Jump to content

As The World Turns Discussion Thread


edgeofnik

Recommended Posts

  • Members

 

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 by KMan101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • DRW50

    2974

  • DramatistDreamer

    1958

  • Soapsuds

    1718

  • P.J.

    823

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

 

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 by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.  

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

    • This is the perfect way to encapsulate the situation. So many morally-reprehensible stories were foisted on the show and its characters in ATWT's dwindling years. Rape should never be used as a cheap plot device or in a way that degrades the victim. Jack's sexual assault was another heinous example of how nasty the the show's tone had become. The fact that people like Hogan Sheffer, Ron Carlivati, Jean Passanante, Charles Pratt, Dena Higley, etc., somehow end up winning awards for their material, decimates the credibility and integrity of the awards, IMHO. Soaps used to have a solid moral core and did not originally wallow in the gutter, rolling around in filth and depravity just to be cool, hip, campy, or whatever else modern-day PTB aim for. Thank you. Cruelty, degradation and misogyny are not components which lend themselves to successful soaps, which have always been predicated on warmth, family bonds, and providing a comforting haven for their audience. The genre has been crippled because the cynical and ignorant executives in charge understand neither the shows nor what the audience wants to see.
    • Beverlee was on a whole other level from Kim. It's not like they were in competition with each other. I get the feeling that Kim had a slight problem with the super-professional, serious cast members who just wanted everyone to be prepared and do the work, as she seems to like having fun on set. (She's made a few cracks about Chris Bernau being like that). Bev was definitely one of those. But they didn't work together that much. Yeah, they made her manic and also much weaker. She always had a vulnerability, but wanting to kill herself over that guy? No way. Not only that, he didn't leave her! She insisted he marry Maeve. When they did the tribute to Bert/Charita, the compilation of scenes with her showed how much the cast had been almost totally turned over in a relatively short period of time. Nearly every shot was of her by herself because most people she had worked with had been fired, left or been replaced. I assume they couldn't show her with people who hadn't been replaced, like Don Stewart, Elvera Roussel, or Robert Newman because they would have had to pay them for using their clips. It's dreadful to watch. Like she had no connection to the current show.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • A little too much focus on Chad and Cat today but I enjoyed the episode. I have a feeling that Jennifer’s gonna get dumped on though, even though I think that her anger is completely understandable and justified. And honestly, Ron is finally gone; Abigail can come back now.  But, welcome back, Anna! It was nice seeing Carrie have scenes with her mother. Christie Clark and Leann Hunley have never really had that many scenes together and to see them have them now is really nice. I’m glad that both of them were there to comfort Marlena too. Their words were definitely the thing that Marlena needed to hear. Btw, with all this talk of Noah, does it mean that he’s gonna be introduced soon? Amy, revealing that John changed her flat tire many years ago seemed a little random though. I would rather she have said something about how everybody in Salem knows of John Black because of how he was always such a hero. But at the same time, her story also showed what a great guy John was.  I liked Kate’s scenes with Philip too, and her promise to get back at Xander for what he did. And since we didn’t see JPL in the bed, did he need some time off or something? And yeah, everything involving ‘One Stormy Night’ still seems very Ron-like to me.
    • The second photo featuring the late John Spencer is from the Law & Order episode, "Prescription For Death", which was the (second) pilot/first episode all the way back in 1990! He played the father of a daughter that had gone to the ER for a mere sore throat but ended up dead because the doctor on call was drunk and had given her medication that she had an adverse reaction to, after receiving some other medication. So, he will always have that great distinction in addition to The West Wing. (The first pilot, "Everybody's Favorite Bagman", was filmed in 1988! The show was offered to CBS, but they passed. In syndication, it is oddly placed as the sixth episode of Season 1. And Roy Thinnes played DA Alfred Wentworth there. When NBC picked up the show two years later, Thinnes declined to return, and that's how we got Steven Hill's DA Adam Schiff.)
    • exactly. I can understand schadenfreude if it were real, but a lot of this is just an engineered distraction.
    • Days of our Lives S60E204 – Thursday, June 5, 2025 Okay, today’s episode was kind of boring. It was nice seeing Jack and Jen back, but they wasted an entire episode on Jen chatting with Julie - one scene would’ve been enough. Also, why didn’t Jack and Jen go comfort Marlena? And wouldn’t a flashback with Jack, Jen, and John have been great? Maybe something from the Cruise of Deception era? Bottom line - it feels like once John’s memorial is over and the returning fan favorites leave Salem… the show’s going to be dull again.
    • Everything with Elon and Trump is a stunt. If people, and the sycophantic press, are talking about their "feud," they are not talking about Republican plans to gut Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA. 
    • I can't fully remember, but I don't think they tried to get Beth Chamberlin back. I think Laibson/McTavish likely saw Beth as old news and wanted to move Philip on; either that or have her return only when Philip was closely tied to a new woman. Thanks as always for these recaps. I think I had stopped watching around this time and mostly kept up by reading in the soap magazines. Bridget's degradation was horrible to watch, as the character had grown so much over the years and was clearly regressed just to be a foil for a "hot" couple viewers had zero investment in. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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