Dave Doty sent me this. I assume by "GH," he means the daytime drama General Hospital…
Strike questions on your blog seem to be slowing down. Or maybe they are continuing, but asking questions you've already answered. I thought I'd ask a couple I haven't seen before Both relate to the daytime soap situation, due to my being a GH watcher. (What can I say? There's a soothing regularity in that 5 day a week dose of melodrama.)
1. Both times I've seen a strike impact the soaps, the fi-core writers throw in strange twists that are clearly at odds with original intent. The most blatant this time is a mystery villain who had been repeatedly referred to as "she" being abruptly revealed as a male character who was already on the show. I assume the producers know where the regular writers were taking these plots, Are they not allowed to pass that information along, or are they just allowing the fi-core writers to do whatever they want? Or is there an answer I've overlooked?
2. There's no definite answer to this one, but I'm curious about your opinion. I've been wrestling throughout the strike with whether I ought to be boycotting the show. The pro-boycott argument is obvious, I suppose. But even some of the writers who are replaced as I type have said things along the lines of "I don't like that someone else is writing my show right now, but with the state of daytime, if they shut down they might not come back." I'm debating the degree to which I have an ethical obligation to stop watching until the regular writers come back.
Taking the second question first: I am of the opinion that most boycotts don't accomplish what the boycotters would like to think they accomplish. I always say, "If it makes you feel better to boycott, then by all means boycott." But it's like how in certain past years, there were reasons some folks wanted to boycott the Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel in San Diego because of political actions by its management. So some of those folks stayed elsewhere but the hotel was still filled to capacity and the boycott had zero impact on the hotel.
If you realistically can make a difference in their income, that's different. I just don't think anyone at the A.M.P.T.P. is going to say, "My God! Dave Doty and maybe a few of his friends aren't watching this one program! We have to settle this strike!" Maybe if you and your friends are all monitored for ratings and you have an awful lot of friends…
Now dealing with Question #1: Every time the WGA goes on strike, the writers of daytime dramas suffer in a way other TV writers don't: The continuity and storylines on their shows are corrupted by scabs. You call them "fi-core writers," I call them "scabs." Seeing their plans go awry and seeing their scenarios taken in directions that seem wrong to them is a pain that for some is just as great as the financial sacrifices.
As far as I know, the producers can share anything that has been planned and pass it along and I would assume some of it is followed. What you're probably seeing now is a combination of the scabs using what the striking writers had planned and the scabs trying to put their own stamp on the show. They probably think it will increase their chances of being kept on when the "real" writers return…and for some of them, it may work. Some producers may keep them around because, for good or bad, they want those storylines to be played out.
