1. Non-ironic question: why is it that people think that history injections equal splendid scriptwriting?

Maybe because they think that those script writers know what they are talking about and at the same time thinking about their history, as opposed to a new writer that doesn't know anything about it and writes basically about the current storyline? Just a guess.

But seriously... J.R.'s supposed to be a grown man... a grown heterosexual man... and he's calling people "skanky little tramps?" If her writing at Y&R is better, then fine. I do, however, think things are being edited because it's amazing she could allegedly write so well for Y&R for three months, but delivered such crap to AMC for four years. Every time she wrote scrpits, AMC either turned into a sitcom or a bad teen flick.

Could it not be that there has been a MANDATE to be sitcomy and teeny?

I mean, many of us definitely perceived such a mandate from LML...and I have no reason to doubt that Frons' ABC would have the same mandate.

If that is true, then maybe Beall was just better at fulfilling that mandate than others. Without knowing context, I don't know how we can judge. The differences we are seeing in Beall at Y&R _COULD_ be editing...or they could reflect a different mandate--to which she is flexibly able to respond. We will likely never know.

1. Non-ironic question: why is it that people think that history injections equal splendid scriptwriting?

I didn't say that, I just get a sense that those that do it study the character they're writing for in an attempt to write those characters as true to themselves as possible. You know, giving every character a particular "voice", instead of having each character sound the same and bland.

Also, it's very realistic for people in everyday life to mention history when around old friends and family, we don't all live for the present. I like little nods to stuff that happened years ago, it shows a reflection of everyday life or character development, or even character regression.

Edited January 26, 200916 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

History nods could also be in the breakdowns, so it's not always the script writer's doing. But if it's someone like Janice Ferri Esser and the history nod is so detailed, yeah, it's probably her and not in the breakdowns. LOL

1. Non-ironic question: why is it that people think that history injections equal splendid scriptwriting?

Because soaps are historical narratives. Most of them have over 30 years of on-screen backstory. To ignore this is to disregard the uniqueness of the form...and to diminish the investment of long-term viewers.

Look HOW MUCH viewers at Y&R have been enjoying the brief flashbacks we get these days.

Marceline got it right, even though she puts a different valence on it: Nostalgia is a big part of soaps. If you reward nostalgia motive, you make the long-term viewers happy...and you imbue some current stories with a depth and richness for newer viewers.

The trick, as with everything, is to treat history as spice. Use it when it is relevant, but try not to recycle. Try to balance originality with history. It is a daunting job, and my hat is off to those who pull it off.

As a counter-example, look what happens when you ignore history. Victor Newman got Sabrina pregnant, even though the audience knew he'd had two vasectomies and YEARS of stories were based on those vasectomies. That enraged the audience, and made many question MAB's team and her quality control I realize this goes beyond "neglect of history" to become a "continuity error"...but the fact remains, Victor HAD that history. He could not suddenly become a father, even if it suited plot. The writers must own this history, or viewers feel betrayed.

Could it not be that there has been a MANDATE to be sitcomy and teeny?

No, becaue there were other writers who didn't write in that style.

No, becaue there were other writers who didn't write in that style.

I understand that...but it could be because those other writers didn't "get" the mandate as well as she did? I'm playing devil's advocate here, I acknowledge that.

Because soaps are historical narratives.

I think you're mistaking dramatic excellence, aesthetics of drama with... With something. Drama is one thing, good script, good dialogue, good structure is one thing, history is quite another.

I think that that history dictatorship is one of the reasons why soaps fell apart so badly. It never lets them roam free, it ties them so strongly to the past that they just... Expire after a while.

I didn't say that, I just get a sense that those that do it study the character they're writing for in an attempt to write those characters as true to themselves as possible. You know, giving every character a particular "voice", instead of having each character sound the same and bland.

Also, it's very realistic for people in everyday life to mention history when around old friends and family, we don't all live for the present. I like little nods to stuff that happened years ago, it shows a reflection of everyday life or character development, or even character regression.

That is a very satisfying answer.

History nods could also be in the breakdowns, so it's not always the script writer's doing. But if it's someone like Janice Ferri Esser and the history nod is so detailed, yeah, it's probably her and not in the breakdowns. LOL

But I don't think it was by chance that Salmons had the characterizations down in the Jabot takeover episode she wrote, or when she had Michael mention Chantal in another episode, when she didn't have to. Chantal almost never gets mentioned by Michael at all anymore, and it served no plot purpose for him to even really mention her in that episode, so I doubt that was in the breakdown. I've watched Salmons and Beall's scripts attentively enough, I think Salmons is much better with characterization and individual "voice" than Beall, but that's just me.

I think you're mistaking dramatic excellence, aesthetics of drama with... With something. Drama is one thing, good script, good dialogue, good structure is one thing, history is quite another.

I think that that history dictatorship is one of the reasons why soaps fell apart so badly. It never lets them roam free, it ties them so strongly to the past that they just... Expire after a while.

No, I disagree.

If a show has 70 years of history, the failure to acknowledge it breaks the thread. In so doing, it threatens the unique and cumulative identity of that show.

I see it as either/or. I can fully support the idea that soaps should have defined lifetimes (e.g., 5-7 years). In that context, there is little history to acknowledge. Innovation, 'roaming free', is accomplished by the next show.

But, when you evolve over decades, the failure to acknowledge that evolution (and the viewers who have evolved with you), somehow diminishes the long-shared experience of aging with a soap.

I think history is a non-criterion: a script can be good with it in it and it can also be dreadful. Meaning, either way, it has little or no effect. It makes people happy, but making people happy to see someone mentioned is a different matter.

BTW, I thought "K-A-N-E" was Bettina Bradbury's? No?

Not trying to be a "bad bitch witch" (another Beall-ism... she loves bitches for some reason) but I cross referenced it from your very own archives... December 13, 2004 and TV Megasite.

1. Non-ironic question: why is it that people think that history injections equal splendid scriptwriting?

I won't go there.

Could it not be that there has been a MANDATE to be sitcomy and teeny?

I mean, many of us definitely perceived such a mandate from LML...and I have no reason to doubt that Frons' ABC would have the same mandate.

If that is true, then maybe Beall was just better at fulfilling that mandate than others. Without knowing context, I don't know how we can judge. The differences we are seeing in Beall at Y&R _COULD_ be editing...or they could reflect a different mandate--to which she is flexibly able to respond. We will likely never know.

I don't accept that. If it was a "mandate" then all of the writers would've done it. I strongly believe it was Beall trying to show off. I can buy the whole "mandate" excuse when it comes to Rylee and Zendall... because no matter who writes the scripts and/or breakdowns, those two are forced down our throats as these fabulously romantic couples... but all of the "shut me down," "you get me," "bitch, whore, skank, tramp," "Page Six party girl" references that just so happen to ONLY show up in Beall's credited scripts... nah.

No, because there were other writers who didn't write in that style.

Thank you. And even though I know you're not a fan of Alden, she was right. Writer X should sound like writer Y who should sound like writer Z. I don't know why I even allowed myself to get back into this topic because I simply don't like her writing and find zero substance in her writing and I get HEATED when I start discussing this topic... but I'm here, so it is what it is. While AMC has always been praised for the sense of humor that Agnes Nixon infused into the storytelling, Beall was a frustrated sitcom writer. Everything was setup, punchline. Setup, punchline. Hip and Pop Culture reference here... followed by a setup, punchline... add in a few "edgy" "bitches, whores, tramps and skanks," and back to the setup, punchline... She writes as if she were a gay man trapped in a straight woman's body! I mean, seriously.

The July 4, 2007 was one of the worst offenders...

Colby: Do you have a negative attention span? I'm the boss' kid, remember? You'd get booted the second I rat you out.

Ava: Do it. Go a brat-pack power trip on me. Oh, and tell me how your daddy could buy me and sell me in one minute.

Ava: Isn't this a face that says, "Come on, David LaChapelle, shoot me"?

Colby: Ha!

Babe: Hey, I'm a big fan of big dreams.

Ava: Me, too.

Babe: But for now, you have a day job to do, just like the rest of us. See you, girls.

Colby: Do you need an ice pack for your hurt feelings?

Kendall: Annie?

Greenlee: Oh, please -- she has chronic cheerleader syndrome. Of course, she's in.

Kendall: All right. Well, that leaves you. If you want to leave, that's fine. But just know that life goes on without you. We go on. You really want it like that?

Greenlee: You are one sneaky little -- B. All right, just -- hurry it up, then.

Ava: You know, my mommy said that she wished I was never born. And then she lit up a smoke, grabbed a beer, and told me to "Move my ass, bitch." I was standing in the way of the TV.

Annie: So much for effective communication. The word was "stop."

Greenlee: The word is "two-faced Little Mary Sunshine"! You did that on purpose!

Annie: Did what on purpose? Made you a narcissistic, paranoid little bitch?

Ava: But her face looks exactly like mine. Annie, I was at your wedding. Everyone except Di thought I was Lily. Now, how can we look exactly the same but I'd be totally wrong? That makes no sense. Kendall: We don't want a Lily replica, we want the real thing.

Greenlee: You know, if anyone ever develops a hoochie mama cosmetics line, we'll give you a reference.

R Sinclair, do you have some master list somewhere of the dialogue you hate the most? ROFLMAO!!!!

I think history is a non-criterion: a script can be good with it in it and it can also be dreadful. Meaning, either way, it has little or no effect. It makes people happy, but making people happy to see someone mentioned is a different matter.

At times on Y&R, with a couple of scriptwriters, I get the feeling they throw in names or reference things in Y&R's history just to say "look at me, I remember such-and -so, aren't I brilliant" when it doesn't elevate the story or dialogue one whit. As a viewer, I love the use of history when it's relevant and not forced, but it can work against the show when it's used indiscriminately.