OLTL: Why the 1968 'Back to the Future' Story Bombed

[Antoyne]

It felt like a bad Passions arc.

[EricMontreal22]

One point Marlena brought up that I ahd somehow forgot, is very valid

"• Budget. In order to do a storyline like this you need a big, big 1980s soap budget. The budget here was low to non-existent, and additional costumes and special sets would have done a lot to make the story more believable. I loved it in the recent anniversary episodes when Viki appeared in a Heaven that was just a bare stage but for filmy curtains. But the minimalist approach didn’t work well this time with the what should have been as vast as a Cinemascope 1968 storyline. Remember the real horses and Western town OLTL used when it first went back in time to Buchanan City in 1988"

Yes. Seeing the SAME two rooms over and over made no sense. If I trvaeled back in time I'd TRAVEL--I'd see if only this weird ranch wa time travel crazy, if we could go somewhere else, if I really ahd to go to Vietnam, etc.

One thing NOT mentioned was the weird meta fiction prosb led to by them watchiong a 1968 One Life to Live episode in the show...

[cubsgirl]

She hit on many of the reasons why this story didn't work. But the big one for me really was in the last paragraph. I know there are fans of Rex/Gigi. But for me it seems like Rex/Gigi lost whatever it was they had. I don't see them as this next big super couple. I can't put my finger on it, but it seems like once Rex realized too he had feelings for Gigi, the magic was gone. I should have been on the edge of my seat waiting for these two to finally get together. But when it happened, I didn't feel that way. I was completely bored by it. There was just something missing.

[SarahJoyBrownFF]

I COMPLETELY disagree!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I loved the time trip back to the 1968!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[miajere]

I don't feel like the writers were playing on their strengths. There was something happening between them before Adrianna left, and now they are writing a completely different story- and Gigi is the liar.

Which brings me to the strongest point- the actors are not very good- committed, but they still need some coaching. I think the directors were to blame for this. Natalie should not have been able to continue the way she did- the directors had to know that was going to bring the integrity of the story down....ALOT. They need someone to tell them "Please stop doing that with your face."

I miss the days when an actor was just...good- and became attractive because of their talent and ability to convey human emotion. I find myself more attracted to the older characters with skill instead of these models....yeah I'm talking about David Fumero.

[Ann_SS]

IMO, OLTL has way too many mediocre to bad actors featured in major stories. Farah Fatah, Bree Williamson, Jon Brotherton, Melissa Archer, Melissa Archer, Michael Eaton, the chick who plays Sarah and the one who plays Talia are worse of the lot though there are more. I do believe that you can enjoy a soap story with less than stellar acting, but I simply do not believe that even the writing which has been downright bad at times can overcome so many bad acting performances that we are subjected to everyday. RC need to take a long hard look at his cast and rethink some of these stories. Stop asking these actors to do than their limited acting ability will permit.

[marceline]

For the record I disagree with your inclusion of Michael Easton and Beth Ann Bonner but that's JMHO. To each their own. And I love the fact that you list Melissa Archer twice.

I agree that it's time to look at how dwindling budgets and backstage politics have resulted in subpar actors being afforded opportunities far and away beyond their capabilities. This isn't just a OLTL or even an ABC problem.

[miajere]

But at the same time- they don't really cater to their strengths. You take David Fumero- that guy should have went dark a long time ago, but instead he keeps playing Latin romeo- talking about art and music(rolling my eyes)....and Micheal Easton can do an emotional scene with the right actress when he is called to be more than just- John McBain. That guy should have been retooled a long time ago. Jon Brotherton is all over the place- but the guy seems excited about telling a story through the eyes of a man with confidence- but they've tied him to the labors of love, and promoted his pairing over telling the story of a self made(rethinking) man.

Melissa Archer isn't a bad actress, but she's not extremely talented, and her character has nothing. The only thing worst than not having a back story, is having a stupid back story. Can anyone tell me why we care about her? She should have been written to be a modern day Tina- instead the actress doesn't know what she does for a living, where her loyalties lie, and she's no Andrea Evans.

Bree WIlliamson is a good actress, and can be excellent, but she hasn't the work ethic for this industry. She only delivers when her scenes call for emotional intensity, otherwise she never seems to remember her lines in a timely fashion and is not fit to lick a veterans boots. If she wants to see a young actress with chops- look at old Heather Thom clips. So why is she on three or four times a week to do scenes she doesn't care to remember.

I can't talk about Farah Fath- there's something about her face that says she's your friend, but then you see her act and you feel as though you would never want to know her.

But if you take their support away, we are left with Trevor St John, Kassie, John-Paul, Erika, and Robin and these actors are pimped enough.

[rhinohide]

Yeah, Natalie ruined the "integrity" of the story. If not for her it would have been great.

I could make a list of reasons to care about Natalie, but it wouldn't matter. You just do or you don't. Same for Andrea Evans. When you say Melissa Archer is no Andrea Evans, I consider that a compliment.

[detroitpiston]

Like others said, this story flopped because it lasted too long. Not for any of the reasons stated in the column IMO.

[Ann_SS]

I agree with you that the directors have a responsibility to stop the actors when they are doing bad work and making bad acting choices. You would think that the director/producer/show runner/someone would have intervened when Jon Brotherton was embarrassing himself and the show during the hospital scenes. Same with Bree Williamson and her scene chewing wailing over Nash's death. Don't the soaps have acting coaches on the set? Maybe in the end, this is all about money. They don't have the money to pay for the time it takes to stop filming to coach these actors.

[Contessa Donatella]

As a general rule no, they don't have time to stop, or to stop & begin shooting again or reshoot. Whatever needs to be worked out, should be worked out before, or if need be, after, in post-edit. And, this has long been the case with daytime, that they shoot so fast. Newcomers have to get used to it. People who have been at it, are then presumably doing what someone wants out of them (that they think they can get).

[marceline]

I can't comment about the integrity of the story and clearly I'm not a fan of Archer's but the comments about the atrocity of her accent not just by fans but by members of the soap press across the board tell me that somebody should have recognized that she was out of her depth and helped her. By not doing that they screwed the story in a small way and the actress in a big one.

This also points to one of the reasons I think people are loving the Marty/Todd interactions so much. (Not the story, the interaction.) TSJ and SH are experienced actors who understand the value of subtlety and underplaying. They're two actors in a small space. It's essentially black box theatre.

[EricMontreal22]

I also think there's the sci fi angle. You ahve to do sci fi or not at all--they prob shoulda just kept it vague "love can conquer all" like the 80s time travel story did. Instead they ahd all this stuff about a conduit, portals openign every 20 years, etc, etc, which in the end didn't even matter to them getting back--there was no internal logic. It doesn't have to sound realistic but you have to stick with it or esle don't do it

[rhinohide]

Clearly I am a fan of Archer's but even I didn't consider this a stellar performance. I never have a problem with posters or columnists who don't admire MA sharing their reasoning. However, the topic of this thread and Marlena's column was Why the 1968 Back to the Future story bombed, and Maria's role in the story was so minor it had no impact on the success or failure of the story. Had Archer turned in a flawless performance, the story would have still bombed, so Marlena's commentary on Archer's performance (and overall talent) was off topic, and therefore smacked of a cheap shot that seems unprofessional IMHO.

I suppose after all we've learned about Carolyn Hinsey, I shouldn't be suprised to learn that soap columnists aren't as professional as I once thought.

Thanks DP! I agree.