GH In The News: The PC Press Club

[kristabell]

Even when I was a teen I didn't like the teen stories.  Good stories are good stories IMO.

 

Exactly! I never liked the teen storylines, even when I was one, mainly because I never bought them.

 

I disagree with the idea that the "MTV generation" can't take sustained storytelling. I'm certainly not in my teens or twenties anymore, but I teach highschoolers. And I can guarantee you their attention can be sustained when they are interested in something. Look at the popularity of shows like Pretty Little Liars, Veronica Mars, True Blood, etc. Those are/were all essentially soaps. They don't have lightning-fast scenes or storylines. Look at how many teens read Harry Potter and Game of Thrones - not exactly bite-sized media experiences. If something is good, people want to experience it. It doesn't have to be packaged as anything other than what it is. All of my students read the Hunger games books and love the movies. None of those things are short, quick-paced storytelling. I really think it's a myth that "kids these days" can't enjoy long-form entertainment; it's just that a lot of it is bad.

 

And, it's true, while story arcs used to be long (although nothing takes as long as RC does to finally get around to picking up the end of a story), as someone said up-thread, there were other stories inside the stories. The Mr. B storyline included arcs for Anna and Duke, for Frisco and Felicia, for Anna and Robert; it tied into the local union elections; and it tied into the next big story arc. Maybe most importantly, all the scenes actually had a point. Even "filler" scenes were used for something - for fleshing out a relationship, something. RC doesn't use his time to actually tell stories.

[SlovakPrincess]

I was never into the teen stories until Jagger/Brenda/ Karen. What drew me in as a kid before that was the fun banter and adventures of the characters, even if a lot of it went over my head at the time. And the Qs, Robert and Anna and their friends seemed so glamorous.

I would venture to say that GH's current obsession with immature but middle aged mobsters and psychos isn't helping to attract younger viewers. The show focuses on a bunch of weirdos who are between 40 and 50 and don't even act like real people. The younger set is pretty dull and/or locked into miserable stories. The kiddie love quadrangle - who is that for?

Watching the summer on the run and Ice Princess stuff from the early 80s, there were a lot of flashbacks and repetitive conversations and the stories did move slowly at times. For instance, the night of Diana Taylor's murder takes almost two weeks of episodes (the hilarious part is that Luke and friends are at the disco, and every scene is like "hey, let's get more drinks!" - if it was all one night, they would've been completely trashed, or dead.)

But they were able to have all kinds of characters interacting, and reacting to Diana's death in different ways. And the dialogue was just better and more interesting, and the characters more complex and intriguing. Everything can't be a big event - you need good characterization to keep viewers invested.

[Fylaki]

I agree I dont use MTV Generation to necessarily mean short attention spans, but more an addiction or maybe an affection for more rapid telling of tales. while Harry Potter is long it does not seem nearly as long as Pride and Prejudice which is actually a much shorter book. The pacing is quicker.  I also think that the MTV Generation is use to getting its media across platforms.

 

I am of two minds on the budget thing for web episodes. On the one hand it may be beyond the budget on the other I think that ouinason is right and that a decent episode could be shot for $500 or so. Given how bloated the cast is cutting back on one recurring character (I'm looking ta you Milo, but that is just me) could free up enough cash to handle weekly episodes for a year or more

[SlovakPrincess]

Also, to effectively promote itself to young people - or anyone - the show would need to know what it's actually about. And it really, really doesn't anymore. "We're GH and we've been around forever" isn't going to impress anyone at this point if they aren't long term viewers already.

[kristabell]

Imo, GH needs to worry about producing a half-decent show with something resembling good writing before they concern themselves with twitter accounts or cross-media marketing. It doesn't matter how many webisodes they make if they're all horrible. 

The fact is, there are plenty of "young people" who read Jane Austen and Virginia Woolf - because they are actually good.

If GH puts out a quality product, people will watch it. Drawing attention to an inferior tv show (which, let's be honest, this is) isn't going to result in many new viewers. jmo

[dubbel zout]

The kiddie love quadrangle - who is that for?

Ron. 

[admiralrodcocker]

I'm 26, so while not under 25, close enough. I started watching soaps because my mom did. She was an avid AMC watcher when I was little, and I saw it on and off with her over the summer during my childhood and then picked it up full time on my own via VCR recordings when I was 13 (2001) up until its cancellation. What pulled me in was a teen story line, but the adults were heavily involved, and the issue at the time (drugs and dealing with parental divorce) were relevant issues. AMC was always the social issues soap. Once that story line ended I stayed around for Leo and Greenlee's romance and triangle. 

 

So as someone who got hooked on soaps young, and who is still on the younger side for a soap viewer, flashy and cheap is not what we're looking for. Good storytelling is what all shows need in order to retain and grow any audience. This is why prime time does better. It also does better because it's more relevant to the times and modern on social issues, but that's another thread.

 

I remember being a teen and feeling so emotionally involved in the stories and couldn't wait to come home and watch them to see the PAYOFF. That is what is missing today. The heart and the payoff. If so and so was scheming, it pained you (in a good way) to watch them thwart your heroes, but you knew one day that they would get theirs, and they did. There also used to be such a thing as villain motivations and you knew why they were the way they were, today we have just plain crazy and unsympathetic (Nina). Your villains used to be closer to earth, like the ones we might experience in real life. The evil, jealous co-worker who tries to outdo us and make us look bad to get ahead, rival families vs rival families, the mean popular girl vs the ingenue, etc. This cartoon villainy is not cute.

 

A lot of people don't care that Ava's baby was taken, why? Because Ava is no hero and hasn't yet paid for her crimes. Villains hurting other villains is not a way to gain audience attention or sympathy, especially if they are two newbies who suck up screen time, and I'm saying this as someone who likes Ava and loves MW.

 

Comparing this baby-stealing event to another from AMC done back in 2004: the baby-switch story line with Bianca and there's no contest. Bianca was a heroine and the town sweetheart. She also had a child of rape and for months we saw her agonize over having to hide her pregnancy, question whether she was doing the right thing even having the baby, and her sheer joy and excitement over having her daughter. The emotional impact of then having her believe her baby was dead and then the subsequent reunion was extremely emotionally satisfying and resulted in a massive umbrella story line that aided in character development for her entire family vs what we are seeing now, plot, plot, plot, and why should we care about this kid at all. 
 

If your favorite couple were kept a part, or in a triangle, both sides of the triangle were viable and it truly pulled you in both directions or you felt the agony in wanting your favs back together and the reunion might be a year in the making, but so worth it. Nowadays, Ron uses the triangle to form the couple, which is all wrong. He makes it clear who he wants together and the third party a bastardized mustached twirling villainous scapegoat (Levi, anyone)? Back in the day, two people would fall in love and you got to SEE the love and build up. These were fully realized characters with jobs/careers/ families, friends, hopes, fears, and ambitions that made them the way that they were, so you could actually root for two people to be together and not be left scratching your head as to why this person likes that person and have to fanwank it.

 

That is why my favorite GH couple (and one of my favorite soap couples in general) will always be Patrick and Robin. They felt like a real couple with real couples' issues. We got Patrick the man-whore and his reluctance to settle down and his need to be the biggest and best and ultimately screwing up and making Robin question her faith and trust in him, and Robin's insecurities about finding love again due to her HIV+ status, her idealized relationships with Stone and Jason, and inability to fully want to let down her walls for Patrick in fear of being hurt. Their drama (most of the time) was internal, not external. Internal conflict helps to develop the characters naturally and strengthen the bond between the pair for the audience. 

 

GH is the last soap I will ever watch from American TV (tried Y&R but it's not my cup of TV. I think I have grown too accustomed to the ABC soap feel to ever like it) so I want it to succeed. It has all of the right characters -- and a lot of the wrong ones -- but Ron needs some help. I think he has good ideas a lot of the time, but no one to help reign him in or fill in the gaps. Characters go from hating each other to liking each other, off camera. WTF? Look at Sam and Julian. What should have been a character developing emotional father/daughter story was completely glossed over. As it is I'm still not quite sure where Sam stands on Julian. She's mostly OK with him, I think, but HOW did she get there? I wasn't watching when Sam found out Alexis was her mother, but I have seen youtube clips and it was much more explored and in depth. There was a lot of tension and even strong dislike on Sam's part that fed the story instead of, "I hate you this month...we haven't interacted for two months...now I'm OK with you because we face-timed off screen,"

Edited November 15, 2014 by BinkyMimo88

[sometimesfan]

There's something wrong with me. It bothers me that Ava's baby was taken. It bothers me that Morgan sold her out to Sonny. It bothers me that Sonny is...

[Fylaki]

 

The heart and the payoff. If so and so was scheming, it pained you (in a good way) to watch them thwart your heroes, but you knew one day that they would get theirs, and they did. There also used to be such a thing as villain motivations and you knew why they were the way they were, today we have just plain crazy and unsympathetic (Nina). Your villains used to be closer to earth, like the ones we might experience in real life. The evil, jealous co-worker who tries to outdo us and make us look bad to get ahead, rival families vs rival families, the mean popular girl vs the ingenue, etc. This cartoon villainy is not cute.

 

A lot of people don't care that Ava's baby was taken, why? Because Ava is no hero and hasn't yet paid for her crimes. Villains hurting other villains is not a way to gain audience attention or sympathy, especially if they are two newbies who suck up screen time, and I'm saying this as someone who likes Ava and loves MW.

I agree with everything YOU said but this section really struck me. I have seen a lot of talk about the lack of heroes and the cartoon villains both here and other places. The lack of "good guys" and the idea that Ron is trying to cramp Franco and Nina and others down our throats as heroes, in a similar way that Guza tried with Jason-Sonny-Carly, though to be fair to Guza, which I hate to do, the Unholy Trio had more depth and especially Carly and Jason were deeply tied to the show's history. I have heard from Guza, and his followers what he was trying to do: "Love in a time of war" and while I think personally it sucks as a story theme at least he defended his choices. I have yet to hear why Ron thinks we should love Franco and Nina and see them as heroes. What is it in them that I am suppose to care about? He never articulates what he is writing.

 

I wish he had the spine to come on here and explain, not attack or be attack but make us see what it is he is doing. At the end of the day like Guza I may disagree but I think I could stomach this more if I knew what he was writing: Is this one long long long redemption story? Is he trying to tell us that people can come back from the most awful things: Serial Killer, baby stealer, killing your son's father and be better people? : Is he trying to tell us that medicine can make people better: Weather it is Jason/Jake or Franco or I assume soon Nina. What is he saying what is he writing?  Cause it is not heroes and villains

[Chairperson Meow]

I don't care that Connie died at all.

She killed her own kid. Tried to kill him as a baby, did kill him as an adult. Then spent a year or so trying to kill or ruin the alleged love of her life. She was accused of killing another baby and teen. (But for legal reasons we don't know that) It was strongly hinted that she lied at being raped- and why would we believe any different? She lied about everything else. Then when her child that she killed was on life support, she refused to pull the plug because she was upset. Every action she had was selfish. Then, suddenly she was a victim. Her death then caused the murder of a legacy character and the downfall of a great new female character. A strong female character traded, essentially for a weak doormat character.

No other character remembers Connie's murder that much. Which is a huge problem. I hate the writing of big stories like murder, etc and then we as fans are supposed to Clockwork Orange forget stuff? No dude.

And yes. The kids all suck.

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

I'm 26, so while not under 25, close enough. I started watching soaps because my mom did. She was an avid AMC watcher when I was little, and I saw it on and off with her over the summer during my childhood and then picked it up full time on my own via VCR recordings when I was 13 (2001) up until its cancellation. What pulled me in was a teen story line, but the adults were heavily involved, and the issue at the time (drugs and dealing with parental divorce) were relevant issues. AMC was always the social issues soap. Once that story line ended I stayed around for Leo and Greenlee's romance and triangle. 

 

So as someone who got hooked on soaps young, and who is still on the younger side for a soap viewer, flashy and cheap is not what we're looking for. Good storytelling is what all shows need in order to retain and grow any audience. This is why prime time does better. It also does better because it's more relevant to the times and modern on social issues, but that's another thread.

 

I remember being a teen and feeling so emotionally involved in the stories and couldn't wait to come home and watch them to see the PAYOFF. That is what is missing today. The heart and the payoff. If so and so was scheming, it pained you (in a good way) to watch them thwart your heroes, but you knew one day that they would get theirs, and they did. There also used to be such a thing as villain motivations and you knew why they were the way they were, today we have just plain crazy and unsympathetic (Nina). Your villains used to be closer to earth, like the ones we might experience in real life. The evil, jealous co-worker who tries to outdo us and make us look bad to get ahead, rival families vs rival families, the mean popular girl vs the ingenue, etc. This cartoon villainy is not cute.

 

A lot of people don't care that Ava's baby was taken, why? Because Ava is no hero and hasn't yet paid for her crimes. Villains hurting other villains is not a way to gain audience attention or sympathy, especially if they are two newbies who suck up screen time, and I'm saying this as someone who likes Ava and loves MW.

 

Comparing this baby-stealing event to another from AMC done back in 2004: the baby-switch story line with Bianca and there's no contest. Bianca was a heroine and the town sweetheart. She also had a child of rape and for months we saw her agonize over having to hide her pregnancy, question whether she was doing the right thing even having the baby, and her sheer joy and excitement over having her daughter. The emotional impact of then having her believe her baby was dead and then the subsequent reunion was extremely emotionally satisfying and resulted in a massive umbrella story line that aided in character development for her entire family vs what we are seeing now, plot, plot, plot, and why should we care about this kid at all. 

 

If your favorite couple were kept a part, or in a triangle, both sides of the triangle were viable and it truly pulled you in both directions or you felt the agony in wanting your favs back together and the reunion might be a year in the making, but so worth it. Nowadays, Ron uses the triangle to form the couple, which is all wrong. He makes it clear who he wants together and the third party a bastardized mustached twirling villainous scapegoat (Levi, anyone)? Back in the day, two people would fall in love and you got to SEE the love and build up. These were fully realized characters with jobs/careers/ families, friends, hopes, fears, and ambitions that made them the way that they were, so you could actually root for two people to be together and not be left scratching your head as to why this person likes that person and have to fanwank it.

 

That is why my favorite GH couple (and one of my favorite soap couples in general) will always be Patrick and Robin. They felt like a real couple with real couples' issues. We got Patrick the man-whore and his reluctance to settle down and his need to be the biggest and best and ultimately screwing up and making Robin question her faith and trust in him, and Robin's insecurities about finding love again due to her HIV+ status, her idealized relationships with Stone and Jason, and inability to fully want to let down her walls for Patrick in fear of being hurt. Their drama (most of the time) was internal, not external. Internal conflict helps to develop the characters naturally and strengthen the bond between the pair for the audience. 

 

GH is the last soap I will ever watch from American TV (tried Y&R but it's not my cup of TV. I think I have grown too accustomed to the ABC soap feel to ever like it) so I want it to succeed. It has all of the right characters -- and a lot of the wrong ones -- but Ron needs some help. I think he has good ideas a lot of the time, but no one to help reign him in or fill in the gaps. Characters go from hating each other to liking each other, off camera. WTF? Look at Sam and Julian. What should have been a character developing emotional father/daughter story was completely glossed over. As it is I'm still not quite sure where Sam stands on Julian. She's mostly OK with him, I think, but HOW did she get there? I wasn't watching when Sam found out Alexis was her mother, but I have seen youtube clips and it was much more explored and in depth. There was a lot of tension and even strong dislike on Sam's part that fed the story instead of, "I hate you this month...we haven't interacted for two months...now I'm OK with you because we face-timed off screen,"

 

I am closer to 30 than 20 and I agree with you on most everything. OLTL was my first ABC soap and the baby storyline that got to me was, in recent history was Jessica having to give back baby Hope to Starr. My heart broke for ALL of them, not just the mother handing over her child over. It was a happy reunion for Starr and her family but it wasn't lost that they've lost months of the child's life. Jessica on the other hand was losing a child she loves like her own AND having to face the fact that her alter caused this heartache AND her own baby is dead. I HATED the alter storylines, it should have been resolved a long time ago but it wasn't always bad storytelling.

 

Back to GH, I've been a fan of couple for brief periods of time, the stories just doesn't allow for longevity and I will not be caught dead shipping any long term GH couple. I refuse to defend the shitty writing of this show, especially for couples. I am and will always be a character/actor fan.

 

As to Jullian and Sam, what I get from her is gratitude for having save and continuing to save Danny. Any mother would put aside their grievances for that. Juliann did use his ability to save Danny as collateral and Sam expressed her disdain, but she also expressed understanding his position, she's a survivor. And apparently believes Sonny is capable of taking out his enemies rme.

 

The Sam/Alexis reveal day is one of the most highly rated show to this day. I wonder why.

[dubbel zout]

A lot of people don't care that Ava's baby was taken, why? Because Ava is no hero and hasn't yet paid for her crimes.

 

it doesn't help that neither possible father is all that invested in the baby, and Ava has used the baby as a shield to keep herself alive. It's hard to care about a baby that the show doesn't much care about. This baby is such a plot point, even more than most babies are.

[ulkis]

I think they've shown Morgan and Kiki - and Ava of course - getting invested in the baby. But yeah, otherwise the town doesn't really care and it's understandable

Edited November 15, 2014 by ulkis

[Cobalt Stargazer]

There's something wrong with me. It bothers me that Ava's baby was taken. It bothers me that Morgan sold her out to Sonny. It bothers me that Sonny is...

 

Then there's something wrong with me too, sometimesfan, because it bugs the shit out of me that The Nina jazz-handed off with Ava's baby. I don't expect Sonny to care because Sonny doesn't care about anything other than himself. He's probably glad he might not have to deal with another "useless" girlchild. I am sorely disappointed in Morgan, but let's face it, the odds that Cujo and the stutterbarking greaseball could raise a functional adult is practically nil. Because they ruin everything. Always.

[kristabell]

I would just like to say Amen and Hallelujah to your entire post, BinkyMimo88. 

[Tiger]

Ratings were really good last week, hitting over 3.2 mil on Fri. Numbers overall would have been even better had Wed not gotten skewered by all the pre-emptions.

IIRC, that episode ended with Michael about to shoot Sonny and then Monday picked up with Dante & Morgan showing up at the Brownstone. So I'm very interested to see the ratings for this week just ended with Sonny & Carly in jail. I'm sure Ron & Frank will attribute any ratings increase to the seriel killer and that screaming, repeating, repeating she-hulk.

I don't understand why ABC/CBS/NBC continue to cover these nothing press conferences and speeches when we have literally 8 cable news stations also covering it.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Tiger

[CPP83]

  I think we were supposed to see Sabrina as going crazy with grief over the death of Gabriel, and she mistakenly aimed that grief and anger at Ava, because Carrrlos told her Ava was responsible for the car crash. I don't think wanting revenge is unreasonable for a soap character. It's practically soap law to take matters into one's own hands. The problem with it for me was that the writing wasn't very good, and TeCa didn't pull it off very well.

 

 

For me Ron wanted shit to happen and he didn't really care how or who he used to get it done. I don't believe he wanted Sabrina viewed as any sort of "villain", she's one of his precious pets after all, but he came up with such a heinous and disturbing revenge tactic it was never going to look good on anyone really.

 

However in the same way he was so bound and determined to "redeem" Franco, he seems to think there is nothing too big or terrible for him to excuse a character doing. Murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, assault, molestation, etc, he can give any and everyone a pass if he wants to.

 

Ron's one of the rare writers, imho, who doesn't hide that they really see these characters as tools to use. He doesn't write for them, he writes to use them however he sees fit.

 

Whatever he writes for them is just what it is, it doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to connect to the past, it doesn't have to actually work, but it's what he wrote and what he will defend to the bitter end. If someone doesn't "get it" then it's their problem, it has nothing to do with him, he can't write for everyone's taste, blah blah etc.

 

And overall that's the same sense I am getting from the current writing for Rosalie. Ron wants her involved with Michael, he wants her connected further to certain characters on canvas and if he'd left her as the closed off, selfish, self centered nurse without a conscious she was until a couple of weeks ago then he wouldn't have as much to work with, imho.

 

Rosalie is just another pawn in this game and whatever moves she makes are because Ron is plotting to use her in a certain way, I don't personally believe it has anything to do with the character's actual growth.

Edited November 16, 2014 by CPP83

[Thinbalina]

I don't know what it'll take to raise the ratings or get young people into it but my counterparts laugh at the fact I've never seen one episode of Scandal (their fav show) but can talk about GH all day. 

 

For me, I was drawn in by Sam and then usually whoever she's paired with; I'm not going to lie, I stopped watching around 2007-08 then returned after that...besides all of that was a blur..LOL! 

 

Anyways, I remember a coworker telling me he couldn't believe I watched "those" shows and I had a degree..so soaps seem to have some stigma around them.

I have been raised on MTV (sorry mom) but I preferred the earlier activist "real world" as opposed to the fighting and cattiness now a days (not that it isn't entertaining but after a while it seems to wear out it's welcome). 

 

I don't know..Maybe I'm just easily amused/entertained but from what I can see young teens love a good romance. Every show needs them from Dylan/Kelly/Brenda (till this day I debate who they belonged with) to the ever evolving couples of today and to me GH has lost a bit of that pure building romance. 

 

Like Maxie and Nathan, they're not really building them in my eyes it's just pure angst..just have them out and about doing things, hanging out. Let us see it grow instead of forcing the issue right away. 

[dubbel zout]

Ron's one of the rare writers, imho, who doesn't hide that they really see these characters as tools to use. He doesn't write for them, he writes to use them however he sees fit.

Franco is a lost cause, AFAIC. Nothing Ron can write will ever make Franco work for me. I'll never understand why that was the character he decided to foist on Howarth and us.

 

But as for someone like Rosalie, I don't see her being sorry for her lies as OOC. We hardly know her. Just because she was part of Nina's scheming doesn't mean she'll always be a bad person. How is she supposed to change if she doesn't start acknowledging she was wrong? Is it OOC for her to want to change? I don't think so. 

 

Like I originally wrote, it's the execution that usually messes things up. Ron isn't interested in writing the journeys; he prefers to skip from destination to destination, and that can make some changes feel abrupt. But I don't think that necessarily means the actions are wrong for the characters.

[CPP83]

Like I originally wrote, it's the execution that usually messes things up. Ron isn't interested in writing the journeys; he prefers to skip from destination to destination, and that can make some changes feel abrupt. But I don't think that necessarily means the actions are wrong for the characters

 

 

It doesn't make them wrong but it also doesn't make them right either, imho. It means you can basically treat this show like a pick your own adventure story. And i don't begrudge those who might prefer it that way, but it isn't my cup of tea.

 

To me if a character isn't properly executed then what's the point at the end of the day? I do not feel compelled to excuse or explain away the actions or behaviour of a character that the head writer can't even be bothered to make into an actual person. That is my point about the whole matter. And while Rosalie is on the list I've got many more names on there.

 

And no you're right, we hardly know her, and no there is no definite proof that this other side to her is OOC just because we've never seen it before, but I just can't see the point in caring. I see her as a means to one of Ron's ends, and I think he does too.

 

Imo he's done it before because it's how he writes, he can flip a switch with any of these characters for any reason, whether it ends up making sense or not. Even his ploy with Roger as Franco worked for some, and I've seen the evidence, so that wasn't a total failure on his part sadly.

 

But he also did this with Ava, a woman seemingly hard, cold, calculating, self absorbed and willing to do whatever it took to get exactly what she wanted. Granted we never saw Rosalie pull a gun on anyone or kill them, yet, but she, imo, had some of the same traits. But now it is like the ship is changing course, and because of another one of Sonny's kids go figure.

 

 

How is she supposed to change if she doesn't start acknowledging she was wrong? Is it OOC for her to want to change? I don't think so

 

 

 

Yet why does she have to change at all? Plenty of soap characters behave badly and on purpose, they're selfish, they're cruel, they're mean and sometimes it works. They add contrast to the canvas.

 

I don't personally see any reason for Rosalie to turn over a new leaf. The way she was introduced seemed to mark her as a temporary character, much like Levi was, and I was perfectly fine with that. I don't think she needs to hang around or be further fleshed out.

 

And since we don't know her there's really no way to know what is or isn't OOC when it comes to Rosalie. She's just there and apparently she does things she may or may not mean and she has secrets. To me that isn't a real character, it's a plot point waiting to still be figured out and defined.

 

Frankly I just feel like Ron continually baits and switches these character's personalities like a round of musical chairs, and it gets to the point where it's almost silly to me to think that they're not just all deranged psychos with bipolar.

 

ETA:

 

And for a character I claim to care so little about I certainly had quite a bit to say, heh, I guess it all just touched on one of Ron's biggest issues for me. I'll stop rambling now.

Edited November 16, 2014 by CPP83

[Fylaki]

 

I don't know what it'll take to raise the ratings or get young people into it but my counterparts laugh at the fact I've never seen one episode of Scandal (their fav show) but can talk about GH all day.

I have never understood the idea that night time soaps are some how inherently better than day time ones. While the acting and writing may be of a higher quality they also have so much more time to do it. I always thought soaps should be compared to a daily live play more than a night time TV Show. Think how good, even with Ron's bad writing, GH could be if they had to do only 22 episodes a year and had weeks to shoot them.

[sunflower]

I've never seen one episode of Scandal (their fav show) but can talk about GH all day.

 

 

I've seen almost every episode of Scandal and its so over the topness makes me consider deleting the show from my DVR all the time.  The only reasons I don't is I have room on my DVR and there's one character I like enough not to delete the show.  Still, I ff through it just like GH.  Example, watch all the Michael/AJ reveal stuff, ff Nina. 

If we were still in the VCR age, there's no way I'd choose Scandal over GH.  I'm been watching GH since the Ice Princess story in the 1980's.  I'm not stopping until it's dead. 

Edited November 16, 2014 by sunflower

[testardo]

I think those ratings say that people are not interested in Nina, Franco, Sonny, and Carly.  Everyone knows that Sonny and Carly never pay for anything, so why focus big drama on them?  It's all meaningless, like too much of the show already.  And why would anyone root for Nina and Franco?  They're psychopaths portrayed by ham bones.  At the very least, Michelle Stafford and Roger Howarth need to go.

lol  Pschopaths portrayed by ham bones love it. Doesn't it seem 99% of the characters are nuts.

[peachmangosteen]

I have never understood the idea that night time soaps are some how inherently better than day time ones.

 

Yea really. I mean Scandal is awful. It can be fun, but it isn't a good quality show with good writing or good acting, IMO. And as you said, the nighttime soaps don't have to produce the number of shows the daytime ones do and they have much more time and money. And yet Scandal still sucks so I don't see how it doesn't have the stigma that daytime soaps do.

[testardo]

For the most part, I don't think they do. I think sometimes they probably do get to do it though for big scenes, and especially when Frank Valentini is directing.

 

Surprise me I couldn't figure WTH he has doing? I guess Ro HO thinks he is funny even if we don't have a clue. Him calling carley names fine I call her that all the time even if I can't here. I watched a little and left. I don't care what happens to anyone on the show now. The characters that is.

[dubbel zout]

Yet why does she have to change at all? <snip> don't personally see any reason for Rosalie to turn over a new leaf. The way she was introduced seemed to mark her as a temporary character, much like Levi was, and I was perfectly fine with that. I don't think she needs to hang around or be further fleshed out.

