I thought I'd open since it's been a week. It still doesn't seem real.

13 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

She said in the interview that Marland had it in his contract to get royalties for his creations.  

Did Irna Phillips or her estate get royalties for the characters she created? If anyone was entitled to royalties, certainly it would've been her.

The more I think about it, the less likely I am to truly believe that the characters were pulled because of royalties (if he even had such an agreement). Sometimes executives say things and/or pass a rumor around, but it may be just that, a rumor.

I got a chance to listen to the interview 

I got a chance to listen to the, shall we call it an interview? Yeah, I agree that Alan talked over Suzenne a lot. It seemed as though, just when she was able to collect her thoughts and begin to talk, Alan was interjecting his thoughts. I got some enjoyment out of it, but like everyone else, I wish a more skilled host would have conducted this conversation.

Another thing that struck me is how memories can sometimes get tangled because Suzenne mentioned that she believed that she was the first actor on a soap of that era (i.e. since cigarette smoking was banned on TV) to smoke onscreen but I remember a few years prior to her Julie, I saw Leanna Love on Y&R light up onscreen during her debut during the late 1980s. I am not sure where she would have gotten that information.

I had always heard that getting royalties from characters that a writer had created on a soap was a myth. I also can't find any WGA rules/guidelines around that. 

37 minutes ago, Forever8 said:

Gabriel being Tonio's would've made much more sense. I'm sure they could've lured Peter Boynton for a small stint near the end. What else did they have to lose with the show going off the air? It could've saved us the last six months being about Janet Ciccone and Barbara being petrified by that damn clown. 

I just thought Gabriel being Tonio son fit. I blocked all that clown nonsense. Its too bad I could never forget Juicy Janet.

59 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Did Irna Phillips or her estate get royalties for the characters she created? If anyone was entitled to royalties, certainly it would've been her.

The more I think about it, the less likely I am to truly believe that the characters were pulled because of royalties (if he even had such an agreement). Sometimes executives say things and/or pass a rumor around, but it may be just that, a rumor.

the royalties irna phillips got were for the shows she created, not the characters.  and because she was the co-creator of days…, i believe her son is still collecting royalties. 

and you are certainly right about executives (and others) saying things or passing rumors around.

Edited July 16, 20214 yr by wonderwoman1951
subject verb agreement matters

I believe Susan's contention that Marland received royalties for characters he created.  He was a major, Emmy-winning soap writer when he joined ATWT and I expect his contract called for several perks that most head writers did not receive at that time (or since). He had already created two soaps ("Loving" and "A New Day in Eden") and was at the Bill Bell/Agnes Nixon level. I'm sure that part of the reason he agreed to take on the 30-year old ATWT was that he would retain rights to characters he created. 

Okay, inquiring minds want to know now. 

WGA rules seem very specific to the point of rigidity, but perhaps the rules were looser at that time? I would think that even a writer of Marland's caliber, the lawyers would keep a sharp eye on the contract, so that no writer runs away with the show's assets. I think what a headwriter/creator would have more leverage than a head writer, but perhaps after two Emmys for show and multiple nominations, P&G were willing to loosens the purse strings enough to release that perk. Also, I wonder whether perhaps upon his death something would have changed in terms of ownership but if he had a very Beckettian estate, they would've kept very tight control over the terms.

I was doing a quick search to see if I can find out who is the executor of his estate and was stopped in my tracks when I saw a link to Douglas Marland et al, vs. Donald Trump. Immediately I thought theory about Tad Channing being based off of Trump had been proven correct but I think it's a different Douglas Marland, who might be in real estate as the lawsuit appears to be pending.

If Marland did that, he must not have cared much if his characters lived on after he was gone. He had to know that future producers would prefer to get rid of his characters than pay him royalties. He seemed like a genuine fan of the serial format so it looks like he would want his characters to continue on. Then again, perhaps he'd rather the characters leave with him than have them butchered and twisted beyond all recognition which is usually what happened in the latter days of soaps. A lot of the characters on ATWT towards the end were the same in name only. 

5 hours ago, BetterForgotten said:

I had always heard that getting royalties from characters that a writer had created on a soap was a myth. I also can't find any WGA rules/guidelines around that. 

You are correct.  It is a myth, and I wish it would go away. At least two former soap head-writers have stated in interviews that ii is not the truth.  I believe those writers may have been Claire Labine and Agnes Nixon, but I could be wrong about that.  The creator(s) of a soap opera, and their estate(s), may get royalties, depending on their original agreements/contracts and the Writer's Guild regulations at that time.  But head-writers do not get royalties for characters they create.   

I also don't know that Susan Marie Snyder is the most qualified person to make that statement. Is she a WGA member? She's not been active in the industry since her time on ATWT, to my knowledge. 

Unless that's the excuse/lie someone told her when she was let go in 1995? 

Wikipedia has Julie making an appearance in 2002. Did she? I don't remember her coming back again, but I was disgusted by the show so rarely watched.

I don't recall her appearing after Holden and Lily's 1999 wedding, where the Snyders all tricked Molly and stuffed her in the closet. I don't recall her ever having a scene with Agim Kaba. I do remember Graham Winton coming back a time or two, but I thought they explained Julie's absence by saying she had cancer.

I thought they both appeared briefly when Aaron debuted, but I may be wrong.

Does anyone else hate what they did to the Dee Stewart character in the late 70s?  When played by Marcia McCabe as a teenager, she was often very humorous sort of like the Katie Parker character on Guiding Light.

Then, probably during the destructive Dobson years, she was suddenly God's gift to men.  Ian died while having sex with her (seriouslly?) and John Dixon and James Stenbeck obsessed over her.   And then there was romance with Brad Hollister and triangle with her sister Annie.   Between Dee and Brad, I don't know which one had a more "wooden" delivery.  

This period was definitely a low point of the series imo.

11 hours ago, TVFAN1144 said:

Does anyone else hate what they did to the Dee Stewart character in the late 70s?  When played by Marcia McCabe as a teenager

I think you mean Marcia McClain, who in turn was replaced by Jacqueline Schultz. In the late 70s, Marcia McCabe was on SFT.

We're there any other daytime soaps that had more than one woman directing episodes during the 1980s? I have noticed that ATWT had Maria Wagner and Jill Mitwell and I wonder if this was rare or common during that time period.