Sylph, nobody persecutes you, much as you wish we did because it'd get you more attention.

Were you a middle child by any chance?

Bit my tongue as long as I could, sorry y'all.

Sylph, nobody persecutes you, much as you wish we did because it'd get you more attention.<br /><br />Were you a middle child by any chance? Bit my tongue as long as I could, sorry y'all.

[Karen Walker]Aham, aham, sure, OK.[/Karen Walker]

It took me a little to remember this. That was hilarious.

Funny thing is, it was about a year ago lol. I put up with you all year Sylph but I guess every January it just all comes out. I didn't know you had posted my PM for all to see, though. I did it in private because I hate it when personal BS clogs up these boards. Supports my contention of you having severe middle child syndrome that you had to post it though. Luckily this time I just said, "Screw it," and called you out like you always do.

I'm so "fake."

Edited January 28, 200917 yr by juppiter

Getting back on topic, lol, I can agree with both sides. Although sometimes historical references and name dropping can give a scene realism, the opposite can also happen if the mention is not organic. I HATE those kind of "But didn't that happen to Uncle So-and-So?" mentions if done poorly. It ranks up there on my list with unneccesary exposition. In fact, I almost prefer it if the mention is much more subtle.

For example, there is a great GL scene from 1992. Vanessa pressed sexual assault charges on Spaulding client Jack Kiley. However, after some public embarrasment, she considered dropping the charges and Holly found out about that and took up for her. First mention. Of course Holly would tell her not to drop the charges, she pressed charges against Roger. There were also explicit mentions of this during the conversation, but there is another WONDERFUL little moment when Holly mentions all her dirty laundry was spread out during the trial. The camera cut to Ross looking very guilty. Nothing needed to be said. As GL fans know, Ross was the snake who defended Roger during the trial and raked Holly over the coals on the witness stand. Sure, most newer fans would never have caught that moment, but the older ones most definitely did.

Getting back on topic, lol, I can agree with both sides. Although sometimes historical references and name dropping can give a scene realism, the opposite can also happen if the mention is not organic. I HATE those kind of "But didn't that happen to Uncle So-and-So?" mentions if done poorly. It ranks up there on my list with unneccesary exposition. In fact, I almost prefer it if the mention is much more subtle.

For example, there is a great GL scene from 1992. Vanessa pressed sexual assault charges on Spaulding client Jack Kiley. However, after some public embarrasment, she considered dropping the charges and Holly found out about that and took up for her. First mention. Of course Holly would tell her not to drop the charges, she pressed charges against Roger. There were also explicit mentions of this during the conversation, but there is another WONDERFUL little moment when Holly mentions all her dirty laundry was spread out during the trial. The camera cut to Ross looking very guilty. Nothing needed to be said. As GL fans know, Ross was the snake who defended Roger during the trial and raked Holly over the coals on the witness stand. Sure, most newer fans would never have caught that moment, but the older ones most definitely did.

That's a great example, Dan - and one that shows you can have your cake and eat it too - reference history for vets, but also don't make it too aggressively obvious so newer fans don't get frustrated that they're not "in on the joke" (not that it's a joke - you know what I mean).

I also think it works against the shows when characters relate to when "they also were thought to be presumed dead" or "that time they also had amnesia". Sometimes it's better not to mention how half the cast have been victims of bad writing and had long-lost-twin stories.

That's a great example, Dan - and one that shows you can have your cake and eat it too - reference history for vets, but also don't make it too aggressively obvious so newer fans don't get frustrated that they're not "in on the joke" (not that it's a joke - you know what I mean).

I also think it works against the shows when characters relate to when "they also were thought to be presumed dead" or "that time they also had amnesia". Sometimes it's better not to mention how half the cast have been victims of bad writing and had long-lost-twin stories.

Good points, both. (Although on Y&R, I sure wish Amber would ONCE have said "Isn't it funny that Mrs. C had a double; I had an unknown twin myself". Just for the wink at the audience. But I digress....)

Here's February's teasers. There's been a lot of 'movements' this past month.

DAYS:

Writer OUT (Clue: The most obvious pick)

AMC:

Writer IN (Clue: Returning writer)

ATWT:

Writer IN (Clue: Returning writer)

Y&R:

2 Writers IN for trial on scripts (Clue: one writer has ties to the Bells; the other has ties to writing staff)

1 Writer IN on breakdowns (Clue: This writer is escaping from one soap to join the #1 rated soap and has ties to the writing staff)

1 Writer was bumped up from scripts to breakdowns

As I said before, Y&R is the soap that keeps on giving.

Here's February's teasers. There's been a lot of 'movements' this past month.

DAYS:

Writer OUT (Clue: The most obvious pick)

Hmm, I don't know what would be obvious with that team, since they all have ties to either Tomlin or Higley. But, I'm going to go with Richard Culliton?

AMC:

Writer IN (Clue: Returning writer)

No idea, but I'll go with Michelle Patrick?

ATWT:

Writer IN (Clue: Returning writer)

Leslie Nipkow?

Y&R:

2 Writers IN for trial on scripts (Clue: one writer has ties to the Bells; the other has ties to writing staff)

No idea...

1 Writer IN on breakdowns (Clue: This writer is escaping from one soap to join the #1 rated soap and has ties to the writing staff)

No idea...

1 Writer was bumped up from scripts to breakdowns

Amanda L. Beall, I'm guessing. None of the others have breakdown experience.

As I said before, Y&R is the soap that keeps on giving.

The writing team is [!@#$%^&*] huge again. Maria has no idea how to manage a consistent team, but it isn't really impacting the show that much overall right now.

Maria has to be firing some people soon...

When do you plan to reveal these, Toups?

Edited February 1, 200917 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

Here's February's teasers. There's been a lot of 'movements' this past month.

DAYS:

Writer OUT (Clue: The most obvious pick)

AMC:

Writer IN (Clue: Returning writer)

ATWT:

Writer IN (Clue: Returning writer)

Y&R:

2 Writers IN for trial on scripts (Clue: one writer has ties to the Bells; the other has ties to writing staff)

1 Writer IN on breakdowns (Clue: This writer is escaping from one soap to join the #1 rated soap and has ties to the writing staff)

1 Writer was bumped up from scripts to breakdowns

As I said before, Y&R is the soap that keeps on giving.

Anyone OUT at Y&R? The obvious choices for returning ATWT and AMC are Beall and Salmons, especially if they are trialing two scriptwriters.

Is the promoted or bumped up writer Jay Gibson?

Scriptwriter guesses: Jim Houghton(ties to the Bells). The other one has to be one of Hogan's old pals at ATWT's. Bettina F. Bradbury?

I hope Y&R is stealing GH writers. That would be so awesome.

Hmm, I don't know what would be obvious with that team, since they all have ties to either Tomlin or Higley. But, I'm going to go with Richard Culliton?

Yup, they all have ties to Tomlin or higley, but who is the most logical one if someone had to leave? This one's pretty easy.

No idea...

No idea...

Make some guess or ask more clues.

The writing team is [!@#$%^&*] huge again. Maria has no idea how to manage a consistent team, but it isn't really impacting the show that much overall right now.

I think it's because Maria doesn't really know people in the industry, so it's taking her a long time to find what she likes.

Maria has to be firing some people soon...

I think so too.

When do you plan to reveal these, Toups?

Monday, probably.

Is the promoted or bumped up writer Jay Gibson?

Jay's already writing breakdowns.

The other one has to be one of Hogan's old pals

One of the writers does have ties to Hogan.

Hey Toups, how long was this retiurning writer on AMC before?

Movement at AMC? Cool. This better be good.

Hey Toups, how long was this retiurning writer on AMC before?

Umm......many years.

This better be good.

I like it. It makes sense.

I hope it's a good writer, not another clusterfuck like Tracy Thomson(yes I know she's not a returning writer)

Let's hope it's not Bulger

Edited February 1, 200917 yr by Zendall Fan

Yup, they all have ties to Tomlin or higley, but who is the most logical one if someone had to leave? This one's pretty easy.

I still say Culliton, he must cost a great deal more than most people on that team, plus, he has stronger industry ties elsewhere.

Make some guess or ask more clues.

More clues please. Has the writer with ties to the Bell's written for Y&R before, or is it someone that's only written for B&B? If this person was at Y&R before, did he/she write for Y&R during the past 8 years?