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 (2,966 Views)
Steve Frame
Member Avatar


Kirk
Aug 24 2008, 03:24 PM
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?
I take what he said to go along with what I have said for awhile now about the hacks writing daytime these days.

They are only temporarily good - Hogan, Kreizman, McTavish, Passanante, Higley and all.

notice Scott said "scenes" - not stories or whatever.

All these writers are only good in the short term - none of them have the talent to carry anything over for a long term like the writers who wrote daytime for years.

From watching Higley at OLTL, she would come up with some brilliant stuff but never sustain it.

The Daniel Colson stuff was magnificent. The initial Tess storyline was great. The Kevin and Kelly breakup stuff was great.

She could write and come up with some great stuff in the short term, but she never knew how to keep the stuff going and maintain. The same can be said for Hogan, Megan McTavish and all of the hacks.

The have some great ideas from time to time and come up with a few things here and there that are top quality and entertaining.

That is what makes me so mad about them is that you know when they try they can do it. The sad fact is that they don't try. They don't put their all into it.

I think that is what Ed Scott was saying. Higley can do some good stuff from time to time. It is just in the long term that she has a big problem with.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Frame
Member Avatar


PhoenixRising05
Aug 23 2008, 12:08 AM
I do want to touch on the point about the cast and crew kissing Corday's ass.

I think it's more or less a situation of keeping the door open in case they are fired or quit. Just look at how Days either fires people or loses them and brings them back, even if the left under bad circumstances. I never in a million years thought Missy Reeves would be back after what happened and she was. RJ was brought back twice in one year. Joe tore Corday to shreds and still came back. Sure, it's because Corday acts before he thinks but I do think he's very loyal and very nice to the people who work for him. We know he's loyal as hell to Higley, despite the problems it's causing. I would kill to have a boss like that who would make that many sacrifices for me. Yes, I know it's killing the show but if I was the one benefiting from it, damn LOL.

We hear the cast and crew talk about him positively all the time. Hell, even people away from the show for years, do the same, even if their exit was ugly. Up until recently, the atmosphere at Days was always friendly, no matter what the state of the show. This is the first time tension bled into the set the way it has (at least that we know of) and my hope is that things stabilize soon and return back to that close-knit, family atmosphere because I think Corday is the reason the place became like that and has stayed that way and I think it's that atmosphere that keeps cast and crew coming back.
I have to disagree with one part of that - about the tension on the set.

I remember Ann Marcus talking about on some TV show how tense things were backstage in the late 70's with the Pat Falken Smith debacle. Some of the cast was on her side over Betty Corday.

Also I can remember magazines in the late 70's alluding to how tense the set was with the women who were jealous over Susan Hayes with her mother writing the show. Brenda Benet and Susan Hayes really didn't get along.

And before that there was the feud between Kaye Stevens and Susan Hayes.

the in 1980 the mood on the set was very bad with all the firings and the new folks coming on.

Those are times that I do know about.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

ladyofthelake
Aug 24 2008, 08:10 AM
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).
BEAUTIFUL POST :hail: !
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

Kirk
Aug 24 2008, 03:24 PM
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?
I'm with you. I just want to be entertained. I just want the show to be something I enjoy for an hour five days a week. I don't care who writes , directs, produces, or whatever. Just like in the old days before the internet and knowing too much. I just want to watch the show and enjoy it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

Steve Frame
Aug 24 2008, 03:50 PM
PhoenixRising05
Aug 23 2008, 12:08 AM
I do want to touch on the point about the cast and crew kissing Corday's ass.

I think it's more or less a situation of keeping the door open in case they are fired or quit. Just look at how Days either fires people or loses them and brings them back, even if the left under bad circumstances. I never in a million years thought Missy Reeves would be back after what happened and she was. RJ was brought back twice in one year. Joe tore Corday to shreds and still came back. Sure, it's because Corday acts before he thinks but I do think he's very loyal and very nice to the people who work for him. We know he's loyal as hell to Higley, despite the problems it's causing. I would kill to have a boss like that who would make that many sacrifices for me. Yes, I know it's killing the show but if I was the one benefiting from it, damn LOL.

We hear the cast and crew talk about him positively all the time. Hell, even people away from the show for years, do the same, even if their exit was ugly. Up until recently, the atmosphere at Days was always friendly, no matter what the state of the show. This is the first time tension bled into the set the way it has (at least that we know of) and my hope is that things stabilize soon and return back to that close-knit, family atmosphere because I think Corday is the reason the place became like that and has stayed that way and I think it's that atmosphere that keeps cast and crew coming back.
I have to disagree with one part of that - about the tension on the set.

I remember Ann Marcus talking about on some TV show how tense things were backstage in the late 70's with the Pat Falken Smith debacle. Some of the cast was on her side over Betty Corday.

Also I can remember magazines in the late 70's alluding to how tense the set was with the women who were jealous over Susan Hayes with her mother writing the show. Brenda Benet and Susan Hayes really didn't get along.

And before that there was the feud between Kaye Stevens and Susan Hayes.

the in 1980 the mood on the set was very bad with all the firings and the new folks coming on.

Those are times that I do know about.
I understand that, Steve. However, I'm speaking along the lines of the cast being close knit and one of them never making a play for or doing something like we hear the supposed "diva" did. There will always be instants of tension and arguments and such but I don't ever remember hearing of anyone at Days writing their own shit like we have heard may have been the case. That is just something I would never expect to happen at Days. It's a betrayal to the cast.

I remember reading ad nauseum in the 90's and 2000's about how great the atmosphere at Days was. While there has been tension at times, I do think the family atmosphere and close-knit nature has always been there, even during the times you mention and especially in the past 20 years or so. That is what shocks me about this whole mess. It just doesn't seem like something you would see coming out of Days.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brimike


PhoenixRising05
Aug 25 2008, 01:28 AM
Steve Frame
Aug 24 2008, 03:50 PM
PhoenixRising05
Aug 23 2008, 12:08 AM
I do want to touch on the point about the cast and crew kissing Corday's ass.

I think it's more or less a situation of keeping the door open in case they are fired or quit. Just look at how Days either fires people or loses them and brings them back, even if the left under bad circumstances. I never in a million years thought Missy Reeves would be back after what happened and she was. RJ was brought back twice in one year. Joe tore Corday to shreds and still came back. Sure, it's because Corday acts before he thinks but I do think he's very loyal and very nice to the people who work for him. We know he's loyal as hell to Higley, despite the problems it's causing. I would kill to have a boss like that who would make that many sacrifices for me. Yes, I know it's killing the show but if I was the one benefiting from it, damn LOL.

We hear the cast and crew talk about him positively all the time. Hell, even people away from the show for years, do the same, even if their exit was ugly. Up until recently, the atmosphere at Days was always friendly, no matter what the state of the show. This is the first time tension bled into the set the way it has (at least that we know of) and my hope is that things stabilize soon and return back to that close-knit, family atmosphere because I think Corday is the reason the place became like that and has stayed that way and I think it's that atmosphere that keeps cast and crew coming back.
I have to disagree with one part of that - about the tension on the set.

I remember Ann Marcus talking about on some TV show how tense things were backstage in the late 70's with the Pat Falken Smith debacle. Some of the cast was on her side over Betty Corday.

Also I can remember magazines in the late 70's alluding to how tense the set was with the women who were jealous over Susan Hayes with her mother writing the show. Brenda Benet and Susan Hayes really didn't get along.

And before that there was the feud between Kaye Stevens and Susan Hayes.

the in 1980 the mood on the set was very bad with all the firings and the new folks coming on.

Those are times that I do know about.
I understand that, Steve. However, I'm speaking along the lines of the cast being close knit and one of them never making a play for or doing something like we hear the supposed "diva" did. There will always be instants of tension and arguments and such but I don't ever remember hearing of anyone at Days writing their own shit like we have heard may have been the case. That is just something I would never expect to happen at Days. It's a betrayal to the cast.

I remember reading ad nauseum in the 90's and 2000's about how great the atmosphere at Days was. While there has been tension at times, I do think the family atmosphere and close-knit nature has always been there, even during the times you mention and especially in the past 20 years or so. That is what shocks me about this whole mess. It just doesn't seem like something you would see coming out of Days.

You're right, PR. Well said. Days has always been an island unto itself, much like Another World was out in the middle of nowhere in their Midwood, Brooklyn studio. Those environments, while forcing you to feel isolated and completely left to your own devices by the network, also foster VERY tight-knit families within their employees. Other shows that are shot next door/across the street/within spitting distance from the network run in a much more corporate way... but on the plus side, they know they're supported and believed in by the network. There are definite pros and cons to both. But if there's any benefit to Days/Corday Productions being so islanded, it's that there's definitely a feeling of "we're all in this together" behind the scenes. Which is probably where this whole Ed Scott/"diva" story stemmed from in a very positive, non-threatening manner. They felt it was good for the show... and probably got a little out of control towards the end. But it's that tight-knit feeling that probably made people think it was okay to cross that line. I don't fault them for pushing that envelope... I fault the man upstairs for not putting a gentle stop to it before it got to the guild's ears.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kenny
Member Avatar


brimike
Aug 25 2008, 11:03 AM
I don't fault them for pushing that envelope... I fault the man upstairs for not putting a gentle stop to it before it got to the guild's ears being such a colossal dumbass.
Fixed! :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brimike


Kenny
Aug 25 2008, 11:08 AM
brimike
Aug 25 2008, 11:03 AM
I don't fault them for pushing that envelope... I fault the man upstairs for not putting a gentle stop to it before it got to the guild's ears being such a colossal dumbass.
Fixed! :P
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!


Thanks, Kenny... I don't know what I was thinking. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hypnotoad


Are internet soaps fans more interested in the behind the scenes soap opera or the product?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grandpa Hughes
Member Avatar
WANDERING Minstrel!

Hypnotoad
Aug 25 2008, 11:31 AM
Are internet soaps fans more interested in the behind the scenes soap opera or the product?
I think the utter disgust many have with most of what we've been seeing onscreen is part of what is making the behind the scenes stuff so compelling! Interest in backstage drama started BEFORE the internet became a popular communication tool! The '70's saw a change in the soap press! Some of the things Steve commented on were actually being reported in magazines that wouldn't have touched those situations back in the '60's! There were still lots of "Puff Pieces" being written in SOME of the mags but we saw constructive criticism of each show begin to be popular! Reviews of the soaps began appearing in periodicals such as AFTERNOON TV and DAILY TV SERIALS! Fans were being written for like they were adults with working brain cells! The huge blow up at ANOTHER WORLD between Rauch/Lemay and Courtney/Reinholt/Dwyer is, I think, the most infamous example! The story would NEVER have been covered in the '60's! It was frustrating to some viewers that the longtime villainess of the show was made into the new heroine at the expense of one of the first true SUPER COUPLES and the gradual dismantling of the show's main family! We were given a terrific villainess played by an immensely talented actress to replace her and the ratings soared despite the change of focus! But many of us ate up the story of backstage discord with a SPOON! And some felt those changes began the long, slow road to the show's cancellation many years later! Most fans today are much more media savvy than the notorious little old lady who would confuse the performer with the character and slap that performer for their on-screen transgressions!The biggest difference is that today, most of the shows are lacking creatively AND in the ratings! There is a lack of consistency which was what made soap operas different than episodic tv! Even the weakest soaps back then are superior to most of what is shown these days IMO! That and the fact that, via the internet, we get all of our news much more quickly and legions of viewers are able to respond instantly and publicly feed into the fascination with the backstage goings-on! While SOME profess not to care anymore, I believe that they wouldn't be commenting at ALL if that was the case! For better or worse, we now have an outlet where we can vent our frustrations and disenchantment with the state of the genre in a much more timely fashion than the old "letters to the editor"! Conversely, we can also express our pleasure when a show is getting it RIGHT! So to answer your question after a novel length post, I believe that many fans are interested in BOTH!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

brimike
Aug 25 2008, 11:03 AM
PhoenixRising05
Aug 25 2008, 01:28 AM
Steve Frame
Aug 24 2008, 03:50 PM
PhoenixRising05
Aug 23 2008, 12:08 AM
I do want to touch on the point about the cast and crew kissing Corday's ass.

I think it's more or less a situation of keeping the door open in case they are fired or quit. Just look at how Days either fires people or loses them and brings them back, even if the left under bad circumstances. I never in a million years thought Missy Reeves would be back after what happened and she was. RJ was brought back twice in one year. Joe tore Corday to shreds and still came back. Sure, it's because Corday acts before he thinks but I do think he's very loyal and very nice to the people who work for him. We know he's loyal as hell to Higley, despite the problems it's causing. I would kill to have a boss like that who would make that many sacrifices for me. Yes, I know it's killing the show but if I was the one benefiting from it, damn LOL.

We hear the cast and crew talk about him positively all the time. Hell, even people away from the show for years, do the same, even if their exit was ugly. Up until recently, the atmosphere at Days was always friendly, no matter what the state of the show. This is the first time tension bled into the set the way it has (at least that we know of) and my hope is that things stabilize soon and return back to that close-knit, family atmosphere because I think Corday is the reason the place became like that and has stayed that way and I think it's that atmosphere that keeps cast and crew coming back.
I have to disagree with one part of that - about the tension on the set.

I remember Ann Marcus talking about on some TV show how tense things were backstage in the late 70's with the Pat Falken Smith debacle. Some of the cast was on her side over Betty Corday.

Also I can remember magazines in the late 70's alluding to how tense the set was with the women who were jealous over Susan Hayes with her mother writing the show. Brenda Benet and Susan Hayes really didn't get along.

And before that there was the feud between Kaye Stevens and Susan Hayes.

the in 1980 the mood on the set was very bad with all the firings and the new folks coming on.

Those are times that I do know about.
I understand that, Steve. However, I'm speaking along the lines of the cast being close knit and one of them never making a play for or doing something like we hear the supposed "diva" did. There will always be instants of tension and arguments and such but I don't ever remember hearing of anyone at Days writing their own shit like we have heard may have been the case. That is just something I would never expect to happen at Days. It's a betrayal to the cast.

I remember reading ad nauseum in the 90's and 2000's about how great the atmosphere at Days was. While there has been tension at times, I do think the family atmosphere and close-knit nature has always been there, even during the times you mention and especially in the past 20 years or so. That is what shocks me about this whole mess. It just doesn't seem like something you would see coming out of Days.

You're right, PR. Well said. Days has always been an island unto itself, much like Another World was out in the middle of nowhere in their Midwood, Brooklyn studio. Those environments, while forcing you to feel isolated and completely left to your own devices by the network, also foster VERY tight-knit families within their employees. Other shows that are shot next door/across the street/within spitting distance from the network run in a much more corporate way... but on the plus side, they know they're supported and believed in by the network. There are definite pros and cons to both. But if there's any benefit to Days/Corday Productions being so islanded, it's that there's definitely a feeling of "we're all in this together" behind the scenes. Which is probably where this whole Ed Scott/"diva" story stemmed from in a very positive, non-threatening manner. They felt it was good for the show... and probably got a little out of control towards the end. But it's that tight-knit feeling that probably made people think it was okay to cross that line. I don't fault them for pushing that envelope... I fault the man upstairs for not putting a gentle stop to it before it got to the guild's ears.
Thanks. I agree. It's one of reasons why Days is my fave of all the soaps. I think that is what makes the family scenes the show has had over the years feel so real. It hits so close to home and overwhelms you as a viewer because the cast really is that close to each other. They are like a real family and I think that shows through onscreen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

Hypnotoad
Aug 25 2008, 11:31 AM
Are internet soaps fans more interested in the behind the scenes soap opera or the product?
Sadly, I think at this point it's more then former rather then the latter. It should not be that way but it is.

With every passing year, more fans become more disgruntled and with every year more just give soaps up altogether. I can't blame them. I can't blame them for feeling like the backstage shit going on is more interesting. Frankly, it is. I'm appalled by it and I would much rather not know it but I have to admit it is interesting and addicting. I wish we could just go back in time to the 90's when it was just about the shows and not about who wrote, directed, etc. I wish we could just go back to an age of less spoilers where shows surprised us and where the little things and scenes like character interactions and solid character moments counted for something and weren't looked at as boring. Sadly, TPTB went for the youth and also went for less traditional fair in terms of story (you can thank Days and JER for that). As a result, we got years and years of ratings downturn and execs going more for stunts then quality stories, which led to nothing but short-term gains. Now, we have an audience that counts in the ratings that wants nothing but event after event, with the story not mattering at all. It's sad and disgusting.

Soaps need to go back to what worked in the past but also need to modernize. They need to adapt to changing times while also paying homage to traditional soap aspects. Soaps have adapted in every decade but this one. I think execs have tried but they are so panicky they don't commit. They don't stick with some things long enough (*cough* Corday *cough*) and you have to. The audience needs to adjust. Things take time. The hard part is some soaps don't have much time so it's a struggle. This is all just too depressing, which is why I prefer to just watch the shows and forget about all the negative shit going on :laugh:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · General Daytime News · Next Topic »
Add Reply