No, honey, whatever gave you that idea?

I honestly don't know how script and breakdown writers can be "hacks." With HW's, that's easy because of the storylines they tell, but unless a script/breakdown writers continues to turn in inadequate scripts/breakdowns littered with errors every time, how are they a "hack?"

I honestly don't know how script and breakdown writers can be "hacks." With HW's, that's easy because of the storylines they tell, but unless a script/breakdown writers continues to turn in inadequate scripts/breakdowns littered with errors every time, how are they a "hack?"

Why are you asking me?

Why are you asking me?

Because you were the last reponse to this "hack" discussion, and I was too lazy to find the original post.

Because you were the last reponse to this "hack" discussion, and I was too lazy to find the original post.

LMAO! :lol:

Funny how Webster and American Heritage says nothing about the quality of hack's work:

a writer who works on order ; also : a writer who aims solely for commercial success

A writer hired to produce routine or commercial writing

LMAO! :lol:

Funny how Webster and American Heritage says nothing about the quality of hack's work:

So basically it's a writer who will write whatever they're told (good quality, or bad) just to collect a paycheck.

That's probably every breakdown/script writer in daytime and primetime, from Passions to Y&R, and from Gossip Girl to Mad Men, no? Even if they're INCREDIBLE script writers, they are, in fact, "working on order to produce a commercial product".

So basically it's a writer who will write whatever they're told (good quality, or bad) just to collect a paycheck.

That's probably every breakdown/script writer in daytime and primetime, from Passions to Y&R, and from Gossip Girl to Mad Men, no? Even if they're INCREDIBLE script writers, they are, in fact, "working on order to produce a commercial product".

Correct. That was my point.

So now that we've concluded that everyone's a hack, can we please move on to the next issue?

But are soaps about revolution though? I always thought they were about maintaining their identity. There's only a handful of stories you can tell anyway, the trick is to work your way around them in a manner where these stories appear to be something more than that are, if that makes sense.

I think not. But as Dan said, things have to evolve. Look at primetime soap operas: once we had Dynasty and Dallas trash/cr*p, utter garbage, now we have these megaconvoluted, supersoaps, either very refined, stylised (Mad Men, which I detest) or Lost and hypertrash garbage Heroes.

I think not. But as Dan said, things have to evolve. Look at primetime soap operas: once we had Dynasty and Dallas trash/cr*p, utter garbage, now we have these megaconvoluted, supersoaps, either very refined, stylised (Mad Men, which I detest) or Lost and hypertrash garbage Heroes.

I don't even think primetime soaps are comparable, since they have to turn out about 24 episodes a season, and even less than that for Mad Men. They also don't have the longstanding historical ties that the soaps on daytime have, which have existed for decades, and let's face it, skew older and older.

They tried to revamp GL for example, and the show has completely lost everything that made it it's own unique niche.

Things can't really evolve fast or naturally with shows with such long histories, it would be very hard to make it all work.

Edited February 3, 200916 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

<br />I don't even think primetime soaps are comparable, since they have to turn out about 24 episodes a season, and even less than that for <i>Mad Men</i>.

I saw that coming.

Things can't really evolve fast or naturally with shows with such long histories, it would be very hard to make it all work.

It's been 50 years, they have to change something already. 50 years of same cr*p.

It's been 50 years, they have to change something already. 50 years of same cr*p.

What do you suggest should "change?" Also, is it possible to change and keep a show's unique identity? Especially in this age of mass commercialism and creative repression in daytime.

Correct. That was my point.

So now that we've concluded that everyone's a hack, can we please move on to the next issue?

Yes, please!!!

Brimike is to "hack", what R Sinclair is to "production model".

Yes, please!!!

Brimike is to "hack", what R Sinclair is to "production model".

I will stop using "production model" when someone gives me a better short form for:

"They changed the way they do sets, video (handheld), editing, and audio."

Wow, Soapsuds. I love hangin' with you on here, but you have a serious hatred of pretty much every writer from the last ten years. It's like every writer who was a member of a team that wrote a story you didn't like gets that title "hack". Can I ask who you think ISN'T a hack?

(I promise, I'm not trying to be challenging. Just curious)

Right now the only one is MAB. The others are pretty much hacks. I did love Corley and Demorest as writers. Also love Richard Culliton and Carolyn's writing..whether it is HW or SW duties.

I saw that Lisa De Cazotte was listed as Producer at the end of Monday's ep. I didn't see Friday's end credits, so anyone know if today was her first episode as Producer?

I might still have Friday's episode - I'll check.

nvm.

Edited February 4, 200916 yr by AddictedToSoaps

DAMN what is happening at Y&R ?I had no idea they were giving all these writers trials. Y so many and whom would be leaving if these writers join? I remeber Zimmermon from B&B