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
New Ed Scott Interview!; Did he save "Days of Our Lives?"
Topic Started: Jun 23 2009, 03:15 PM (4,021 Views)
Kenny
Member Avatar


PhoenixRising05
Jun 24 2009, 09:24 PM
I get that but they shouldn't need ED for that. They should be doing that even without him. It's almost like saying these actors are children and that they only react to certain people. It shouldn't be that way.
It shouldn't be that way, but it is -- and I'd rather have a producer who's able to whip them into shape and put together a good show than a producer that simply doesn't care about anything minus the dollar signs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

Kenny
Jun 24 2009, 09:27 PM
PhoenixRising05
Jun 24 2009, 09:24 PM
I get that but they shouldn't need ED for that. They should be doing that even without him. It's almost like saying these actors are children and that they only react to certain people. It shouldn't be that way.
It shouldn't be that way, but it is -- and I'd rather have a producer who's able to whip them into shape and put together a good show than a producer that simply doesn't care about anything minus the dollar signs.
Well, it shouldn't be and the fact that it is hurts any sympathy I would have for the cast.

In regards to Tomlin, we don't know if that is how he is.

Tomlin was very good and seemed very well-liked at all the shows he's been on. Maybe he wasn't but it seemed that way and he is always finding work as a director/EP/writer so he must be liked. He oversaw a live week at OLTL where the actors could not make any mistakes and didn't. He's a very capable EP.

I'm sure if not for the budget, the show would have better sets and production values and that things would be better for the cast but times are tough for most shows so you have to do what you have to do. It is a business and you have to keep things afloat for all those trying to keep their jobs and livelihood. For a long time, the show tried to avoid taking drastic action but it could avoid it no longer. I know some would rather see the show canceled then like this but many prefer it to live on and I'm sure all those depending on the show for their livelihood are among them.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ives
Member Avatar


PhoenixRising05
Jun 24 2009, 09:24 PM
Ives
Jun 24 2009, 09:19 PM
PhoenixRising05
Jun 24 2009, 07:19 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepdoes
It was not simply morale. Once Ed came in, actors had opportunities for second takes and received Director's notes on their performances between takes.

Here is how SN described the situation prior to Scott:
Early on, a producer told Mary Beth and me that there would be no more second takes for acting. One day, I stood in the booth soon after that and watched two actors in a highly emotional scene do five takes because the producer thought he saw a boom shadow, which no one could identify. Five takes for a phantom boom shadow! If the acting had been off, they would have moved on. Another actor reported that this same producer had told him that he did not care so much about the acting and that the audience would understand enough about the story by simply hearing the words. Can you imagine?


There were a few actors who I could not tolerate prior to Scott but I found them tolerable after he came on.

I am not saying that Tomlin is not doing these things. I hope he is. I am just pointing out that Scott did a lot more than cause some psychological change in the cast. And it was certainly not catering to the actors' whims. I got the impression (not only from Ed's interview above but also from comments from other actors) that a few of the actors who tended to not be prepared were whipped into shape as Ed demanded that they be more prepared.

I get that but they shouldn't need ED for that. They should be doing that even without him. It's almost like saying these actors are children and that they only react to certain people. It shouldn't be that way.

Tomlin has been in the business for awhile. He did very well at OLTL. He oversaw their live week so I think he can cause the same impact among the actors that Scott did, that is if the actors cooperate.
How can they do second takes and director's notes on their own?

As for preparation - I agree they should be prepared on their own. But the person at the top sets the culture and expectations. And he or she should be making sure that the actors were (1) doing their job by being prepared and (2) working with them so they can help give their best performance. Allowing second takes and giving notes is not a sign that the actors are being coddled, it is the minimum expectation in every other venue outside of daytime soap operas. It makes the actors work more and, presumably, to work better. It was disgraceful that for so long that the actors were allowed to just wing it like that. Although MBE and SN always ran their lines together in advance, MBE talked about how it was sometimes hard to get some of the other actors to be willing to do so. She mentioned that the show had designated an intern or the like who helped take care of the coffee to also be availalbe to run lines. LOL
Edited by Ives, Jun 24 2009, 09:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

Ives
Jun 24 2009, 09:37 PM
PhoenixRising05
Jun 24 2009, 09:24 PM
Ives
Jun 24 2009, 09:19 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepdoesEarly on, a producer told Mary Beth and me that there would be no more second takes for acting. One day, I stood in the booth soon after that and watched two actors in a highly emotional scene do five takes because the producer thought he saw a boom shadow, which no one could identify. Five takes for a phantom boom shadow! If the acting had been off, they would have moved on. Another actor reported that this same producer had told him that he did not care so much about the acting and that the audience would understand enough about the story by simply hearing the words. Can you imagine?


There were a few actors who I could not tolerate prior to Scott but I found them tolerable after he came on.

I am not saying that Tomlin is not doing these things. I hope he is. I am just pointing out that Scott did a lot more than cause some psychological change in the cast. And it was certainly not catering to the actors' whims. I got the impression (not only from Ed's interview above but also from comments from other actors) that a few of the actors who tended to not be prepared were whipped into shape as Ed demanded that they be more prepared.

I get that but they shouldn't need ED for that. They should be doing that even without him. It's almost like saying these actors are children and that they only react to certain people. It shouldn't be that way.

Tomlin has been in the business for awhile. He did very well at OLTL. He oversaw their live week so I think he can cause the same impact among the actors that Scott did, that is if the actors cooperate.
How can they do second takes and director's notes on their own?

As for preparation - I agree they should be prepared on their own. But the person at the top sets the culture and expectations. And he or she should be making sure that the actors were (1) doing their job by being prepared and (2) working with them so they can help give their best performance. Allowing second takes and giving notes is not a sign that the actors are being coddled, it is the minimum expectation in every other venue outside of daytime soap operas. It makes the actors work more and, presumably, to work better. It was disgraceful that for so long that the actors were allowed to just wing it like that. Although MBE and SN always ran their lines together in advance, MBE talked about how it was sometimes hard to get some of the other actors to be willing to do so. She mentioned that the show had designated an intern or the like who helped take care of the coffee to also be availalbe to run lines. LOL
Again, I see your point and if possible second takes should be allowed but time is money and I know for a fact some actors are nit picky and ask for second takes for dumb reasons. I think those situations are what make may have led to getting rid of them entirely because some were asking for a second take for the wrong reasons whether then for acting reasons.

I think there just needs to be a good reason to do one. If there isn't, you don't do one. In regards to preparation, I'm sorry but that should not fall on the EP. If actors and actresses can't get prepared on their own, fire their ass. I don't care who they are. That isn't the EP's job. That is why the whole "Ed Scott inspired us to be better" thing is BS to me. He shouldn't have had to inspire anyone because it's their job. If they don't do it well consistently, they should lose that job.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kenny
Member Avatar


PhoenixRising05
 
I used to love Ed Scott but I can't stand him now and part of it has to do with him being worshiped as some kind of martyr.
Didn't you tell me in the American Idol thread that I shouldn't dislike Adam Lambert for this same exact reason? LoL You were like, "I know you don't like all the praise he gets, but you shouldn't hold that against him. It's not fair."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esp13
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
How can they do second takes and director's notes on their own?


Exactly!! This was a huge difference that Ed Scott made as specifically noted by SN more than once. Prior to Ed, the actors got very little or no feedback and were given no second chance if something was off. I'm sure that people think they should always be perfect the first time, but that's not realistic. SN and MBE have always said that the best work they did was a result of hard work by them AND the writers and directors all working together. Actors need that feedback and constructive criticism and sometimes they need a second chance to make something mediocre good or something good, great. Ed seemed to understand and respect that and did what he could to help them give their best performances. That's not something the actors can just do on their own. Sure, they can always try to give their best, but sometimes they need a little help, just like we all do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
daysfan
Member Avatar


MTSRocks
Jun 24 2009, 09:21 PM
I agree. Bring him back to Y&R.
Didn't the people at Y&R have some problems with him too? Like, Jack Smith/Kay Alden and then the Bells?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kenny
Member Avatar


PhoenixRising05
Jun 24 2009, 09:44 PM
I see your point and if possible second takes should be allowed but time is money.
Well, when a cheap begins to equal shit, it's time to take it off the air. I'm tired of money being used as an excuse for the sheer awfulness that is Days. At some point, you just have to stop caring about the behind-the-scenes logistics and simply judge what's on the screen. For me, what's on the screen isn't good.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

Kenny
Jun 24 2009, 09:45 PM
PhoenixRising05
 
I used to love Ed Scott but I can't stand him now and part of it has to do with him being worshiped as some kind of martyr.
Didn't you tell me in the American Idol thread that I shouldn't dislike Adam Lambert for this same exact reason? LoL You were like, "I know you don't like all the praise he gets, but you shouldn't hold that against him. It's not fair."
That's different.

Did Adam Lambert break any rules? No. Ed Scott did. What he did was underhanded and very disrespectful and what makes it worse is he has been in this industry for long enough to know what can and can't be done. He came off like a moron. The show was already being watched because of getting rid of Hogan and co and the whole scab scandal so him doing what he did at that time was just stupid. The chances of getting caught were way too high.

He had options. Go to Sony, who put him in the co-EP seat at Days. They wanted him there. They forced Corday to bring him on. Sony would've listened to him and pushed Corday to get rid of Higley. He could've went to the press and put pressure on Corday and then if he got fired because of that, I would've appreciated him more because that would've been a heroic move. What he did was horrible and over time I've just grown to hate him. It's hard for me to hate anyone but he's brought me to that point and so has the reactions to what happened.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

Kenny
Jun 24 2009, 09:48 PM
PhoenixRising05
Jun 24 2009, 09:44 PM
I see your point and if possible second takes should be allowed but time is money.
Well, when a cheap begins to equal shitt, it's time to take it off the air. I'm tired of money being used as an excuse for the sheer awfulness that is Days. At some point, you just have to stop caring about the behind-the-scenes logistics and simply judge what's on the screen. For me, what's on the screen isn't good.
Fair enough but, to me, it's not shit right now.

Soaps were never meant to be expensive. It's the crazy overspending that helped put soaps in dire straits in the first place.

Soaps were originally designed to sell soap and products to women. They were never meant to be art or masterpiece theater. Many consider soaps Golden Age to be when budgets were basically nothing and production values weren't all that good. Hell, the 80's was full of over the top and campy crap that sometimes made no sense at all but people ate it up and regard all that as part of yet another Golden Era.

Budgets got out of control in the 90's and look what happened. Soaps tried to be too much like primetime and when things got bad and ratings dropped, they had no money to be able to keep beloved cast members so those cast members suffered and the fans suffered. It's all been one vicious, horrible cycle and it's all going to end with no more soaps at some point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kenny
Member Avatar


PhoenixRising05
Jun 24 2009, 09:49 PM
Did Adam Lambert break any rules? No. Ed Scott did.
You didn't say that anything about breaking the rules in that quote. You said that you didn't like Ed because of what happened before, but now you "can't stand him" because of the praise he gets. The praise and "worship" was the reason you gave in specific for your most recent detestment.

As for Lambert, I totally think he broke the rules, LoL. AI is supposed to be an amateur singing competition and his glammy ass was already part of a professional stage show before he ever auditioned, but I digress.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kenny
Member Avatar


PhoenixRising05
Jun 24 2009, 09:53 PM
Soaps were never meant to be expensive. It's the crazy overspending that helped put soaps in dire straits in the first place.

Soaps were originally designed to sell soap and products to women. They were never meant to be art or masterpiece theater. Many consider soaps Golden Age to be when budgets were basically nothing and production values weren't all that good. Hell, the 80's was full of over the top and campy crap that sometimes made no sense at all but people ate it up and regard all that as part of yet another Golden Era.
I know, I know, I know, I know, I know. I'm not stupid.

Days is still shitty.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

Kenny
Jun 24 2009, 09:55 PM
PhoenixRising05
Jun 24 2009, 09:49 PM
Did Adam Lambert break any rules? No. Ed Scott did.
You didn't say that anything about breaking the rules in that quote. You said that you didn't like Ed because of what happened before, but now you "can't stand him" because of the praise he gets. The praise and "worship" was the reason you gave in specific for your most recent detestment.

As for Lambert, I totally think he broke the rules, LoL. AI is supposed to be an amateur singing competition and his glammy ass was already part of a professional stage show before he ever auditioned, but I digress.
Do I really need to mention Ed breaking the rules? That is already established so I shouldn't have to mention that for it to be known how the circumstances are different.

As for Adam Lambert, he is not the only one to have had prior experience like that before. Many have had similar experience. Alison Iraheta was on Star Search like show. How many contestants had put together albums before Idol? That isn't breaking the rules.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esp13
Member Avatar


I have a serious (as in non-snarky) question. How is it "established" that Ed Scott broke the rules? I've seen rumors, speculation, alleged inside information from anonymous sources, interpretations of a couple of remarks made at fan events, and conclusions drawn from unnamed or unsourced evidence. But, I have never seen anything indicated the WGA actually determined that Ed Scott violated the rules, that Ed Scott admitted violating the rules, or that anything was actually proven.

I understand if somebody chooses to believe all of that and, therefore, believes that it happened that way. But, given the power struggle going on at the time, the lack of any actual hard evidence (that I'm aware of), and the lack of follow up by the WGA, I think there is still some reasonable doubt that Ed Scott was guilty of any actual wrongdoing. It wouldn't be the first time somebody made a false or exaggerated accusation in order to get somebody fired.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

esp13
Jun 24 2009, 10:09 PM
I have a serious (as in non-snarky) question. How is it "established" that Ed Scott broke the rules? I've seen rumors, speculation, alleged inside information from anonymous sources, interpretations of a couple of remarks made at fan events, and conclusions drawn from unnamed or unsourced evidence. But, I have never seen anything indicated the WGA actually determined that Ed Scott violated the rules, that Ed Scott admitted violating the rules, or that anything was actually proven.

I understand if somebody chooses to believe all of that and, therefore, believes that it happened that way. But, given the power struggle going on at the time, the lack of any actual hard evidence (that I'm aware of), and the lack of follow up by the WGA, I think there is still some reasonable doubt that Ed Scott was guilty of any actual wrongdoing. It wouldn't be the first time somebody made a false or exaggerated accusation in order to get somebody fired.
I can see why one would suggest that but there was just too much said at the time to suggest it didn't happen. Those who did report it have a good track record and I know over at SON when the story was posted one of the people that runs that board (his name is Toups) made a post about not wanting to get involved in the story. He has inside sources and is always getting info, which he doesn't post much of. He merely said it was about to get ugly and that he was staying away from the story. That says it all IMO. Many sites picked up the story and ran with it too.

Plus, Corday could never fire Ed Scott if it weren't true. Sony forced Ed on him and would never let Corday get rid of him without reason. Ed provided a reason.

We have the same evidence that Higley scabbed that we have that Ed did what he did. Everyone knows she did it and I think it's fair to assume he did. Otherwise, why is he gone? It would've never happened otherwise. WGA never seems to followup on much of their investigation so them not coming out with anything on Ed, Higley, or anyone involved does not mean it didn't happen. It just means they didn't have enough to justify disciplinary action.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ives
Member Avatar


^^

Didn't James Reynolds make a slip and mention something about how one of his scripts (during the strike) was from Higley?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

Ives
Jun 24 2009, 11:58 PM
^^

Didn't James Reynolds make a slip and mention something about how one of his scripts (during the strike) was from Higley?
Yes and I remember pointing that out. However, many chose not to believe even that. The same thing happened with Ed. We had one reporter's column to go on and then more and more came out and other sites ran with it. Some sites hinted at it, as I pointed out, and seemed afraid to elaborate on it. We even had some of our posters here on DR with sources who claimed the story was true so it was one of those things where even without Nelson's column reporting it, there was so much smoke there had to be a fire somewhere. Too many people were picking up the story for the Ed Scott not to be true.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
esp13
Member Avatar


Fair enough. I understand why you choose to believe that it is absolutely true. For me, there isn't enough to convict him. It's entirely possible, maybe even probable, that the allegations are true. But, unproven allegations aren't sufficient to me. If the WGA didn't have enough proof to go through a formal process, that speaks volumes to me.

As for why Kenny fired him if Ed didn't do anything wrong, maybe it was because he just decided to side with Dena in the power struggle. Or maybe Dena's accusations just stirred up enough trouble, even if they weren't entirely accurate, that it was easier to get rid of Ed Scott. I don't know. But, neither does anyone else, not for sure anyway. At least not anyone willing to name actual names or anything.

In any case, I'm not saying Ed didn't do anything wrong, I'm just saying that nobody has proven that he did, nor has anybody provided anykind of evidence that would allow us to judge for ourselves. So, for me, his guilt is far from established.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ives
Member Avatar


esp13
Jun 25 2009, 09:03 AM


As for why Kenny fired him if Ed didn't do anything wrong, maybe it was because he just decided to side with Dena in the power struggle. Or maybe Dena's accusations just stirred up enough trouble, even if they weren't entirely accurate, that it was easier to get rid of Ed Scott. I don't know. But, neither does anyone else, not for sure anyway. At least not anyone willing to name actual names or anything.

