Which is why the Pratt move at AMC still is confounding. AMC did recognize some ratings stabilization under him.Maybe not growth. And the growth the past month or two I attribute to the PR AMC is getting due to their move and anniversary. With AMC though this is being coupled with a writing and possibly production change some smart casting changes which may help. GH follows the adage if it ain't broke don't fix it. I feel at this juncture the same applies now to B&B and Y&R to an extent.

I've always maintained that it was Pratt who quit over some major conflict with someone at ABC, probably someone above Frons. He did stop the bleeding of viewers, which is why it's hard to believe he was canned for poor performance. If that was the case, then Carlivati and Guza would also have been let go. I think there's a lot to the Pratt situation we'll never know about.

Why the hell does Carruthers still have a job? The show is over budget and looks like crap. Has for years now.

I've always maintained that it was Pratt who quit over some major conflict with someone at ABC, probably someone above Frons. He did stop the bleeding of viewers, which is why it's hard to believe he was canned for poor performance. If that was the case, then Carlivati and Guza would also have been let go. I think there's a lot to the Pratt situation we'll never know about.

I completely agree. There is a whole lot more to Pratt quitting/firing than we may ever know. Based on the ratings, there was no reason to fire him. AMC lost fewer viewers overall and in the demos compared to GH and OLTL over the last year.

I completely agree. There is a whole lot more to Pratt quitting/firing than we may ever know. Based on the ratings, there was no reason to fire him. AMC lost fewer viewers overall and in the demos compared to GH and OLTL over the last year.

Has anyone from the cast ever spoken out about Pratt? I know Budig made a comment to Michael Logan for TV guide about Pratt being gone will mean more character-driven stuff. I read it between the lines as a good-riddance comment. Has anyone said anything? When the new HW is eventually announced maybe the actors will make some comment. The behind the scenes drama always fascinates me. I used to be acquaintances with Jeff Beldner through my ex-boyfriend, who's very good friends with Beldner's boyfriend, but since we've broken up, I don't have that connection anymore.

I think Jill Farren Phelps has just given up. She does not care anymore. She's a lapdog for Guza's vision. Far far cry from her usual producing style where she has to be in control of everything. Her OLTL days she was a control freak power hungry biatch.

How do we not know that she SHARES Guza's vision? Certainly, he never wrote his past soaps (I just know his VASTLY different work at Loving) this way... Why do we all assume that JFP doesn';t necesarily agree? (I ask out of genuine curiousity as I haven't followed GH closely for a very long time)

At AW her goal was to emulate such primetime shows as er. Couldn't this be similar? I just don't see the lady giving up so much power.

Edited January 11, 201015 yr by EricMontreal22

I do like the fact that Wendy Riche had a vision and did her damnedest to steer the show in the direction of that vision. I see a common thread throughout her GH tenure in various episodes. I don't think JHC has ever had a vision, because AMC has had three different voices under each of the three head writing regimes while she's been there. However, I dislike both of their eyes for production values. GH immediately got more crisp and clean when JFP took over. And what hasn't been said about AMC's Disney cam (including steadicam summer), fluorescent-esque lighting, ugly sets and bland wardrobes? Nevertheless, even through all of that, JHC's biggest offense in my book is her atrocious handling of the budget. Way too many scenes are take place at ConFusion or the Hospital in an effort to save cash. Not to mention the ridiculous dance marathon storyline that was FORCED due to the overrun budget and the need to have all 30 characters in the same place for two weeks! I, personally, always hoped that JHC took it as a smack in the face: "Hey, AMC staff! Guess what! Since you're all here this week taping all on the same set because your show is over budget -- we're moving the entire show to the west coast in 13 weeks because you're SOOOO over budget, it's either that, or you're canceled! Blame Julie. Have a nice summer!"

I agree. I honestly think the woman has to be taken more to task. The show has, nearly always sucked under her--in the old days the EP would be as much to blame as the HW but for some reasons he was spared (partly I admit because it's obvious Frons takes over some of the creative control EPs should have, still). It's NEVER looked worse IMHO, and the stories and writing has never had ANY POV or direction under her.

How do we not know that she SHARES Guza's vision? Certainly, he never wrote his past soaps (I just know his VASTLY different work at Loving) this way... Why do we all assume that JFP doesn';t necesarily agree? (I ask out of genuine curiousity as I haven't followed GH closely for a very long time)

Everything about GH feels like a Phelps' soap. It is male dominated with the violence against women, the lack of minorities, and the hiring of her friends in various roles. There is also a soullessness that reminds of me her tenure at OLTL and Another World. I think that she shares the vision of Frons and Guza at GH and has her share of power there.

From the coupleof weeks I made it through, I'd agree. It even felt like a JFP soap on overdrive--that's why I wonder why SOO many fans think she's released all creative power. I think she loves what she sees.

