I think there was a lot of excitement behind-the-scenes about Peapack!GL, but it didn't translate to the actual content. For as much of a mess as Ellen Wheeler was, she was very enthusiastic about... well... everything. Sometimes to the point of being ridiculous. But she didn't have the producing skills to make it work. So many of the scenes just felt flat or aimless, like there was no energy there.

Look at this mess of a scene between Olivia and Ashlee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz4YmUloaMA#t=0m50s

I'm serious. What the hell is going on there? Why does there not seem to be a point to the scene? Why do they just wander over to the craft service table at the end? It's SO weird.

LMAO! That was so random. And I swear I thought there was snow on the ground and trees when Alan and Inez first sat down. I was sitting here commending them on their teeth not chattering.

"Do you want a ride?" "Sure." "Where are you going?" "I have no idea." "Oh, okay." And then they just wander out of the scene.

How the hell did that get on television?!

Honestly, he has a point. Look at the Two and a Half men thread on this board. It had 2 pages of post and is now up to 10 pages discussing Charlie Sheen's latest antics.

Most of that died off after a few days. That's one of the problems with a lot of today's pseudo-celebrities, is they are too busy trying to shock and people learn the tricks very quickly and move on.

The stories got better, but by that point, it was too late.

And at this point, I'll take The City's razzle dazzle anyday over what passes for soap opera on the remaining six.

I think the razzle dazzle worked when the actors had the charisma, but other times, especially early on with stories like Azure or some of the early stuff, it just came across to me as people doing poses in brightly lit shakycam. They managed to make a very interesting idea look kind of ordinary by not knowing how to use it.

They spent about five or ten episodes of 2007 doing "test" shows for this new style of shooting(one I remember was Reva/Lizzie in the Ramada, or as Vee affectionally calls it "daytime's first snuff film")

I must protest. That was no Ramada Inn I'm familiar with. I think they killed the Black Dahlia in that room.

GL's final years in Peapack were beyond embarrassing. I'm all for new types of filming, new modes of visualization, and I champion the faux-exteriors on Eastenders but there is absolutely no justification for what GL was putting out. For God's sake, it was clearly the producer's office doubling for both Reva's house and a church. And it looked like an office. My summer camp film productions at age 8 had slightly better production values than GL.

I've wondered sometimes if a low-budget soap should just go back to what Dark Shadows used to do and mostly film outdoor scenes without dialogue or sound. This way more money could be spent on indoor sets and you could still have some pretty pictures. Several of today's soaps would be better without the actors speaking anyway.

Ooookay.

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie I think are the two that could have fit into old Hollywood. They don't even need to make movies, they just live their glamorous perfect lives and their fame still towers over most of the others. They never take a wrong step, and when they get involved in scandal it all reminds one of Elizabeth Taylor stealing Debbie Reynolds' husband.

Have you been following them? There is plenty of insane in that relationship.

I've wondered sometimes if a low-budget soap should just go back to what Dark Shadows used to do and mostly film outdoor scenes without dialogue or sound. This way more money could be spent on indoor sets and you could still have some pretty pictures. Several of today's soaps would be better without the actors speaking anyway.

Sure they could except no one would watch it. I could also do a "low-budget soap" starring my cat and the birds in my front yard and upload it to YouTube.

There's no way to make a soap more cost-effective than a reality show. All you need for a reality show is a couple of cameras, some booze and drugs and a bunch of people with untreated mental illness. On soaps you have all that but you have to make a show in spite of it.

"Do you want a ride?" "Sure." "Where are you going?" "I have no idea." "Oh, okay." And then they just wander out of the scene.

Sure they could except no one would watch it. I could also do a "low-budget soap" starring my cat and the birds in my front yard and upload it to YouTube.

There's no way to make a soap more cost-effective than a reality show. All you need for a reality show is a couple of cameras, some booze and drugs and a bunch of people with untreated mental illness. On soaps you have all that but you have to make a show in spite of it.

I think that you could make a low-cost soap with decent actors at a relatively short length and be close to what a reality show might cost. There's also more potential to make money on a decent soap that can catch viewer attention, on licensing and merchandising. In the long run I think this pays off more than one of the original Facts of Life girls going on VH1 to cure Chapstick addiction, or whatever.

I really think that a cheaply made but decent quality show would get viewers. Not the level of viewers soaps once got, but as much, perhaps more, than most soaps get now. There are so many viewers who gave up and would probably come back if they were given a chance.

Edited March 7, 201114 yr by CarlD2

Ooookay.

I guess we just kind of reiterated what you said in your original post about jumping the gun and being incapable of embracing change.

I think that you could make a low-cost soap with decent actors at a relatively short length and be close to what a reality show might cost. There's also more potential to make money on a decent soap that can catch viewer attention, on licensing and merchandising. In the long run I think this pays off more than one of the original Facts of Life girls going on VH1 to cure Chapstick addiction, or whatever.

I really think that a cheaply made but decent quality show would get viewers. Not the level of viewers soaps once got, but as much, perhaps more, than most soaps get now. There are so many viewers who gave up and would probably come back if they were given a chance.

Spyder Games, in the weeks leading up to 9/11 got a 1.9 Household Average. For a cable series of any kind, even in 2001, those are fairly decent numbers.

Edited March 7, 201114 yr by bellcurve

Right - thanks for bringing that up. I wish MTV could try a new soap/serial of that type. I can't believe that would have done any worse than Skins turned out to do.

In the long run I think this pays off more than one of the original Facts of Life girls going on VH1 to cure Chapstick addiction, or whatever.

How sad that I want to see that!

"Tootie, girl, it's about your lips..."

"DON'T CALL ME -- ! Wait, what about my lips?"

"You're putting too damn much Chapstick on 'em, that's what!"

"But what if they crack?"

"In July?!"