11 hours ago, All My Shadows said:

And this was a part of the bigger problem - the show did not tell many long-term stories in its last five years. No slow build-ups, no very deliberate attempts to touch on every possible emotion attached to an event, no satisfying climax (whew, calm down), no lengthy period to pick up the pieces afterward, none of that. It was an endless cycle of cartoon villains who came in and terrorized the town for a month or two before heading out and relationships that happened because...they just happened. Part of what made it frustrating for me was that this was a soap that was known, more than any of the others, for being so slow-moving, so deliberate, so life-like in how things developed.

You’re right. That seemed to be the biggest flaw in ATWT’s final years. Storylines lasted only like a month and there was practically no buildup, no aftermath, no segue into another story, etc. Soaps aren’t supposed to be like that, for the most part.  

 

Look at when Bob and Kim got sick. Bob had a mass on his brain and needed surgery and Kim got so upset about it, she had a heart attack. They made the one joke about “his and her hospital rooms” and then the next time you saw them, they were both perfectly fine as though nothing had happened. 

9 hours ago, BetterForgotten said:

I think people have generally been very fair with their analysis of the soaps and their characters on this board. No one would be putting much thought into a show if they didn't love it or really loved what it once stood for. Perhaps because we love these shows so much is why we critique them. This is a message board after all, and that means everyone who contributes will add their POV into the mix. 

 

How boring would this and other threads be if we were a bunch of pollyannas who thought everything the show did was excellent and excusable?  Critiquing a show doesn't equate to not loving it, I've never understood how some could jump to that conclusion. 

 

Exactly.  I could mention at least one site that has those characteristics that you speak of, but I won't, lol.😬🤐

The echo chambers and lack of critical analysis, out of fear that any critique would somehow land the show in cancellation was far more of a problem, imo.  The exec-producers were never challenged to improve or adapt and the show stagnated itself into cancellation anyway.

33 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:

You’re right. That seemed to be the biggest flaw in ATWT’s final years. Storylines lasted only like a month and there was practically no buildup, no aftermath, no segue into another story, etc. Soaps aren’t supposed to be like that, for the most part.  

 

Look at when Bob and Kim got sick. Bob had a mass on his brain and needed surgery and Kim got so upset about it, she had a heart attack. They made the one joke about “his and her hospital rooms” and then the next time you saw them, they were both perfectly fine as though nothing had happened. 

 

It's likely because the storylines weren't planned beyond a few weeks. 

One salient point that I have gleaned from these Locher Room livestreams with the actors is that Marland, in particular had storyline projections for at least a year or more. He had it physically mapped out, but wasn't rigid about being able to make adjustments as he saw things unfold.

One thing that I learned early on is that the more specific you are in your outlines, the more freedom you have in your capability to adjust for the unforeseen because you've taken the time to build a stronger story foundation in which to lay everything out.

27 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

It's likely because the storylines weren't planned beyond a few weeks. 

One salient point that I have gleaned from these Locher Room livestreams with the actors is that Marland, in particular had storyline projections for at least a year or more. He had it physically mapped out, but wasn't rigid about being able to make adjustments as he saw things unfold.

One thing that I learned early on is that the more specific you are in your outlines, the more freedom you have in your capability to adjust for the unforeseen because you've taken the time to build a stronger story foundation in which to lay everything out.

 

When announcing MADD taking over the P&G soaps, I think it was Michael Logan who pointed out, aghast, that ATWT no longer had a long-term story plan. I have wondered if they ever did again. It sure didn't feel like it.

1 minute ago, DRW50 said:

 

When announcing MADD taking over the P&G soaps, I think it was Michael Logan who pointed out, aghast, that ATWT no longer had a long-term story plan. I have wondered if they ever did again. It sure didn't feel like it.

 

Speaking as someone who writes and has tried to do without outlines, I can tell you that it is likely that ATWT dispensed with any degree of detail in story plans. If they did, it was likely a thumbnail sketch, compared to what Marland did.  The stories in the wake of MADD and beyond had all the hallmarks of stories written without much of a plan, certainly not a well-thought out one.  It showed so much.

25 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

When announcing MADD taking over the P&G soaps, I think it was Michael Logan who pointed out, aghast, that ATWT no longer had a long-term story plan. I have wondered if they ever did again. It sure didn't feel like it.

 

As early as MADD? That's nuts. Wasn't that the '90s? 

I know Frank Valentini was livid at OLTL when Dena Higley never had a long term bible, just a pitch line or two (Jessica has DID, etc).

I remember back in 1998 when Lorraine Broderick was hired that she had a 6 month story projection that got her the job..but that once she was hired..all her ideas were rejected and she tried to make their edicts work as best as she could.  Her stint was one of the last times Lisa had any sort of story, etc.

 

 

1 hour ago, Soaplovers said:

I remember back in 1998 when Lorraine Broderick was hired that she had a 6 month story projection that got her the job..but that once she was hired..all her ideas were rejected and she tried to make their edicts work as best as she could.  Her stint was one of the last times Lisa had any sort of story, etc.

 

 

Yes, Eileen Fulton herself mentioned that P&G rejected most of Broderick’s ideas. Not sure how she was in the loop of all that though.

Edited August 10, 20205 yr by BetterForgotten

I remember FMB or LB saying in 1999 that they would come up with long arcs for characters like Bob, Kim, and Lisa but could never get them approved after  Kim’s heart story (even though that got them their highest ratings in years).

