Jump to content

DAYS: Fire Jamey Giddens!!


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Why do you insist on that (our going off as fans and creating our own shows) as being the solution to all the troubles that plague these shows?  Sure, we could go create our own stuff if we had to, or wanted to, but why should we?  Why can't we just hold to the proverbial fire the feet of those who are being paid to write and produce the shows still on the air?  Is it really so bad just to ask those jackholes to do better, to try harder, to not bore the audience or insult their intelligence or tastes on a regular basis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

That's a good point, because @Lust4Life76 comment is kind of like saying if you disagree with the government why don't you just start your own country.

There are absolutely no consequences to fans discussing their opinions on a board.  Nobody is suggesting actually harassing writers on social media.  This is just a forum amongst viewers and if production chooses to follow along that is another bad decision on their part. 

Edited by j swift
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My view, how long has the writing been like this on a soap (or all the soaps) to the point you're dissatisfied? I will agree from other comments I have seen that the writing could be of a higher caliber - as preceded by Irna Phillips, Agnes Nixon and Bill Bell, but also Douglas Marland, Michael Malone, etc.,...  But we've been waiting for a decade and a half. I agree with people - as having watched Ron's version of "One Life to Live" (some of which I liked) yet his ability to name drop, rewrite histories (that had already been maintained by celebrated regimes) that ultimately led to no payoff. I guess that's why I champion taking to writing your own show where you control your continuity, your tone, your characters and honor your histories. SO many of you are speaking from a good place and it's out of respect for what the genre excelled at - tight, engaging stories that you could recapture an audience. Long gone are the days the networks really had any say... Now we can all take agency, and you never know the success and/or connections you may contribute to the genre.  If Jamey Giddens can get a gig, why can't more people?

I know you previous shared that you think I was challenging you for having an opinion. But I do respect what you are saying. 

 

You're a clown.

Edited by Lust4Life76
Wasn't finished writing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If what you're doing fulfills you, more power to you. But I'm sorry, writing your own show or getting a job at one of these shows vs. writing fanfic on this forum are two really different things.

For myself, I work in another part of the industry where I'm happy doing what I'm doing, and I have different goals and bigger creative fish to fry than soaps. I don't have any interest in working in daytime today because of the state of the genre and that particular piece of the industry. Trying to pursue creating a daytime soap today is like trying to pursue creating your own horse and buggy company. I have no interest in Jamey Giddens' career path, but even if I did, I wouldn't be doing it by writing original prose on this forum. I hope what you do makes you happy, but it has nothing to do with me and it's not going to change my critical review of these shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've been writing my own text-based soap, Footprints, for fun/writing practice since 1997 (I was in junior high and it was terrible the first few years!). I also work as a writer in TV -- not daytime. Am I allowed to take issue with the writing on a show I watch?! 

(For the record, I'm not advocating for Jamey, or anyone, to be fired, but this conversation took quite a turn.)

And I get the general spirit behind "if you don't like the entertainment you're being served, create something you love!" in theory, but like... if I go to a restaurant and order filet mignon and it sucks, I should be able to declare that or send it back without being obligated to go butcher a cow and make my own.

Edited by Michael
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Given that the only two things that I have to judge his talents by are Ambitions and his self-confessed pitch for the Renee storyline, I am not a fan of his creative endeavors.  But, few could quibble that it is remarkable that a fan with a podcast became part of an award wining writing team.

Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • In my usual account on my most used video hosting site with the video title  DAYS 1-8-15 Will & Paul Sex This is an edit I began when I was first teaching myself to edit & at that time I couldn't make it do what I wanted it to do. I pulled it up & finished it this morning. 
    • Or Megan is shot by mobsters as retaliation for Dave's unpaid gambling debts.
    • Finland seemed such an odd choice for a location shoot. ATWT went to Greece and later Spain while GL had Tenerife and there were others in that timeframe. But Finland not being a known tourist destination or offering the tropical/sunny atmosphere usually associated with location shoots seems off brand. Maybe they were negotiating a deal with a tourist association and it fell through.
    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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