Thanks Toups.

It would be great if we could find out who wrote each breakdown. Maybe you could keep track of the ones you find out about by putting them in parentheticals in the episode writer/director thread.

How as Casiello's first script

Thanks Toups.

It would be great if we could find out who wrote each breakdown. Maybe you could keep track of the ones you find out about by putting them in parentheticals in the episode writer/director thread.

Well see.

How as Casiello's first script

You mean breakdown. Some good scenes with Jack/Adam, Jill/Ashley, and the Neil/Karen scenes were great. The tags were pretty good too and a nice little montage at the end. Not bad for his first episode.

Does anyone know whether that ABC development program for daytime writers still exists?

Does anyone know whether that ABC development program for daytime writers still exists?

It still does I believe.

It still does I believe.

I wonder why... When no one really gets hired on a daytime soap...

Whew! I think I just had a mini orgasm!

ME TOO! Multiple orgasms. If you are not part of the "Y&R is GOD" bandwagon, you go sit by Sylph and moi. We are a very, very, very small group at SON.

But I really appreciate Marks posts too, (I like to read anyones comments, especially when they are fans of shows that I am not, like Jack Peyton and Days, i don't get it, but its nice to see what others see in shows that I just don't see.. but god Y&R is a freaking snooze and Maria Arena Bell is so in love with herself that I can barely watch her "character driven" drama of such "complex" (which really means unlikeable) characters. If Y&R is a symphony, I am deaf. I watched Friday and realized I don't give a f-ck about nearly any of these characters and the stories are so been there /done that 1,000,000 times.

Can I just say that I think the guy who plays Billy and Clementine Ford are two of the best new young stars on daytime?

Edited April 18, 200917 yr by rangethatrover

Can someone give any damn insight as to why OLTL seems to have no writer turnover. You would think Ron would like to add a little something something every now and then to keep things fresh.. especially considering the inconsistency in scriptwriters. There are a few that are decent and a few that should join B&B. lol.

Edited April 18, 200917 yr by rangethatrover

You are as late as ever. You always reply to a post five days after someone asks you something. :takes a deap breath and a bit: The pan flutes and Arcadia thing were a reference to your illusion that Y&R's team is something so splendid, so beautiful, so unreal, so well-oiled that nothing like it has ever existed in the soap world: all great individuals who love their work, who love Y&R, who love and know its history and who just love, love, love it all and can't wait to bring more of that "symphony" to your TV screen. Who just adore historic references, 'cause they know MarkH will log on SON and say: Hey, did you see that? That was awesome! Never mind the cr*ppy sh!t the dialogue is, what matters is that it's trademark Y&R cr*p and that it mentions history! History is everything.

I think you have me confused with someone else?

For the record, I am all about history. I think part of the reason AMC sucks right now is that it has virtually no sense of the Martins (really) and Tylers on which it was founded, or even of the Courtlands and Hubbards on which it flourished.

There is absolutely no reason to have a 72 year old entity, or a 36 year old entity or whatever, and not build on the bones of what went before.

This is circular, though, because I have expressed this before, and you have dismissed it before, so... not much point.

History comes into play in two ways, and both are uniquely the province of ongoing serial dramas. (1) Current plot points and characters that derive from past setups. Right now, on Y&R, the fact that Mackenzie can be introduced and seamlessly interact with Kevin, Michael, Billy, Kay, JT, Raul etc. is a testament to the fact that she comes from the past, rather than as a new creation. Her place on the canvas is deeper than a new young woman's would be. (2) Themes and emotions from the past still resonate today. Jill Foster Abbott is a case in point. We saw her, in 1973, as a struggling manicurist who had to give up her dreams (somewhat willingly, back then) to put her doctor and lawyer brothers through school. From that struggling and latent resentment, a 36-year work of art has flowed.

Crappy sh!t dialogue? I'm not hearing it? I'm reading the transcripts and I'm not seeing it.

Symphony? Sorry...I happen to think this is a show that has its pacing and beats pretty perfectly orchestrated...at least for a "factory drama" that is designed to sell soap.

Apparently, among the wise and jaded cynics who know better, noting the positive is ... naive? ... excessive? ... not grounded in reality? ... indicative of rose colored glasses? It's a little sad, don't you think, that people who spend as much time as me on the genre don't seem to get any enjoyment out of it. Masochism?

And R. Sinclair? mini-orgasm? Oh, the places we could go with that mini. You might try a maxi-orgasm once! In the meantime, do you need Kleenex?

I think you have me confused with someone else?

For the record, I am all about history. I think part of the reason AMC sucks right now is that it has virtually no sense of the Martins (really) and Tylers on which it was founded, or even of the Courtlands and Hubbards on which it flourished.

There is absolutely no reason to have a 72 year old entity, or a 36 year old entity or whatever, and not build on the bones of what went before.

This is circular, though, because I have expressed this before, and you have dismissed it before, so... not much point.

History comes into play in two ways, and both are uniquely the province of ongoing serial dramas. (1) Current plot points and characters that derive from past setups. Right now, on Y&R, the fact that Mackenzie can be introduced and seamlessly interact with Kevin, Michael, Billy, Kay, JT, Raul etc. is a testament to the fact that she comes from the past, rather than as a new creation. Her place on the canvas is deeper than a new young woman's would be. (2) Themes and emotions from the past still resonate today. Jill Foster Abbott is a case in point. We saw her, in 1973, as a struggling manicurist who had to give up her dreams (somewhat willingly, back then) to put her doctor and lawyer brothers through school. From that struggling and latent resentment, a 36-year work of art has flowed.

Crappy sh!t dialogue? I'm not hearing it? I'm reading the transcripts and I'm not seeing it.

Symphony? Sorry...I happen to think this is a show that has its pacing and beats pretty perfectly orchestrated...at least for a "factory drama" that is designed to sell soap.

Apparently, among the wise and jaded cynics who know better, noting the positive is ... naive? ... excessive? ... not grounded in reality? ... indicative of rose colored glasses? It's a little sad, don't you think, that people who spend as much time as me on the genre don't seem to get any enjoyment out of it. Masochism?

And R. Sinclair? mini-orgasm? Oh, the places we could go with that mini. You might try a maxi-orgasm once! In the meantime, do you need Kleenex?

There is nothing wrong at all Mark with noting the positive. I love reading your posts and views because they are so different from mine. I will admit that I am totally cynical and find soaps today, each of them, generally bad in their own ways. I may be a masochist because I find them bad yet still tune into OLTL, Y&R, and sometimes GH.

For me its a combination of now working from home ( the tv is always on) and sentimental reasons. I will freely admit I rarely enjoy soaps these days. Who cares! I still watch them and like to talk about them.

I think you have me confused with someone else?

No. I wish I did. You are always late. For example, I had to ask twice, literally shout, in order for you to reply to that Morgan Fairchild dislike thing. You also let things recede and then with zero subtlety you make them resurface. You've now made a mess, like I said, because you tried to mash the two posts, Arcadia and Hogan, into one. And it's now one gigantic Gordian Knot, only a sword can slice it.

For the record, I am all about history. I think part of the reason AMC sucks right now is that it has virtually no sense of the Martins (really) and Tylers on which it was founded, or even of the Courtlands and Hubbards on which it flourished.

I love your posts. I really do: whether it's a proclamation of love for a character I thoroughly despise or a very detailed, passionate theoreticising with zero end results, I just — love it. However, sometimes what you say p!sses me off royally. I have to say that; if I'm not going to be honest, I might as well scratch my whole post. Like, for example, that history thing. You are a weird soap fan. Actually, you're not a soap fan at all. You are a Y&R fan. And that's it. Whereas on the one hand you are ready to sing unending hymns and songs of praise in Y&R's honour, always, incessantly, even during Latham's era, you weren't really categorical in your unapproval, on the other you dismiss other soaps with an unprecedented, uncompromising lightness, just like that, in one stroke. Because GH sucks, it isn't your thing, only because it doesn't feature the people that were there when you watched. No matter if Guza is writing the most riveting of all soap stories, no matter if the characters are fully fleshed out human beings in a whirlwind of passion & deceit, it's just blah for you. You also tend to watch for all the wrong reasons (just because something airs in HD). This is where your AMC comment comes in. Why is it so difficult for you to say: Hey, I don't really care about the characters as long as the story works? The fake dichotomy character—plot is wrong, it's fake, it doesn't exist: one cannot exist without the other. For me that's a more natural approach; this how, you will always be a prisoner of the past, prone to disappointments (because writers might not write for your people). Instead of embracing everything thrown your way, you dismiss it because there are no Martins or whatever... How should I say this: you are an irreconcilable amalgam of opposites. You yourself sometimes don't know what is it that you want.

Now, I don't want you to think that I think history means nothing. It does. But a soap must also leave the past behind, just like humans do, and evolve. There are gazillion reasons why soaps failed: they didn't evolve (daytime now is like a swamp filled with eighties leftovers and recycled stories, and a foul smell doesn't let you breathe) and when they tried (Gloria Monty, as Alvin noted in Unpopular Opinions), it was a fatal blow.

And now I am your prisoner, because if I want Phyllis dead — she was always meant to be nothing more than a temporary character who was supposed to create some chaos and then go away — you will say "No! That's a total disrespect of history! I won't watch! You're killing the legacy characters!" All these characters are deadly dull boring, they've all ran their course, and the fault lies with the writers; they told one story so many times and some of us had enough.

Another thing I find a bit annoying is that you seem to give writing zero credit in one soap's success. But that's a whole different matter, more about that later.

I think I've probably misinterpreted your whole attitude and approach, but that's why this is a discussion board, and you are more than welcome to correct me.

And no, it's definitely not a symphony. If I just have to define it as such, it's the one by a bad, amateur composer who knows squat about orchestration and form. Yes, the dialogue is indigestible (often, not all the time).

Regarding the cynicism, masochism, whatever... You have to understand that sometimes it's forbidden to be "negative" because "You're ruining my experience!" No, I am not. Feel free to ignore me (not you, the person who would say this in a virtual, made up scenario). If you find it compelling, why would a negative comment ruin it for you? Perhaps because some people try to desperately fit in and try to force positivity just for the sake of not being "negative". Noting the obvious kills their efforts. And then we have a mess. Look at the Ron Carlivati situation: it took us this long for the majority of people to say — he is not a good writer.

Edited April 18, 200917 yr by Sylph

I really make an effort to not be too negative, hence the reason I stay the -F- out of that Y&R thread as much as possible. My fingers are twitching and my eyes are bugging out of my head (not just here, Nelson Branco's embarrassing praise at one time of OLTL and Y&R, and now just Y&R, makes me want to slit my wrists as well. But in threads like "unpopular opinions" and even in this one, why not say what you really think?

I like Sylph talking about the evolution of things, I have changed like we all do, soaps have changed, and I could really care less about them. OLTL holds a special place in my heart, no matter how bad it gets. Post 2003 Y&R is just more often than not, too clinical for me to really ENJOY. I respect it, but I don't ENJOY it. Its too in love with itself, its supposed intimate character driven writing- but so may characters are dull or just unwatchable. Y&R thinks it is "Cries and Whispers" (one of my favorite films) but it just doesn't work for me on a soap. I read Tom Casiello's comments about Y&R and wanted to vomit. And he was so condescending to OLTL with that "The poor show who never seems to find its identity" Oh f--k off with that bullshit. OLTL is not a person or being, it is a NETWORK SHOW that unfortunately has had so many visions because of cocky executive producers and idiot network morons.. One producer wanted to "reinvent the wheel" and turn OLTL in a cinematic, literate masterpiece- and another wanted it to be "1980's fantasy and adventure hour".But for what its worth, OLTL during those "indentities" was ALIVE. It was entertaining. Was it Agnes Nixon's 'Between Heaven and Hell". No. But it was exciting. (At least to me). Tom's precious and impeccable Y&R is tedious. No offense, but I can't stand him.

7 soaps are generally like watching a train wreck. One is like a bottle of sleeping pills. In my opinion they are all past their prime.

I like Sylph talking about the evolution of things, I have changed like we all do, soaps have changed, and I could really care less about them.

They have totally missed every possible train. Now the train station isn't even on the map. And obviously no train passes through an nonexistent station.

Also, when I say evolve, that doesn't mean primetime writing in daytime. It means, among other things, that the escapism they offer is outdated, it's way behind the times; they also feature same stories all over again. Same people have populated the canvas for decades. Decades. At one point people are just tired of Victor Newman, e.g. Or pick another character. Especially when a character does so much harm and there is zero pay off. Zero payoff in thirty years. One of the reasons why UK soaps survived is that they are more realistic about how people live today and what are some of the problems they face. OK, American soaps were always about impossibly rich who have nine lives and all, but they haven't manage to update that un-realism.

Just take a look at how an Aussie soap looks, Home & Away for example. Or a German soap (purely on sets/costumes level). It puts all American soaps to shame. Sure, one of the reasons is that Guilds guarantee some kind of minimum and production is expensive here... But now it's too late to change that model so...

Edited April 18, 200917 yr by Sylph

Tom Casiello first listed as Breakdown Writer on April 20

Oh dear Lurd on Monday?

Let's hope he doesn't last long on the show.

Wow, did this thread blow up in 24 hours or what?! LOL!

Not that anybody asked my opinion, but I see RTR and Sylph's point as much as I see MarkH's point. But honestly... if JackPeyton doesn't mind me channeling him for a few minutes... I think both are right, and neither one has to change their opinion. We all watch soaps for very different reasons. JP is the first to admit that he watches DOOL because it's fun, mindless, juicy entertainment. I can't stand the show, but if that's why he wants to watch, then by all means - he should! And if MarkH would rather watch a show that thrives on its history (and as Sylph would say, possibly strangled by it), then it's okay for him to like it. It's a matter of personal preference. RTR has a personal connection to One Life to Live, and hates Y&R's stories. Great! Nobody's required to like Y&R. We forget that SON is just one board. It just so happens a lot of SON'ers love Y&R right now, but there are other message boards out there where people HATE what MAB is doing. SON has very little DOOL talk, so you'd think the show was loathed, but other boards are filled with DOOL posters who love the show. So just because SON's Y&R threads happen to be a lovefest, doesn't speak for an entire viewing audience.

I guess I just don't understand why so many make it personal. Sylph and RTR think Y&R is a train wreck. That's cool. But the biting undertone, the defensiveness that they're in a minority - I'm not so sure that's true. I think there are a lot of people who aren't thrilled with Y&R out there. It's a TV show. A lot of people love shows I can't get through five minutes of, and vice versa. But it's not like this is a battle and people have to pick sides. And if you're not on their side, then they're wrong and full of s--t. There's no "right" and "wrong" here. If Mark thinks Y&R is a "symphony", then who cares? ANd if RTR thinks it's a boring snooze-fest, again - who cares? That's why there are options, and other shows to watch. Doesn't make anybody "wrong".

Wow, did this thread blow up in 24 hours or what?! LOL!

Not that anybody asked my opinion, but I see RTR and Sylph's point as much as I see MarkH's point. But honestly... if JackPeyton doesn't mind me channeling him for a few minutes... I think both are right, and neither one has to change their opinion. We all watch soaps for very different reasons. JP is the first to admit that he watches DOOL because it's fun, mindless, juicy entertainment. I can't stand the show, but if that's why he wants to watch, then by all means - he should! And if MarkH would rather watch a show that thrives on its history (and as Sylph would say, possibly strangled by it), then it's okay for him to like it. It's a matter of personal preference. RTR has a personal connection to One Life to Live, and hates Y&R's stories. Great! Nobody's required to like Y&R. We forget that SON is just one board. It just so happens a lot of SON'ers love Y&R right now, but there are other message boards out there where people HATE what MAB is doing. SON has very little DOOL talk, so you'd think the show was loathed, but other boards are filled with DOOL posters who love the show. So just because SON's Y&R threads happen to be a lovefest, doesn't speak for an entire viewing audience.

I guess I just don't understand why so many make it personal. Sylph and RTR think Y&R is a train wreck. That's cool. But the biting undertone, the defensiveness that they're in a minority - I'm not so sure that's true. I think there are a lot of people who aren't thrilled with Y&R out there. It's a TV show. A lot of people love shows I can't get through five minutes of, and vice versa. But it's not like this is a battle and people have to pick sides. And if you're not on their side, then they're wrong and full of s--t. There's no "right" and "wrong" here. If Mark thinks Y&R is a "symphony", then who cares? ANd if RTR thinks it's a boring snooze-fest, again - who cares? That's why there are options, and other shows to watch. Doesn't make anybody "wrong".

Very well put Brimike. i really don't mean to offend Mark at all. I do enjoy his posts.

Most boards I visit love Y&R. And its not that I don't understand why.. It is the only soap that fully utlilizes its veterans. All ages are respected. And I am thrilled that one show still does. Its just the stories and characters that I have lost interest in.