LOL I like how he offered explanations as to why AJ and Laura were off screen but when asked about Elizabeth, it's the usual side-stepping the question.

All I know is I hope to God Sean Kanan wasn't fired but I don't have much hope. Fingers crossed though!

The only interesting part of the interview is he basically admits the OLTL rejects are failures. When Logan gives him the opening to preen over how much they've done to save GH, the best he can come up with is that because of them the show has Ava and Derek.

Then there's the whole, "oops, I realized all of Franco's relatives are dead! My bad!" I'm sure Jamey and Jillian and the other Ronsketeers would say that's adorable. I think it just confirms how he has no story plans and everything is made up as it goes along.

LOL I like how he offered explanations as to why AJ and Laura were off screen but when asked about Elizabeth, it's the usual side-stepping the question.

All I know is I hope to God Sean Kanan wasn't fired but I don't have much hope. Fingers crossed though!

I don't think he sidestepped it at all. Maybe I'm reading between the lines too much but I heard if you're watching primarily for Liz you will be disappointed. Seemed shockingly direct.

I thought the questions were ridic but the answers ok. I agree with him about people who watch soaps for a single character. That's not his fault and you have no one to blame but yourself for not enoying the show specifically because that character isn't on. He may just have no story ideas for Liz, and it doesn't make sense to do a story for her anyway. That is Guza style: No ideas for Sonny? 5 days a week here we come!"

What he was saying is basically those Shawn/TJ scenes the other day. Two actors popped into the middle of an episode with nothing to do and no reason for being there.

You could easily give them something to do, it's not rocket science

I thought the questions were ridic but the answers ok. I agree with him about people who watch soaps for a single character. That's not his fault and you have no one to blame but yourself for not enoying the show specifically because that character isn't on. He may just have no story ideas for Liz, and it doesn't make sense to do a story for her anyway. That is Guza style: No ideas for Sonny? 5 days a week here we come!"

What he was saying is basically those Shawn/TJ scenes the other day. Two actors popped into the middle of an episode with nothing to do and no reason for being there.

But moRon has to realize that he still has a considerable amount of an audience because of these characters or what's left of them. If the show is well rounded and good as soaps used to be, no one would be watching for a single character! I'm absolutely positive of this. As it stands, you have to grab ahold of something you like and try to enjoy it no matter if it's been gutted like a fish.

As for TJ and Shawn, their entire existence is being in the middle of an eppy for no apparent reason. That is what black characters do on a Craptini show!

Edited November 11, 201312 yr by ChitHappens

I thought the questions were ridic but the answers ok. I agree with him about people who watch soaps for a single character. That's not his fault and you have no one to blame but yourself for not enoying the show specifically because that character isn't on. He may just have no story ideas for Liz, and it doesn't make sense to do a story for her anyway. That is Guza style: No ideas for Sonny? 5 days a week here we come!"

What he was saying is basically those Shawn/TJ scenes the other day. Two actors popped into the middle of an episode with nothing to do and no reason for being there.

It's Carlivati style too. There's no purpose for Olivia, yet she's on all the time. There's no purpose for Kukla, or Franco, but they're on all the time.

What he and Logan are saying is it's great if you don't show a character who isn't your pet. If a character is your pet, then put him on all the time, even if there's no reason.

And yet when other writers do it, they get crucified

It's Carlivati style too. There's no purpose for Olivia, yet she's on all the time. There's no purpose for Kukla, or Franco, but they're on all the time.

What he and Logan are saying is it's great if you don't show a character who isn't your pet. If a character is your pet, then put him on all the time, even if there's no reason.

You have the best and most accurate observations!

Ron carlivati is a god to the soap world in soap press. He got all the buzz and press in 2008 and won his first Emmy. He has become IMO to the soap press the LADY GAGA of soap writers.

Ok

It's Carlivati style too. There's no purpose for Olivia, yet she's on all the time. There's no purpose for Kukla, or Franco, but they're on all the time.

What he and Logan are saying is it's great if you don't show a character who isn't your pet. If a character is your pet, then put him on all the time, even if there's no reason.

Olivia is not on as much as that. She was on recently so she could see Morgan and Scott, tell Sonny, so Sonny could find the wire. I do agree about them having pets, but that is something every writer had. Monty, who wasn't even the writer, had Luke and Laura. Labine had Brenda and a few others. Unfortunately, this guy has Kiki.

Ron carlivati is a god to the soap world in soap press. He got all the buzz and press in 2008 and won his first Emmy. He has become IMO to the soap press the LADY GAGA of soap writers.

Comparing him to Irna Phillips, Agnes Nixon, William J. Bell, Ron Winsor, Michael Malone, Douglas Marland, Claire Labine, Bridget and Jerome Dobson? Yeah.. No, he can't hold a candle to them

But moRon has to realize that he still has a considerable amount of an audience because of these characters or what's left of them. If the show is well rounded and good as soaps used to be, no one would be watching for a single character!

I don't know if she should consider them because his audience is growing and he seems to be ignoring them. I cannot stand Franco and Kiki but the show seems pretty well rounded these days. You have your silly action show with a touch of romance in Robin, you have your baby drama with Maxie and Lulu, and you have your gangster/family thing with Sonny, Morgan and crew. Those are the three main stories and that is a good variety.

I don't know if she should consider them because his audience is growing and he seems to be ignoring them. I cannot stand Franco and Kiki but the show seems pretty well rounded these days. You have your silly action show with a touch of romance in Robin, you have your baby drama with Maxie and Lulu, and you have your gangster/family thing with Sonny, Morgan and crew. Those are the three main stories and that is a good variety.

True, but each "story" is so horribly told and sidelined much too often. This is when you better hope people are still attached to your characters. You got more of the clowns in Windymere than you have Robert and Anna who have been stuck in the lab for 2 solid weeks now? I guess having them on would be a waste because they certainly have nothing critical to do, right?