|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.
|ATWT:Dylan Bruce dropped to recurring; plays Dr. Chris Hughes|
|Tweet Topic Started: Aug 23 2008, 10:04 PM (959 Views)|
|oakdalelover||Aug 23 2008, 10:04 PM Post #1|
Dylan Bruce (Chris Hughes ) dropped to recurring.
Nelson Branco reported this in his Suds report.
Here is the Soap Central column:
Link to Article
Edited by oakdalelover, Aug 23 2008, 10:05 PM.
|jcar03||Aug 23 2008, 10:15 PM Post #2|
My understanding from not only Nelson but SOD is that Bruce is dropped to recurring so he is still "tied" to the show they just don't have to obligate him a certain amount of eps a week. The new Dani, at least according to the person who edits the ATWT cast list at my MSN Group, wasn't even put on contract.
This Soap Central article is just confusing for me.
Edited by jcar03, Aug 23 2008, 10:15 PM.
|Mason||Aug 23 2008, 10:55 PM Post #3|
||Just cut him altogether. He's obviously been a bust in the role.|
|brimike||Aug 24 2008, 12:01 AM Post #4|
Half the people front-burner on ATWT aren't on contract. It saves them money. Janet, Parker, Liberty, Noah, probably Bonnie and Dani. This way they don't need to pay them for guaranteed shows they never did or were never written into in the first place. They only have to pay them per appearance, for the shows they're actually in.
That SOC article was weird. I don't think recurring = written off in this case. But maybe I'm wrong...
Edited by brimike, Aug 24 2008, 12:04 AM.
|KMan101||Aug 24 2008, 09:23 AM Post #5|
||Unless exceptions are made, being dropped to recurring IS almost like being let go. You have no guarantee of work, and only get paid if they call you in to use you. It would have to suck for any actor.|
|juniorz1||Aug 24 2008, 10:12 AM Post #6|
The Royal Stoner
|It's really too bad. He was just starting to grow on me. Hopefully, recurring on ATWT isn't the death sentence it is on ABC or B&B.|
|jcar03||Aug 24 2008, 10:15 PM Post #7|
||But they clearly still plan to use him at some point or they would of just released him entirely which they didn't. They aren't writing the character off yet and there won't be a final airdate as of now which the article is saying.|
|jcar03||Aug 24 2008, 10:30 PM Post #8|
||I guess I would look at this dropped to recurring thing different if it he had no screen time over the last several months and no story like Mackenzie Mauzy on B&B where I fully expect that the show will write Phoebe out or recast in a few months time.|
|Matt||Aug 24 2008, 11:31 PM Post #9|
Classic Soap Fan
You have to remember that a lot of soaps (and seemingly P&G's in particular) are known for dropping featured actors to recurring as a cost saving measure. Hell, I almost think 1/3 of GL's cast is recurring and a lot of those recurring cast members do pop up rather frequently. I'm almost certain that Kathleen Widdoes (Emma) is recurring and we see her more often than we see some contract performers. The primary difference between contract and non-contract is about the same as on-staff and freelance. Contract actors are bound to their respective shows, meaning that if the show says they have to report to work, they have to report to work. As a benefit to actors, those contracts will also stipulate that they'll be guaranteed a certain number of days per week and those days are "play or pay" (meaning that if their contract states they work 3 days a week, they have to be paid at least for those 3 days even if they don't even work). Non-contract performers aren't given those guarantees and are only paid for the days the work. Consequently, without a contract, a show cannot force a performer to work and it allows the performer to accept other roles and work only when they chose to do so. If the role is more of a supporting role with no significant storyline prominance, this isn't that big of a deal. However, if an actor is playing a character that is part of a key storyline that hinges on that character, it's often in the show's best interest to make sure that performer is on contract.
Also, that's one reason you see some performers signed to lengthy contracts and then released at the end of the contract cycle (usually 3 months, if I'm not mistaken) with the reason being "end of storyline". If a new performer comes on and shows a certain spark, a show will often quickly sign them to a contract to "hedge their bets", so to speak, so that if the performer/character really takes off, they've already got the performer locked in and aren't at risk of losing them. Often, however, once the performer's storyline is concluded, their character is no longer needed (or no longer fits in the upcoming storyline) and is released from their contract at the end of their cycle. Then why sign them to a contract in the first place? It's kinda like an insurance policy. If I were an EP and I saw the faintest glimmer of a spark that a performer might really take off with the viewers, I'd want to jump in there quickly and make sure I've got them locked into my show rather than risk losing a potential future start to competing soap or another acting endeavor. After all, if they don't work out, I could always let them go at the end of their contract cycle.
|1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)|
|« Previous Topic · General Daytime News · Next Topic »|