Character Saturation/Dictatorship

[Cashton]

I think that the reason Y&R is still tops is that if you watched ten days ago or ten years ago, the people are still familiar and you can watch and feel your way around the new characters. unlike say - GL, which has just Josh and Reva - Y&R has many long-time characters and ACTORS who have been with the show for years. They are the identiy of the show. Y&R also actually uses these characters in important stories. Al ot of the other shows will keep legacy characters on just because they're legacy characters and give them nothing to do but react to the newbies and/or other leads.

i think that in soaps it's easy to kill off vets and even easier to let them sit in background, but the best way is write compelling new stories for their well established characters that respect their history and evolve them.

[EricMontreal22]

I think that is a good point. I was doing my laundry at my grandma's last week and watched some of Dancing with the Stars, and had to explain to her who Susan Lucci was (shocking, I know!). We got talking briefly about soap operas--she was a big fan of Ma Perkins and Right to Happiness in the 30s she said as a teen--and commented on hwo they were only 15 minutes now so it wasn't a commitment. But I guess a cousin of mine (second or third cousin--I've only met her a few times and she's older than me) used to stay with my grandma a lot in th eearly and mid 90s and would have Y&R on--and my grandma said she still saw the end of it sometimes and was amazed at seeing many fo the same people still on it--like Nicki!

I was also thinking about that because I found a Christmas 1995 Guiding Light episode that I randomly saved among my soap opera tapes (ever since I started watching the New York ABC soaps I've saved every Christmas episode to tape since '92 or so--but I didn't remember tapign this one though it was a flashback heavy episode). ANyway, it was early into McTavish's run on the show but just watching it I was amazed at how so few of the faces still existed in ANY way on the show--even without the change in filming style it just LOOKS very different now.

AMC at least has relatievely some connection to the old characters. OLTL still has a lot of the early 90s characters Malone created too I guess (but very few from before then), ATWT...

[Sylph]

I think that's a load of bullsh!t. The fact is, those character provide a safe haven when the stories suck, a familiar face gets you through them. You watch it and say "Oh, at least Nikki is on" or something like that.

Instead, look at EE: it has the opposite problem - it creates wonderful, amazing, vivid characters, but burns them so fast, you don't even remember they existed. And that's the key, as R Sinclair and others have suggested: rotation. We have Nicole Ann (I'd actually want no Nikki, but hey...) then we have X then Y and so on... These characters have been with the show for so long, you have trouble inventing new stories for them.

I have to find an interview with Hogan Sheffer when he started on ATWT and said we have a character who's been dead X times, married Y times, had Z affairs, had XX diseases etc. At one point, you just have to wonder has there been anything we haven't said about these people?

They are as much a liability as a good thing for the show.

[EricMontreal22]

Sorry which post is a lot of BS? I don't think I'm disagreeing with you--but I do think there should be SOME recognizability factor--soaps are, partly (and maybe this is a problem) a "comfort food" medium--in All Her Children Agnes Nixon talks alot about how surprised she was how insanely popular the show was on campuses--and that several people had specifically told her that they missed their families at home and this was a sort of new family, or type of stability in a schedule that didn't have that.

You mention EE and I think that's one reason why, while often neck and neck in the ratings (or when one has a high point the other is havign a low point), Coronation Street seems to have more longterm fans who are very affectionate about the characters than EE.

I completely agree with yout last point though--you can't take them for granted and say they're "safe" simply because they've been on the show a certain amount of time.

[Sylph]

No specific post, just that whole attitude and thesis about... How did Sam Ford call them?  Legacy characters, yeah...

Look at B&B, for example. I'm nearing a point where I want Brooke, Stephanie, Ridge etc., the whole gang, off the show. 

That's why I keep saying: it's not the characters, it's the characters and the story. Those two go together.

[EricMontreal22]

HAHA I hate the term Legacy Characters almost as much as I hate couple names (Zendall etc)

OK I agree with that--though part of the prob with that group on B&B is they've interacted SOO much--they need to seperate them out into seperate stories, then see who's interesting enough to stick around, who's not. The only time I know of when restructuring a whole show and offing whole families worked was Y&R--and that was carefully, expertly done over 3-4 years (and did initially come with a large ratings slide)

[Sylph]

Well, I'm not preaching a total overhaul with no familiar faces. I'm just saying... Get rid of Phyllis, e.g. Or Nikki. But not all of them at once.

[EricMontreal22]

It is true that sometimes having an Irna Phillips shoving a popular character in front of a speeding car isn't sucha bad move for the life of a soap....

