Character Saturation/Dictatorship

[cct]

LOL, to encourage ratings, why not make it like Survivor or American Idol and the viewers get to vote on which two characters get dumped every sweeps!

I don't see the point in having Phyllis take a cruise around the world so that a sister can take up a similar character type. Naturally character types repeat themselves in any genre, but if the character type stands a chance, why not just make it Phyllis? Character types need to breathe. Maybe Victor or Adam should go away for a while and then get replaced? Just thinking out loud here.

THe other point here is that characters need to grow, and that doesn't happen often in daytime lately. I think Tad on AMC has grown as a character (barring the ill-suited Madden-in-a-Box storyline). He began as a cad, bedding both his teenage girlfriend and her mother; now he is trying to be a respectable father. I remember an interview with Mimi Torchin, former editor of SOW, where she said she was "bored with Adam," because he has been doing the same thing for twenty years. Going back to Marceline's Theory, though, how many people will allow Adam or Victor to grow? Tad was backburner and off and on the canvas for many years before developing into the current incarnation.

[marceline]

Everytime I see someone reference the Marceline Theory or Axiom, for a brief moment I feel like Professor Xavier. I want to build the Marceline School for Gifted Soap Viewers and create a place where "mutant" viewers can learn to explore and control their powers. And if I can do it with Patrick Stewart, so much the better.

You make a REALLY good point. When two characters are so joined that they are perceived as two halves of a whole, killing one off may be the best thing for the other. This is why I hate the concept of supercouples. The couple becomes more important than the characters.

[cct]

Wheelchair is on the way!

[Graciecat]

Yeah, but I still feel like Tad is locked into the supercouple thing, even with Dixie dead and buried. C'mon- it's been made pretty clear that Dixie is still the love of his life, that he doesn't love Krystal as much, that his and Dixie's daughter will always be the special one to him. I don't think Dixie's death "freed" him- I think it just left him marooned.

[cct]

Interesting. Can't say I disagree. Currently.

However, Tad had others before Dixie. Hillary, for one. And had others during and since--Gloria, Di, and of course the ever-famous Liza. Although no one may even come close to Dixie, it's worth it to try for the character's sake. The truth is he has no chemistry with KWAK. The writers can throw him a lifeline, if so chosen.

[Dan]

I agree completely. I suppose I enjoy the vet "dictatorship." In fact, I believe it's one of daytime's greatest strengths to have characters continue on from year to year. To say that vets who don't drive story should be written out is missing the point. Most vets provide the show much more than story. They provide (as bandbfan said) familiarity and some vets even give a show part of its identity, which is so important these days. That's why, as hammy as Kim Zimmer can be, I'd never want her to leave GL because she has become one of the last vesitiges of REAL GL. They can also make a show feel more like a community. Take GL's Ross for example. For the last few years, he wasn't driving story at all of just barely. He was hog-tied to the Bloss couple. I'm guessing by some standards, his days were done and firing him was just moving on. But by the time Jerry ver Dorn was fired, Ross had really become the heart and soul of the show. But he was also a vital link in the town of Springfield because he knew almost everyone on the canvas and, therefore, connected many of the show's disparate stories.

Now having said this, I'm not saying that no vets should be killed off. Far from it. But if a writer wants to kill off a character to create story, the audience needs to be convinced that the story will justify that sacrifice. That's why Maureen's death on GL was a long-term bust. Although the short term story was beautiful, over the longterm, the show was affected negatively, partly because of the lack of a matriarchal character.

Also, if a writer wants to kill off a vet, he/she needs to craft the death for the character. (Translation: Don't kill off Dixie with poisoned pancakes, or DAYS' Alice with a [!@#$%^&*] doughnut. That's crass and totally unacceptable.) Let a vet die with at least some dignity. I will never forget John's death on DAYS. It will probably be the first and last time I will EVER compare DAYS with Nancy Curlee's GL. It was that good, partly because it was so dignified and created a genuine surge of emotion. Ditto Maureen's death.

By the way, I also don't consider either Michelle Stafford OR Phyllis a "vet." And I somewhat agree with you Slyph that she could be killed off. Or at least used more as a vixen.

[bandbfan]

IA.

I hope that if B&B decides to kill Stephanie when Susan Flannery does leave, they let SF dictate some of what goes on.

[YRBB]

Oh, as completely incompetent and f-ucked up as Bell has gotten, he would never kill Stephanie off. Never. Unless he surprises us all!

