2009: The Directors and Writers Thread

[Toups]

Oh yes!! That was a great episode too. I think that's my favorite Beall episode so far. And the thing is she wrote the breakdown and script for that episode. So she gets my breakdown-props and my script-props. LOL

[RavenWhitney]

How do we know Marla wrote the 4/13 episode?

[Toups]

If it's a very good episode by either Kanelos, Sheffer or Minardi Slater, I try to find out who wrote it.

[MarkH]

That's what I want to know. She was lumped in with those four AHW/script editor/whatever folks (Janice Ferri Esser was there today, along with Natalie Minardi Slater and the other one). What magic tells us it was MK that specifically did the breakdown?

Oay, so "inside sources", right?

[Adam]

Beall's campy cliches obviously aren't getting past the very meticulous writing process in place in Y&R. Its the only explanation.... Beall isn't even writing scripts anymore though is she? She is just doing the breakdowns now? Bitch got a promotion?

I did see good in her at AMC.... in terms of episodic structure and respect of the shows history..... but once R Sinclair started pointing out some of her odd word choices..... it became so obvious. But, I am sure Frons loved that kind of "wity" "catty" dialogue....

[RavenWhitney]

Thanks Toups:

Can you find out who penned the breakdowns for fri, Aprl 3 and monday, april 6. To me, those episodes along with 4/2 should be the three emmy submissions for writing, directing and some of the actors. I thought Cwikly's breakdown on 4/2 was awesome and was here 4/10 episode. She's underrated, but the 4/3 episode with a script by Esser was phenomenal. Love to know who did those breakdowns.

thanks

[Toups]

Yeah I could try. Give me a few days.

[brimike]

She writes breakdowns and scripts.

It's amazing to me that people can still say it's all the script writers fault, and not wonder if maybe it was the breakdowns, or possibly the script editor's edits. Or an edict from above. Remember - this is the same show that wanted to be "just like Sex and the City" a few years back.

[MarkH]

I wish someone would interview -- say Scott Hamner or Natalie Minardi Slater -- and give us some DETAILED INSIGHT into how many hands each script passes through, and the role each person plays with it.

I realize nobody wants to reveal the proprietary process by which they make the show...but as this thread proves, there are fans whose enjoyment of the show would be elevated by a deeper understanding of the artistic processes involved here.

[Sylph]

[MarkH]

No, I mean that. I thought about those words.

The basic process, as you've all laid it out, is fairly universal.

But as you have also laid out, Y&R is rather top-heavy and middle-heavy. That implies to me some extra layers of editing, continuity, etc that other shows don't have. It would seem to be contributing to Y&R's consistent voice/tone and higher quality.

I could imagine not wanting to share the details of that process to maintain one's edge...

[Sylph]

Boy... Do you always have a lofty theory about the excellence of Y&R or what?! Mark, it's far less poetic than that. It's full of people competing to put their own stamp on every single episode, especially those "historians" you often refer to. Janice, Natalie... They all want their own imprint, it's not a romantic Arcadia with shepherds and nymphs dancing to pan pipes.

As always, it's about ego, not a common goal we all aspire to.

[brimike]

LOL! And I thought I was in a cynical mood...

[Sylph]

But am I, to put it bluntly, lying, brimike?

[brimike]

I don't think you ever lie, Sylph. It's just how you perceive things, and there's nothing wrong with that..

I highly doubt it's like "The Greatest Minds of Western Civilization Coming Together In a Consortium of Imagination and Wonder To Save The Free (Soap-Opera Viewing) World From Devastation For Purely Philanthropic Reasons" But I also don't think it's this "Hive of Scum and Villainy Where Everyone's Clawing Their Way into Leaving Their Mark On It To Justify Their Job and Satiate Their Egos" either. If MarkH has a lofty, poetic theory, then I would propose you have as equally a cynical theory that's at the other end of the spectrum. I suspect in most cases, it's probably more like somewhere in the middle.

But you probably should have seen that response coming. I'm nothing if not predictable.