Tweet
All new writers should be required by Ken Corday to research the show history and the history of the character and the couples. Too many character are written out of character when writers are changed.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
-
-
I don't know that Ken really cares about the history, he always seems focused on 'the now' in interviews. I've rarely seen him praise the past much, exceptions being James E Reilly and The Bo Brady era of the 80's. -
That's a big part Days problem. It should still be required to be a writer.Comment
-
Regarding this topic I can't even watch the scenes with Orpheus and his supposed two grown children. They changed his character. Someone just decided hey let's bring back these children. They should have shown flashbacks when Marlena was tending the children. I understand why the actors do their best to go along with it. I try my best to accept it. But it has nothing to do with the history of these characters and I can't stand it.Comment
-
It has been stated before many times that soap writers read the rules of writing by Doug Marland, I think his name was.
He understood and wrote characters more realistically.Comment
-
Ron has been good with the history of characters, imo.Comment
-
How did they change Orpheus? Roman/John is completely mangled. Why is Orpheus blaming Marlena for how his son turned out when she acted like his mother for about 3 months?Comment
-
dee2 He was blaming her for how they turned out. She's not to blame for Evan committing a crime.
-
Originally posted by JackandJenfan View Post
As always, beauty is most definitely in the eyes of the beholder. And it's not like I am a regular viewer anymore. However, I have come in to some stories.
I sure didn't think he was true to any version of Diana Colville I saw. Stefano hadn't been obsessed with Marlena in over 20 years. I certainly didn't see that as consistent with the character.Comment
-
8 years ago someone mentioned it? Did he in any way act obsessed with her? Obsessed as in love with? As in wanting to possess her. When was the last time we saw that?
You can justify any change to any character by referencing stuff that happened when they were off the canvas. However, how is the way she acted last year in any way recognizable to the way she behaved in the 80s? That is my idea of being true to a character's history.Comment
-
Yes. Not knowing key history infuriates us long timers.Comment
-
I could not agree with you more! It should be absolutely imperative or they shouldn't be hired! Daytime soaps are all about "continuing drama" (or should be) and this thing of reinventing history & established characters to push new story is awful and has not served well for the show! Viewers like familiarity in the characters they grow to love over the years - they know them better than new writers, so changing the histories is devastating for longevity & keeping regular viewers tuning in! I know I, personally, quit watching altogether when they took Hope OOC to advance her relationship with Aiden (wrote Bo as a deserter to his loved ones & Hope believed that)! That was ridiculous! And then later when Bo returned to close his character out "believably" (PR knew his character would've NEVER done that & hated they trashed "Bo" for his fans) they let Hope move on in record time - before Bo's body started cooling - had had her get over him so fast - no onscreen grieving with their families OR their legions of fans!Originally posted by Harmonica1985 View Post
So, I'm with you! It should be mandatory new writers research the show & characters' histories or hire someone who does!Comment
-
John, Kate and Marlena mentioned it? In 2012 you mean? Did Stefano act obsessed over her? Again, when was the last time we saw that? When was the last time we saw any romantic interest in her before the recent storyline?
He was ready to kill her before Chad intervened. What was that, maybe 2013-15 range. When Kristen fell out the window. How about when Marlena put him in a coma, where he was fully aware of what was going on around him. Soon as he came out, first thing he wanted was payback.
Specifics. Where did he show any sort of romantic/obsessive interest in her since the 90s? Not another character referencing things that he had done in pursuit of her. Present.
My guess would be that I've seen more Marlena/Stefano stuff than most here since I was watching the show every day from the time they met. And by the time I stopped his obsession with her had been gone a long time.Comment
-
JackandJenfan. Nobody denies they have history, but you honor all the history. Stefano hasn't been obsessed with her in over 20 years. I've asked you for specifics multiple times and you don't do it because you can't.
It would be like Victor, out of the blue, being in love with Kate again. Was he at one time? Yes, but you are ignoring 20 plus years of story. Of course, you could do a story where they do get together again. Happens regularly on soaps. However, there should be a process, something of a journey to get there. Not, boom, he's head over heels in love with her again. That is what was done with Stefano and Marlena.
If that is your idea of using history well, knock yourself out and enjoy it. It's not my idea of using history well. At least give me some sort of explanation for this renewed obsession.
Don't act like it's never left which is pretty much what Ron did. -
Ok.. keep up the 20 year comment. Doesn't change anything. -
No, doesn't do anything at all. Other than completely make my argument that he isn't using history well. Let's be clear about that. I never said he didn't use history. He's used a lot of it. How well he has used it is where the disagreement comes into play.
-
-
I'm not saying you're wrong about Stefano. It's just that it's easy to see with the chip storyline that Chip Stefano was nothing like the real thing. We were getting Rolf's interpretation of Stefano without any of the nuance. Same with Gina...you think Chip Gina gave one thought to her daughter Greta? No. Rolf is only doing the broad strokes of these people's personalities.Originally posted by longtimewatcher View Post
IMO the Stefano chip stuff wouldn't be a good example to prove your point. We were intentionally shown a flawed interpretation of Stefano.
Comment
-
I agree. It was a waste to bring back the essence of Stefano to see Marlena kidnapped again and John coming to the rescue. I too was under the impression that Stefano was past Marlena years ago.Originally posted by longtimewatcher View PostComment
-
At one time all the soaps had someone whose only job was to know/research history to keep continuity especially for the long time viewers, who were once the main key demo. That stopped in the 90s. Partly because the budgets were cut when monopolies took over the networks and "entertainment" was just a small entity to make money, fast and quick...quality and continuity went out the door. Plus a certain writer was hired because his over-the -top stories attracted the looky loo short term viewers; and his "actor proof" philosophy made it easier to fire popular actors and destroy super couples. I know some will disagree but that's how I saw it and when IMO, the entire genre went down the tubes.Originally posted by Harmonica1985 View PostComment
Comment