Ellen Wheeler hopes to save the daytime soap....

[Soapsuds]

The sets are a travesty. The scripts are boring and pointless. The cameras used for some reason makes the faces and sets look orange to me. So much wrong with this show and nothing right with it at this moment. I would have rather seen GL cancelled. Because this is not GL not matter how many times Alan, Beth, Vanessa and Billy appear. Vanessa, Billy and Bill appeared today and the set looked so awful. I just couldn't watch. I kept wondering why are Maeve Kinkead and Jordan Clarke doing this? What a pity the actors have to put up with shitty writing and horrendous sets with awful lighting.

[Jess]

I just don't see new soaps being made, being considered, etc. and haven't for a long time. The failure rate of new soaps has been perceived as being even worse than the existing ones.

There's nothing wrong per se with the telenovela format which is largely about have a popular cast, of veterans & newbies they hope will become popular, and the shorter timeframe, from 6 months to 5 years or so, but daily.

There would be nothing wrong to me with having new kinds of soaps leave the daytime noon to 4 & move to the gap that is suppertime for some, between 6 and 8, or to late night, immediately after the primetime lineup is done, which means eleven for most nets, but 10 for others. Half hour soaps could be re-explored, too.

But, when I speak of the daytime US soap opera genre as needing to reinvent itself again, as it has many times before, I speak of what many have said is why we have had soaps go on & on & on. Because they have reinvented themselves, stayed within their purposes but not allowed themselves to stagnate. I see Jerry ver Dorn being quoted often - love him - and he was an actor who has spoken about that process of reinventing themselves being necessary for survival.

Donna, I didn't read the rest of your responses, but let me make a point. I do not see what is wrong with a failure rate. Why does a soap have to survive 40 years? Everyone talks about the purpose of daytime. What is that purpose? It is something other than entertainment? As far as not allowing themselves to stagnate, I think they are stagnate.

The reason I push this is because I see a couple of things happening. I think the traditional soap that you and others advocate probably will survive for a while, but there will be few of them and they will not be on network TV. There are cable channels for National Geographic, golf and the Catholic church. I'm sure a channel that was strictly on traditional soaps will emerge. I also expect that there will be computer networks. The only question is can anyone afford to create the shows for the niche channel. I think we are talking about a niche market for that type entertainment not the type general interest market that is expected of the four network channels. I also think that network channels are going to come up some replacement for soap operas and that replacement will probably be along the lines of some of the things Mark talked about. When Fox finally pops out its version of the daily soap opera, we will know the change. LOL.

In my opinion the points of view expressed throughout this thread are a little idealized. I say that with all due respect. The genre has a very proud history. The following for soap operas is very loyal and in my opinion very intelligent. You know though, some of the arguments are saying that soaps should stay as they were during their hey days and public opinion will change for them and everyone will just come home. I just don't see that happening. I think public opinion changes in predictable fashions and that five-day-a-week character driven stories are not going to cut it in the near future with the mass public. There is nothing in soaps right now that I see can cause such a jolt that it will change public opinion and that is what we are dealing with -- a generational shift in public opinion regarding daytime soaps. Daytime lost a generation.

So there you go, my opinion. I add, I really think Ellen Wheeler deserves credit for trying. The fact that she got a story in New York Magazine says something.

Actually I am very much serious.

[Contessa Donatella]

It's not new for shows to dramatize the conflict some victims have about their rapists, especially when they knew them as more than just their rapists. That fits Jeffrey & Olivia. She knew him first as an adult male & only much later as the boy who had raped her when she was a teen. I'm glad that they didn't put them together, of course, but I found the small mini-not-even-an-arc of a storyline uncomfortable in the extreme. I don't necessarily think, though, that soaps shouldn't at times make us feel uncomfortable & creeped out, which I was, too.

As far as your disagreement about my comparison to Lumina, I can only agree to disagree with you. Which is not a problem.

Most of what you're saying are other cases where I simply don't agree with your view of the show - what I like & love, you don't.