[Becki]

I sure wouldn't lose any sleep over Phyllis being killed off. The character is absolutely unnecessary on the show anymore. Especially if every new female they bring on is going to be cut from the same cloth....Chloe, Eden,..... they're changing Colleen to where she's nothing but a manipulative bitch as well. Then we have Gloria and Nikki..... I personally don't need to see THAT many bitches on my screen every day. In fact, I don't need to see any of them at all. The female characters are being horribly written on Y&R at the moment. ALL of them. They seem to believe all women are these terrible creatures that will do and say anything and hurt anyone to get what they want. That's entirely untrue.....I've met maybe 2 or 3 women in my life like Phyllis and the others...most of the women I meet don't have to struggle to be nice to someone. They don't think of themselves first and not worry about how they are effecting their spouse, children, parents, friends etc. And I would much much rather see women written in this vein than these awful characters I'm seeing on Y&R right now.

That's me. If it's a good story then do it. And Y&R CAN do it...they proved it with Cassie's death. Even though she wasn't considered a 'vet' by most she was an integral part of the fabric of the show and a character most everyone loved. Her death is STILL having repercussions now, 3 1/2 years later. I don't think we'll be saying the same of David Chow or Sabrina (much as I loved her). Once a character is being put front burner just for the mere fact that they have been with the show for years, they should be gone. Phyllis' story has been played out for several years...honestly before they ever started the horror of Phick. Someone said in another thread that she should have been a character that came in, created havoc and then left. I couldn't agree more.

[Sylph]

Excellent post, Becki! I agree, of course!

I know I've said it yesterday or the day before. But maybe someone else said it, too. 

[MarkH]

I cannot agree at Y&R. I think, for example, both of these screwed up women is about to drive major story.

I AM preaching total overhaul at B&B!

[bandbfan]

I do think there is way to much over-interaction with the same characters and same stories.

However, as shown by that ratings slide, too much change too quickly can be deterimental to the ratings. I understand that the Y&R was gradual. But there was a drop, and something fast would even be worse. And these days, I'm not sure that a show could recover those viewers.

People like familiarity. Of course that doesn't mean the same stories over and over, but killing off vets and characters that people have watched for 10 or 20+, IMO, would hurt more than help.

[DeeeDee]

Pretty much!

[cct]

I was thinking about this today, combined with the Marceline Theory.

As a writer, some characters are written into a corner by fans, and MUST be killed off. For example, Tad and Dixie on AMC. When Dixie returned in 2006, it was quite clear that the writers and the actress wanted to be taken in a different direction rather than simply reuniting this "supercouple." The viewers weren't buying it. The character of Dixie may have much more story to explore. (What happened during those four years she was presumed dead?) However, unless these two were together, "we" were going to be angry and switch off AMC. (Instead, McT, on a whim, kills her off in a fit of peanut butter pancakes, and viewers switched off anyway, but I digress...) During this time, McT successfully burned to the ground my thoughts of them as a couple. There were such awful and hateful words exchanged between them, that I could give two shakes if they were put back together. I was interested in Tad exploring a relationship with Di and Dixie moving on to Zach or whomever. I am not commenting on the strength of this storyline or the quality of the writing involved. It is what it is. Dixie HAD to die if she wasn't going to be with Tad. Kendall or Zach may HAVE to die to get these two going in other directions.

From my understanding, the same thing has occurred with Luke and Laura. Laura hasn't "died" per se, but if Geary or Francis ever wanted to play something else while the other was around, "we," the fans, aren't going to buy it. So Laura comes back every few years for a bump in ratings and goes back into catatonia. (I don't watch GH, so if I have this wrong, I apologize).

Therefore, it is sometimes necessary to kill off these major characters in order to let the other half of the supercouple live.

[nicknack]

Personally, I don't believe in vet dictatorship. I think there are only so many stories you can tell with a character after 10 years (and I mean full 10 years, not Luke and Laura years where the characters are constantly off the show in between). Why exactly should it be a service to keep an actor on for 10 years when the only choices are to repeat the stories over and over again till it gets ridiculous or have them have barely any screentime?

I think characters need to get replaced. It's ridiculous that one character should hog up a certain category (like vixen, heroine, jackass in charge) forever. Take Victor on Y&R. Yes, he rock, he is awesome, but seriously, wouldn't it have been more interesting if they had replaced Victor about 10 years ago? Put somebody else in his place at the head of Newman Enterprises and see how that person does? And then after a certain period of time bring on another person?

How about taking a characters, play out decent stories, then use the character to introduce their sister for example and then let the sister do the storyline duty? A new character with a new backstory who can tell the stories with a new twist and without it seeming repetitive because they are a new character. And why should that be bad for the actors? One would think that after a while they would appreciate the chance to stretch their legs and try their luck as a new character on a different soap. Soaps need to find a way to be a natural revolving door. Not too fast, but not to slow either. And not by killing off vets, but by letting them out naturally.

Like take Phyllis, let her introduce her sister/cousin/college friend, played by a similar actress to take over the kind of role she has on the show. Then send Phylliss on a cruise around the world. If the new sister/cousin/college friend sucks they can still bring her back again, refreshed. Bring new chracters, introduce them organically and hire GOOD actors (not model himbos and bimbos) for it.