Talk:History of As the World Turns (1971–1975)

I don't remember Denise calling anybody, "yellow." Who was it? Camille? Juppiter 03:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, she called Camille "high yellow". This was when she first started on the show and was selling supplies door to door, fishing supplies or whatever.

Juppiter, I just checked again, and you're right, Damian was never killed. Thanks for your sharp eyes. JamesB3 16:22, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that would be very un-Hogan-like. He likes to leave these characters lying around so he can bring them back in a few years when Lily and Holden don't have a storyline.  However, the minor characters that he invents (Dante, Dahlia, Pilar (who he didn't technically invent, but still), &c.) he loves killing.


 * You know the man sucks when neither one of us remembers exactly what happened, but I can tell Damian didn't die based on what Sheffer would or wouldn't do. I actually liked that Malta storyline though, if only for the Katie/Simon bits and Lucinda packing heat.   Juppiter 06:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * She was introduced as a door-to-door fishing supplies salesperson?? That's certainly novel.Sterntreiber 20:57, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

No, she was introduced as a stripper who was beaten by her manager. Dr. Ben helped her "go straight" and she went to work as a salesperson for about 10 minutes.

Juppiter, I did enjoy Katie/Simon...too bad about how they ended up. I also really loved Rose. I'm so glad I missed the way she was murdered and all that airtime for hammy Roger Howarth.--JamesB3 22:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm finding it frustrating that so much of the explication of storylines for this decade seems presented as evidence that the show was mishandled and miserably written from 1995 onwards. While many of us may privately hold this view, it is nonetheless a point of view based on our critical evaulation of the show. The descriptions of what happened to the principal characters often contain a subtext implying that creative decisions made during this period were mostly ridiculous, disappointing, or inconsistent. I'm left with the impression that certain developments were chosen for discussion primarily to advance this point of view. I'm finding the article increasingly well-written, detailed, and interesting -- however what I am experiencing as the presence of a particular agenda still gnaws at me when I read it. (And the presumption that storylines focusing on new characters are inherently bad seems a bizarre leap to make given the previous glorification of the Snyders, who Marland was certainly "shoving down viewers' throats" circa 1986. I'm not certain I'd refer to Chris Hughes and Katie Peretti as "new"characters, despite their rapid aging.) I'm not going to attempt to make edits here yet. I want to hear whether others see the story of "what happened" on screen and behind the scenes infected with personal biases in this article. If not, then I'll try to shut up about it.Sterntreiber 20:56, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

With soap operas, which have such long lifespans, you sometimes have nothing to go on beyond fan reaction. I don't think it's a stretch to say that many fans have been unhappy with ATWT over the past 10 years, with 96-97 and 99-00 being particular low points. Does that mean I automatically agree? No. I didn't think 2000 was that bad a year. I vastly preferred that time to the Hogan Sheffer era, where I find it difficult to even sit through one episode. I've tried not to over editorialize, but some things, like the stuff with Molly, and the stuff with all the new characters Behr/Broderick brought on the show in 98 and 99, are something that were crucial parts of the show's direction in that era. I mentioned some of the lesser aspects of the Snyder family, like the Meg/Josh romance. The truth is that the Snyders were an extremely popular family. The others who have been singled out in the 90's history were not. With one or two exceptions (like the first David Allen), most of the new characters who drove the show in the mid/late 90's were nowhere near the level of popularity the Snyders had. --JamesB3 22:19, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with your points. I'm really of two minds about how to approach this, because I certainly don't think behind-the-scenes politics and fan reaction are elements that can or should be ignored. They are as much part of the story of ATWT as who married whom, and who fathered whose child. Also, I think we're still so close to the 1990s and early 2000s that the historical consensus on these periods isn't completely formed, the way it seems to be about the Marland period (there were storylines and characters that Marland wrote with which fans were vocally dissatisfied at the time, but these criticisms have faded over time in light of what has come afterwards). I think it's fairly certain already (from the combination of fan reaction, ratings, critical response, and the actions of P&G) that the Valente/Black/Stern period will go down in infamy. And the brief headwriting tenure of Jessica Klein will probably be viewed as a non-starter of little or no long-term consequence (I think it's rather telling that nobody has seen fit to even bother mentioning it in this article). But it seems to me that it's harder to say what the general view of the Behr/Broderick and Goutman/Sheffer periods will be in 10 or 20 years. Maybe that will depend in part on what comes after. Rather than try to force ourselves into a stifling neutrality about aspects of the show's history that are recent enough to remain controversial, the best we can hope for in the articles about the past 10 years is to try to include alternative views where controversy exists (as I think we've managed to do to some extent in describing both the praise and criticism that Sheffer's writing has earned). Believe me, I know how hard it can be. I was pleased to see that you added the bit about the Lisa vs. John malpractice suit from the early part of Culliton's tenure and how much acclaim that story received, but at the same time I couldn't help but flash back to the image of a gambling-addicted Rosanna crawling around on the floor under a roulette table and my gut said "Ugh, Culliton!". Sterntreiber 02:09, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Please don't blame Culliton for that gambling storyline! That was Black and Stern 100%. Nothing Culliton did at ATWT was anywhere near that bad. Everything on ATWT from January or so 1996 to December 96 or so was Black and Stern. As for Behr and Broderick's era, I think the consensus on that era is pretty clear -- lots of new faces and lots of overemphasis on one or two all-encompassing demagogues like "Ravid" (Reid AKA David Stenbeck) or Alec Wallace. As far as I'm concerned, they were disposable, Lorraine Broderick is probably the most disposable headwriter on daytime. You think back to the stories they created and none of that had any longterm impact. They just brought in a dozen new people and had them take over. I mean honestly I think I was restrained. I didn't go into the horrific and irreversible character destruction Tom Hughes suffered in the Emily/Margo/Tom triangle. I didn't go into how bewildered fans were to see Chris Hughes aged with Ben Jorgensen, who got the job solely because he knew Behr/Broderick at ABC; he lisped and had marbles in his mouth to the point where even Kathryn Hays and Don Hastings told him he needed to see a vocal coach. Or the constant emphasis on making Julia the sweetheart of Oakdale and turning Carly into some kind of psychotic in the process. On and on. I just tried to shed some light on the culture of ATWT at this time, and some of the reasons that Behr and Broderick were let go. Clearly their era was not a complete failure, as there were no drastic ratings losses, and they did at least give Lucinda, Kim and Lisa and John Dixon more to do than future executives. But there was a reason they were fired, and I tried to show part of that reason.