 

Of course she doesn't have to change. Soaps need outright villains and bad people, absolutely. But don't you think it's more interesting when there's more to a character than just being "good" or "bad"? I don't think she needs to hang around, but it seems she is, so I think she should be fleshed out because of that. 

 

I do think Ron has a terrible habit of falling in love with what should be short-term characters (and/or their portrayers) and shoehorning them onto the canvas to keep them around.

 

But now it is like the ship is changing course, and because of another one of Sonny's kids go figure.

I totally agree about Ava. But I think that has more to do with the general handling of women on the show and less to do with Ava in particular. Ron can't write for and about women without resorting to the laziest clichés—baby rabies, hormones, fighting over undeserving men, etc.

[Kitty Redstone]

I would venture to say that GH's current obsession with immature but middle aged mobsters and psychos isn't helping to attract younger viewers. The show focuses on a bunch of weirdos who are between 40 and 50 and don't even act like real people.

 

The age of a character doesn't matter so much - I think people will watch teens or midlifers or octogenarians if the stories are good - but there are way too many psychos.  And those characters who aren't lunatics are treated like cardboard chess pieces.

 

I watch The Bold & The Beautiful once or twice a week if I'm home, and while some of the stories are repetitive and some of the characters are vapid twits, there are a couple of characters I really like.  The show goes on location several times a year, too.  They were in Dubai, Paris, and Monaco a couple of months ago and right now they are in Amsterdam.  Apparently the show can afford it because the foreign audience is huge. 

 

It makes me wonder if GH has a foreign audience, though I can't imagine why anyone here much less in another country would want to watch a show full of dismal sets, idiotic stories, and disgusting characters like greaseball mobster Sonny, whispering, repeating crackpot Nina, or  torturing terrorist COS Dr. O, etc.

[Francie]

I did toy with the idea of having him say, "Oh, and by the way, I did tell Carter to rape Michael," but I thought that was just one step too far.

 

So were we to assume that there was a third videotape out there where Franco calls the guy back yet again and says, "Hey, you know how I just called you back to say I was kidding and not do it? Well, forget that and go with the first thing I said."

 

Then could there be a fourth where the guy says, "Fahget it. You're hurting mah head."

 

And he wonders why people didn't jump on board give Franco a free pass train in the first place. 

[OnceSane]

I think they tried showing GH in France a few years back and it was quickly canceled.

[ulkis]

I know they used to show in in Australia. I don't think they air it anymore but I think it played over there for quite a while.

[CPP83]

Of course she doesn't have to change. Soaps need outright villains and bad people, absolutely. But don't you think it's more interesting when there's more to a character than just being "good" or "bad"? I don't think she needs to hang around, but it seems she is, so I think she should be fleshed out because of that

 

 

 

In the hands of Ron I find it hard to get past those two angles, bad or good, since he seems so determined to have it one way or other, heh. Personally myself I love charterers who are balanced, who are layered and are capable of showing their humanity, whether that's positive or negative, whether that's good or bad, right or wrong.

 

But Ron isn't writing those characters to me, he's making me pick basically do you want them really good or really bad, there's no middle ground to pick from often.

 

It's like how he crafted Levi, a new pet that pops up out of nowhere, supposedly good and wholesome, and then next thing he's an imposter turned kidnapper nearly turned murderer, the shifts are so sudden and so to one side, he's good, he's good, he's good, oh wait no he's bad, he's really, very bad, oh he's worse than anyone ever thought, it's just too much.

 

And for me since there's already so many characters fleshed out on this show that Ron barely touches or pays attention to, I just see Rosalie getting the time they should have first. I do think that's my number one, biggest issue with her in fact.

 

Yet again a Ron pet is sucking up air time just because he made her. I saw more of Rosalie than Monica after the news broke about AJ's true killer, that isn't going to endear her to me.

 

But you are right that she seems to be sticking around, much to my displeasure heh, so my opinion about her doesn't matter as it rarely does when it comes to this Ron run show.

 

But I just feel like she's another Levi at the end of the day, will there really be any point to having her stay longer and get closer to certain characters, etc, when all is said and done. I'll guess that'll be eventually decided later on.

 

 

 

I do think Ron has a terrible habit of falling in love with what should be short-term characters (and/or their portrayers) and shoehorning them onto the canvas to keep them around.

 

 

 

It's like an illness with him. I just would like the old characters to get a bit of respect, to get a bit of attention, even half of what he gives to his pets. If he would just exercise a bit of balance there I wouldn't complain as much, maybe. But he just doesn't, he grabs hold to these ideas of his, to these creations of his and suddenly they're everywhere, all the time, non-stop. It's just too much for me, I come to hate them as much as I hate what he's doing and writing.

 

 

 

I totally agree about Ava. But I think that has more to do with the general handling of women on the show and less to do with Ava in particular. Ron can't write for and about women without resorting to the laziest clichés—baby rabies, hormones, fighting over undeserving men, etc.

 

 

 

Yes I agree about his...I want to say inability to write females but that doesn't seem strong enough a word to describe how poorly and badly and ridiculously he writes women on this show. If's as if they're under some sort of estrogen mind control, it's terribly offensive.

 

But also Ron likes to do the same thing with the children, Spencer and Joss and Emma could be collecting a pension and sharing a time share in Aruba the way they carry on, and then there's the gay characters who worship at the altar of the Golden Girls when they aren't thinking about sex and threesome all the live long day.

 

Ron always takes the cheap way out, imo, he writes stereotypically and without much depth.

 

Truthfully if it weren't Ron at the helm of this sinking ship I think I might not be so cynical, but from what I've seen him do to this show in just two years, just two years...it almost breaks my brain.

 

Guza was bad but it took time for him to get to that certain intolerable level, it took.some time. And even when Guza was turning GH into his personal horror show with his deranged love of Jason and Sonny on full display he still could manage a few good story lines from time to time, a few good additions to the canvas.

 

Ron is just...tanking everything to me. The new characters are terrible, he's making the old characters terrible, what he's writing as the main, core story lines for the show are terrible, there's no escape.

[UYI]

 

 

It makes me wonder if GH has a foreign audience, though I can't imagine why anyone here much less in another country would want to watch a show full of dismal sets, idiotic stories, and disgusting characters like greaseball mobster Sonny, whispering, repeating crackpot Nina, or  torturing terrorist COS Dr. O, etc.

 

 

 

I've always gotten the impression that the CBS and NBC soaps have done far better internationally than the ABC soaps. Why that is, I have no idea, but I know that Guiding Light, for example, was big in Italy for years, and I know that both Santa Barbara and Sunset Beach did far better overseas than they ever did here. And, of course, B&B was at one point the most popular show in the world; it might still be (of course, Baywatch once held that title, too, so...yeah.).

 

Ironically, the most successful ABC soap overseas is probably Loving, which had a huge following in Italy at one point. 

Edited November 16, 2014 by UYI

[ulkis]

In the hands of Ron I find it hard to get past those two angles, bad or good, since he seems so determined to have it one way or other, heh. Personally myself I love charterers who are balanced, who are layered and are capable of showing their humanity, whether that's positive or negative, whether that's good or bad, right or wrong.

 

But Ron isn't writing those characters to me, he's making me pick basically do you want them really good or really bad, there's no middle ground to pick from often.

 

It's like how he crafted Levi, a new pet that pops up out of nowhere, supposedly good and wholesome, and then next thing he's an imposter turned kidnapper nearly turned murderer, the shifts are so sudden and so to one side, he's good, he's good, he's good, oh wait no he's bad, he's really, very bad, oh he's worse than anyone ever thought, it's just too much.

 

I didn't see that at all. I thought Levi was obviously shady right from the beginning and the writers wanted us to think so. We just didn't know what his agenda/motive was.

[CPP83]

I didn't see that at all. I thought Levi was obviously shady right from the beginning and the writers wanted us to think so. We just didn't know what his agenda/motive was.

 

 

 

When he first showed up he was an Aussie with a bad hair cut, there was nothing to point to what he was to become or what he would do, imo. He could have been a good guy despite whatever his motives were with Maxie, perhaps a bad boyfriend but not a bad person, not someone who would kidnap or kill for a few stupid pieces of jewelry. 

 

Even if he gave off a shady vibe to some, and personally he just gave off an annoying one to me when he first arrived, still to take him from being a bad moocher of a boyfriend to an American mental case wasn't exactly implied from what they had him doing when he first showed up, that was my point.

 

Frankly I don't think the writers themselves know what to think about what they're writing. If they really do care about giving the audience hints on what to think about a character or storyline or whatever then they've done a pretty god awful job of it imho.

 

They couldn't even get Ava's goddamn due date correct, faith in them I have none.

[TeeVee329]

They couldn't even get Ava's goddamn due date correct, faith in them I have none.

 

I personally don't have a problem SORASing a pregnancy forward.  It's dragging it out (I think a character on OLTL was pregnant for over a year) that's annoying.

Edited November 16, 2014 by TeeVee329

[dubbel zout]

an Aussie with a bad hair cut

I wonder if we'd have liked Levi better if he'd had better hair from the get-go. Hee.

[CPP83]

I personally don't have a problem SORASing a pregnancy forward.  It's dragging it out (I think a character on OLTL was pregnant for over a year) that's annoying.

 

 

 

I don't either if it seems intentional, most soap pregnancy are hurried along for that reason, but they seemed to have done some pretty bad math and quickly tried to correct it once they figured out what they'd done. I guess this is more of me not giving them any credit for doing something right or on purpose, heh, but I can't help it. I've been burned too many times.

 

 

I wonder if we'd have liked Levi better if he'd had better hair from the get-go. Hee.

 

 

 

Seeing the actor with various different haircuts in pictures I might argue yes, heh.

[Chairperson Meow]

It's funny to me how angry Ron must be that if he could get SK back, now GH would be on top. A good AJ/Michael Quartermaine father/son family reunion is what people want. They wanted AJ to win over Sonny- and he has half way. But to make the win complete would be amazing.

The actor he threw away is the one who could get him what he wants. The top.

[Chairperson Meow]

Considering Roger Howarth's history, I doubt he'd have played that.

[CPP83]

It's funny to me how angry Ron must be that if he could get SK back, now GH would be on top

 

 

 

I don't think he's angry, he really don't have a reason to be. I don't think having AJ would boast GH to the top at all.

 

After all if AJ were still alive then Sonny has no reason to lose Michael, at least not so dramatically or go to jail/prison and neither does Carly, so it'd basically be back to square one with that whole mess. Not to mention there's still way too much wrong with it outside of those characters, imho.

 

It's still getting steady ratings though so that's all he and the crew care about.

Edited November 17, 2014 by CPP83

[rur]

It's funny to me how angry Ron must be that if he could get SK back, now GH would be on top. A good AJ/Michael Quartermaine father/son family reunion is what people want. They wanted AJ to win over Sonny- and he has half way. But to make the win complete would be amazing.

The actor he threw away is the one who could get him what he wants. The top.

 

Taking bets now on how many father/son (real or virtual) combinations Ron will throw at us to prove that it wasn't AJ the audience wanted. 

[Artsda]

Ron will just re-Jason Q, Billy Miller and give us that. He'd think that's better than SK probably. He had SK and abused him.

[Chairperson Meow]

Morgan and random kid, Spencer and Nik, Danny and Jason, Liz's sons and Jake, Sonny and Morgan, Dante remembers he has Rocco, Lord Larry and Ned......Luke and Nik.....

Doesn't pack the punch of AJ, who had his son taken from him for 20 plus years to get him and then get killed. We know CD can act. Now imagine that beautiful scene. Plus, I do want Billy Miller and SK in scenes together. Making fun of Sonny and Carly.

[Turtle]

Of course she doesn't have to change. Soaps need outright villains and bad people, absolutely. But don't you think it's more interesting when there's more to a character than just being "good" or "bad"? I don't think she needs to hang around, but it seems she is, so I think she should be fleshed out because of that.

 

 

I agree.  To me, it's much better for the villains to not be 100% mustache-twirlers.  It's so much better if they seem like actual people, just bad ones.  A one-dimensional character is fine for a day player, but I hate having any long-term (or even medium-term) character be single-note.  I also don't like when any character is 100% good - they *all* need to be multi-dimensional to make them interesting.  Ava is a good example: she has been shown as cold-blooded and willing to do whatever it takes to survive / get what she wants.  But she's also been shown to care about Morgan and Kiki (who knows why) and now the baby.  Being a ruthless criminal doesn't make you inhuman, and I appreciate seeing both sides.  Just because she doesn't hate everyone doesn't mean she's suddenly "good."  

[CPP83]

Taking bets now on how many father/son (real or virtual) combinations Ron will throw at us to prove that it wasn't AJ the audience wanted.

 

 

 

Well he doesn't really have that many to work with considering most of the top dads are dead, Edward, Alan, Tony, and the others don't have sons, Mac, Ned, or they have horrible rats for kids or they're babies, Nik with Spencer and Dante with Ben.

 

And then there's Sonny who is in a category especially how own, and that goes doubly so with Jason and Danny.

 

I will not including Scott being Franco's father because that's still a big fat lie as far as I'm concerned.

 

 

It's so much better if they seem like actual people, just bad ones

 

 

 

It'd be nice if Ron could write actual people period, I haven't yet seen it.

 

Tracy isn't an actual person when he's writing her, she's a stupid female who can't tell her "husband" is an imposter. Is Jake supposed to be an actual amnesia victim? Is Spencer supposed to be an actual eight year old? Is Nik supposed to be an actual father? Is Franco supposed to be an actual serial killer? Is Robin supposed to be an actual kidnapping victim for the rest of her life with her family not even bothering to investigate? Is the Nina supposed to be actually mentally disturbed or is it just Michelle losing her mind as usual? Is the crazy Dr. O supposed to be an actual head of hospital despite her crimes?

 

I understand that this is a soap and realism isn't going to be on the menu all the time, but to me there's good soap writing and bad soap writing, there are those who understand how to blend the real world with the soap world and come up with imaginative, fun, dramatic, moving, and exciting stories and characters. Ron isn't one of them imho.

 

 

Ava is a good example: she has been shown as cold-blooded and willing to do whatever it takes to survive / get what she wants.  But she's also been shown to care about Morgan and Kiki (who knows why) and now the baby

 

 

 

 We didn't start to get any flashes of Ava's supposed "humanity" until she started screwing Morgan, and then she also lost the ability to think things through.

 

She was far stronger when she was kicking bodies into the harbor without remorse or regret, then they turned her into a weepy, wimpy female who needed a man to protect her, whether it was Morgan, or Julian, or Sonny, or Julian again, or Morgan again.

 

She stopped being anything but a victim and that got old real fast for me. And that also seems to be Ron's go to move for females on this show anyway which...I'll stop rambling now before my blood pressure spikes. Stupid Ron...

Edited November 17, 2014 by CPP83

[dubbel zout]

I will not including Scott being Franco's father because that's still a big fat lie as far as I'm concerned.

Same here. I hate that Scott has to care about a SERIAL KILLER just because Ron wants to be "clever."

[ulkis]

If he cared that much anymore, he wouldn't've played this "whoopsie I'm not a rapist after all" character in the first place unfortunately. I'm not blaming him, a job's a job, but I don't think he'd walk away because of what Francie outlined.

[CPP83]

Same here. I hate that Scott has to care about a SERIAL KILLER just because Ron wants to be "clever."

 

 

 

This move alone made Ron dead to me. Every-time I hear that freak call Scott "Dad" I just...bits of my soul die a little.

[dubbel zout]

I assume Franco doesn't really care about Scott as his father and is simply trying to get a rise out of Scott. Plus, Franco is a user, so it works for me that he contacts Scott only when he (Franco) needs something.

[CPP83]

I assume Franco doesn't really care about Scott as his father and is simply trying to get a rise out of Scott. Plus, Franco is a user, so it works for me that he contacts Scott only when he (Franco) needs something.

 

 

 

Agreed, he is a total user. He is only ever looking out for himself, Franco. It's all about him, it's always what someone else has done to him or can do for him. If he wasn't a SERIAL KILLER I'd say he was really an over sized six year old. Between the tantrums and name calling and the whole "if I can't have it nobody gets it" attitude"...he's just such a terrible character.

 

Plus when you add all that in with Roger's performance, which to me is so lackluster and often embarrassing, it's a hellish mix.

 

And yet Ron feels that this is a character worth saving, worth keeping around despite. My mind=boggled.