ALL: The Brits attack AMERICAN SOAPS!

[alwaysAMC]

Ok this is just stupid.

First of all - he mainly uses Passions as the example - as the 'standard of all American soaps' - when it is FAR from it. And why did he use PSNS? Bc that is really the only soap that proves his point. You didn't see him using ATWT did you? No, bc then he wouldn't have a point.

Second - how pathetic and unprofessional to have your research WRONG. Most of the AMC clips had a caption which said it was Y&R.

Ridiculous.

[mateo22]

I agree, the lack of the majority of our Soaps as examples was one of this guys biggest faults. I love Passions, but c'mon, you expect me to think your credible when; 1) you can't even get your clips right and 2) and you can't even showcase all of our soaps...

what a crock...

[JER Soaps Fan]

I love, love, LOVE "Passions" -- I think everyone here knows that -- but I had to laugh out loud when they showed the clips of Siren and Sam's voiceover, "Is she really a mermaid?" :lol: I'm sure that focus group and that Brit show's viewers immediately thought we were all stupid for watching such a show. And DANG, they had to show the clip where Siren, as a mermaid, with her powers, sicked the crabs on Kay when she didn't get her way. That was just wrong. Representative of the show but wrong, lol. Talk about one shot after another.

As for "Days," I think the jerk was, well, a jerk about it, but I do see the resemblance of MBE to Meg Ryan, SN to Kurt Russell andTHANK YOU GOD for pointing out whom I though MM looked like all this time but couldn't put my finger on it -- Heather Graham!

Still, this guy was such a snob. And to NOT include B&B clips and showcase that soap, when all the actors including the men look so unrealistic due to botox injections and God knows what else (Don't get me wrong, Jack Wagner looks incredible because of it), well that's just silly.

[All My Shadows]

This annoys me so much more than anything else in the world. If it was presented in any other way, I'd just take it as someone's opinions, but this guy is obviously trying to play a game of Revolutionary War!

I have no problems with UK soaps. I enjoy reading their histories and classic storylines and such. As a matter of fact, based solely on reading, I'm thinking their "Crossroads" (1964-1988) was very close to our style of soaps. That being said, however, I don't see why those who scream "realism" feel the need to scream "realism." Okay...and our soaps are based mainly in "escapism." Who is to say which one is better?

UK soap ratings are high...yea, because their shows air in early fricken primetime. If you put B&B in the place "Wheel of Fortune" in most markets, B&B's ratings would soar.

Something that does turn me against UK soaps (and I've only seem multiple episodes of one - "EastEnders" on BBC America) is that they are constantly replacing characters with new characters. The result is a show of mainly newbies. I mean, I know AMC is very guilty of that at this point, but nowhere near as bad as some of these shows. Look at the "Hollyoaks" page at Wikipedia. This is a show that debut in 1995, yet only 6 current cast members (according to Wiki) debut pre-2000. Compare that to "Passions", which of course debut in 1999, and still has 12 *original* cast members, not to mention Dana Sparks on recurring. "Hollyoaks" has had entire families debut over the course of the last two years, and they make up the majority of the cast. "Passions" is still focused on its original characters, for the most part.

And I agree with Drew. The Australian soaps were a great mix of UK and US soaps. Oxygen aired "Neighbours" for a few months in 2004 (episodes from 1999) and I *loved* it. But then they moved it opposite AMC, and this was when the baby switch was in full force...

[bellcurve]

Agreed. I've always said that if I were program director for a local CBS affiliate(and if CBS allowed), I would totally air B&B before the primetime programming.

B&B would get much higher ratings in the 7:30EST/6:30CST timeslot.

[mateo22]

Couldn't have said it better myself. This guy, imo, is really comparing apples and oranges, both with the fact that he fails to mention more than three US soaps and that UK soaps due air in early primtime...

US Daytime has always really been a unique genre, that no other country really has, despite what you consider a 'soap' or 'soap opera'.

Look at Spanish Novellas, Passions doesn't even come close to some of the stories(lines) that I have seen on some of those, and the acting is nowhere near credible for the most part, but they can still be entertaining.

Not to mention, I have always heard the B&B and Y&R are pretty popular in a few other countries?

What a rude dude....

[King]

I do agree that we should take the British Soap's time slots! Like 4-7 pm. Ratings would be go up, IMO.

[King]

I haven't heard anything yet that I disagree with it. He's not saying anything we don't say every day on here.

We want more realism.

We want talent over looks.

We want smart characters.

We want smart dialogue.

[All My Shadows]

Speak for yourself with the "realism." If "realism" means dark, depressing shows with boring characters (ex: EastEnders in 2003), well then that's something we already have and it's called "As the World Turns." Constant murders and endless violence? Why, that's "General Hospital." US soaps should be BRIGHT and engaging and somewhat realistic, but also leaving room for the imagination.

He might be saying some things that are right (talent over looks, but that's not a major problem for some soaps; smart characters, which is a major problem; smart dialogue, but again, not a problem for some soaps), but simply the fact that he doesn't know Y&R from AMC, that he considers PSNS to be enough to represent all of American soap opera, that there is an obvious bias (because I'm sure there are MANY things wrong with "EE" and "Corrie" etc)...that just ruins everything for this guy with me. He has no place criticizing American soaps. I might have things to say about "EastEnders," but I watched it for months and my thoughts about it were reflected as such. Leave the US soap criticism to the Americans who have watched them for years. It's no different than an AMC fan watching DAYS once every month and regularly ragging on it, complete with Carrie Brady clips that are labeled "Martha Madison as Mimi Lockhart."

[JamesF]

Ok I've watched the clip as a Brit who's been a regular viewer of the UK/Aus/US soaps at one time or another. For starters things like the celebrity comparisons seemed to me to be purely a joke...I didn't take it seriously and I can't imagine anyone else doing so.

On the side of the guy doing the documentary, he had a lot of material to work with but he didn't look into the deeper issues. The budgets on the US soaps aren't smaller than ours (by any stretch of the imagination) but the money goes towards actors' bloated salaries instead of production values. That, coupled with the fact that they are producing higher volume per week means that location shooting is out of the question. The only reason the UK soaps are able to shoot so many "outdoor" scenes for real is because they all have purpose built backlots adjoining the studios. Albert Square in EastEnders is a set, Coronation Street is a set, the village in Emmerdale is a set and Hollyoaks is also on a backlot. That's why DOOL was able to use Salem Place during the 90s in much the same way. In fact the only soaps to do regular real location shooting every episode are the Aussies, Neighbours and Home and Away.

As far as the acting is concerned, it differs between soaps. That was the annoying thing, the guy wasn't making a distinction between the shows. We're certainly not without fault over here. Hollyoaks is *renowned* for being populated by teens who can't act and all the shows have a few duff actors. Even dialogue is unfair. You look at the witty, adult lines that Patrick Mulcahey writes for B&B compared to the expository dross that frequents Passions and there's no contest. It's the same over here -- Corrie always has extraordinarily real and funny dialogue even if the stories at the time are [!@#$%^&*] whereas EE occasionally has "down to earth" working class characters arguing, wailing and pontificating with dialogue that's almost Shakesperean.

The issue that nobody seems to address is that up until the 1980s, there was actually very little difference between UK and US soaps. They were both studio based, fairly theatrical on occasion but rooted in realistic storylines and normal communities. In the 1980s, they diverged. Gloria Monty provoked a fantasy based mode of storytelling whereas everything over here became very, very social issue oriented as a backlash against Thatcherism. The main problem is that while the UK have still managed to create soaps with more individual identity and scope (EastEnders for social issues, Emmerdale for tawdry camp melodrama, Crossroads or Night and Day for pure escapism), the US shows have tended to mould into one. They've all tried to go the escapist route to the point that any realism is thrown out the window. Is that a bad thing? No, not if you want that kind of storytelling. The shame isn't when realism goes out the window, it's logic that's the problem and all soaps are guilty of that at one time or another.

[All My Shadows]

You just spoke volumes with one paragraph. It all makes so much sense!

And I forgot all about how throughout the 1960s and 1970s, there was little difference between the US and UK soaps. Looking at old "Crossroads" and "Coronation Street" clips, they were done on tape just like our shows and had sets like our shows and all of that. It wasn't until "Brookside" and "EastEnders" came in the 1980s that they started to look much more different. In a way, "Brookside" and "EastEnders" are like what "General Hospital" had become, meaning that they were praised for their new ways of doing an old genre and sort of set the tone for the other soaps on the air. The only difference is that "Brookside" and "EastEnders" were new shows. GH had been on the air for nearly 20 years.

But again, wow, James, you just summed it all up perfectly, I think.

[Bree]

I've seen some episodes of Coronation Street and compared to US soaps, they were boring, because we aren't used to a lot of stories based in realism. I did enjoy the scenes where people were talking, having real conversations on the street and in the shops. I also liked that the actors and actresses weren't always extremely good-looking, and many characters were working class. But you can't group all US soaps into one general category. I don't think this guy would like it if we watched a few clips of British soaps and made derogatory statements about them.

He also obviously forgot about Footballer$ Wives, which is extremely campy, and over-the-top, and features pretty boys and girls.

[King]

Um, no. "Realism" would be no more witches, devils, cartoons (literal cartoons), baby switching, dead fetuses, sperm switchings that defy biology (twins having two different fathers), aliens, brain-washing, absurd SOARAS-ing, etc etc etc

[WTGH]

PREACH!

I don't watch soaps looking to cure cancer and I'm not looking to make a relevant and poignant difference in the world by doing so.

Why would I want to see average people's problems? Please... I see that everyday.

My sister's lastest drama with her boyfriend.

Petty She-Said, He-Said fights.

BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I want to see something different. Mainly, larger than life characters who are insanely rich, schemers and lovers. Sprinkle in a bit of family/vets and I'm sold.

[All My Shadows]

Oh, in those cases, well hell yeah, bring it on! Those are the things that make soaps laughing stocks. When you see parodies of soaps, at least two or three of those things are present. I guess we can thank our friends JERk and McTrash for that.

But I'm talking about the "gritty" stuff. The darkness, the dreariness of the sets. I mean, think about it. This is a show that is made in the United Kingdom, which is notorious for rainy weather. And they have outside sets. Which means, more often than not, the skies are grey. The interior sets are just as bad. Whenever I watch EE clips, I can barely tell what's going on because it's so dark in the homes. That might not seem like much, but it fricken bored me to tears.

And if they consider "realism" to be social issues stories, well then that is not something that only UK soaps have. Our shows are so hideous at doing it nowadays, but anything written by Agnes Nixon, especially throughout the 1960s and 1970s, should be considered just as real and just as important as what "EastEnders" puts on. All you have to do is sit down and read yearly synopses of OLTL and AMC from about 1968 up until about 1982 and you'll see that soaps can be socially relavent without having to be dark and depressing.