45 minutes ago, Broderick said:

She said her mandate at Y&R was to "bring the show into the 21st century".  Then she started babbling about how she was never a fan of "wall-to-wall background music".   For many of us, that was the uniqueness and beauty of Y&R -- the wall to wall background music, and the stylized acting that accompanied it.  She definitely managed to rid Y&R of everything that separated it from the other shows.  

THIS.

29 minutes ago, BetterForgotten said:

I also don't think she worked with great writers again after Curlee/Demorest at GL. The fact that she still singles out that time in her career for writing says a lot - she was able to bulldoze over other writers or was given very poor ones to execute her many mandates since then. 

 

There's also the fact that she and Megan McTavish became a package deal, bc Megan would facilitate for her at OLTL and GH. Before the network made her hire Megan, Jill was ghostwriting OLTL herself.

3 hours ago, kalbir said:

 

JFP got GL's ratings up in 1991/1992 and the blackout was the zenith. Sadly the momentum didn't last. I will forever maintain that Robert Calhoun laid all the groundwork but JFP got all the credit. I still can't believe that JFP lasted almost 4 years (July 1991 to May 1995), almost twice as long as Robert Calhoun (June 1989 to July 1991).

The Blackout was a perfect plot driven event- because all the characters were in different or pivotal situations but they were so well defined and the writing was strong it all worked.

 

I preferred the show under Calhoun- it was brighter without looking cheap or garish, and Mindy, Blake, and Alexandra were played by great actors who were compelling.  And there was still a sense of fun at times.  JFP rarely does fun.  It’s almost always deadly serious with her.

What was so great about the blackout? 

 

The ratings great? It was down from the week before with a 5.6 rating.  I guess it was a success because it ranked #4 among the soaps and beat GH?

Edited June 25, 20214 yr by Soapsuds

3 hours ago, Soapsuds said:

What was so great about the blackout? 

I wanna know as well.

3 hours ago, Soapsuds said:

What was so great about the blackout? 

 

The ratings great? It was down from the week before with a 5.6 rating.  I guess it was a success because it ranked #4 among the soaps and beat GH?

 

19 minutes ago, DemetriKane said:

I wanna know as well.

 
It’s considered a landmark event for GL that had storyline repercussions for years to come, probably the biggest being Ross & Blake(Sherry was still in the role at time) as so many storylines climaxed under one event. It received widespread critical acclaim including GL winning a Best Writing Emmy for it.
 

And if GL tied at #4 at a 5.6 that week with GH that also shows how many soaps were in the crapper at the time still trying to coast off the 80’s (hello Days!). It was a year before quite a few soaps found their 90’s revival kick in while GL stumbled by the start of 1994. 

15 hours ago, soapfan770 said:

shows how many soaps were in the crapper at the time still trying to coast off the 80’s (hello Days!). It was a year before quite a few soaps found their 90’s revival kick in 

Fall 1990 to end of 1992 Days was that transition period between the supercouple era and Reilly's sci-fi era. It's one of those periods that's not really talked about much.

Edited June 26, 20214 yr by kalbir

where oh where to start…

 

there’s drw50’s observation in the doug davidson thread:

 

“The likes of Hogan, Guza, JFP, Logan, Hinsey, etc. could never get past their inherent disdain for and shame for soaps, shame that they had to cover or work in the genre. And this shame and self-hatred helped to kill the work of generations of artists.”

 

but it’s more than disdain and shame, not to mention contempt. so much of what jfp said to locher revealed a profound lack of understanding of why many viewers watch soaps. but, i’m only going to mention a couple.

 

she talked about how she liked baby showers and all that, but viewers didn’t care about baby showers unless there was a bomb under the bassinet.

 

well, no…

 

i took ‘baby shower’ as shorthand for the one reason many  viewers do watch soaps:

 

to spend time with familiar characters over years, if not decades — characters who develop and grow a bit, who change and age — sharing scenes that don’t necessarily move the story along, but are great moments of character revelation, humor, and yes, sometimes sadness. no bombs necessary.

 

which brings me to her comments equating ‘friends of jill’ with the late steven bochco’s fondness for finding roles for actors he’d worked with when he created new shows.

 

again, a lack of understanding about how fundamental familiarity is to soap fans. not to say shows shouldn’t change. but change doesn’t mean refocusing the show on, for example, the rappaports on oltl, leaving fans angrily wondering what happened to the rest of the characters.

 

who knows — she might have done well creating her own show. but to not understand how what she did differed from bochco…

 

 

1 hour ago, wonderwoman1951 said:

 

 

to spend time with familiar characters over years, if not decades — characters who develop and grow a bit, who change and age — sharing scenes that don’t necessarily move the story along, but are great moments of character revelation, humor, and yes, sometimes sadness. no bombs necessary.

 

 

 

I thought the baby shower hypothetical was very revealing. It's a complete misunderstanding of the genre. The idea of a bomb under the bassinet strikes me as stupid, cheap, garbage, plot-oriented writing, not interesting or exciting. It's the type of writing that made me give up on certain shows over the years. But I'd totally watch a baby shower where the characters are written in character, exchanging good barbs and knowing glances... imagine B&B's Stephanie being forced to throw one for Brooke. That would be fantastic television. I'd be riveted. 

 

Another thing that struck me was when she said she came to GL and there was a producer that helped her a lot because they knew the history of the show very well and really helped her understand the layout of the show. Then when she went to AW she brought that person with her because they were so great. That does nothing for AW and AW's fans, who want someone that understands THEIR show.

Edited June 28, 20214 yr by BoldRestless

On 6/25/2021 at 7:47 PM, Broderick said:

She said her mandate at Y&R was to "bring the show into the 21st century".  Then she started babbling about how she was never a fan of "wall-to-wall background music".   For many of us, that was the uniqueness and beauty of Y&R -- the wall to wall background music, and the stylized acting that accompanied it.  She definitely managed to rid Y&R of everything that separated it from the other shows.  

This literally hurt my soul to hear. As a child, it was the haunting, continuous background music of shows as different in style as Y&R, AMC, GH, Santa Barbara and Days which drew me in! Y&R's music was cinematic, orchestral, moving, and it did an incredible job of adding psychological dimension to the characters onscreen. Bill Bell had an enduring fascination with psychology (especially women's) and why people desire the things they do (which stemmed from his days as an advertising executive when the ad agencies hired Freudian psychiatrists to help sharpen their campaigns). And the music used for Y&R and B&B was there specifically to heighten non-verbal, illogical shifts in a character's mood or emotions. 

 

It's been so long, but i still boil when i think that JFP had the *arrogance* to smear her bland, generic, crappy taste in music, furnishings and costume all over this #1 show. She effectively turned it into a standardised amalgam of the past shows she worked on. She sucked the oxygen out of it, and it has never recovered since.

The baby shower thing was just stupid.  Drama, especially soaps builds towards a payoff.  Moments to breath and showing aspects of life like joy and community are pivotal when the payoff requires an emotional reaction.  And back in the day, a beloved couple having a child was a payoff, because the audience wanted to see them, and tuned in.

 

Again- for all the lessons learned from Monty, she missed some of the big ones.  Gloria Monty irrevocably changed GH, YMMV on if it was for the better.  But they always had a human story going while the action adventure stuff was going on.  Characters like Bobbie, Tony, Lucy, the Quartermaines, the Webber family- they were rarely in the full mix of the action storylines and were often involved in hospital stuff, affairs, raising families, etc.  When everything is a bomb under the bassinet then nothing really matters anymore.

7 minutes ago, titan1978 said:

 When everything is a bomb under the bassinet then nothing really matters anymore.

 

I remember tuning out of ATWT after some godawful scene with Carly trapped in a toy chest hamming it up while the house burned down. It was all BIG! STUFF! EVERY! DAY!

And in the end, what's the difference between setting scenes at a baby shower, at a restaurant or at the hospital? The fact that people would have to specifically interact with each other? 

 

Give me ten females throwing barbs, pissy looks, and trying to keep the cake from being destroyed over a bomb anyday.

Edited June 29, 20214 yr by P.J.

15 hours ago, BoldRestless said:

The idea of a bomb under the bassinet strikes me as stupid, cheap, garbage, plot-oriented writing, not interesting or exciting. It's the type of writing that made me give up on certain shows over the years

I'm okay with a bomb under the bassinet..once in a while...remember the days when it was during sweeps week and there were months and months of lead up to that bomb, and why we should care...(I remember on AMC Ray Gardner had planted a bomb in the Martin's basement on Thanksgiving or Christmas and it was very, very tense...(even if we knew AMC was not going to kill the Martins and their friends on a holiday) as we knew the characters and there was a lead up to it.  Soaps forgot self control and pacing..so Reva was in danger every other week and we could care less.

 

15 hours ago, titan1978 said:

But they always had a human story going while the action adventure stuff was going on.  Characters like Bobbie, Tony, Lucy, the Quartermaines, the Webber family- they were rarely in the full mix of the action storylines and were often involved in hospital stuff, affairs, raising families, etc.

This..that is why shows had a "boring" core family like the Hughes and Bauers. They were aspirational (upper middle class professionals) but not out of reach (mulit billionaires) and they had "normal" lives that helped ground the show. Being raised on the PG shows it was still easy to get into Monty's GH as they had a core family, celebrated the holidays, etc. I read once Monty wanted to fuse "Irna Phillips with the Edge of Night".

 

15 hours ago, BoldRestless said:

remember tuning out of ATWT after some godawful scene with Carly trapped in a toy chest hamming it up while the house burned down

I would be rooting for the fire..I can't imagine Carly would be in danger when she can chew the scenery and chew her way out of that toy chest.

 

Again, when Phelps has good writers and lets them write she can be good. A couple of years of her GL were perfect soap and it did balance big events with the Bauer kitchen. It was when Curlee left and Deas started eating the show that GL died.

13 minutes ago, Mitch said:

I'm okay with a bomb under the bassinet..once in a while...remember the days when it was during sweeps week and there were months and months of lead up to that bomb, and why we should care...(I remember on AMC Ray Gardner had planted a bomb in the Martin's basement on Thanksgiving or Christmas and it was very, very tense...(even if we knew AMC was not going to kill the Martins and their friends on a holiday) as we knew the characters and there was a lead up to it.  Soaps forgot self control and pacing..so Reva was in danger every other week and we could care less.

 

I totally agree with you, Mitch. Ideally a soap should have a balance of suspense--the factor that keeps you tuning in tomorrow to see what happens next--and character-based scenes, the factor that keeps you tuning in each day to see the more mundane interactions between your favorite characters. 

 

All in all, I think GL did a pretty good job of balancing the two modes of soap opera during JFP's run. I started watching GL during the later part of her run, which I know a lot of viewers hated. It was actually the Matt and Vanessa story in the summer of 1994 that got me hooked, and I remember loving later outlandish suspense plots like Brent/Marian, but I also loved watching the everyday interactions between complex characters like Holly, Roger, Jenna, Dinah, Bridget, and Vanessa.