What exactly are hoping to get out of your argument? I don't understand.

You are giving your opinion on Carlivati's storylines, which happens to be negative. That's fine. But then there are others that share a different opinion and are enteratined with what they're seeing on OLTL. I get that. It's a difference in opinion.

But then you have this side argument about the ratings and you keep bringing up the fact that it doesn't matter if a single person is enjoying the show because the ratings matter. Well, of course the ratings matter. Ratings are about money. But you are going to have fans that don't give a damn about the ratings. You're going to have fans that feel that the ratings are completely outdated and need to be redone to get with the times.

I'm with Toups in enjoying the show. Does that mean I'm blind to the ratings and don't see it near the bottom? No. I can just ignore that for right now and continue to be enteratined by what Carlivati has to give me. Once I'm not entertained anymore and the ratings are still low, my personal opinion with the show and the ratings will be the same. That doesn't have to always be the case. Y&R is at the top and I'm not enetrained by that show. So to say that ratings are the tell all and be all for everyone is not true.

High ratings do not mean good story, just as low ratings don't always mean bad story.

And individuals enjoying a show doesn't make it successful either, THAT is my point. Ratings is what is used to judge success whether individuals chose to agree with it or not. If tomorrow OLTL jumps up to 2.2, I would have to concede that while I am not enjoying the show, clearly many others are. Likewise, if ratings are low and I love the show, clearly many don't agree with my opinion that the show rocks. I do not dismiss the ratings, even if I don't personally agree with the data. Being dismissive of ratings is the last, desperate stance of a losing arguement.

Edited September 24, 200817 yr by KAnder5695

I can't speak for Toups, but I don't think he's dismissing the ratings. He knows that OLTL is at the bottom, but the thing is, he's enjoying the show right now and can look passed it. He's not letting the bad ratings affect that fact that he's being enterained right now.

But until someone new comes in and gives the fans something fresh and exciting, Carlivati is all we have outside of the recycled head writers that everyone is sick of. Carlivati gave OLTL viewers something they haven't seen in years, compelling storylines that grabbed your attention.He wrote for characters that fans have been wanting to see for years. He is doing something that the other head writers on the other soaps are not doing. So what do you expect fans to do? Of course they're going to rejoice.

Again, that's subjective though. We have apparently longtime OLTL fans like Jess and Kander who don't feel that way.

Carlivati might not be a "recycled hack," but he's shown that he can recycle certain stories from OLTL's past years and drag them out too long, I wouldn't exactly call that a masterful feat. 1968 and Mendorra were atrociously plotted and executed, but that's my opinion, and I see that many others have agreed with it.

He has a his flaws as a writer, like everyone else does, yet those haven't been addressed yet, until recently. Carlivati's honeymoon period is over, and while he may still be a good writer, I feel many are more aware of his flaws now.

As for the people calling Carlivati the next Marland, at the time, that's what they thought.

What sense does it make to compare a writer who hadn't been on the job a year yet to someone like Douglas Marland, who had a proven trackrecord at several shows?

It's easy for a new writer to come in and change things, no one knew what long-term success Carlivati would have two months into his tenure, when Branco made that horrid comparison.

I think that was a classic case of the Carlivati hype, and how some soap fans are willing to cling to a little glimmer of hope way too soon.

I read Branco's articles about his love for Carlivati, and I read Ewing's article comparing OLTL to old school GL, and they always backed up their opinions with comparisons that made sense.

Not to me, I watched GL back then, and while I can see the point Ewing was trying to make, it doesn't make sense to me to compare Carlivati, who had been on the job LESS THAN A YEAR to a Golden Era of another show, in that case GL.

Everyone has their own method. Take me for example, I try not to kiss the butt of whoever is in front of me at the moment for no other reason then to get attention as a general rule, but clearly that has worked well for others.

LOL!Their own method to achieve what purpose? I didn't feel my lips pucker in the least (not attributable to Botox I assure you). In fact, I think my point is very similar to one you were trying to make. My personal enjoyment isn't a measure of whether the show is good or bad. Rating spikes or dips do not measure my personal enjoyment. I can't presume to claim that someone who is enjoying the show has bad taste or flawed reasoning or whatever it is that permits them to be entertained while I am not. It's simply not a question of who is right and who is wrong. I am enjoying Mad Men which was a big Emmy winner but hasn't set the ratings on fire. Too bad for all those people who aren't watching. Now please excuse me while I go check the mirror to see if my lips have been restored to their normal position. Perhaps I have permanently puckered lips and just never knew? Either way, neither you nor I have changed anyone's mind about what they are or are not enjoying, and ultimately personal enjoyment is what shapes personal opinions about whether Carlivati is a good writer or a bad writer.

Edited September 24, 200817 yr by rhinohide

Well then Ron is a FAILURE because I am not entertained. The problem with thinking that YOU are the only one that matters is that YOU being happy isn't going to pay the bills and pay anyones salary. You can have critical success without having viewer success, but at the moment Ron doesn't have either. So how do you distinguish the great God of daytime that is Ron from the horrible Higley's of the world? Well Toups is happy, so it doesn't matter how low our ratings sink? Ya think Frons is going to say that at the next budget meeting? There is more to success than just what makes you happy (unless you suddenly become a few hundred thousand nielsen families). So I guess OLTL should have more money to spend, becuase you like it, to hell with the ratings.

