Jump to content

ALL: The Brits attack AMERICAN SOAPS!


Recommended Posts

  • Members

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

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

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

  • Members

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

  • Members

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

  • Members

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

  • Members

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

  • Members

Well said! Yet another reason why I could care less what this guy thinks... :rolleyes:

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! :lol:

ooh, and btw, love the avatar. Huge NLG fan here!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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

  • Members

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I think they’re desperately trying to cover his awful tattoos. But anyway them being unable to style short kings properly has been a major pet peeve of mine for a while now.  I honestly don’t understand what some people expect from actors to even begin considering them for recognition. Let’s be real—awards mostly mean that an actor is respected by their peers and has some level of cultural relevance. Actual judgment on the acting itself? That’s often secondary—highly subjective and shaped by the times. I completely agree on both points. If you’re an actor or a dancer you shouldn’t get any tattoos (sorry not sorry). Tomas’ tattoos are ugly too. And regarding the couples- you’re completely right. These writers are unable to write romance.   Further comments: - Kat cannot be this dumb to keep tampering with evidence over and over again. And I’m officially not a fan of the actress—every time she’s in a scene with Leslie, she doesn’t seem intimidated at all. She plays it like comic relief, which is just too much, especially when paired with Leslie’s histrionics and over-the-top antics. Leslie is older, dangerous, and has literally been portrayed as homicidal—Kat should be at least a little scared. • I also didn’t like Kat playing damsel in distress with the hotel manager. It gave off the same weird energy as Dani with the cop. I would’ve much preferred the version Paul Raven suggested, with her sneaking in through housekeeping. • And yes, Dani again accused Hayley of faking the pregnancy—this time even specifying she might be using a pillow under her shirt. (No fake miscarriage being mentioned) I stand by my take: this is ridiculous writing. No one in the real world—except us, the chronically online soap watchers—would even think of such a conspiracy theory. Haley is no Beyoncé. • What in the world was Chelsea wearing in her hair the other day? And this whole thing with Madison is beyond cringe. Chelsea’s coming off as needy and toxic—basically like every other Dupree. • I’m glad the casino storyline is moving forward, but it’s still boring as hell. Honestly, I’d be so here for a plot twist where Vanessa and Doug take Joey out. • The direction and editing lately have been rough. Abrupt cuts, weird pacing… something just feels off overall. There’s a strange uneasiness to how it’s all coming together. • And finally: Tomas is too much of a saint. Where are the messy sluts when you need them? (Vanessa doesn’t count.)
    • Andrew sure has hard nips.
    • I was watching some August 1987 episodes and they brought back so many memories. I had some thoughts: Lisa and Jamie were so dull. Lisa was such a nothing character. It boggles my mind that so much story was centered around her in such a short amount of time. Joanna Going is a talented actress, but the material was just not there.  It was so good to see Wallingford and Mitch again. I know there was talk about Felicia a while back, but these episodes reminded me how integral Felicia was for the show.  Sally Spencer was done so dirty. She is turning in superb performances in an icky storyline. I wish she had stuck around longer. She has chemistry with everyone. The McKinnons should have lasted longer. Spencer had some strong stuff with Stephen Schnetzer and Mary Alexander. AW waster such a talented actress by getting rid of her. Justice for Cheryl too. I also missed Ed Fry when he left. Sandra Ferguson was a star from the moment she came on. She was charismatic and just popped. She had immediate chemistry with RKK and blended in well with Wyndham and Watson. I'd forgotten about the teenage Matthew.  I have no memory of Peggy Lazarus. She must not have lasted long. Was the original plan for John that he was going to turn out to be the twins' real father?      
    • If the new and improved copies that @rsclassicfanforever has uploaded can be manually moved into the "by month, by year" folders, that would be awesome. I personally don't think it's necessary to keep the older versions (which either have Dutch subtitles hard coded on them, or are lesser in picture quality). That's a lot of valuable drive space that could be cleared. Just my view but can appreciate others may feel differently. The structure had been by month by year previously, so I think it would be easier to conform to that, where so much prior work to get it to that format has already been done. Hopefully you can "drag and drop" so the new copies are in the right month/year? Re Clips, I never look at them now we pretty much have the episodes in full. Appreciate others may use, however. Thanks for all your hard work here @BoldRestless!
    • Oh yes defintely, Josh Griffith repeats and repeats the same storylines.
    • Isnt’t this storyline similar to the Cameron Kirsten situation though? Sharon thought she killed him. He ended up being alive and Sharon was being tormented with thinking she was seeing his face everywhere and that’s how we got that iconic scene with her and Nikki in the sewers.   I understand in Mariah’s case this is different circumstances but it does seem like a play on that whole thing. Maybe I’m wrong. I just wish if they were going to make any character follow in Sharon’s foot steps it would be Faith. Mariah wasn’t even raised by her, and her personality is different. I would expect her to take a different path. I understand I could be completely jumping ahead because the storyline hasn’t even played out yet but we’ll see. 
    • Thanks again @Paul Raven Monica was completely without redeeming qualities at this point. I always found the whole Monica = Carly narrative regressive, as I don't think shows comparing characters so heavily is ever a great idea, but she's actually worse than Carly was. Was it the Pollocks who had Leslie have a miscarriage?  Giving her a child, especially by rape, was not a good idea, but a part of me wishes they'd committed to it just to see what story it might have had in later years.
    • @janea4old Your detailed explanation and delving into the psychology and motivations is no doubt the opposite of what we will see onscreeen. As @ranger1rg stated we will get a few scenes and some sketchy explanations. Like the adoption of Aria, most of it will take place off screen.
    • I'm suddenly fearful that DAYS is going to pull a Flowers-for-Algernon stunt and Bo's progress will be reversed.  While @te. is stuck on Abe's tiny bedroom, I can't stop thinking of the size of Bo's huge hospital room.
    • Okay, why are Paulina and Abe sleeping like that?!  I'd take a screen grab if I wasn't lazy, but come on.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy