Jump to content

Jean and Shelly's one year contract up. Will ABC renew?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I wouldn't be averse to bringing in Sheri Anderson (who wrote for GH back in its late-'70's heyday, if I'm not mistaken).  It wouldn't guarantee anything since I'm convinced ABC is all about micro-management, but who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

These are all tired old merry-go-round hacks going from soap to soap churning out the same tired vision.   GH is slowly dying, so ABC should roll the dice and bring in someone completely new from outside the usual suspects who might actually have a new idea for what soaps can do.    Old P&G writers who were completely out of touch with what the public wanted in 2006 wouldn't be great candidates in 2016.  GL had abysmal ratings and couldn't find an audience, not sure bringing in someone who wrote the show that nobody but the hardcore wanted to watch is the way to go to reviving daytime.   If Jill Lorie Hurst, Addie Walsh and company had any idea what the TV public wanted to see, maybe those shows would still be on the air.   Certainly the writers of GL and AMC circa 2000s are not the people with the track record for having their finger on the pulse of the TV public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'd only want Claire Labine back for one week - for the sole purpose of undoing Delia's connection to Ava. Crossovers can be fun, but Dee should never have been permanently tied to that character. Once that's done, Claire can leave. Loved her Ryan's Hope. But her GH? Not again, thanks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Have to disagree with your description of these "tired old merry-go-round hacks". Sri Rao and Jill Lorie Hurst have hardly gone from soap to soap. Rao helmed GH: Night Shift. One soap. Lorie Hurst was at one soap -- Guiding Light -- for 15 years and didn't become head writer until the final season, and it was a credit she shared with three other scribes. Michele Val Jean is one of the most respected writers in the genre and was head writer for GH for a mere four months before she was kicked to the curb in favor of Megan McTavish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Would you sillies stop floating names of senior citizens who've retired or have no interest, or who would never be hired, as headwriters. No, GH will not hire Labine, Broderick, Anderson etc.

Here are my wild card picks if Jelly gets replaced:  Carlivati (don't be surprised because Vickie Drummer gave him a twitter shout out on emmy night).  Josh Griffith: yes he's pretty much detested as a hack but that never stops the networks from recycling.  Look at how ABC picked up Jelly from YR after their lackluster year on that soap.  ABC is not going to break in a new untested writer or a vet who's been in retirement.  If it's not Carlivati or Griffith, then I'd think they'd go with a co-headwriting duo with Liz Korte and Anna Cascio or Anna/Chris Van Etten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

She's a soap hopper, a member of the elite crew that has permanent job security in daytime and is never out of work for long.    Writers like her and Higley--whoever--it doesn't matter if their work sells or doesn't sell, they get hired and rehired again and again.   She might have written a great story in 1997 once, but I am not sure that means she gets a lifetime contract in soaps.   I would have no desire to see her come back to GH and show us her attempt at a well written mob.    It's time for a writer fhat is going to break the mold, not serve up comfy stories about mobsters having cancer or something similar.

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’ve reached the summer of 1998.  Until now, my impression has been that the show has steadily improved since the great quality dip of 1994, reaching as high as 8/10 in 1997. Sure, I could complain about a few things in 1997 (Claudia got wasted after her initial storyline; Thorne’s feelings for Taylor were a bit too sudden; the storyline where Sheila lived with James and Maggie while pregnant got rather boring; Mike periodically revisiting Sheila despite being on the run from authorities), but overall it was a very strong year.  I liked the Thorne/Taylor/Ridge triangle, the mystery plot about who shot Grant, the sham wedding to trap Sheila, Stephanie/Eric/Lauren, and Clarke manipulating his way back to working at Forrester. I even liked the Greenland storyline with Eric/Lauren/Rush, although I had expected to hate it. Maybe 1996 tops 1997 in raw soapy excitement (especially as Sheila got a chance to interact with a larger canvas of characters), but certain problems with overall storyline cohesion puts it somewhat below 1997 for me. Unfortunately, 1998 has turned out to be a bit of a speedbump, perhaps on par with 1995 levels of quality: - Maggie’s character really got trashed after James left her to be with Sheila, and the early 1998 storylines where she imprisoned Sheila in the house from Psycho, or installed those wires and mikes and such in her house to make her think she’s going crazy, were total GARBAGE. So much so that the latter storyline (and Maggie with it) pretty much disappeared into a limbo.  - I have mixed feelings about the twins plotline with Lauren. No way did Rush survive being shot with a crossbow through the chest, and the romance between Lauren and Rush’s good twin brother Johnny was rather dry to me. I did however enjoy the camp aspect of Rush taking his brother’s place to be with Lauren, and Eric rescuing her. But it doesn’t appear like Bell cared too much about the Johnny/Lauren romance beyond the twin storyline gimmick, and it too disappeared in an unsatisfactory manner (come on, why not hire Johnny’s actor for just 5 more episodes for an arc where he realizes Lauren is not over Eric, or JUST SOMETHING?) - Clarke wormed his way back to FC in late 1997, which had exciting storytelling potential, but then he disappeared almost entirely. Sad to see my favorite character wasted in this manner. Does he get anything interesting to do between now and the Morgan saga of 2000-2001? - The Thomas saga was entertaining in 1997, but it got stretched out too much, and made some of early 1998 tiresome, with Ridge having to decide YET AGAIN which woman he wants to be with. On the plus side, I like the plotline of Thorne being neighbors with Macy and Grant, and we’ve finally been introduced to the SORASed Rick/Amber/CJ crowd. The Stephanie/James/Sheila triangle is also starting, and it makes me excited (I remember seeing some if it in my childhood). I know Sheila, Grant, and James are all leaving soon, which I honestly kind of dread - between them and Clarke’s near-absence, it feels like herd is going to get culled too much in the near future. But I know there’s the familiar 1999-2002 to look forward to.
    • LOL - this is a perfect description, and that's what I loved about it! May be a bit campy, but it immediately caught my attention in a good way.  I'm not familiar with the Fishing Trip storyline, I'll have to look that up. I've noticed that about Josh, which has made him less attractive to me overall. He just yells a lot when he's not happy. Wow, Reva was married to HB!  LOL - "Always... eventually, and again"
    • I love your ideas. I would love to see Jack grown up this confused unhinged individual. He should hold a grudge against both Brooke and Taylor.   
    • @chrisml

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Lois's return has been a bust. So disappointing that the writers have never written for her. As with Tracy, the pool of GH vets is so thin, there's no one to pair her with. Doubtful they would go to the trouble of properly recasting a legacy character and then sticking  him with Lois; they're obviously not that invested. If she wants to be on this show, it'll be as a noisy grandma who stays in the background. 
    • I love me some Anita and TT. They need to give her a good storyline and I know that it's coming. 
    • @Franko Thanks for tagging me. A few days ago I was talking in another thread about the rise of "snarky" critics for TV shows in the '90s online recaps, but this is just more along the lines of a mauling. There's also the unspoken reality that films like Steel Magnolias were seen as movies for women, so therefore they sucked. Pauline Kael also had her share of blunt, at times incredibly nasty remarks, but the vitriol is often balanced by her love for film. I'm not seeing that here.  With that said, the comment about Field's work becoming unbearable describes how I felt when I tried to sit through her and Maura Tierney on ER. 
    • I skipped most of Daniel too. I think it's awful he has kids with Nicole, Csrky5 and Chloe and Brady, Bo and Philip do not. 
    • Please register in order to view this content

         
    • A great day. Feeling happy and accomplished.

      Please register in order to view this content

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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