Members JamesF Posted December 27, 2006 Members Share Posted December 27, 2006 The things that King has mentioned are definitely what mar the reputations of US soaps internationally. If a show has always had those things (Sunset Beach, Passions, Port Charles) then fine. But throwing in scientifically impossible things like AMC's un-abortion is laughable -- it's what I was saying earlier about logic. I should note that EastEnders is very much an entity of itself -- the other soaps over here really don't fall under the depressing category. Emmerdale is the campest of the lot and is infamous for OTT stories that just fall short of the fantasy that's crept into some US soaps. Coronation Street is much more comedy in everyday episodes because of the dialogue, excepting an ill-conceived "Who Raped...?" story several years ago which was as classy as it sounds. This Christmas was a case in point - teenaged David Platt had found an old diary of his grandmothers and discovered his mother wanted to abort him. 16 years ago. He decided to read it out at Christmas dinner in front of friends and family but it was played for laughs -- the awkward social etiquette, trying to cover up the silences etc. He revelled in it because he hates his mother for marrying a murderer several years ago. A key difference is that in the US, a lot of the writers that are recycled such as McTavish and Reilly are lazy. When they tackle the "issues" they don't care about the logical aspect. Abortion is a case in point. Josh Madden is a physical impossibility and Mimi's abortion in DOOL was written with a very slanted conservative bent. You can't get away with that over here. Because of the popularity of the soaps they are scrutinised by relevant charities and interest groups before and after going to air regardless of whether the story is written in a gritty or escapist context. History is almost never rewritten and SORASing is practically unheard of forcing the writers to be more creative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted December 27, 2006 Members Share Posted December 27, 2006 And that's how US soaps *should* be, I think. I totally agree with you about the difference between soaps beginning with fantasy-type storylines and long-running soaps going into that territory later in their run. That's why, even though I can enjoy DAYS, I still can't take it seriously simply because of what it became in the 90s versus the way it was in the 60s-70s. Megan McTavish is RUINING AMC right now by trying to defy science and proven facts just to make things possible. Even the things that are possible, I can't bring myself to watch. I'm sick and tired of the words sperm and eggs and samples being regularly used on our shows. There are some things, though, that have been here for so long that it just wouldn't feel the same for it to leave. If all of the soaps switched from tape to film, it'd just be so weird and it's not something I want. It'd be like firing all of the vets and hiring a bunch of newbies. Doing away with SORASing would just screw up what SORASing in the beginning messed up. If characters started growing up real-time now, we'd have to adjust the ages of virtually every single character who came before them. I honestly do not understand why people feel the need to compare the US and UK soaps anyway. I mean, if you just look at it, it's like, there's not much that they share in common. They are continuing dramas and have been on the air for years. Okay, and the UK soaps air in near-primetime timeslots, and not five days a week, Monday-Friday (besides "Emmerdale," which airs 6 days a week, which is fricken ridiculous). Ours are strictly daytime, strictly five days a week, and since "Peyton Place," have never, in the whole timeslot department, ever resembled UK soaps. Like someone said earlier, it's truly comparing apples to oranges. People defend what they know and love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JamesF Posted December 27, 2006 Members Share Posted December 27, 2006 Word. It's not a nationality thing, it's about catering to different audiences. In my view, so long as a soap sticks to what it's about and has enough logic (even in fantasy soaps) to give viewers to identify with it's not doing anything wrong. That's where AMC, GH and previously DOOL have fallen down. The tide is turning though, at least on CBS and DOOL. The desperation to top everything that James Reilly's ever done has waned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Posted December 27, 2006 Members Share Posted December 27, 2006 ITA that Brit soaps are a little depressing. I don't want that realism, but just normal, believable stories. DAYS is kind of headed there, under Hogan. GL does a good job of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted December 27, 2006 Members Share Posted December 27, 2006 Right. And, unfortunately, some headwriter's gonna come along and find success with something and then all of the other soaps will try to copy that. Whatever happened to the soaps being INDIVIDUAL and not copying each other? Just telling the stories that they were meant to tell. I've long had it in my mind that each soap has a certain identity built in it and that each one needs a headwriter who will come in and restore that identity. I mean...AMC, to me, is about romance, family, multiple generations, relevance, humor...it employs all of those things. But you take B&B, and to me, it epitomizes glamor, style, substance, business, scandal. It's basically like a classic 80s primetime soap that was made for