Jump to content

Define "soapy"


Recommended Posts

  • Members

As a somewhat "newbie" to the board (think I've just now crossed over to dayplayer?), I'm curious about the term, "soapy."

I know what I think it means. I also thought I knew what everyone else thought it meant. But lately, I've seen such an overuse of the term to cover such a broad range of characteristics.

So, in your words, define "soapy"'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I can't define it, but based on the way I see the term used, I don't think I like it very much. Usually I see people call something soapy when it . . .

1) Explains away out of character behavior, or rewrites history that the audience knows to be true but now is supposed to disregard as if it never happened to promote stories that don't make sense on their surface.

2) Permits the audience to root for the villain

3) Justifies stories that force the audience to suspend reality or drink the kool aid. (Soapy kool aid sounds awful to me, even if you put vodka in it. Blech!)

There's more, but these three "soapy goodness" situations are top of mind for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm having a hard time defining right now, but here are two examples.

1. On Brothers and Sisters, when Justin and Rebecca turned out NOT to be brother and sister, and first fought their feelings, and then succumbed...every part of that seemed soapy to me. Not in a good way...for a show that I love and that I otherwise think has dealt with things (esp. when Jon Robin Baitz was there) in a fairly authentic way.

2. On Lost, when Kate and Sawyer made love, but then it was clear that her heart was with Jack...that seemed soapy to me.

So, I think soapy for me means the use of classic soap cliche plots (things that do not occur so often in the real world, outside of Jerry Springer)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think soapy implies an emotional indulgence of some kind- whether that be revenge, romance, anger- anything you would let yourself do if you indulge in your fantasies a bit too much. When I think of soapy- I imagine seeing people doing the things we all wish we could do everyday, but never indulge in- but it defeats the purpose if we can't imagine doing an activity even in special circumstances- hence the importance of a great character played by a talented actor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think soapiness is the low quality, overwrought aspect of daytime drama. The unrealistic plots (amnesia, return from the dead), the cliches (fainting=pregnant, "I've never been happier"= sudden death) and the things the make most people go WTF? (nobody works yet eveyone's rich, apartments without kitchens).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is how I personally define "soapy":

1) By plots

A soap typically includes shootings, kidnappings, affairs, blackmail, amnesia, accidents, triangles, lies, horrible mistakes, paralysis.

2) By cliches

Incredible and incessant coincidences (people walking in at the absolutely worst moment, overhearing, etc), misunderstandings, a whole family living together, things almost always go wrong

3) By style

Soaps by and large tend to have melodramatic dialogue, tight and long close-ups, accompany many scenes with grand/operatic music, reactions are usually far more dramatic than real life, etc.

4) By the total disregard of reality

A soap operates in a completely different world. It is almost 100% impossible for a group of 6 people to go through (1)

5) By Technical aspects

Continuous, multiple storylines going on at the same time, cliffhangers, villains in key roles, usually slow-pace

So, I guess when one says that "that wedding was so well done, so soapy" I think it means that it was the unison of characters who hate each other, secrets and lies bubbling under the surface, ready to explode, bitchy comments, a high tension on whether the marriage will actually happen, surprise twists (Somebody objects! Somebody suddenly shows up! Dramatic music! The secret suddenly comes out! The killer is pretending to be the priest!). Of course there are many decidedly more low-key soaps, but a full-fledged soap does all that and more. And, yes, soapy does also mean trashy, if only because of the high impropability of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have to walk along this road as well. I think Soapy = Melodrama. Megan McTavish is a very melodramatic writer. She's always talking about "raising the emotional stakes" in all her interviews where she's hyping up her sweeps stories. Even in the dialogue, the situations are blown way out of proportion. Several years ago, on AMC, when Di (masquerading as Dixie) left to go to New York to confront the Dragon with Julia, she plainly told everyone that she was leaving via a note. It was no legitimate question as to the fact that she left on her own will -- but after she left, every word out of everyone's mouths was "Dixie is missing." No... she's not missing. She left. Not telling you where she went to doesn't equate to missing -- it equates to she doesn't want your asses to know where she's going.

Or when the truth about Charlotte came out, everyone involved in that storyline kept talking about "Explosions from the Chandler mansion when Adam finds out the truth!"

Soapy, to me, means sensationalized, over hyped, exceedingly melodramatic actions and reactions to rather everyday life things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've always seen soapy as one of those words that can be used both positively and negatively. In the negative sensen, it usually means overly dramatic, an emphasis on romantic complications to an extreme degree (i.e. triangles/quadrangles), and plot driven events that defy established character traits. On the positive side, soapy can mean well connected plotlines, a balance of both family and romantic complications, and plots that may be over the top, but are grounded in well defined characters who react as they should to such bizarre events may just be another everyday occurence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Community Posts

    • I think I've heard of this before but I'd definitely like to know more, lol. Probably in the Classic thread if that's preferred by people. I've never been big on Cari Shayne's Karen. But yes, Carrie and Christie Clark have always had me. Like Kimberly as Robin on GH or Erin Torpey on OLTL, there is a core of lived experience with the actor evolving from child to adult and a quiet intelligence in their presence there that makes the character rise above any poor writing IMO.
    • I hear what your saying regarding Carrie Brady's place on the canvas. There is no arguing that. As I think I was saying poorly above, Karen was introduced during a transition period very early in Riche's run (as was Jagger). There were a lot of things that happened during that period that feel very against the soap opera grain. For example, David Langdon, Monica's ex and Dawn's father, arrives in Port Charles in a medical story where Monica inserts herself with the intention of telling David that Dawn was their daughter. David dies suddenly and Monica never reveals this information to David. This feels very untraditional. Similarly, the whole Joseph Adkins arc with Bobbie writing to a murderer and the women of Port Charles all fawning over his book is not something I felt was the type of story soaps in 1992 did. Similarly, introducing a character like Karen without any family ties and anchoring a younger part of the story with another outsider Jagger wasn't how things would typically work (effectively) on the soap.   I think my issue with the idea that Brenda had a direct goal is that is all there was to her. She had nothing to her outside of that in early 1993. Jagger had wanting to find his family. Karen was working to get into medical school. Brenda had Jagger, who only wanted her when he couldn't have Karen. Even Ruby called Jagger out on this. Brenda's point of view was so limited. The fact that she nearly gets bested by Jenny Eckert of all people in a confrontation in March, 1993, is pretty wild given how milquetoast Jenny is.  I can see why you would think Karen was taking a middle of the road approach to things. It might not have been presented well, but her pursuing her career and going to college was going to come first. Working at Kelly's and maintaining her grades was going to come before her romance with Jagger. With Rhonda around, meddling in her life, Karen definitely had more reason to be conflicted. Rhonda saw Karen's relationship with Jason as the key to Karen's success, both by marrying into a wealthy family and by building a network of connections in Karen's career field.  Having watched some of her "General Hospital" run, I would like to at the early years of Karen's run on "Port Charles" to see how that all this continues in terms of her characterization. I think Karen remains very passive romantically deferring to Courtney Kanelos, who was just a much stronger adversary for Karen than Brenda was based on where Brenda was in her journey given that Courtney had Neil which tied her to the entire Scanlon clan. I do remember Karen having some outbursts, but I vaguely think that Shayne's Karen could also be pushed to her limits and she would fire back. This just wasn't her modus operandi as it was for characters like Courtney and early Brenda.  In Brenda's defense, I think part of the issue was the underdevelopment of her character. I think there was an intent on either Levinson's (or Riche's) part to craft Brenda as a "poor little rich girl" type who had no moral compass because her father was a business tycoon who ignored her and had loved Julia's mother more than her mother. If this was true, and the intent to solicit sympathy, or least empathy, for Brenda, it wasn't played enough for this to be effective. Brenda rejected Julia both in terms of her role as a parental figure and any sisterly advice she gave.  I would even go further and say that the issues I have with the Brenda/Karen rivalry were inherit to Bill Levinson's writing. By comparison, if you look at what was being done in the other female rivalries, the issues were mostly consistent. Jenny and Julia, for example, had the potential to be interesting but Julia was so passive and Jenny was sound brash and unfeeling that there was no one to root for. Also, the rivalry between Tiffany and Bobbie took Tiffany into a very narrow view with her solely trying to secure custody of Lucas at the cost of everything else including her friendship with Bobbie and Tony as well as her marriage to Sean. I'd be curious to see if Levinson had similar issues when he was at "Loving," but I'm spacing at the moment.   
    • Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka talk new show, ‘Drag Me to Dinner’ l GMA  
    • Jimbo & Alexis Spill Tea on Heidi's Drama (Unaired)

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Do these tournaments still test for COVID? https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/65794974?xtor=AL-72-[partner]-[bbc.news.twitter]-[headline]-[news]-[bizdev]-[isapi]&at_link_origin=BBCWorld&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_type=web_link&at_format=link&at_link_id=085D161A-01FB-11EE-91C3-39FFD772BE90&at_campaign_type=owned&at_bbc_team=editorial
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy