Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

The consensus seems to be that Hogan was strong in his first year then things went south.

Maybe because he (and a lot of other modern writers) forget that soaps go on and on and what might be a great story for the here and now doesn't work over the longer term.

Hence the many retcons and past events being ignored because they contradict or repeat what went before.

I remember Dena Higley expressing frustration when she presented a storyline to TPTB and being asked 'then what happens?

There is also, I find, a tendency in modern writing across genres to deconstruct. Guza did this a lot with the initial Carly/Tony/Bobbie story on GH. The extreme fall from grace that "changes everything" and "lives get torn apart". It's entertaining, it often mines the history of the show to drive it forward, etc.

But then they forget that once it's broken, it needs to be either pieced together again, or rebuilt into something new, and I don't think a lot of these writers are particularly interested in any type of building. Their energies go 98% into the destruction and the aftermath just sits there, and that's not fun to watch, to me anyway. There's no growth, there's nothing that makes me hopeful, happy, or inspired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 185
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 minutes ago, beebs said:

There is also, I find, a tendency in modern writing across genres to deconstruct. Guza did this a lot with the initial Carly/Tony/Bobbie story on GH. The extreme fall from grace that "changes everything" and "lives get torn apart". It's entertaining, it often mines the history of the show to drive it forward, etc.

But then they forget that once it's broken, it needs to be either pieced together again, or rebuilt into something new, and I don't think a lot of these writers are particularly interested in any type of building. Their energies go 98% into the destruction and the aftermath just sits there, and that's not fun to watch, to me anyway. There's no growth, there's nothing that makes me hopeful, happy, or inspired.

So very true.

Often there's very little aftermath...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, beebs said:

There is also, I find, a tendency in modern writing across genres to deconstruct. Guza did this a lot with the initial Carly/Tony/Bobbie story on GH. The extreme fall from grace that "changes everything" and "lives get torn apart". It's entertaining, it often mines the history of the show to drive it forward, etc.

But then they forget that once it's broken, it needs to be either pieced together again, or rebuilt into something new, and I don't think a lot of these writers are particularly interested in any type of building. Their energies go 98% into the destruction and the aftermath just sits there, and that's not fun to watch, to me anyway. There's no growth, there's nothing that makes me hopeful, happy, or inspired.

 

A few years ago, I had to finally accept the fact that the technique used to write the classic soap opera is a thing of the past and likely gone forever.  What remains is the recent tendency to write in the short-term with consequences that exist in the very short-term.  There is no genuine "payoff" in these stories because there's no natural build to the story, just a bunch of ragged plot points.  It's why I had to stop watching.  I am bored by this basic type of writing, devoid of layers and complexity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear this!  There seems to be a lot of mixed things about his writing, but I also would be curious to see how he would have done as a Solo HW for Y&R without Maria Bell, or any network interference....

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

A few years ago, I had to finally accept the fact that the technique used to write the classic soap opera is a thing of the past and likely gone forever.  What remains is the recent tendency to write in the short-term with consequences that exist in the very short-term.  There is no genuine "payoff" in these stories because there's no natural build to the story, just a bunch of ragged plot points.  It's why I had to stop watching.  I am bored by this basic type of writing, devoid of layers and complexity.

This. Closed-end writing really does not belong on a soap opera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And it defeats the point of soap. If you want arcs neatly tied up, you have a lot of other places that do it much, much better and with less wasted time. That soaps have given up on long-term storytelling is an admission of irrelevance. Why even bother?

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, YRfan23 said:

There seems to be a lot of mixed things about his writing, but I also would be curious to see how he would have done as a Solo HW for Y&R without Maria Bell, or any network interference....

 

If burning fetuses and chipmunk mask-wearing robbers are what happens when you have MAB and network/SONY interference, I'd hate to see what Hogan Sheffer (or anyone) would've come up with without 'em!

 

I'm with @DramatistDreamer.  I'm truly sorry to hear about Sheffer's passing -- and of course, I pray that God be with his loved ones as they continue to grieve the loss.  But I won't pretend to have been a fan of his work, because I wasn't.  I don't believe Sheffer ever, EVER understood what made soaps tick, and I think it's that lack of understanding that wound up crippling every show he wrote for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Franko said:

Until today, I didn't know Hogan's background was in films.

 

Frankly, he should've stayed in the film industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Khan said:

 

Frankly, he should've stayed in the film industry.

I have to be honest, I was thinking the same thing. Forgive the generalization, but the soaps aren't a genre that's meant to be where failed film or nighttime ideas/personnel belong. I'm not trying to speak ill of the dead, but rather thinking about the attempt to make AMC daytime's answer to Sex and the City.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martha Byrne (@MarthaByrne10) Tweeted: He was the best. What a great time we had during those atwt years. Hogan made the decision to dive into Lily’s past to make Rose an identical twin instead of a doppelgänger. This created incredible story and lots of Emmys :) https://t.co/5GgT62aXQo

 

I had no idea this was Hogan’s idea. This was one of my top 3 favorite stories of his, the others being CharBar/boathouse explosion and the Carly/Jack/Julia I saga. Late 2000 through summer 2001 were what happens when a soap has just the right mix of writing, acting, and production values. Some of the best soap of that decade, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martha must have lost her damn mind because that crap started with Leah Laiman before Sheffer arrived. Though Sheffer did end up writing most of it.

Edited by BetterForgotten
Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't "dive into Lily's past" to make Rose an identical twin.  He retconned one of Douglas Marland's finest stories in order to explain away one of Leah Laiman's cockamamie ideas that should've been left off the page altogether.  Don't get it twisted, Martha.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...