Starve.Org White Noise Usenet Archive: "Re: Y&R: No wonder Phyllis goes ballistic, who wouldn't ? ? ? ? ? ?"

With only few exceptions, I've said nearly everything you wrote in
this post, Mark.

MarkH:

> I totally support what you say above. But, honestly, the key word in
> that phrase is "customer". So, if you "contributed/participated/
> consulted", and were paid for it, that would change you from
> "customer". Even if you just, out of friendship, "contributed/
> participated/consulted", that would also transform you into something
> more than a customer. It makes you someone who had a voice.

> So, suddenly (and I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS THE CASE), it could cause
> some to view you as someone who (sorry, rh) had a perspective that had
> an influence...and now that that influence is no longer there...your
> upset is about the lack of influence or the fact that they didn't
> listen to you...rather than the product on screen.

People can -- and will -- make whatever unfounded assumptions or
accusations they want. Maybe it's human nature, but it’s common when
someone hears a negative opinion about something/someone they like to
try to discredit *the person* expressing that negative opinion. So I
understand SOME of the resistance to negative opinion by people who
are enjoying the product.

I've *always* been a CUSTOMER first and foremost. Not everyone behind
the scenes is a customer in addition to being a provider – obviously,
that has advantages and disadvantages. I learned a lot about the
process. I came to understand the formula, and even though there were
parts of it I disagreed with, there was reasoning and substantiation
behind every element, and although there were exceptions, they mostly
stuck to it. I saw people diligently work to assure that stories made
sense, even within exaggerated soap framework, and that minor details
were addressed so that viewers could focus on the story instead of
being distracted by avoidable holes.

Maybe they needed to "fly by the seat of their pants" a little more –
Y&R wasn’t everyone’s cup of tea. Nevertheless, Y&R’s record of
success proved the formula they followed most of the time undeniably
WORKED to keep a large number of fans that look for a variety of
different things in a soap opera satisfied.

With all but fragments of the formula abandoned, many of us who were
ALL devoted, loyal/faithful fans, even with our disagreements, are now
divided and at odds about whether or not the current version of the
show is worthy of praise or criticism. IMO, this is a direct result of
writing mostly “on the fly” in ways that destroy characters to the
point where there’s nothing left but to kill them off or write them
out, and abusing “creative license” to write story that wouldn’t be
happening if you filled the holes.

No doubt, if all characters were nice people, smart, wise, faithful or
trustworthy, there would be no story; but making a mistake/bad
decision fuels story in a much more believable way than obvious
loopholes intentionally ignored to advance story.

We all watched this process, going from structured formula to the
addition of more free and intuitive creativity – which we all agreed
added some much needed new life. However, we also all watched it go
from one extreme to the other – structured and grounded to hangin’ off
the side of a skyscraper – and the predicted, resulting destruction.

NONE of this has anything to do with being disgruntled or “having
influence”. I wouldn’t care WHO was holding the pen, and I would
absolutely give major kudos to ANY writer writing believable,
**quality** stories that leave the show’s history and majority of
characters in tact and able to continue. OF COURSE I want the show to
be successful! The idea that I wouldn’t want any current writer to be
successful or to write quality material is ludicrous. And I **have**
been complimentary of the elements I feel deserve kudos -- dialogue,
acting, and SOME specific story. I admit, there’s not much I’m
complimentary of right now, but I’ve also almost always said “that’s
just my opinion.”

> But, you could see how someone else might feel your
> perspective was not "fair and balanced".

Yes, I understand that, but it’s still offensive to be on the
receiving end of those unfounded, unkind accusations and insults
simply because I’ve posted a negative perception of current
storytelling, as though there can’t possibly be valid reasons for my
negative opinion unless I’m a “disgruntled ex-employee” or skunk at a
picnic.

> When there is uniformity, I'm prepared to say the product sucks. If
> everyone drinks the New Coke and spits it out in disgust...that's the
> product :-).

