Members SteveFrame Posted September 2, 2008 Members Share Posted September 2, 2008 Oh and one more example is Nip/Tuck. It is one of the most successful cable shows in years and one of it's underlying stories for 4 seasons is the Christian/Jules/Shaw triangle - leaving fans wondering if it will ever be resolved. Will Julia ever choose one of them? Will she get back with Shawn or will she finally choose Christian? Oz had the underlying neverending unanswered questions that went through it and it is a fairly recent show. The Beecher/Keller on-again/off again relationship went on for several seasons there. The primetime shows don't spoil as much as the daytime shows do today. So things like that can carry through. I am not saying that today's soaps can do it like Bill Bell did it. No the fans would not buy that. They would have to modernize it and do it like shows like Oz and Nip/Tuck did. They can't feature the story predominantly in every episode. You can't carry it through like that repeating constantly the same old thing - modern soap watchers would not live with that. So this of having a character on every single day wouldn't work with it. And you can't let that be your whole story. You have got to have other things to fill up the time and attract the viewers mind too. Bill Bell knew how to build the angst and all but he didn't bore you. He had several little story arcs in each story that help to occupy your mind while you were waiting. You never got bored waiting for such and such to happen. So the modern soap would have to give up this thing of only having 1 or 2 stories taking up the whole show. It can be done, and I think done right again - but the modern soap world is going to have to give up a few things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cat Posted September 2, 2008 Members Share Posted September 2, 2008 I just read your editorial and was going to post when i saw that you had posted again! IA with you that the uber-slow pace of the 1970s soap opera is never coming back. I can understand and accept that. I've only caught glimpses on YouTube of those sort of soaps and I liked what I saw, but I have absolutely no idea whether I would be able to deal with that pace, 5 days a week. I do find, though, that today's soaps may appear faster and more dramatic on a day-by-day basis -- and yet most leave me bored. Why? For precisely the reasons you talk about. No build-up. No yearning. No pay-off. No value. Your last two paragraphs (cited above) really give me hope. Especially the part about Bell never leaving the viewer bored. When does entertainment stop being entertainment? When it becomes boring. Does it matter how fast a show's plotlines move? Rapidity does not always = excitement. Like I said, all I'm looking for is some balance -- in tone, in pace, in cast rotation. P.S.: What exactly do you think the modern soap world would have to give up in order to reach that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted September 2, 2008 Members Share Posted September 2, 2008 While I agree on SIlvio Horta--I find some of your judgements on casting odd--Vanessa Williams is a HUGE draw for a lot of people to the show--you personally find her miscast or don't like her, but I feel confident in sayign she's not keeping audiences away from the show. I agree with you on the Hills--It hink it's pretty despicable in many ways. But I think the original point that it moves at a snail's pace DOES have some relevance to soaps--I am NOT a fan of JER either but people always mention how much young people liked his first run at DAYS--which was also incredibly slow moving. I think the commonly held wisdom that soaps have to pick up the pace is maybe less ture than some think. And JJ ABrams didn't create nor ever "show run" Lost though he did add story elements Steve--I agree with you but i'm not sure Nip/Tuck is a good example as it has a lot of REALLY rushed storylines to blanace it out (too many IMHO). Mad Men's lack of huge success (though it seems to have become a hit on DVD) and its insanely slow pace with emphasis on just seeing the characters be themselves is another negative point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sylph Posted September 2, 2008 Author Members Share Posted September 2, 2008 He did. He is the co-creator. Check the opening credits. I am shocked you claim otherwise! And the hatch was his idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SteveFrame Posted September 2, 2008 Members Share Posted September 2, 2008 Detailed spoilers and previews is the biggie. You can't build angst and yearning when you already know what is going to happen. Producers and writers have got to take chances again and quit being so afraid of the fans getting angry and abandoning the plan they have made. They have got to have faith in the story and sell it. They have got to give up this fascination with putting certain characters on every day or almost every day. You have got to make soap viewers miss their fave for a few days to build that longing to see them again. Plus you just can't show the same story everyday and hit the notes you have too without it getting boring. Plus you can't put all your eggs in one or two baskets as the modern soap writers want to do. Look at Sheffer last year he had 2 stories going at the most at a time, and he got the network mandate to slow one of them down. He couldn't. It got boring and repetitive and he had nothing else to fall back on. Most of the soaps follow this same formula. Many times at AMC it feels like all that is going on is the sextette from hell and the rest of the people are just floating off around town aimlessly. Plus a biggie is that soap fans themselves have got to give up their demands to a certain degree. This of demanding my fave to be on all the time, and their demand that their fave couple be happy, and their demand that the "interloper" be fried, and esp. their demand for the quick payoff. EJami fans have gotten so mad over the fact that after 2 years now EJ and Sami are not madly in love and happy. Well look at what all has happened in that relationship and how quick they put them into a marriage and into bed together. It is just a quickly thrown together mess that has not even dealt with the issues that stand between teh couple. The writers keep throwing them in these convoluted storylines together just so that the EJami fans can be happy seeing their couple naked and in bed together. And after it is over they are left unsatisfied because the issues that are keeping the couple apart are still there and the writers have to wait until another convoluted storyline to throw them into bed again - instead of doing what they should be doing and dealing with the issues. Those are just some things I feel would have to happen, Cat. Some of them are not that drastic. Some are and whether soap fans would accpet them I don't know. The biggie is the spoilers and day ahead previews. Many soap fans don't even go to soap boards for anything but the spoilers, and get mad if they go to a site and that site doesn't have anything new. I mean how much more do you need to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted September 2, 2008 Members Share Posted September 2, 2008 Sorry for shocking you... I have read even from him how he just came in and refocused some ideas but it was very much Cuse and Lindelof's show... But you're right--he is listed as a co creator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SteveFrame Posted September 2, 2008 Members Share Posted September 2, 2008 That is what I was referring to in adding more modern things to the soaps to balance things out. Nip/Tuck works as you said because there is the angst thing, but there are quick moving plots that balance things out. And technically that is what Bell did to the T. In the Bill & Laura romance that began in May 1966 and culminated with Bill & Laura's wedding in December 1975 there were many shorter lived story arcs that sped along. One was the disease that Bill got that caused him to lose his hand. Then there was the shorter lived plot that happened in 1967 when Bill returned and got the use of his hand back. This introduced Bill's brother Tommy to the show, and resulted in a shorter story arc of Tommy as Mark falling in love with their sister, Marie in 1967. Then there was the Kitty Horton murder mystery in 1969 that resulted in Bill going to prison in 1970 that served to introduce Doug Williams to the show and set off another great love story - doug & Julie. Then in 1972 or 1973 there was Michael getting hit by the car and Bill having to save his life. Then in 1974 was Mickey's heart attack and supposed death taht brought him into the world of Maggie Simmons and allowed Bill & Laura to get together. Bell did exactly what Nip/Tuck does - short quick paced stories that kept you intrigued while the underlying story played out all along. Everything that Nip/Tuck does is often fuel for the friendship and rivalry between Christian and Shawn which is the shows main story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted September 2, 2008 Members Share Posted September 2, 2008 Well I hope they did it better than Nip/Tuck often does ANd weren't as used to dropping stories suddenly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cat Posted September 2, 2008 Members Share Posted September 2, 2008 SteveFrame, I'm going to print off your "rules" about what soaps need to give up to become successful -- and file them alongside Douglas Marland's on my desk. Insightful and inspiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SteveFrame Posted September 2, 2008 Members Share Posted September 2, 2008 Oh definitely not. I don't remember any dropped stories. And with Bell being there througout all of the Bill & Laura story esp. everything that happened played into the history of the couple too. The overall story was not changed by any of the little story arcs. And none of it ever felt they were just doing this to showcase the couple or any of that type stuff. The history of all the characters was preserved and motivations and all didn't change over night. It all just fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sylph Posted September 2, 2008 Author Members Share Posted September 2, 2008 I know he and Lindelof wrote a 20-page outline probably from what Jeffrey Lieber pitched to the network. Those two came to develop Jeffrey's idea (who, strangely, got fired from ABC just after that; I think it had something to do with the enormous cost of the pilot). Actually... I don't know if it was Lieber or some guy who's now a Yahoo! executive... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JackPeyton Posted September 2, 2008 Members Share Posted September 2, 2008 Dude, he did a lot more than just come on and do some retooling. More like took the concept of people stuck on an island and recreated the show. He added the scif/mysteryness to the show. he said the island needed to be a char. Yes the other guys pitched an idea to ABC but with JJ the show would not be on, let alone what it is. And im not even a big fan of JJ's work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.