But, to a few points, specifically, no what I said about soaps not existing in a vacuum & having to be judged by the standards & circumstances of their own time, that's not some simple principle. That's reality. It always has been reality. Certainly there can be other ways to discuss & compare, but judging it against what is real & true now in the business world of television & one way that shouldn't be dismissed. I mean, in the good ole ole days, soaps made money hand over fist for the networks & production companies & advertising agencies doubling as production companies, etc. Daytime soaps were the primetime cash cow. It allowed the networks, and production companies, to take chances on shows in primetime they would not have been able to without that money. Wouldn't it be great if we had dividends from that money back now to reinvest in the product?!! Yeah, right, like that was going to happen. Soaps have always had to pay their own way, every year, or in those good ole days every 13 weeks. Some of my favorite times of a big handful of soaps fell in the late 80s & early 90s & soaps cost substantially more to produce then, as more quality production methods had been brought to the shows, but that was also a time when money was spent like there was no end in sight - on salaries, on sets, on trips for many to go to award shows, on & on. And, well, there was an end & it was, as it happens, in sight. Now that piper has to be paid - or simply go ahead & cancel all of the soaps that have real budgetary woes. I think that would leave Y&R on the air.

Now, I don't know why people keep saying that no one owes Ellen Wheeler anything because they were a fan of her acting on AW or AMC, ... because really that has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about.

MADD/P&G was looking for new blood. That's how she & Goutman brought Hogan Sheffer to ATWT, where he did both great things & things that missed the track completely. They began a kind of a shadow mentorship training of a small handful of potential people for EP at GL. There were people who had done other things in soaps. They either had Directing training or had become Directors with OJT. They had experience in different kind of Producing jobs. And, for a year they worked side by side or just behind Goutman at ATWT. And, in true P&G style, it was also a competition. Wheeler won. And, she has proven herself far from incompetent. She's gone beyond mere competence. She's creative & she thinks outside the box & she is quite obviously fighting tooth & nail for the survival of this show.

I don't think this was at all a puff piece. And, I think it's great mainstream press for the soaps. The genre has been getting a lot of that kind of coverage all of a sudden but most of it wholesale negative, that soaps are dying.

Her mentor has wavered far off track.

I mean, I do enjoy it when actors go on to involve themselves in other aspects of daytime, like Tomlin, Goutman, Wheeler, ... more, but the fact that I enjoy that deep connection to soaps has nothing to do with my admiration of Wheeler as an EP, or Goutman until recently as a Director at AMC and an EP or Gary Tomlin as an actor, member of many writing staffs over the years and as an EP during his brief tenure at OLTL, Llanview Camp.

One of the things I do love about GL today is that it's better in those terms, in what it is about, in our getting back some of our lost sense of time since soaps eliminated the time it took for people to get to & fro. Now, at GL we have that back & dialogue & scenes can take place in or around cars or walking to & fro. That, to me, has been an unexpected bonus. I really love the way that GL uses history & continuity. And, I think they're finding their way with the changes in the writing that this new format requires. Hey, when they originally did a quarter hour of a show on the radio & then later in the day ran over to another building, in costume, with their few props, if any, to do the exact same show on a TV stage. It took them awhile to figure out why to do two different versions & then to do so.

And, I frakin LOVE the music. It's as good as the music used to be in some of my favorite halcyon, Glory Days, of soaps.

GL began whittling down characters in core families long before Ellen was at the helm, because it began at GL with JFP where she obviously first tested out her ideas about taking one person per grouping & firing that actor & not recasting and of killing off someone who was big & connected, oh, maybe like the heart, or one of the hearts of the show. The one per grouping weakens the show & leaves it prey to whatever is coming next. JFP is an incredible master at the sick soap syndrome 'game'. Although it's not a game to me. And, JFP did even better at cutting at AW, and then at OLTL. P&G always had the largest casts in daytime. There was a mandate from P&G to cut their sizes.

Heck, I'd have preferred it if they'd gone to a cost-saving format then & kept those characters & actors on the canvas!!

I think we, naturally, have soap fans that are just plain unhappy with everything bad that has happened & is happening to soaps. I completely get that. I choose to try to look with different eyes. And, honestly, as I have said, I expected to hate the new format!! Instead I love it. Shocking, I know.

[Contessa Donatella]

Well, if you looked at all of the soaps that have been on the air, you'd know that many have been canceled. And, at one time new soaps were launched to fill that slot in daytime. But, that hasn't been true for a fair while. And, in asking about failure, it's true that just because something ends, that doesn't mean it's a failure. It simply means it lasted x amount of time & then didn't last any more.

