17 hours ago, Khan said:

"thirtysomething" was what David Jacobs always wanted KL to be, but couldn't pull off.  His writing wasn't that deep, and his cast wasn't that good.

So David Jacob wanted KL to be a show about whiners? 

My parents watched Thirtysomething and both told me years later how almost all the characters whined and complained all the time.  It was an actual punchline for many years about the show. 

At the same time, KL in season 1 wasn't sustainable and had to evolve.  It was given ample amounts of time until it found its groove.

Nowadays the show would have been canceled a few episodes into the first season.

I think NBC had trouble with primetime soaps because they weren't looking for a show that would work..just any show that was soapy.  

Of the short lived shows NBC tried, Flamingo Road was the best of the bunch.  And it's a shame that it got canceled instead of given more of a chance to right the ship.

 

Edited November 25, 20232 yr by Soaplovers

I never thought about the lack of single people at the start of KL, but now that I do, it kind of makes sense that David Jacobs didn't think to include any. All throughout the 70s, all of your "people" drama series (meaning, anything not a crime drama, medical drama, sci-fi, or western) focused on families with a married couple and children (the big four come to mind: Waltons, Little House, Family, and Eight is Enough). You only saw single adults in such series when the older kids grew up, but their love lives as single adults were still kinda portrayed the same as teenagers until they were married off.

When you think about it, it really makes you see how much of a game-changer Abby really was. Characters like her had only been played for laughs on sitcoms until she came along.

ETA: The talk of short-lived primetime soaps is lining up perfectly with the fact that I've been thinking about giving a quick rewatch to the three I watched during the pandemic - Paper Dolls, Yellow Rose, and 2000 Malibu Road.

Edited November 25, 20232 yr by All My Shadows

4 hours ago, Khan said:

I know Jacobs liked to say that Abby was in the works all along - just as he liked to tell people that he made Karen so aggressive in the pilot, because viewers would have been wondering who was going to be "the J.R." on the show - but I don't necessarily believe his claims, lol. 

I don't believe him either.  When Knots Landing premiered, David Jacobs was insistent that the "pitch" he'd initially given to CBS was "an American version of Scenes From a Marriage, which obviously wouldn't have included a "JR character" or an "Abby character".  CBS, of course, shot down his proposal as being too "dull" for their audience, and asked him instead to work-up something more EPIC, which inspired him to steal the characters from Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and move them from the Mississippi Delta to the setting of Giant, which he erroneously believed at the time was Dallas/Fort Worth.   The only way he ultimately convinced the network to greenlight Knots Landing was to purge one of the couples from his cul-de-sac and replace that couple with Gary & Valene, which he then complained about, because the "entire dynamic" of what he'd originally pitched was "compromised" by the addition of the Gary and Val and the deletion of Blank & Blank, whom he'd intended to place in that particular house.  (I've often wondered who 'Blank & Blank' were that got the axe.)      

2 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

So David Jacob wanted KL to be a show about whiners? 

😂

Apparently so!    

If you've studied Scenes From a Marriage, it's a story of whiners.  Their "problems" are things along the lines of "does my husband truly appreciate me for who I am and what I bring to his life?", or "does he just want a wife?".  "Does my wife really love me?  Has ANYONE ever loved me?" 

It's all sheer angst.  That's what David Jacobs claims he pitched to CBS for Knots Landing. 

I believe the more "mundane" a conflict is, and the more it's discussed, it leads to the WHINING accusation. 

If you look at the first season of thirtysomething, the episodes were built around the most mundane things imaginable.  In one episode, Ellyn discovered the apartment she was renting was converting to a co-operative.  If she wanted to stay in the building, she'd be expected to purchase the unit.  She whined about it for a solid hour.  She loved the building and didn't want to move.  But could she afford the down payment on the co-op?  What if Mr. Right came along suddenly and she had to dispose of a  co-op in a "down market" instead of merely breaking a lease on an apartment?  Horrors!!  Her whole life was turned upside down over the co-op conversion! 

As viewers, most of us will never run Colby Co or will never testify in a dramatic murder trial.  But at some point in our lives we will agonize over the purchase of real estate.  Yet I'd never seen this "issue" dramatized on TV before.  thirtysomething delved into it DEEPLY (along with many other things just as mundane), and that's what led to the "whining" accusation from your parents (and from me).  We're accustomed to shows where people just "buy a ranch" or "buy a penthouse" or "buy a multi-national conglomerate" and don't give it a second thought.  We're not accustomed to watching someone weigh the pros & cons of a major purchase.  Everyone I knew called them "the whining yuppies" or "the whining baby boomers", but in hindsight, they introduced some topics that resonated with a really big audience, and they dealt with those topics in a clever way.  Although at the time it seemed like mere whining.  

Gary was offered tenure at the University!  Would he need to cut his hair and shave?  Would he be expected to buy a car instead of riding his bicycle to class?!  Would he have to purchase a sportscoat and stop wearing his high school athletic jacket??  Was he trading his "bohemian independence" for the "bourgeois pompous lifestyle" he'd always railed against?!  Horrors!! 

Hope wanted Baby Janey to have a Christmas tree for her first holiday season, because all of Hope's happy holiday memories were built around Christmas trees.  Michael expected to have eight nights of the menorah (in the window!  on newly-fallen snow!) and NO Christmas tree!  Horrors!! "Maybe my parents were right," Michael whined to Elliot.  "Maybe I should've married a Jewish girl instead of a Christian."  Elliot, who was considering divorcing Nancy because of their insurmountable angst, rolled his eyes and said, "Why yes, Michael, our shared faith has certainly been a beacon in my wonderful marriage with Nancy!"  lol. 

It was NOTHING but whining, but it was whining about things most of us, at some point, do encounter.   

2 hours ago, All My Shadows said:

When you think about it, it really makes you see how much of a game-changer Abby really was. Characters like her had only been played for laughs on sitcoms until she came along.

I think you're right.  Abby showed an audience -- even in a somewhat negative way -- that a single person can indeed contribute to "family conflict", and probably paved the way for Gary, Ellyn, and Melissa to be an integral part of thirtysomething.   Had the show premiered in 1979, when Knots Landing did, it would've possibly been deemed necessary for Gary & Melissa to be married to each other and Ellyn wouldn't have been included at all.  

Edited November 25, 20232 yr by Broderick

2 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

At the same time, KL in season 1 wasn't sustainable and had to evolve.  It was given ample amounts of time until it found its groove.

Nowadays the show would have been canceled a few episodes into the first season.

Agree that having 4 married couples was limiting.

And the self contained episodes were eating up too much story. Karen's possible affair, Laura's rape etc could have gone on several episodes.

However, I don't agree that the the show would be cancelled. Knots ratings were inconsistent. Ep #1 was 23rd for the week,then 14th, 36th, 30th,14th , 38th and so on.

Not great but not cancellation worthy, neither then or now.

I think history demonstrates that most soaps find their footing in the second season.  Knots, Dynasty, and Falcon Crest are examples of that lesson.  Not just because they found their protagonist, but they established their tone.  The first season is experimental, the second shows progress, the third is often when a primetime soap hit its stride, the fourth begins showing signs of repetition. By the seventh season, when the primary contracts have expired, much of the initial cast is gone and they can never recapture the magic. 

5 hours ago, Khan said:

I realize that one could push boundaries only so far on network television in 1979, but why not have an interracial couple living in the cul-de-sac?  Or (gulp) a same-sex couple?  The more varied the couplings, I think, the more interesting they could have been to people watching.

There was a UK soap, Together, in the early '80s, which ended because the affiliate it was on (Southern) was shut down. They had a gay character in the first season and in the second and last, he moves a boyfriend in, and then they have various struggles (homophobia, of course, but also personality differences). It's a shame there is never a world where Knots or the other soaps would have done this...even Dynasty never let Steven's boyfriends stay around long enough. I just double checked and as soon as Steven said he would move in with Luke, Luke was gunned down. Then again, if death meant Luke could escape from Jack Coleman's wooden line readings, maybe he was better off.

2 hours ago, Broderick said:

If you look at the first season of thirtysomething, the episodes were built around the most mundane things imaginable.  In one episode, Ellyn discovered the apartment she was renting was converting to a co-operative.  If she wanted to stay in the building, she'd be expected to purchase the unit.  She whined about it for a solid hour.  She loved the building and didn't want to move.  But could she afford the down payment on the co-op?  What if Mr. Right came along suddenly and she had to dispose of a  co-op in a "down market" instead of merely breaking a lease on an apartment?  Horrors!!  Her whole life was turned upside down over the co-op conversion! 

As viewers, most of us will never run Colby Co or will never testify in a dramatic murder trial.  But at some point in our lives we will agonize over the purchase of real estate.  Yet I'd never seen this "issue" dramatized on TV before.  thirtysomething delved into it DEEPLY (along with many other things just as mundane), and that's what led to the "whining" accusation from your parents (and from me).  We're accustomed to shows where people just "buy a ranch" or "buy a penthouse" or "buy a multi-national conglomerate" and don't give it a second thought.  We're not accustomed to watching someone weigh the pros & cons of a major purchase.  Everyone I knew called them "the whining yuppies" or "the whining baby boomers", but in hindsight, they introduced some topics that resonated with a really big audience, and they dealt with those topics in a clever way.  Although at the time it seemed like mere whining.  

Gary was offered tenure at the University!  Would he need to cut his hair and shave?  Would he be expected to buy a car instead of riding his bicycle to class?!  Would he have to purchase a sportscoat and stop wearing his high school athletic jacket??  Was he trading his "bohemian independence" for the "bourgeois pompous lifestyle" he'd always railed against?!  Horrors!! 

Hope wanted Baby Janey to have a Christmas tree for her first holiday season, because all of Hope's happy holiday memories were built around Christmas trees.  Michael expected to have eight nights of the menorah (in the window!  on newly-fallen snow!) and NO Christmas tree!  Horrors!! "Maybe my parents were right," Michael whined to Elliot.  "Maybe I should've married a Jewish girl instead of a Christian."  Elliot, who was considering divorcing Nancy because of their insurmountable angst, rolled his eyes and said, "Why yes, Michael, our shared faith has certainly been a beacon in my wonderful marriage with Nancy!"  lol. 

It was NOTHING but whining, but it was whining about things most of us, at some point, do encounter.

Ironically, "thirtysomething" was one show I looked forward to watching every week (in bed, because it technically was on past my bedtime) and I was way, way, WAY outside their target audience in more ways than one, lol.

I, too, would love to know which couple Gary and Val replaced on KL.  I have to assume they were different from Kenny/Ginger, who were the show's designated young couple.  Maybe they were a couple who'd been married before but were now giving holy matrimony another try, lol.

1 hour ago, Khan said:

Ironically, "thirtysomething" was one show I looked forward to watching every week (in bed, because it technically was on past my bedtime) and I was way, way, WAY outside their target audience in more ways than one, lol.

I was far too young to understand MUCH of their "boomer angst", as well, but I usually made a point to watch it. 

What appealed to me about it was how non-homogenous they were.

Ellyn was your basic yuppy in her career goals (and in her attire), but she was also strangely neurotic and eccentric, almost like a Tennessee Williams heroine.  Gary and Melissa were orbiting around a "yuppy crowd" but were fundamentally bohemians who marched to the beat of a very non-yuppy drum.  Michael LOOKED like your basic yuppy and had a yuppy job, but instead of living in a Center City high-rise and driving a Mercedes, he lived in an old house (where something was always broken), had that old car, and expressed self-doubt (where you would've expected extreme confidence, considering his good looks). Hope was a housewife and stay-at-home mom in a period of time where most women her age were actively rejecting that role.   Nancy was a beaten-down artist who wanted to be creative, but felt saddled with two kids and a husband who was often a jerk.  Elliot seemed content to follow Michael down the Yuppy Brick Road but you could tell he envied Gary's free spirit and flagrant lack of commitment.    

Even though they were doing absolutely nothing in most episodes (except whining & whining, lol), they were entertaining to watch, because each character was so unique and cleverly drawn.  And the actors were GOOD, as evidenced by their zillion Emmy nominations.  

2 hours ago, DRW50 said:

If death meant Luke could escape from Jack Coleman's wooden line readings, maybe he was better off.

🤣 🤣 🤣

A divorcee living in the KL cul de sac would have been interesting and timely. Constance McCashin would have nailed it with John Pleshette as her ex who always wanted to get back together. A lot of story to explore there.

Laura making forays into the dating world, getting a job etc

Also  have Richard as a friend of Sid's working at Knots Landing motors to keep him in the story.

And also to add extra spice, have Kenny and Ginger living together rather than married.The first ep could show them deciding to co-habitate .But  Kenny and Ginger's motives would be different,and that could be explored.

That would have been a bit out there for 1979. 

1 hour ago, Broderick said:

Even though they were doing absolutely nothing in most episodes (except whining & whining, lol), they were entertaining to watch, because each character was so unique and cleverly drawn.  And the actors were GOOD, as evidenced by their zillion Emmy nominations.

I agree.

While we're talking about thirtysomething, I just remembered they got such severe backlash to showing a gay couple (recurring characters) in bed that they lost advertisers and helped cause a chilling effect. It's the reminder I sometimes need that no matter how much I want to see soaps or TV shows be more inclusive, the audience is often not going to let them do so, including an audience you might have expected better of than, say, somebody sitting down to watch Hee Haw (nothing against Hee Haw, I watched it for years as a kid).

Strangers (Thirtysomething) - Wikipedia

There was no public outcry about the episode before it aired. Following the broadcast, ABC received around 400 telephone calls with about 90% of them being negative. TV Guide in its "Cheers & Jeers" column gave the episode a "Jeer", saying that having the men have sex on the first date perpetuated negative stereotypes about the promiscuity of gay men. Five of the show's regular sponsors pulled out of the episode, costing the network approximately $1.5 million in advertising revenue. ABC removed the episode from the summer rerun schedule out of fear for additional losses.^[4] The controversy surrounding "Strangers" in the late 1980s, along with similar controversies relating to early 1990s episodes of such shows as Picket Fences ("Sugar & Spice") and Roseanne ("Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), led producers to refrain from presenting sexualization of their gay and lesbian characters. 

Edited November 26, 20232 yr by DRW50

On 11/25/2023 at 2:05 AM, j swift said:

I wonder if certain soaps just fit better with the characteristic programming of certain networks.

For example, I can't imagine a family soap like Knots playing anywhere else than CBS.  The sexy young adults of Melrose Place feels programmed specifically for FOX at that time in history.  And the camp of Dynasty played into the rest of the escapist/bombastic shows on ABC in the mid-80s.

Well, yes. Central Park West probably would've been more successful if it had been on Fox as an example as the only thing that was "wrong" with that show was that it was on the wrong network. Savannah was off-brand for the youthful The WB and was too expensive since it didn't repeat well and they couldn't afford doing more than 22 episodes per season.

 

NBC is the one network that never found their "brand" of prime time soaps - though you could argue that the Dick Wolf brand of Chicagos are soaps...

3 minutes ago, te. said:

NBC is the one network that never found their "brand" of prime time soaps - though you could argue that the Dick Wolf brand of Chicagos are soaps...

I'd argue Hill St. Blues, LA Law, and St. Elsewhere, although most involved with them would probably have retched if you called them soaps.

5 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I'd argue Hill St. Blues, LA Law, and St. Elsewhere, although most involved with them would probably have retched if you called them soaps.

Those shows had soapy elements but we all know they were not soaps.

To fit NBCs brand I guess  their soap should have been urban,maybe  a little gritty and daring.

Sisters was a relative success.Did it fit the NBC brand?

7 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I'd argue Hill St. Blues, LA Law, and St. Elsewhere, although most involved with them would probably have retched if you called them soaps.

Hell, in a recent interview Nicolette Sheridan pointed out that Knots was a night time drama. People still have an aversion to the term soap for whatever reason.