Members YRBB Posted November 2, 2015 Members Share Posted November 2, 2015 Very interesting article that talks about the landscape of primetime soap operas today and put a lot of the things I've been thinking about them into words. While I'm sure a lot of people will have a lot to say about this-and-that show and pick apart the examples, I think the writer gets it mostly right (if one ignores DALLAS being in 1981, however...), except I'd probably say Desperate Housewives, followed by Revenge started it, and not Scandal. But, oh well. It's always been funny to me how SO much of current TV has copied most of the soap opera format (as long as it's not called a soap) even though soaps are supposedly inferior, bad, etc. Now, we have shows embracing the term more and more openly and finding new and interesting ways to do it. Sad that the daytime soaps, however, have become exactly what their unfair reputation was -- badly acted, constantly outlandish, return-from-the-dead-and-who-the-daddy, ridiculous and plot-driven. In the end, I'm just glad there is no single mention of Tyler Perry in the article.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members slick jones Posted November 2, 2015 Members Share Posted November 2, 2015 Like in this???.... LOL Please register in order to view this content Tyler Perry shouldn't ever have his name near that article!! I tried to find a gif of him crying....That was hilarious... The acting in 270+ episodes a year used to be populated with talent, and now the casting is basically for looks alone. Remember the quality we used to see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted November 2, 2015 Members Share Posted November 2, 2015 The link doesn't work for me. I said this in the Dallas thread a bit ago but may as well say it here - the problem with a lot of what is called "soaps" now is just mediocre material that is serialized for the sake of dragging things out. It's a copout, it's always done in a way that will never please fans because the stretching out just goes on way too long (see PLL). And too many triangles and will they/won't they and forced pairings - the exact same things that made me stop watching a lot of soaps. The reason I don't watch any CW shows is because of the forced triangles. Somehow Arrow became about which woman Oliver Queen was going to dick, and about "Olicity," complete with psycho fans who spend more time spewing hate and bile about other actresses and demanding time for their OTP. Then there's Flash, which is also a parade of pieces of ass for Barry Allen, and the same nonsense that originated on Arrow (the woman they originally wanted the main character to be with pushed down and made to look bad in order to drag out the will they/won't they and the "secrets" and the bad melodrama). A show like Family, which would likely not be on the air today, had more in common with true soaps than most of what is around now, because it cared about things like heart, characterization, day-to-day life and painful honesty. That's what soaps were and are to me. And it's what few primetime (forget daytime) shows today bother with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members YRBB Posted November 2, 2015 Author Members Share Posted November 2, 2015 It's working for me but here it is again: http://www.vulture.com/2015/10/primetime-soap-operas-are-back.html# I think you have a point about shows like Arrow (have never seen The Flash) but those are not the ones the article is talking about. Those are crime/procedurals/whatever that use a serialized format. The article is referring to pure soap operas such as Scandal, Game of Thrones, Empire, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted November 2, 2015 Members Share Posted November 2, 2015 It may just be something with my computer. Well I would be better off keeping my thoughts on GoT to myself, but I do see what you and the article are saying. I think that many of those shows could be called soaps (and Lee Daniels seems happy to have his work called a soap, unlike some hacks we are better off not acknowledging). I think the idea of the soap format has become very widespread in primetime, but perhaps not in the ways I would like. For me St. Elsewhere will probably always be the best example of a show that was 99.999% soap, even if Tom Fontana and John Masius likely never would have dreamt to say it themselves. I just hope this renaissance brings good things for the genre, like reminders of the best of soaps (history, continuity, family, the everyday grind, playing beats, making sure we see everyone learn about an event so we can get a wide variety of reactions). Reading it now - I have to admit it makes me laugh a bit that GoT (which has consistently shed that part of itself with each passing season and is now full of ponderous, pretentiousness nothingburger set pieces like whatever the !@#$%^&*] Dorne was supposed to be or Ramsay and Tyrion blathering 24/7 because D&D are gaga over the actors) is considered a soap but Walking Dead is not. TWD is not a very good show but parts of it are pure soap opera, especially everything surrounding woobie king Daryl Dixon, his relationships with Beth and Carol (even Rick). Rick/Lori/Shane, Glenn/Maggie, Rick/Michonne. Even kooky supporting characters like Tara - she could have wandered out of AMC from 20 years ago. They seem to define soap as crazy, outlandish things happening. Exactly what bothers me with how the genre is perceived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Darn Posted November 2, 2015 Members Share Posted November 2, 2015 They wrote this same type of article in 2004 when Desperate Housewives premiered to monster numbers. And in 1996 when no one could shut up about Melrose Place. Lather, rinse, repeat. In a few years procedurals will be back in fashion. It's all cyclical because we get sick of things due to saturation. That's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted November 3, 2015 Members Share Posted November 3, 2015 I'm over this article after only the first paragraph. As Carl rightly stated, their definition of soap opera is outrageous, manic, over-the-top, etc. To me, if you want to talk about current shows that exhibit the true qualities of good soap, then not mentioning Shameless is unforgivable.I do appreciate them including Flamingo Road in the discussion of the early 80s soaps.The main difference between these modern shows and the classics, and I've said this recently in the Dallas thread, is that back then, the shows weren't PLOTPLOTPLOTPLOTPLOTPLOT. Too many shows today are mini-series disguised as ongoing series, and it's evident. Revenge should have never lasted longer than a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted November 3, 2015 Members Share Posted November 3, 2015 Agree about too much plot. And a lot of the plot isn't even good - it's just there to fill time. That's why I don't ever agree with the idea that less episodes = better quality. Knots Landing had 30 episodes a season at one point, and yet some years were a hell of a lot better than most shows on today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.