This has probably already been pinpointed, but the two biggest problems that I see is that 1.) characters act on such flimsy motivation and 2.) there is no fallout from anything big that happens, give it a week and it's all moved on. I still think there should be a panel of long-time fans from each show who help the writers and can consult on history and what their favourite characters would or wouldnt do. Like a focus group but SMARTER

Good choices, especially your second.

My big bugaboo is "back from the dead" stories, but I think they come from some writers' jumping of the gun to kill characters off rather than write them out in other ways.

Edited April 30, 200817 yr by TC Greene

I'm tired of weak woman. I'm tired of people just falling in bed with each without taking time to know each other. I'm tired of woman not doing it for them selves & just waiting to be rescue.

I rather have bitches back on TV at least they can go on years without love interest. They depend on themselves.

Edited April 30, 200817 yr by MoTheGreat

Recycling bad writers from one show or one network to another.

Bad EPs who don't let whatever good writers write.

Recycling bad writers from one show or one network to another.

Bad EPs who don't let whatever good writers write.

I forget about recycle writers.

I think for me, the most general, overall best reasoning I can give for the problems I see is that soaps have essentially narrowed down their desired target audience to a certain demo and are dishing out what they think that demo wants. That's why I think we get flash instead of substance, bodies instead of actors, a select few shoved down the viewers' throats ad nauseum, the vets backburnered, killed off or driven away, stories and characters that turn on a dime with no rhyme or reason other than that's where the plot is going. I think that pandering to what they think an 18 year old wants (or perhaps trying to convince them that what they're being fed is hip or desired) is at the root of a lot things that make soaps such crapfests these days.

I'm tired of weak woman. I'm tired of people just falling in bed with each without taking time to know each other. I'm tired of woman not doing it for them selves & just waiting to be rescue.

I totally agree with this. It's no coincidence my #1 favorite soap character of all time is Anna Devane.

I'm tired of weak woman. I'm tired of people just falling in bed with each without taking time to know each other. I'm tired of woman not doing it for them selves & just waiting to be rescue.

I rather have bitches back on TV at least they can go on years without love interest. They depend on themselves.

About people going to bed: I dont want everyone on the show to be so innocent and sweet who waits years to sleep with the person they like/love. At the same time I dont want everyone to fall in bed right away.

I agree about the bitches.

I think for me, the most general, overall best reasoning I can give for the problems I see is that soaps have essentially narrowed down their desired target audience to a certain demo and are dishing out what they think that demo wants. That's why I think we get flash instead of substance, bodies instead of actors, a select few shoved down the viewers' throats ad nauseum, the vets backburnered, killed off or driven away, stories and characters that turn on a dime with no rhyme or reason other than that's where the plot is going. I think that pandering to what they think an 18 year old wants (or perhaps trying to convince them that what they're being fed is hip or desired) is at the root of a lot things that make soaps such crapfests these days.

I hate that. I am a teenager and I have never watched for the teens, bodies, etc. My favorite characters on Days are Victor, Philip and Stefano. Victor and Stefano are both in their 70s and Philip is in his 30s.

For me personally it's LACK of payoff for viewers, that's something that AMC is good at NOT doing....

My big bugaboo is "back from the dead" stories, but I think they come from some writers' jumping of the gun to kill characters off rather than write them out in other ways.

That is my biggest gripe as well, and characters showing as ghosts as well too.I mean the only time TPTB should been killing off the character is if the actor or actress doesn't have ANY interest in returning to that particular show ever again.

I think the two biggest problems are the greying of the characters and the breakdown in morality. Soaps used to be the most immoral characters starring in the most moral programs on TV. It was because of the harsh morality (villains never win, true love wins out, crime does not pay) that allowed homewreckers and ruthless tycoons to thrive. Palmer Cortlandt could scheme forever to keep Cliff away from Nina, but in the end all his schemes achieve nothing and true love conquers all. On GH Heather can use every trick and lie to get noble, saintly Joe Kelly, but he will eventually see through her schemes and leave her alone. There was an order and it made sense. Angie's father will stop at nothing to keep his daughter away from Jesse. Consequently he will eventually die.

But now there is no morality. Babe steals children on AMC and yet "Babe is love". On GH noble superhero Jasper Jacks steals Nikolas's son and he remains the town saint in no need of punishment. The lack of a strict moral structure leads to the immorality not making sense after a while. It all becomes meaningless because the characters themselves don't care who kills who or steals what.

The other half is the lack of good guys and bad guys these days. There are very few saints anymore on soaps to be victimized and tormented by the sinners. And because of this that means now the sinners need to be the ones tormented, so the shows bring on everymore outlandish or depraved characters. Tad Martin, son of Joe and Ruth, is burying people alive?? Couldn't he just call a cop?

Put it all together and the shows are a mess. EJ Wells shot John, coerced Sami into sex, drugged Steve and Kayla, brainwashed Steve, switched eggs on Belle and Mimi...and yet rather than finding his punishment so good can triumph he gets a job at Uncle Mickey's law firm. I don't recall things working out so cozy for Dr Ivan Kipling on OLTL.

I think the two biggest problems are the greying of the characters and the breakdown in morality. Soaps used to be the most immoral characters starring in the most moral programs on TV. It was because of the harsh morality (villains never win, true love wins out, crime does not pay) that allowed homewreckers and ruthless tycoons to thrive. Palmer Cortlandt could scheme forever to keep Cliff away from Nina, but in the end all his schemes achieve nothing and true love conquers all. On GH Heather can use every trick and lie to get noble, saintly Joe Kelly, but he will eventually see through her schemes and leave her alone. There was an order and it made sense. Angie's father will stop at nothing to keep his daughter away from Jesse. Consequently he will eventually die.