I see your objections and I welcome anyone to alter my entries if they feel I've gone over the line. I'm glad to have someone to talk about the show with. All the soap entries deserve detailed yet succint descriptions, considering how many decades they've been on the air, and it's nice that you are so concerned about the objectivity. Believe me, I am trying my best to be objective while outlining the politics of ATWT in 1960 or 2000 or whenever. --JamesB3 02:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I've got to say, I'd completely forgotten about the gambling thing. It must be a painful memory, because I'm still completely repressing it.  That's another thing about Sheffer.  His writing is god awful, but in such an offensive way that I don't think I'll ever be able to forget it.


 * "Lorraine Broderick is probably the most disposable headwriter on daytime"<- This made me laugh. But lest I should turn wikipedia into a message board, let me say something on topic.  I think that ATWT history as it stands needs to be expanded upon, but what's written so far is pretty darn good.  Juppiter 06:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well Juppiter I hope I didn't offend you...I know Broderick has come up with one or two good stories, but that's about it (I don't know if you ever saw her tenure at OLTL, yikes). As for the gambling storyline, just picture this -- Rosanna, in a chapel, in her wedding dress, Mike waiting and waiting for her to tear herself away from the slot machine. It was the most outrageous thing I had ever seen on any soap opera up to that time, like something out of Soapdish. Shameful. The only time I have seen anything so surreal (not counting deliberately surreal camp like the NBC soaps) was a few years later on GL when Blake went down to the docks in her wheelchair to get back a copy of an X-rated videotape of herself and Ben Warren. Then a thug pushed her chair into the water and Ben had to save her. And the scene where the "Second Chances" support group was held in her home and she started yelling, "I've had second, third, fourth chances, and they didn't help me any!!!" I kept that story on tape for years because it was good whenever I needed a laugh. Sad to say that when I haven't kept any of the Sheffer years on tape. --JamesB3 16:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, let me clarify. I was laughing because I agree with you about Broderick.  As for the GL support group scene, I was watching GL during that Ben storyline and I don't remember that either.  But it was true.  I mean, first she cheats with Rick prompting the infamous "my twins have different daddies" storylines, and then with Ben. . .  I haven't seen a bigger s!ut on a soap since then (until ATWT's Jessica, that is!) Juppiter 22:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The best scene in that Blake/Ben story was when Ross unknowingly took the X-rated video to the video store and dropped it off. Then some guy called her up and blackmailed her because he rented the tape and saw her doing S&M with Ben. Just hilarious. I guess this is the wrong thread, so I'll shut up, but that story was so unintentionally sidesplitting. --JamesB3 04:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The consensus seemed to be formed by fans and critics now is that the Packer/Backus (c. 1993-95) and Culliton (c. 1995) tenures generally fared well- or at least have come to be viewed very favourably comparing to what came right after. Particularly with Culliton having written the John/Lisa medical malpractice storyline.

Jessica Klein's tenure lasted only some five months, but is generally thought of as having failed to lift the quality of the show. However, the transitional HW tream in the last two months of 1997 wrote a couple of storylines which were seen as an improvement on what Black/Stern and Klein wrote.

I'd also say that fans are split as to the merits of Broderick's tenure on the show. The criticisms have been mentioned, but there is also no doubt that she sought to return the show to more traditional soap compared to the 1996/97 period, and indeed stabilised ratings after some years of decline. Everton4Life 14:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Connor recast fiasco
I was wracking my brain trying to remember why ATWT fans got so mad soon after Behr arrived as executive producer, because some of you had mentioned that there wasn't enough explanation as to why the show would be considered "bad" post-Marland. Well I finally remember. One of the big headaches was when she fired Allyson Rice Taylor and recast Connor with Susan Batten. I tried to explain that in the article. How do you think it looks? --JamesB3 04:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dates
Please do not link individual years, per Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29 and WP:CONTEXT. The exception is if the year is from a different decade than the previous article, for example referencing something which happened in the previous or next decade. Then, the year should be piped to the appropriate article: 1972 KillerChihuahua?!? 17:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Annual Status CHarts
Are these directly copied from SOD/SPW? If so, they would have to be removed. (-Juppiter, not logged in)