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
Thom Racina Interview; " I would go back as head writer"
Topic Started: Nov 25 2008, 10:47 PM (5,052 Views)
DaysFanJean
Member Avatar


Patch and Kayla need to go. This go round has been awful for them as they aren't even in the same vein as before. They can take Stephanie, the stalker, with them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggs
Member Avatar


Sindacco
Dec 1 2008, 04:19 AM
CatherineEarnshaw
Nov 30 2008, 08:46 PM
Sindacco
Nov 30 2008, 05:53 AM
Jiggs
Nov 29 2008, 09:44 PM
PhoenixRising05
Nov 26 2008, 03:12 AM
You know, I like him. I really do but I have to agree that his style may lead to something similar to JER's last run in terms of being way too campy and over the top. I think the times we are living in would make him strive even more to be more "out there." However, his writing in the 80's is what alot of fans crave so who knows. I'm not against giving anyone a try and I would certainly welcome him back to the writing team in a position.

I'm not against what he does. I just worry about any former writer coming back to Days except for B&C. I just feel they will either be stuck in the past or want to recreate their former golden age with the younger cast members. I would rather give someone new who knows the show a shot.

B&C were awful. They brought back Tony, claiming that it wasn't him that died in Aremid. What rubbish.
So the only reason you didn't like C&B was because they rewrote a story which involved J&M?
They created the alien twins..that is all I need to know.
I guess that works for you. But when I judge a writer I look at their whole tenure and how they wrote for the show as a whole. I don't judge them after one bad storyline or one good storyline. But then again, I'm not part of a rabid fanbase that have their own agenda.
Bravo for you. :eyeroll:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggs
Member Avatar


CatherineEarnshaw
Dec 1 2008, 03:54 PM
PhoenixRising05
Dec 1 2008, 01:30 AM
Mason
Dec 1 2008, 01:27 AM
It's funny to me that some J&M fans don't like B&C, considering they gave J&M that nice little vowel renewal ceremony in Vegas, "spy school", reveal of John as Daphne DiMera's son (before that was fucked up) in what could have been a meaty storyline for J&M had B&C been given more time, etc. B&C were certainly better to J&M than any other writer this decade.
It is funny.

Two writers gave them some of their best stuff TOGETHER in years and they are panned.
best stuff in your opinion...so of course you don't pan it.
LOL! :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggs
Member Avatar


madelinehawaii
Dec 1 2008, 05:19 PM
CatherineEarnshaw
Dec 1 2008, 03:54 PM
Mason
Dec 1 2008, 01:27 AM
It's funny to me that some J&M fans don't like B&C, considering they gave J&M that nice little vowel renewal ceremony in Vegas, "spy school", reveal of John as Daphne DiMera's son (before that was fucked up) in what could have been a meaty storyline for J&M had B&C been given more time, etc. B&C were certainly better to J&M than any other writer this decade.
The renewal episode was nice (all two episodes), the Daphne was just more rewriting of history (that did nothing to further the J/M story), spy school was a few cute episodes but hardly a story, etc

B/C weren't as horrible as Higley or much of Langan, but they weren't any better than Reilly's best stuff this decade or Sussman's stuff.

It is funny to me that some non J/m fans think that J/M fans should like B/C.
and there is the rub...the story must further their story or its bad and a waste of time and again, how are some writers allowed to rewrite history and they are considered good, but when others do it, it is used as a reason they are lousy?
Ah, because it's all very subjective? LOL
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggs
Member Avatar


CatherineEarnshaw
Dec 1 2008, 06:22 PM
daysfan
Dec 1 2008, 06:18 PM
Well, I think B&C's stories were very interesting. Interesting in a way that they weren't boring or just bad stories. I think(okay minus the alien thing), they grounded Days a bit more after the crazy Langan era with Tropical Temptation, Princess Gina(or was that SSM or both?), Garden of Eden, etc etc., but kept the re-established roots from the 90's that JER put in there.

