After that story was met with such opposition, I think RC really changed how he wrote stories because he just decided we weren't smart enough to "get it" and that's when he resorted to having characters on the show be the "voice" of the writers. I never noticed characters before "telling" us what we were supposed to think before that.

Like that great comedy moment where he used Jack to laugh at viewers who were annoyed about Dani's age. And now, only a few years later, that retcon has muddled the story so much that Dani has barely been involved in RHTodd's return.

Most of the character histories and motivations are so muddled I can't even tell how I'm supposed to react. Jessica being the primary example. Someone apparently just decided to get her off the screen. Good idea. I'd rather she be dead, but this is second best.

Edited August 14, 201114 yr by CarlD2

Have Blair & Tomas slept together? I don't recall them doing so.

Nope. Blair hasn't had sex in about a year now. Damn.

So the last was Eli? Poor Blair.Not because it's been a year but because he was a lunatic. She never gets to have fun.

Edited August 14, 201114 yr by CarlD2

I know a lot of people hated it (rapemance), based on the concept alone. But I really liked it but then I like psychological thrillers and thought it was clever/intelligent writing. I understand the visceral response people had to the story, but I think it's good that people responded so strongly.

I think so, too, now that we've had time to think about it. Do I believe a romantic relationship between Todd and Marty was the proverbial endgame? Maybe, maybe not. (Didn't RH leave once partly because he was opposed to the idea? Certainly, w/ a different actor portraying who we assumed was still Todd at that point, this might've made the prospect more do-able; and really, given the scenes between Todd and Marty on that rooftop, I, for one, would not have opposed the relationship, per se, but I def believe those scenes and a whole lot more needed to happen before the developing feelings for each other turned physical.) Do I believe the audience ever would have gotten onboard w/ this story? Well, maybe, but not before taking an extra amount of time, caution, and serious character development or evolution to get us there -- qualities that, quite frankly, Ron just doesn't have as a writer. (Contrast that to GL's Roger and Holly, a couple similarly damaged by rape but who, with the thanks of HW's like Nancy Curlee, had actually reached a point where a full-on romantic reconciliation was not entirely out of the question.)

IOW, Ron rushed us toward the sex, then expected us to care about anything that happened afterward, which was just a foolish thing to do. He hadn't earned the trust that he needed from us in order to carry on with whatever other plans he might've had for these two.

After that story was met with such opposition [...] stories became less complex and intricate and it seemed like there was always some character who was explaining everything, all the motivations and consequences, all the time.

No doubt, between the rapemance and the unceremonious end of Kish, I feel like RC has become very jaded and cynical where the audience is concerned. If his stories flop with us, then it's our fault, not his.

Like that great comedy moment where he used Jack to laugh at viewers who were annoyed about Dani's age.

Exactly. Instead of showing genuine concern for our concerns, it's as if Ron just shrugged and said, "Whatevs!" To me, that's showing a lack of respect toward your audience; and I don't care how you really feel about your viewers, but if you have a brain and a thick skin, you'll go out of your way not to make us feel like we're just wasting your time w/ petty stuff!

Exactly. Instead of showing genuine concern for our concerns, it's as if Ron just shrugged and said, "Whatevs!" To me, that's showing a lack of respect toward your audience; and I don't care how you really feel about your viewers, but if you have a brain and a thick skin, you'll go out of your way not to make us feel like we're just wasting your time w/ petty stuff!

I think if you do have contempt for the audience then you should be able to back it up with good writing. Every story Danielle has ever been a part of has been horribly written. She would not exist if not for, I'm guessing, RC's love for Todd/Tea, which now means a shrieking elephant in the room, since nothing about the Todd/Tea RC loves has ever matched who Todd and Tea were when RH was first in the role. The whole thing is like fanfic - but you can just start over in fanfic. You can't on a soap.

IOW, Ron rushed us toward the sex, then expected us to care about anything that happened afterward, which was just a foolish thing to do. He hadn't earned the trust that he needed from us in order to carry on with whatever other plans he might've had for these two.

If any of it had ever been about Marty the story may have had less backlash. Instead she was just this vessel for Todd's redemption.

I think if you do have contempt for the audience then you should be able to back it up with good writing.