 

How much of a lack of a long term plan resulted from HW ideas being rejected or cut short? HS had a long term story in place for Lily/Holden/Molly/Dusty and it was supposed to go for a year or so after Rose’s death, but then CBS pumped the brakes. Mid-2004 when HS really went off the rails in terms of planning.

 

HS’s early stories also had clear trajectories with the ways he mapped out the disintegration of Hal and Barbara’s marriage and everything that spun off from it. 

 

I want to think that JP had a yearlong bible when she first began as solo HW in 2005. That yesr and into summer 2006 were quite good. By 2007, it was obvious that CG and/or the network had assumed near total control and budget issues could not be hidden.

2 hours ago, Vee said:

 

As early as MADD? That's nuts. Wasn't that the '90s? 

I know Frank Valentini was livid at OLTL when Dena Higley never had a long term bible, just a pitch line or two (Jessica has DID, etc).

 

Yes. And this was his commenting on the situation upon her arrival so that would be 1996, the Black and Stern year. 

 

1 hour ago, Soaplovers said:

I remember back in 1998 when Lorraine Broderick was hired that she had a 6 month story projection that got her the job..but that once she was hired..all her ideas were rejected and she tried to make their edicts work as best as she could.  Her stint was one of the last times Lisa had any sort of story, etc.

 

I never have understood why they even hired her if they didn't want to use her talents. I guess FMB and MADD loyalty. 

 

P&G and CBS were so incompetent and incoherent. The whole thing makes me mad all over again because ATWT should still be on the air today. 

Edited August 10, 20205 yr by DRW50

3 hours ago, AbcNbc247 said:

Look at when Bob and Kim got sick. Bob had a mass on his brain and needed surgery and Kim got so upset about it, she had a heart attack. They made the one joke about “his and her hospital rooms” and then the next time you saw them, they were both perfectly fine as though nothing had happened. 

Yes! That crossed my mind. I shudder to even call it a "story" because it just wasn't. Everything was just a mini-story, and the result was that sometimes you got some really, really good single episodes (Bob and Kim's anniversary drama, for example), but never a really, really good full story.

29 minutes ago, EllenP said:

HS had a long term story in place for Lily/Holden/Molly/Dusty and it was supposed to go for a year or so after Rose’s death, but then CBS pumped the brakes. Mid-2004 when HS really went off the rails in terms of planning.

 

Does anyone know why they decided to kill off Rose in the first place? If they needed to axe one of Martha Byrne's characters, then I think Lily would have been the more logical choice. They clearly struggled to write for Lily, and she came off as a mopey bore for most of her final decade on the show. Rose was a much more exciting, dynamic character, and it always looked like Martha had fun playing her.

 

Also, can you just imagine the storyline possibilities if someone tried killing Rose but ended up killing Lily by mistake? You could get years of story just out of Lucinda not forgiving Rose for Lily's death. 

But alas if you killed Lily off..where would that leave Holden?  Holden could have gotten a new lease on life had that happened

I thought killing Rose was bold because she was so fun and vibrant. It rocked the show. Did I think all of the story at the time was very good - no. Some was, some sucked. The Paul/Rose wedding stuff was a ripoff of Todd and Blair's equally dumb "hell no" wedding at OLTL with Roger Howarth, who should never have replaced Scott Holroyd. But did the bold choice outweigh the losses with her gone - I don't know.

Edited August 10, 20205 yr by Vee

4 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

It's likely because the storylines weren't planned beyond a few weeks. 

One salient point that I have gleaned from these Locher Room livestreams with the actors is that Marland, in particular had storyline projections for at least a year or more. He had it physically mapped out, but wasn't rigid about being able to make adjustments as he saw things unfold.

IMO, that's the way it should be done. Marland was a genius. If I was a professional soap writer, I would do the same thing. Jean didn't do that, or Goutman (or P&G) didn't allow that and it ruined the show.

1 hour ago, DRW50 said:

P&G and CBS were so incompetent and incoherent. The whole thing makes me mad all over again because ATWT should still be on the air today. 

Same could be said for AW and GL. I still find what P&G did unbelievable. Clearly they didn't want to be in the soap business anymore, but why they chose to wreck their shows to get them cancelled rather than just sell them, I will never understand

2 hours ago, AbcNbc247 said:

IMO, that's the way it should be done. Marland was a genius. If I was a professional soap writer, I would do the same thing. Jean didn't do that, or Goutman (or P&G) didn't allow that and it ruined the show.

Same could be said for AW and GL. I still find what P&G did unbelievable. Clearly they didn't want to be in the soap business anymore, but why they chose to wreck their shows to get them cancelled rather than just sell them, I will never understand

 

Reminds me of the premise behind the musical The Producers. People think the idea of purposely setting out to destroy something is farce but P&G prove the concept it is very real.

3 hours ago, prefab1 said:

 

Does anyone know why they decided to kill off Rose in the first place? If they needed to axe one of Martha Byrne's characters, then I think Lily would have been the more logical choice. They clearly struggled to write for Lily, and she came off as a mopey bore for most of her final decade on the show. Rose was a much more exciting, dynamic character, and it always looked like Martha had fun playing her.

 

Lily's a "lifer".  They were never going to kill off a character that has been on the show since 1984. I know most people tend to think of Martha as Lily but the character predates Byrne and obviously had as much longevity as Lucinda.  The fact that three actresses have played the character speaks to the enduring quality of the character, at least in the minds of the production staff and execs, regardless of what any of us may think.

Personally, I just didn't see Rose ever having that type of longevity, since imo, the character was written as overly-broad.