They may have re-written some history, but they did it in a believable way. And they tapped into history. Characters like Larry Welch and Daphne DiMera(even though they didn't bring her back, they made John her son), oh heck even Tony and Andre, had almost been forgotten at that point. But they brought in some new, next generation characters in the process: Rex and Cassie, and made them VERY interesting when it was revealed they were the children of Tony and Marlena. That was something that Higley should not have reversed at all.

And there was the gripping story of Larry kidnapping Hope. That really got into some history most writers would have never DREAMED of tackling.
SSM said that Jope was all Langan. It might have been self-servign though since the story was such a bomb.

I thought the Tony/Marlena thing was so stupid.

There was never any payoff. I spoke to Cwikly and she promised a huge one for John and Marlena. Never happened.
But remember, Cwikly said that Tony and John being brothers was DELICIOUS. I personally felt it was lame and pointless. And if Cwikly really wanted to please fans they would have written that the twins were John and Marlena's not Tony and Marlena's.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CatherineEarnshaw


Sindacco
Dec 2 2008, 09:03 AM
Mason
Dec 1 2008, 06:24 PM
CatherineEarnshaw
Dec 1 2008, 06:22 PM
I thought the Tony/Marlena thing was so stupid.

There was never any payoff. I spoke to Cwikly and she promised a huge one for John and Marlena. Never happened.
Well, they were demoted before they even had a chance. You can thank Corday and Higley for that.
Yep, Higley dropped and rewrote most of C&B's stuff.

- The Brady/DiMera feud: Dropped
- Rex and Cassie's parents: Rewritten from Tony and Marlena to Roman and Kate
- Celeste/Caprice: Dropped
- Who's the daddy: Rewritten from Brandon to Abe
- Jennifer beeing pregnant with Colin: I'm not sure about this one but according to some J&J fans Higley was the one that rewrote it so that Jennifer weren't pregnant but C&B were still credit as headwriters. That would have at least given J&J some conflict instead of that stupid "In the House" shit.
Their reason for the feud was all rewritten. Tony and Marlena had no payoff. I got that from Cwikly's mouth herself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggs
Member Avatar


Sindacco
Dec 2 2008, 09:03 AM
Mason
Dec 1 2008, 06:24 PM
CatherineEarnshaw
Dec 1 2008, 06:22 PM
I thought the Tony/Marlena thing was so stupid.

There was never any payoff. I spoke to Cwikly and she promised a huge one for John and Marlena. Never happened.
Well, they were demoted before they even had a chance. You can thank Corday and Higley for that.
Yep, Higley dropped and rewrote most of C&B's stuff.

- The Brady/DiMera feud: Dropped
- Rex and Cassie's parents: Rewritten from Tony and Marlena to Roman and Kate
- Celeste/Caprice: Dropped
- Who's the daddy: Rewritten from Brandon to Abe
- Jennifer beeing pregnant with Colin: I'm not sure about this one but according to some J&J fans Higley was the one that rewrote it so that Jennifer weren't pregnant but C&B were still credit as headwriters. That would have at least given J&J some conflict instead of that stupid "In the House" shit.
That stuff you listed is C&B material? Now I remember fully why I didn't like them, lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CatherineEarnshaw


Jiggs
Dec 2 2008, 05:15 PM
Sindacco
Dec 2 2008, 09:03 AM
Mason
Dec 1 2008, 06:24 PM
CatherineEarnshaw
Dec 1 2008, 06:22 PM
I thought the Tony/Marlena thing was so stupid.

There was never any payoff. I spoke to Cwikly and she promised a huge one for John and Marlena. Never happened.
Well, they were demoted before they even had a chance. You can thank Corday and Higley for that.
Yep, Higley dropped and rewrote most of C&B's stuff.

- The Brady/DiMera feud: Dropped
- Rex and Cassie's parents: Rewritten from Tony and Marlena to Roman and Kate
- Celeste/Caprice: Dropped
- Who's the daddy: Rewritten from Brandon to Abe
- Jennifer beeing pregnant with Colin: I'm not sure about this one but according to some J&J fans Higley was the one that rewrote it so that Jennifer weren't pregnant but C&B were still credit as headwriters. That would have at least given J&J some conflict instead of that stupid "In the House" shit.
That stuff you listed is C&B material? Now I remember fully why I didn't like them, lol
Touche..bad fan, bad fan...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
madelinehawaii


Jiggs
Dec 2 2008, 05:07 PM
madelinehawaii
Dec 1 2008, 05:19 PM
CatherineEarnshaw
Dec 1 2008, 03:54 PM
Mason
Dec 1 2008, 01:27 AM
It's funny to me that some J&M fans don't like B&C, considering they gave J&M that nice little vowel renewal ceremony in Vegas, "spy school", reveal of John as Daphne DiMera's son (before that was fucked up) in what could have been a meaty storyline for J&M had B&C been given more time, etc. B&C were certainly better to J&M than any other writer this decade.
The renewal episode was nice (all two episodes), the Daphne was just more rewriting of history (that did nothing to further the J/M story), spy school was a few cute episodes but hardly a story, etc

B/C weren't as horrible as Higley or much of Langan, but they weren't any better than Reilly's best stuff this decade or Sussman's stuff.

It is funny to me that some non J/m fans think that J/M fans should like B/C.
and there is the rub...the story must further their story or its bad and a waste of time and again, how are some writers allowed to rewrite history and they are considered good, but when others do it, it is used as a reason they are lousy?
Ah, because it's all very subjective? LOL
coming from someone who pans a writer based on a story that wasn't given the opportunity to play out, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by such a response, though I'd love to hear how comparing the history that is changed is in anyway subjective...unless of course you're basing it on whether you care about that history in which case it makes your opinion subjective, not the writer's talent or lack thereof. You do understand that something that can be proven, as in a writer rewrote previous history is not an opinion and comparing two writers based on that fact is therefore not subjective?

Edited by madelinehawaii, Dec 2 2008, 07:58 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
madelinehawaii


Jiggs
Dec 2 2008, 05:11 PM
CatherineEarnshaw
Dec 1 2008, 06:22 PM
daysfan
Dec 1 2008, 06:18 PM
Well, I think B&C's stories were very interesting. Interesting in a way that they weren't boring or just bad stories. I think(okay minus the alien thing), they grounded Days a bit more after the crazy Langan era with Tropical Temptation, Princess Gina(or was that SSM or both?), Garden of Eden, etc etc., but kept the re-established roots from the 90's that JER put in there.

They may have re-written some history, but they did it in a believable way. And they tapped into history. Characters like Larry Welch and Daphne DiMera(even though they didn't bring her back, they made John her son), oh heck even Tony and Andre, had almost been forgotten at that point. But they brought in some new, next generation characters in the process: Rex and Cassie, and made them VERY interesting when it was revealed they were the children of Tony and Marlena. That was something that Higley should not have reversed at all.

And there was the gripping story of Larry kidnapping Hope. That really got into some history most writers would have never DREAMED of tackling.
SSM said that Jope was all Langan. It might have been self-servign though since the story was such a bomb.

I thought the Tony/Marlena thing was so stupid.

There was never any payoff. I spoke to Cwikly and she promised a huge one for John and Marlena. Never happened.
But remember, Cwikly said that Tony and John being brothers was DELICIOUS. I personally felt it was lame and pointless. And if Cwikly really wanted to please fans they would have written that the twins were John and Marlena's not Tony and Marlena's.
speaking for fans in general? how do you know that is what THE fans wanted or what they would have wanted if the whole story played out and whatever C&B planned was shown?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggs
Member Avatar


madelinehawaii
Dec 2 2008, 07:41 PM
coming from someone who pans a writer based on a story that wasn't given the opportunity to play out, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by such a response, though I'd love to hear how comparing the history that is changed is in anyway subjective...unless of course you're basing it on whether you care about that history in which case it makes your opinion subjective, not the writer's talent or lack thereof. You do understand that something that can be proven, as in a writer rewrote previous history is not an opinion and comparing two writers based on that fact is therefore not subjective?

Which story? The John & Tony are brother's story? They didn't play that out? News to me.

Sorry, the rest of your post doesn't make sense to me. Not sure what the heck you're trying to say.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggs
Member Avatar


madelinehawaii
Dec 2 2008, 07:54 PM
Jiggs
Dec 2 2008, 05:11 PM
CatherineEarnshaw
Dec 1 2008, 06:22 PM
daysfan
Dec 1 2008, 06:18 PM
Well, I think B&C's stories were very interesting. Interesting in a way that they weren't boring or just bad stories. I think(okay minus the alien thing), they grounded Days a bit more after the crazy Langan era with Tropical Temptation, Princess Gina(or was that SSM or both?), Garden of Eden, etc etc., but kept the re-established roots from the 90's that JER put in there.

They may have re-written some history, but they did it in a believable way. And they tapped into history. Characters like Larry Welch and Daphne DiMera(even though they didn't bring her back, they made John her son), oh heck even Tony and Andre, had almost been forgotten at that point. But they brought in some new, next generation characters in the process: Rex and Cassie, and made them VERY interesting when it was revealed they were the children of Tony and Marlena. That was something that Higley should not have reversed at all.

And there was the gripping story of Larry kidnapping Hope. That really got into some history most writers would have never DREAMED of tackling.
SSM said that Jope was all Langan. It might have been self-servign though since the story was such a bomb.

I thought the Tony/Marlena thing was so stupid.

There was never any payoff. I spoke to Cwikly and she promised a huge one for John and Marlena. Never happened.
But remember, Cwikly said that Tony and John being brothers was DELICIOUS. I personally felt it was lame and pointless. And if Cwikly really wanted to please fans they would have written that the twins were John and Marlena's not Tony and Marlena's.
speaking for fans in general? how do you know that is what THE fans wanted or what they would have wanted if the whole story played out and whatever C&B planned was shown?
If you think what they wrote was fabulously popular with fans, then you obviously disagree with me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
madelinehawaii


Jiggs
Dec 2 2008, 08:21 PM
madelinehawaii
Dec 2 2008, 07:41 PM
coming from someone who pans a writer based on a story that wasn't given the opportunity to play out, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by such a response, though I'd love to hear how comparing the history that is changed is in anyway subjective...unless of course you're basing it on whether you care about that history in which case it makes your opinion subjective, not the writer's talent or lack thereof. You do understand that something that can be proven, as in a writer rewrote previous history is not an opinion and comparing two writers based on that fact is therefore not subjective?

Which story? The John & Tony are brother's story? They didn't play that out? News to me.

Sorry, the rest of your post doesn't make sense to me. Not sure what the heck you're trying to say.
subjective, as in the work of a writer being a matter of taste.

I asked how one writer can be panned while another is not when both rewrite history...specifically when rewriting history is used as the reason for panning a writer's work and your answer was that it was subjective.

whether you liked the story in general is subjective, whether you liked the characters used and how they were used is subjective, whether you thought the pacing was fast enough, or too fast is subjective...whether you believe most people liked it is pretty subjective as well....but if two different writers both do the same thing...rewrite history, that itself is not subjective...that is a fact that can be verified by going back and watching the story again. If rewriting history in general is a reason to pan a writer as bad, it either works for all the writers who do that, or using that as a valid reason is meaningless.

Edited by madelinehawaii, Dec 2 2008, 10:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggs
Member Avatar


madelinehawaii
Dec 2 2008, 10:36 PM
Jiggs
Dec 2 2008, 08:21 PM
madelinehawaii
Dec 2 2008, 07:41 PM
coming from someone who pans a writer based on a story that wasn't given the opportunity to play out, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by such a response, though I'd love to hear how comparing the history that is changed is in anyway subjective...unless of course you're basing it on whether you care about that history in which case it makes your opinion subjective, not the writer's talent or lack thereof. You do understand that something that can be proven, as in a writer rewrote previous history is not an opinion and comparing two writers based on that fact is therefore not subjective?

Which story? The John & Tony are brother's story? They didn't play that out? News to me.

Sorry, the rest of your post doesn't make sense to me. Not sure what the heck you're trying to say.
subjective, as in the work of a writer being a matter of taste.

I asked how one writer can be panned while another is not when both rewrite history...specifically when rewriting history is used as the reason for panning a writer's work and your answer was that it was subjective.

whether you liked the story in general is subjective, whether you liked the characters used and how they were used is subjective, whether you thought the pacing was fast enough, or too fast is subjective...whether you believe most people liked it is pretty subjective as well....but if two different writers both do the same thing...rewrite history, that itself is not subjective...that is a fact that can be verified by going back and watching the story again. If rewriting history in general is a reason to pan a writer as bad, it either works for all the writers who do that, or using that as a valid reason is meaningless.

I disagree. In MY OPINION, there is bad rewriting of history and good rewriting of history... i.e. making Hope's baby be Bo's instead of John's was GOOD rewriting of history, and rewriting history to say that Marlena was jealous of Isabella and treated Brady badly as a child is BAD rewritten history. And that's my opinion so I do think it's quite subjective.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
madelinehawaii


Jiggs
Dec 2 2008, 11:43 PM
madelinehawaii
Dec 2 2008, 10:36 PM
Jiggs
Dec 2 2008, 08:21 PM
madelinehawaii
Dec 2 2008, 07:41 PM
coming from someone who pans a writer based on a story that wasn't given the opportunity to play out, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by such a response, though I'd love to hear how comparing the history that is changed is in anyway subjective...unless of course you're basing it on whether you care about that history in which case it makes your opinion subjective, not the writer's talent or lack thereof. You do understand that something that can be proven, as in a writer rewrote previous history is not an opinion and comparing two writers based on that fact is therefore not subjective?

Which story? The John & Tony are brother's story? They didn't play that out? News to me.

Sorry, the rest of your post doesn't make sense to me. Not sure what the heck you're trying to say.
subjective, as in the work of a writer being a matter of taste.

I asked how one writer can be panned while another is not when both rewrite history...specifically when rewriting history is used as the reason for panning a writer's work and your answer was that it was subjective.

whether you liked the story in general is subjective, whether you liked the characters used and how they were used is subjective, whether you thought the pacing was fast enough, or too fast is subjective...whether you believe most people liked it is pretty subjective as well....but if two different writers both do the same thing...rewrite history, that itself is not subjective...that is a fact that can be verified by going back and watching the story again. If rewriting history in general is a reason to pan a writer as bad, it either works for all the writers who do that, or using that as a valid reason is meaningless.

I disagree. In MY OPINION, there is bad rewriting of history and good rewriting of history... i.e. making Hope's baby be Bo's instead of John's was GOOD rewriting of history, and rewriting history to say that Marlena was jealous of Isabella and treated Brady badly as a child is BAD rewritten history. And that's my opinion so I do think it's quite subjective.
If you'd based this on how well something was rewritten, I'd say you have a leg to stand on...maybe, but to suggest that rewriting history to make Bo the father of a baby when he'd never had sex with Hope within the nine months before she got pregnant (until they slipped it in afterward) is good and changing Tony into Andre in Aremid was bad (or the other examples you used) is just too ridiculous to take seriously...other than the fact it's completely based on how it affected your favorite characters on the show. That's all well and good, but it doesn't make critiquing a writer based how if he/she rewrites previous stories subjective, other than for you personally and even then it's not based strictly on the merits of the story...it's based on how your favorite character is treated in that story. Those are two completely different things, and it does not make the writing poor or good, it makes it your preference.

I have plenty of preferences when it comes to characters and what happens to them, but I don't use them as the basis for determining the quality of the writing. For instance, I liked many of the things that Hogan wrote in the last half of 07 but I didn't think his stories were all that great (at least not as they played out on screen), and I've never been a fan of Reilly, or practically anything he wrote but don't believe that made his stories crap either.
Edited by madelinehawaii, Dec 3 2008, 12:53 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sindacco
Member Avatar


Jiggs
Dec 2 2008, 05:15 PM
Sindacco
Dec 2 2008, 09:03 AM
Mason
Dec 1 2008, 06:24 PM
CatherineEarnshaw
Dec 1 2008, 06:22 PM
I thought the Tony/Marlena thing was so stupid.

There was never any payoff. I spoke to Cwikly and she promised a huge one for John and Marlena. Never happened.
Well, they were demoted before they even had a chance. You can thank Corday and Higley for that.
Yep, Higley dropped and rewrote most of C&B's stuff.

- The Brady/DiMera feud: Dropped
- Rex and Cassie's parents: Rewritten from Tony and Marlena to Roman and Kate
- Celeste/Caprice: Dropped
- Who's the daddy: Rewritten from Brandon to Abe
- Jennifer beeing pregnant with Colin: I'm not sure about this one but according to some J&J fans Higley was the one that rewrote it so that Jennifer weren't pregnant but C&B were still credit as headwriters. That would have at least given J&J some conflict instead of that stupid "In the House" shit.
That stuff you listed is C&B material? Now I remember fully why I didn't like them, lol
I listed the stuff that Higley destroyed. C&B had other good storylines that Higley didn't get the chance to destroy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggs
Member Avatar


Sindacco
Dec 3 2008, 04:35 AM
Jiggs
Dec 2 2008, 05:15 PM
Sindacco
Dec 2 2008, 09:03 AM
Mason
Dec 1 2008, 06:24 PM
CatherineEarnshaw
Dec 1 2008, 06:22 PM
I thought the Tony/Marlena thing was so stupid.

There was never any payoff. I spoke to Cwikly and she promised a huge one for John and Marlena. Never happened.
Well, they were demoted before they even had a chance. You can thank Corday and Higley for that.
Yep, Higley dropped and rewrote most of C&B's stuff.

- The Brady/DiMera feud: Dropped
- Rex and Cassie's parents: Rewritten from Tony and Marlena to Roman and Kate
- Celeste/Caprice: Dropped
- Who's the daddy: Rewritten from Brandon to Abe
- Jennifer beeing pregnant with Colin: I'm not sure about this one but according to some J&J fans Higley was the one that rewrote it so that Jennifer weren't pregnant but C&B were still credit as headwriters. That would have at least given J&J some conflict instead of that stupid "In the House" shit.
That stuff you listed is C&B material? Now I remember fully why I didn't like them, lol
I listed the stuff that Higley destroyed. C&B had other good storylines that Higley didn't get the chance to destroy.
I was talking about the stuff you listed.

What other "good" storylines did C&B write?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar


Hope's kidnapping was an awesome story, even though, no, it did not involve J&M. A great storyline is possible without them, though.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggs
Member Avatar


madelinehawaii
Dec 3 2008, 12:35 AM
Jiggs
Dec 2 2008, 11:43 PM
madelinehawaii
Dec 2 2008, 10:36 PM
Jiggs
Dec 2 2008, 08:21 PM
madelinehawaii
Dec 2 2008, 07:41 PM
coming from someone who pans a writer based on a story that wasn't given the opportunity to play out, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by such a response, though I'd love to hear how comparing the history that is changed is in anyway subjective...unless of course you're basing it on whether you care about that history in which case it makes your opinion subjective, not the writer's talent or lack thereof. You do understand that something that can be proven, as in a writer rewrote previous history is not an opinion and comparing two writers based on that fact is therefore not subjective?

Which story? The John & Tony are brother's story? They didn't play that out? News to me.

Sorry, the rest of your post doesn't make sense to me. Not sure what the heck you're trying to say.
subjective, as in the work of a writer being a matter of taste.

I asked how one writer can be panned while another is not when both rewrite history...specifically when rewriting history is used as the reason for panning a writer's work and your answer was that it was subjective.

whether you liked the story in general is subjective, whether you liked the characters used and how they were used is subjective, whether you thought the pacing was fast enough, or too fast is subjective...whether you believe most people liked it is pretty subjective as well....but if two different writers both do the same thing...rewrite history, that itself is not subjective...that is a fact that can be verified by going back and watching the story again. If rewriting history in general is a reason to pan a writer as bad, it either works for all the writers who do that, or using that as a valid reason is meaningless.

I disagree. In MY OPINION, there is bad rewriting of history and good rewriting of history... i.e. making Hope's baby be Bo's instead of John's was GOOD rewriting of history, and rewriting history to say that Marlena was jealous of Isabella and treated Brady badly as a child is BAD rewritten history. And that's my opinion so I do think it's quite subjective.
If you'd based this on how well something was rewritten, I'd say you have a leg to stand on...maybe, but to suggest that rewriting history to make Bo the father of a baby when he'd never had sex with Hope within the nine months before she got pregnant (until they slipped it in afterward) is good and changing Tony into Andre in Aremid was bad (or the other examples you used) is just too ridiculous to take seriously...other than the fact it's completely based on how it affected your favorite characters on the show. That's all well and good, but it doesn't make critiquing a writer based how if he/she rewrites previous stories subjective, other than for you personally and even then it's not based strictly on the merits of the story...it's based on how your favorite character is treated in that story. Those are two completely different things, and it does not make the writing poor or good, it makes it your preference.

I have plenty of preferences when it comes to characters and what happens to them, but I don't use them as the basis for determining the quality of the writing. For instance, I liked many of the things that Hogan wrote in the last half of 07 but I didn't think his stories were all that great (at least not as they played out on screen), and I've never been a fan of Reilly, or practically anything he wrote but don't believe that made his stories crap either.
Oh for pete's sake. I said it was MY OPINION. You don't have to think it's good rewritten history just because I do. There is nothing objective about judging whether a writer is good or not :eyeroll: Even your comments about Reilly and Hogan are subjective. And I can't even remember what my original point was in this because you have taken one thing I said and tried to make it into something I wasn't even talking about. :walkman:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kyrai


madelinehawaii
Dec 3 2008, 12:35 AM
If you'd based this on how well something was rewritten, I'd say you have a leg to stand on...maybe, but to suggest that rewriting history to make Bo the father of a baby when he'd never had sex with Hope within the nine months before she got pregnant (until they slipped it in afterward) is good and changing Tony into Andre in Aremid was bad (or the other examples you used) is just too ridiculous to take seriously...other than the fact it's completely based on how it affected your favorite characters on the show. That's all well and good, but it doesn't make critiquing a writer based how if he/she rewrites previous stories subjective, other than for you personally and even then it's not based strictly on the merits of the story...it's based on how your favorite character is treated in that story. Those are two completely different things, and it does not make the writing poor or good, it makes it your preference.

I have plenty of preferences when it comes to characters and what happens to them, but I don't use them as the basis for determining the quality of the writing. For instance, I liked many of the things that Hogan wrote in the last half of 07 but I didn't think his stories were all that great (at least not as they played out on screen), and I've never been a fan of Reilly, or practically anything he wrote but don't believe that made his stories crap either.
Such a good point. I've noticed lately how much my subjectiveness has played a huge part in the stories. I rewatched 2000 awhile back, and I realized that I always thought I hated those stories, but I enjoyed them tremendously this time. It was like viewing them through completely different eyes. I used to hate merc John, but this time I loved him. I hated Hope and John because I remembered it ruining their honeymoon. This time I loved them and felt so sorry for them, and loved the friendship between Bo, Hope, John, and Marlena. I never noticed how much love they showed between these four or how really wonderful they were together. I still hated Marlena, John, and Brady fighting, but I loved the passion of the characters and how human they were. I liked to think of Marlena as a perfect mom, but the more I suspended that belief, the more I just enjoyed the story and looked for the resolution. I watched enjoying despite or because of how angry they made me, and really appreciating the bones that were thrown. The writers attacked some of my core beliefs in John and Marlena, but they did it consistently and given that we didn't see Brady and Belle during their SORA-ized time, I could buy it, at least much of it. And surprisingly, when all was said and done, I didn't hate John and Marlena for being human. I loved them more for their love getting them through it.

Watching these dvds,nicely compacted, I noticed so many nice details in the writing that I really enjoyed and missed the first time. I did dislike them making JT John's son after going through all they did to make the point that it could only be John's or Stefano's, not to mention the DNA testing. It didn't kill the story for me, but it takes away from the story, and there was no storybased reason to change it. It was done to appease the fans.

When I look back at this year's storylines, what I've disliked has been that there just wasn't any direction as opposed to a direction that I just didn't like. I'd classify it as bad writing whereas I'd classify 2000-2001 as good writing but very subjective based on people's perceptions.

In a nutshell, I agree with you. Thanks!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply