O.J. Didn't Do It (Kill Soaps, That Is)

[Mitchapalooza]

Wait, wait WAIT!

Just because "Carly Being Buried Alive" was a new sensational storyline that all of a sudden it was a garbage storyline of the 90's??

THINK AGAIN!

Carly Being Buried Alive was IMO one of DAYS best storylines ever and it was extremely well written. Although it was unrealistic, it definetly was entertaining and was nothing close to "garbage" IMO.

And again, Sami was not sent to the gas chamber, she was lethally injected and if for some reason this article was a means to "devalue" THAT storyline as well...it was an emotionally powerful storyline that single handedly won DAYS OF OUR LIVES the Writer's Guild and Director's Guild of America awards that year and that SHOULD have won DAYS the emmy for Best Series.

I also do not agree with this reporters view. The OJ Simpson trial definetly impacted the ratings, I mean for christ sakes it pre-empted soaps EVERY week for MONTHS on end...you have to bed people just gave up and found something new!

There may have been other choices out there but the OJ Simpson Trial definetly impacted viewership and an argument can definetly be made that it caused people to just quit.

[Y&RWorldTurner]

Some of you how to fess up to the fact that JER's original stint on Days wasn't for everyone. Though, Days was extremely popular in the 90's, the show also lost a ton of respect from critics and industry insiders because of JER's stunts and shock tactics. Notice how popular Days was at the SOD awards in the 90's and compare it to its virtual shut-out at the Emmy's year after year (though the show was nominated several times in the 90's, it was never able to win any major Emmy awards).

In the 80's, every soap but Y&R (and AMC to an extent) followed the creative vision GH pioneered with the super-couples and campy adventure-type storytelling. Days perhaps ripped off this formula the most. Fast-forward to the 90's, when JER came in, he amped up the camp, unrealistic storylines were the norm, viewers were interested yes, but did anyone really look at Days as "serious" soap anymore? No! GH, by caparison, severely toned down the camp and focused on social issues, character-driven stories, and returned to basics, thanks in part to Wendy Riche and Claire Labine. Needless to say, GH became the darling of critics, industry insiders, and remained extremely popular into the 90's.

JER's creative vison, though it brought in the viewers for a time, hurt Days in the long-run and hurt the genre as a whole.

[EricMontreal22]

AMC was relatievely devoid of the GH campy adventures and supercouples in the 80s--relatively (Loving and Ryan's Hope too). OLTL on the other hand when Rauch came in wasn't at all. Days however was the show that in th e80s took that GH formula and had the most success with it (even the same writer for a while)

[RuAsRuAnAu]

Yes, I remember it & I don't get how this was a "shock and awe" story & that people hated this & McTavish for this. It was character-driven for the most part (McTavish rocked AMC in her first few months of her 3rd stint). In case people don't realize: Rape is a reality. Just becaude Bianca is a lesbian doesn't immune from being raped. About 3% of the population is lesbian, so about 3% of lesbians are raped by men. People hated it b/c Bianca is a lesbian. No wonder if doggone difficult to writer for gay characters; the gay press & a minority of homosexuals vilify you if gay characters are portrayed in a negative manner. If this continues, there will be an increasingly less number of gay characters. Wanna bet? Case in point: OLTL's Nora Hanen's murderous ex-hubby. Last time I checked, the only difference b/w gays & non-gays were their sexual orientation. Gays, like non-gays, can be murderers, rapists, or people with good values.

[Gray Bunny]

I thought the problem people had with it was that AMC was once again dancing around the issue of Bianca's sexuality without actually giving her a same-sex romance. Rape, pregnancy, baby "death", baby switch, etc. etc. etc..... But no serious romantic pairings.

Hence, the "daytime first" for ATWT's Luke. Not only a male teen, but an actual full-fledged romantic storyline.

[EricMontreal22]

Well so far--though they did have to tie it into murder, etc (but so far I don't mind I am enjoying it). I do agree with the rape skirting the issue however I think the actual rape and aftereffects were responsiblya nd dramaqtically well handled and for a while made AMC must see again--and really that kinda rape storyline (sexuality aside) had been done in much more tasteless and graphic ways on soaps since the 70s! I agree lopping it in here doens't make a lot of sense

[Cat]

I usually enjoy reading Marlena Delacroix and her thoughts, but I'm really disappointed by this particular column.

She offers no defense of the way soaps were -- quality writing, quality acting, characters people cared about. And she presents no solution here.

Instead, when she interviews Chris Goutman (who I assume is the EP she's referring to), she essentially torpedoes the purpose of her question "Why are you casting only beautiful, inexperienced actors under 35 now, instead of the older, really talented actors like the ones you are famed for casting directly from Broadway?" in other words, why aren't you looking for quality?

"You see which stations you stop and pause at the longest?" he asked. "It's the channels that have the most attractive people. They are young. They have immediate sex appeal. That's who you stop and watch. That's how television is going to work from now on."

And on that 2-second test, Daytime was changed forever!

I wish she could have made a stronger defense for going back to the kind of writing which typified a lot of 70s, 80s and 90s soaps! I'm not a nursing-home fan (in my early 30s here!) but I really miss that. I'm still holding out hope that Daytime is going through a phase and will return to stronger, more compelling story-telling, though.

[EricMontreal22]

That little bit bugs me too (is it Chris Goutman though? It sounded like she was talking to someone who'd been in the industry for ages andI thought he was relatively young)

There are a few things--casting models and casting people often based first on looks is not somethign that suddenly popped up with no warning in the mid 90s. Look at soaps from the early 80s (for the most part--especially the hits) or even before. And it's not something that only daytime ahs suffered from--TV has gotten increasingly better and better looking over the years (even the British soaps, known for "average looking people" has seen this happen more and more).

I mean even watching some of the episodes I have on tape of AMC from 1971--the actors playing Tara and Phil (and, sorry Susan Lucci but you too back then) were NOT hired for their Broadway expreince and training. It has undniably gotten worse (and I prefer the New York soaps largely because they still do often use people with theatre background)

And whiel the eye is undeniably more trained to stop on attractive people--that theory just hasn't proven to be true or to explain the dumbing down of soaps in general (again look at 80s soap clips--there are some of Doug D from Y&R when he was Jill's gardener where he literally looks like a buffed, oiled Chippendales dancer--John Conboy once aroudn that time advertised that certain actors on Capitol would be in their swimsuit all Summer long, etc etc)

[Cat]

Oh, ITA this is not some new idea that execs stumbled upon in 1995. I remember hearing rumors that during the 1970s and 80s, a very important soap writer, HW on many shows, used to have his latest new boyfriends routinely cast on whatever show he was working on. Maybe as a dayplayer or a small part (it made me wonder if the writer in question was the superb Douglas Marland!). Heck, look at GH's iconic Brenda -- Vanessa Marcil was picked for her lovely looks and her youth, and she grew to make that character her own, for better or for worse.

And that's why Marlena's feature bothers me. She's making out that soaps turned this corner towards "superficiality" back in '95 and (it is implied) we had just better get damn used to the way things are now!

IMO, this ignores the whole problem going on with Daytime at the moment, which is that the WRITING is sh!t, not necessarily the actors. If the product is poor quality, why should we invest in it?

Because, trust me, if soaps were gold-standard good, again, if they were exciting, compelling, romantic, if they had characters that were three-dimensional, characters that we are attached to and have been for years... then we would be tuning in. We would be logging onto abc.com or cbs.com and watching the shows there, or watching SoapNet or TiVoing and having those TiVo figures show up in the ratings (because they do count them sometimes).

Viewers love serial dramas. They just like it wrapped up in a classy, well-written package, à la Brothers & Sisters or Desperate Housewives or about 1000 other Primetime hits.

BTW, her comment about Judith Light bothers me. I've seen clips of Light's stint on OLTL on YouTube -- not only was she compelling to watch as an actress, she was also a very attractive lady. And on Ugly Betty she looks (and acts) like a million bucks.

[Sylph]

She does that all the time, actually. Every column she writes has at least a sentence in which she's writing about a past regime that worked magic on a particular show. So she didn't want to be repetitive.

And I also think she's a realist - things will never be the way they were.

[Cat]

Oh, I know she does, and that's why I read her column every week. I was just disappointed that, in this particular instance, she did not.

Sure, things will never be the way they were, but I'd like to think that some semblence of quality control is NOT an "old fashioned" conceit.

[JamesF]

It seems that Marlena is wrapped up in the same tunnel vision that plagues people working within the industry as far as quality is concerned. Good writing is good writing -- there's nothing old fashioned about it. The same goes for production values.

What they don't get and seemingly never will is that the old and the new need to be joined together to create a better project. Primetime has got that. It's producing more interesting, soapy drama serials than it has done in years. The raft of "high caliber" actors and writers flocking to shows like Brothers and Sisters, Ugly Betty, Desperate Housewives, Damages, Nip/Tuck, Cane etc etc is proof of that.

There is an answer. Infinitely better production values and good original writing. Neither are hard to implement. There are thousands upon thousands of exceptional writers and actors who would love nothing more than to crack into the industry but instead daytime continues to hire recycled burn outs and inexperienced former models.

And as far as production values are concerned it amazes me that there has been no progression in the last twenty years. While primetime shows are sold to international markets who could only dream of affording to produce something of such high technical quality, daytime sudsers are seen as laughing stocks the world over because of their dated look -- they pale into comparison to domestic products such as Home and Away etc that are produced on a fraction of the budget. That's the caveat. Industry bigwigs harp on and on about TiVo and changing audiences yet expect US viewers to watch amazingly produced shows in primetime and accept crappy looking shows in daytime.

It really isn't rocket science.

[Sylph]

What made you say that?

People are endlessly talking about the dated look, and rightly so, but I don't think much will change. At least not soon enough. I think it has to do with the fact that you have to pay the crew the triple you would have to when working in a studio (agreements with the guilds). And that largely increases the costs.

I'm not sure how does it function in Australia, but they can get away with location shootings and better sets quite easily and are thus so much different from US soaps in every aspect. By changing the look, you also change the feel of the show and the stories one can write for it. And US soaps should change and fast.

[JamesF]

My first comment was just addressing the fact that the article didn't give any real acknowledgement of the ability to change but to give the benefit of the doubt, that's a whole separate article and Marlena clearly isn't stupid. It's the same fatalistic attitude that the industry itself seems to have (although on their part it's a complete inability to show any introspection). There are few innovators in daytime these days. People can criticise Ellen Wheeler til the cows come home but what can be said is that she tries to stretch her meager budget and thinks outside the box to varying success.

As far as the look is concerned -- I won't let them off with any excuse. The CW dramas pull in the same numbers as daytime with higher production values. I know the argument is that it's only an hour a week in primetime but there can be differences in proportion of location/studio shooting. There needs to be some acknowledgement that these shows take place in an identifiable universe. Goutman or whoever (though I'm guessing Rauch due to the age) can do the 2 minute test on attractiveness of the cast but it's even more integral when applied to the look of the show. People flicking through will be seeing these bright, airy shows of all descriptions and then hit the brown backgrounds of daytime with the outdoors represented by a pot plant and a papier mache rock.

The British and Australian soaps used to be the same but they changed their entire mode of production to compete with other shows in the 80s and 90s respectively. Neighbours is even moving studios this year to have a bigger outdoor backlot which is the key to more affordable outdoor shooting even if location shoots aren't put into the equation. Sunset Beach managed extensive regular locations by simply using Seal Beach when required. Then you read stories of John Conboy blowing $1 million on a baseball set. The soaps are shot completely inefficiently.

[RuAsRuAnAu]

Well, advertisers pay much more for a 30-second commercial for primetime series who's average viewer age is less than 40.

I think GL & BB have the oldest median age among the 8 shows.