Members ljacks13 Posted September 12, 2007 Members Share Posted September 12, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EastMA2 Posted September 13, 2007 Members Share Posted September 13, 2007 Thank you! Great article. I think that soaps will be around for awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted September 13, 2007 Members Share Posted September 13, 2007 The article would be much better if they did not have Michael Logan's comments....he knows nothing about soaps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted September 13, 2007 Members Share Posted September 13, 2007 That has to be one of the most short-sighted pieces of writing ever. To talk about the death of soaps and not mention the horrific excuses for writing that viewers have bemoaned for years is irresponsible. All that crap about changes in society's television habits and changing media is a lame diversion. What this magazine is too afraid to say is that the soap industry is a nepotistic mix of people with no fresh ideas who keep bouncing from show to show despite their previous failures. I guess really going for the jugular would cost SOD any and all future exclusive info. But the soaps will be dead soon anyway, so they might as well say what we all know. When the film industry needed direction as the studio system was dying out, new blood infused the medium with powerful changes. Where are the next Spielbergs, Coppolas, Lucases and Scorceses in daytime? As the article said, most Americans don't watch soaps. Well, the networks don't promote them outside the programming block that they air during every day! Prime time is touted morning noon and night, but you'll never see a promo for GH during Grey's Anatomy. If Maura West just won a best actress Emmy, why the hell hasn't she talked to David Letterman about it? They share a network. The bottom line is, all businesses want a way to cut costs somehow. In television, cheaper programming that doesn't involve actors, writers, sets and costumes is the answer, and the execs won't stop the bleeding until their budgets are balanced with 6 hours of Today or Good Morning America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted September 13, 2007 Members Share Posted September 13, 2007 I don't think George Lucas was well known for his writing...it was the storytelling and special effects that got him fame but not actual dialogue writing. Still he is creative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Siggy Posted September 13, 2007 Members Share Posted September 13, 2007 George Lucas isn't a dialogue writer, IMO. I believe Harrison Ford once told him that he could write "this sh*t", but they couldn't say it. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted September 13, 2007 Members Share Posted September 13, 2007 Who said it's all about writing? Lucas is an auteur in a visual medium. A good soap writer needs a good executive producer too. I had hoped that the more substantive elements of my post would be examined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted September 13, 2007 Members Share Posted September 13, 2007 HAHAHAHA too funny....well he just wasn't a talented writer but hey he gave us three great films. However I still think Lord of the Rings tops Star Wars But back on topic...I agree with stenbeck that SOD failed to mention how it is the lack of payoff and originality stemming from today's writers and how soaps continue to recycle the ones who just aren't cutting it. What they need is new blood and a fresh outlook on the genre as well as top executives who care about the industry. Brian Frons needs to get the ax as he knows nothing about soaps and has made far too many bad decisions as ABC President. Just get some writers there who will write character driven stuff and not necessarily always adhere to plot and not also sell something...just write. Cancel the stale concepts such as Who's the Daddy, babyswitch, back from the dead, turning characters into superhero wannabes (ahem AMC's Ryan!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sungrey Posted September 13, 2007 Members Share Posted September 13, 2007 The soap press and spoilers are part of the problem. Who wants to see a show when you know ahead of time what's going to happen? (Well, we all do, but back to the topic.) One of the thrills of watching a show like Edge of Night was you never knew what the hell would happen on a Friday cliffhanger. Nowadays you'd open up SOD and it pretty much advertises the Friday cliffhangers. Not only that, sometimes a character involved in a Friday cliffhanger like a car accident is shown in the previews for Monday uninjured. Boy, what a way to wreck suspense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted September 13, 2007 Members Share Posted September 13, 2007 ^In the age of the internet, you'd never get away from spoilers. Albums leak, bootleg movies come out... I think the thrills you got from EON were rooted in good storytelling. Spoilers never made me stop watching a show, but I do think TPTB have gotten less clever at crafting spoilers so they don't give everything away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sedrick Posted September 13, 2007 Members Share Posted September 13, 2007 IMO what the soaps need behind the scenes are individuals with not just talent, but people with talent and HEART...a love for the art form that is continuing daytime drama. I have concluded that most of the current writers and producers, very few of them seem to care about the product they are producing, and it