Not like Laiman needed any creative control.

Broderick's ATWT could be lazy or hit and miss, but Laiman's show felt totally stupid and void of any intelligence whatsoever.

Edited September 5, 201213 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

I agree with this, Broderick could be very boring at times.

Boring was her middle name. I didnt care for any of her stories besides the conclusion of the Diego story and Holden returning. The rest was a complete snoozefest.

Not like Laiman needed any creative control.

You're right: whenever she works without Sheri Anderson and/or Thom Racina, the results are nothing less than abysmal.

Arguably, one of ATWT's best remote sequences ever. It is too bad the story itself was so weak---there were a decent amount of memorable moments bogged down in a who-gives-a-bleep story. Not only the tram chase, but Darryl and the bad guy falling through the window, Darryl and Frannie in Puerto Rico (with the cheesetastic "interpretive ballet on the beach" scene...) and the reveal that Babs had met and gotten preggo by Darryl in Europe.

I think the guy who killed her was Arthur, her dweeby accountant---there was something about a three-way Carolyn and Gavin had had with him that there was a picture of or something. It was weird.

I wish they would release those episodes on dvd. Roger are you listening?...lol

Possibly, but nevertheless, Caso was unable to lead ATWT without a strong HW. If the HW is weak, the EP should have able to at least guide them, Caso was unable to do that, IMO.

Caso was a weak producer. I would have loved to see what RC would have done had he still been EP at ATWT. They should have brought back SBH as HW when Marland passed. Backus and Co. did well at the beginning with Marland's bible but after that the show was a complete snoozefest with great actors being wasted in nonstories.

Boring was [Lorraine Broderick's] middle name. I didnt care for any of her stories besides the conclusion of the Diego story and Holden returning. The rest was a complete snoozefest.

Exactly. Don't get me wrong, I think LB is good at writing from character, so to speak. I just don't believe she has that ability to create the sort of potboiler storylines that others -- Papa Bell, Doug Marland, even her own mentor, Agnes Nixon -- do. And when she tries to write the kind of story that gets people excited, it's usually something awful, like Maddie's kidnapping on ALL MY CHILDREN.

They should have brought back SBH as HW when Marland passed.

I think SBH (Susie Bedsow Horgan?) was at ONE LIFE TO LIVE, though, working with Michael Malone.

IMO, there were only two directions to go after Marland: either lure over Nancy Curlee and Stephen Demorest, or really bite the bullet and ask back Bridget and Jerome Dobson.

And of course, there always was Claire Labine, too.

Edited September 5, 201213 yr by Khan

I think SBH (Susie Bedsow Horgan?) was at ONE LIFE TO LIVE, though, working with Michael Malone.

IMO, there were only two directions to go after Marland: either lure over Nancy Curlee and Stephen Demorest, or really bite the bullet and ask back Bridget and Jerome Dobson.

And of course, there always was Claire Labine, too.

Susan..but youre close....lol

I would have loved her back or the Dobson's. I did enjoy their time as HWs at ATWT.

I would've loved for the Dobsons to return to ATWT, I would prefer GL, as they were awesome there, but ATWT would've been nice too. Didn't they center the show around the Stewarts? I wonder what they would have done with only Ellen, Emily and Susan left by the early 90s and the Hughes back at the center of the show.

I would've loved for the Dobsons to return to ATWT, I would prefer GL, as they were awesome there, but ATWT would've been nice too. Didn't they center the show around the Stewarts? I wonder what they would have done with only Ellen, Emily and Susan left by the early 90s and the Hughes back at the center of the show.

I thought they were on during the whole McColl years. Douglas pretty much demolished them when he took over. I think they could have been part of the canvas even with Snyders.

The Dobson's had two stints at ATWT - 1979 to 1981 and then again from 1982-1983.

And believe it or not, there were 5 different writing regimes between those two stints.

The Dobson's had two stints at ATWT - 1979 to 1981 and then again from 1982-1983.

And believe it or not, there were 5 different writing regimes between those two stints.

81 was when ATWT started getting somewhat good for me....I think their second stint was better ...although they were responsible for the John/James rivarly...which I loved a lot.

Many accused them of turning ATWT into the 'John Dixon show' at least during their first stint.

Edited September 5, 201213 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

Regardless of the show he wrote for, Marland was a genius. Too bad some of his fellow soap writers never took to heart his rules on "How Not to Wreck a Show".

How Not To Wreck A Show

* Watch the show.

* Learn the history of the show. You would be surprised at the ideas that you can get from the back story of your characters.

* Read the fan mail. The very characters that are not thrilling to you may be the audience's favorites.

* Be objective. When I came in to ATWT, the first thing I said was, what is pleasing the audience? You have to put your own personal likes and dislikes aside and develop the characters that the audience wants to see.

* Talk to everyone; writers and actors especially. There may be something in a character's history that will work beautifully for you, and who would know better than the actor who has been playing the role?

* Don't change a core character. You can certainly give them edges they didn't have before, or give them a logical reason to change their behavior. But when the audience says, "He would never do that," then you have failed.

* Build new characters slowly. Everyone knows that it takes six months to a year for an audience to care about a new character. Tie them in to existing characters. Don't shove them down the viewers' throats.

* If you feel staff changes are in order, look within the organization first. P&G [Procter & Gamble] does a lot of promoting from within. Almost all of our producers worked their way up from staff positions, and that means they know the show.

* Don't fire anyone for six months. I feel very deeply that you should look at the show's canvas before you do anything.

* Good soap opera is good storytelling. It's very simple.

Regardless of the show he wrote for, Marland was a genius. Too bad some of his fellow soap writers never took to heart his rules on "How Not to Wreck a Show".

* Don't change a core character. You can certainly give them edges they didn't have before, or give them a logical reason to change their behavior. But when the audience says, "He would never do that," then you have failed.

* Build new characters slowly. Everyone knows that it takes six months to a year for an audience to care about a new character. Tie them in to existing characters. Don't shove them down the viewers' throats.

Didnt Marland turn Barbara into a mega-bitch overnight? If so, how did the audience respond to that?

Plus, didnt marland kind of introduce the Snyders within a short amount of time and show case them quite a bit right away? Other then Iva and Meg, I didnt care for any of the other snyders.