In posting here and lurking at other places, I've come across several people who make statements like this...acknowledging that OLTL has improved but at the same time saying that it's not a good show. Just for my own curiosity, what do you think makes the show pretty bad right now? I'm interested because I want to be able to look at the show with more viewpoints than just one. I agree that the show isn't very socially-conscious, and I hope that that's something RC is working on. I think he needs to find a comfortable balance between the identities that have made the show popular. Frankly, most of the soaps lost a huge chunk of identity somewhere in the 1980s and 1990s, so it would be a gigantic service to at least the quality of the shows if a proper balance could be found.

You said it better than I ever could, AMS... I see the homage to the past Carlivati it offering with the Tina and the Mendorran jewels, but come on... Paul Rauch is nowhere to be found here. Now, I would have LOVED seeing Tina return dredging up some awful history for Viki -- just as she did when she first came on the scene 30 years ago! I'm not getting paid to come up with the plot -- but you get the idea. Something fresh, something different. But distinctly Tina. The whole Todd and Marty thing? Yuck. Stupid. In short, if Carlivati could find that proper balance, as you have said, then I would definitely be there with compliments. Hell, I might even retract my frequent statements that daytime is as dead as Victor Lord...

B

Sylph is on the right track. And--though I don't want to be pilloried--Ellen Wheeler and Brian Frons are on the right track! Ellen Wheeler is EXPERIMENTING, and that is what needs to happen. Most of us understand the experiment will not succeed, but GL was dead in the water either way. So kudos to her for buying another year and trying out some new stuff.

I'm not gonna pillory you, but I do strongly disagree. My biggest reason is that I don't think Wheeler is experimenting at all, certainly not with anything truly radical. All she's really doing is copying some cheap techniques she's seen work on a relatively limited scale in totally different genres and attempt to sell these desperate cost-cutting measures as some sort of radical experiment of artistic vision when they're nothing of the kind. I also have a hard time giving her any credit since it was her horrible mismanagement that put GL in the position of having lost so much of it's operating budget and needing to try something this drastic just to survive and having nothing left to lose.

The budget only ended up where it is now Wheeler began chipping away at the core audience of this show when she let Peter Simon get away. She lost an enormous amount of the once extremely loyal fanbase when she fired Grant Aleksander and thoroughly butchered the entire Spaulding family merely to pimp Gus and Harley, who are now no longer even on the show thanks to her mismanagement. She pushed Jerry VerDorn and Maureen Garrett out the door with nothing but minimally talented newbies that nobody cared about to take up all the airtime.

As for Ehlers and Goldin's departure, despite the horrible writing, the character destruction, and the paycuts, RPG and BE have both basically said that they left because of the new production model and it's unworkability. It looks bad, it takes longer to shoot fewer scenes so tons of crucial dialogue has been cut out so nothing makes any sense, and it's a big inconvenience to shoot on location 3-4 days a week especially for actors with young kids. You have to wonder how many other actors dread trekking out to Peapack to shoot scenes out in the middle of an empty grass field, an old tool shed, or a park bench in the middle of nowhere when they could just as easily run their through their crappy lines in one of the cramped refrigerator box sets back in NYC.

For Brian Frons, the real innovations (and I don't credit him with the first, really) were Soapnet and GH-Night Shift. Soapnet is a failure...but the whole idea of finding a way to bring soaps into primetime was brilliant. If Soapnet had wider distribution, and better promotion, I think it could have worked better. Still, they're TRYING. Now, in the wake of failure, they are making some bad decisions (MVP, Relative Madness, SNM, cancelling good stuff), but the idea was good and risky. GH-Night Shift is the true future of the form (weekly, time limited, primetime)...so I am glad that has had some success.

ITA that Soapnet was a wonderful idea. The execution has all but guaranteed it's failure, especially with the recent shift away from everything that made it unique in the first place. As for the ABC lineup itself, I give Frons alot of credit for the recent investments that have been made in the cast returns and acquisitions at AMC and OLTL but he's done alot of damage to the lineup over the years and GH is still a trainwreck and getting worse by the day. And ABC production of the Daytime Emmys is considerably inferior to the CBS broadcast.

Coming back off the sidelines for a minute to ask another question, that might be a little off topic but not really. Keep in mind that I'm not considering ratings or popularity or anything with this, it's just some random thinking that I'm doing.

Something that is true about the most popular British (and Australian) soaps it seems is that they focus on one particular area of action. Whether it be the row of terraced houses that's featured on "Coronation Street," the urban square on "EastEnders," the farming village of "Emmerdale" or community college of "Hollyoaks," there's a central location that most of the main characters have strong ties to, either as a residence or place of business or whatever. Not to mention that there is also an outside set based around the particular location that is built and used regularly.

My question is...if a US network decided to make a soap based completely on the long-running, successful UK style, meaning a thirty minute, serialized drama that airs in primetime (or, hypothetically speaking, in the 7:30/6:30 primetime access slot) maybe 3-5 nights per week, what would the central location be? The settings of the UK soaps (especially Corrie and EE) are so British, it wouldn't make much sense to try duplicate that for American audiences, especially if you're trying to create a relatable setting with characters who are "real people."

When I try to think of reasonable settings that would work in that sense, I keep thinking of things that have already been done in primetime (in the one hourlong episode per week format, of course). The cul-de-sac setting of "Knots Landing" would work, I think (considering it worked for the UK's "Brookside" and works for Australia's "Neighbours"), for a middle class, family-themed soap. The apartment complex setting of "Melrose Place" would work for a young, sexy soap. Even the setting of "Dark Shadows" would work. Collinwood was a central location in every sense of the word.

And if they want to be ridiculously American about it while also be ridiculously middle class/"real," there could sooooo be a soap set in a small trailer park. All sorts of archetypes and backgrounds could be featured. "Normal" families (two parents, kids, etc), single parent families, the vixen, the neighborhood busybody, etc.

Just some thoughts.

Didn't Peyton Place run in primetime for multiple episodes per week, and really wasn't all that successful ratings-wise? Of course that was during a time when daytime soaps were still attracting large viewerships. PP did last a good 5 years or so and did produce over 500 episodes.

Edited June 29, 200817 yr by Y&RWorldTurner

You said it better than I ever could, AMS... I see the homage to the past Carlivati it offering with the Tina and the Mendorran jewels, but come on... Paul Rauch is nowhere to be found here. Now, I would have LOVED seeing Tina return dredging up some awful history for Viki -- just as she did when she first came on the scene 30 years ago! I'm not getting paid to come up with the plot -- but you get the idea. Something fresh, something different. But distinctly Tina. The whole Todd and Marty thing? Yuck. Stupid. In short, if Carlivati could find that proper balance, as you have said, then I would definitely be there with compliments. Hell, I might even retract my frequent statements that daytime is as dead as Victor Lord...

B

*jumping up and down* I'm happy that I was able to get my idea out there and not only have it make sense but also have some agree with me! I get exactly what you're saying, though. I've always been a fan of more domestic storylines in daytime, the ones that deal chiefly with people, their emotions, their motivations, and their relationships with one another. Adventure stories...with jewels and royalty and mysterious foreign lands...neeeeeever have been my thing. Sure, I appreciate them for what they are, but if soap A has Betty Ann and Peggy Sue sitting in a kitchen explaining why they both love Billy Bob, and soap B has Princess Alessandra and Prince Michael in a hidden cave in their island country looking for stolen jewels....yeah, you can guess which one I'm picking.

But, at the same time, I can see that the Princess and the Prince can bring in an audience too, even if they're on the same show as Betty Ann and Peggy Sue. The great writer, I think, can somehow bring the two worlds together into one soap without losing anything.

And I so agree about Todd and Marty. I think it's the only OLTL storyline that I don't comment on in the weekly threads. I just...do not...get it...at all. Why can't characters just return? Without some far-fetched storyline around it. I mean, I know Marty is coming back from the dead, but generally speaking, why can't we just have so-and-so decide that it's time to come home and that's it?

The thing is, there are US primetime soaps, they just air in a different format. For example, Desperate Housewives is a good example of something that has a soapy premise...a group of neighbours living in a quiet suburban street whose lives become entangled and whose secrets become exposed. The only difference is, it airs once a week for an hour. It could easily be turned into a twice weekly soap opera running year round.

Or if you look back at Melrose Place and Knots Landing, they basically were soap operas except from the fact they didnt air all year round.

The soapiest show on the air today has to be Brothers & Sisters, and it's a huge hit.

I think, for a US network to have a successful primetime soap opera, it would have to involve some sort of common place where everyones paths cross...i.e., a hospital, a street, an apartment complex.

Didn't Peyton Place run in primetime for multiple episodes per week, and really wasn't all that successful ratings-wise? Of course that was during a time when daytime soaps were still attracting large viewerships. PP did last a good 5 years or so and did produce over 500 episodes.

From Wikipedia (trust it as much as you want to):

"When the show premiered in 1964, Peyton Place aired twice a week. Both installments of the show were Top 20 hits in the Nielsen ratings and this inspired ABC to air the show three times a week starting in the fall of 1965. Many television historians now consider this move to have been overkill. The season ratings for Peyton Place never rose into the Top 30 again and the serial's production was dropped back to two episodes a week. In 1969, with the show losing viewers with each episode, Peyton Place aired in one installment a week until the final episode was shown in June."

Whatever its ratings were, though, PP was pretty popular. It's worth wondering if, had it sustained its popularity, it would still be on the air today...

Haven't I just written I don't hate her haircut remark, I hate her dialogue? It was awful on ATWT and is awful now. And yes, Lynn Martin sucked, too.

Donato and Culliton were excellent. And so was Marie Masters when she wrote for the show.

MY apologies, I didn't either didn't catch your remark about the haircut or misread it.

I just happen to disagree that her dialogue was "awful". I always considered her and Susan Dansby the best scriptwriters we had.

Well, obviously soapy formats can do reasonably well, looking at Brothers and Sisters, Desperate Housewives, Ugly Betty and yes, Grey's Anatomy. But to me they aren't soaps because they don't air daily.

I disagree that people aren't interested in romance and romantic stories anymore. In fact it seems that every show that shows an inkling of romance gazillions of fans immediately jump on and watch the whole show only for this tiny bit of romance, complain that they wish their characters would be featured more, that there is not enough time for real character development and relationship development.

IMO there will always be an interest for modern fairy tales. They just have to be adapted to a more modern setting. Maybe the old supercouple formula used to be more about the damsel in destress being saved by the hero from the lecherous villain. Maybe the new formula is more like, I don't know, GH's Robin and Patrick. Two modern, professional people falling in love and trying to have a relationship without betraying themselves and their careers.

They should all go back to being half-hour, and even fifteen-minute, productions.

They should all go back to being half-hour, and even fifteen-minute, productions.

ITA about half-hour, but not so much about fifteen-minute. If the notion that people don't watch soaps because they don't have the time is true, then cutting all hour-long soaps down to a half-hour would work wonders for them in the long run, I think. B&B has been recently titled the most watched soap in the world and it's only thirty minutes, so that says a lot. Fifteen-minute on the other hand...I think soaps have expanded too far and wide for any show to be restricted to just an hour and fifteen minutes of story per week.