shows on screen. That is a direct insult to the loyal audiences that have stuck by these programs for generations! Here is a simple recent example: one show just concluded a major murder trial that lasted for weeks, and it was painfully obvious to even a viewer who has NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER of the American criminal justice system that the show's writers didn't even bother to consult with a real-life legal advisor for technical assistance. The late great Irna Phillips is said to have always prided herself on making sure that any medical and/or legal story or plot point presented on her programs were always technically accurate, as she employed real doctors and attorneys to review her scripts for accuracy; she felt it was her duty to make sure she wasn't passing on errorous information to her large audiences. The great writers and producers of the past took great care in planning their stories, treating the characters and their situations as if they were real living people. The result were programs featuring stories and people that struck a cord with audiences...we invested our time and feelings in our soaps because no matter what, even despite the sometimes outrageous and/or melodramatic situations sometimes presented, we as viewers were always able to IDENTIFY with the characters in some way...we could root for them and understand them...Soap opera was the one entertainment medium in this nation that was able to truly offer as close to real life visual document of the American story, an at often times superb chronicle of the evolving nature and characteristics of the human condition. Compare that to what the soaps offer us in 2007: in short, mostly nothing but frustration and disappointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members whyamcwhy Posted September 13, 2007 Members Share Posted September 13, 2007 Stenbeck and Sedrick, GREAT posts!!!!! The industry is quick to blame everything and anyone else for their problems. I do think that some of things mentioned in the article are correct but until TIIC recognize that they are part of the blame and problem, I am not sure soaps have a chance. They have made a TON of poor business decisions, gotten rid of so many good actors, writers, etc. and kept so many with mediocre talent. It is one stupid move after another and yet they continue to look at everything else but themselves. For instance, they are too focused on the wrong demographic. They are worried about drawing in kids so they alienate the viewers that they already have. Maybe they bring in one new viewer for every hundred that they lose. That really makes a difference (slight sarcasm). I am just not very optimistic with the future of soaps. If they fire Frons and Bloom, get someone with strong ideas in who love the genre, maybe, just maybe some of the soaps will survive. But does anyone see that happening???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members leevo64 Posted September 13, 2007 Members Share Posted September 13, 2007 I think it's a combination of writing, production and directing. I don't think I've seen anyone on Days of our Lives actually act since JT was taken from the Bradys. Tate's trial on One Life to Live fell flat because it was written in a rush to end the story. Thank goodness Ed Scott took over DAYS, he could restore some dignity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members koos Posted September 13, 2007 Members Share Posted September 13, 2007 He better hurry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted September 14, 2007 Members Share Posted September 14, 2007 To be fair I've become a bit blase to all fo this--I started watchign soaps when Iw as 11 or so with AMC in 92 and very quickly added OLTL and Loving and became fairly aware--even at that young age, about the medium in general, reading books from the library, etc (by the time I was 13-14 anyway). I remember even then by around 1995-96 people bemoaning the death of soaps and how shows like AMC had sunk to an "all time low" while it' snot good news that since then those "low" years look in hindsight pretty good, and I do think somethign needs ot be done abotu soaps--I've become more and more immune to the idea that as a genre they're going away and dieing anytime soon... One thing not brought up in the article, or on here that I've seen yet, but I have seen brought up elsewhere is not only is TV very different nowadays--but the desires that soaps once fed into are being met not just elsewhere--but on tv in general more often nowadays. Until relatievly recently, daytime tv was the ONLY place to watcha tv show and really see the characters grow and develop over time. There were exceptions like Peyton Place but otherwise most primetime tv existed in a vacuume--more or less over a season the characters of any primetime tv show would go back to the same "starting point" at the end of each hour episode. However that's simply not true anymore--maybe it was Dallas and its successors that truly did it but even in the 80s you had shows--like a cop show like Hill Street Blues had TONS of serial/soap opera elements to hook a viewer and truly absorb them--even sitcoms did this and even used cliffhangars (Cheers being one of the first examples). Nowadays, while the hype is always on the truly serial based shows out there--Lost, 24, etc--it's rare that any t5v show exists in the way shows used to--even most sitcoms have some level of character development and story arch over each episode Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.