But now there is no morality. Babe steals children on AMC and yet "Babe is love". On GH noble superhero Jasper Jacks steals Nikolas's son and he remains the town saint in no need of punishment. The lack of a strict moral structure leads to the immorality not making sense after a while. It all becomes meaningless because the characters themselves don't care who kills who or steals what.

The other half is the lack of good guys and bad guys these days. There are very few saints anymore on soaps to be victimized and tormented by the sinners. And because of this that means now the sinners need to be the ones tormented, so the shows bring on everymore outlandish or depraved characters. Tad Martin, son of Joe and Ruth, is burying people alive?? Couldn't he just call a cop?

Put it all together and the shows are a mess. EJ Wells shot John, coerced Sami into sex, drugged Steve and Kayla, brainwashed Steve, switched eggs on Belle and Mimi...and yet rather than finding his punishment so good can triumph he gets a job at Uncle Mickey's law firm. I don't recall things working out so cozy for Dr Ivan Kipling on OLTL.

Great post!!! ITA. The "good" characters always used to have a line they wouldn't cross such as AMC's Jack refusing to perjure himself and lie about his affair with Erica in court. Now, the "good" characters are drug dealers (yeah, I know Sonny supposedly imports coffee or something innocuous like that), rapists and murderers. There is no morality at all.

Add me to those who hate the current bedhopping, too. Couples used to take time to get to know each other and face a few obstacles before they made love, now they have sex within a few weeks. Where is the rooting value in that?

Add me to those who hate the current bedhopping, too. Couples used to take time to get to know each other and face a few obstacles before they made love, now they have sex within a few weeks. Where is the rooting value in that?

Thanks you! I'm tired of all these bed hoppers. Then the viewers wants to know why their couple relationship ends so fast. Because their nothing else for them to do with the couple.

Edited May 1, 200817 yr by MoTheGreat

About people going to bed: I dont want everyone on the show to be so innocent and sweet who waits years to sleep with the person they like/love. At the same time I dont want everyone to fall in bed right away.

I agree about the bitches.

I have nothing wrong with people going sleeping together. But because they share scenes together for a couple of days doesn't mean they should hit the sack.

Edited May 1, 200817 yr by MoTheGreat

I think the two biggest problems are the greying of the characters and the breakdown in morality. Soaps used to be the most immoral characters starring in the most moral programs on TV. It was because of the harsh morality (villains never win, true love wins out, crime does not pay) that allowed homewreckers and ruthless tycoons to thrive. Palmer Cortlandt could scheme forever to keep Cliff away from Nina, but in the end all his schemes achieve nothing and true love conquers all. On GH Heather can use every trick and lie to get noble, saintly Joe Kelly, but he will eventually see through her schemes and leave her alone. There was an order and it made sense. Angie's father will stop at nothing to keep his daughter away from Jesse. Consequently he will eventually die.

But now there is no morality. Babe steals children on AMC and yet "Babe is love". On GH noble superhero Jasper Jacks steals Nikolas's son and he remains the town saint in no need of punishment. The lack of a strict moral structure leads to the immorality not making sense after a while. It all becomes meaningless because the characters themselves don't care who kills who or steals what.

The other half is the lack of good guys and bad guys these days. There are very few saints anymore on soaps to be victimized and tormented by the sinners. And because of this that means now the sinners need to be the ones tormented, so the shows bring on everymore outlandish or depraved characters. Tad Martin, son of Joe and Ruth, is burying people alive?? Couldn't he just call a cop?

Put it all together and the shows are a mess. EJ Wells shot John, coerced Sami into sex, drugged Steve and Kayla, brainwashed Steve, switched eggs on Belle and Mimi...and yet rather than finding his punishment so good can triumph he gets a job at Uncle Mickey's law firm. I don't recall things working out so cozy for Dr Ivan Kipling on OLTL.

I definitely see this in play on Y&R where the shady Fishers have taken over as the main family, Kevin forgives a woman that tries to kill him (WTF????) and Jack Abbot manipulates his father into changing the will because of his hatred for Gloria. In the past, all of these characters would have been written off because of their immorality. Instead, the writers focus all of their attention on them as if they're worthy of our time. And if someone like Gloria is going to incessantly make the wrong decision to get out of a situation, how does that interest the audience or make us root for her. She was mentally handicapped for a long while.

Now, if they were smart, they'd create a flawed character (like Todd on OLTL) or a goody-two-shoes character who does something illegal but not immoral (like Marcie on OLTL) put them in a storyline that blurs immorality and show the character nosedive into villain territory and get written out or transform into a better person.

This was done best on a little show called Buffy The Vampire Slayer with Faith, a show that didn't even have the luxury to write for their characters everyday and, therefore, exhibit every nuance a character can possibly have. She was the ultimate multi-faceted villain who redeemed herself and the writers wrote her journey from beginning to end so convincingly that every damn soap opera should take a class from those writers and see how its done.

Finally, I like that there aren't simple good vs. bad characters because if someone does something that society generally doesn't accept, they're much more interesting to watch. Personally, I don't enjoy characters like Jack on ATWT or Paul on Y&R because they're so single-faceted. And Michael's transformation into a good lawyer with flaws was one of the best on daytime, I think.