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.

I am totally with you here. It is now time to experiment. Again, I think GH-Night Shift is a perfect example. Kudos to Soapnet for trying to do more with that. This time, with an MTV-style writer, I guess they're going to try to see if they can bring over some of those The Hills viewers. [Why does everyone want those blasted Hills viewers? ]

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?

I don't know, but this is the power of culture. Around the world, these are still primarily a woman's entertainment. And almost every other culture has a higher proportion of stay at home women. The shows have aired in primetime for DECADES. (Germany's Gute Zeiten, Schlechte Zeiten was on at 7 pm even when I lived there in the early 90s). So different cultures and different habits. I really think Americans are folks who eat standing up...they won't sit down for this stuff anymore.

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.

I hope you are wrong. I HATE supercouples :-). I like couples, love stories...but as part of a complex canvas. I just hope supercouples never proliferate again :-).

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.

I don't think supercouples really exist anymore. I think that's another soap convention that's already dead yet people keep trying to resurrect it. But I don't believe that you can have another Jesse/Angie or Jenny/Greg in this era. The audience has gotten too diverse and too small. plus the internet won't let that happen.

Look at Luke and Laura. They could be considered soap's premiere supercouple. But Luke raped her. The show was able to rewrite that back then. That can't happen in the age of YouTube. Obviously a lot of people consider Zendall a supercouple but there are an equal number of people who consider them "icky" given that they got together over the dead body of Zach's son. Plus a lot of the supercouple pathos comes from the damsel-in-distress dynamic. Again this is a case of where soaps version of womanhood screws them. Supercouples also tend to demand an lot of screentime and writing "for" them. That creates resentment among viewers who aren't invested.

The fact is every couple is a supercouple to their fans.

I don't think supercouples really exist anymore. I think that's another soap convention that's already dead yet people keep trying to resurrect it. But I don't believe that you can have another Jesse/Angie or Jenny/Greg in this era. The audience has gotten too diverse and too small. plus the internet won't let that happen.

Plus, let me be direct :-). Harlequin Romances are in decline too. A quaint old tradition of love stories, they don't sell anymore.

I'm TOLD that it is growing convention among teenage couples for the girl to give the boy oral sex instead of a goodnight kiss. Is that true? If yes...well...they ain't interested in star crossed lovers then. This is a jaded generation, brought up on "Not A Girl, Not Yet A Woman" and "Oops, I Did It Again". The concept of young love, true love...that is as quaint as grandma's needlepoint samplers.

So, for a jaded generation, supercouples would only PROVE how out of touch soaps are with the world.

But I don't know if that oral sex thing is true... Maybe the younger generation isn't as jaded as I think.

Look at Luke and Laura. They could be considered soap's premiere supercouple. But Luke raped her. The show was able to rewrite that back then. That can't happen in the age of YouTube. Obviously a lot of people consider Zendall a supercouple but there are an equal number of people who consider them "icky" given that they got together over the dead body of Zach's son. Plus a lot of the supercouple pathos comes from the damsel-in-distress dynamic. Again this is a case of where soaps version of womanhood screws them. Supercouples also tend to demand an lot of screentime and writing "for" them. That creates resentment among viewers who aren't invested.

The fact is every couple is a supercouple to their fans.

Yes, yes, yes. I should care about every couple.

We're agreeing too much, eh? We'll have to find a point of disagreement so we can have a flame war or something

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.

A few thoughts (and I don't know whether mine are in accords with yours, but I'll put them out there nonetheless, lol).

IMO, a dollar is a dollar. Doesn't matter where it came from (per se, lol) or how old the person is who's spending it. If advertising revenue is what feeds the TV industry, then I don't feel age should matter to the networks; because, in the end, the dollar bill makes us all equal.

Also, I don't buy the argument that older consumers are "set" in their brand preferences and aren't interested in the latest on the market - or, as you have intimated above, that only younger consumers worry solely about affordability. I think all who make the money and contribute to our economy do everything they must to ensure their money is spent wisely, period. Most Americans, IMO, know that "biggest and baddest" isn't always "best".

However, what I don't understand is this seeming disconnect between what the networks are saying, and what the advertisers are saying. On the one hand, you have the networks justifying their decisions (not just in daytime, but in TV, in general) on the stated belief that they are doing simply whatever they must to attract the target demographic. (Which is fine - no argument there - although, I don't think they're giving 12-year-old girls enough credit for their intelligence or their ability to discern quality from non, lol.) But, OTOH, you have the advertisers saying, in fact, the "target demographic" is actually older (namely, the "baby boomers") and, like you say, they have more disposable income. (I know I read this somewhere before. TV Guide Online, I think?) So, who's telling the truth? The networks, or the advertisers?

So, for a jaded generation, supercouples would only PROVE how out of touch soaps are with the world.

But I don't know if that oral sex thing is true... Maybe the younger generation isn't as jaded as I think.

What was true ten thousand years ago is just as true today: there is nothing like being in love.

But I hate supercouples, so don't go by me, lol.

What was true ten thousand years ago is just as true today: there is nothing like being in love.

But I hate supercouples, so don't go by me, lol.

No I think you are right. Everybody loves a love story. But love stories and supercouples aren't the same thing. Let's go back to Lost. If you look on the boards there's plenty of viewers who will battle over Jack/Kate/Sawyer, each thinking their pair is the pair, until the sun supernovas. But that triangle doesn't dominate the show. People like me who think Kate is an idiotic, useless, soul-sucking, vapid whore don't have to deal with "supercouple" style pimpage. We can enjoy the love story of Jin/Sun or Rose/Bernard. There's plenty of love but no supercouple.

And yes, I hate Kate. Jack and Sawyer are MY supercouple.

Edited June 28, 200817 yr by marceline

People like me who think Kate is an idiotic, useless soul-sucking, vapid whore don't have to deal with "supercouple" style pimpage.

I think so, too!

And yes, I hate Kate. Jack and Sawyer are MY supercouple.

I agree, I agree!!!

People like me who think Kate is an idiotic, useless soul-sucking, vapid whore don't have to deal with "supercouple" style pimpage. We can enjoy the love story of Jin/Sun or Rose/Bernard. There's plenty of love but no supercouple.

Marry me, Marceline.

It's a crying shame I don't watch "Lost." Otherwise, I'd know what the hell you three were talking about, lol.

No I think you are right. Everybody loves a love story. But love stories and supercouples aren't the same thing. Let's go back to Lost. If you look on the boards there's plenty of viewers who will battle over Jack/Kate/Sawyer, each thinking their pair is the pair, until the sun supernovas. But that triangle doesn't dominate the show. People like me who think Kate is an idiotic, useless, soul-sucking, vapid whore don't have to deal with "supercouple" style pimpage. We can enjoy the love story of Jin/Sun or Rose/Bernard. There's plenty of love but no supercouple.

And yes, I hate Kate. Jack and Sawyer are MY supercouple.

Oh, I love Kate. Fierce woman who can take down any enemy. But I never thought in terms of any "couple". It is part of the casting and writing miracle of this show that I love all the characters.

That said, the character I probably like least is Jack. He is too fiercely messed up... My "supercouple" money is on Sawyer and the sublime Juliet.

Oh, I love Kate. Fierce woman who can take down any enemy. But I never thought in terms of any "couple". It is part of the casting and writing miracle of this show that I love all the characters.

That said, the character I probably like least is Jack. He is too fiercely messed up... My "supercouple" money is on Sawyer and the sublime Juliet.

I too am a Sawyer/Juliet fan.

Kate can go be Mom, and Jack will die anyway before this is all over, since SOMEBODY needs to suffer the big hero's death at the end and frankly I'd like to see him sacrifice himself to the four-toed Gods just so I don't have to keep track of how long his beard is, to figure out what year it is, and wow, I just realized how completely off the subject we've gotten.

Never mind.

Awww....I missed out on the discussion!

What a great read!!

And bringing in primetime writers into the discussion? Love it!

I think they have an illusion that they know, but they don't.

To illustrate a point: you have tons of people on the internet who believe that they're ATWT's (e.g.) next Douglas Marland just because they can write a soap blog or some fan fic or something. But to thump out a, say, 100-page story bible is something completely different.

And HW's job is not just the bible! Contracts, network, managing the staff, editing... You get the picture.

Oh, I agree with you, Sylph. But I also wouldn't arbitrarily state that NOBODY floating around these or other boards knows anything about the industry. You might be surprised if resumes were attached to poster profiles. Are there are a lot of those individuals participating here? No. Lurking? Maybe. A few posting? Absolutely.

B

I feel like I've been schooled lol...

On primetime writers Joss and JJ. I'm just wondering where, besides Marceline, the Joss love is? If JJ was everyone's preference-- as I loved Felicity (primarily first season/second half of second season)-- then that's your prerogative. But I hope everyone didn't miss out on Buffy and Angel. Quality folks.

As for the television climate changing, I look at reality versus scripted shows as an example. American Idol (and to a lesser extent, Dancing with the Stars) definitely has become a juggernaut in terms of ratings but I think they're so popular because they each have an inherent value to them. They're not as high caliber as a Lost but I think the American audience has been able to weed out the crap like Who Wants to be a Millionaire.

Even more so, scripted series like CSI and Grey's Anatomy have had strong ratings despite their genre. It's been said the networks put out reality shows more readily than the scripted shows due to the higher development budgets of the latter. I suppose the same logic can be applied to daytime in that one of the reasons why the writing has failed so miserably recently is because of money. No writer is working for cheap and when each show has more than a dozen, the producers are going to want to follow certain proven models to generate quick results without much effort or money. So the producers don't want to cultivate a strong writing team because it'll take too much money and too much of a risk to develop. I guess this might have been said somewhere earlier and much more eloquently. But I just wanted to put my two cents in.

Oh, I agree with you, Sylph. But I also wouldn't arbitrarily state that NOBODY floating around these or other boards knows anything about the industry. You might be surprised if resumes were attached to poster profiles. Are there are a lot of those individuals participating here? No. Lurking? Maybe. A few posting? Absolutely.

B

Most of them believe they are above soap writing. So the CV's/writing credentials are moot.