WTF??

 

 

8 hours ago, Maxim said:

I've been reading strange things since this whole ordeal has happened. People who just days ago were bashing PM and asking him to be let go since he is not that good... are changing their tune to... Poor victim PM, I am not watching without him... All over social media and boards.

It's kinda shocking to see the same people, same names, same avatars change their mind just like that because the narrative is different. What this says to me about people... About certain type of people. LOL. Human nature never seazes to amaze me.

I again have stated I believe PM would have been a great HW. That's what I believe and I stand by my words.  I think some people were too harsh on him too early and now backtracking and acting like they knew all along he was sabotaged and etc.

But I remember what I read and I remember who said what... Sadly.

 

Same damn thing when Sally was axed.

It would be odd if GH is canceled and OLTL & AMC is placed in the slot in 30 min intervals....

3 hours ago, BetterForgotten said:

Did anyone think Chris and Dan moved the needle at all on this show?

The only thing Chris and Dan moved was me to tears.

16 hours ago, Toups said:

Sometimes, writers aren't meant to be HWs - they are better as staff members.   Just like in the NFL, some coaches, such as Josh McDaniels, Steve Spagnolia, Wade Phillips, just to name a few, are great coordinators but were not very good at the head coaching position.   I really hope this won't be the last we see of Mulcahey and hope he joins The Gates......but as a script writer, a position where he is probably the best to ever do it. 

this is such a huge issue for soap writers.

years back, i had a friend who wanted to break into soaps. she could spin two years of story without taking a breath, but couldn’t write believable dialogue if someone were holding a loaded pistol to her head. so, she never got anywhere despite the fact that she may well have made a great headwriter.

conversely, i had a conversation with the late gene palumbo, who told me that while he had not been a great script writer, having done it made him a better breakdown writer (and ultimately, headwriter) because he knew what scriptwriters needed in a breakdown. 

as toups pointed out, there are different skillsets involved. of course, that while like football head coaches, headwriters capture the media’s attention, the fact that a great script writer doesn’t have the capacity to shape longterm stories, should in anyway diminish their success. 

6 hours ago, BetterForgotten said:

Everyone knows PM is/was a superb dialogue writer. But, his HW experiences at both GL and GH were never set up for success as far as I can tell with both shows being a messy situation behind the scenes during his HW-ing stints. I don’t think he ever really got a fair shot as both instances were messy and he didn’t have producers that supported him or whose vision gelled with his.

Did anyone think Chris and Dan moved the needle at all on this show? Does anyone except Korte to turn this show around? I don’t. PM being fired doesn’t mean GH is in for some type of renaissance, especially with people like both Valentini and Korte who’ve already been there for years and likely to just keep the status quo going. A lot of GH’s issues started before his stint and will continue after. 

I agree that the show lacks energy and momentum, but is that all down to PM? When there are internal conflicts, little gets done. If Korte wants to be a yes woman to Valentini and Varni, I don’t see how that would be beneficial for the show either. 

 

6 hours ago, titan1978 said:

I have been fully acknowledging the faults of what has been onscreen. But I keep seeing this narrative that he was just a brilliant script writer, and a failed HW.

He was helping to steer the overall ship at SB, GL, and GH and B&B. Part of his stint on GH in the 90’s was as Associate Head Writer. He was also more than just a scriptwriter on Guiding Light before becoming a HW. I’m not saying Head Writer was the correct role for him. But I am saying he wasn’t just writing scripts all this time. He had roles in shaping short and long term story, pitched ideas that became stories, etc.

His best gifts might lie as script writer and editor, I will never deny his talents there.

I agree with both.

 

When we all got the news that PM was coming and might have even (more than likely) did some rewriting of dialogue here and there, a lot of people who knew his writing and have an ear for dialogue could tell instantly it was him. Since he's been there originally, a lot of us still can tell the difference between something he did or something EK did. I admit that while I've liked it overall, there have been times when episodes would be meh to me, but still enjoyable due to the dialogue. Pre-wedding, I was wondering why it felt like things had slowed since the organic flow/momentum of Jason's return. Well, I guess I know why now. lol.

 

One thing I have not liked about the news has been people saying PM is a bad HW. How does one even know when we are not seeing the overall picture of what he had planned? Even when he was handicapped from 'GO!' Sadly, we may never know. Or worse...what has been suspected as being his stories will either vanish, be rewritten, or worse?

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Marco Dane said:

It would be odd if GH is canceled and OLTL & AMC is placed in the slot in 30 min intervals....

Not that we have any recent evidence ABC gives a crap about rebooting AMC/OLTL, but canceling GH wouldn't lead to their sudden resurfacing. No matter what anyone says, especially right now, there are only two things that will get Disney (more than ABC) to rethink a potential reboot of either of those two soaps or even a new soap: A successful launch of The Gates by CBS and/or sudden resurgence in viewership at GH.

The only reason ABC fought so hard for DAYS back when the show got four-year deals at NBC was because that show was up for renewal while it was banging down the door at Y&R for dominance in the key sales demos.

The growth of a veteran series vs. what it did previously or the successful launch of a new series means only one thing to network executives: copycats.

