Jump to content

As The World Turns Discussion Thread


edgeofnik

Recommended Posts

  • 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

  • Replies 12.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • P.J.

    668

  • Soapsuds

    1228

  • DRW50

    2478

  • DramatistDreamer

    1560

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • 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
4 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

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.

 

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
2 hours ago, Mitch said:

I agree..the show was so simple to write and produce.. No desert islands, no stolen jewels, no aging clinics no weird pilots stuck on the island..no horse poisioning...

 

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
1 hour ago, Broderick said:

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.   

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
6 minutes ago, Mitch said:

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.

 

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

  • Members
3 hours ago, MarlandFan said:

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!

Exactly. He's done 200 episodes. That's crazy! lol Alan's a great guy. Folks on here rag on him endlessly but yet they still watch his shows. Huge kudos to my friend Alan for keeping his Locher Room going. Here's to 200 more!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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