Members CSF Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 Maybe it would have lasted longer too with that title lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 Loving is just a title I never really liked. I can't quite say why, but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SFK Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 I agree, it was meant to be a "back to basics"-type title, evocative of good, classic soap opera, but I always thought it was too generic and (as silly as this may sound) feminine. I also like Into This House better than Lovers and Friends which reminds me of than song Dionne Warwick used to sing on the Psychic Friends commercials. If P&G Channel ever comes back, man I wish they'd air L&F/FRFP, I'd watch beginning to end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JackPeyton Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 i think that was just its working title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jonathan Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 I agree. Maybe it's because no one really uses the term "loving" in every day speak. You can try, but really, the term "love" is pretty much synonymous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted October 10, 2009 Members Share Posted October 10, 2009 I would too--the Rauch/Lemay creation is the one soap I've not seen an episode of I want to. But I don't think much ofit survives at all--the Museum of Broadcasting has one episode of each I believe. I think you're right--as much as I HATE calling things feminine or masculine--Loving IS too feminine of a title. All I know is when I was a teen loving my soaps I'd be even more embrassed to tell classmates I watched a show called Loving, than All My Children (partly though as NOBODY I knew, even my mom's soap loving best friend, had never HEARD of a show called Loving lol) I love and miss Loving/City but one thing I find so fascinating about it is how Agnes Nixon's instincts didn't seem to be right this time--viewers DIDN'T want a soap that went back to the quieter, slower days of early 70s AMC, etc and that prob trickled down to the not particularly appealing title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SFK Posted October 10, 2009 Members Share Posted October 10, 2009 Totally. In the cancelled soap thread where the promo is posted, it's funny to hear Agnes talking about her "hot" new show called LOVING (!?) which along with its logo/font just makes me think of a doily-trimmed Valentine. And you're right, as much as I appreciate her brand of storytelling, Loving always FELT like a warm-up to AMC. And in my grandmother's home for example, that's exactly what it was. Loving was on while she made lunch, AMC is what we watched while we ate lunch. And I have a feeling that's what it was like for a lot of people, our knowledge of Loving was always more peripheral. I know I didn't really get into it until its final months, knowing that The City was around the block. A show that I was really excited about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted October 10, 2009 Members Share Posted October 10, 2009 The problem with "Loving" as a title is simple...are we referring to it as a present progressive verb (I am loving you)? A gerund (Your loving keeps me warm)? Is it being used as an adjective (She has a loving smile)? Are we referring to Loving v. Virginia? It's just a plain throw-away title that really has no meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted October 10, 2009 Members Share Posted October 10, 2009 Well argued. But one might then argue that such a generic title has the properties of a Rorschach. It is an empty vessel into which the viewer can project meaning. It thereby becomes meaningful to all who watch. I'm sure that was the thinking, anyway. I watched that show for years--at least during summers and holidays--and I could never enjoy a single day of it. I never felt any personality with that show. The constant Alden recasts (all the way up to Isabel) didn't help. I was probably most interested in the Vocheks, but they sort of evaporated away. The incest storyline was intriguing, until the daddy morphed into Snidely Whiplash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted October 11, 2009 Members Share Posted October 11, 2009 That's a good point that Loving as a word doesn't quite work either. Mark, I DID love Loving--I startedwatching during the Carter Jones/DInah Lee etc crossover with AMC and was hooked--at times (liek 1994 when Agnes returned for 6 months to headwrite) it was my fave of the three NYC based ABC soaps. I kinda wonder why you watched it for years if you never even enjoyed one solid episode But I do get your point. Recasts plagued the show. I knwo the incest storyline was partly changed on orders from ABC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jonathan Posted October 11, 2009 Members Share Posted October 11, 2009 I'm having flashbacks of 6th grade grammar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SFK Posted October 11, 2009 Members Share Posted October 11, 2009 And that's exactly what I got from the title, open to interpretation/applicable to a myriad of characters in a myriad of ways. Yet, as you say, it was TOO open, too generic, too boring. I think Woody Allen's Another Woman for example is a much better, more interesting take on that idea of a title carrying several meanings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Paul Raven Posted February 21, 2010 Author Members Share Posted February 21, 2010 I will stand corrected but wasn't GH originally Emergency Hospital? And Emerald Point NAS was originally announced as simply 'Navy' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dragonflies Posted February 21, 2010 Members Share Posted February 21, 2010 Wasn't it also GH2 at some point, before the show debuted too? Also originally it was going to have Ned and Lois instead of Lucy and Kevin too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catsmeouch Posted February 21, 2010 Members Share Posted February 21, 2010 Yes, it was definitely GH2. I actually thought that was less goofy than Port Charles. Passions' working title was Harmony's Passions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.a68c4f8da032398617aba05149c68a3f.png)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.