Jump a little ahead to 2004 and we get this piece from Smith:

All About Hogan

written by Tom Smith, April 5, 2004

This week I’ll be examining recent quotes by ATWT Head Writer Hogan Sheffer on his plans for the show, and how those plans have been translated on-screen.

SHEFFER’S SPEED ZONE

In an interview with Carolyn Hinsey that appeared in the 12/26/03 New York Daily News, "As the World Turns" Head Writer Hogan Sheffer announced: “We threw out all the rules. We're telling stories forward and backward. We're using flashbacks. You will see an Act I where Paul will be in three different places in a row. We won't wait for another act to take him someplace new."

HOGAN SHEFFER IN 2001

In an interview with Carolyn Hinsey that appeared in the 12/26/03 New York Daily News, "As the World Turns" Head Writer Hogan Sheffer announced: “We threw out all the rules. We're telling stories forward and backward. We're using flashbacks. You will see an Act I where Paul will be in three different places in a row. We won't wait for another act to take him someplace new."

Why? Sheffer says: "Six acts broken down into a certain number of pages, it's all linear. I want people to say, 'Yeah, I'd watch the show if it weren't six boring scenes in a row of two people sitting in a pizza place talking About exactly the same thing they talked About for six scenes in a barbershop yesterday.'"

The generally slow pace of daytime is a love it/hate it type of thing. Some people think it’s a marvelous opportunity to wallow in human emotion and personal psychology; others think it ruins stories by having people endlessly talk About things that aren’t central to the plot, and just wastes time. Both perceptions, of course, are true, depending on the storyline and who is doing the writing. Most American soap producers are trying to fill forty minutes a day (I’m subtracting commercials, of course), five days a week; the shows can’t afford to move at the speed of primetime. They’d never be able to create enough story to keep up daytime pace on a primetime schedule. So, a certain amount of stalling is necessary.

Sheffer, however, is engaging in a tactic that creates the illusion of speed, without really giving it to us. In the “new” ATWT, a block of scenes might go like this:

Aaron and Curtis meet with Allison at the diner. They tell her that they need her help to catch Clark the drug-dropping rapist. Allison agrees to put on her finest hootchie wear, and arrange to bump into Clark at the bar, hopefully getting Clark interested enough to drug her drink, which Curtis will capture on a secret video camera aimed at the barstool.

(Look, I’m not arguing plot this month.)

In the VERY NEXT SCENE, Allison is preparing to leave the house, in full hootchie gear, when she’s spotted by Kim. Allison says she’s off to meet friends, and bluffs her way out of the house, while Kim looks suitably appalled. (God bless you, Kathryn Hays.)

In the VERY NEXT SCENE, Allison has now arrived at the bar, and begins hootching up to Clark, who just saw his girlfriend walk out on him because she doesn’t want to be victim no. 3.

All of these scenes put together might go four or five minutes. And there’ll still be scenes dealing with other storylines before the commercial break.

Wow! It sounds like ATWT moves pretty fast, doesn’t it? Not really. The speed treatment is only utilized once or twice a week, and even then, it’s only applied to one of the day’s featured storylines. So, a segment can feature Lily and Holden arguing in their living room, cut to Craig and Lucy arguing in their living room, and end with Paul inviting Carly into his hotel room, and telling her he has an interesting business proposition for her. The next segment will open up with the aforementioned Allison whirlwind tour, then cut to--Lily and Holden still arguing , Craig and Lucy still arguing, and Carly saying, “For god’s sake, Paul, tell me what your business proposal is before I explode!” While Allison is doing Oakdale, nobody else on the show moves, which does nothing but rip holes in the viewer’s little time/space continuum.

In a way, Sheffer and his crew are following in the footsteps of Gloria Monty, who revolutionized daytime with, among other things of course, introducing prime-time editing techniques to General Hospital. Monty changed the pattern from having one long scene followed by another long scene, into having each act consist of three or four short scenes. But, this only created the illusion of movement. Often, the shows are just splitting the long scenes over several acts. What the audience learned was not that “Wow, daytime moves really fast now”, but, “Wow, I never know when they’re going to cut back to my favorite characters, so I better stay tuned.”

ATWT’s innovation, doesn’t work, because it’s obviously artificial. They spend a few minutes trying to make you think things are moving fast, but the rest of the show proves they’re not. If ATWT really wants to quicken the pace, without burning themselves out, perhaps they should take noted from popular BBC soap "EastEnders". A typical episode of EE focuses on two or three plotlines, and uses short scenes to get the point across. The characters are also constantly on the move--from their jobs to their homes to their friends homes’ to the local pub, etc, etc. Now the characters may be discussing the same things as they move from place to place, but the show has that feeling of movement, that ATWT apparently wants, but isn’t getting across.

More baffling is Sheffer’s trumpeting that he’s using flashbacks. Does he think that’s new? Whether it’s showing stuff the audience saw firsthand (like Craig putting on his idiot disguised voice to lure Paul to the mausoleum, which it felt like they showed every day, six times a day, for three months) or having characters remember events the audience didn’t know about, flashbacks have been a time-honored time waster for years. I mean, if you edited out all the flashbacks from the past ten years of DAYS, you’d have About twelve hours of footage.

SHEFFER BARES ALL

As for Sheffer, when he says he wants you to see more in an hour of ATWT, he’s not just talking About the number of scenes. From the 12/26/03 article: “Daytime needs more sex. And nudity.” To that end, a recent episode of ATWT featured a shot of Mike’s rear through the fog of a shower. Kind of makes CBS’ outrage over Janet Jackson’s breast seem suspect, doesn’t it?

So, a male rear-end gets shown. Did the World come to an end? No. (Well, I guess it depends on what kind of end.) But, let’s look at where we are. In a time where viewers consistently talk About inferior, lazy writing and lack of romance, what do we have? We have half the men on NBC daytime running around shirtless, and the drama of watching the women on Y&R keep their cleavage in their clothes. (Which is often as interesting as Y&R itself.) Now ATWT’s Head Writer is proclaiming we need more sex and nudity on daytime. Why? Because soaps have to keep up with primetime, movies, cable, the internet, certain magazines, etc?

Soaps already use their share of poorly constructed and embarrassingly acted sex scenes as a crutch to fill airtime. If they’re allowed to go further with sexual situations, it won’t be for realism or to illuminate the human condition--it will belong totally to the realm of stunts and plot devices. “Move over, serial killers and baby switches--here comes genitalia!” Look at how much mileage AMC got from the lesbian kiss. What will they do if there are no more taboos?

FORMER AMC VIEWER: Anything good coming up on AMC this week?

CURRENT AMC VIEWER: No, but I can tell you what’s coming off--Ryan’s undies!

FORMER AMC VIEWER: What?

CURRENT AMC VIEWER: I said full frontal Ryan this week!

FORMER AMC VIEWER: Um--yeah. I-I actually was asking if there was anything good coming up this week story wise.

CURRENT AMC VIEWER: Who wise?

FORMER AMC VIEWER: Story wise?

CURRENT AMC VIEWER: Huh? Who did what to who now?

FORMER AMC VIEWER: Never mind.

CURRENT AMC VIEWER: Okay. Yeah. Yeah, Greenlee, rip it off him!

Well, at least my way, AMC empowers women. The truth is that soaps are never going to go very far in the sexual area, because the risk of offending viewers is too great. Meanwhile, the ever-elusive younger demo can get their dose of media sex from a variety of different places without having to settle for a foggy butt, a breast, or a vocal orgasm. Does Sheffer, the network execs., et all, think viewers are going to sit through months and years of watching a couple fight the odds, just to see an occasional few minutes of hardcore?

SHEFFER SENDS IN THE VETS

Sheffer isn’t completely obsessed with breaking new ground however. Earlier this year, Sheffer told Soap Opera Weekly: “You’re going to see a resurgence of the veterans after the first of the year. Kim and bob are going to be very embroiled in the Chris/Allison story. Lucinda is going to be very involved with Lily’s transformation after Rose’s death and with Lucy’s continuing problems.”

Not only have both these things come to pass, but even the Lisa embargo seems to have been lifted--she actually gets lines now. The most inspired use of veterans however, has clearly been the interaction of Kim and Susan as their children’s bizarre romance has opened up old wounds between the two ladies, who trade verbal barbs in grand fashion. The troubled Kim leans on her mother-in-law for advice, which allows us to see more of the great Nancy Hughes. With many of Nancy’s contemporaries perpetually off-camera in their bedrooms or choked to death on their own doughnuts, it’s nice to see a show that will still take same time to let an older lady get comfort and advice from an even older lady. The storyline does seem lacking in airtime for Bob. But, if current events had my wife and former mistress at each other’s throats again, I’d probably lay low myself.

Lucinda is definitely being used in more scenes, but it’s not as effective. While Bob, et al, lend themselves to the quieter pace of worrying About their kids, Lucinda is larger than life, and begs for attention every time she’s on. Telling Lily to get over Rose, and Lucy that her father’s not so bad is way too boring to be the only thing Lucinda is involved in these days. Instead of holding Lucy’s hand, shouldn’t Lucinda be seeking sweet, sweet revenge against Craig for his poisoning scheme? Sheffer should at least recall that story.

In Smith's Best and Worst of 2004:

MOST DISAPPOINTING: As the World Turns

The roller-coaster ride that is Hogan Sheffer's Oakdale started 2004 on a high note, with the shocking "Who Killed Rose?" mystery. Even more surprising was the identity of the culprit. It actually made sense, and didn't feel like it was tacked on as a result of bad contract negotiations. What a story!

Unfortunately, it was all downhill from there. The show became all about the fight to keep Baby Cabot, a plotline that wasn't very intriguing when it started in 2003. For some reason which I'm sure sounded good on paper, Cabot turned out to be the son of newly arrived Jordan Sinclair, who turned out to be the son of (overused, crutch-character) James Stenbeck. Which was more painful? Watching James' 972, 634'th Machiveillian manipulation or the poor, plot-driven romance between Jordan and Jen? The plot culminated with James dressing like a clown, holding Rosanna and Cabot at knifepoint in a sewer, (Nothing the female demographic likes more than watching a mother and her screaming baby held at knifepoint), and taking them to a cabin. From there, James forced Paul to choose between saving Rosanna, whom we saw tied up in a room, begging Paul to save Cabot, and Cabot (whom we never saw at all.) Paul chose Rosanna, and before he could go back in for Cabot, the cabin blew up. Paul's choice would have made sense if he knew what was blindingly obvious to the rest of us: Cabot wasn't in the cabin. Amazingly, Paul didn't seem to know this, which meant that he chose to save a grown woman over a baby, which kind of didn't make any sense. Rosanna broke up with Paul, had grief sex with Jordan, Jordan broke up with Jen, and Rosanna got back together with Paul, and none of it was convincing or very interesting.

Meanwhile, a nod to the vets was tossed, when Chris and Allison decided to get married, which provided many comical opportunities for old rivals Kim and Susan to interact. Thank God, because their interchanges were much better than the main story of Chris suddenly having the hots for Emily all over again. The story quickly disintegrated, and, unfortunately, did the vet focus.

Jack got amnesia, I think I've thrown enough stones at that one already. Lily coped with the loss of Rose and the subsequent release of her killer. This could have been a great vehicle for a lot of characters, but the inability to decide what to do with Will (a truly sane, repentant person or a crazy chip off Psycho Barb's shoulder?) and the insistence of focusing on "poor" Holden and how inconvenient Lily's emotional trauma is for him torpedoed any chance at a decent story.

Then there was Doc Reese. The less said, the better.

And we were put through the incredibly creaky device of Barbara's brain tumor and subsequent recovery,only to watch her come out of it more nuts than ever. Forget putting her in a cell, she'd be under the jail by now. Not that Barbara was the only one in Oakdale getting away with dastardly deeds.