[nicknack]

Because it turns the characters into cartoons as opposed to relatable people. Because at one point you have to back off the dead horse and stop beating it. Get a fresh horse that isn't dead yet and that offers new storylines. IMO soaps lost big time when they just divorced themselves from reality. Now the only people left watching are the ones who are ok with that. But it's no surprise that the genre is dying and no new people are becoming watchers.

We talk about plot driven vs. character driven, but to me the apex of "character driven" is looking at a character and going "Jeez, this character sort of has done everything in the world already, what kind of unrealistic whacky [!@#$%^&*] can we come up with to showcase the character anway?" (Hello Sonny from GH!). At one point *stories* need to stop. Stop beating the dead horse. It's true that the daytime genre has a bunch of unique storytelling opportunities, like to show what happens after a happy end, but even there there are points where stories should just get wrapped up and stopped or at least paused. Because the next portion would just inevitable be not as interesting to make actually interesting television.

For truly good soaps both the plot and the character have to be there. All the reason to get NEW characters because then you don't have the problem that the plot is getting in the way of previous characterization or vice versa. To me that is why UK soaps are both more creatively vibrant and more widely watched. Sure there are vets there too, but generally they have a much more healthy attitude towards writing characters off and bringing new ones in.

[JackPeyton]

I dont see the point in sending people like Victor or Phyliss or anyone from anyshow off only to bring on someone exactly like them.

However, i dont see the point in keeping someone just because they have been there xx years.

When the show is done with the char, or the aduiance is fed up, or whatever write the char off. some can die, some can leave town, whatever. Bring a new char onto the show.

[nicknack]

Because the ROLE they fullfill (bastard in charge of Newman Enterprises, schemer, vixen) have an important function of the show. But the characters as PEOPLE are played out after a certain amount of time. There is no story no matter how good that doesn't get boring after it has been repeated for the third time with the same characters. Every supercouple starts sucking and losing credibility somewhere after the third reunion. Every character loses credibility after the 8th marriage or so. THAT is why soaps are such a joke to people. Maybe there can be some vets (though in my mind that should also mean that they should be satisfied with playing supporting roles potentially over long stretches of time). But a lot of people that are considered vets quite frankly shouldn't be. Soaps need a more healthy relationship with comings and goings.

Plus, if seasoned actors left roles once they are played out then maybe the same seasoned actors could actually be hired as these new roles on other soaps.

[miajere]

Characters like Victor Newman serve a great purpose on the show- the dice roller, dynamic changer. Only through making in character choices, do the rest of the town band together or split up. He's a great way to make all characters vulnerable to dynamic changes- professional, financial, etc- without it appearing contrived.

Phylis serves a similar role- through remaining in character she acts similar to the color grey- accenting all the colors of other characters. Characters meet her and pick a moral road and the viewers get to know them better. Every character Phylis touches has to make a decision about doing the right thing or wrong.

[Graciecat]

But the one thing soaps have that primetime can never really have is history. Isn't that the point of soaps? If you constantly replace the characters who have made the show, then what are you really left with?

I don't watch soaps for the stories. Frankly, most of those will always suck. I watch for the history, the actors, and the characters. And for me, it wouldn't ever be enough for Y&R to bring on Dave the rich bad boy, fire Peter Bergman, and tell us "but look! He's just like Jack!". It isn't enough just to be the same type.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "credibility"-- or at least I'm not sure why it should be paramount. When Erica Kane gets married, do I believe it will last forever? No. But I still love the character and would be repulsed if they fired Susan Lucci and brought on a new vixen, just so she'd have cred for a while.

[Sylph]

I bet they could kill off June Brown just like that! Anyway, even if they don't want to, they'll have to do it soon.

[Dan]

Amen! Although I disagree that the stories on daytime always suck.

I do kind of understand what everyone is saying though. I disagree that characters that apparently "don't drive story" or are stuck in a rut should be canned or played down because life affords limitless story possibilities. It's just that sometimes the actor, the writers, the fans resist character growth. Case in point: GL's Reva. It has been ages since Reva was a virile slut jumping into fountains, yet KZ, the writers, and the fans still see her as such and won't let her "act her age" so to speak. I'm not saying that she should stay at home baking and doling out advice, but to approach the character (and her relationships) with a bit more maturity. Storylines like an implausible pregnancy and the innumerably stupid stories that Reva has been dealt with are not helping at all. Even stories which should bring some maturity to the character (like menopause and cancer) are only used as a catalyst for Reva to go wild again.

I do agree, therefore, that characters should cycle, in the sense that as characters age, they perform different roles on the show (which, does still happen on daytime). But in a different way.