daytime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KLN Posted December 28, 2006 Members Share Posted December 28, 2006 I agree. But they got it all backwards. They used Stephen Nichols and Mary Beth Evans -- two daytime LEGENDS, and perfectly good actors, two of daytime's best -- as an example of daytime's worst. Then they used Passions -- daytime's worst soap -- to generalize all the rest of daytime. As bad as most soaps are nowadays, there IS still some good left. Besides, I've seen the acting on the overseas soaps, and I really thought the acting left alot to be desired. Maybe it has something to do with what you're used to seeing, though. I just don't appreciate them ramming US soaps as if they're totally nothing but crap and always have been. It's sort of like family -- I can talk sh!t about them, but you can't, LoL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DruRocks Posted December 28, 2006 Members Share Posted December 28, 2006 Not sure about daytime legends, but I agree it was stupid to use those two when there are MUCH worst. Lord knows they wouldn't use Susan Flannery, Nancy Lee Grahn, Erika Slezak, Hillary B. Smith, Victoria Rowell, Jane Elliot, Maura West...because that sh.t won't fly. And PSNS does have many good actresses...Juliet Mills, Andrea Evans (loved her as Tina OLTL), Brooke Kerr, Lyndsay Hartley, Kim Ulrich, Eva Tamargo (sp?), and Emily Harper. At the end of the day, it truly is a geographic thing. Someone mentioned Shakespeare... Heh, during the Bill Bell days Y&R's writing was pretty Shakespearean. Especially when it came to those confrontations. One thing that is missing from soaps is a good confrontation without lame plot devices. I miss those long monologues with excellent writng, where you can actually feel for the character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mateo22 Posted December 28, 2006 Members Share Posted December 28, 2006 Well said! Yet another reason why I could care less what this guy thinks... Definitely... and even then, there are plenty of British shows that I enjoy and still watch, something about their sense of humour that gets me, I just love it. Oh, I agree 100% with this. It's just another aspect of character driven stories that is missing from this genre, nonetheless, I still love my soaps! ooh, and btw, love the avatar. Huge NLG fan here!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted December 28, 2006 Members Share Posted December 28, 2006 I agree the documentary is wrong to sack actors like Mary Beth Evans, etc., but I do think the Brit soaps are good as long as you get used to the "culture shock" that comes with the production design and their choice of, well, everything. The first time I saw Corrie or Eastenders it was a real shock to my system and I wasn't sure I cared for it, I found it drab, dull, etc. But you get sucked in by the acting and the writing and the realism, or at least I did. And of course EE has become terribly depressing the last few years to the point that it's not nearly as good as it used to be. But I think soaps like OLTL and AMC at least could learn a lot from some of these shows with blue-collar, "normal" people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DruRocks Posted December 28, 2006 Members Share Posted December 28, 2006 Yes, but OLTL and AMC lost there ways some time ago. Both use to be intelligent and well grounded soaps. Although I've always preferred OLTL over AMC. Always nice to see other NLG fans. She's one of the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Posted December 28, 2006 Members Share Posted December 28, 2006 Well, yeah. IA with that. But I also agree with the points they made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Drew Posted December 28, 2006 Members Share Posted December 28, 2006 I wouldn't go as far as to call Mary Beth Evans or Stephen Nichols "soap legends". "Soap vets" - yes. They're not on the same level as people like Lucci, or Hall or Canary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KLN Posted December 28, 2006 Members Share Posted December 28, 2006 Eh, you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Chris B Posted December 28, 2006 Members Share Posted December 28, 2006 The British people have always been very snobby towards American soaps and ALWAYS use the tacky NBC soaps as proof. I'd love for them to get a show like Y&R so they could shut the hell up for once! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heatherwebber Posted December 28, 2006 Members Share Posted December 28, 2006 From what I've heard Sunset Beach was a huge hit in the UK. B&B was on for years there as was Santa Barbara, but I don't know how they were received. Y&R & Days both ran for about a year but didn't take on and got dropped. But as far as quality goes, Eastenders can't be topped by what's running in the US now. The ABC shows are awful. NBC has had junk for several years. None of the CBS shows are as good as they have been in past times. I find Days much improved, and Y&R still very good even though I've seen lots of complaining about it here. Much of that I don't understand. I'm not impressed with one thing Y&R is about to do. That one thing makes me wonder. But Eastenders did have several rocky years there. It's finally bounced back and then some after those less than stellar years. But it seems to be headed into another huge transition so it may start to go backwards in quality. Still even when it wasn't so great it was better than what was being put out here across the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.