Networks look at what they have in the pipeline or seek out similar concepts when they see another network (or streamer) doing something they think they can duplicate. This is why CBS decided to do FBI Tuesdays after NBC had Chicago Wednesdays (not to mention Dick Wolf produces all of them), and it is why all the networks tried to create their own Lost (sci-fi show where unexplained events happen to characters, including disappearing from "reality").

Heck, where do y'all think "The Real Housewives" franchise came from? It was created as a reality-based version of "Desperate Housewives," but with rich(er) people.

To add to what @Errolis saying- the current head of Disney keeps making waves by making statements that they might try to unload ABC, and they just announced how much they have cut in development for linear tv. We are not in a broadcast friendly environment with Disney/ABC.

Edited May 17, 20241 yr by titan1978

19 hours ago, John said:

I'll be honest. I hate this kind of posting. If you know something, spill it. If you won't name names, just be quiet.

And just stop with the "allegedly" bulls_hit. If you listen to The Chat podcast, you'll hear "allegedly" a dozen+ times -- whether it makes sense or not.

I'm so tired of these soap insiders who claim they know sTuff and then won't say it out loud.

24 minutes ago, Errol said:

The only reason ABC fought so hard for DAYS back when the show got four-year deals at NBC was because that show was up for renewal while it was banging down the door at Y&R for dominance in the key sales demos

Okay, I know I'm having a bad week but I don't understand: what fighting did ABC do having to do with DAYS? 

11 minutes ago, ranger1rg said:

I'll be honest. I hate this kind of posting. If you know something, spill it. If you won't name names, just be quiet.

And just stop with the "allegedly" bulls_hit. If you listen to The Chat podcast, you'll hear "allegedly" a dozen+ times -- whether it makes sense or not.

I'm so tired of these soap insiders who claim they know sTuff and then won't say it out loud.

The word "allegedly" is used as a cover-your-ass statement for legal purposes. No other reason.

As for your comment on how the word was used, I don't have an opinion. I'm only commenting to explain the use of the word "allegedly."

3 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

Okay, I know I'm having a bad week but I don't understand: what fighting did ABC do having to do with DAYS? 

The network wanted DAYS on their lineup. They offered to buy the rights to broadcast the show back in the late 90s/early 2000s when the show's contract was up for renegotiation with NBC. Was that not clear with what I said?

17 minutes ago, Errol said:

The word "allegedly" is used as a cover-your-ass statement for legal purposes. No other reason.

As for your comment on how the word was used, I don't have an opinion. I'm only commenting to explain the use of the word "allegedly."

The network wanted DAYS on their lineup. They offered to buy the rights to broadcast the show back in the late 90s/early 2000s when the show's contract was up for renegotiation with NBC. Was that not clear with what I said?

Sorry. I knew that Shapiro tried to get AW but didn't know they tried to get DAYS as well. So I was just temporarily dense as a rock. 

Edited May 17, 20241 yr by Contessa Donatella
d'uh

18 minutes ago, Errol said:

The word "allegedly" is used as a cover-your-ass statement for legal purposes. No other reason.

As for your comment on how the word was used, I don't have an opinion. I'm only commenting to explain the use of the word "allegedly."

Errol, I do understand that "allegedly" is a CYA word. My problem is when it's used appropriately to CYA and when it's used in the most ridiculous way.

An example: "Word is that some actors are unhappy with the show's direction...or should I say ALLEGEDLY unhappy."

Is there any logical reason to use allegedly there? No one's facing legal action for a generic statement like that. On that podcast, It's used all over the place.

Just now, ranger1rg said:

Errol, I do understand that "allegedly" is a CYA word. My problem is when it's used appropriately to CYA and when it's used in the most ridiculous way.

An example: "Word is that some actors are unhappy with the show's direction...or should I say ALLEGEDLY unhappy."

Is there any logical reason to use allegedly there? No one's facing legal action for a generic statement like that. On that podcast, It's used all over the place.

They also say "We know things." quite a bit, it seems to me. And, I observed that some things they 'knew' were not true. 

7 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

They also say "We know things." quite a bit, it seems to me. And, I observed that some things they 'knew' were not true. 

Yeah, "We know things" makes a lot of appearances.

If they can't or won't tell us what they know, I don't want to hear it.

21 minutes ago, ranger1rg said:

Errol, I do understand that "allegedly" is a CYA word. My problem is when it's used appropriately to CYA and when it's used in the most ridiculous way.

An example: "Word is that some actors are unhappy with the show's direction...or should I say ALLEGEDLY unhappy."

Is there any logical reason to use allegedly there? No one's facing legal action for a generic statement like that. On that podcast, It's used all over the place.

Correct. Based on that example, one would only use the word "allegedly" if specifically stating someone's name, whether it be the person potentially losing their job or who/where they got the information from, and it was either incorrect or defaming.

A better example with proper use would be: "Allegedly, (name of person) is getting fired because (name of person) doesn't like them." Another could be, "(Name of person) is allegedly not a good person and is the worst when it comes to their reception of new scripts."