Tisy-Lish

If we were going to make a list of the characteristics of the daytime TV soap opera, I think we would need to preface many of those characteristics with the term "traditionally". Examples: traditionally written for a female audience; traditionally focused on romance, domestic drama, and workplace drama; traditionally shot on videotape (as opposed to film) and later shot digitally preserving the camera appearance of videotape; traditionally limited to studio sets with limited on-location scenes; traditionally utilizes studio sets (homes, workplaces, public spaces, etc,) many of which become iconic to the particular soap opera, and often used for decades with little change; etc., etc., etc... Perhaps prefacing the characteristics with the term "traditionally" would provide wiggle-room to avoid having the exceptions blow apart the list. Who knows??

If I had to guess, I'd say VW lasted so long because the Mac/Rachel romance was very popular with the fans, and by 1987 the Corys had several adult (or near adult) children to continue their legacy. Also, Connie Ford was extremely popular as Ada and TPTB certainly did not want to diminish Ford's role on the show. So Ada needed Rachel (and/or Nancy) to remain vital. I'm not so sure VW disliked the show. But she did grow bored and frustrated after so many years of bad writing, and it showed. When she had good material to play, VW hit it out of the park every time. But the final twenty-years of AW had only flashes of greatness, while I think VW wanted the show to be consistently great as it had been up to 1979.

I disagree with Danfling's odd insistence that the term soap opera referred only to serials taped in New York. But I never argued with him about it, mostly because he ran that message board AND he had a right to believe whatever he wanted to. Que sera serootie... I do believe all soap operas are serials (regardless of where they are shot), but not all serials are soap operas. I suppose any continuing-story tv shows or continuing franchises of movies are serials. But few of them bare much resemblance soap operas, in my opinion. For example many of today's primetime dramas have stories that continue from episode to episode, but I'd never call them soap operas. Many limited series streaming dramas also feature stories that continue from episode to episode, but again -- they aren't soap operas. And as I mentioned, some movie franchises continue their storylines from one film to the next -- so they are serialized (serials), but not soap operas. I've often tried to create a workable definition for the "soap opera", but it's tough because there are always a few exceptions. What would you say are the characteristics of a soap opera? I've tried to compile a list a few times, but it is difficult -- again because there are always a few exceptions. So how would those exceptions be justified without destroying list or the definition?? First, I would start with the characteristics of a daytime tv soap opera, and then discuss primetime tv soap operas (Dallas, Dynasty, Peyton Place, Our Private World, Falcon Crest, Knots Landing, etc) separately and work out the differences later. I'd also probably separate the radio soap opera, and then work out those differences later as well. And I think it goes without saying that we posters here at SON would never agree on that list of characteristics. So we'd need to engage in some friendly sparing about it and then agree to disagree.

Wyndham's best work was with believable and more or less realistic scenes and storylines. Anytime she had to play something over the top or "soapy" (I hate that term, as it is an insult to the genre), her acting became mannered and affected. So I've always thought Harding Lemay's writing fit VW's acting style best. Every scene Lemay ever wrote for her, VW played it perfectly and believably. It seemed later writers wanted to turn Rachel into the Victoria Llord Riley Buchanan of NBC, putting Rachel through the Perils of Pauline. But Rachel was neither Vicki nor Pauline, nor was she Erika Slezak -- Rachel was a unique and inspired character, played by two of the very best actors ever on daytime. Franky, most soap writers were just not good enough to write to VW's strengths.

Yes, it was an awful plot. But many of daytime's biggest female stars were getting twin or doppelgänger storylines, and I suppose someone thought VW deserved one. Yuck! Plus, a few years earlier, P&G had invested millions in some very expensive camera special effects equipment that allowed their shows to do twin/doppelgänger scenes that looked completely natural. And P&G wanted to get their money's worth. The equipment did work incredibly well, and all those actors playing dual roles really were undetectable, at least technically. Great special effects for shows that were shot on tape, not film. I believe (but could be wrong) that P&G purchased the equipment around 1987-88 after the Frannie/Sabrina plot on ATWT, but before Ann Heche assumed the roles of Vicki and Marley on AW. So there were a heck of a lot of dual roles (twins, doppelgängers, a clone, etc.) on P&G soaps from 1988 forward. Far far too many, in my opinion. But P&G encouraged it -- perhaps even demanded it. And I will add that the equipment may have been purchased just before Frannie/Sabrina on ATWT, rather than after. I just know it was in the mid-ish 1980s, as it was reported rather widely in the soap press.

Thank you. This was probably the flashback I was thinking about. I don't think they recreated more than one flashback. But after watching it, I'm confident it was not based on an old Harding Lemay script. I was watching in 1978, and I don't think Russ was throwing around the word whore in those days. LOL. So the flashback, although based on authentic AW history, was totally created by Swajeski. Again, thank you for the research.

Nice list. My five faves are: (I'm an old timer, by the way) Pat Randolph Ada Davis Mary Matthews Lenore Moore Curtain Delany Liz Matthews Sven Petersen Oops! That's also six.

This head-writer has no idea how to write a romance. And seems to have absolutely no interest in writing any type of long-term romantic plot. Characters change romantic partners, and characters change jobs at billion-dollar companies -- ad nauseam. It's all willy-nilly with no purpose, and with no long-term effect on anything. Big YAWN...

Does anyone have video of Russ and Sharlene from around 1989 in which Sharlene has a "newly created" flashback with Russ being abusive toward her (and possibly raping her) during their marriage back in 1978? And does anyone know if that flashback scene was recreation of an actual Harding Lemay scripted scene from '78, or perhaps it was not?? I do remember Sharlene's flashback was fairly historically accurate, but have always wondered if it was a recreation of an actual scene from '78, or just based on occurrences from that era. Any thoughts about this or help finding the 1989 episode would be appreciated.

OMG, really? Who played Paul Stewart?

I'm LMAO! LOL. You, my dear, have a way with words. Great sense of humor. Keep it up...

Does anyone have ideas how this Martin/Alan/Traci plot is going to play out? Do we already have the answer? Or is there going to be a twist at the end? It has been so predictable since day-one, I sort of hope there will be a surprise ending and the audience has been wrong all along.

It seems the actor playing Martin may have taken some acting lessons. In today's episode his line delivery was much more natural and he was quite convincing in his scenes. I'm happy he is improving, because before today I thought he had reason to fear being replaced.

Did Michelle and Bill have one of those Tara/Phil promises like early AMC? Young love stories like that are something very unique to soaps, because soaps actually have the time to play them out long-term.

Okay, you win. Didn't realize this was a contest. But whatever.

Understand all that. But Cady's casting was promoted as such a big deal -- and playing Dani's best-friend -- it's just a little strange she has had so few appearances. Again, I understand the reason, but perhaps tptb should have under-played her casting, rather than over-playing it.

Are they shooting soaps on film these days? I'm just an old hog farmer, so what do I know?? lmao.

But isn't she supposed to be Dani's best friend? Yet, she is seldom around. I hope she gets back to taping soon. Best friends need more than four scenes together in almost two-months. Cady get back to Atlanta and tape some more episodes, please...

Where is Cady McClain? So much was made of her casting, but she's had only 3 or 4 rather brief appearances, right? Is she off the show?

Each time Rachel was blind, did she ever mention in dialogue that she had been blind before? Or was each occurrence of her blindness treated as totally new? I realize each occurrence had a completely different cause, but still she should have mentioned being blind previously. Even if it was just a throw away line. Does anyone remember? And did any of these cases of blindness take place while Iris and Dennis were in Texas? It would have been fun to see Iris's eye-roll, as Rachel goes blind for the second and third time. LOL.

Well, they came close. Rachel was blind three different times, the first time in 1978 at the end of the Sven plot. And then two more times during the 1980s. She also had amnesia in the mid-1980s. And she did have a near-death experience during AW's 25th anniversary week in 1989. I believe Iris was in Bay City to witness only the first and the last of these ailments.

Erica was not the star of AMC at the beginning. Plus Erica was never as mean and dangerous as Iris. Lisa was also never as mean (or as effectively mean) as Iris. By the time Liza became wealthy, she had mellowed considerably. And Rachel had reformed before she became the lead at AW. I think the question TPTB were dealing with at Texas was, how do we build an entire new show around such an antagonistic character? And is that even possible or advisable?? And they decided against doing that. I've always believed that was the reason they turned Iris into a heroine. Otherwise, why not just let her remain neurotic and deceitful? I can't think of another reason they would have changed Iris so much.

What is wrong with the Liberty biberty guy? He is so funny on those commercials. But his acting on B&B is painful to watch. Is he being directed to act in such an affected way?? And if so, why? Something tells me he's capable of playing this stuff straight, but somebody's advising him to do it "stupid." Weird for sure.

Well, I think TPTB probably believed it would be impossible to create a soap opera where the star was an antagonist. How do you make such a mean neurotic woman the center of the show? Perhaps a decade later, they would have tried that, and it might have worked. But in 1980, they probably thought that would be impossible. And they may have been right.

Would the fate of Texas have been different, had Donald May been cast as Alex Wheeler from day-one (rather than as Alex's brother later in the series)?