Wow, Wendy Riche. In hindsight, she got a lot of flak at GH (including from me) that she probably didn't deserve. Daytime was changing for reasons that were beyond her control, and for those of us who loved the Labine era, Riche stayed too long at the party and got blamed for the inevitable decline in quality. But in retrospect, what came later couldn't possibly have lived up to what she and Claire Labine were able to do before Mickey Mouse owned ABC. On the other hand, Riche has been out of the business for a decade, when the bottom has really fallen out, so even the darkest times toward the end of her run at GH seem like the halcyon days of the genre now.

To be fair, this is nothing new in the soap industry. For every exception like Lemay or Gottlieb, since the 60s at least soaps have been revolving endlessly their "talent". One reason is, I guess how hard and complicated it is to train someone not involved.

Actually Lemay wrote for several shows after AW. He was head writer of Search for Tomorrow and The Doctors, in addition to his short-lived comeback to AW before the 1988 writers' strike. He didn't last long at any of them, and none of them seem to have been the instant success that his first stint at AW was. It seems like he didn't have the stomach to deal with the level of network involvement even in the '80s, let alone in the '00s, which is too bad.

Riche and Gottlieb have both only produced one soap each to date - the only difference is Riche lasted quite a while longer at GH, and obviously made some compromises along the way that Gottlieb refused to make. I think the only other real one-hit wonder who has not been crucified for their work at one show or the other in the past 15 years was Nancy Curlee, and like Gottlieb she has openly said that she left because of the increasing network interference in all creative aspects.

When that kind of sentiment is out there - and by all accounts the level of micromanaging has only gotten worse - I can't really get behind the idea that the major problem with these shows is the fact that some experienced writers and producers at the helm. If anything, for all I know, their experience battling the network in the past might even help them talk the higher ups out of some even more horrendous "suggestions" that the much mythologized "new blood" might not be able to stave off. Of course, I don't see the benefit in rehiring people who have a reputation for doing mediocre (or worse) work since the heyday of soaps, but if someone's done good work at one time and seems to care about the genre, I don't see the harm in having them at the table. I just don't really see them as being at the head of the table anymore, and adjust my expectations accordingly. I think Wendy Riche would probably be good for AMC in an ideal creative environment, and I certainly don't think she could do much worse than the show has been doing.

Edited January 11, 201015 yr by DeliaIrisFan

I agree with everything you've said 100%

I know about Lemay's post AW/Lovers and Friends career but it never even seemed to start going with any show he was with. (and his consultation period at OLTL when JFP was there seemed useless)

Carruthers needs to be replaced. Until that happens it doesn't matter who her second in command is. I still am crossing my fingers that Ed Scott takes over AMC. He made DAYS look fabulous, which I never thought would be possible. Now having a soap in HD with a better budget he'd go nuts. He also brought some great performances out of the DAYS cast and I think he could help some of AMC's younger talent.

Unless Wendy Riche takes over ABC instead of AMC, this sadly means nothing. The most important creative functions an EP once performed are now helmed exclusively by Frons. Frons EPs are glorified line producers. Incidentally, this is a fate JFP richly deserves for what she did to OLTL and AW. I savor every moment of her desperate attempts to bring AW stars collecting unemployment onto the show as under-fives, voice-over artists and dayplayers.

Edited January 11, 201015 yr by Vee

Has anyone from the cast ever spoken out about Pratt? I know Budig made a comment to Michael Logan for TV guide about Pratt being gone will mean more character-driven stuff. I read it between the lines as a good-riddance comment. Has anyone said anything? When the new HW is eventually announced maybe the actors will make some comment. The behind the scenes drama always fascinates me. I used to be acquaintances with Jeff Beldner through my ex-boyfriend, who's very good friends with Beldner's boyfriend, but since we've broken up, I don't have that connection anymore.

Nothing serious has been said by the cast. Lucci did say this at the recent event.

http://serialdrama.typepad.com/serial_drama/2010/01/sunday-in-the-park-with-amc.html

Even La Lucci herself pointedly said at one point, when asked if she ever thought to herself that Erica wouldn't do that, that for the past year, Erica hasn't been Erica, but she assured us that the real Erica is back now.

The sad part is I thought Pratt did OK, not great, but OK, with writing Erica (better than some previous regimes at least) up to about early 2009, then everything fell apart. The catfighting with women over thirty years her junior, the Ryan crap, but most of all, the horrific things she did to Adam.

I believe MEK commented that Pratt said he liked to have the characters do random [!@#$%^&*] every few weeks to keep the audience guessing, so "they wouldn't get to know them too well." Don't know if that's confirmed.

I believe MEK commented that Pratt said he liked to have the characters do random [!@#$%^&*] every few weeks to keep the audience guessing, so "they wouldn't get to know them too well." Don't know if that's confirmed.

I remember that too.

I think Beth Ehlers also complained about the writing, in that infamous radio interview she had last summer. We see where that got her though.