Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



Hello, soap fans -- and welcome to Daytime Royalty!

For those unfamiliar, we are an uncensored community for fans and lovers of the daytime genre. We have a no-holds-barred atmosphere in regards to the shows, writers, actors etc. but we do not allow member bashing in any form.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Restless Days Ahead — Maria Bell & Ed Scott Speak; TVGC Feature
Topic Started: Jul 1 2008, 03:42 PM (3,344 Views)
Steve Frame
Member Avatar


JSF, No source is 100% reliable these days. As far as Wikipedia it is gaining more respect - they are even allowing it to be used in some schools now. But the Bloom - Latham thing is not just on Wikipedia - it is mentioned on several sites and places. It is nothing new.

Just lighten up. You don't have to criticize everyone all the time or treat this like it is English 101. This is an Internet board and give someone the benefit of the doubt sometime.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
hunterforrester
Member Avatar


I credited wikipedia because that's where i first learned she was writing Y&R (who was minding the store?), and then called up Y&R's writers, and they all confirmed. And look who I interviewed for the piece, Bell and Scott, so I got it from horse's mouth. Also, a lot of behind-the-scenes people write their own wikipedia pages these days!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FanODays


Mason
Jul 1 2008, 05:13 PM
Rick
Jul 1 2008, 05:08 PM
Quote:
 
We’re re-inventing Days. And I think other shows are going to follow our lead. It has to be good drama, good writing, character-driven storylines, emotional performances, and suspense! That’s what the fans want. There’s no reason to re-invent the wheel…


That quote from Ed has me cautiously optimistic.
See, I'd like to believe Ed on that, but as long as Higley's at the helm, I'm not sure that I can. She's not exactly known for character-driven stories.
I've always suspected that Scott had very little to do with Higley coming on board and that he can only do so much with Higley and Corday being the pigs in the python preventing Scott from truly making big and lasting improvements on this show.

If the show has been renewed but they haven't figured out the money yet, how can Days just keep bringing more and more newbies on board? Why do I think that at least one supercouple might be taking their youngest child and leaving Salem? You decide which one that would be.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rakesh198
Member Avatar


FanODays
Jul 3 2008, 02:58 PM
Mason
Jul 1 2008, 05:13 PM
Rick
Jul 1 2008, 05:08 PM
Quote:
 
We’re re-inventing Days. And I think other shows are going to follow our lead. It has to be good drama, good writing, character-driven storylines, emotional performances, and suspense! That’s what the fans want. There’s no reason to re-invent the wheel…


That quote from Ed has me cautiously optimistic.
See, I'd like to believe Ed on that, but as long as Higley's at the helm, I'm not sure that I can. She's not exactly known for character-driven stories.
I've always suspected that Scott had very little to do with Higley coming on board and that he can only do so much with Higley and Corday being the pigs in the python preventing Scott from truly making big and lasting improvements on this show.

If the show has been renewed but they haven't figured out the money yet, how can Days just keep bringing more and more newbies on board? Why do I think that at least one supercouple might be taking their youngest child and leaving Salem? You decide which one that would be.
Steve & Kayla
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

hunterforrester
Jul 2 2008, 09:31 AM
Of course I didn't rely on just Wikipedia, I have it confirmed from various Y&R writers she broke breakdowns, sillies! C'mon give me some credit.

As for Thaao I would NEVER say he didn't deserve an Emmy nom especaily on Emmy nite! That's so mean and not classy. However, he knows how I feel and what I wrote — and he's fine with it. Sometimes fans get more upset than the actors! Actors get it more than the producers or writers do, trust me!
I'm glad to hear that. And I should have known better. YOu do have the sources, we've seen that. I guess I was thrown because, in my organization, not even the mention of Wiki is allowed, especially if the sources are already there, to back it up. But then my organization has a hard-on for giving no grain of credit to Wiki, due to its shaky nature, plus we don't want to confuse people who could learn about it and think it's reliable. But that's our agenda, and I'm not saying everyone should follow it.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

hunterforrester
Jul 3 2008, 12:02 PM
I credited wikipedia because that's where i first learned she was writing Y&R (who was minding the store?), and then called up Y&R's writers, and they all confirmed. And look who I interviewed for the piece, Bell and Scott, so I got it from horse's mouth. Also, a lot of behind-the-scenes people write their own wikipedia pages these days!
A lot of people do write their own Wiki pages, but I just don't want us to foget that there's a whole web site devoted solely to weeding out Wiki errors and disinformation, because the site is still notorious for its inaccuracy. I appreciate its concept, but the execution is all wrong. And Steve, if schools allow students to use this site, I will worry, because again, the information often is wrong. (How many times has Wiki said 'so and so' is joining this soap, or this soap -- and we find out it's wrong? Ditto that for imdb, of course, but that's another topic.) Students really can't rely on something that has the potential to be riddled with errors. (Especially if someone like me could go in there, write something libelous about a politician, and have those poor students fall for it and turn it in for a book report -- a similar incident, of course, has reportedly happened.)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
hunterforrester
Member Avatar


I didn't credit sources, insiders, etc especially during an interview with a Y&R head writer. And a producer who worked at Y&R. I didn't want people assuming they confirmed it because they didn't. Or maybe they did. Or maybe they didn't. And Wikipedia isn't actually a bad source; most journos use it but we always double check their facts. IMBD is pretty unreliable, except their award section.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Frame
Member Avatar


JSF, If you take all the reasons you stated here in consideration you have to almost put the whole Internet into that category of being an unreliable source. Anyone can change anything almost anywhere on the Internet these days.

I have always looked at Wikipedia as a 2nd source. I would never use it as a primary source for anything. In my genealogical research that I have done for 20 years now I have learned a lot of things that many of us consider as good sources are not really good sources. Even a death certificate can be a very bad source because it is at the mercy of the person giving the information.

But back to my point, to completely write off Wikipedia for the reasons listed you have to write off the whole Internet in my opinion. The way I see it is the way Nelson does - you use it but you also get other info to support it too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rakesh198
Member Avatar


JERSoapsFan
Jul 4 2008, 01:07 AM
hunterforrester
Jul 3 2008, 12:02 PM
I credited wikipedia because that's where i first learned she was writing Y&R (who was minding the store?), and then called up Y&R's writers, and they all confirmed. And look who I interviewed for the piece, Bell and Scott, so I got it from horse's mouth. Also, a lot of behind-the-scenes people write their own wikipedia pages these days!
A lot of people do write their own Wiki pages, but I just don't want us to foget that there's a whole web site devoted solely to weeding out Wiki errors and disinformation, because the site is still notorious for its inaccuracy. I appreciate its concept, but the execution is all wrong. And Steve, if schools allow students to use this site, I will worry, because again, the information often is wrong. (How many times has Wiki said 'so and so' is joining this soap, or this soap -- and we find out it's wrong? Ditto that for imdb, of course, but that's another topic.) Students really can't rely on something that has the potential to be riddled with errors. (Especially if someone like me could go in there, write something libelous about a politician, and have those poor students fall for it and turn it in for a book report -- a similar incident, of course, has reportedly happened.)
I disagree. I've used Wiki for school projects to do research and stuff like that and I didn't have a problem.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

For school I always use Wiki as a starting point, then I branch off to make sure the facts are right which would then lead me to more info most of the time.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Poor Ed Scott. He doesn't realize that character-driven stories don't work for Days!! They've been trying them for years and they don't click with the Days module. They're boring.

The Days audience craves plot-driven stories. That's why Days was so successful in the 90s. As long as the characters act consistently, they can be popped into any story and it'll work as long as the *plot* drives the story.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Y&RWorldTurner
Member Avatar
Sharongate, bitches!

DAYS has been mostly a plot-driven show since the 80's, it's just apart of the show's identity for it to ever go away now. Attempts to bring the show back to a more character-driven style have been met with low ratings and outcries from fans, TPTB will never go for it. Unlike GH, which was successfully able to switch to a character-driven direction in the 90's, DAYS just hasn't been able to transition similarly as of yet and I doubt it ever will.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar


RobynIsHere
Jul 4 2008, 05:13 PM
The Days audience craves plot-driven stories. That's why Days was so successful in the 90s.
I beg to differ. I fell in love with DAYS in the 90's with JER's plot-driven style of writing, but that doesn't mean I still want that kind of writing today.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Mason
Jul 4 2008, 05:49 PM
RobynIsHere
Jul 4 2008, 05:13 PM
The Days audience craves plot-driven stories. That's why Days was so successful in the 90s.
I beg to differ. I fell in love with DAYS in the 90's with JER's plot-driven style of writing, but that doesn't mean I still want that kind of writing today.
And I'm going to differ with you. A return to that style of writing is the only thing that will make me happy as a viewer again. I'm not watching the show again until it goes back to those kind of stories.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar


Well, I'm surprised you're not watching right now, considering the show is pretty damn plot driven right now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Mason
Jul 4 2008, 06:03 PM
Well, I'm surprised you're not watching right now, considering the show is pretty damn plot driven right now.
The plots are boring, stupid, and involve characters I don't like (Chloe, MORGAN, Nicole, Trent, Ava, Abe, Lexie, etc.).
Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

Mason
Jul 4 2008, 05:49 PM
RobynIsHere
Jul 4 2008, 05:13 PM
The Days audience craves plot-driven stories. That's why Days was so successful in the 90s.
I beg to differ. I fell in love with DAYS in the 90's with JER's plot-driven style of writing, but that doesn't mean I still want that kind of writing today.
Well, your in the minority because most fans from that era want plot-driven storytelling, whether they say it or know it or not. I recall last year with Hogan how the only time he got many positive responses was when he dabbled in the Gothic or bordered on plot-driven. The only major things Hogan did that were character-driven and got overwhelmingly positive responses were John's death/Marlena's revenge and Belle/Shawn/Chloe/Philip.

I want Days character-driven but I'm afraid it won't succeed that way. I don't think any show can now. As I said, the ratings reflect stunts and action, not quality. OLTL is mostly character-driven and going nowhere. Days saw little success to with it.

I think the Daytime audience has just grown too used to plot-driven writing and stunts. It started in the 80's but the stories were at least grounded and plot and character-driven stories were mixed together. JER's first era at Days changed that and created a whole new audience who wanted that type of storytelling. It took some of the elements of the 80's to the next level and many other soaps wanted to replicate it and the result is what we have today. The audience who count in the numbers only react to stunts and that is. As Steve said in the ratings thread, ratings never were equal with quality but now it's worse. It's not even close. Soaps used to at least be rewarded a good part of the time for quality stuff. Now they don't. It's all about blowing things up and killing people. That will get you the numbers rather then a good, heartfelt, character-driven story and that's a shame.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar


Frankly, I don't care if DAYS is competing with GL in the ratings, as long as the show is good. Screw the ratings. I'd rather DAYS go off the air on a creative high, than do what GH does and use stunts to stay afloat while being crap the rest of the year. And if that means that DAYS goes sooner rather than later, so be it.
Edited by Mason, Jul 6 2008, 01:00 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

^Well, I'm with you but I don't want to lose the show either. That doesn't mean I want crap. I guess I just want them to find a balance because that may be the best way to please as many as possible. I think Hogan had a nice balance at the end of 2007 and going into 2008. Personally, I just want good stories but not everyone is as easy to please as some of us on this board. We all know some of these fans/fanbases don't know what the hell they want :laugh: .
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
peaches179


Mason
Jul 6 2008, 12:59 AM
Frankly, I don't care if DAYS is competing with GL in the ratings, as long as the show is good. Screw the ratings. I'd rather DAYS go off the air on a creative high, than do what GH does and use stunts to stay afloat while being crap the rest of the year. And if that means that DAYS goes sooner rather than later, so be it.

ICAM!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Daytime News · Next Topic »
Add Reply