70 sitcoms, talk shows, variety shows and game shows have something in common that soaps don't: a single set or group of sets that doesn't change. There's a reason ALL IN THE FAMILY was almost always in the Bunker living room/kitchen, or the Mary Tyler Moore show in Mary's apartment building or the news room. In the older days, soaps were like that, too. But with storytelling having changed to embrace many sets, that's not the case anymore. Under the current system, B&B can tape two episodes in a day using largely the same sets, taping all scenes on a particular set at once and only having to move the camera crew once or twice. With live to tape, moving scenes back and forth among two to three sets multiple times, the camera crew has to move each time if they only have a single crew. And if those sets are not next to each other (as they often are not), that's a lot of movement. So isn't their current system better because it's more efficient for the crews?

Yep ie, GH was just in the hospital mainly around that nursing station

I remember I almost fell off a chair when I saw someone's apartment.

I remember soaps in black and white (I was young ok, but I remember them)

Just how, pretel, is this asinine....

PRETZEL! How cute. Am I at least a chocolate or caramel covered one?

...when the entire daytime industry used this for the better part of 20 years? OLTL had the extra crew because the show was structured differently, and it was 60 minutes at the time. When you shoot Live to tape all the time, you must structure the show for it. I hate to tell you this, but virtually every sitcom in the 70's and most variety shows were also shot Live to tape.

Exactly. Which is WHY they they were sitcoms and variety shows. They were not and today are not as grueling as the almighty soap...five episodes, five days a week, fifty two weeks a year?

If it was cheaper to do it otherwise, they WOULD HAVE. It's easier and more convenient to shoot the way they do now...

Doesn't easier and convenient also mean cheaper? So there goes your argument...

But if you don't... go back to the old fashioned way, just don't EVER use those stupid hand held cameras, unless you want your show to look like crap.

B&B and Y&R look like crap without them being shot with handheld cameras. Yet, The City(ABC Daytime) and The Hills shot with some handheld cameras and still pulled it off better than GL did. Hell, some college/indie soaps have done better than GL has in this department with no budget.

So, what's your point?

Game shows are STILL shot Live to tape, right now, TODAY.

Negative. No game show today is true "Live to Tape." Wheel of Fortune edits for time like every other game show. And sometimes, they re-tape segmentsa(segments that do not affect the outcome of the broadcast) or re-edit them in a way that doesn't make it look as obvious.

Alphanguy, I think you are interesting and very quirky, but you need to bury your "Live to Tape" theory. It doesn't work and it doesn't exist for a reason.

Edited December 21, 200915 yr by bellcurve

ABC cancelled Port Charles in 2003.

I just wish Brad Bell would finally write Taylor out for good. I also wish Donna would go away, but I know that will never happen.

Both Donna and Taylor were horrible mistakes as characters, but I find Donna salvageable, under the right circumstances. Carl, for my money, Tom's version of Katie can join the other two women in exiting, fast.

For those who hate Ridge, I'm just curious about what male IS likable on this show, instead? they're all pales shades of the same character, so I'm missing the big difference. There are a few things I like about Ridge that I think the others lack, and that RM does something right in pulling emotional heartstrings on screen. I don't think even Moss thinks of himself as the best in daytime, but he delivers something tangible. Every attempt to unseat Ridge as the show's leading male ended in ratings disaster. Fans connect with Moss as Ridge for some reason.

Edited December 21, 200915 yr by NorrthCafe

Both Donna and Taylor were horrible mistakes as characters, but I find Donna salvageable, under the right circumstances. Carl, for my money, Tom's version of Katie can join the other two women in exiting, fast.

For those who hate Ridge, I'm just curious about what male IS likable on this show, instead? they're all pales shades of the same character, so I'm missing the big difference. There are a few things I like about Ridge that I think the others lack, and that RM does something right in pulling emotional heartstrings on screen. I don't think even Moss thinks of himself as the best in daytime, but he delivers something tangible. Every attempt to unseat Ridge as the show's leading male ended in ratings disaster. Fans connect with Moss as Ridge for some reason.

Oh, we disagree.

Donna and Taylor are horrible mistakes. I think each character can be salvaged, but probably not with the same actress. They both have the common problem of unnatural emotions and plastic looks. It undermines both characters. I don't think Hunter can ever reign herself in again...I don't think she is capable of an emotionally controlled performance. I don't think she can ever again play the woman who makes the right choices. And Donna...well...

I disagree on Katie. I think Heather Tom is slowly inhabiting and morphing her and making her changed by her experiences--especially being with Bill. I think the writing is slowly catching up with her. I think Heather is a keeper...and I want her to be the show's new lead (since I doubt she's ever going back to Y&R).

I agree with you that none of the men on this show are likeable. It is interesting to me that Brad Bell can't write good men. Yes, they're all selfish penises torn between two women...with damn good cheekbones. That is so much why I miss Deacon on this show--because he looked different, sounded different, and yes--he was another selfish penis--but he happily owned that identity.

I have never connected with Moss, and I have never seen a fan that connects with Moss. I think many fans connected with KKL and Susan Flannery--and because their characters both "love" Ridge, Moss gets a pass. I think Moss' woodenness serves as an empty vessel onto which Flannery and Lang can project ehir emotions. That's it. I think a two-dimensional stick figure could have been put in Moss' place, and it would have been equally effective.

As I have said before, I would distill this show down to four women (Lang, Flannery, Kay and Tom), and I'd rebuild the show around them. I'd keep Don Diamont too--because I think when he's allowed to go really dark and angry (like he did in one of his early confessional scenes with Tom) he is a revelation. I'd bring back Kanan (he's floundering on Y&R, and his daughter Hope is about to be front-burner).

For me, the main thing to do is to plan for Flannery's exit. I'd do this by positioning Flannery/Kay versus Lang/Tom, and make that the core dynamic of the show. Then, I'd add in a third group--the "Spectra" group, but I'd do that with the Baldwin-Fishers from Y&R (Gloria and Michael, witha dose of eye-rolling Lauren, to be specific). And we're good to go.

It was a squandered opportunity NOT to make Beth Logan demented, NOT to have her played by MTS, and not to write an MTS/Flannery battle that eventually ushered Flannery to retirement and let MTS be the new b*tch-goddess of Y&R. Seeing MTS as Heather Tom's mamma...two fierce ladies claiming LA....is tragic. But I still think Tom-Lang vs Flannery-Kay is the choice that writes itself. With that core, their well-cast offspring and surrounding characters could drive this show for decades more.

MarkH, we agree more than we disagree. I've said many times before that Beth should be the kick ass sort of character who can knock Stephanie's socks off, without ever laying a hand on her, since Brooke is disadvantaged by the Steph-taylor evil dyad. taylor is never allowed to fend for herself so Brooke has to take them both on and survive the best she can. Brooke, in my view, has always been the strongest BnB woman because she's had to suffer her misery on her own and had to beat back satan's handmaiden (steph) and her minions (taylor and anyone else who's joined Steph in her unrelenting attacks on Brooke). It would have been nice for Brooke to have an ally all this time. Who better than the other Logan woman who has constantly been maltreated and then blamed for her maltreatment by crazy Stephanie?

I still believe that fans have identified with Moss and believe that's evidenced by the facts that his and KKL's lines are the longest during fan luncheons, that his tours are always sold out and well attended, and that ratings drop when the writers try to replace Ridge as the lead male. It all tells me that fans connect with him on some level, even if the connection is based on the fact that fans have a preference for veteran actors and actors who originate roles.

Which brings me to Heather Tom... I may actually amend my earlier statement (Ah! I listen, I learn). I don't think that it's HTom I dislike. I think it stems back to the 'original character - fan loyalty' phenomenon I commented on above, and your comments - which better articulated my difficulty with Katie than my earlier comments. I think it's that she SO different from the original Katie, not that Katie had such a presence before. Both Donna and Katie were such different characters and they become the 'fool for love' sort of women that Bell likes all women to devolve into. Donna was a spitfire who took on a billionaire and humiliated him when he betrayed her. Katie was just a sweet girl who'd give the shirt off of her back. Instead, Katie came back as the woman who'd take the shirt off her beloved niece/best friend's fiance's back and who feels that the child she created under those circumstances was meant to be her miracle. Donna went from taking on billionaires to selling herself short and sleeping with wealthy men for revenge.

B&B and Y&R look like crap without them being shot with handheld cameras. Yet, The City(ABC Daytime) and The Hills shot with some handheld cameras and still pulled it off better than GL did. Hell, some college/indie soaps have done better than GL has in this department with no budget.

So, what's your point?