Irna Phillips said that soaps had a two-fold purpose: to entertain & to educate. I agree with her. Neither she nor I were the first ones to get that idea out there. It goes way back in Literature & in Drama.

The rest of the US daytime soap genre evolved into this particular kind of ongoing format. It was never something that was planned out ahead of time.

I agree & it's something I've been saying since the second half of the 90s. Now, of course, if they've done it in time, some of them might manage to segue onto the Internet. As to a soap channel that's not SOAPnet, if only the one Ted Turner was prepared to launch in the early 90s had actually launched. And, after that, if only almost all of them had been able to come to terms, there'd have been a soap channel that had P&G including Classic AW, the Dobsons were aligned with P&G, so Classic SB, ABC, and the Bells/Sony. By all accounts, at the time, ABC and P&G and Sony were all too bull-headed to get along with each other. So, it fell apart. ABC announced they were going to launch one. A combo P&G/Sony grouping announced, but ABC launched first & used their Disney clout to get early clearances on cable company line-ups, so soon the other Combo Plate group ran the numbers & business sense said to forget about it, so they immediately launched as a website, instead. And, yes, what can be produced at amounts that streaming video can afford if that's the only source of revenue? No one knows, but it seems like a real hurdle. And, if only FOX had been able to go forward with the daytime line-up that they wanted, in 1994. AW would've been their star, but NBC made it financially impossible for it to happen. It's no wonder they were soured on the idea for awhile!

What I see right now is that CBS wants to continue to have soaps. ABC wants to continue to have soaps. NBC hasn't wanted to in years!!! When they are finally completely free of them, their desire to have more judge shows may still be around. Or, if not, in true NBC ADD form, they will have thought of something else they want. ABC's affiliates have LONG wanted the time back for themselves, so some of that might happen in future. I have no idea what CBS would do if/when they begin to lose soaps.

Well, soapy primetime shows do very well, but that is only once per week. And, frankly, once that even non-soapy primetime shows began to poach the attributes of daytime soap operas, successfully, ... there's a problem. Because if they will do so, primetime can do action & event driven & procedural and primetime soap & soapy better because they have more money to do it. However, today's schedules with fewer episodes, at one per week, the shows do not produce the same 'addictive' quality to them. Although there is DOCTOR WHO, TORCHWOOD, and THE SARAH JANE ADVENTURES. The British can still get us addicted.

I think your point about daytime losing a generation is well taken. Many fans, including me, have been out there crying for soaps to react to what was changing in the world & television universe then & not too late. Instead they trotted out the usual suspects as scapegoats, when in reality, they were things they needed to be reacting to & finding ways to still deliver their product & get those new means of delivery counted & continue as always before to bring in new fans. They got too conservative, fearful, scared. What's odd is that in those late 80s/early 90s we basically had a heyday in storyline content, too, with them being much more bold, and then, somehow they went retro to back to before DAYS in the 70s.

[JONNYSBRO]

When Wheeler was a director at ATWT from 1999-2002, the actors loved her. She was very seasonsed as a director and produced really good work. She is an actor and she knows how to direct actors. Ellen Wheeler was an excellent actress, no matter what you think of her producing. She won two emmys for her work on soaps. She was amazing as Cindy on AMC and that storyline was groundbreaking in AMC standards and she was great as Marley. She was a very intense actress on soaps. Ellen Wheeler also worked for GL before she became EP under Paul Rauch, she left when John Conboy became EP but returned to be named EP. I just wish anyone could go in her shoes and produce the soap you watched in the 90's. It is not possible because back then daytime had bigger casts. Also there is a restriction on the number of vets that can be used due to costs. P&G/CBS will not replace Wheeler at this point because first they are embroiled in this new model that she created. Having someone else take over at this time would confuse things because another executive producer would not know what to do. The way GL tapes is so way different from other soaps. They only use 50-53 pages an episode instead of 90. They use alot less production staff but the traveling to Peapack has taken a toll on some actors. This is not an easy thing she overtook. Believe me the kinks are being worked. The camera work is better then before, the writing is improving with the new writing teams. A big thing for Bloom was improve the writing which EW agreed needed to be improved. She promoted all writers that have been with GL for years. GL practically tapes with no rehearsal, it goes straight to taping. Actors must very prepared because you have one take.

[Contessa Donatella]

Okay, I simply disagree about those stories & these stories. To me the biggest problem with the storylines today is that GL is chewing up story so fast. They need to pace themselves more. But, yes, I definitely see good dramatic structure & all that means & I may be alone here in seeing that, but I'm not alone online. Plus, there's a greater overall feeling of the town, the community & even though it began with the launch of the 'new GL' it's there in the writing, too. Really, it began before Feb. 28, 2008. GL has been a much more realistic world & the stories & the characters have regained some of their relatability. And, small towns do have families like the Spauldings!

Do we need a park bench?? A half-finished cruddy looking house? Well, a park bench is incredibly handy if you have the ability to go outside! People in real life sit on park benches all the time. And, the half-finished house is the history of Harley's house. Or, really, it's the history of the house Gus built for Harley that has still not been finished. Maybe we could segue away from it, ... in time.

I really don't watch any so-called reality shows, never really have. To me, reality is the news. So-called reality programming never really fulfilled the seeming soap hybrid some hoped it would, to me. And, I certainly don't see it as that kind of programming.

[Vee]

Then soaps will just have to die, I suppose. Because supporting the Ellen Wheelers, David Kreizmans and Dena Higleys of daytime is not an option for me. Mind you, I am of the younger generation. So without my age group what have you got?

Not really. Press can be bought. GH buys space for its shitty stories in EW and other major mags too.

[Vee]

It's not new for shows to dramatize the conflict some victims have about their rapists, especially when they knew them as more than just their rapists. That fits Jeffrey & Olivia. She knew him first as an adult male & only much later as the boy who had raped her when she was a teen. I'm glad that they didn't put them together, of course, but I found the small mini-not-even-an-arc of a storyline uncomfortable in the extreme. I don't necessarily think, though, that soaps shouldn't at times make us feel uncomfortable & creeped out, which I was, too.

Yes, I understand what you're saying, but what they put onscreen was incredibly irresponsible. It was not a compelling psychodrama, it was played simply as Olivia lusting after Jeffrey. And then, just like every other story on the show, because there are no more long-term outlines, it disappeared too. Not that I didn't mind it disappearing, but it's just one of dozens of examples of the lack of any internal consistency.

We were essentially saying the same thing here. But we want to apply it to different ends. I am saying it's not an excuse for putting on a truly subpar show.

Tell that to the fans who have tuned out in the multi-millions. Or some of the unhappy actors.

She's beyond something, all right.

And in the process has made it unrecognizable. Fans are unhappy, actors are unhappy, the show is gutted, so what else is there? The name over the door? Oh, wait, there aren't any doors anymore. We're filming in an abandoned slaughterhouse.

Thank you for admitting that.

Except now they walk to and fro at times for no other reason but to showcase filming outside. Why is Rafe wandering on an open road on the day of his father's funeral? Is he walking to the church? Why is the Spaulding press conference in an empty field? Why does everyone have long conversations in incredibly unattractive and unlikely locales that all happen to be outdoors?

What history and continuity is there left? Did Rick's daughter Leah even show up for the last Bauer barbecue?

They don't have that kind of time anymore.

It would be one thing if I saw anyone beyond the poor actors and the poor, beset dialogue writers trying to make it work. But there's just nothing else. Almost everyone and everything I care about on that show is gone or irrevocably altered. The show looks and sounds like drowned [!@#$%^&*]. The storylines don't really exist because they change every two weeks, the characters change personalities every day, the temporal editing and passage of time within the show is shot to [!@#$%^&*], and nothing matters beyond an extremely transitory concept of "atmosphere," which you can't hang an entire show on. The only things that last are things that almost no one in the audience really cares about: Rafe. Cyrus and his family. Josh and Cassie. Cassie's endless bleating about Tammy that rivals even GH's Lily Rivera death fetish.

It's not as though I have no hope in any of daytime; until very recently, I thought OLTL was doing very well. I think it will still rise out of a summer slump shortly and I still enjoy that show. I have hope for daytime, but none of it lies with GL. It might as well be dead already.

There's more but just suffice to say we are in almost total disagreement, that's nothing new.

[JackPeyton]

I do not think EW is the person to blame. That said, shes not blameless either, but i do think she has gone above and beyond to try and save this show much more than i have ever seen a HW do for a show.

[Greg's GL]

ICAM. Well said.

Exactly. I could live with the location shots if they MEANT something. It comes across to me that GL is just shooting these scenes to say "Hey look at us! We're on location!" Arguably, GL's sister show ATWT's outdoor shots are (most of the time) contributing to the story. The locations make sense. GL's do not. I mean, really, before an important Spaulding stock holders meeting Dinah and Alan cross paths in a BASEBALL field? What?

Great example. IF there were any continuity left on this show, Leah would have been at the Bauer BBQ.

For me, I could accept GL's "new production model" if it didn't come across on-screen as it's being put together for peanuts. EW proclaiming her "love" for soaps in one breath but then saying she doesn't want GL to look like a soap in the next is contradictory and shows her bias.

There's no point in having 50 permanent sets if half of them are unshootable. If the show had a competent EP when they erected these sets, they would have known that you can't shoot scenes in a closet and have it appear on-screen as the DA's office! It still looks like a closet. And the production offices doubling as "sets" on-screen STILL look like they are a producer's office. Hmm. I WONDER WHY??!??

The "reality" of shooting on location does not help the show if it does not add to the illusion of characters living in Springfield, USA. The location shots DO NOT add to that illusion. When you have Reva standing outside what looks to be a one-story brick building that is supposed to house the PD and courthouse, it doesn't ring true. The courtroom set is a travesty. Again, a competent EP would have known that one of the permanent sets should be the courtroom, complete with a realistic jury box, witness stand and viewer's seats. The one showed this week was not realistic and did nothing to add to the story. IMO, it took AWAY from the story because the set made absolutely NO SENSE.

I still can't escape the thought that GL could have been "saved" in a better way. They have such a small cast that the show could have been reduced to 30 minutes with no problem. That action in itself would have saved quite a bit of production costs. And Dan's point above about narrowing the focus of the show to the Bauers, Lewises and Coopers would have been a big step in the right direction. Having a huge corporation supposedly headquartered in this broken-down town just doesn't seem possible for me.

At the end of the day, I know that the old GL is gone for good. However, they could still make this show enjoyable if they paid more attention to the stories and the way the location shots and sets are done.

[UKBoi]

I couldn't agree more. It's all well and good saying she wants to revolutionise the way the show is produced and rejuvenate the genre, but at what cost? She should be looking at ways to preserve the integrity and image of the soap operas we all know and love while bringing them into the 21st century. AMC is doing a great job, mixing the handheld, outdoor shots with their existing sets, rather than commit to building an entirely new slew of sets without testing out how they look on screen.

Again, wasted money. When Cross Creek was OBVIOUSLY a production office somewhere, they changed and started using a real house. That's right, don't build a set for Reva to live in. Dont use that spacious, white walled home that she and Josh lived in and turn it into a four walled set that would actually look convincing. AND THEN go to the expense of paying whoever that house belongs to rather than using a set they obviously abandoned for this new production model.

There's no consistency when they're doing these outdoor shots, either. Like a while ago, the courtroom/PD was a two story building, now it's one. Cassie's house was a rundown farmhouse, and then suddenly it's brick? Harley lived in a white, shingled house and then suddenly lived in a brick one. Reva's house has had about three different exteriors and the Spaulding mansion has gone from a gothic, castle looking building to a red brick and white stone mansion. I DONT GET IT. Not to mention the fact Company's exterior is basically a house.

This new production model, as much as it's keeping the show afloat, is also blatantly disregarding the show's history. In that 1992 blackout people were trapped all over the city. There were radio broadcasts and people were stuck 'downtown', implying Springfield was a moderately sized city. Now it's a rural community? If GL was a soap about a rural community, then this model, with all its outdoor shooting in fields and parks, would be a good fit, but it's not what we've always been led to believe Springfield was.

Even Main Street, the much celebrated new set Wheeler build, now is a shadow of it's former self. You can TELL it's indoors, and it's so cramped and tiny that I just dont buy it. IT LOOKS CHEAP. Why did they need an interior set for an outdoor location instead of just taping it in an ACTUAL street?! It can't cost that much, Neighbours has been doing it for years with the permission of the homeowners. The choices Wheeler made for what sets to be permanent and what to be done in production offices was ALL WRONG. Surely a hospital set would be the easiest to recreate in the halls of their production offices? Surely if they're going to make the courtroom/PD adjoining, they'd make it a little bigger and actually believable? Surely Reva, the show's most recognisable character, would get an actual HOME instead of a production office? Did they really need a church set when they could just shoot in an ACTUAL church (which they've also done, which makes the decision for this 'set' even less understandable) when it wasnt in use?

Wheeler had the right idea, but she didnt think it through. It saved Guiding Light, but at what cost?

[Greg's GL]

Excellent observation. I have noticed that as well. IMO, that's another thing that would have never gotten past a more experienced, competent EP. I have no problem with changing the exterior of a character's residence, but EXPLAIN it to me on-screen. Reva: "How's the remodeling going with your house, Sis?" Cassie: "Oh, they are just about done. The house is going to be so much easier to take care of now that we've added the brick." Simple as that. What bothers me about this so much is that one of two things must have happened with the exteriors - either TPTB decided to change them with no explanation whatsoever, hoping the audience wouldn't take note OR they didn't care enough to use the same exteriors all the time. Either way, it's careless and lazy.

I agree. Another great observation.

It's cost GL it's history, integrity and legacy. After the inevitable happens, and it WILL happen, how will anyone remember what a grand show GL used to be? Or will they remember this shell, crippled and emaciated, lying there on EW's "life support" system? Ugh.

[Jess]

Yes,soaps can die. That is one option and the option that will likely occur if they continue along their current path. Or they can make a choice to change. That is another option. I suspect that is the option that will take place. I do not care who those writers are. I really do not and neither do the people who are not watching soap operas right now.

As far as you and your age group, maybe you are not representative of the entire generation of viewers and what they enjoy watching. In fact, the majority of viewers in that age group are not watching soaps at all.

And maybe the press can be bought. I guess P&G or CBS would pressure New York Magazine to write that story. I do think they pitched the story because that is what PR officials do. At the same time, maybe it's a good thing that an industry is getting attention for something besides its bleak future.

[Mitch]

Wheeler "won," that competition as rumour says she established a close friensdship with Goutman ...

Not to turn this into a Jossip thread, so I will move on to the product I see on my screen. Wheeler has all the right "ideas," with all the wrong execution. Other posters have mentioned the bizarre places characters have been just to show them outside (Monday, Alan was in a suit, walking across a baseball diamond when he got the phone call about the trial???HUH??) But it is the constant mention of reality which comes out of Wheeler's mouth every five minutes..with all due respect to Donna, Sprinfield has never seemed more unrealistic to me, despite the flys buzzing around Dinah's head. I dont think that it is bad that they have made SF a rural community, despite that it destroys the history of the show since the early 70's, as it makes sense that five closely connected families would interact more often in this small world. However, I live in a suburb of Chicago, and despite my proximity to a large urban center, I dont have a jewel thief, a hitman, or a meglamaniac running around town (and baseball diamonds) seeing dead people. Now is the time to throw off that silly bagadge that, over the top biggness which, I feel not only killed soaps, but also doesnt fit the format. Wheeler and the producers who came before her have fired or pushed into obscurity the actors who could make this format work and for us to believe that they are real people JVD, Peter Simon, Maureen Garret and the horribly underused MOL, (who actually seems to have inspired Wheeler's hatred they act like Rick doesnt exist even when he should be on) instead we have Cyrus, and his brother, who looks like they found him at the Peapack Community Theater prodcution of Interview with the Vampire.

Other things which take me out of Wheeler's reality..the murder charges and trial of Cheesy Lestat was so sloppy and had so many factual errors that I didnt believe a minute of it (and why would an Austrian Hit Man, who would be a major flight risk, be walking around town with just an ankle bracelet.) I grew up in a town like Wheeler's Springfield, and let me tell you , people would have ran an assasin, Austrilain or not, out of town on a rail if he came back after killing a young girl in town...the take over of Spaulding was never explained and we never saw how it happened,..and silly things which miss the mark, like Cassie going ahead and divorcing Josh on the day of the murder trial???? None of that is even close to what normal people would react to the situations they are in .

Wheeler has a great opportunity to turn at least the GL ship around. But first, she has to throw off the excess of the 80s and 90s and bring the show back to what it was in the beggining... a simple little show about people trying to keep their families together during changing difficult times...I dont think she has the respect for the core of GL or of writing in general to do it.

[Khan]

It did. It was called SoapNet. Sadly, though, SN's becoming a thing of the past, too.