Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Viewing Single Post From: New Ed Scott Interview!
Member Avatar

Jun 25 2009, 09:03 AM
Fair enough. I understand why you choose to believe that it is absolutely true. For me, there isn't enough to convict him. It's entirely possible, maybe even probable, that the allegations are true. But, unproven allegations aren't sufficient to me. If the WGA didn't have enough proof to go through a formal process, that speaks volumes to me.

As for why Kenny fired him if Ed didn't do anything wrong, maybe it was because he just decided to side with Dena in the power struggle. Or maybe Dena's accusations just stirred up enough trouble, even if they weren't entirely accurate, that it was easier to get rid of Ed Scott. I don't know. But, neither does anyone else, not for sure anyway. At least not anyone willing to name actual names or anything.

In any case, I'm not saying Ed didn't do anything wrong, I'm just saying that nobody has proven that he did, nor has anybody provided anykind of evidence that would allow us to judge for ourselves. So, for me, his guilt is far from established.
I understand what your saying but there is no way Corday would've gotten away with firing Scott if something did not happen that was shady. Why? Because Corday was forced to hire him. That was known. It was made very clear that Sony got involved and pushed Ed Scott on Days to try to save the show. Corday never wanted him. He even admitted he wanted Tomlin at that point. Sure, he preferred Higley and I do think Ives makes a point about how Corday may have wanted to keep her because she was already under investigation for scabbing and he probably figured the show had been through enough upheaval creatively. However, what happened gave him the reason he needed. Sony wanted Ed and they were left with no choice but to allow Corday to get rid of him as things had gotten too ugly.

Just because the WGA came out with nothing doesn't mean there was no proof at all. They probably let it go because Ed Scott was fired. Let's remember that the WGA never went after any of the scabs either. They seemed to drop their investigation of Higley too and we had people, including Jim Reynolds, saying she was writing during the strike. What does that tell you about the WGA? They had people basically telling them the woman scabbed but they still never did nothing so their silence on Ed Scott can not be used as proof of innocence. Plus, if they already thought the woman was scabbing, I doubt they were going to push the issue hard. I do remember that when the story was reported, it was said Corday was warned by the WGA that something needed to be done and that something was probably the firing of Ed, which he was all too happy to do. The WGA was probably happy with that and left well enough alone since Higley was not exactly in a favorable light with them either.

Also, if Ed Scott was so great, why didn't another soap pick him up? The man was getting rave reviews around the industry and considering the work he did at Days, why wouldn't someone offer him a position somewhere? If he didn't do anything, it seems odd to me that the guy doesn't even seem to be taken into consideration for a position somewhere. He's gone into producing small films instead so he isn't even in daytime anymore. That says alot. Plus, there were reports of how ugly things got at Y&R at the end of his run there. This guy has a history of issues behind the scenes despite the good things he does bring so while I can understand using the fact that no one but several sites and sources came out and said it (and I also understand that some on this board and others were not privy to all the comments that were made by sources in chatrooms and off the boards), I just think it's hard to maintain the position that all that means nothing happened. He had to do something, even if we disregard the evidence we do have. There had to be a bigger reason behind firing him then just choosing Higley over him or Corday just not liking him. Sony would never allow Scott's firing over things like that. Perhaps maybe it didn't go down exactly as is but something went down. Ed actually seemed understanding when he was fired and if a man was just fired for no reason out of the blue, he would've acted a hit surprised and would've questioned the move. He did none of that. He accepted it as business and left it at that. Some may see that as taking the high road but it also suggests that he understood why it had to be done.
Offline Profile Quote Post
New Ed Scott Interview! · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion