Jump to content

Primetime Soaps


Recommended Posts

  • Members

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 by Soaplovers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

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 by All My Shadows
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.)      

Please register in order to view this content

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.   

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 by Broderick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.  

Please register in order to view this content

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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 by DRW50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Well now we had Ashley's reaction-and weren't we all gasping when she appeared to hate it-but she was just joking!! She loved it. Now we have to see Abby's reaction, and maybe Mamie could come back to say she loves it. How about Jill via Zoom giving her opinion (she'll love it) and bring in a day player to play Mrs Martinez to say she loves it also... I feel bad to keep dumping on this show (not really) but when the choices they make are so inane, it's the only entertainment value the show has. Let's unpack the Nikki birthday story. So Claire wants to throw her Nana a birthday bash as away of endearing Kyle to Victor. Don't quite get the logic there,but OK. She hires a party planner who makes ridiculous suggestions. Slightly annoyed that Y&R are hiring someone for this role for 5 episodes when we never see doctors, co- workers etc. But OK to that to. With all the talk we are expecting something special. What we get is the Jazz Lounge hideously decorated with some ugly tablecloths and a few tacky decorations. They needed a planner for this? Then the guest list consists of family members (no grandchildren)and a few others. Hardly a party. As usual the costuming is pretty awful. A red and black theme ? And our guest of honor is sporting a do that looks like a cross between Cameron Diaz in Something about Mary and Marie from Roxette. They should have had an intimate dinner and ditched all the fanfare. Would have been way more believable.
    • Please register in order to view this content

    • Her accent sounds horrible and doesn't fit in line with the character or the dialogue. I was just messing around on YouTube and perusing early Tad and Dixie videos. Notably, Dixie, a resident of Pigeon Hollow, West Virginia, has no discernible accent. i have no idea why she would add a defunct accent to this character now. I want to do an honest survey here. I watch BTG every day and I love it. It's not perfect, but I find it 99% entertaining. For those that find fault with it - what is actually bothering you? I'm not going to argue at all, or disagree with you. I just want to know what others are seeing that I'm not.
    • It's a choice and today, she made it more British than ever before. It's almost like she's making Pamela act like how she thinks she should be acting.
    • I cannot believe there is a whole storyline about the Abbott house renovation. They really are grasping over at Y&R. I don’t see a big difference in the set. It is refreshed. Why make a storyline out of it? 
    • Cady is using what sounds like a transatlantic accent which is so odd these days. Sharon's hostility is entertaining already. That look she gave Anita when she opened the door was pure attitude.
    • Glad you agree about Chandler’s smirking. It’s the reason I criticize him. He hasn’t grown as an actor, unfortunately. I don’t fawn over him because of his looks. I wish he’d never appear until he loses his smirking style of acting.  Dee is doing a great job but yes, the story with the bandages isn’t the best. I get it- Drake wasn’t available and its a throwback to how John came to Salem, but it’s tough to get into the scenes when we know it’s not Drake under the bandages. 
    • From that same channel, Anything For Love, which failed to make NBC's 1985-86 schedule. With all due respect to Lauren Tewes and Vicki Lawrence, that this was under consideration seems less about their star power and/or chemistry and more that NBC wanted its own Kate & Allie. Still, kudos to Lauren for being rehabilitated enough in one year to already go on the comeback trail.

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Some of my first memories of GL are Reva's last episodes before she "died." As a kid, those moments were extremely dramatic, and it did make the character a bit of a legend in my mind, even though the show quickly moved on, due to the departure of Robert Newman.  Due to this, I was never really upset when Reva came back. I think if the show had been in better shape, I might have been, but at the time, if I felt like anyone was eating up the show, it was Dinah. I would have taken Reva any day, even though it was clear even then that the show did not really know how to use her, saddling her with the busted Alan pairing, then at Fifth Street, and the stalled-out reunion with Josh. I got the sense the show didn't really know what tone to take with Reva and maybe even resented her a little. I missed her relationship with Sarah, and I knew Reva wasn't what she could have been. Once Rauch arrived, he put the pedal to the medal with Reva. She was centered, whereas under Laibson she had been a "big" name awkwardly fit into the canvas. She also became even more generic, and after the initial exciting Annie vs Reva tangles, the show fell into a long list of iffy story ideas that were clearly just there to keep her in story rather than benefiting the character (the island, the island hunk, the clone, San Cristobel, Jeva breakup #40, a talk show, blindness, time travel, stalking, etc.) But I never felt like Kim lost her step, and unlike Beth Ehlers, I never felt like Kim herself lost her spark in dreary material. I don't think I disliked Reva even then nor did I feel like there were times she was suffocating other characters. I think this is, again, more down to the rest of the show by this point - it was much more superficial than the GL I had started watching. Much duller. If Vanessa and Holly had been in their best years when Reva had returned, if Bev's Alex had still been around, if a new generation of compelling and complicated heroines or anti-heroines on par with Blake, Harley, even Eleni in the early '90s had been around, I would have been more annoyed at Reva's presence. But they weren't, and the few newer young characters I did connect with, like Drew, certainly had their share of story. There were reports of rivalries with rising names like Cynthia Watros, but it was clear Watros was not going to stay even if she and Kim had been BFF, which meant I never blamed Kim for that loss of dynamism in the cast.  So Reva never really bothered me. However, I do get annoyed at the narrative of Zimmer the brave truthteller, Zimmer holding the show together, Zimmer as the show's face, and so forth. She was certainly a key part of GL's last years, she's a tough person who is willing to admit flaws, she always gave everything to her work, she had a legion of devoted fans. Reva just was never a character who brought me that level of love or hate. And in the end I don't think her contributions to the show, good or bad, were ever as meaningful as they are meant to be. It's just that history remembers the personalities, especially with a juicy memoir. I think that her influence is overhyped, and so are her instincts for the role, as the producer she intensely disliked is the one I think gave her most of her best material post 1990.  When I think of GL, I don't ever think of Reva first, and even in the show's barest years when she was one of the only "stars," I did not. When I think of GL, it's always going to be Vanessa, or Ross, or Ed and Maureen, or Beverlee, or early Harley, or young Bill and Michelle, or Gilly, or Hamp, or Billy, or Henry, or Sherry's Blake...or just GL itself, such a nuanced, messy show, nothing else on daytime like it, not then, not now. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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