Oh, they don't look like CRAP... they don't look as good as they should, but they certainly don't look like a high school student video project like GL did. I remember when AMC was doing this, it's some new f@cking FAD... that new show Modern Family uses it, and I can't even sit through one episode. It gives you motion sickness just to watch it. And easier does NOT always mean cheaper... in fact, it usually doesn't. I dug the foundation trench for my house with a shovel and wheelbarrow. Cheaper? YES... much cheaper than hiring a backhoe operator. Easier? NO. Here's my question for you, if today's way is cheaper, why didn't they do it back then?

Edited December 22, 200915 yr by alphanguy74

Here's my question for you, if today's way is cheaper, why didn't they do it back then?

Because they had the budget to do multiple takes to make sure their product looked great?

Fans connect with Moss as Ridge for some reason.

S**ts and giggles?

Fans connect with Moss as Ridge for some reason.

Familiarity. Same goes for Jeanne Cooper.

Because they had the budget to do multiple takes to make sure their product looked great?

You'd be totally wrong on that count. When Jim Houghton was talking about this a couple years ago in an interview, he said that when they shot live to tape, they would stop tape for NOTHING, "short of a wall falling over on somebody, really they didn't stop tape" were his exact words. The way they shoot today IS more expensive, but the main reason they do it are threefold:

1: They've had the budget to do it (Until now)

2: It's alot less pressure on the actors and production staff... that's what I meant when I said it was "easier", you can edit out a flub, and get a better looking product (Ironic the show doesn't look as good now as it did in the 70's)

3: You aren't as limited in your camera angles, blocking, etc.... AND you can write shorter scenes to make the show appear more fast paced (Which I hate). The director simply has much greater freedom when he's blocking out the scenes and movement within the scene.

So there ARE advantages to today's way, to be sure. I'm not poo-pooing that. I just feel live to tape is a far more attractive scenario than any hand held camera garbage. The actors would most likely throw a fit, though, because only Jeanne Cooper, Melody Thomas, and Doug Davidson have shot that way on Y&R, and on B&B, Flannery and McCook I think are the only ones who have done it. Jim also said that one advantage to live to tape, is that the cast was more a cohesive "group", and they all pulled together for the production, it made for closer relationships and better behind the scenes rapport with each other.

Edited December 23, 200915 yr by alphanguy74

I still recall a scene from Y&R in the 70's when Stuart Brooks was talking to another character(Chris?) and said something along the lines"I'm so worried about Chris and the future of her marriage to Brad."

"Then Chris tried to cover by saying"You mean Leslie?"

He realized he'd made a flub by using the wrong character name and had to cover by saying something like "I'm so worried at the moment,I don't know what I'm saying"

Who can blame him, though, lol? Papa Bell kept his characters (on Y&R) on some sort of weird romantic merry-go-round.

Since we are discussing how the soaps are shot... i dont know exactly what Days does but i know they tape enough to take about one week off a month, a few weeks in the summer, and about two weeks for the holidays. i also know they usually only tape from about 7am-4pm and usually tape 6 episodes a week. they do one run through then tape and move on. the actors talked a lot about this when i interviewed at the day of days event.

i know they are pretty far ahead too because the scene airing this week are scene we seen them tape at the set on nov 6th. so thats about 7 weeks.

You'd be totally wrong on that count. When Jim Houghton was talking about this a couple years ago in an interview, he said that when they shot live to tape, they would stop tape for NOTHING, "short of a wall falling over on somebody, really they didn't stop tape" were his exact words. The way they shoot today IS more expensive, but the main reason they do it are threefold:

1: They've had the budget to do it (Until now)

2: It's alot less pressure on the actors and production staff... that's what I meant when I said it was "easier", you can edit out a flub, and get a better looking product (Ironic the show doesn't look as good now as it did in the 70's)

3: You aren't as limited in your camera angles, blocking, etc.... AND you can write shorter scenes to make the show appear more fast paced (Which I hate). The director simply has much greater freedom when he's blocking out the scenes and movement within the scene.

So there ARE advantages to today's way, to be sure. I'm not poo-pooing that. I just feel live to tape is a far more attractive scenario than any hand held camera garbage. The actors would most likely throw a fit, though, because only Jeanne Cooper, Melody Thomas, and Doug Davidson have shot that way on Y&R, and on B&B, Flannery and McCook I think are the only ones who have done it. Jim also said that one advantage to live to tape, is that the cast was more a cohesive "group", and they all pulled together for the production, it made for closer relationships and better behind the scenes rapport with each other.

Fine. You win. You're right!

Fine. You win. You're right!

Khan: "Oh Honey!"