As The World Turns Discussion Thread

[KMan101]

 

Oh, the troll said that? Gotcha. 

 

It's ridiculous they keep pulling out the 'youth' card. That 'theory' has gone back to at least the 80s with the soaps and it NEVER worked. Did it?

 

What works is a multi-generational show with layered characters and writing. When I was younger I didn't watch for the teens. I watched for the adults. So many in the industry just 'don't get it'. They're there to push an agenda, follow the status quo and keep the show on a budget. Some care of course. When care is taken, it shows.

 

I would have loved more follow up questions with Goutman. 

 

EDIT: I've been rewatching some Marland ATWT and as I bemoan how useless characters like Beau and Pam are, I realize Marland was brilliant in having younger people to 'check off the box' while cleverly showcasing the veterans. The younger people really didn't 'matter' because the show was happening around them. 

 

Unless I'm giving him too much credit. Just a thought. Writers/producers should take note.

Edited September 27, 2021 by KMan101

[j swift]

 

I agree and disagree on this point.

On the one hand, it would appear the there was a Nielson based research project published in 1974 that suggested that young people should be a target audience because they had less brand loyalty and were therefore more suggestive when it came to advertising.  The immediate result was seen in CBS's historic "rural purge" where they cancelled older skewing shows like Green Acres in favor of the Norman Lear shows like All in the Family.  

However, in the 48 years since that study nobody has ever tried to replicate the finding.  Grocery shopping has changed so much with the advent of big box stores and online shopping, that basing decisions on how people did their marketing in 1974 seems obsolete.  Also, given how few young people today watch linear cable, promotional strategies have shifted to micro-audiences that consume certain types of media.

On the other hand, I think that fans have over exaggerated the misuse of legendary characters.  In fact,  Don Hastings credited Goutman on his achievements in the final episodes in the NY TImes and Kathryn Hays said in EW, "We had been given six months warning, and our executive producer Chris Goutman absolutely insisted that we veterans drive story all the way to the end." So, while I can see that fans of Lisa would be disappointed about her ending, the same was not true of all legendary characters, nor was it the universal belief of the actors. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by j swift

[Craigger]

I had a great messenger conversation with Alan Locher. He's a sweetheart. You don't reach 200 episodes of The Locher Room without having viewers. I support him. And in no way shape or form did anyone on this board affect his questions to Chris Goutman, per Alan. I loved his conversation with Goutman. Very insightful. 

[Paul Raven]

Found the Goutman interview interesting and could appreciate his efforts with ATWT.

Re the vets and younger characters. I remember when Nancy was in scenes with Katie and there was blowback.

I'm sure Goutman felt he was doing the right thing in having Nancy on and involved with a younger character but if Nancy had been involved with a daughter of Frannie or Don's daughter Christina it would have worked better.

The show needed to refocus and simplify. Frannie, Andy, the Ward quads etc would immediately give the vets more opportunity to be involved or if budget didn't allow at least the onscreen characters were linked to them.

 

[Mitch]

I agree..the show was so simple to write and produce..you have a core family (the Hughes) and you have three different families orbiting them...(get it...) Stewarts, Snyders, Walsh..and the people they interact, screw, blackmail and you got a show that writes itself. No desert islands, no stolen jewels, no aging clinics no weird pilots stuck on the island..no horse poisioning...

I thought the backlash with Nancy and Katie was ridiculous and more directed to Katie eating the show then anything else. What, seniors can't interact with non-family members, and actually, Katie is part of the family...being Margo's sister. Nancy had a history or taking under her wing the misquided girls of Oakdale...(all the while acting judgey on everyone else...) so I liked it.

[DramatistDreamer]

Speaking of backlash- 

I posted this in the "Other Topics" forum, but thought I'd post it here too since a few of us have been discussing Procter and Gamble's lack of appreciation and lack of value for their archives, their daytime dramas, in particular. Well, P+G's lack of value placed on their productions extends beyond their entertainment production archive, but to their actual products.

Y'all can argue ball you want about the detritus of the show in it's last few years (everyone is entitled to their opinions) but it can't be argued that P+G is a wasteful corporation that doesn't place much value on the "World", let alone what's on and in it. 

Just ask the descendants of the company's founders who are publicly slamming the corporation for its dereliction of public duty.

 

 

 

 

[Broderick]

Goutman also mentioned going on those "inconsistent remotes" because they couldn't afford to "rent a tree". 

"Dark Shadows" was never BIG-BUDGET, but they had a zillion "trees" in their studio, most of them being branches glued to music stands or something.  Those little kids on Dark Shadows could get lost in the "woods" and wander around all night, without ever leaving the studio.   It didn't look spectacular (obviously) but it set the atmosphere in a somewhat believable manner.  I was hoping Goutman would expand a bit more on the cost of "renting a tree" versus going on a remote, and if they simply didn't have the backstage personnel to figure out how to improvise with the props they already had.   

[Mitch]

To be fair...DS was more "surreal" so the branches worked...and it was always a good laugh to see somone knock over a cardboard tombstone.

I do think it odd..I mean wouldn't cost more to send people out....but I also always wondered why soaps didn't do that even when they had budgets...seeing someone on a fake park bench with an obvious backdrop when you can go on the street to film that.

 

[Broderick]

I suppose it's pretty cheap to send a couple of cast members outside, with a director, a production assistant, a sound person, and a hand-held camera.  But it seems as though it'd be even cheaper (with today's technology) to invest in a couple of fairly realistic trees.  I just had a lot of questions about that segment of the interview; Locher didn't though.  lol.  

[amybrickwallace]

Shocking, huh?

Please register in order to view this content

[victoria foxton]

 

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by victoria foxton

[amybrickwallace]

@victoria foxton - yup!!

[DramatistDreamer]

[Broderick]

Wow!  Just crazy.  Hmmm!  

[MarlandFan]

I appreciate Alan for A.) coming up with the idea of these amazing soap reunions, B.) setting them up, C.) keeping them going. I'm sure it's time-consuming and sometimes stressful. So, thanks to Alan!