Believe it or not I wasn't. There is a lot I want to hear from Michael Malone but the discussion of Carlivati wasn't in that mix. When I reference the things that weren't mentioned, I'm talking about issues like working for Frons or trying to write socially conscious stories or how his first tenure at OLTL differed from his second. I'm sure Malone has lots of opinions about Ron. I'm sure he also has opinions about Danielle Steele and James Frey too. His opinion of those so-called writers in no way affects mine.

As I said above, I'm sorry Nelson wasted so much of his time with Malone forcing him to discuss the work of an inferior writer. Ron doesn't deserve that much consideration. He's a minor league hack who was lucky enough to still be around at the death of the genre. It doesn't matter what he does to the show. The patient's dead.

Yeah, Nelson wasn't at all interested in Malone's interview but for to get amunition for his next Suds report. No doubt he will twist this man's interview around for years to come.

I thought Malone was very clear when he made reference to Othello and the changing of the characters- He's very upfront about his feelings without making any unprofessional statements. Also, he obviously feels very special to OLTL considering most of his characters are still on the canvas. it's also very apparent that he thinks a good writer needs a good producer!

I appreciate that he always gives props to Griffith too (who Nelson doesn't seem to even be aware of--ironic as he focused so much on Todd and Malone has stated that Todd was in many ways more Griffith's creation than his)

I didn't. I got the sense of a respect and affection but not much more than that. Compare his discussion of Ron with his praise of Gottlieb. Malone and Carlivati are VERY different writers. He hints at that in the way he agrees with Nelson's version of Todd. He's just enough of a class act not to criticize RC. I think a lot of that was professional courtesy. Nelson clearly had an axe to grind and Malone has probably seen enough backstage politics to last a lifetime. I also wager he's "given up" the character of Todd and detached himself from the show as a whole. ("I haven’t thought about Llanview in such a long time!") How many of us still give a real damn what happens at our former places of employment? He can see the whole thing from a distance in the rearview mirror.

This interview was notable as much for what wasn't said as what was.

I agree. Malone seemed like he was being very polite and respectful of RC but I got the impression that he was more confused by his bizarre decisions than impressed by anything he's done. He seemed hopeful that he'd find a way to extricate himself and the show from the messes he's created, particularly Todd/Marty, but I didn't get the impression that he was confident of that by any means. And at this point, Malone probably wants as little to do with the political garbage and in-fighting that goes on as possible.

Totally co-sign both posts.

I thought Malone was very clear when he made reference to Othello and the changing of the characters- He's very upfront about his feelings without making any unprofessional statements. Also, he obviously feels very special to OLTL considering most of his characters are still on the canvas. it's also very apparent that he thinks a good writer needs a good producer!

Yes the Othello reference was a good one, subtle yet direct.

And wouldn't it be nice if OLTL had a producer that fought about something other than hair? First Forbes, now JPL, I think Valentini has a hair fetish.

I hope I don't offend anybody, but I think Nelson is a bi-polar hack!

His opinions flip flop from week to week.....ATWT is good...then it's bad...then it's good again....

His OLTL opinions are even more erratic.....his column today gives props to OLTL, and Carlivati is once again a "Soap God". Yet his column from Monday and his MM interview from Wednesday damn OLTL as a pile of smelly garbage. Nelson is not a critic that I find reliable or consistent. Yes, he is entertaining as a gossip monger, but I wish he'd leave the critiques to more professional people.

Haha i think even his fans on here would agree with some of that I wonder if he realizes how he comes off sometimes...

Interesting (well to me ) I just found a video tape I had saved of One Life to Live's Valentine's day episode Feb, 2004--Josh Griffith and Michael Malone (in that order) are credited, and this was shortly before Griffith left over issues with Frons. As an individual episode, even then, I admit it had a lot going for it--even with way too much of silly Luna and Megan as angels in the rain (the Al/Michael Heaven can Wait story). It's true what was said elsewhere, even with the crazy plots of this second tenure or Malone--ther was a lot of movement and stuff going on--in some wyas as an individual epsidoe it was more satisfying than most under Carlivati... It's funny I kinda thought that second era lasted longer than it did--but I think Higley was in by the end of 2004 wasn't she?

Interesting (well to me ) I just found a video tape I had saved of One Life to Live's Valentine's day episode Feb, 2004--Josh Griffith and Michael Malone (in that order) are credited, and this was shortly before Griffith left over issues with Frons. As an individual episode, even then, I admit it had a lot going for it--even with way too much of silly Luna and Megan as angels in the rain (the Al/Michael Heaven can Wait story). It's true what was said elsewhere, even with the crazy plots of this second tenure or Malone--ther was a lot of movement and stuff going on--in some wyas as an individual epsidoe it was more satisfying than most under Carlivati... It's funny I kinda thought that second era lasted longer than it did--but I think Higley was in by the end of 2004 wasn't she?

There was something about the lighting during Malone and Griffith that made their sillier story lines more dark and less campy. I could be romanticizing their tenure, but I never thought the stories were a joke- to me, actors, writers- the way I do with Ron's work, and that could have to do with the production of the show. I may not have always gotten everything I wanted, but I felt the actors were view their work as something serious and continual.

No I could agree there. The look was a bit more gothic (even tho this episode didn't deal with all that gothic stuff a few eps earlier did). And there was more of a sense of Llanview being a real city--i find that still missing (as it is missing in most modern soaps--one of the thigns I miss the most)--just the use of locations, etc--you have something being dropped off of Roxie's hotel falling into Angel square, Marcie at the radio show on campus, etc

I disagree on both counts. Number one, the episodes are more satisfying to me then because the characters and the storylines hold up. With the exception of Todd's utter insanity, which may be character-based, or Blair's inexplicable devotion to John, I believe and understand most if not all of what the cast is doing, and why, and I find it organic to their characters; the stories hold up without having to be propped, and while RC really, really, really loves his continuity (Lee Halpern? Really?), it's usually there to garnish a new story, not supplant it. In 2004, they simply didn't hold up, and so they relied on, much more than RC, MM drawing on the past - almost always exclusively his own work - to try and make a point, any point, anything they could find, with the audience when it came to 'special episodes.' IIRC, the Valentine's Day 2004 episode had to do with the utterly ludicrous conclusion to the idiotic HCW storyline, which sucked then and sucks even worse in hindsight. So he just kept haranguing about old ideas, old stories, old couples - "look at Luna, remember Max and Luna. Remember Todd and Blair in 1995, ignore their rape storyline today. Remember Viki and Ben? How about Megan and Jake? Now invest in Antonio and Jessica and Joey and Jen, and Marcie and Nathaniel Marston as, well, anyone!' Didn't work.

And while MM admirably tried to replicate his vision of a widespread city in his second run, virtually everything he did came off shallow and hollow to me at the time - especially Marcie's interminable radio show subplots, like the time she, the insufferable Rae, and the twink from A History Of Violence got together to whine about some dayplayer sexual harasser. Who cares?! At the time that was the longest episode I had ever seen. And of course, MM thought we would care if she just kept.bringing.up.Al.

I admired MM because he did try in 2003 and 2004 but it was almost always awkward and a misfire. I get a sense of community now not simply from sets, but because people, well, interact. And not just to spout some Malonian homily about an old or new couple.

Edited October 9, 200817 yr by Vee

I hope I don't offend anybody, but I think Nelson is a bi-polar hack!

His opinions flip flop from week to week.....ATWT is good...then it's bad...then it's good again....

His OLTL opinions are even more erratic.....his column today gives props to OLTL, and Carlivati is once again a "Soap God". Yet his column from Monday and his MM interview from Wednesday damn OLTL as a pile of smelly garbage. Nelson is not a critic that I find reliable or consistent. Yes, he is entertaining as a gossip monger, but I wish he'd leave the critiques to more professional people.

Haha i think even his fans on here would agree with some of that I wonder if he realizes how he comes off sometimes...

I love Nelson's articles, and ITA with what Dale said.

It is gossip. I love gossip. Its tacky, over the top, and usually personal feelings get in the way. And i LOVE it. And, if i didnt, i wouldnt read it.

I dont' think I disagreed with any of that. but I do think he doesn't quite understand the way he comes off online. It's interesting now that I always see him on the Canadian Soap Planet show (his odd little picture on the TVguide site BTW does NOT resemble him much whatsoever).

Vee I pretty much agree with you. I wasn't very clear, but what I meant was if I just watched the episode randomly--it seems much more interesting, much more going on, great littl ebits of dialogue, etc, than we get now. But that';s not the way to watch or enjoy a soap. But I did get more of a sense, maybe not of community, but of a real city.

What History of Violence twink? I can't remember an actor in both

Edited October 9, 200817 yr by EricMontreal22

I dont' think I disagreed with any of that. but I do think he doesn't quite understand the way he comes off online.

I think he knows.

Its pretty knowen he is on a ton of message boards.

I think he knows he's controversial--and he loves that. I don't think he knwos that it makes some people don't take his opinion seriously because of how he changes his midn and gets personal.

I dont' think I disagreed with any of that. but I do think he doesn't quite understand the way he comes off online. It's interesting now that I always see him on the Canadian Soap Planet show (his odd little picture on the TVguide site BTW does NOT resemble him much whatsoever).

Vee I pretty much agree with you. I wasn't very clear, but what I meant was if I just watched the episode randomly--it seems much more interesting, much more going on, great littl ebits of dialogue, etc, than we get now. But that';s not the way to watch or enjoy a soap. But I did get more of a sense, maybe not of community, but of a real city.

What History of Violence twink? I can't remember an actor in both

Embedding is disabled, but here is a Youtube clip of that Planet Soap show, for non-Canada-resident viewers like me. (The show looks professional, and should get picked up by Soapnet...it wouldn't cost them much).

Screen cap: