How Not To Wreck A Show

[DRW50]

I don't think the ratings had collapsed because of those characters specifically but people just seemed to be tired of the format of the show. They had exhausted Jessie and Phil Brewer, then brought in a young Jessie who was married to Phil, they had killed him, Audrey had been having stories about her crazy ex for years, and the new characters they brought in were poorly used or were in stories fans didn't seem to like, such as the stuff with the Dantes or with Rick and the original Monica, or Lesley having a "Satanic fetus", as the Soap Opera Encyclopedia called that story. Marland revamped a lot of the show along with Monty because they had no real choice.

I think the point that article makes about Dusty is valid, but the rest of the ATWT section I disagree with. Nothing he said about waiting six months to focus on new people was made untrue. He did write heavily for veteran characters, he gave them stories which intermingled with new faces. If you watch those episodes, Iva interacts heavily with Steve and Betsy as well as with her own family. Holden with Lily. Doug Cummings with the Hughes.

Using Ross prosecuting Jennifer as an example of focusing on new characters is odd, especially since that entire story revolved around people the Dobsons had written for endlessly, such as Amanda, Alan, and Lucille.

[Sylph]

Which just goes on to prove he did not break this particular rule and actually did write what the audience wanted to see. As does this:

[lovely_m]

The only way I could interpret it as he wrote for his characters and didn't fix the characters audiences were familiar with.

I didn't post the link to say that Marland wasn't as great as he is said to be, just to show a different perspective.

[Sylph]

Oh, I wasn't questioning your attitude or anything like that.

I just wanted to determine what exactly does that article want to say. Marland was great, but everyone has flops.

[Vee]

Just ask James Cameron.

[Dan]

I agree with some of the posts in this thread that some of the rules are too idealistic and impossible to achieve, but that article was just Alina Adams, the PGP mouthpiece trying to [!@#$%^&*] on the great legacy of one of their shows and one of the few brilliant headwriters in daytime to make it more comparable to today's storytelling.

As for the rules themselves, I think it also needs to be mentioned that good writers both know the conventions AND know how to bend or break them successfully.

[cara mia]

When you're a genius like Marland or Labine, you can break the rules because your doing it knowingly. With idiots like Chuck Pratt, you get the sense that they have zero idea that writing is a craft and that soap writing has certain rules. I think he broke every one of DM's rules.

[ian]

He also broke my rule: Don't be an überdouche

[Sylph]

Also of note is that you, cara mia, are a follower of Aristotle.

Aristotle, on which all Hollywood dramaturgy is base, including soaps & TV, claims that plot is more important than character.

Let me repeat for the fiftieth time: both matter. There is no plot without character and there are no great characters without plot. A bogus, sh!tty dilemma.

[miajere]

These rules wouldn't work for any writer but Marland. Not because they're idealistic, but because these are not rules, they're the man's creative process. They worked for him and he was lucky enough to have a large enough audience to come to these conclusions. But every other writer needs time and space to come to their own conclusions. But I think we're all pretty aware who dictates which characters stay and go on the majority of soaps, and there isn't a writer out there with 6 months to wait and decide on anything. Creative process should be allowed to evolve otherwise we'd be looking at the same art, listening to the radio, and watching Dawson's Creek instead of Gossip Girl.

If we're talking Aristotle- I'm not sure if I believe anything should be allowed to go on for decades with no real concept of the end. Doesn't mortality give way to life, to purpose. I'm quite certain Aristotle would be a fan of the soaps, but only to shape out "what not to do". Perhaps that explains why most of these shows get better when cancellation is looming overhead. In all this dire need to save our shows, I think we're killing the genre.

[Dan]

Agree with this in reference to most of these "rules" from Marland; EXCEPT for the first one and probably the second. The first should be codified into writer's law. Any screenwriter who refuses to watch the execution of his/her material on the screen should be barred from ever writing anything but obituaries again. It's ludicrous. Sure something looks good on the page, but the page isn't being published for the world to see like a novel. There are, of course, always cuts and edits and things sometimes don't go the way you wrote them or you have a different opinion later. That's why when David Kreizman admitted in an interview that he really didn't watch GL, people were pissed and yet not very surprised. I know that headwriters have hectic lives, but watching the show is an important part of the screenwriting process. In fact, I would think that a few headwriter creative problems would be at least acknowledged if headwriters had to watch the dreck they put out for us.

[ian]

I'd have thought watching the show would be a no-brainer. You gotta see how the actors are doing, see how you feel about your content when you see it, think about how you could improve. I wrote a few scenes of Scripts and Scruples for Roger Newcomb awhile back and I was anxious to hear how they'd sound, because I had written it and wanted to see it through.

I bet none of them watch the show, except maybe Ron Carlivati who has made references as if he does... but - other than that, if you don't watch your show, its no wonder it sucks!

It's also possible Pratt watches his show, but of course in his mind l'il chucky can do no wrong.

Guza may watch it and nod and say "Yep, looks good" without paying attention to the stories themselves, just JFP's production hahaha.

[Sylph]

I wanna interview with Guza. Someone interview him as soon as possible!

[BadBoy93]

I could picture that.

Interviewer - Robert Guza,thank you for doing this interview

Guza (Sitting In A Chair Stroking His Toy Gun) - Hey you wanna get shot,then shut up and do your job or ill get my boys to shoot you

Interviewer - Why do you do storylines centered around the mob

Guza - Because The Mob is cool.I encourage all Kids to join the mob not grow up and be rich like The Quartermaines.One By One and soon the Quartermaines will be no more (HAHAHAHAHAHA)

Interviewer - So you are going to Kill Jason Then?

Guza - Jason Isn`t a Quartermaine.He is a Morgan.Jason Morgan.Next Year Michael will take over The Mob and Monica will fall out of a burning building and be decapatatied.A 402th Virus will strike the Hospital and i change the shows name to "Mob City".

Interviewer - Oh lord Help GH.