To me, though, that's almost a contradiction of terms. How can you write anything of value for people whose opinions you care little or nothing about? Chances are, you'll never understand why we enjoy certain characters, families or relationships, or separate your antipathy from your mandate to keep the audience watching. (And when you do write for them, it'll often look like you're going out of your way to make them look ridiculous. Case in point: the Lechowicks' treatment of Joan Van Ark and her character, Valene Ewing, on KNOTS LANDING.)

If any of it had ever been about Marty the story may have had less backlash. Instead she was just this vessel for Todd's redemption.

True that. Again, there were plenty of issues to explore in that particular storyline, but between the ridiculous average length of scenes (apparently, you need the attention span of a gnat to appreciate OLTL these days!) and Ron's own inability to write anything above the level of a campy, made-for-gay-TV movie, the whole exercise was doomed to fail.

I got a chuckle out of the way RC used Jack/Dani to reference - and poke fun at - people's silly ass bitching over the SORAS and recton. It was his way of saying "it is what it is, and I'm not changing it just because you decided to call bullshit on it." And I pretty much agree with him. Find something else to whine about, seriously. Blair used to be part Asian; with jet dark hair. Are we people seriously going to be nit-picky over how a character was aged a year or so over another character who was there first? Please.

Are we people seriously going to be nit-picky over how a character was aged a year or so over another character who was there first?

Yes.

To me, though, that's almost a contradiction of terms. How can you write anything of value for people whose opinions you care little or nothing about? Chances are, you'll never understand why we enjoy certain characters, families or relationships, or separate your antipathy from your mandate to keep the audience watching. (And when you do write for them, it'll often look like you're going out of your way to make them look ridiculous. Case in point: the Lechowicks' treatment of Joan Van Ark and her character, Valene Ewing, on KNOTS LANDING.)

I guess I was thinking of people like Irna Phillips, who essentially flipped viewers off, more than once, but generally her writing seemed to still keep viewers wanting more (at least until towards the end of her life).

I got a chuckle out of the way RC used Jack/Dani to reference - and poke fun at - people's silly ass bitching over the SORAS and recton. It was his way of saying "it is what it is, and I'm not changing it just because you decided to call bullshit on it." And I pretty much agree with him.

But it ended up interfering with story plans, if that's part of the reason they recast a popular actor (Carmen LaPorto) with the boy who plays Jack now.

I'm pretty sure they cast Andrew Trischitta just so he could sling the slightly smaller and less built Austin Williams around in a couple scenes and be "intimidating." They could've left it at the Internet/taunting stuff and not recast at all.

Frankly, I'm more intimidated by the tyke who plays Sam. :-)

I got a chuckle out of the way RC used Jack/Dani to reference - and poke fun at - people's silly ass bitching over the SORAS and recton. It was his way of saying "it is what it is, and I'm not changing it just because you decided to call bullshit on it." And I pretty much agree with him. Find something else to whine about, seriously. Blair used to be part Asian; with jet dark hair. Are we people seriously going to be nit-picky over how a character was aged a year or so over another character who was there first? Please.

Ha Ha! Excellent post. I agree too. SORAS'ing, recast, etc has been going on since the beginning of soaps. It is exactly what it is. Truth be told, it doesn't really matter how much one nitpicks because if they're still tuning in everyday, the nitpicking is all for naught.

Edited August 14, 201114 yr by MontyB

As far as the Dani/Jack thing, I was expecting RHTodd to make a comment about it like "how are you older than Jack" and then everyone turn and give him a funny look that says 'yeah we know it doesnt make any sense but roll with it okay?'

But it ended up interfering with story plans, if that's part of the reason they recast a popular actor (Carmen LaPorto) with the boy who plays Jack now.

It didnt interfere with any story plans. The only thing it messed up was Dani's age bc she should have been younger than Jack. Making her older had no bearing on recasting Carmen with Andrew. Besides this was a year and a half later and they obviously didnt have the bullying plot in mind back then

Edited August 14, 201114 yr by Cheap21

Frankly, I won't participate in another debate about SORAS'ing in regards to Jack and Danielle. Let's just say, if you give TPTB an inch on anything, they'll take a mile.