Members Saving ATWT Posted September 12, 2011 Members Share Posted September 12, 2011 Hogan did a good job early on at re-organizing ATWT. The program was a mess and overly corny. I remember cancellation talk in early 1999, right before Goutman, and the show was painful to watch. I think viewers were thrilled at first for the manner in which he shook things up and introduced elements of camp to the canvus. Hogan failed to fully develop stories and killed off legacy characters for short term ratings gain. In my view, he should have done a better job of building up the Ryan family and the death of Jen was a waste. The same went for Bryant. Also, he ignored interesting vets like Lisa and Lucinda. ATWT was a mess when he joined and a mess when he left. In my view, the show needed a new family on a par with what Bill Bell did with Y&R. I get why he ignored the Hughes family, it was a shell when he arrived, but something new was needed to fill the void. I do blame Goutman for a lot, too. I do like the manner in which Hogan finally used the Stewart women. They were degraded at times, but used, nonetheless, which didn't happen after he left. Hogan liked seemed to like Susan and she actually got a story. I'm still mad that she was not part of the finale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted September 12, 2011 Members Share Posted September 12, 2011 The Stewart women were used post-Sheffer. In ways that many didn't like, but they were definitely used. And Susan was definitely in the finale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Saving ATWT Posted September 12, 2011 Members Share Posted September 12, 2011 Hogan did the Rick Decker story, I believe. Also, he wrote the Aaron/Lucy/Ally love triangle. I think that was allpre 2007, right? He ended writing breakdown about that time and JP did the Henry has a serial killer sister story. BTW, Susan got nada at the end. Not even an invite to Emily's family dinner at Fairwinds. ATWT was my favorite soap; however, the core families were so broken up by 1999 that I don't think any writer could have made fans happy. People say that World was the best maintained of the PGP soaps but I disagree. The show ranked dead last in demos for years, even GL did better, and nothing aside from NUKE ever really took root or garnered fan fair. It just became the Jack and Carly show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted September 12, 2011 Members Share Posted September 12, 2011 I meant that the Stewarts were used post-Sheffer as well as during Sheffer's tenure (though I didn't watch a whole lot then, so I can't really speak on that). The stuff with Rick and Lucy/Aaron/Alison was all 2004ish, so that was still him. JP wrote all of the crazyEmily stuff and then Alison's return, which gave Susan more airtime than she was getting for most of 05-06. They even brought back Dani Andropoulos for a few months and botched the hell out of it (such was life in Oakdale in those years). Susan was in the finale. She and Emily went to Tom and Margo's to say goodbye to Alison and Casey, and then she was at the hospital to wish Bob a good retirement. I disagree that ATWT's core was broken up in its final years. Compared to GL (aside from the latter's last few months), ATWT had nearly all of the tools necessary to pull itself out of its creative hole. The families were all well-represented, though it wouldn't have hurt to add a few to the Hughes and Stewart groups. IMO, the show's main issue in the last few years was the atrocious balance, blatant ignoring of certain characters, and lame, tired, rehashed storylines. For a good two or three years, there was a constant stream of storylines about psychotic or evil villains, and it just got to be too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ClassicSoapsFan Posted September 12, 2011 Members Share Posted September 12, 2011 I swore there was a story about Faux Snickers but by that point I was at school and lost interest in the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Saving ATWT Posted September 12, 2011 Members Share Posted September 12, 2011 Agreed in terms of too many villians of the day/week/month and the inbalances. Jack's J-Team girls are a good example with Janet being the WORST! ATWT was tops in the 1970's but the stars of those core families were way too old for compelling romance/love in the afternoon by 1980 and even Marland did a poor job when it came to growing out the Hughes and Stewart families. After he died, it was over, the Frannie and Betsy recons were gone, and ATWT just became the Snyder fest. Without a reboot, new blood, ATWT had no chance of being a top-rated soap. World lost its pop cultural icon status around 1990 and that spells the death of a soap. Aside from NUKE, what did ATWT do for the past 20 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members P.J. Posted September 12, 2011 Members Share Posted September 12, 