertainment and storytelling was done first and much better by other shows, Twin Peaks among them and most noticeable. Yet Lost gets the lion's share for making this kind of storytelling marketable and broadly commercial, because it is a show led predominantly by bland white leads embarking on a series of Legend of Zelda fetch quests while propped up with savvy mid-late aughts viral-marketing tie-ins and charismatic showrunners. To me Lost is a how-to manual for making a certain kind of successful four-quadrant hit, not any kind of artistic legacy. This is what always enraged me about the show. Even Ryan's (very well written) excerpt suggests it is settled fact that Lost was well-written and elevated drama. I never felt that way and I still don't. It was poorly done but passed off as high art. Which, fine, you can sell art to the general public by packaging it a certain way onscreen, I understand that and I champion it - but other people have done it better and smarter, to say nothing of more inclusively. It was clear they were winging it in so many ways, yet to this day they claim that ending was some true north for them all along. Come on.
    • #3896 – Monday, January 20th 1969 – missing ? #3897 – Tuesday, January 21st 1969 Ken woke up early and rememberd the melody Laurie played on the piano. Jill was surprised he was whistling. Susan phoned and asked Jill for lunch to talk about Amy’s baby as she learned Jill knew. Jill remained evasive towards Ken. At Paul’s office, Bob Hill appeared and Paul introduced Bob – Valerie’s son – to Jill. After Jill left, Bob told Paul he didn’t want to get involved in his marital situation because he liked Amy a lot and was once interested in Belle. He wasn’t giving legal advice but as a friend, he thouth Paul should go back to Amy. Paul was angry at first. Ken phoned Laurie. He was interested in her song but was frustrated there were no lyrics. She suggested he had to do some and he said he would try. At The English pub, Susan told Jill she thought Amy’s attitude was absurd. She hoped Jill would be able to change Amy’s mind. They were interrupted by Paul and Bob who exchanged greetings. Jill was uneasy. Paul wondered why his secretary was at the pub with his wife’s sister and why she didn’t mention it to him. When Jill returned to the office, Paul assured her Susan and she couldn’t bring him and Amy back together. #3898 – Wednesday, January 22th 1969 Sam and Eleanor planned to work in the Stevens’ home and Sam invited her to dinner. Ken told Jill was late and couldn’t fix dinner. When Sam answered a phone call, Eleanor question Ken again on Nola Hollister’s good deed when he was on the verge of being fired but Ken departed. Eleanor offered to cook leftovers for Sam. When Sam complimented her, she felt very proud. From a cabin booth, Ken called the Hollisters and Nola answered. Laurie wasn’t home. Wilfried heard and wondered why Sam’s son – the hippie bartender – was trying to reach for his daughter. When Laurie came home, Wilfred informed her she had a phone call from a married man. Nola assured Wilfred Laurie met Ken at the club when they were having lunch and they talked music. Eleanor told Wilfred about her tenant problem. Her tenant was a divorcee who entertained men and Eleanor didn’t approve. Sam said she might be a little too rigid. When the name of Valerie appeared in the conversation, Sam took offense. He knew she didn’t approve of Val but she should keep her opinion to herself. Sam was growing more and more attached to her. Eleanor was appalled. After Wilfred left, Laurie asked Nola if Ken said more on the phone. It was probably about the lyrics but Nola shouldn’t say Wilfred. Nola assured she wouldn’t, Wilfred would not understand.    
    • Those statements by Abrams and Cuse are total gaslighting. It showed up on screen, so I agree, it’s unsurprising. In fact, it wouldn’t be surprising to say that the majority of writers rooms are like, or very similar to this— an exclusionary space where offensive behavior, under the guise of freewheeling creativity is prized and anyone who doesn’t fit into that archetype is othered and treated with an undercurrent of hostility, that is, if they let you in. In the very beginning, I had hoped for the show and admittedly, the diverse cast is what drew me in, but yeah, I could see that the story was narrowing in on the triangle between Jack, Kate and Sawyer, which was so disappointing because it seems so conventional and basic- a storyline that has been done to death. Then the argument between Locke and, (was it Jack?) about faith vs. science, which was so convoluted and reductive, yet people treated it as if it were some sort of elevated discussion. I liked most of the actors and that’s probably the most I can really say about it. I lost interest in the series but felt compelled to watch the final two episodes, probably because they brought the original cast back together. But yeah, the ending was dumb too. It made me think, this is not going to be the ending, is it? But yeah, it was. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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