Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted September 5, 2012 Members Share Posted September 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Soapsuds Posted September 5, 2012 Members Share Posted September 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted September 5, 2012 Members Share Posted September 5, 2012 You're right: whenever she works without Sheri Anderson and/or Thom Racina, the results are nothing less than abysmal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Soapsuds Posted September 5, 2012 Members Share Posted September 5, 2012 I wish they would release those episodes on dvd. Roger are you listening?...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Soapsuds Posted September 5, 2012 Members Share Posted September 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted September 5, 2012 Members Share Posted September 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted September 5, 2012 Members Share Posted September 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Soapsuds Posted September 5, 2012 Members Share Posted September 5, 2012 Susan..but youre close....lol I would have loved her back or the Dobson's. I did enjoy their time as HWs at ATWT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soapfave06 Posted September 5, 2012 Members Share Posted September 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Soapsuds Posted September 5, 2012 Members Share Posted September 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted September 5, 2012 Members Share Posted September 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Soapsuds Posted September 5, 2012 Members Share Posted September 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted September 5, 2012 Members Share Posted September 5, 2012 Many accused them of turning ATWT into the 'John Dixon show' at least during their first stint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OldGHFan Posted September 5, 2012 Members Share Posted September 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Soaplovers Posted September 6, 2012 Members Share Posted September 6, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.