I hope they manage too, though I won't be holding my breath. What gets me about the above style is not just shorter scenes, but as mentioned you have scene A, then quick cut to scene B, then cut back to scene A all within the same "act." It sometimes got ridiculous.

Any scene that lasts more then 60 seconds before switching to the next scene will certainly be considered a long scene... at least nowadays LOL

Maybe these short scenes were done because the script writers are incapable of writing 2 + minute scenes? I certainly dont think the attention span for the under 25 crowd is that bad.

The basic idea is that viewers are dumb. This pervades "Cartini" shows. It's why belly flops like the rape joke from Bensonhurst and a hee hee ha ha blackout sex story about a rape victim are everywhere on GH. They are playing for the cheap seats.

That was all Frank.

No, it wasn't. It really wasn't. Take my word on this one.

That explains why GH has a similiar feel with their scenes that OLTL had.

Frank might have copied the technique from OLTL, but -- again, I know whereof I speak -- it didn't originate with him.

True, there's never been an ounce of originality in Frank's production or "vision" for him to originate anything.

He's a budget producer, plain and simple, and you can tell when watching the final product (and not in a good way).

Edited April 23, 201312 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

True, there's never been an ounce of originality in Frank's production or "vision" for him to originate anything.

He's a budget producer, plain and simple, and you can tell when watching the final product (and not in a good way).

I don't get people praising him for being under budget. I guess they don't know that if you don't use all the budget they cut even more of it the next year because they figure you don't need it.

And I've seen 6 months worth of soap not even produced on the budget he has for 6 months look visually better.

Frank is like Wal-Mart; ABC keeps rolling back the prices while he brings the savings home to us.

I never got all the "OLTL comes in under budget!!" love, either, because it [!@#$%^&*] showed that the show was operating on the cheap. Ain't nobody got time for that.

I never got all the "OLTL comes in under budget!!" love, either, because it [!@#$%^&*] showed that the show was operating on the cheap. Ain't nobody got time for that.

I know this filming in the parking lot on GH doesn't impress me like it does others. It just gives me flashbacks to the end of GL.

The under-budget thing always miffed me. While I do believe it was true, when the whole OLTL vs AMC thing really kicked into overdrive you'd hear people just quote it as fact, "OLTL IS ALWAYS UNDER-BUDGET IT DERVES TO BE SAVED ABOVE EVERY OTHER SOAP".

Actually, both OLTL and AMC deserved to be saved over the one soap that ABC (inexplicably) chose to hold on to (in spite of it being worse than the other two could ever hope to be).

Then again, two years have passed, AMC/OLTL are primed to get a (hopefully, new and improved) second chance, while GH is rightfully floundering in the gutter.

Edited April 23, 201312 yr by VirginiaHamilton

I really do believe the generally held belief that they thought their reality shows (obviously, particularly Revolution) would be much bigger than they were, and that within a year GH would be gone too with an all reality line up. I guess for a variety of reasons GH just got the last chance (I found an old SOD from Spring 2010 and that week actually (it was Feb something--the ratings) AMC had a 1.8, OLTL a 1.7 and GH a 1.7 under it. But I know OLTL got better demos (I think?) than either of the other two.

The under-budget thing always miffed me. While I do believe it was true, when the whole OLTL vs AMC thing really kicked into overdrive you'd hear people just quote it as fact, "OLTL IS ALWAYS UNDER-BUDGET IT DERVES TO BE SAVED ABOVE EVERY OTHER SOAP".

I guess the thinking there was, why should ABC cancel one soap that makes a profit in an era when others don't? After all, to say a soap "deserves" to stay on the air because it's "good" -- that could be awfully subjective. But really, if profitability is the true yardstick, then any soap deserves to be saved unless and until it loses money.

Edited April 23, 201312 yr by Khan

I guess the thinking there was, why should ABC cancel one soap that makes a profit in an era when others don't? After all, to say a soap "deserves" to stay on the air because it's "good" -- that could be awfully subjective. But really, if profitability is the true yardstick, then any soap deserves to be saved unless and until it loses money.

Oh it was. It just because a sticking point since we had only once had one semi-official statement about it coming under budget for a month. Then the word on forums was all about how much money OLTL always saves ABC etc with nothing more backing that up. Though I suspect it was true--just the way it was handled like fact.

I guess the thinking there was, why should ABC cancel one soap that makes a profit in an era when others don't? After all, to say a soap "deserves" to stay on the air because it's "good" -- that could be awfully subjective. But really, if profitability is the true yardstick, then any soap deserves to be saved unless and until it loses money.

Underbudget doesn't mean it's making profit though which was part of why I never got that arguement.