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
Ed Scott speaks to Michael Logan; TVG.COM
Topic Started: Aug 22 2008, 06:28 PM (2,965 Views)
brimike


I just love how Ken flat-out says Dena and Ed didn't get along, but Ed plays the game, and says that's not true at all.

These people are all insane...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
King
Member Avatar


Meh. DAYS has still sucked for the better part of the last year.

That article is romanticizing DAYS' "quality" over the last year to maximize dramatic impact.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason


Shylock
Aug 23 2008, 05:35 AM
Everyone's that is saying that Ed Scott handled this with class needs to get a clue. That might be a small part of it, but the bigger picture is that he's avoiding stating anything negative about his employers and other staff. If he did, then he can kiss most future job opportunities goodbye. It was a smart move and I'm sure that it would leave the door open for a future job at Days (or anywhere else in daytime) if Corday/Sony would ever welcome him back after Dena tanks.

tl;dr = He's saving his own ass by being complimentary, rather than berating those who screwed him (ie. Dena).
Get a clue? Well that's a lovely way of putting it. :hmmph:

Anyway, yeah, it was certainly smart from a professional standpoint that Ed spoke decently of Corday, etc., but not everyone does. It's not necessarily a given.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brimike


Mason
Aug 23 2008, 01:12 PM
Shylock
Aug 23 2008, 05:35 AM
Everyone's that is saying that Ed Scott handled this with class needs to get a clue. That might be a small part of it, but the bigger picture is that he's avoiding stating anything negative about his employers and other staff. If he did, then he can kiss most future job opportunities goodbye. It was a smart move and I'm sure that it would leave the door open for a future job at Days (or anywhere else in daytime) if Corday/Sony would ever welcome him back after Dena tanks.

tl;dr = He's saving his own ass by being complimentary, rather than berating those who screwed him (ie. Dena).
Get a clue? Well that's a lovely way of putting it. :hmmph:

Anyway, yeah, it was certainly smart from a professional standpoint that Ed spoke decently of Corday, etc., but not everyone does. It's not necessarily a given.
Here's what bothers me IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION in that regard. (And I don't think this holds true for EVERY situation like this)

I understand that Ed should not dish dirt, for fear of angering future employers. But I find it hard to believe that after his name was dragged through the mud both by numerous Bell-connected people when he was at Y&R, and by this Higley/WGA situation, it's not like future employers will say "Well, he's got all of this bad press, but in this one interview with Michael Logan he said everything was wonderful, so therefore we should hire him"

Don't get me wrong - I'm an Ed Scott fan, and hope to see his name pop up again sooner, rather than later. But there's "playing the game" and then there's out-and-out sounding silly for not even acknowledging what went down when everybody already knows there's more to it than just what he said.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kirk
Member Avatar
Captain Kirk

After Ed said, "She's a very talented woman she's written some scenes that are probably some of the best writing I've ever seen." I lost some respect for him. Maybe he is kissing her ass in this interview to stay out of legal trouble, who the hell knows? But damn thats a whole lot of bullshit.
Edited by Kirk, Aug 23 2008, 01:48 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
koos


I wish people wouldn't say, "[So and so] suits Days better than [so and so]." Days should NOT be campy. The classic Days wasn't. The '80s Days was, but it was still basically grounded and not as outlandish as GH or OLTL from the same years (maybe Gene and Calliope were as out there and unrealistic as it got). You know what I think would suit Days better? Stark realism and edgy stories barely air-able on a '00s soap. No, I'm not suggesting that it become a neutered HBO/Showtime clone, but hell, even Peter Reckell thinks it should be realistic and daring. I'm afraid the show is gonna continue to milk the '80s and '90s even though their tits are rotting off.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ponz
Member Avatar


brimike
Aug 23 2008, 01:18 PM
Mason
Aug 23 2008, 01:12 PM
Shylock
Aug 23 2008, 05:35 AM
Everyone's that is saying that Ed Scott handled this with class needs to get a clue. That might be a small part of it, but the bigger picture is that he's avoiding stating anything negative about his employers and other staff. If he did, then he can kiss most future job opportunities goodbye. It was a smart move and I'm sure that it would leave the door open for a future job at Days (or anywhere else in daytime) if Corday/Sony would ever welcome him back after Dena tanks.

tl;dr = He's saving his own ass by being complimentary, rather than berating those who screwed him (ie. Dena).
Get a clue? Well that's a lovely way of putting it. :hmmph:

Anyway, yeah, it was certainly smart from a professional standpoint that Ed spoke decently of Corday, etc., but not everyone does. It's not necessarily a given.
Here's what bothers me IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION in that regard. (And I don't think this holds true for EVERY situation like this)

I understand that Ed should not dish dirt, for fear of angering future employers. But I find it hard to believe that after his name was dragged through the mud both by numerous Bell-connected people when he was at Y&R, and by this Higley/WGA situation, it's not like future employers will say "Well, he's got all of this bad press, but in this one interview with Michael Logan he said everything was wonderful, so therefore we should hire him"

Don't get me wrong - I'm an Ed Scott fan, and hope to see his name pop up again sooner, rather than later. But there's "playing the game" and then there's out-and-out sounding silly for not even acknowledging what went down when everybody already knows there's more to it than just what he said.
He acknowledged having some input to the creative process and disagreeing with Higley on many issues. He denied taking the show in a direction counter to her vision but I've yet to see any real evidence that he did. Not one report has referenced an actual storyline that Scott and Higley supposedly clashed over.
Edited by Ponz, Aug 23 2008, 01:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brimike


Kirk
Aug 23 2008, 01:45 PM
After Ed said, "She's a very talented woman she's written some scenes that are probably some of the best writing I've ever seen." I lost some respect for him. Maybe he is kissing her ass in this interview to stay out of legal trouble, who the hell knows? But damn thats a whole lot of bullshit.
Right???

Maybe he's forgotten all those years under Bill Bell... LOL!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason


Kirk
Aug 23 2008, 01:45 PM
After Ed said, "She's a very talented woman she's written some scenes that are probably some of the best writing I've ever seen." I lost some respect for him. Maybe he is kissing her ass in this interview to stay out of legal trouble, who the hell knows? But damn thats a whole lot of bullshit.
Did he say that in this interview? I can't believe I missed that load of crap!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

koos
Aug 23 2008, 01:48 PM
I wish people wouldn't say, "[So and so] suits Days better than [so and so]." Days should NOT be campy. The classic Days wasn't. The '80s Days was, but it was still basically grounded and not as outlandish as GH or OLTL from the same years (maybe Gene and Calliope were as out there and unrealistic as it got). You know what I think would suit Days better? Stark realism and edgy stories barely air-able on a '00s soap. No, I'm not suggesting that it become a neutered HBO/Showtime clone, but hell, even Peter Reckell thinks it should be realistic and daring. I'm afraid the show is gonna continue to milk the '80s and '90s even though their tits are rotting off.
Well, the sad truth is some people ARE better suited.

Just look at the last two years. When Hogan joined, there was much debate about how his style was not Days-like. Yes, he could do camp but there was much more emphasis on characters driving story. The debates only increased once his material hit screen. Just look at last Fall. Hogan started camping things up a bit with Andre and the Vendetta story and only then did he seem to win over more fans. Up until that point, people either appreciated what Hogan had to offer or hated it all together and found themselves bored.

Ed Scott wanted to further take Days in the character-driven direction and many were still resistant. Just look at what happens in preview and spoiler threads. Whenever a story comes up pertaining to something like autism or Bo and Hope having a story where Bo's pride takes a hit because Hope got promoted over him and is now his superior at work, many say that isn't Days-like. I've seen that alot in the past few years and that is because Days usually mixed those stories in amongst camp and more plot-driven elements. My feeling has always been you have to mix up all storytelling elements to please the most fans. Days needs to have a mix of character-driven/realism, plot-driven, camp, etc. It needs to try to mesh it all together. It can't be one way or another. We've seen that in recent years. You always piss a large percentage of fans off. I think the additions of Tomlin and Whitesell can help that because I really do think fans miss the camp, whether they know it or not. They miss the Days of the 80's and 90's. You just have to look at the responses on the boards since 2006. It's clear. I, personally, want character-driven but strictly being that is clearly not good for the show. Too many are resistant to it. Days can't be Y&R. I've heard many say that of late too.

I also think anyone that thinks Days was mostly character-driven in the 80's and 90's needs to go back and watch those periods. Yes, it's subjective but you mean to tell me stories that include prisms, quicksand, a character called 'The Pawn," many characters being at the mercy of a maniac (Ernesto) who enjoys magic tricks and had holograms appearing all over an island and then suspended a woman over a vat of acid in a cage (keep in mind this story is considered by many to be one of the best in Days history), etc. I won't even get into JER's first run because we all know how campy and plot-driven much of that was. The thing is you had plot driven and character-driven elements along with camp and realism. Things remained grounded so it was ok. Once things are no longer grounded, things go bad. That is what happened with JER's second stint and I also think SSM went to nuts with the sci-fi. It would've been ok in moderation but she used brain chips and tooth implants too much.

I think if Tomlin and Whitesell can bring the elements I mentioned above together, Days may have a good shot at pleasing more fans. Judging by the boards and the responses of people around me that watch, that seems to be the right way to go in terms of pleasing the most people. I would love nothing more then to see nothing but character-driven but, whatever is good for the show is good for me.

Oh, and about Scott, I understand why he said what he said. He's taking the high road and it's to make himself look good. He's also protecting his own ass. I think many of us would do this. I know I would. It's all about survival and in today's world, and especially in the cutthroat nature of Hollywood, you have to do whatever it takes to get by, even if that means feeding the press BS and covering up some of what happened. I wouldn't blame him for letting loose and bashing the hell out of Higley and Corday and whoever else but he may burn too many bridges and come off looking bad. It doesn't seem like him to do something like that. He's a classy and smart guy. I think he knows what info has leaked out and how many view Higley. He doesn't really need to say anything. I think he realizes many know what she really is already.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shylock


Mason
Aug 23 2008, 01:12 PM
Shylock
Aug 23 2008, 05:35 AM
Everyone's that is saying that Ed Scott handled this with class needs to get a clue. That might be a small part of it, but the bigger picture is that he's avoiding stating anything negative about his employers and other staff. If he did, then he can kiss most future job opportunities goodbye. It was a smart move and I'm sure that it would leave the door open for a future job at Days (or anywhere else in daytime) if Corday/Sony would ever welcome him back after Dena tanks.

tl;dr = He's saving his own ass by being complimentary, rather than berating those who screwed him (ie. Dena).
Get a clue? Well that's a lovely way of putting it. :hmmph:

Anyway, yeah, it was certainly smart from a professional standpoint that Ed spoke decently of Corday, etc., but not everyone does. It's not necessarily a given.
I probably should have put that in a different way. Apologies to you and anyone else I may have offended.

And I think that even if it's not a given, it's still the smart thing for him to do especially with his image having been tarnished by the whole thing. If he'd blasted them, then I think he'd find it difficult getting a job with anyone else in daytime.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
psychofan
Member Avatar
#1 Fan of Daytime Psychos!

Shylock
Aug 23 2008, 03:31 PM
Mason
Aug 23 2008, 01:12 PM
Shylock
Aug 23 2008, 05:35 AM
Everyone's that is saying that Ed Scott handled this with class needs to get a clue. That might be a small part of it, but the bigger picture is that he's avoiding stating anything negative about his employers and other staff. If he did, then he can kiss most future job opportunities goodbye. It was a smart move and I'm sure that it would leave the door open for a future job at Days (or anywhere else in daytime) if Corday/Sony would ever welcome him back after Dena tanks.

tl;dr = He's saving his own ass by being complimentary, rather than berating those who screwed him (ie. Dena).
Get a clue? Well that's a lovely way of putting it. :hmmph:

Anyway, yeah, it was certainly smart from a professional standpoint that Ed spoke decently of Corday, etc., but not everyone does. It's not necessarily a given.
I probably should have put that in a different way. Apologies to you and anyone else I may have offended.

And I think that even if it's not a given, it's still the smart thing for him to do especially with his image having been tarnished by the whole thing. If he'd blasted them, then I think he'd find it difficult getting a job with anyone else in daytime.
I actually agree with you on what you said about Ed Scott...anyone with a brain who wants to stay in this business would refrain from being a baby and badmouthing their employers. Ed Scott isn't some magnificent saint who is just so kind and classy that he would never dream of acting out after being so harshley "victimized". :eyeroll: He just has common sense.

I'm so over this stupid drama. What it all comes down to is that even though some of us like to think that we know exactly what Dena Higley is like and exactly what Ken Corday is like (oh, they're so heartless and evil)...we don't. I wish people would stop making stupid assumptions about things that we know NOTHING ABOUT. We hear what people want us to hear. You think we hear about every single thing that happens on set? We don't.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason


I for one have never said Corday/Higley are "evil". Outside of DAYS and business, I'm sure they're perfectly nice people for the most part.

And you're right, we don't know about every single little thing that goes on behind the scenes. But I do know that they are responsible for what's happening on the show, and IMO, that fact is not painting them in a flattering light because the show sucks ass right now to me and many others.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

psychofan
Aug 23 2008, 06:09 PM
Shylock
Aug 23 2008, 03:31 PM
Mason
Aug 23 2008, 01:12 PM
Shylock
Aug 23 2008, 05:35 AM
Everyone's that is saying that Ed Scott handled this with class needs to get a clue. That might be a small part of it, but the bigger picture is that he's avoiding stating anything negative about his employers and other staff. If he did, then he can kiss most future job opportunities goodbye. It was a smart move and I'm sure that it would leave the door open for a future job at Days (or anywhere else in daytime) if Corday/Sony would ever welcome him back after Dena tanks.

tl;dr = He's saving his own ass by being complimentary, rather than berating those who screwed him (ie. Dena).
Get a clue? Well that's a lovely way of putting it. :hmmph:

Anyway, yeah, it was certainly smart from a professional standpoint that Ed spoke decently of Corday, etc., but not everyone does. It's not necessarily a given.
I probably should have put that in a different way. Apologies to you and anyone else I may have offended.

And I think that even if it's not a given, it's still the smart thing for him to do especially with his image having been tarnished by the whole thing. If he'd blasted them, then I think he'd find it difficult getting a job with anyone else in daytime.
I actually agree with you on what you said about Ed Scott...anyone with a brain who wants to stay in this business would refrain from being a baby and badmouthing their employers. Ed Scott isn't some magnificent saint who is just so kind and classy that he would never dream of acting out after being so harshley "victimized". :eyeroll: He just has common sense.

I'm so over this stupid drama. What it all comes down to is that even though some of us like to think that we know exactly what Dena Higley is like and exactly what Ken Corday is like (oh, they're so heartless and evil)...we don't. I wish people would stop making stupid assumptions about things that we know NOTHING ABOUT. We hear what people want us to hear. You think we hear about every single thing that happens on set? We don't.
I don't think Ken Corday or Dena Higley are evil. They are far from it I'm sure. But what one can't argue is that they are EXTREMELY STUPID when it comes to running a soap opera. Period. End of story.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason


Amello
Aug 23 2008, 06:22 PM
I don't think Ken Corday or Dena Higley are evil. They are far from it I'm sure. But what one can't argue is that they are EXTREMELY STUPID when it comes to running a soap opera. Period. End of story.
Exactly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ellie


Mason
Aug 23 2008, 02:50 PM
Kirk
Aug 23 2008, 01:45 PM
After Ed said, "She's a very talented woman she's written some scenes that are probably some of the best writing I've ever seen." I lost some respect for him. Maybe he is kissing her ass in this interview to stay out of legal trouble, who the hell knows? But damn thats a whole lot of bullshit.
Did he say that in this interview? I can't believe I missed that load of crap!
I actually took that line as sort of a dig at her. Sure, perhaps her plane crash scenes were pretty good. But notice he didn't say storylines, or characters, or anything else of the sort. Bet there was a reason for that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ladyofthelake
Member Avatar
Professor-in-training

For what it's worth, I think Ed Scott was trying to be diplomatic but sneakily snarky in his interview. My kinda guy! :D Again, the truth probably falls somewhere in the middle. But he knows he can't slit his own throat by saying what he really wants to. When he retires, yeah. I guess we'll never REALLY know to what extent he danced around the writing rules, but I'm still on the side of Dena trying to point fingers to avoid getting in trouble herself. From her blogs and other impressions, she just seems to be that type of gal. I hope she hasn't passed that trait on to her children. :huh:

I want to touch a little bit on what Tim was saying: "What IS Days?" From recent years, the personalities of characters AND shows have changed quite a bit, so I don't know if there is a true Days persona. The early years were more story-driven, the later years with gimmicks. I'll have to take Tim's word for about about the gimmicks having character-driven issues during the 80's, because I was sporatically watching then. But, I can see that. There's no reason WHY Days can't do that. The only reason maybe it CAN'T is because no one with creative clout is allowed to stay on long enough, as a team, that is.

This might be a poor example, but many folks toute Star Trek as that type of show. The gimmicks (and special effects, LOL) were SOOOO out there, but the stories still rang true because of their take on society and events going on in the late 60's. There is no reason why there can't be new Stefano material (keep the dead dead, please) and little gimmicks, but go more into the reasons why. (Sorry, but Colleen Brady is a poor reason, but hail to Sheffer for trying). There is no reason why the autism storyline cannot go on as a character driven story, maybe a B story. Give the gimmicks a reason. The plane crash was awesome, but needed more residual, ripple effect. There wasn't enough "ripple". The BE takeover on OLTL is a great example of ripple effect. (Yeah, although I think the ripples might have sunk with Tess, but i digress. You know what I mean!)

I honestly think many of Dena's ideas are good. The execution sucks. I LIKE the autism storyline idea (yeah, yeah, I'm a teacher. I would. :P ) I hate how they did it. I think it would be awesome to explore more of Nicole's alcoholic tendencies, but in giving dubious credit to Dena, I do like how she's fleshing out Nicole's insecurities. Nicole is one character who has benefitted from Dena. (At least, I'm going to assume this is Dena). And the magic works, because Arianne Zucker is an actress who has learned to carry this stuff. However, pushing multilayers on, say, Chloe doesn't work. I just don't think Nadia B. can carry this. Ditto Darin Brooks, although he is getting better.

The concept of Chan was too fast, too "starry-eyed", and too "all hail King Dr. Dan Ghandi" to make it work. I think, with better writing and execution (and more time to learn about Dan), some of us who balked MIGHT have at least tolerated it more. It wasn't time in the character development of Chelsea. Certainly, they didn't know what to do with Dr. Dan, so they tried to make him a sympathetic hero. Didn't fly. The obstacle of Kate (I love it when she's an obstacle. She's awesome), for many, seems to make Chan look worse. There are folks cheering for Kate and Dr. Dan because they feel LK and SC have more chemistry.

And (I have to swallow hard as I say this): The concept of nuJohn needs more variables. It was an intriguing idea. I don't like how they pulled the wool over our eyes about DHe's "firing": (I still think it was in the cards for him to come back all the time), but it was a novel idea.

Anyway, when looking at these new hires, yes, they have been at Days, but for a year? I mean, I don't see how one can say they understand "Days" after just a year. I hope it works.

I also tend to this this new co-headerwriter is just here to learn the ropes before they can Dena. She's a loose cannon in that crew. They hired her as "co-headwriter" before canning Sheffer. I think the tables are turning on her.

I have to be reminded of what EJ told Nicole in the film noir stuff about Sami: "In time, I would have left her, too". I get this feeling this is the general tone of Days lately. Corday praised Scott to the skies last year. In time, he left him, too. Corday praised Dena to the skies. In time, I think he will leave her, too. And so goes the merry-go-round. Time to make a commitment, KEnny. (Or Sony make a commitment, or NBC or whoever the hell is giving the green light on this).
Edited by ladyofthelake, Aug 24 2008, 08:13 AM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kirk
Member Avatar
Captain Kirk

To me there is a big difference from saving one's own ass and another just sounding fucking stupid when Ed Scott says that Higley has written some of the best material he has ever read or seen, that's just bullshit on so many levels and has made me lose respect for Ed Scott.

I don't care if Higley or Corday are assholes behind the scenes, I just want my favorite soap to be good on a consistent basis. Is that too much to ask?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Frame
Member Avatar


lascuba
Aug 22 2008, 08:34 PM
I know it's petty, but I am so sick and tired of everyone on that damn show kissing Corday's ass. Never even a tiny hint of criticism gets thrown his way. And him being such a nice guy--if true-- is completely irrelevant. Give me an asshole who knows what the hell he's doing over a sweet imbecile any day.

I'm assuming firing Scott is a bad decision just because Corday always makes the wrong decision, but I have to say that I didn't notice any significant changes when he joined the show. The writing was still crap, and that matters a million times more than pretty lighting.

I totally agree 100% about the writing.

Ed Scott made the show look 100 times better and improved the acting greatly, but the writing has always been the big problem with this show for at least 5 years now. Ed Scott did nothing for it at all.

it was bad under Hogan and it was still bad under Dena.

Days has not had 1 story in 5 years that has drawn me in and made me want to watch for a long period of time. Sheffer, Reilly and Dena all have had 2 to 3 day periods that were exciting and then they all turned into convoluted messes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kirk
Member Avatar
Captain Kirk

Steve Frame
Aug 24 2008, 03:32 PM
lascuba
Aug 22 2008, 08:34 PM
I know it's petty, but I am so sick and tired of everyone on that damn show kissing Corday's ass. Never even a tiny hint of criticism gets thrown his way. And him being such a nice guy--if true-- is completely irrelevant. Give me an asshole who knows what the hell he's doing over a sweet imbecile any day.

I'm assuming firing Scott is a bad decision just because Corday always makes the wrong decision, but I have to say that I didn't notice any significant changes when he joined the show. The writing was still crap, and that matters a million times more than pretty lighting.

I totally agree 100% about the writing.

Ed Scott made the show look 100 times better and improved the acting greatly, but the writing has always been the big problem with this show for at least 5 years now. Ed Scott did nothing for it at all.

it was bad under Hogan and it was still bad under Dena.

Days has not had 1 story in 5 years that has drawn me in and made me want to watch for a long period of time. Sheffer, Reilly and Dena all have had 2 to 3 day periods that were exciting and then they all turned into convoluted messes.
Steve, that Heather Lindell sig picture is smokin' hot!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Daytime News · Next Topic »
Add Reply