New blood in daytime: Novelists? Playwrights? Primetime Writers?

[Sylph]

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.

[UKBoi]

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.

[MarkH]

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.

[Sylph]

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

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 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.

[Tonksadora]

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.

[Tonksadora]

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.

[All My Shadows]

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.

[Sylph]

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.

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

[All My Shadows]

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

[Sylph]

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?

[Mitch]

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.

[Y&RWorldTurner]

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.

[Mitch]

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!!!!

[Sylph]

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.

Sara A. Bibel:

[quartermainefan]

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).