Assuming Corday had to choose between Scott and Dena, I envision several factors that would make it preferable for him to get rid of Scott rather than Higley. First, Dena had already shown herself to be willing to complain to the WGA. Corday was obviously part of the scabbing process that occurred. I could see him figuring that it would be better if he and Dena stayed on the same side - or maybe he felt some loyalty to her because he enticed her to scab. Second, it seemed like Days was already digging the bottom of the barrel for headwriters and Days had already undergone major regime changes in headwriters. So in Corday's mind it may have just been an easier process to get a new producer rather than a headwriter.

Given that there are factors that might cause Corday to choose Dena over Ed other than simply Ed's alleged culpability, I never drew the conclusion that Corday fired Ed because Ed did something shady. JMO
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

esp13
Jun 25 2009, 09:03 AM
Fair enough. I understand why you choose to believe that it is absolutely true. For me, there isn't enough to convict him. It's entirely possible, maybe even probable, that the allegations are true. But, unproven allegations aren't sufficient to me. If the WGA didn't have enough proof to go through a formal process, that speaks volumes to me.

As for why Kenny fired him if Ed didn't do anything wrong, maybe it was because he just decided to side with Dena in the power struggle. Or maybe Dena's accusations just stirred up enough trouble, even if they weren't entirely accurate, that it was easier to get rid of Ed Scott. I don't know. But, neither does anyone else, not for sure anyway. At least not anyone willing to name actual names or anything.

In any case, I'm not saying Ed didn't do anything wrong, I'm just saying that nobody has proven that he did, nor has anybody provided anykind of evidence that would allow us to judge for ourselves. So, for me, his guilt is far from established.
I understand what your saying but there is no way Corday would've gotten away with firing Scott if something did not happen that was shady. Why? Because Corday was forced to hire him. That was known. It was made very clear that Sony got involved and pushed Ed Scott on Days to try to save the show. Corday never wanted him. He even admitted he wanted Tomlin at that point. Sure, he preferred Higley and I do think Ives makes a point about how Corday may have wanted to keep her because she was already under investigation for scabbing and he probably figured the show had been through enough upheaval creatively. However, what happened gave him the reason he needed. Sony wanted Ed and they were left with no choice but to allow Corday to get rid of him as things had gotten too ugly.

Just because the WGA came out with nothing doesn't mean there was no proof at all. They probably let it go because Ed Scott was fired. Let's remember that the WGA never went after any of the scabs either. They seemed to drop their investigation of Higley too and we had people, including Jim Reynolds, saying she was writing during the strike. What does that tell you about the WGA? They had people basically telling them the woman scabbed but they still never did nothing so their silence on Ed Scott can not be used as proof of innocence. Plus, if they already thought the woman was scabbing, I doubt they were going to push the issue hard. I do remember that when the story was reported, it was said Corday was warned by the WGA that something needed to be done and that something was probably the firing of Ed, which he was all too happy to do. The WGA was probably happy with that and left well enough alone since Higley was not exactly in a favorable light with them either.

Also, if Ed Scott was so great, why didn't another soap pick him up? The man was getting rave reviews around the industry and considering the work he did at Days, why wouldn't someone offer him a position somewhere? If he didn't do anything, it seems odd to me that the guy doesn't even seem to be taken into consideration for a position somewhere. He's gone into producing small films instead so he isn't even in daytime anymore. That says alot. Plus, there were reports of how ugly things got at Y&R at the end of his run there. This guy has a history of issues behind the scenes despite the good things he does bring so while I can understand using the fact that no one but several sites and sources came out and said it (and I also understand that some on this board and others were not privy to all the comments that were made by sources in chatrooms and off the boards), I just think it's hard to maintain the position that all that means nothing happened. He had to do something, even if we disregard the evidence we do have. There had to be a bigger reason behind firing him then just choosing Higley over him or Corday just not liking him. Sony would never allow Scott's firing over things like that. Perhaps maybe it didn't go down exactly as is but something went down. Ed actually seemed understanding when he was fired and if a man was just fired for no reason out of the blue, he would've acted a hit surprised and would've questioned the move. He did none of that. He accepted it as business and left it at that. Some may see that as taking the high road but it also suggests that he understood why it had to be done.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply