OK, I know we're witnessing the depressing sunset of daytime television and that a miracle needed to "fix" this mess is never going to happen.

But just as an exercise: who would you bring to daytime to infuse some novelty and freshness into it?

A novelist you admire, a playwright whose plays you enjoy, a writer from primetime... Anyone.

Jackie Collins at B&B! Could you imagine?!

But in all seriousness, I honestly think that new blood, i.e. novelists, would be good for daytime soaps, especially if teamed with experienced daytime writers (i.e. Hogan Sheffer and Maria Arena Bell) could be really good for producing classic soaps. I understand that soaps need to move with the times, but there's a way of doing so. Y&R manages to be contemporary but doesn't abandon the things that make soaps great by simply playing out classic stories in a contemporary setting. OLTL has its moments, and I think once all the anniversary stuff is over that Ron will produce some classic soap again, just as long as he keeps the camp factor toned down. I think Pratt's AMC has the potential to be contemporary and intelligent, while GH is the one most in need of a female perspective (rather than the anti female storytelling they churn out), to balance out the dreariness with some warmth.

OK, I know we're witnessing the depressing sunset of daytime television and that a miracle needed to "fix" this mess is never going to happen.

But just as an exercise: who would you bring to daytime to infuse some novelty and freshness into it?

A novelist you admire, a playwright whose plays you enjoy, a writer from primetime... Anyone.

So, Harding Lemay and Hogan Sheffer both came to daytime from outside...and (at least for a time) the new infusion was considered successful, right? (I somehow seem to think Lemay got a bit of soap experience before AW, am I wrong?).

Same with Michael Malone.

Interestingly, with each of these three, their soaps remained soaps. Partly, I guess, because they were paired with experienced soap underlings, right?

But look at this Karen Harris online thing that is getting all the promo. Is that good?

What I'm heading to is this question? Does the FORM need reinvention (on the existing platform of television/networks)? Does the PLATFORM need revision (i.e., internet, etc)?

Sylph says "novelty and freshness". Is that what is needed? What do we mean by that? I considered Six Feet Under novel and fresh and very much a soap (even Alan Ball equated it to Knot's Landing)...true to form, but with new themes, styles, plots, settings. The core serial format, character-based drama wiith heightened emotion was classically soapy.

So, Harding Lemay and Hogan Sheffer both came to daytime from outside...and (at least for a time) the new infusion was considered successful, right? (I somehow seem to think Lemay got a bit of soap experience before AW, am I wrong?).

Harding came from publishing, he was an executive over at Knopfs.

Partly, I guess, because they were paired with experienced soap underlings, right?

Well, I thought about this and I have to say: no. They knew how to use them to good effect. Or not - because Harding was never happy with his team and ended up writing all the scripts himself. And Malone's vision - let's call it that - was probably too strong so no writer could blur it. But I hear the dialogue was dreadful under him, someone would have to confirm that.

What I'm heading to is this question? Does the FORM need reinvention (on the existing platform of television/networks)? Does the PLATFORM need revision (i.e., internet, etc)?

Sylph says "novelty and freshness". Is that what is needed? What do we mean by that? I considered Six Feet Under novel and fresh and very much a soap (even Alan Ball equated it to Knot's Landing)...true to form, but with new themes, styles, plots, settings. The core serial format, character-based drama wiith heightened emotion was classically soapy.

I don't think it needs re-invention. It has to be five days a week, lots of cliff-hangers and traditional soap dramaturgy. However, it needs to be infused with new types of stories and certain elements that could change the way a story is told - types of shots, different editing methods etc.

So, Harding Lemay and Hogan Sheffer both came to daytime from outside...and (at least for a time) the new infusion was considered successful, right? (I somehow seem to think Lemay got a bit of soap experience before AW, am I wrong?).

But look at this Karen Harris online thing that is getting all the promo. Is that good?

What I'm heading to is this question? Does the FORM need reinvention (on the existing platform of television/networks)? Does the PLATFORM need revision (i.e., internet, etc)?

Lemay was hired because of his memoir which is a very interesting read. I had the dickens finding it & acquiring it, although the last time I looked there were more copies floating around. Maybe still $$ though. Someone talked to him about it. He looked at some soaps. More talk. He looked at the specific soap. He was hired. He watched it every day for weeks, taking copious notes, ... and that's the rest of the story.

I think tentatively Life in General is great, both because it's being launched by some creative people on the web, because it sounds quite interesting & because the germ of it began during the strike when in some ways soap writers voices were stymied when they're used to rolling it out every week.

Well, I thought about this and I have to say: no. They knew how to use them to good effect. Or not - because Harding was never happy with his team and ended up writing all the scripts himself. And Malone's vision - let's call it that - was probably too strong so no writer could blur it. But I hear the dialogue was dreadful under him, someone would have to confirm that.

I didn't find it to be at all. But, he put it in his book that Connie Ford teased him about it being too flowery.

No one who has never worked in daytime drama before should just go straight to an EP or HW position, IMO. That's like handing over the reigns of a multi-billion dollar corporation to someone just because they have a degree in business. A person has to spend time with the show, know it, know what it's supposed to be, love it, see it's potential, etc. Not to just say "This show is horrible, let me do what I think is good." A show can be spectacularly great, but if it isn't that show, it's still lacking something.

Imagine if PSNS suddenly became exactly like good, at-its-best Y&R. It would be horrible, just plain terrible, I think. PSNS isn't supposed to do the same things that Y&R does, and I don't think soaps are supposed to do the same things that novels and primetime dramas do.

I didn't find it to be at all. But, he put it in his book that Connie Ford teased him about it being too flowery.

I used the wrong word. What I meant was: no matter who his subwriters were, it would have stayed the same. The style of storytelling, I mean.

P. S. You asked me in that other thread about him: I have yet to form a detailed opinion, but I like him.

Imagine if PSNS suddenly became exactly like good, at-its-best Y&R. It would be horrible, just plain terrible, I think. PSNS isn't supposed to do the same things that Y&R does, and I don't think soaps are supposed to do the same things that novels and primetime dramas do.

Passions shouldn't have existed in the first place. To see that Another World got cancelled and this one got its start...

Edited August 15, 200817 yr by Sylph

Passions shouldn't have existed in the first place.

You'll have to explain this one to me. Why should PSNS not have existed?

You'll have to explain this one to me. Why should PSNS not have existed?

Because it was based on totally anti-soap (so to say) stories, among other things. It glorified and told all those stories that drew away a huge amount of audience from other soaps. A total mockery.

Were you a fan?

I dont think that the question should be should all soaps be reinvented, but more each soap should have its own idenitity and story telling perspective. I think for example, GL and ATWT should be the more traditional, multigenerational soaps (and why Wheeler's version..with or without hand held, just doesnt work) while at the same time new nontraditional soaps emerged. I never understood why all the soaps have to copy each other...why after GH and DOOL did sci-fi and camp emerge, or why after Passions did GL have to have a clone. Prime time doesnt do that...despite time slot limitations, why couldnt Passions AND AW exist?

For the record, I really like Passions for what it is...it stayed true to its identitiy, and actually was creative and amusing in its own freaked out way!

Sorry that was really off topic.

Passions shouldn't have existed in the first place. To see that Another World got cancelled and this one got its start...

I still hold that AW would've been canceled with or without Passions. Someone made an interesting point in a reply to Sara A. Bible's recent blog. NBC wouldn't have kept AW on for much longer, even if Passions wasn't created.

"I maintain that NBC’s line-up would me much healthier today if they had kept AW. Canceling it alienated a lot of their core viewers."

I completely disagree with this statement. By it's last season on the air, AW was averaging a 3.0 in households, compared to the other P&G soaps, GL was averaging a 3.5 and ATWT a 3.8. Not to mention DAYS was then the #2 soap averaging a 5.8 in households during the 1998-1999 season. Had AW still been on the air today, the show would be LOWER RATED than GL, which is of course at the bottom of the ratings right now. If you think P&G's budget cuts at GL were bad during these past few years, it would've been much worse at AW, since GL always out-rated AW in viewers, households, and demos. AW would simply be a disaster zone, more so than it was during its final decade on the air or so.

Because it was based on totally anti-soap (so to say) stories, among other things. It glorified and told all those stories that drew away a huge amount of audience from other soaps. A total mockery.

Were you a fan?

It WAS a mockery..and I loved it for that...while at the same time loving my traditianal soaps. (How did it draw audiences away from the other soaps???? It was always low rated.)

Look at it this way, Passions was Balls Out Freaky/Mock Soap. It committed to its storytelling. Unlike my faves ATWT and GL have done in recent years, which was to act embarrased about its identity and tell tepid stories which was neither here nor there.

Plus, how could you hate a soap that had a witch get Santa drunk to get him in bed!!!!

It WAS a mockery..and I loved it for that...while at the same time loving my traditianal soaps. (How did it draw audiences away from the other soaps???? It was always low rated.)

I meant: those "fantasy" stories first originated on other soap operas and the audience hated them and left. So, no, Passions didn't draw the audience away from other soaps, they did it themselves.

Plus, how could you hate a soap that had a witch get Santa drunk to get him in bed!!!!

Sara A. Bibel:

I could never get into the show. I enjoy camp. But the show’s blend of silly supernatural plots, women who lived only to get their men, days that dragged on for months and constant expository dialog didn’t work for me. It seemed like a program that was designed for college students to watch while they were stoned, a show that could only be watched ironically.

I think it would be fascinating to pair Stephen King and a soap writer familiar with formatting and see what kind of soap he could do. I also think with their habit of serialization, some of your better graphic novelists might have a shot. (comic book writers).

I don't think it needs re-invention. It has to be five days a week, lots of cliff-hangers and traditional soap dramaturgy. However, it needs to be infused with new types of stories and certain elements that could change the way a story is told - types of shots, different editing methods etc.

And I going to come right up against you. I think it needs to be completely reinvented. I don't think it has to be five days a week. I think daytime could go a a weekly format just like primetime with a 2-hour show every day Mon.-Thurs. (AMC/Mon, OLTL/Tues, GH/Wed, new show/Thurs, new show or "week in review" clip show/Fri.) That leaves an extra hour in the schedule for whatever game show/talk show/reality train wreck the networks may want to put on or they can free it up to affiliates for syndication. That immediately ups the production values because now they're producing 2 hours/week instead of 5. That gives us better writing (what decent writer want to come into a genre where their goal is to crank out as much as they possibly can?) and better performances (more rehearsal time and the chance for retakes). That will immediately lead to the other things you mention: "new types of stories and certain elements that could change the way a story is told - types of shots, different editing methods etc."

Right now, soaps are the fast food of the entertainment industry. How many people do you know aspire to work in fast food? It's something 1.) where people get their start and get the hell out; 2.) the do to pay the bills until something better comes along and/or subsidize another project i.e. another business they want to start or; 3.) the lucky ones end up owning their very own McDonalds but they sure didn't plan on that.

Edited August 15, 200817 yr by marceline