Oh, so ratings only matter when YOU like what the ratings are...I get it now.

What is this business about "low ratings"? As I said yesterday, OLTL has held on to its ratings throughout this year. NO massive declines...in contrast to Days, Y&R, B&B and especially GL. Here is the graph again.

Yes, the ratings are low, but this year they ARE NOT FALLING (much) for Carlivati. They are falling LESS for Carlivati than for others. So, why would you use a ratings argument. The ratings argument DOES NOT HOLD when OLTL experienced LESS decline than almost any other soap. The ABC lineup is UNIQUELY stable during this year.

Well those of you who are calling for Carlivati's head, who would you put in place of HW? Megan McTavish, Jean Passanate, Gordon Reyfield?

Amen...well put. "Devil that you know..." But in this case, RC is no devil. He HAS real skills.

Amen...well put. "Devil that you know..." But in this case, RC is no devil. He HAS real skills.

But people who've devoted much of their time to a show deserve to display their displeasure, regardless if many happen to enjoy the show. I see nothing wrong with some fans demanding a better product, it might not be my opinion or the opinion of many, but as this thread clearly points out, differences in opinion is always going to be the norm.

Regardless of the ratings argument, I still think its safe to say Carlivati's job isn't as safe as you may believe. AMC and OLTL aren't GH, Carlivati doesn't have the job security that Guza has.

As someone who has stuck with Days the past few years despite all the backstage turmoil, i have to chuckle at all this. As creepy as Tess and the whole Todd/Marty thing is, it's intriguingly fascinating. At least Ron doesn't kowtow to the littlest fan grumbling, like on Days, whose stories get tossed and turned like a storm every time a fanbase gets pissed off. Considering the backstage turmoil on Days, I l like it when a soap can hang in there and weather out the ups and downs that ANY show has without dumping a writer or EP for the next flavor of the month. What, you want OLTL to resort to having actors rewrite the scripts? I'm assuming the actors don't feel that need with Ron. If they got rid of him, who knows WHO they'll end up with?

Edited September 25, 200817 yr by Kstaff

Regardless of the ratings argument, I still think its safe to say Carlivati's job isn't as safe as you may believe. AMC and OLTL aren't GH, Carlivati doesn't have the job security that Guza has.

Oh, I totally agree on this point. Now that Pratt is being promoted to the hills...in part for his GH job...I suspect he'll be as secure as he wants to be at AMC too.

As a "junior HW", I do agree that Mr. Carlivati is least secure. Also, ALL of these folks are in jeopardy because of the basic ratings (not because Carlivati is making them decline, but because they started low and haven't gone up).

But I personally would still put RC in the top half of current headwriters...maybe even in the top 1/4.

Viewers, or at least those who post on this board are divided. Some are enjoying the show and some are not. I will continue to post that I am not enjoying it, but I try not to be overbearing about it, because once I've enumerated my sources of dissatisfaction it doesn't become more persuasive through repetition. Furthermore, if others do wind up eventually agreeing with me, it won't make me enjoy the show more. Misery doesn't really love company. I'd much rather be on Team I THINK CARLIVATI IS KING and be entertained. I am supremely envious of those who are delighted by the show. Thanks to those of you who tolerate my infrequent, yet persistent complaints. It is not my desire to convince you that you're wrong, and the show really is awful. In fact, although we don't agree, as long as we keep discussing it, maybe one day I'll see what you see and enjoy the show again. That's all I care about. I want to enjoy the show. Until then, I like hanging out with you guys. The happy ones.

Great post!

If enough people hate a show I am enjoying, and turn off the TV and said TV show either gets cancelled or changes are made that go against what I am liking, then it DOES affect me. It is extremely egotistical to believe that my opinion is the only one that matters. There are many shows that I loved that were cancelled because the masses didn't see things the way I did, so to dismiss ratings because I am happy doesn't make much sense to me, but then again I don't go around dismissing sound data just because it differs with my opinion. It isn't just about ME being entertained, it is about gauging success and given the traditional tools that are used in this industry, Ron is NOT a success.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to say. LOL I'm trying to say that you shouldn't let what other people are thinking, or if the show has good/bad ratings, affect you being entertained by the show or not. You can only control your own feelings. You can't make other people feel the same way as you, so in the end, it only matters if YOU are being entertained.

And individuals enjoying a show doesn't make it successful either, THAT is my point. Ratings is what is used to judge success whether individuals chose to agree with it or not. If tomorrow OLTL jumps up to 2.2, I would have to concede that while I am not enjoying the show, clearly many others are. Likewise, if ratings are low and I love the show, clearly many don't agree with my opinion that the show rocks. I do not dismiss the ratings, even if I don't personally agree with the data. Being dismissive of ratings is the last, desperate stance of a losing arguement.

Yeah, but being successful or not is subjective. If I'm liking a show, the writer is doing a good job.

I can't speak for Toups, but I don't think he's dismissing the ratings. He knows that OLTL is at the bottom, but the thing is, he's enjoying the show right now and can look passed it. He's not letting the bad ratings affect that fact that he's being enterained right now.

Thank you.

LOL!Their own method to achieve what purpose? I didn't feel my lips pucker in the least (not attributable to Botox I assure you). In fact, I think my point is very similar to one you were trying to make. My personal enjoyment isn't a measure of whether the show is good or bad. Rating spikes or dips do not measure my personal enjoyment. I can't presume to claim that someone who is enjoying the show has bad taste or flawed reasoning or whatever it is that permits them to be entertained while I am not. It's simply not a question of who is right and who is wrong. I am enjoying Mad Men which was a big Emmy winner but hasn't set the ratings on fire. Too bad for all those people who aren't watching. Now please excuse me while I go check the mirror to see if my lips have been restored to their normal position. Perhaps I have permanently puckered lips and just never knew? Either way, neither you nor I have changed anyone's mind about what they are or are not enjoying, and ultimately personal enjoyment is what shapes personal opinions about whether Carlivati is a good writer or a bad writer.

Another great post, rhinohide!

I was able to sit through a movie about how a family dealt with a father touching his daughter inappropriately. As disturbing as the subject matter was, the thing that compelled me to keep watching was that it dealt with the perspective of the three major parties involved: the daughter, the mother and the father and the pain it all caused. That's not the kind of direction that's going to come from this because the viewer basically has to create in his/her mind what Todd's intent is and because Todd is going to have to move on to his next bad deed, the conclusion is not going to be that satisfactory, if at all.

Now if this was a story done the AGnes Nixon way--then what you say would be true for a soap too. Only a soap can you even try to fully show the complex emotions, causes, etc of every member involve din the abuse *and* spend time showing how someone recovers from it. But I don't trust that this is going to happen here. It's almost like a JER Passions style show (we had brothers raping sisters on Passions and cuz it's so camp and so unrealistic there was no real resolution or dealing with the effects--but on OLTL I think you have to pay attention to that)

Now, the eye candy feature is endemic to all soaps, but if you count the number of shirtless appearances by actors, right now, the order is ROUGHLY:

OLTL

GH (Greg Vaughan esp)

Days (James Scott esp)

B&B (Kyle Lowder esp)

Y&R

AMC

GL

ATWT

I don't think this is quite right. I see a shirtless guy on ATWT nearly everytime I turn it on (on yesterday's Planet Soap about male nudity they featured Austin Peck who said he thought this was the soap with the most shirtless guys)--although that' sonly a few times a week. And DAYS still does the JER thing of havign ANY ridiculous excuse to have a guy with no shirt--something OLTL hasn't quite done yet (ie if it was days, the scenes between Marko and Cole talkign in their basketball uniforms today woulda been in the locker room with towels ).

I cannot believe I'm arguing amount of shirtlessness on soaps, on here

E

It is also HOW they are photographed. The LINGERING shots of Rex's ass and Brody on that sofa with his mountain-thighs... I really don't think they do that for the ladies . But what do I know?

I dunno I don't find that too diff than other current soaps (and the JER ones were much more blatant)--and you'd be surprised at how many ladies like things like that but OK I get your point. Now if only they'd not wax EVERY SINGLE CHEST (with the sometime exception of Brody who seems to just clip very close) on the show. a bit of hair is coming back in--and already has int he gay scene for the most part but soaps still haven't really reflectged that this is so off topic (Doesnt' Trevor St John have a stipulation that he doesn't have to take off his shirt?)

I think camp implies humor...but I know what you mean.

OLTL is ENTERTAINING and often (intentionally) funny. Mendorra (for me) especially provoked eye rolls (not a good thing), but otherwise it seemed to me like the show was delivering intentional camp.

B&B is campy, BUT NOT IN A GOOD WAY. And NOT IN A HUMOROUS WAY. Demon Storm, Taylor sleeping with Rick, foot washing...all campy, but none done with humor and all provoking MAJOR cringe responses.

I can't comment on Days (not watching), but Stephano is definitely that kind of over-the-top character. When he is done with love-to-hate humor, I'll bet that can be fun.

Campa nd humour are quite diff to me although Agnes Nixon has always used a sligthly campy sense of humour--her classic AMC being an example. This is a far ways from the camp of Mendoraa and Rauch in the late 80s on OLTL--or of Passions though. But I think humour is animportant part of OLTL and I'd be sad to see it gone--it's not a Bell soap.

Well those of you who are calling for Carlivati's head, who would you put in place of HW? Megan McTavish, Jean Passanate, Gordon Reyfield?

Yeah I think he deserves more time--for sure.

This was a joke though right? Cuz gordon died in 1981 (which is why his associate Sam Hall took over--I'm nto sur ei fhe's still alive)--but if Gordon was still alive and capable I'd have him replace Ron in a HEARTbeat

Gordon Rayfield is alive. Eric, you're thinking of Gordon Russell. Rayfield headwrote with Anna Theresa Cascio at All My Children before Megan McTavish's most recent stint. The pairing wasn't well liked, but I liked them. THey were the only writers who could get me to watch AMC on a regular basis.