Members LoyaltoAMC Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 Yeah, I believe Ruth Warrick's last regular appearance was at Brooke and Edmund's non-wedding in 02 or 03. She didn't appear again til the 35th anniversary in 05. Say what you want about Frons and/or Carruthers and ABC, but it was very good of them to keep her on contract along with all those photos that still appear in the opening credits. Same thing with Eileen Herlie, who really couldn't appear regularly for the past couple of years. Ditto James Mitchell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jonathan Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 Well maybe because it is indeed a contract, albeit a loose one. It's probably similar to the deal that Tracey E. Bregman has with Y&R. Doesn't she have a pay per use deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 Evey network is a financial mess at the moment, anything is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alexisfan07 Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 That's weird! Maybe the end credits will reflect the real difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cheap21 Posted April 3, 2009 Members Share Posted April 3, 2009 When was the last time GH even updated its opening? LOL...that show's opening defiently doesnt match up with who is and isnt on contract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ann_SS Posted April 4, 2009 Author Members Share Posted April 4, 2009 It is easy for GH to change the credits at the end which is why I doubt that they would be reluctant to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JackPeyton Posted April 4, 2009 Members Share Posted April 4, 2009 if soaps would do recurring correctly - like Y&R with Tracey E bregman and various others - recurring wouldnt be a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted April 4, 2009 Members Share Posted April 4, 2009 A lot of the actors used heavily on both GL and ATWT are recurring, so the process is already there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LoyaltoAMC Posted April 4, 2009 Members Share Posted April 4, 2009 How would the writers be able to plan out storylines and weekly and daily breakdowns with a slate full of actors who aren't contractually bound to appear? It would be a logistical nightmare. I think what we're seeing are contracts with drastic reductions in salary and fewer guarantees like the ones that Agnes Nixon made public a few months back. When I look back to shows like AMC and ATWT in the 80s, they both had bloated casts with lots and lots of recurring actors who were used pretty heavily. Jennifer Bassey (Marian) was never on contract with AMC during the whole Tad/Liza/Marian triangle. (An aside...Odd thing is they finally put her on contract in 1984, but only used her like once a month. They had already planned on Marian being Zack Grayson's killer, so I guess the contract secured her appearances. Why did she didn't require a contract when she was much more heavily used during the infamous triangle is a mystery. After she was revealed as the murderer, she was again bumped to recurring, a status she'd retain until 1998 when she was placed on contract again). Lee Chamberlin (Pat Baxter) was on AMC pretty regularly for 6-7 years before being placed on contract. Natalie Ross (Enid) was on the show for roughly 15 years and never had a contract. Same thing with Alice Haining (Angel) on ATWT. She never had a contract, though she was a major character for a while. I wonder if sometimes some backroom deals are negotiated independent of contracts where verbal agreements are exchanged that so and so will be available for so and so length of time while a story plays out. I wonder how many of these backroom agreements are made nowadays, a la Tracey Bregman. Surely, she must have some verbal commitments in place with the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ann_SS Posted April 4, 2009 Author Members Share Posted April 4, 2009 The major ABC characters must have a contract. It may be the older actors who are getting these reduced contracts or being put on recurring status. I still don't understand why ABC would want this to be a big secret. I suppose they could be afraid of bad PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaytimeFan Posted April 4, 2009 Members Share Posted April 4, 2009 It's ABC and the actors...neither one of them wants the soap world to know that ABC can't afford/they're not worth being on contract. A recurring actor is viewed differently. A contract actor has some cache, they still have some sort of worth...at ABC a recurring actor is "Well sh*t, Frons hates so and so because they're such and such years old...but the focus groups love her/him (usually her)...we'll offer her recurring and drag her out at Christmas and a Sweeps period" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.