Members soapfan770 Posted February 22, 2010 Members Share Posted February 22, 2010 Yep, us soap fans have terminal cases of "badshows" these days. Also I loved #5 because of it reminded me so much of Sheffer's ATWT era, while #3 reminded me of Days under Sheffer. #1 could have saved GL, AW, SFT etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted February 22, 2010 Members Share Posted February 22, 2010 Great article--would this be from 1998 or so? I don't even remember Jared Hall at OLTL, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Leia Posted February 22, 2010 Members Share Posted February 22, 2010 I was about to ask who Jared Hall was. Scary article. It feels so relevant to today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CSF Posted February 22, 2010 Members Share Posted February 22, 2010 Great article, thanks for posting it. I agree that number 5 is so similar to Sheffer's first stint on ATWT. And let's not forget that around the same time there was also a similar story with Bryant, Allison and Lucy thrown into the mix. Number 1 is really what killed GL and what could have saved GL and I feel it's the same thing that is happening to ABC and has been happening to ABC since the Disney invasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members YRBB Posted February 22, 2010 Members Share Posted February 22, 2010 Mac & Billy LOVED the article, this is all what we're still seeing today and it's only gotten worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted February 22, 2010 Members Share Posted February 22, 2010 Jared Hall was Ed Hall's grandson. He was the DA? He had a brief flirtation with Rachel during one of Ellen Bethea's short returns, while Rachel was helping Nora with her memory loss. #5 is so eerie. And it was an awful stench not just at Sheffer's ATWT, but at DAYS. Remember Jeremy Horton, who tried to force himself on Chelsea, tried to drown Stephanie, treated women like garbage, yet apparently we were supposed to care because they claimed he was Mike and Robin's son? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mr. Vixen Posted February 22, 2010 Members Share Posted February 22, 2010 I think we should send this article to the heads of all the soaps, over and over again for months, until they get the memo. great article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted February 23, 2010 Members Share Posted February 23, 2010 Jared was an ADA with a checkered past involving, I believe, drugs which threatened his legal career. He was originally going to have some other secret which Tea knew about and was going to power her exit - she had a number of scenes clashing with him - but then RH returned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted February 23, 2010 Members Share Posted February 23, 2010 Did they say what the secret was? They should have had him come back instead of bringing in Eli. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted February 23, 2010 Members Share Posted February 23, 2010 I think Tea knew whatever it was they retconned it into - that he had done drugs or taken bribes or something back in law school. Maybe he cheated on the bar, as well, I can't quite remember, it was all so lame. I question the wisdom of bringing him back, though. It was a lame character and a terrible actor, plus he was way too old to be Josh's kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted February 23, 2010 Members Share Posted February 23, 2010 I think they could have recast. He could have had some drama with Tea and with Rachel, and tested their friendship. Eli is fairly pointless and having him as Ross's brother gutted the character as soon as he threw Ross to the wolves for Tea and her honor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted February 23, 2010 Members Share Posted February 23, 2010 This article makes a great case for the fact that the genre has been in this creative hole for a long time. Same [!@#$%^&*], different day, month, year... More proof that we didn't have to end up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mr. Vixen Posted February 23, 2010 Members Share Posted February 23, 2010 If soaps focused more on their HISTORY and what MADE them famous, they wouldnt be in the ratings dump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted February 23, 2010 Members Share Posted February 23, 2010 It's true, and the more I read soap articles and books from the 70s, even at the Golden era of soaps many MANY of these problems still existed. I think the difference was (maybe cuz there were mor esoaps in general, a bit less interference, etc) there were enough really well done solid (or outright great) soap runs happening to balance it out. But, for instance, LaGuardia complains about number 5 destroying Secret Storm in its last years (bringing back characters who have name ties to the show but otherwise might as well be new characters). I think though, that one is one that really bugs me. It's like Culliton's time at AMC many praised him for bringing back characters like Frankie and Tim Dhillon (for all of 5 seconds), but what's the point if you don't bring them back with characters we actuallky recognize--bring back their parents, etc--THEN the audience stands more of a chance of warming up to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeliaIrisFan Posted February 23, 2010 Members Share Posted February 23, 2010 This is a really good article. Did I miss the title/author? I read it three times and I don't see it. # 1 is especially right on, and even more astute an observation ten years ago, before we had seen so many head writers knocked off of their pedestals after being brought back to "save" a show with much fanfare. It doesn't matter whose name is in the credits if they don't have the creative control to tell stories they feel passionately about. (And tell them to completion, so that viewers don't feel they've wasted months watching a story with dozens of loose ends and petered out before it reached the climax it appeared to be building toward, just because some focus group that didn't make any such investment saw a snippet out of context and hated the story) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.