> But, when opinion is more mixed, it is not necessarily the product
> anymore.

I agree with that. But when the opinion is mixed **with significant
numbers on both sides**, that absolutely indicates that there is
something about the product that needs attention even though a portion
of customers is still satisfied.

That’s the other thing you learn in Marketing 101 – customers who are
satisfied and happily buying your product are great, but the customers
who need to be focused on are the ones who are dissatisfied but
interested enough to tell you why, because THEY are giving you an
opportunity to win them back if you listen, analyze, and make a
genuine effort to address the issue(s). As said before, a
substantiated gripe is actually a gift, as it often gives the seller
of the product critical information and an opportunity to improve.

> Ultimately, it is an interaction. The "CSI errors" you keep
> mentioning are HUGE dealbreakers for you. "Lazy storytelling". For
> you, with your particular perspective, those storytelling issues
> bother you.

> But for me, I don't give a flying fig about the CSI stuff. I honestly
> don't give a slight hoot. I don't watch ANY of those procedural shows
> -- can't stand 'em. I'm certainly not interested in holding them to
> technical details. That's not because I applaud lazy storytelling.
> That's because, IMO, I feel these technical details turn a show into
> an instructional video...not good storytelling. I'll take creative
> fantasy any day.

I appreciate that you don’t care about technical details. But I
completely disagree that making technical details accurate turns a
show into an instructional video. I never said we need to delve into
those details, but at least the BASIC ELEMENTS – the ones even a
layperson has knowledge of – should be accurate.

IMO, the “technical details” in CSI are merely the foundation for the
ultimate story. It is **a show about crime scene investigations**, so
why would you write a story where, for example, the investigators
completely space on VERY BASIC elements of a crime scene
investigation? If you accurately depict the basic “technical details”
from the get-go, at least the story has a believable foundation, and
viewers aren’t shaking their heads and distracted by silly oversights
like, “Huh? Someone wrote on the mirror with lipstick, the lipstick
case is sitting right there, and NOBODY tests it for prints?”

> (Look, for example, at Olivia's cancer. It mysteriously disappeared.
> I could get into all the technical medical problems with that...but I
> don't give a sh*t. Bill Bell wanted to tell a story about cancer
> disappearing miraculously after childbirth...and that's the story he
> told. And I was along for the ride).

Agreed, but that’s not the same thing -- abandoning parts of the
aftermath of a story is a whole different issue than BUILDING a story
that doesn’t hold water from the onset because you deliberately
ignored major holes.

> What it may suggest, however, is that there are different communities
> of fans, and sometimes it is hard for them to co-exist. The
> "analysts" and the "passengers" (for lack of a better term) want
> different things from entertainment, and in fact, maybe they interfere
> with one another's enjoyment. Someone who is along for the ride
> doesn't want every DNA/fingerprint issue picked apart. It bursts the
> balloon and hurts the ride. On the other hand, someone who
> appreciates a firm basis in reality and plausibility is going to go
> NUTS when they gloss over details and actualities.

Yes, I agree with all that, and I too have pointed out that we all
have different preferences and tolerances on numerous occasions. The
point is that if you choose to come to a public DISCUSSION GROUP, you
should realize and be prepared for opinions reflecting ALL the
categories you described above. The attitude that opinions from any
ONE of those groups is more welcome than another here is pretty
arrogant in a forum where, if you don’t agree or have a problem with
someone’s take, no one is forcing you to read it.

> We all either co-exist and respect one another's perspectives (that's
> where I, personally, don't like "arrgh" or "get a grip"...but that's
> just me), or we break off into camps. I think this ole' group is too
> small for that :-).

I agree. But then, I don’t think posting a negative opinion is
disrespectful just because some are enjoying, I enjoy the civilized
exchange of different perspectives, and I certainly never blamed
someone else here for ruining my enjoyment of the show or of this
group because their opinion is different than mine.

Shirl