The first year of Craig was just vile. Hey, let's have Craig smirk and destroy everyone around him, that's fun, isn't he so cool? Listen to that funny dialogue. He's a dream.

And I used to have to hear, "This is how Craig acts, this is the real Craig, not that wimpy Scott Bryce version."

At least, when Dusty and Paul came back and acted like stupid thugs and self-pitying misogynist creeps, the "this is the real them" argument began to peter out.

They destroyed Craig, who was one of my favorite characters, and he's never really been the same.

I'm sure Hogan did help some characters. I liked his writing for Emily, at least initially. But I just have too many bad memories. I think if I hadn't read the press about him it might have helped. When I hear hype, I automatically recoil, unless the person has done enough to earn the hype.

Hogan was a horrible Days writer, worse than JER or Langan or Higley or any other writer who gets raked over the coals on this board.

The Tinda Lao storyline was ridiculous.

I don't know why but I always thought this screamed Jer

Nick sleeping with Chelsea's mom, Billie, was gross and ruined Chick and Billie.

I don't know I never minded this much. Chelsea's mom was hot. I always hated this notion that supercouple's had this near perfect love. I think love on soaps should reflect the complexities of real life compledom. Nick was young and very inexperienced, he made a honest mistake and this mistake was not out of character for Billie as I always drew the likeabilities between Billie and Kate who I always felt would do the same thing. The story may have spoiled chick for many, but I always thought (if they hadn't made other mistakes with the Nick Fallon character) Chelsea and Nick's relationship is something they could have explored for a while as an imperfect love story. Days worked the mother/ lover/ daughter triangle thing before. I also like that this was the strategy used to "fix" Hope and Chelsea's relationship, the storytelling was very rough around the edges but I got the idea.

He took the two hottest young males on the show (EJ and Phillip) and turned them into OTT misogynistic thugs just to try and force the viewers to root for Lumi and Shelle, only to realize his mistakes (or have someone realize the mistakes for him later on) and even then he refused to deal with the damage he did to those characters and put in the time and effort to fix them in any sort of real or meaningful way.

These two were written in a misogynist way I agree, but somehow someway I never felt forced to root for Lumi or Shelle. I always felt (maybe I was wrong) that Hogan knew the charmm and skill both these actors carried and while they were both written arrogantly, I was always more drawn to the energy between them and the two sisters Sami and Belle rather than the latter. I so wanted them to try Chloe and Shawn. Lucas was never the bit of interest to me, the only thing interesting about him to me was always his relationship with his mother Kate. He was all wrong for SAMI IMO, I always sensed a Napolean complex within the character.

The stupid explosions and stunts every other week during Andre's reign of terror were pointless and stupid.

The way he wrapped up the gloved crime storyline (or didn't) was pointless and stupid.

Stefano was written as such a pathetic weakling it was depressing.

The only good thing about Days under his tenure was the dialogue, but I don't know if that was even him or his script writers at that time.

I didn't like the way the gloved hand story turned out but I did like the Celeste twist, I just wished they had made Sami smarter she became too soft there. The stunts were always the least of DOOL's problem imo so I didn't mind that much. Stefano needed to be humanized that was gonna be challenging for any writer. Is Stefano being written any differently now? The dialogue was the change made in Script writers, but I'm not sure I do believe Sheffer contributed to the script of one or two epis

Edited November 19, 200916 yr by classicmoment

Im not going to say he didnt have good moments, he did. But good moments do not = good soap.

That really hits the nail on the head. I kind of think the way Sheffer comes up with stories is by envisaging a really good scene as the kernel, and then builds the story around it. Thats why his stories always ended badly - I'm at pains to think of a story that had a decent denoument whilst at DAYS. It also could explain his blatant disregard for history, extravagence with retconning and ignoring character logic - his loyalty is to the scene, not the storyline.

I want to who was the best head writer for these 3 soaps.

Who was the best head writer for ATWT.

Who was the best head writer for DAYS.

Who was the best head writer for Y&R.

I want to know cause I didn't watch ATWT until the early 2000's, DAYS until this year mostly, and Y&R early 2000's.

I want to who was the best head writer for these 3 soaps.

Who was the best head writer for ATWT.

Who was the best head writer for DAYS.

Who was the best head writer for Y&R.

I want to know cause I didn't watch ATWT until the early 2000's, DAYS until this year mostly, and Y&R early 2000's.

1. Douglas Marland.

2. Bill Bell.

3. Bill Bell.

Where's brimike, Hogan's biggest defender?

1. Douglas Marland.

2. Bill Bell.

3. Bill Bell.

Thanks.

Where's brimike, Hogan's biggest defender?

That really hits the nail on the head. I kind of think the way Sheffer comes up with stories is by envisaging a really good scene as the kernel, and then builds the story around it. Thats why his stories always ended badly - I'm at pains to think of a story that had a decent denoument whilst at DAYS. It also could explain his blatant disregard for history, extravagence with retconning and ignoring character logic - his loyalty is to the scene, not the storyline.

Hmm, u could very well be right on this. Food for thought... I must say I did enjoy scenes not so much as whole stories and character logic

Edited November 19, 200916 yr by classicmoment