Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted January 27, 2009 Members Share Posted January 27, 2009 If I remember correctly, like Sylph, you aren't one of Janice Ferri Esser's biggest fans. Do you mind stating your gripes with her dialogue? I already know what Sylph's are in regards to Esser's scripts, I'd like to hear another view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaytimeFan Posted January 27, 2009 Members Share Posted January 27, 2009 What I like about historical references in scripts is that it says that the scriptwriter has attempted to learn the history of the show and doesn't forget what the show was and hopefully still is about. I like that Melissa Salmons appears to have paid attention to the show and is doing her best to really get into the fabric and history of what makes Y&R Y&R. Janice Ferri Esser, from all accounts, is a writer people either love or hate. I love her! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted January 27, 2009 Members Share Posted January 27, 2009 With a script, in the abstract, I can fully agree that history is a non-criterion. With a SOAP script, using characters who have had a long past in your narrative, use of history is essential. It need not be explicit...that is, history can inform the motivations and personality of the character in the present without being spelled out. But it can also be explicit when needed, in the ways that Y&RWorldTurner has pointed out. Sometimes, history is just entertaining nostalgia for fans, and that also has value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members boldfan01 Posted January 27, 2009 Members Share Posted January 27, 2009 Good point, although I'd think Smith, with his years with the Bells and being a former co-HW on the show, makes more than Shannon, too. I'd guess there's some loyalty factor in there where B&B would still go to Smith for multiple scripts, even at a higher cost, but they'd balance with the 3-1 ratio of Shannon v Mulcahey because Mulcahey, even his years in the business, doesn't have the "member of the family" status that Smith has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sylph Posted January 27, 2009 Members Share Posted January 27, 2009 Very true. In that sense, I was going to say that soaps should be par excellance examples of Ibsenesque dramaturgy. Meaning: how the past of characters shapes their present (e.g. Ghosts). That is one thing, but mentioning a name is not all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sheilaforever Posted January 27, 2009 Members Share Posted January 27, 2009 And this is why you still adore GH's writers which just don't cut it for me anymore. Even if the general tune (Guza) is far too bad, good script writers would make sth. out of it by irony and, well yes, nods to history. I consider acknoledgments to history is extremely. It appreciates you as longtime viewer, puts character's actions into perspective and truly distinguishes soaps from primetime series. Here you can relate to things which happened in the past and milk it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sylph Posted January 27, 2009 Members Share Posted January 27, 2009 No. You are just saying that just to say something. I don't think you mean that. Because one thing are stories, the other dialogue, meaning purely the sentences these people exchange. And GH people know how to make those sentences sound — real. Too much irony is a bad thing and soap operas are really not a place for that. Irony is good in stories — e.g. Fate laughing at you at one point in time, making her revenge after you've done something bad in the past. But too much sarcastic/ironic comments are tiring. And Guza is clever — he will know if you're laughing at him in your script. That's another non-truth. Meaning, one of those phrases people spread from one to another, repeat it ad nauseam and think it means something. After gazillion repeats, they start beliving in it. So, yes, I can accept, albeit hardly, that you truly believe this, but I don't. I think history should be used in an Ibsenesque way - your past coming back to haunt you etc., but not in a sense "mentioning Chantal" (sorry, A ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members YRBB Posted January 27, 2009 Members Share Posted January 27, 2009 Oh, I do :wub: "Look at me.... Look at me!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted January 27, 2009 Members Share Posted January 27, 2009 Then I think you may not truly be a fan of the genre. Chantal is a trivial character. She's appeared what? Five times? Nobody cares about Chantal, and nobody missed her. That said, her mention would speak volumes about Michael, and that is why we care. Chantal exists in the Y&R universe as Michael's secretary, and those who work with him know about Chantal. Thus, for him to say "call Chantal and get an appointment", or whatever he said, gives the moment a verisimilitude. This is what he would say in real life. At the process, it says to the audience "there is a continuity...Michael has maintained a stable office....though you have not seen that office in a long time, it remains as it was, and you can fill in the blanks of his quotidien days with what you once knew to be true." All this, from the brief mention of Chantal. For those who have long watched, it helps them to visualize the tableau of Michael's life off the screen--it fills in the lines. (And yes, some of us like that). And for those who do not know Chantal, it nonetheless provides a naturalness. In real life, a lawyer like Michael would reference his Chantal to someone who knew her...or he would address his Chantal by name if he called her. I see no losses, and only gains, from this type of "historical" mention. "Historical" almost seems like the wrong word. "Continuity-acknowledging" seems more precise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sylph Posted January 27, 2009 Members Share Posted January 27, 2009 BAM! I stopped right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members R Sinclair Posted January 27, 2009 Members Share Posted January 27, 2009 LMAO! I'm not THAT anal... No, what happened was that I was planning in late 2007 to do a blog about exactly why I detest Beall's writing... because people always seem to ask me that question. So, while writing it, I went in and did some research. As a lot of us do, I pay attention to who wrote that day's script, so I was able to roughly remember around what time something happened... cross referenced it with Toups' archive and TV Megasite's transcripts and the rest is history. But I got so busy with my off-board life (work, social and other activities) that I never got around to finishing the blog entry. I am no Elisabeth Hasslebeck. If I say something, I go in and find evidence to back it up. I don't just say "Amanda Beall's a hack!" because it's the thing to do and then have absolutely nothing to help show why I believe that. But that 7/4/07 episode as absolutely dreadful. Addie Walsh wrote that breakdown and Beall wrote the script. Because of that, Addie's been on my shitlist. Again, it was HORRIBLE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted January 27, 2009 Members Share Posted January 27, 2009 Ah...that is the classic cognitive shortcut of one who relies on assumptions. That wasn't a personal criticism of you, but a subjective definition of fandom, which I tried to explain in the stuff you 'bammed'. No matter. Soaps are evolving "living" narratives, and like all living things, they have a history. I think many of us are agreed that it should be referenced in some way, and we only quibble regarding the nature of the reference. You prefer "haunted by the past". I don't mind that...but I also don't mind "Remember the time when..."--just because reminiscence is an essential part of human nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sylph Posted January 27, 2009 Members Share Posted January 27, 2009 Honesty — I was too lazy to reply and more importantly unmotivated because I knew I wouldn't be able to convince you. You have a world of your own. I receive lots of hate around here so I've become immune to people persecuting me, I didn't take your observation personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted January 27, 2009 Members Share Posted January 27, 2009 A world of my own? I didn't realize I had descended into schizophrenia. Well, from me, you get the opposite of hate. I'm glad you are back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sylph Posted January 27, 2009 Members Share Posted January 27, 2009 LMAO! No, not in that sense! Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.