Should American soaps rethink their format?

[marceline]

There's something else you get from the Josses and JJs of the world that you don't get from soaps: the really listen to their fans and communicate back.

The writers of Lost (Abrams is now the EP) have a weekly podcast on ABC.com where they talk to their fans. They read and answer emails, listen to voice mails and respond to them, sometimes by even calling the fans back. Last year, when they did the panel at ComicCon they took and answered questions live and even debuted a special video. Can you imagine any writer doing a panel at ABC's Super Soap Weekend? Not the stars but the writers.

Another example, Heroes creator Tim Kring actually did an interview with Entertainment Weekly where he actually apologized to the fans for the way the show went off track and he gave this interview from the picket line. (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20158840,00.html). Can you picture Brian "the trainer" Frons feeling that level of responsibility?

Of course this is another place where soaps longevity is killing them. You can't have a meaningful dialog with 20 years worth of fans.

Amen. Sorkin thinks he is the show and Studio 60 was a trainwreck because of it. That show was essentially his weekly therapy. And his hatred of the internet is legendary.

[MarkH]

How does David Milch do it?

On both Deadwood and John from Cincinnati (and yes, I loved BOTH), the legend was that Milch would hand his actors pages literally MINUTES before shooting.

So clearly, he was scripting dialogue. The sound of his shows was too distinctive not to think there was one writer.

But, he had credited writers on every episode.

Does Milch work like Sorkin?

[Sylph]

From Salon.com interview:

So, how do you keep this really complicated organism alive? Did you know you'd have so many characters and that so many of them would have such major story lines?

No, I don't plan any of the episodes. They just sort of happened. I sit down each morning and the scenes sort of declare themselves. When you do research, you study and study and study. And then, if you're a storyteller, you try to put all of that in your preconscious, then you forget the research.

Do you write the show alone?

I have a pretty heavy hand. I work on pretty much every scene. First they [the other writers] do drafts, and then I work on them.

What kinds of characters do you enjoy writing the most? Do you favor certain characters?

No. You know, William James said that what every spiritual experience has in common is ego suppression at depth. That is, one loses one's sense of one's own separate identity, and experiences a kind of in-rush of either a sense of God or one's commonality with others. So when I write, I try to have no favorites. I try to be sort of a vessel of the character, and that's how I feel a part of the body of Christ. I feel that they're all part of a single thing, and they just exhibit their sameness differently, if that makes sense.

It does. Do you feel like you're channeling God or the spirits when you write?

Well, I think we all are vessels of God, you know. As Saint Paul says, if the hand doesn't know, that doesn't mean it's not part of the body, that just means it doesn't know. And that's why, when I'm able to be of service to the characters, I experience God's presence more acutely than I do when I'm not working. So I try to work as much as I can.

[Sylph]

So, I'd say, yes, he is very similar to Aaron Sorkin. Sorkin also doesn't do long-term planning. And he was always late with the scripts.

[Sylph]

Toups and I talked about this in the Heroes thread, if I remember correctly. I can't wait for this show to start to get my fix of fabulous soap opera! Minus J. J. Philbin, of course. Who I believe was behind most of the baaad story decisions in the second season and who destroyed The O.C., too.

Another writer that comes to mind with a hands-on approach, who never lets his writers write the dialogue, is David E. Kelley.

[brimike]

Well, that's it, Sylph. You lost me with your Heroes love. Sorry.

[Sylph]

I love Heroes and I'm not afraid to admit it. Funny you're not a fan. You lost me with your OLTL love quite some time ago.

[brimike]

Touche!

You'd think I'd love Heroes. But I don't. It's like Comic Books for Dummies. I mean, the book series. "XXX for Dummies" Not calling anyone a dummy, or anyone who watches the show a dummy. I swear.

But you're right. You give me OLTL, I'll give you Heroes, and we'll call it a day.

[marceline]

I agree. (I seem to say that a lot with you!)

I've always wondered what would happen if instead of three one-hour shows, five times a week. Soap became weekly just like primetime but expanded to say two hours. (Who knows what they would do with the third hour.) What if instead of ABC's current schedule they went with Mon - AMC, Tues - OLTL, Wed - GH, Thurs. - A new show, and Friday a review a la "What happened this week." And none of this 20 years business.

That would cut the costs and be much easier on writers and the actors might even get to *gasp* rehearse and do more than one take.

I'm not really suggesting this model because I know that there are a million things wrong with it but I think that soaps will only last in some form with serious re-imagining and that means nothing's off limits.

[Khan]

IMO, though, anything else would get (and, depending on how you look at the industry right now, has gotten) old pretty fast. I'm not saying you can't update the format, per se (even though, I don't believe anyone should). However, the fact of the matter is, TPTB have tried all the bells and whistles (at the expense of basic, good storytelling) and all they've accomplished is alienating the audience. Who's to say further innovations won't obliterate what is left of this genre (or, perhaps, kill it faster than what TPTB are doing to it already)?

Either TPTB can keep making these oh-so-brilliant moves to give the genre the "face-lift" they think it needs, and chase after fans who've either proven they're not interested, or are too jaded to return; or, they can go back to what only they can do, and hold onto the audience that is still there and still bringing in revenue. If a miracle occurs, and either lapsed fans come back, or new fans begin to tune in, then they certainly haven't lost anything. If not? Then, at least this industry dies with some dignity.

[brimike]

ICAM, Marceline!!! And maybe writers could take the time to really work on some subtext, as opposed to hitting us over the head with the Obvious Hammer in every episode.

[MarkH]

Thank you for these Salon quotes.

After those two shows (though I could never get into NYPD Blue), Milch is kind of a minor deity for me.

[nicknack]

Two thoughts:

(1) Who say the new formats have to be placed on all soaps or can't be used in addition to the existing format? See who wins. The German example shows that first the telenovelas became popular and then the soaps started adapting concepts from the telenovelas and the telenovelas began adapting concepts from the soaps.

(2) Soap Bibles exist. The telenovela format shows that a particular bible is sometimes sold and adapted&remade in different countries and all similarly succesfull (Spanish, Russian, German, Mexian version of Ugly Betty)

How come soaps and soap like formats are apparently still succesfull in a lot of industrialized countries and often veritable cash cow for their networks yet it's only the US soaps that are dying? And not just dying but with no real replacements offering themselves up?

IMO nothing brings new viewers like a good supercouple that create buzz and media attention. It's easier to tell somebody "Go watch this show, there is this really romantic couple" than try to communicate to somebody who isn't already interested in soaps the complex family structures of a show and why that makes it so good.

And nothing prevents viewers becoming jaded like knowing when to stop as opposed to beating a dead horse over and over and over and over.

[MarkH]

Okay, but now we're starting to get into something I know something about (long story).

If we follow your model, then in the mind of those Madison Avenue coke addicts--err, sorry--advertisers, "we're programming for old people".

(imagining legions now doing a sign of the cross...old people...nausea being felt by the legions)

Now, even Les Moonves has recently come out against the ageism of the advertisers. There is ostensibly one GOOD reason for the ageism ("settled" brand preferences...older folks are thought to be less malleable). But, as has oft been written, the problem with this is that "old" people often have more disposable income.

As an "old" person myself (43 years old, and even though Deee Dee apparently doesn't BELIEVE I have watched Y&R since 1973, I'm here to say I HAVE), I'm also here to say that through my 20s and 30s I was too poor and too cheap to do much but buy the lowest cost item and store brands. It really wasn't until my late 30s and now that I had to acknowledge that sometimes the research and development behind a more expensive product really DID matter. (Case in point: Cuisinart disposable crap versus KitchenAid built for life stuff).

But advertisers seem to have gone in a whole different direction. Not only are they no more interested in old people than they ever were, but they are concluding that TV (and print) is not the place to find the desired young people. So they're infiltrating feature films, the internet (by the way...please click the banner atop this screen!) and video games.

Not to mention that viral marketing thing (check out Sam Ford's new company, Pepper Digital, which tries to convince "influential bloggers" to push products...fascinating concept).

As long as only the young are important, the shows could lose half their audiences and the networks/advertisers wouldn't care as long as the desirable demographic stayed.

[leevo64]

Yes, museums and libraries are for preserving art, but typically they house books and artifacts of the past and it would be pretty gloomy to consider the soap opera as something of the past.

Having watched the American soap and the British soap for a very long time, there is a definite difference between what one would consider "American" or another culture. Take the pacing. The American soap is a slow moving, intricate drama that incorporates many different stories at once. Once stories are wrapped up, the show often keeps the characters, and we get to see their trials and tribulations for years to come. The British soap (and feel free to argue the point that I've only watched one, East Enders so it may be different with others) seems to move a faster pace, with characters rather rapidly coming and going. On East Enders, there are no "Erica Kane" or "Victor Newman" characters, no "Luke and Laura" super-couple and no guarantee that your favorite character will last for very long. Yes, of course characters come and go on American soaps but there is a level of investment and rabid fandom that exists for these characters.

So, in answer to your question - and feel free to argue with me over this, or tear up my points, this is a very interesting discussion - an American soap is a slow-paced melodrama involving larger-than-life stories that provide pure escapism for the viewer. You'd be hard pressed to find a "left-handed boy" story (GH) on a show like East Enders.

Just an opinion. And as for other AMERICAN genres, the Western is one that began in the USA, as is the movie musical. They have obviously developed and grown, but there is a distinct difference between an American western and a spaghetti western.