2011 Oh please. Yes, ATWT was a wasteland...the Lusty, Skatie, Matie, PEm, PEg and LuRe fans aside. They overhyped and underacted Nuke was just as big a curse as it was a "blessing". Sheffer's biggest fault was being unable to string together a complete story. His stories had either a good start or a good end. The middle consisted mainly of revisions, improbable and impossible circumstance. His loose ends used to drive me nuts. It's like you could see him lose interest the further something played out. He obviously misunderstood Hitchcock's use of the "mcguffin". Or he just didn't realize you couldn't leave gaping holes in the audiences knowledge in a continuing drama. You can still have red herrings, but you have to give them a comprehensible story that explains what was true and what wasn't. Don't even get me started on his creative twists on geography and the time continuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Paul Raven Posted September 12, 2011 Members Share Posted September 12, 2011 A lengthy but interesting look at Sheffer's work after a few months at the helm. A past advertising campaign to increase home subscriptions and readership for the Washington Post newspaper contained the follow tagline: "If you don’t get it, you don’t get it." The implication was that if you weren’t a regular reader of the Post, then you didn’t know what you were missing in quality, but also in overall print entertainment. Recently I’ve begun to think the same thing applies to As the World Turns. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it. ATWT remains an excellent soap opera – in my opinion, the best-written and acted soap on television. It’s not perfect by any means, but the positives overwhelmingly outweigh the negatives. As the euphoria of ATWT head writer Hogan Sheffer’s initial six months and the amazing way he reinvigorated the show on every level subsided, it was tempting to think the show had drifted in quality, not quite as riveting or as good as it was a few months ago. That would be inaccurate. ATWT is still at the same level of excellence. What happened is the show settled into a comfortable niche of quality programming as, simultaneously, the viewers became accustomed to and familiar with Sheffer’s writing style and storytelling format. After a year of cut and paste, who gives a rip, retread storytelling by Leah Laiman, the show could go nowhere but up. And up Sheffer took ATWT, so quickly and so steeply that the ride was thrilling, akin to being shot out of a cannon. That joyride has leveled out, admittedly taking with it some of the joy and rush that accompanied Sheffer’s initial work. However, replacing it was a warm and pleasing contentedness that only comes when soap viewers know their show is on solid and capable footing. When you’re creating 5 one-hour shows per week, 52 weeks per year, there will be the occasional show that misses the mark. Monday’s episode was probably the worst I’ve seen since Sheffer took over. Everything seemed a bit off-kilter -- Katie and Margo’s overwrought scenes, what looked like outtakes from a bad episode of Fame (Isaac breakdancing!), and the inexplicable appearance of Vicky at WOAK during Molly’s newscast. Friday's episode was also a mixed bag. While the scenes between Hal/Barbara/Kim, Jake/Molly, and Lucinda/Craig were excellent, the graveyard shenanigans featuring the Fabulous Four fell flat. Fortunately, bad episodes are now the exception, rather than the frustratingly normal. I cannot comprehend why the ratings for ATWT have not shot up as high as the quality of the show. Hypothesizing the show is too depressing, or too darkly emotional confounds me even more. Yes, ATWT is sometimes dark and often very emotional. It is also by turns funny, and sad, and happy, and optimistic, and pessimistic, and romantic. ATWT touches on all the emotions of life in all its mutations. Isn’t that what soap opera is supposed to do? Even the pure escapism and lunacy of Passions has continuous dark undertones. Sheffer, more than any other writer for ATWT since Douglas Marland, is bringing to the audience the most realistic depiction of life within the often narrow confines of the genre. What impresses me most is how consistently excellent the show is, not in grandiose ways, but in plain, simple, solid storytelling. The soap press recently criticized Sheffer’s microchip storyline because, to paraphrase the author, microchip storylines never work. Well, to quote the Washington Post, that writer "doesn’t get it," which makes me wonder if the author watches ATWT on a daily basis and, if so, perhaps fast-forwards through some of the episode because of a requirement to watch several or all of the soaps on the air. I think it’s obvious to any regular ATWT viewer who has become accustomed to Sheffer’s writing style that Sheffer wasn’t telling a microchip story. He never wanted to. Sheffer used the microchips as a building