Should American soaps rethink their format?

[Khan]

No, what the "steady hemorrhage" might say is that audiences still want those things, but TPTB either aren't giving them anymore, or not enough, or improperly.

I think you have to read between the lines, though. Whenever viewers complain that we don't get the lavish stuff anymore, it's not as if they're saying they still want and need those things. Most viewers are intelligent enough, IMO, to know "times are tough(er)". I think what they are truly saying is, "Remember when soaps used to be fun and entertaining, and they would sometimes do nutty things like hold lavish weddings or send actors out on gorgeous locations?" It's really more waxing nostalgic than anything else. Most viewers - again, IMO - would trade the big-budget stuff gladly for simple, solid, character-driven entertainment.

(I'm probably not explaining myself well here, so I'll shut up for now, lol.)

[Sylph]

Anyway... I'm still interested in the particulars of why Abrams and why Whedon.

[marceline]

I'll use Joss as the main example. I know people think of him as a sci-fi writer but at the core of his shows Buffy, Angel, Firefly is all the same things you find in soaps: Buffy fell in love with Angel (good girl/bad boy), Angel was a vampire seeking redemption who lost his soul the moment he had a moment of true happiness (too many soap conventions there to count), Buffy's Scooby Gang is essentially a family and had all the problems that comes with that on soaps like keeping secrets from the outside world, Buffy's sense of duty versus her desire to be normal, uniting to fight an outside force and plenty of death and love.

With Abrams I'll point to Alias. That show was nothing but the story of the world's most f*****d up family. Dad was a spy, mom was the soul of evil, none of which Sidney knew until she found out that wasn't working for the good guys and became a double agent. (Child finds out her parents aren't really her parents, Mom comes back from the dead, etc...) Spy Daddy vs Sloan was just another version of Viki vs. Dorian. And the whole Sidney/Vaughn relationship was classic soap angst.

The thing I like about both - and I easily acknowledge that others might not - are the things they bring that you don't find on soaps. Number one being truly strong women. I could go on about this forever but bottom line: for a genre that supposed to appeal to women, soaps sure like to rape them.

Something else they understand is that "family" doesn't necessary mean blood family, its just a diverse (not just by race but class, social status, belief system, even species in Buffy's case, etc...) group of people united by circumstance. That more flexible definition opens up a world of story possibilities. Actually, all of primetime gets this while soaps are woefully behind.

I know people complain when soaps try inserting things like '24' or reality show stuff and I don't blame them because it doesn't work. I think the reason those gimmicks fail is because that's all they are: gimmicks. They're modern frosting on a stale cake.

[Sylph]

Wow... Now that you broke it down like that, I suddenly realised I think Alias is utter cr*p. Awful, awful show. Which I enjoyed, but now I don't know why. John Eisendrath's episode The Prophecy being my favourite, the ending especially.

[R Sinclair]

Who said it wasn't a business? I'm just saying maybe someone does have a good idea on how to turn the genre around but they're not being heard. Why is that so far beyond the realm of possibility to the point of being flat out dismissed?

[leevo64]

This has nothing to do with business, or ratings or anything... but I think soaps are an American art form that need to be preserved in some way.

[MarkH]

Agreed. The TV world is so fundamentally different from what it was in Marland's day. Good stories, good actors...just won't sustain a 5-day-a-week habit anymore.

[MarkH]

I totally get this. They are masters of the serial form. They totally understand how to get people to tune in tomorrow. They totally understand how backstory and history motivate the present. They write exciting stories that grab young eyeballs, using language that sounds current (which means they staff their writing teams well), while at the same time telling tales that are largely character-driven (in heavily plot-driven vehicles).

Of course these SPECIFIC people will not write for daytime, but it is that caliber of auteur, with that caliber of vision, and that caliber of quality control who could really be a force.

The fact that such auteurs would not write melodramatic tales, and likely wouldn't consent to five days a week to be burned off at 3 in the afternoon FURTHER speaks to what is needed to rescuscitate daytime--err--the serial format (no longer in daytime).

[MarkH]

Oh, no question Abrams has had more flops than hits. What About Brian?

But Lost is a perfect little confection, where the writer's vision trumps all else. Abrams has the ending worked out (and more or less always did). In addition, Abrams casts and and uncasts as needed to tell his story. There is no *burden* of legacy casting because someone had a good story three seasons ago.

Lost, for me, is the best current evolution of the serial format.

[MarkH]

[i'm very sorry this turned into my fourth consecutive post. I need to force myself to read a whole thread before replying].

Not to be unkind--I really mean this to be funny--but isn't that what museums and libraries are for? :-)

What exactly is the uniquely "American" nature of the art form? Daily? Woman-oriented? Daytime-minded? Sponsored?

Because this very thread, and the British one, have shown that the serial format is alive and well in so many other countries and formats. Dickens' Pickwick Papers is often credited as the genesis of the narrative serial (I suspect that's not true, but that's not important). So the serial has origins outside of America.

I'm seriously interested: What is UNIQUELY "American" about the soap that you feel warrants preservation because it is not available elsewhere? I say this as a lover of the genre.

And, on that note, are there OTHER uniquely American art forms that deserve preservation? Some weeks ago Marceline mentioned the Western. What about that?

[marceline]

Argh did you have to bring that up? And don't forget - or should I say try to remember - Six Degrees.

Agreed. Something else that's really working for Lost is the fact that everybody knows EXACTLY when the show will end. The show was wavering in S2 but once they established the end date, things started to come together. Now each episode advances the story. Stories need a beginning, middle and end.

[Sylph]

Because this is not a question of one person. It is a question of whole mindset surrounding soap operas. I wish we could call in the Cleaners from Charmed to "clean" a thing or two.

There are people who wrote whole doctoral theses on this issue - but the problem is, like scripts, these theses are "unshootable". They're just not a business plan. I revel in reading those, but once you bump onto a term like immersive story worlds, you know there just isn't much material from which to make some sort of long-term business strategy.

Sam Ford's thesis is very good, but in the end (and sadly) it will remain only that - a thesis.

[Sylph]

This is one of the problems with him - he gets a whole lot more credit than he deserves to have. Lost as we know it now is Lindelof's and Cuse's brainchild, they figured out the ending. Alias in its last season was head-written by Jeff Pinkner (who will be a showrunner on Abrams's Fringe). He just develops these shows, then goes onto other projects.

And there is also the perennial problem - if you write a fabulous primetime soap opera, that does not mean you can write 250 episodes a year of great daytime stories.

[MarkH]

Yes, this is a good point even I thought of while writing. At Lost, it is clearly the *team*. This actually relates to your point before, though. A good HW is SO MUCH more than a writer and a bible-maker. You listed many managerial functions..

But there is a fundamental premise here we do not seem to share. I do not think the form will remain at 250 episodes a year!!! That is too much for the modern appetite in America. At least right now.

[Sylph]

It's not just Lost. With most primetime shows, the credits are rotated. So if you see Christina M. Kim & Elizabeth Sarnoff wrote an episode of Lost, that does not mean they came up with the story of that episode, even if they got the written by credit.

When the show began, the writers pulled little pieces of paper with character names on them from the hat and depending on the character you got, you wrote that character's history.

Aaron Sorkin, on the other hand, has a different method: he almost never gives his staff writers to write the dialogue. That's why his shows have a lot of story by: writer and teleplay by: Aaron Sorkin. That's why people hate working for him. He sucks at plot, and in recent times in the dialogue department, too.