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

    • I keep thinking about the persistent trend of eroticizing mental illness on Guiding Light. Sonni and Annie were never more compelling, or more attractive to the show, than when they were manic. It played into a recurring theme: strong women undone by their unhinged reaction to sex. The writers were likely inspired by Basic Instinct and the broader wave of neo-noir films in the late '80s and early '90s, where female sexuality was often equated with instability. The result was a crude portrayal, not just of mental illness, but of womanhood itself. Both Sonni and Annie were introduced as sharp, capable women, brought in specifically as formidable antagonists to Reva. They were logical and composed, standing in contrast to Reva’s emotional volatility. That difference made them threatening, but not especially “sexy”—until desire became their undoing. In a very male fantasy, their strength unraveled the moment they slept with Joshua. As soon as they got a taste of Lewis lovin’, they spiraled into scheming lunatics, willing to torch everything to hold on to him. It was part of a larger trend in the culture. Fatal Attraction, Single White Female, and The Hand That Rocks the Cradle all traded on the idea that female desire was dangerous, barely held in check, and always teetering on the edge of madness. Looking back, it's a pretty grim trope. And while it's not completely vanished, I'm grateful we don't see it quite as often today.
    • Elements of it were silly, but it was a small price to pay to get Zas back. I should say there's a difference between in town and out of town returns. It's understandable for Roger to skulk around town in a bad wig and clown suit when he's in Springfield and running the risk of bumping in to people he knows.  Taking us out of town to find someone always has a short shelf life. Then it usually becomes about another character knowing X is alive but determined to keep them out of Springfield. Like Alan discovering Amish Reva. I don't know how long it went on, but it was probably twice as long as necessary.
    • Elizabeth Dennehy complained on the Locher Room about how ridiculous so much of the writing was for Roger's return. She laughed at so much of Roger's antics and how it was hard for her to take them seriously. Probably another reason she was fired as she didn't play the game.  
    • Only thing I enjoyed was Abby / Olivia, etc., and the addiction storyline. Otherwise, I could do without the season.
    • Right? Vanessa had a ball gown for every occasion.
    • Roger's return storyline may have been silly but Roger's return was what lead to GL's last golden era.  It was the combination of Roger's return and Robert Calhoun becoming EP that got GL to finally hit it's stride after some really bad years. It will always disappoint me that the ratings during Robert Calhoun's run didn't reflect the quality of the show.
    • He also gave some of the best episodes, like the episodes surrounding Doug's death. The problem with Days was that Ron had a horrible vision from he top. I don't feel the same for MVJ and nothing that has happened in all these months suggests she doesn't have a handle on the show. Now if it becomes an issue I'll acknowledge it, but I'm not seeing it so far.
    • Jean Hackney was awful and that lead to Ben's exit story which sucked. I liked Ben/Val together. Val's love for Ben was that of a grown woman moving on with her life and Ben's love for Val made him willingly decide to raise another man's children as his own.
    • It wasn't just a GL thing, it was an 80s thing. Opulent party scenes on soaps were very big back then. Even in regular episodes where people are just going to dinner they're dressed up like they're going to see royalty.
    • 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 dont have the context for how everthing went down but I know its all Lulu's fault which make her a bish for what she did to Gio
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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