Craig's obsession with daughter Lucy, which, for my money, is infinitely more disturbing than anything on Guiding Light right now, contributed to an endless string of Lucy in Peril scenarios, each more tedious than the last.

As I said, Hogan Sheffer has had his highs and lows. As the World Turns has been in worse creative jams. But considering the promise that 2004 held, the World has been a mighty disappointing place to visit lately.

Just curious do people consider Smith an unbiased journalist? THanks for posting these columns they have been interesting and it seems the fascination with Sheffer started to plummet around 2002.

I'm convinced all the "little nuiances" Sheffer got praised for in his first year (tarnishing heroes' halos and the like) were details Culliton took care of. Once she left, Goutman/Sheffer enacted their "primetime jump-cut" storytelling, and the infrastructure started crumbling.

Ugh...I can't believe someone praised the "Will killed Rose" reveal.

I have a tough time believing no one complained about Craig. If I was writing letters, I would have complained, because even as someone who had only seen Craig in Bryce's later years (90-95, off and on) I was appalled immediately about what Block was doing with the role.

Scott Holroyd was so great that they backburnered him for months and months, fired him, and replaced him with an ABC name who then alternately fell asleep and woke up screaming over the next 7 years.

I don't think Sheffer had any use for Holroyd, who deserved better material. As they all did.

By the way...who is Tom Smith? What site did he commentate for?

And then he killed Bryant to give Hunt Block some shameless Emmy-grab scenes.

I believe MADD is the one who gave the directive to kill Bryant. It was a huge mistake though.

Hogan was a missed bag at ATWT. I remember quite a few fans enjoying his first year or two. He was new to the job and did have some fresh ideas; unfortunatly, he quickly ran out of ideas and just recycled from that point on. There was ATWT cancellation talk back as far as 1999, and Hogan did buy the show more time as well as bring the soap into the 21 century. Kim's heart attack (Jennifer's ghost) and John dumps Lisa were painful and basically sum up the tone of the work between Marland's final year and Hogan. WORLD made a huge mistake using 1970s stars far too long, and even Marland was guilty of this--it was clear that these characters would never lift the show up into the number one slotand that fresh blood was painfully needed. It is like like Y&R still using circa 1990 characters today after a major ratings implosion.

Like it or not, our culture as well as soaps have changed; however, ATWT kept that 'The Walton's' feel for far too long. I respect GL for shaking the show up over the years and think these changed helped demos at certain points. Even Bill Bell let the 1970s go, and allowed his show to evolve. Marland did beautiful work but even some of his characters and stories were corny. Hogan should be remembered as the writer who got ATWT out of a 10 year slump, and then dropped the ball. Goutman did far more harm than Hogan. I'm not even sure if we can blame him for the entire Y&R mess considering we have MAB and SH in the mix. It is pretty hard to direct blame with so many players.

Why did everyone hate Hunt Block as Craig? I realize the character radically changed but this is common for soap. Block is a solid actor not to mention handsome. I think Hogan's 'anti-hero' talk did a lot of harm when it came to fan reaction.

Edited September 13, 201114 yr by Saving ATWT

Hogan credited Passanante with the idea. I agree Rotondi was a trainwreck, but I really wish they'd have tried at least one recast. I thought there was a lot of story potential in Craig vs. Bryant.

I meant to say this earlier, but Tom Smith was so very, very right that Lucinda was too big of a character to have scenes about advising people on their problems. It never worked. I don't know who in that last year of ATWT decided to suddenly revert Lucinda back to her control freak, obsessive, destructive-yet-loving mode, but it really showed - better late than never! - just how damn important and unique Lucinda was to ATWT when given the opportunity.

I meant to say this earlier, but Tom Smith was so very, very right that Lucinda was too big of a character to have scenes about advising people on their problems. It never worked. I don't know who in that last year of ATWT decided to suddenly revert Lucinda back to her control freak, obsessive, destructive-yet-loving mode, but it really showed - better late than never! - just how damn important and unique Lucinda was to ATWT when given the opportunity.

Lucinda was as important to ATWT as Kay is to Y&R. Hubbard was not with the show nearly as long as Fulton; however, she became a more focal character during the 80s and 90s. I think TPTB first saw Alac Wallace and then Craig as powerful enough characters to fill the void. They were wrong. I wish they had kept building up the Walsh family in the 1990s--loved Sam and Evan.

A lot of people hated Hunt Block's Craig because he embodied an abrupt character rewrite with little to no explanation. Yes, Craig had been an !@#$%^&*], but he'd found his humanity. Craig cheating on Sierra after years and years is one thing---leaving his kids and becoming some sort of grandiose mobster-lite is another. Under Sheffer, "giving him back his edge" consisted of snarky one-liners, making him a control freak, and giving him a general contempt for every other human being. You can't rewrite an established legacy character to suit your whims. Bryce had made Craig beloved, in spite of victimizing the town sweetheart.

Block was not only an iceberg, but a soulless ogre. Frankly, I don't think he was a good actor. I had watched him on GL, and it was the exact same character in better suits and a butch haircut. I have no doubt the favorable reactions to the Bryant death scenes had more to do with the aftermath of 9/11 than what was actually on-screen. Thank God it wore off before the Emmy idiots handed him a statue. We'd never have been rid of him.

I remember this awful scene - which was clearly written for shock value - where Craig gave a cyanide pill to some super secret Asian spy woman. He showed zero reaction to having helped end this woman's life. He only ever showed a reaction when it was time for a pity party, and Block was terrible at those emotions.

I liked him on GL, and I was horrified from very early on by his work on ATWT (the bad blonde crew cut didn't help - Susan Powter lives!). He was just so miscast. I think a lot of the hype over him was because he was so different from anything ATWT had had, but is different always good? In this case, I would say, no.

I liked Hogan's tenure on ATWT at first, it started out great, but then went to hell. Kind of like McTavish on AMC

I remember this awful scene - which was clearly written for shock value - where Craig gave a cyanide pill to some super secret Asian spy woman. He showed zero reaction to having helped end this woman's life. He only ever showed a reaction when it was time for a pity party, and Block was terrible at those emotions.

I liked him on GL, and I was horrified from very early on by his work on ATWT (the bad blonde crew cut didn't help - Susan Powter lives!). He was just so miscast. I think a lot of the hype over him was because he was so different from anything ATWT had had, but is different always good? In this case, I would say, no.

And yet, when Bryce's Craig nearly fed Meg that miscarriage tonic, he was the sympathetic one. Go figure.

A lot of people hated Hunt Block's Craig because he embodied an abrupt character rewrite with little to no explanation. Yes, Craig had been an !@#$%^&*], but he'd found his humanity. Craig cheating on Sierra after years and years is one thing---leaving his kids and becoming some sort of grandiose mobster-lite is another. Under Sheffer, "giving him back his edge" consisted of snarky one-liners, making him a control freak, and giving him a general contempt for every other human being. You can't rewrite an established legacy character to suit your whims. Bryce had made Craig beloved, in spite of victimizing the town sweetheart.

Block was not only an iceberg, but a soulless ogre. Frankly, I don't think he was a good actor. I had watched him on GL, and it was the exact same character in better suits and a butch haircut. I have no doubt the favorable reactions to the Bryant death scenes had more to do with the aftermath of 9/11 than what was actually on-screen. Thank God it wore off before the Emmy idiots handed him a statue. We'd never have been rid of him.

I just figured the final break with Sierra had ruined Craig. This logic made nuCraig Block enjoyable for me. Plus, I am used to soaps doing total character re-writes. Block did bring something different to the show and it worked...for a while. No character can be saved after a murder or rape.

I was never a Bryce fan so this made things easier for me, too. Block did repeat his GL performance; but this seems so common for a lot of actors. On OLTL, Terri Conn, Howarth and the actress who plays Nora (forgot name) never shift into/out of character. At first, I thought it was JPs writing but now realize that these actors are all limited in range.