Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Members
Posted (edited)

Considering all the upheaval at AW in those years, I'm not sure if the Ewings were a flop. Blaine was a central character for a number of years, and so was Catlin. Larry also seemed well-received enough.

Edited by DRW50
  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members
Posted (edited)

That’s the thing too: IMO, one of the things that makes a successful family is a significant presence on the canvas as a unit. Some of these writers can’t think past their short-term story needs, grafting these randoms on to some family in order to gain audience acceptance, but not really thinking past that. These characters sometimes don’t even meet their siblings and other relatives, as those links don’t matter to the one-dimensional stories the writers want to tell.

Family links have become devices for writers to play with in their stories, as opposed to real foundational connections that allows them to explore their characters and their psychology. I’m sure that’s one of the reasons why networks don’t want these characters to be too specific. They can’t suddenly do a “Surprise: Jeremy Stark is Sally Spectra’s dad” story on Y&R if we know too much about Sally.

Then you have all of these weird retconned switched-at-birth stories that impact long-running characters. (Like Jill became a Fenmore on Y&R for what purpose even?) 

Edited by Faulkner
  • Members
Posted

Soaps have always been willing to fudge someone's backstory to fit a new plot, someone who once said they had two sisters suddenly has one brother or is an only child. But now they've bypassed even describing something as simple as where a person was born to keep them in this nebulous place where flat characters like Nelle, Willow and Sasha can all be the exact same age (yet somehow younger than another character who was born canonically several years after them). Specificity is lost because they never know when they might have to create an insta-biological connection because two people who hate each other is automatically more entertaining when they share DNA apparently.

Brings me back to, and we discussed this a few weeks ago, Rae Cummings traipsing up and down the eastern seaboard for her long lost child who was anywhere from 18 to 45.

  • Members
Posted

Soaps overrate familial connections as plot points yet underrate it as a way of deepening character. I get in theory why a family connection would make the story more compelling, e.g. “They hate each other! Now let’s see them try to survive the family Thanksgiving dinner!” But they’ve lost the fact that it’s that character exploration that allows those insta-connections to actually land with the audience. Due to budgets/guarantees, etc., we barely have any family gatherings anymore.

  • Members
Posted

My hypothesis is that given that there are financial considerations for a writer to create a new family of characters, due to WGA residuals, we should rate the success of a new family not on popularity, but if they survived a new team of writers because the production would still need to compensate the fired staff for the invention of those characters.

To me, that is the difference between ATWT's Snyders vs AW's Halloways.  Kit and Holden may have been equally received in their initial romantic pairings.  However, the Halloways were dismissed after a new writer was installed, but the Snyders continued to thrive.

  • Members
Posted

I see your point, but I'd probably still put the Ewings in a success category in that case - Blaine was written out mostly after a misogynist firing of the key actress and then Christopher Rich quitting the show, and Catlin also left due to the actor wanting out (presumably). Larry and Clarice were let go, but a wide swathe of characters were in those years, unfortunately.

  • Members
Posted

 I have read conflicting reports that writers receive payments and residuals for creating new characters on soaps.

I have read flat out denials and discussions like the ones above that indicate otherwise.

Can anyone clear this up?

  • Members
Posted (edited)

@Paul Raven From the WGA website on residuals for members (still a little unclear, but straight from the source).

Please register in order to view this content

Residuals for reuse of daytime serial (sometimes called “soap operas”) characters are based on “aggregate” minimums. Aggregate means the writers are employed within a group, often for specific functions, to work for a specified term. This minimum varies depending on when writing services are performed and the length of the program.

The residuals are allocated in the following percentages:

If a breakdown has been written by the head writer, or if no breakdown has been written:
Head Writer
Associate Writer
50%
50%
If a writer other than the head writer has written a breakdown:
Head Writer
Writer of breakdown Associate Writer
35%
15%
50%
If a writer other than the head writer has written a rewrite or a polish:
Head Writer
Associate Writer (of script) Associate Writer (of rewrite or polish)
47.5%
47.5%
5%
Edited by j swift
  • Members
Posted (edited)

Thanks for the reply but that didn't really make things clearer!

On Search for Tomorrow under the Corringtons, the Tourneur/Sentell family was successfully integrated with Travis, Martin, Mignon, Lee, Renata etc but subsequent writers began dropping most of those characters.

GL

Doug marland introduced the Reardons with Nola and Bea and then slowly added new members Maureen and Tony while leaving others offscreen. Subsequent writers introduced Jim and Chelsea but by this time they were overshadowed and lost their importance as Springfilelds second family.

Edited by Paul Raven
  • Members
Posted

So, there are a couple of contextual issues to consider as well.  Daytime writers didn't join the WGA until 1980s, and the ruling on characters was not in place until the 1990s, so anything prior to those dates would not qualify for residuals for character creation.  Also, a writer would have to submit to WGA in order to get the money, and there may be circumstances where a writer would avoid getting into that situation, such as wanting to maintain a relationship with a network or production company.

But, it also accounts for why B&B has maintained it's head writer who is associated with the production given that he is eligible for WGA residuals for overseas replays of his episodes.

  • Members
Posted

I could be wrong here, but I THINK the residuals for characters that a writer created doesn't apply quite as broadly as fans have been led to believe. In primetime, there's something about how the writer who wrote the teleplay in which a recurring character first appears -- NOT the showrunner -- receives residuals any time that character appears in a subsequent episode. But those payments stop if and when the character becomes a series regular. So if episode 5 of season 1 introduces a quirky clown, and that clown is also used in episode 12, the writer of episode 5 gets a residual payment. But if the clown is such a hit that they make him a series regular for season 2, the residual payments no longer apply. I do not think it applies if a new character is brought on as a series regular from the get-go. Don't quote me on that, but I'm fairly certain there's provision of that nature.

Daytime is a different beast, obviously, and there's a head writer, breakdown writer, and script writer all with their hands in the pot for any given episode. And lots of characters are introduced AS series regulars -- i.e., with a long-term contract -- so I'm not sure how that would impact residuals for daytime characters and writers.

I've been both a script coordinator (the person who tracks these appearances and submits the invoices for them) and a writer who has received the payments, and this is as much clarity as I have, which tells you how confusing it all is!

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Shouldn't this really be Bold opening?

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • -- Jesus, that was bad. -- If we're going to bash Will's face-making, we can't let Luna off the hook. All that scrunched-face crying was annoying. -- Still no explanation as to how Luna escape, leading to utter stupidity that she gets away AGAIN while Will just stands there. -- Meanwhile, the entire cast hilariously gets texts about the jail escape and heads to the beach house. 

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I knew Ray Wise looked familiar (beyond How I Met Your Mother, which I also watched, where he replaced Eric Braeden!).

      Please register in order to view this content

        
    • Congratulations, Laura! You're still a lousy Mayor though 

      Please register in order to view this content

      GH really needs to keep the WSB honeypot away from Emma, and especially from Gio. If they want to put the two of them in a triangle with someone, it should definitely be with Trina. And, while I don't like Sidwell or this storyline that much, that was a really good ending. I didn't see it coming either.
    • In regards to Long's 2nd stint, it appears as though she officially came back as head-writer between the 4th of July/Bauer Barbeque episodes 1987 and mid August 1987.. and then between April and September 1988 were episodes written by the scabs.  I almost count her having 3 stints head-writing Guiding Light since the writer strike lasted five months. In her 2nd stint, she seemed focused on the following: - Sonni returning from the dead thus keeping Reva/Josh apart yet again so she naturally turns to Alan and causes the ending of the Vanessa/Alan relationship.   I wonder if Maeve's decision to leave affected some of this because she was gone by January 1988, a few months after Long's return so she had to come up with a way to get Vanessa to take off (and it was to be there for Billy during a low point if I recall). - Phillip/Chelsea were pretty heavily focused on during this 2nd stint period and I liked their rapport. - A lesser focused story in the background was the Lillian/Hawk/Sarah situation - Formulating her next version of the 4 Muskateers with Cam/Dinah/Harley/Alan Michael... but in order to include a more rough around the edges Harley.. Dinah was softened quite a bit (though I did see a cat fight between Harley/Dinah where Dinah belted Harley so I think Turco could have played an edgier Dinah). - There also seemed to be a Spaulding takeover going on with Phillip trying to oust Alan.. and it affected his relationship with Chelsea. Post-writer strike, I noticed that the Phillip/Harley arc kicked into gear with him pretending to be 'my fair lady' with Harley.. but trying to set it up to look as though they were sleeping together.  That arc plus the aftermath of Maeve's death were what Long started when she came back after the strike. I don't know how the Alan/Reva situation would have gone had CB remained in the role and if the writer strike hadn't happened.
    • I've only been solidly watching the show for the first time the past few months. I was familiar with parts of the show and some of the character just from being a soap fan. I do have to say that I am enjoying GH more than any other shows right now. Sure, it has flaws but it seems to move along fairly well, and most of all, the eye-candy. Damn, there are so many cute men on this show. Nathan and Michael are at the top of my list.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I have to say that I was honestly surprised by the exit this week. With spoilers and casting news, it is tough to pull off an honest shocker, and this shooting actually made gasp out loud.  I would bet many of you would enjoy it, if you watch it more regularly, I know that has been my experience this month.  
    • I believe she is talented and maligned for a reason. I fundamentally disagree with what she thinks soaps should be. And I am far from a traditionalist when it comes to the genre. There are many direct sources of her behavior and bad decisions, and my own eyes watching ratings decline after sweeps bumps on her her shows, it’s pretty clear she survived in power, especially at GH, specifically because the genre was declining. I will not further derail this thread with JFP unless it is pertinent. But I finish with this. She was asked directly over the years if she regretted killing Maureen off from Guiding Light. And for years she said she did. But someone pinned her down when she was at Y&R the first time, Michael Logan perhaps, and she admitted what she regretted and would never do again is making the audience care so much about a character right before killing then off. The tragic nature of the story leading into killing Maureen is what she regrets, not that she misjudged the audience, or that she didn’t have the foresight to see how destabilizing that was going to be for that particular show.    
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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