Jump to content

GH: Discussion for the Month of March


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I agree. It's laziness. Carlivati suggested that this is no different from any new character/family coming to General Hospital except that these are established characters some members of the audience knows. However, he fails to understand that if these were, indeed, new characters coming to the General Hospital canvas, the audience would be disgusted at them and their story being on every day for two weeks.

And the whole "Get Used To It" thing? Rot in hell with the flames rimming your anus... Please?

You should reword this to say "If OLTL was so great, then more people would've been watching it." That speaks to the facts rather than the subjectivity of taste. If everybody wanted to see OLTL's Manning family, why weren't they enough to keep them watching on their own show?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The process goes, in quick form, like this:

Carlivati goes over the story with the breakdown writers. The breakdown writers write Monday's episode in third person narrative form. Carlivati and the network approves and/or changes it, and then Kreizman takes the outline and transposes it into first person dialogue.

So, basically and simply, it goes like this.

Carlivati: Carly's mad at Johnny for looking at her funny.

Outine Writer: Carly tells Johnny she's mad at him for looking at her funny.

Script Writer (Kreizman): Carly says "I'm mad at you." Johnny says "Why?" Carly says "Because you looked at me funny."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I really need there to be a 3rd season of ILNY on VH1. I yearn for it!

Back to General Life to Live. I was shaking my head in disappointment and boredom for almost the whole week. I did like some moments like Carly vs. Piph and, to my surprise, Carly/Todd.

:wub: Welcome to the club! :wub: Love the Z's!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think care about the OLTL vs. GH stuff.

Not to nitpick, but I still feel this is a loose interpretation. I don't think it happens quite like that. I am sure the head writer makes some broad statement about what is generally going to happen to the characters and then the breakdown writers are made to fill in the practical gaps for what we concretely see on the show. There were several times during AMC that you could tell characters motivations shifted like the wind even though their actions remained the same and I think that was because there were different breakdown writers handling each character for those 'revelation moments'.

I personally would like to know how much control the Director has and if he can change things around what is written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Just started the May 27 episode and first thing I see is that Willow got an ugly haircut since hte last time i watched
    • I'm pretty sure he was. But point taken. GL really had a thing for masked and costumed balls/parties in the '80's. Everyone looks fabulous, but those poor costume designers.
    • Still here ^^ Come on Prime Video, it's due to bring it back!
    • Got through the eighth season, and it was... painful. 

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I agree 100% with both you and Mitch64.  Soaps have been going further and further off-course since 1981. TPTB just don't have a fundamental understanding of what makes soap fans so loyal. I'd love to be on a writing team with both of you.  Maybe we could put together a real soap opera, and show people what its all about...  
    • They weren't in town, but Fletcher worked at the paper (and we saw anniversary Journal headlines for the 50th, although I don't remember if Roger was one of them), and I'd think Alex would have at least heard of him due to the damage he did to Spaulding only a few years before her return to the fold. I know I have to remember it's not real life, of course.
    • YES. The videos being uploaded to Spauldingfield are almost to the point where Alan is reintroduced. They're already talking about the guy he pretends to be, and yes, he returns at a masked ball. In fact, that masked ball is almost beat for beat the same as the masked ball where Alex was introduced! Get a new schtick. Before the Kobe era, that's pretty much what they did. Characters would just show up. Maybe other characters would talk about them for a while--the Chamberlains, Tony, Maureen, Andy, Kelly, Carrie--but then they would just appear. When Hope came back, she simply knocked on Bert's door and said something like, "Hi, Grandma, I'm home again." No particular fanfare. Sometimes it would be a bit dramatic--Jennifer and Morgan were introduced when Mike accidentally crashed into their car, for instance, and Alan and Elizabeth were introduced through Jackie's flashbacks when she was remembering giving up Phillip for adoption. Nola was involved in the Roger return. Roger's return in 1980 was very dramatic, but in a way that made total sense. He was trying to kidnap a child, so dressing up as a clown did not seem crazy. The mask bit was not only silly, it didn't even make sense. Alex never knew him, so there was no reason for him to be masked in front of her. Yeah, she knew OF him, but there's that phenomenon called cognetive dissonance. If you see someone outside of an expected situation, you probably won't recognize them, especially if you never met them in person and think they're dead. I bet a CIA spook like Roger would be familiar with that concept. And he didn't have to be skulking around SF for months. Again, I will cut Long a little slack--it was not her idea to bring back Roger, she was told to do it. She never wrote for the character. It was something that was not planned. They originally went to Zaslow to offer him the role of Alan. He, of course, turned them down because that was a ridiculous idea, but then he suggested coming back as Roger. At such short notice, it's not strange his return was not handled well.
    • Eh...but neither had been in town. Know the name Roger Thorpe? Sure. But Alex would have gone crazy trying to memorize all of Alan's co-conspirators/lovers/wives and Fletch didn't even know Roger/Adam was on the island, IIRC. But who knew or should've known each other is always a little dicey when people come back to town. 
    • I wouldn't call Tomas' cuts a modern cut. They appear to be a slim/extreme slim cut⏤cut slimmer down the sides, with a higher armhole, which pulls up/out, depending on the fit of the person's body. Again, I feel like Ms Featherstone is buying to fit the wrong parts of the body; instead of buying to fit their widest parts (shoulders), she's buying things to fit their middle/waist (which is the easiest to ultimately fix without a complete re-cut), and it shows in the finished product. And the only reason it irks me is because I worked in suit sales for nearly ten years, and I notice these things immediately. The fashion(s) on this soap are miles ahead of three of the four others (I like the fashions from Y&R), but the tailoring is a choice, especially where the men are concerned.
    • There probably would have been a good chance they knew of him, especially with his ties to Spaulding and his being involved in so much scandal (meaning there would be plenty of photos and articles around they both would have seen), but I agree the mask was silly, clearly just a TV moment.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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