block from which to tell the real story, which was and is about all the characters. The story was about Craig and establishing him as a powerful and charismatic presence in Oakdale while also illuminating the changes in his character since he was last on the show. The story was also about Carly and Barbara and Hal and Jack and Julia, who grew and changed in ways big and small. It was a small-scale umbrella story that involved microchips, but was not about microchips. I wouldn’t call the microchip a plot contrivance. That’s more when something happens in the middle of a story to move it along, or to throw a couple together, or something else used when the writers aren’t creative enough to script intelligent material or, as Sheffer does, write from character. Instead, Sheffer will take something – a microchip, a swindle, a ghost – and use it as a foundation to unfold the real story, which is about characters and relationships of all kinds. It takes real talent to write character-based story as opposed to plot-based story. As an easy example, Leah Laiman gave us a story about a diamond. Remember it? "Where’s my diamond?" I want my diamond!" "Give me that diamond!" Once Sheffer got a hold of the storyline, he switched the focus to the characters (Lily, Holden, Simon) and sank the diamond to the bottom of the Atlantic. Character over plot. Using events or things as foundation as opposed to contrivance. Same thing with the microchips. They turned out to be phony because the story wasn’t ABOUT the microchips. Like the diamond, they had served their purpose. We won’t have a story about Flashdance, either, though I admire Sheffer’s wink-at-the-audience decision to revisit Laiman’s flatulence of a non-plot. However, Flashdance will serve as the pole around which the real story – the characters – will revolve. Time one of the scenes on ATWT. You’ll be surprised how often a conversation between two or more people will go on for several minutes. (Examples: Sierra and Craig’s beautifully written farewell scenes on Wednesday, Lily and Emma’s impassioned scenes on Thursday) Exploring character requires the patience to delve into the mind and the heart. That requires sophisticated writing that must work on more than one level. Why do you think most soap writers don’t write character-based drama? Because it requires solid dialogue, extended conversations, and a dependence on weaving and interacting characters. The longer and sometimes leisurely paced scenes on ATWT stand in stark contrast to the current soap opera formula of lightening fast scenes and lazy writing that stretches a conversation that could easily have been completed in one scene out over an entire episode. Action, explosions, loud shouting matches, cutesy dialogue: They’re all wonderful smokescreens used to hide bad writing. It’s so much easier to write a virtual reality story with lots of fancy camera tricks and great costumes (Days of our Lives). It’s so much easier to write a story where most of the townsfolk drink punch laced with a made-up drug that acts as a sexual aphrodisiac (All My Children). That’s plot contrivance. That’s bad writing. That’s not ATWT. Days of our Lives has received a lot of acclaim lately from the soap press for "Deconstructing Marlena." The writers took a beloved character played by a beloved actress (Deidre Hall) and shattered the audience’s perception of that character. Days’ Head Writer Tom Langan is masquerading as a storyteller. His writing is horrible and elementary. On Days, Marlena changed overnight, nice one minute, spewing venom the next, rational on Monday, irrational on Tuesday. The progression has been sloppy and disjointed, as if a bunch of yellow post-it notes had been stuck together randomly into a story. So why is Days getting all this praise for the courageous redefining of Marlena when the true miracle occurred on ATWT with "Deconstructing Lily?" Once again, the soap press "doesn’t get it." Right under the noses of the soap press ATWT did it better and did it first. Unlike Marlena, Lily did not change on a whim. Sheffer used previous story – e.g., the island, Rose’s impersonation – as the foundation from which he began spinning Lily’s life out of control. Every step of the way, Lily’s motivation for her actions was explained, then explained again, even during those times when Lily herself could not pinpoint the reasons for her actions. Did it show Lily in the most favorable of lights? No, not always and not often. Did it tarnish Lily’s heroine halo, much as Sheffer tarnished Julia’s? Absolutely and, I suspect, purposely. Sheffer does not paint characters in solid, easily identifiable colors. One reason ATWT has no "real" villain is that Sheffer doesn’t want someone so boxed in, so easily pegged by viewers new and old. Characters on ATWT now have their good sides and their bad sides. One side may be on display more prominently. (For example, we’re not seeing the best of Hal lately.) But what we need to remember is that, with Sheffer, current actions will not permanently define or alter a character, but rather REDEFINE the character overall. I doubt Lily will ever return to the way she was before she was stranded on the island with Simon. I hope that she will evolve, as soap characters should, whether that is for the better or for the worse. That, to me, is infinitely more entertaining than constant predictability. And truly, isn’t Lily (and Julia and Craig and Jack) more interesting with a flaw or three, much like the flaws enhance the beauty and brilliance of a diamond? If we, the audience, do not allow our favorite characters to change and evolve in ways good and bad, we are in the end only hurting ourselves. Eventually the writers will be unable to craft interesting story for those characters, too afraid to release them from the confines of their perceived traits and mannerisms. So the characters languish with no story. With no story, they’re seldom seen. So where is the victory? Well, there is a hollow one, I suppose, and it’s this: They’ve remained the same. For those of you having trouble adjusting to the "new" Lily, all I can recommend is that you view this latest chapter in Lily and Holden’s life not only as soap opera where change must occur for a show to survive, but also as real life where everyone matures or regresses and then evolves for better or worse. Yes, Lily and Simon have lost some of their luster. That’s because any romance is more thrilling, more alluring, and more sensual when the couple is in the initial stages of the romance, or perhaps are hiding or denying their feelings for each other. The island was indeed a fairy tale for Lily and Simon. Reality in Oakdale has not only grounded them, but also in a way grounded their relationship. (Lily to Simon on Tuesday: "We are hurting a lot of people. And maybe it’s too big a price to pay.") It does not mean they no longer have rooting value (for you Lily and Simon fans out there), nor does it mean their kisses pack any less of a jolt. Not even the greatest of daytime couples (Luke and Laura, GH; John and Marlena, Days; Reva and Josh, GL, and notice that these couples are either currently separated or having marital difficulties) maintain their chemistry or that wonderful glow of romantic excitement over the long haul. It ebbs and flows, depending on the story and circumstance. We also need to remember that the very medium that spawned them – daytime drama -- demands they constantly struggle to be together. If Martha Byrne is nominated for an Emmy this year, she deserves to win. Not for playing a dual role and bringing Rose to such crackling life. She should win it for her work as Lily, for taking Lily with unapologetic forthrightness down this road that Sheffer has carved for her. Just as Byrne has always played Lily the Heroine, Lily the Kidnapped, and Lily the Saint with great vitality and determination, so has she played Lily the Tarnished. There’s not a shred of hidden sympathy, of playing to the audience, in Byrne’s work. Byrne wears Lily’s flaws and mistakes openly. Her face shows not only Lily’s turmoil, but also the underlying sadness she feels at what she is doing to her family. That’s the performance of the year, the one that should win the Emmy. Perhaps we should emulate one of the few ATWT characters who will probably never change, thank goodness. On Thursday, when a tearful Lily asked Emma not to hate her after Emma had unleashed a firestorm of anger and truth in Lily’s direction, Emma looked at Lily and said, "I could never hate you, Lily. I may not approve of your actions. But I love you." Plot may have become secondary to character, but it can not be abandoned altogether. Katie’s fake pregnancy is unimaginative plotting at its most shaky. Perhaps Sheffer is staying true to Katie’s character, whose past schemes often bordered on the stupid and were executed with little forethought. Still, I can’t help wondering why writers this talented are dragging out this old plot war-horse. One of the low points of Monday’s episode was Katie’s visit with Margo and the constant barging towards the door every time Margo said something Katie didn’t want to hear. That’s how this plot point has developed so far – barging forward toward the next chapter. It makes Katie look dumb and Simon look dumber. It’s the closest thing to contrivance Sheffer has given us, something thrown in at the last minute to keep Simon and Lily apart. And it shows, glaringly so. Sheffer did a much better job inserting believable and real obstacles between Hal and Barbara. For months we watched their marriage slowly unravel. Now that the couple is separating, the events of the past that we witnessed on-camera add so much depth to the story. Sheffer didn’t sugarcoat any of the separation, either, as he is bravely allowed the audience to see the pain and anger and fear and resentment the separation had on Jennifer and Adam. Another nice touch was on Friday when Kim suggested marriage counseling for the couple. Contrasting Barbara and Hal’s separation was the solidification of the bond between Jennifer and Adam (and Kim Onasch and Craig Lawlor). Their scenes now carry that familial connection that often is lacking in soap families. The recent additional screen time afforded Craig Lawlor has simply proven what we’ve known all along. The guy is a gem, a natural and unaffected young actor of incredible appeal and personality. Whether Adam is ghost busting, getting glasses, teasing his brother, being dragged into Jennifer’s latest problem with Bryant, or shyly discovering his feelings for Abigail, Lawlor is terrific. I said it once and I’ll say it again. Because of Craig Lawlor, Adam is the core character the writers should build young Oakdale around. Even though I’ve acknowledged that plot is important, why do I prefer soaps written from character? Writing from character allows intersecting and moving people all over the canvas. It establishes relationships of all kinds. It establishes community. It establishes a connection with the audience. It’s one of the many good things Sheffer has brought to ATWT. But the real bonus? Relationships aren't just thrown together haphazardly, the way Julia and Jake were, or Abigail and Chris were in the past. Current relationships evolve because of circumstance and story over time, knitted together stitch by stitch into the Oakdale fabric. You’ve always got someone or some couple to root for in Oakdale, and another someone or some couple to root against. Writing character-based story also frequently requires exploring morality and ethics. I think Sheffer is doing a brave and outstanding job. Morality is honored and respected, but not elevated to such a high standard that the show and the characters suffer for it. Our characters now kiss and fondle and. . .yes, SCREW. . .like real adults in the real world. They make mistakes like real people do. Not only do they screw in bed, but they screw up, too. They risk losing everything for the love of another man (Lily). They get played for a chump (Bryant and Craig). They are so desperate for love that they manipulate in stupid ways (Katie), or bury their true feelings so deeply that they even convince themselves what is false is true (Jack, Julia, Carly). It’s storytelling, it soap opera, it’s ATWT at its best Julia and Jack lost their baby. It was no surprise to any regular viewer, as the signs had been there for months. Again, Sheffer focused less on the actual plot points and instead told the story from character. Before I elaborate on the miscarriage, I want to state again how pleased I am that Sheffer explored the Julia/Jack/Carly triangle one more time. I know it wasn’t a popular decision with some of the audience, but I thought it was necessary. I never felt that triangle achieved any kind of real resolution. Telling the story has irrevocably altered all three characters. The dramatic changes in Julia have been as tough for Julia fans as the dramatic changes in Lily have been for hers. But Julia wasn’t the only one who changed, though her change was the most obvious. Carly evolved as well. Her tough edges were softened somewhat, but she never lost that all out, go for broke grit and fight that makes Carly so irresistible. As for Jack. . .Well, for me, Jack – and Michael Park – have never been better. Here’s a hero whose halo was tarnished some by Sheffer. But Jack’s still our hero nonetheless, and in the process we learned a little more about the man. There were two things that impressed me about the miscarriage and what I saw as original in its telling. One was Carly being the person to help Julia. I know, I know. It’s soap opera at its most soapy, maybe even too broad and melodramatic. But it still worked on every level and the set-up – Julia thinking Jack would be with Carly – was very believable and, once again, grounded in past history that played out on-screen. The second was that the aftermath focused minimally on Julia – we barely saw her – and almost exclusively on Jack. It was through Jack’s eyes and his words that we felt the pain, the loss, the regret. Jack’s scenes last week at the hospital with Carly and his scenes on Wednesday with Hal were brilliantly written and played with shaky stoicism by Michael Park. Park didn’t shed many tears, but the breaks and catches in Park’s voice indicated that Jack was sobbing inside. (Jack to Carly last week at the hospital: "My God. What have I done?" Jack to Hal on Wednesday: "All the stress I put on Julia. . .and all this time, she was carrying my child.") For all Julia’s "paranoia" and "insecurity", it turned out she had reason to fear for her marriage after all. Annie Parisse has played Julia’s personality swings admirably, alternating between a steely, almost ice cold strength and, at the other extreme, the shaky fragility of a wounded bird. Sheffer has repeatedly broken Julia down, literally having her collapsing to the floor, and it has been both difficult and fascinating to watch. On Wednesday when Jack brought Julia home from the hospital, she lay on the sofa and curled herself into a fetal position. One reason Julia is so popular with the male audience (besides the fact that Annie Parisse is so exotically beautiful) is because Parisse brings out that protective instinct so strong in men. No matter whom you’re rooting for in this triangle, you could not go through the miscarriage without feeling Julia’s, Jack’s, and even Carly’s pain. "I didn’t know it was going to hurt like this," Jack told Carly last week. Neither did we, Jack. Neither did we. I usually don’t enjoy supernatural or otherworldly storylines, so I was all prepared to hate "Ghost Vicky." Well, I should have wised up from the beginning and understood that Sheffer wasn’t going to tell a ghost story. He was going to tell a story about relationships by using a ghost as the foundation. And for the most part it has worked, containing several moving, eloquently written scenes. However, I do have a few criticisms. Molly has become a little too good for my taste, sweeter than sugar and, since her involvement with Jake, minus all the insecurities and self-destructive tendencies that made the character interesting. I know that love can change a person for the better, but I’m hoping Molly is simply going through an evolvement much like Lily and Julia and Craig, albeit in another direction. And Molly should evolve, as long as the result is a redefining of character that doesn’t pigeonhole her. I think I have reason for concern, because I’m not sure if a totally reformed Molly would work in the way that, say, a reformed Vicky worked on Another World, or a reformed Jake worked on Another World. I’ve learned that being "seen" takes a lot of strength for a ghost, but does the power of speech take even more? Sheffer has dragged out the reason Vicky is around a little too long. Stop with the signs (e.g, four 1s) and four word sentences ("They need you, Molly!") and get on with it. The best of ghost Vicky has been when Vicky has actually had some dialogue of substance. It gave the excellent Jensen Buchanan the chance to do some acting. Being a ghost has naturally restricted Buchanan, forcing her to bury her vibrant onscreen presence. Another World’s Vicky lept from the screen, a combination of ethereal beauty and energy, outspoken and outrageous. If Vicky can’t be allowed to move, then the writers have got to at least give her a chance to SPEAK. Finally, if Tom Eplin is nominated for an Emmy, he deserves to win. True, Eplin can on occasion go over the top. But in his quieter moments, Eplin’s work is so pure that you forget you’re watching an actor playing a role. Sheffer’s writing, and the overall outstanding dialogue, have been godsends to Eplin. The man finally has material to match his talent. Eplin has toned down his extravagances and let Jake emerge through Sheffer’s words. This storyline has Jake crying, and crying often, and Eplin sheds those tears like badges of honor. His is a brave performance, purely masculine, yet played with an almost feminine sensitivity. Mary Beth Evans did a great job as Sierra. She folded herself into the Oakdale fabric as it she had been a part of it for years. If there is any way to bring Sierra and Evans back to Oakdale on a permanent basis, I’m all for it. I read the rumors like the rest of you. You can’t help it if you’re a regular internet user. When a show becomes as good as ATWT, I begin hating to lose ANY character. Just reading about the possible departures of Peter Parros, Annie Parisse, and Kelley Menighan-Hensley sickens me. Menighan-Hensley, especially, is a brilliant actress in a unique role. First Lauren Martin-Harkins, now these three very good actors? It’s almost as if P&G and CBS are shooting themselves in the foot, as if they are deliberately working at odds against the show! Forced cutbacks? How can Sheffer freely create when there is a mandate to trim this and cut that? That doesn’t sound like creative freedom and full support to me. It sounds like Sheffer and Goutman are swimming against the current, a current powered by their own employer! It gives credence to those horrible rumors that P&G wants out of the soap business and is slowly, methodically dismantling their two remaining shows. I don’t usually pay much attention to rumor and speculation, but I’ll say this: I can still find no justification for letting Martin-Harkins go. I already know I will find none if Parros, Parisse, and/or Menighan-Hensley depart, too. A soap is only as good as its history, both recent and past. That history is made through characters. That history is made more powerful if the actor originates the role or plays it for an extended length of time. Throw characters and history away, and you’re throwing away the show. When it doesn’t look like Todd Rotondi is reading his lines off cue-cards, he’s motor mouthing through them in a way that is almost unintelligible! When Rotondi first came on ATWT, he was a breath of fresh air, playing up Bryant’s charming and disarming ways. Now Bryant seems to be slipping away from Rotondi. He needs to focus, to settle, and just maybe. . .learn his lines. Musical montages began as moving and original ways of tying an episode with one or more unifying themes to a conclusion. Over time the musical montage began being used as filler for episodes, a way for writers to kill a few minutes without dialogue and any story movement. Still, when done well and used for its original intent, musical montages can be an effective, moving coda to a show as well as a little tribute to all that preceded it. Wednesday's musical montage on ATWT was a shining example of doing it the right way and for all the right reasons. Words I mention over and over now in these critiques are: foundation; past story shown on screen; believability; character development. Luxuriate in all those words, because they indicate that some advance plotting and forethought are given to storylines. Advance plotting means excellent plotting and richer story. The more advance story Sheffer plots out, the better the show will become. Grade for the Week: B+ Performances of the Week: Michael Park; Martha Byrne; Hunt Block; Mary Beth Evans; Tom Eplin; Kelley Menighan-Hensley; Elizabeth Hubbard; Kathleen Widdoes; Jon Hensley; Craig Lawlor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rlj Posted September 12, 2011 Members Share Posted September 12, 2011 HS was HW at ATWT from 2000-2005. On March 2005 he took a 17 week sabatical and didnt return. In the summer of 2005 he was asked to return to ATWT as HW and refused and took a job as a breakdown writer. He started on Days the summer of 2006. I am not sure but was HS responsible for Jennifer Munson dying in 06 as you stated in one of your posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soapfan770 Posted September 12, 2011 Members Share Posted September 12, 2011 I think I'll post a few articles here I have on Hogan Sheffer during his tenure on ATWT on what he did right. The first two are from 2000 when he first took over. I believe I have posted a couple of these before on SON so I hope that's ok I post them again: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sindacco Posted September 12, 2011 Members Share Posted September 12, 2011 I never watched ATWT but pretty much everything posted in this thread describes his tenure on DAYS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JaneAusten Posted September 12, 2011 Author Members Share Posted September 12, 2011 Wow its amazing how many people really loved Sheffer back then. I thought the first article in the New Yorker was interesting when it talked about "character driven" writing being repetitive dialogue when it really wasn't and why soaps did it. Scene after scene where characters talk about the same thing over and over was because it was geared towards the housewife who normally wouldn't sit and watch but would walk by the TV set periodically to hear what was happening. The repetition was intended to be able to ensure that that type of "casual" viewer didn't miss any story beats so if they didn't see the first 2 scenes they likely saw the third. Its interesting that today there is still repetition like that even in these plot driven shows. Are they still doing it for the same reasons or is it now just lazy writing or just not considered important enough to address due to the pace of todays productions? Have to ask, didn't Days get some emmy nominations under Sheffers tenure there? First in ages? I vaguely remember a year when Days got an unusual amount of emmy nomination under Ed Scott and Sheffer. And does anyone remember why Scott and Sheffer were fired at Days. Wasn't Sheffer Fi-core during the strike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soapfan770 Posted September 12, 2011 Members Share Posted September 12, 2011 I don't recall why about Sheffer being fired aside from bringing Higley back, but Scott was fired for being caught up in a scandal for rewriting scripts without anyone's knowledge, much like what happened to Josh Griffith that same year over at Y&R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MontyB Posted September 12, 2011 Members Share Posted September 12, 2011 Was it Sheffer who wrote the Ben/Denise/Andy triangle? I thought that was pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JaneAusten Posted September 12, 2011 Author Members Share Posted September 12, 2011 Its interesting that he seemed to write a lot of stuff people liked. So aside from the fact his stories became repetitive, why did ATWT fire him - was it ratings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.