Jump to content

Backstage Mysteries: Forever Unsolved


Recommended Posts

  • Members

My husband and I had no problems with the gorilla at all. It was a nod to the past and to an era of AW we both loved. I imagine Carolyn was a nod to Carolyn Culliton, though your reference to Hinsey made me laugh. There was also a nod in the final episodes to Samuel Ratcliffe, an AW writer who died in the 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

OK, I can see if there was a history there. I only got to watch AW's final two years and change on NBC - starting at the beginning of 1997 with the death of Gabe. I also remember when Lisa Peluso was introduced as Lila (I always remember the way she said "Shaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaane", LOL). Still, what may have seemed like a good idea on paper just didn't seem to have a great execution. Maybe I felt that way because it was obviously a guy in costume...if a trained gorilla had been on instead it may have come across as more authentic. I do recall Felicia saying she was going to call Sam Ratcliffe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sam Ratcliffe on SFT was not played by Rod Arrants. He had bushy hair, but it was most definitely not the same actor. Liza only thought it was Rusty for a second until Sam turned around and she saw his face. Unfortunately, the actor didn't make the final credit crawl, since it was only for the main cast that week.

Larkin is there too, along with Nelson Aspen and Adam Storke, in the airport crowds. And John Pankow (MAD ABOUT YOU) was the priest who married Hogan and Patti.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I gotta join the conversation here about Lisa in the last ten years of ATWT. It got to the point where I'm pretty sure Nancy was getting more screen time than Lisa. Which isn't a bad thing, per se, but COME ON! Say what you will about EF's flutteriness, but we all know our beloved EH was ticky as hell. They both had their quirks that made their characters who they were, and we accepted that.

The last time they had any investment in Lisa had to have been when they randomly had her running a teen music club ("Crash") that looked like a freaking general store. I loved having her mix it up with the younger characters, but for a character with such a storied history, it just seemed hollow and dull. They could have done a LOT more with her.

I feel they did a lot of right by Susan/MM. They sorta reset the Stewarts as an important part of the show even without bringing on more people to round the family out (the injustice of them never having brought on one of those damn quads!!), and Susan had a good bit to do. Sometimes it was a lot of hand-wringing at Emily and Alison, but they had her play an appropriate mother role.

Bob and Kim, it can't even be debated, were shown tons of love towards the end. Lucinda was still a heavy hitter but in terribly boring business storylines that should have ceased to exist in the 90s. They kept her busy, though.

ATWT had so many tools at its disposal towards the end. Even if the end was inevitable, they could have gone out in a much more grander fashion, but we all know what it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Another mystery, which NONE of us will ever solve, LOL, is why the soaps keep hiring the same tired writers over and over again. Daytime TV has become a recycle-the-hack ghetto.

Back in the day, weak writers would move from one soap to another, but it was rare for a writer who had failed miserably at one soap to be rehired, to destroy that exact same show again. Margaret DePriest, for example, went from show to show, and she was never very good, but she was slightly better suited at certain soaps than she was at others. The same with Robert Cenedella. Ann Marcus was terrible at DAYS, in my opinion, but quite well suited for MARY HARTMAN 2, and her work at SEARCH FOR TOMORROW made the ratings soar. So I can sort of see why various writers would have the chance to take over DIFFERENT shows, even if they had previously failed at other ones. But with Dena Higley, and so many other writers, they have nothing but failure wherever they go, and to hire them again AT THE SAME SHOW, where they had already proven to be ill-suited and incompetent...that's just suicidal.

Why don't TBTB accept the obvious, admit that certain writers should never work on a daytime soap ever again, and then a give a chance to different writers who are new to the genre, but who have had success at character-driven storytelling elsewhere? It worked, to varying degrees of success, with Harding Lemay, Michael Malone (during his first stint at OLTL), Hogan Sheffer (during his first year at ATWT), etc.

I would rather see a brand-new name in the credits, and give that newbie scribe a chance to show what he can do, than cringe in abject horror as the names Dena Higley, Charles Pratt, Thom Racina, Jean Passanante, etc., spring onto my TV screen yet again.

The fans know that rehiring the same hacks is destroying daytime. Why can't TPTB figure this out?

This is the soaps' biggest unsolved mystery...ever!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Case of the Revolving Door of Hack Writers is no mystery to me. Daytime recycled itself right out of attracting new talent. While they're in the business of boomeranging the same hacks from show to show, the talented writer out of the Iowa Writers Workshop is going to stay far away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What I'd like to know is when it became the norm for daytime to be written and produced by people who (to me) clearly hate soaps, see soaps as a bad joke, are desperate for primetime, or all of the above.

Goutman, Sheffer, JFP, Pratt, MAB, Carlivati, Guza, on and on.

No wonder the genre is in its death throes when so many of the people who have been involved in it in the last few decades treat it with such open contempt.

One of the reasons I never bash Tomlin, McTavish, etc. as much as some do is because I at least never felt like they hated soaps.

Look at people like The Dobsons, who essentially said they got into it because of Bridget's parents, more than any great love, - they made some mistakes, but overall I felt like they tried to understand and respect the conventions of the genre, even as they spoofed them or worked to expand them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think it is because it takes a certain unique set of skills to churn out the amount of story that is needed to write daytime. And since they dismantled soap writing programs, it's easier to hire a tired old hack who understands how the business works, than it is to train someone else to do it. Isn't Hogan Sheffer the last person from outside of the soap world, to get a shot at writing? Or maybe it's Ron Carlivati. And since everyone demands instant results, a writer doesn't have time for own the job training. They have to hit the ground running.

I have two soap mysteries.

1) Why will a soap create a new character, instead of using a character from the soap's past with a lot of untapped potential? For instance, on Days of our Lives. Why create the Hillbilly trio and Serena, when they could have easily been characters connected to the show's past. I think it has been disproven that soap writers make extra money for creating new characters. So what is the incentive?

2) What did Matt Ashford do to Ken Corday?

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 think they’re desperately trying to cover his awful tattoos. But anyway them being unable to style short kings properly has been a major pet peeve of mine for a while now.  I honestly don’t understand what some people expect from actors to even begin considering them for recognition. Let’s be real—awards mostly mean that an actor is respected by their peers and has some level of cultural relevance. Actual judgment on the acting itself? That’s often secondary—highly subjective and shaped by the times. I completely agree on both points. If you’re an actor or a dancer you shouldn’t get any tattoos (sorry not sorry). Tomas’ tattoos are ugly too. And regarding the couples- you’re completely right. These writers are unable to write romance.   Further comments: - Kat cannot be this dumb to keep tampering with evidence over and over again. And I’m officially not a fan of the actress—every time she’s in a scene with Leslie, she doesn’t seem intimidated at all. She plays it like comic relief, which is just too much, especially when paired with Leslie’s histrionics and over-the-top antics. Leslie is older, dangerous, and has literally been portrayed as homicidal—Kat should be at least a little scared. • I also didn’t like Kat playing damsel in distress with the hotel manager. It gave off the same weird energy as Dani with the cop. I would’ve much preferred the version Paul Raven suggested, with her sneaking in through housekeeping. • And yes, Dani again accused Hayley of faking the pregnancy—this time even specifying she might be using a pillow under her shirt. (No fake miscarriage being mentioned) I stand by my take: this is ridiculous writing. No one in the real world—except us, the chronically online soap watchers—would even think of such a conspiracy theory. Haley is no Beyoncé. • What in the world was Chelsea wearing in her hair the other day? And this whole thing with Madison is beyond cringe. Chelsea’s coming off as needy and toxic—basically like every other Dupree. • I’m glad the casino storyline is moving forward, but it’s still boring as hell. Honestly, I’d be so here for a plot twist where Vanessa and Doug take Joey out. • The direction and editing lately have been rough. Abrupt cuts, weird pacing… something just feels off overall. There’s a strange uneasiness to how it’s all coming together. • And finally: Tomas is too much of a saint. Where are the messy sluts when you need them? (Vanessa doesn’t count.)
    • Andrew sure has hard nips.
    • I was watching some August 1987 episodes and they brought back so many memories. I had some thoughts: Lisa and Jamie were so dull. Lisa was such a nothing character. It boggles my mind that so much story was centered around her in such a short amount of time. Joanna Going is a talented actress, but the material was just not there.  It was so good to see Wallingford and Mitch again. I know there was talk about Felicia a while back, but these episodes reminded me how integral Felicia was for the show.  Sally Spencer was done so dirty. She is turning in superb performances in an icky storyline. I wish she had stuck around longer. She has chemistry with everyone. The McKinnons should have lasted longer. Spencer had some strong stuff with Stephen Schnetzer and Mary Alexander. AW waster such a talented actress by getting rid of her. Justice for Cheryl too. I also missed Ed Fry when he left. Sandra Ferguson was a star from the moment she came on. She was charismatic and just popped. She had immediate chemistry with RKK and blended in well with Wyndham and Watson. I'd forgotten about the teenage Matthew.  I have no memory of Peggy Lazarus. She must not have lasted long. Was the original plan for John that he was going to turn out to be the twins' real father?      
    • If the new and improved copies that @rsclassicfanforever has uploaded can be manually moved into the "by month, by year" folders, that would be awesome. I personally don't think it's necessary to keep the older versions (which either have Dutch subtitles hard coded on them, or are lesser in picture quality). That's a lot of valuable drive space that could be cleared. Just my view but can appreciate others may feel differently. The structure had been by month by year previously, so I think it would be easier to conform to that, where so much prior work to get it to that format has already been done. Hopefully you can "drag and drop" so the new copies are in the right month/year? Re Clips, I never look at them now we pretty much have the episodes in full. Appreciate others may use, however. Thanks for all your hard work here @BoldRestless!
    • Oh yes defintely, Josh Griffith repeats and repeats the same storylines.
    • Isnt’t this storyline similar to the Cameron Kirsten situation though? Sharon thought she killed him. He ended up being alive and Sharon was being tormented with thinking she was seeing his face everywhere and that’s how we got that iconic scene with her and Nikki in the sewers.   I understand in Mariah’s case this is different circumstances but it does seem like a play on that whole thing. Maybe I’m wrong. I just wish if they were going to make any character follow in Sharon’s foot steps it would be Faith. Mariah wasn’t even raised by her, and her personality is different. I would expect her to take a different path. I understand I could be completely jumping ahead because the storyline hasn’t even played out yet but we’ll see. 
    • Thanks again @Paul Raven Monica was completely without redeeming qualities at this point. I always found the whole Monica = Carly narrative regressive, as I don't think shows comparing characters so heavily is ever a great idea, but she's actually worse than Carly was. Was it the Pollocks who had Leslie have a miscarriage?  Giving her a child, especially by rape, was not a good idea, but a part of me wishes they'd committed to it just to see what story it might have had in later years.
    • @janea4old Your detailed explanation and delving into the psychology and motivations is no doubt the opposite of what we will see onscreeen. As @ranger1rg stated we will get a few scenes and some sketchy explanations. Like the adoption of Aria, most of it will take place off screen.
    • I'm suddenly fearful that DAYS is going to pull a Flowers-for-Algernon stunt and Bo's progress will be reversed.  While @te. is stuck on Abe's tiny bedroom, I can't stop thinking of the size of Bo's huge hospital room.
    • Okay, why are Paulina and Abe sleeping like that?!  I'd take a screen grab if I wasn't lazy, but come on.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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