Jump to content

As The World Turns Discussion Thread


edgeofnik

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • DRW50

    2969

  • DramatistDreamer

    1958

  • Soapsuds

    1715

  • P.J.

    823

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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 by wonderwoman1951
subject verb agreement matters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Recent Posts

    • It should be in its synopsis on the DVR description of the show.
    • Well, in a way DAYS "Renee Dumonde DiMera Threw a Party & Invited Everyone & Then Told the Whole Town Off" if you see what I mean. She definitely pretended that she was throwing this shindig for a pleasant reason while she KNEW her real intent wasn't pleasant AT ALL. And, everyone in Salem was targeted by her in this way.  I mean it was supposedly a celebration of her engagement. But, that is not what happened! I think it checks off all your boxes. And, before today I would definitely have called it "singular". There was nothing like it. Now, there's something not only similar but possibly .... more far-reaching?  
    • What's with this show constantly encouraging women to take back men who aren't worth a damn, then end up doing it lol. This was realistically a 4-episode week considering all the flashbacks to the showstopper can collectively form a 19-minute episode on its own.  
    • Another episode uploaded. Love Chandler introduction.

      Please register in order to view this content

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Naomi was in Monday's episode, though the client wasn't. Naomi and Jacob were at Uptown with Chelsea, Allison, Derek, and Ashley. And what an amazing episode that was today. Tricia Mann-Grant was absolute perfection as was Ambyr Michelle. I cannot wait to see Dana mix it up with the Duprees, especially Anita. 
    • This is me *pea green with envy* *sigh* The Reva vortex was like an F5 tornado. Widespread mayhem and damage.
    •  Yeah, I guess what easily comes to mind are guests who have taken advantage of a situation to reveal a secret (e.g. the mistress stopping a wedding to say that they're pregnant), or a host who planned an event to reveal things (like John Dixon's plan to humiliate Lisa at their engagement party on ATWT). But, that's a whole other level, where you can manipulate someone to throw a party in order to ruin it.
    • Not the community penis. Providing his service pro bono...I can't with his thirsty a**. Any chance that the OG Ted can come back as his brother back from the dead who died in the plane crash. It would give Andre family, too. 
    • Now that Leslie has had her fun what is she hoping for now? If I were Ted I'd be on the prowl for a hitman. Take her OUT! The new Ted, known for playing vile characters, just might do that.
    • To be clear, I know there have been a gazillion reveals at events on soaps. But these are usually events that would happen anyhow, like a city commemoration or a long-planned wedding. My *specific* question:  Has a character ever orchestrated an event to occur, for a seemingly benevolent reason, but actually for the sole purpose of spilling a reveal at the party, to the surprise of the event planners/hosts. Specifically: an event that the event hosts wouldn't have thought of making happen, and the hosts planned this event -- only due to the seemingly-innocent urging of the outside instigator who is secretly planning the reveal. This is NOT about an event that would have happened anyways. My reason for asking:  April/May 2025, on BeyondTheGates, a couple was NOT planning a wedding anniversary party.  But there was a plot by an instigator to convince the couple to have the party, and the motivation for this was so that the instigator could do a big reveal. The party wouldn't have happened if the instigator hadn't suggested it. I'm wondering if this has ever happened before on a soap, that a big event came into existence due to the plotting of the revealers.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy