Jump to content

Star Trek recipe for soaps?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

So did I, but he's only sulking because he doesn't have a way to rebut me.

ETA: Yes, the Rapps nearly killed OLTL. But that was JFP's folly. The Rappaports are not a new phenomenon; they go all the way back to people like James Lipton and his families who they drove off a bus on a cliff, or to Paul Rauch's Kim Zimmer family on Santa Barbara. It's the same bad device mis-applied again and again. And yes, Y&R was young at the time it overhauled. But also, it was Bill Bell, and I think Y&R had always been set up as a show of a decidedly different taste than many of the others. Wasn't the scandal over its sex and content when it first aired as opposed to, say, the more stately or homey GL, AW and ATWT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

The book, e.g., doesn't state there was no history for Pat. It actually states there was, but the studio didn't have the bible, character histories etc. So Lemay decided to create his own histories for many, not all, of these people. That is very different from "There was no history." There was.

You will also find people who are angry at Lemay for what he did. Many. To Steve Frame, e.g.

Irna Phillips also because he fundamentally altered the characters the way she conceived them.

You didn't. But you can dream.

1971? :huh: What?

Ta-da!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh, I know people were angry at Lemay. There will always be people who are angry. But the show prospered ratings-wise and his results spoke for themselves. And as you say, since the show was young, there was little family history to draw from for characters like Steve. Soaps today are different. There is a great wealth of history. I've already addressed why Y&R is different, as has Mark.

Also, the show was young and malleable, as I said before. The soaps of today are not the same. You can change them, but you don't get to pretend it's the 70s anymore. I'm sure Guza saw a little of Harding Lemay's approach in himself when he declared that GH was now a crime soap about "love in wartime," but look how that turned out - GH hitting 1.9s and 1.8s and unrecognizable, unloved. He wasn't Lemay. He was just a fool. And even Lemay used popular families and characters the audience loved before him - Rachel, Steve, Alice, Pat, Lenore, Ada, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ack! The Rappaport invasion! You had to bring that up.

The Rappaports were a symptom of the overall disease of JFP, a particularly virulent one, but a symptom nonetheless. There are plenty of people who miss Jen and somewhere along the line Lindsay became one of those precious "vets" so one could argue it wasn't the concept that was bad, but the execution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Lindsay succeeded despite herself and the shitty writing, solely because of Cat Hickland. During that era, I hated the family, I hated Lindsay, but I couldn't help but care about her because of CH's performance. Lindsay was the original "desperate housewife" who had given everything for an unloving husband, spending her days shuttling kids to and from school and sports, only to lose it all and be reborn for revenge. In the 70s her character would have been a grande dame of soaps. But a character that starts out shoddy will always have an unwieldy foundation, so they ran out of things for her to do. Unless she is paired with a scheming Clint, I see no reason for her to return full time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

How's this for funny? I just finished watching the Lost season finale and you know how I said I'm sticking with this show until the end? Scratch that. Lost just managed to do the same thing that GL did in 1994, AMC did in 2004 and OLTL did in 2007, Lost just managed to piss me off enough to make me say "[!@#$%^&*] it." I got enough from this finale (Rose, Bernard and Vincent) that I don't need to go back for season six.

Honestly, at this rate there's going to be nothing left for me except BOOKS! LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was going back over the thread and I realized that I hadn't answered this question. Yes, Fringe did a very good job of toning it down a bit. No more of the Rambaldi Prophecy I mean the Pattern, so far less of Massive Dynamic until the last few eps, no more of "John Scott's memories" and they saddled Liv with a useless sister and niece in an attempt to make her seem less likely to eat her gun at the end of the day It's still a little X-Files-y but it's much better than it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I don't think Lisa served a purpose after the serial killer storyline. The writers never gave her anything to do but be Vicky's nemesis. Joanna Going deserved better. Another example of a character taking over the show and then the writers not having a longterm plan for the character.  Exhibit B: Sally Spencer. Such a missed opportunity. It really angers me how they misused her. She could sing and act and they just threw her away in that sexist nonsense storyline. Once the story was over, they wrote her off. The McKinnons should have lasted for years. I will give the show credit for how they introduced Sandra Ferguson as Amanda. I thought it was expertly done. She comes in and she immediately connected to RKK's Sam. She has chemistry with Matthew and she has realistic conversations with MAc and Rachel. That's how it is done. 
    • Great points, and it has not completely vanished. Leslie on Beyond the Gates fits the trope (she's still not over that Ted lovin' two decades later), though I will say there does seem to be an effort to make her more complex.
    • I understand why people speculate, but I have to say it doesn’t sound very plausible that Jill Farren Phelps would be working at Y&R in any uncredited role. CBS daytime shows are tightly bound by union contracts and corporate oversight, and that kind of informal arrangement would be a major liability in 2025. Before the mergers of SAG-AFTRA and the two WGA branches, it may have been easier to hire someone quietly or off the books. But those days are behind us. With digital payroll, tighter pension tracking, and increased scrutiny from legal and compliance departments, it’s just not the kind of thing anyone can get away with anymore. Most union members, especially producers nearing retirement, would not risk their eligibility or benefits to take an uncredited role. The Producers Guild of America is also very clear about crediting. To even receive the PGA mark, a producer has to be verified through a formal review process. According to their credit certification guidelines (source), "only individuals who performed a majority of the producing functions on a motion picture or television production" are eligible for credit, and those credits must be official and recorded. If someone is functioning in that capacity, they are not supposed to be uncredited. Studios that are union signatories, like CBS and Sony, know better than to skirt those rules. If anyone has a legitimate, primary source confirming that CBS is hiring someone like Phelps in an uncredited production role, I’d honestly be curious to read it. But without that, this just feels like rumor—not reality.
    • I keep thinking about the persistent trend of eroticizing mental illness on Guiding Light. Sonni and Annie were never more compelling, or more attractive to the show, than when they were manic. It played into a recurring theme: strong women undone by their unhinged reaction to sex. The writers were likely inspired by Basic Instinct and the broader wave of neo-noir films in the late '80s and early '90s, where female sexuality was often equated with instability. The result was a crude portrayal, not just of mental illness, but of womanhood itself. Both Sonni and Annie were introduced as sharp, capable women, brought in specifically as formidable antagonists to Reva. They were logical and composed, standing in contrast to Reva’s emotional volatility. That difference made them threatening, but not especially “sexy”—until desire became their undoing. In a very male fantasy, their strength unraveled the moment they slept with Joshua. As soon as they got a taste of Lewis lovin’, they spiraled into scheming lunatics, willing to torch everything to hold on to him. It was part of a larger trend in the culture. Fatal Attraction, Single White Female, and The Hand That Rocks the Cradle all traded on the idea that female desire was dangerous, barely held in check, and always teetering on the edge of madness. Looking back, it's a pretty grim trope. And while it's not completely vanished, I'm grateful we don't see it quite as often today.
    • Elements of it were silly, but it was a small price to pay to get Zas back. I should say there's a difference between in town and out of town returns. It's understandable for Roger to skulk around town in a bad wig and clown suit when he's in Springfield and running the risk of bumping in to people he knows.  Taking us out of town to find someone always has a short shelf life. Then it usually becomes about another character knowing X is alive but determined to keep them out of Springfield. Like Alan discovering Amish Reva. I don't know how long it went on, but it was probably twice as long as necessary.
    • Elizabeth Dennehy complained on the Locher Room about how ridiculous so much of the writing was for Roger's return. She laughed at so much of Roger's antics and how it was hard for her to take them seriously. Probably another reason she was fired as she didn't play the game.  
    • Only thing I enjoyed was Abby / Olivia, etc., and the addiction storyline. Otherwise, I could do without the season.
    • Right? Vanessa had a ball gown for every occasion.
    • Roger's return storyline may have been silly but Roger's return was what lead to GL's last golden era.  It was the combination of Roger's return and Robert Calhoun becoming EP that got GL to finally hit it's stride after some really bad years. It will always disappoint me that the ratings during Robert Calhoun's run didn't reflect the quality of the show.
    • He also gave some of the best episodes, like the episodes surrounding Doug's death. The problem with Days was that Ron had a horrible vision from he top. I don't feel the same for MVJ and nothing that has happened in all these months suggests she doesn't have a handle on the show. Now if it becomes an issue I'll acknowledge it, but I'm not seeing it so far.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy