Soaps are dying. There is no such thing as a "base" viewer. I think when soaps lose their viewers, networks should cancel them and replace them with a new soap. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that says soaps have to last 30 years or more. The only soap I watch right now is Y&R. I guess if it had a "stunt" it was the trip to Paris. Overseas trips at one time were a soap staple.

Actually the best soap stunt in a very long time was GH's knock off of 24 -- the Metro Court hostage situation. In fact, that was really great drama IMO. Perhaps soaps should try more things like that.

When you talk about stunts and gimmicks, it is bringing back characters (Tina on OL, David on OL, Laura on GH) and thinking that viewers will stick around to watch the lame stories on the shows after those characters leave.

I think ABCD made huge mistakes when it invested in new characters that did generate new viewers and them dumped them and said screw you to viewers who enjoyed them. Dumping Dan G., killing off Nash and firing Forbes March, putting Evangeline into coma, dumping RJ, burying Layla and turning OLTL into ReRon's playground may not have been a big deal to many, but I will never watch that piece of [!@#$%^&*] again.

Wow I have been away for several days and so much to catch up on. Had 15 people at my house for Thanksgiving holidays and kept me so busy.

Anyway some great comments in here. I will not try to address each one since I just read through 3 pages, but I will make a few comments.

I agree with those that got offended by Todd/Marty but soaps being offensive is not the reason soaps are dying. Soaps have offended viewers so many times through the years. When Pat Matthews got an illegal abortion back in 1964 my Mom said so many people found that offensive and there were big write ups about how immoral that was. But it caused more and more people to tune in too. And the writing on AW was not that great at the time. Irna Phillips and William J. Bell were writing then and she even admitted she was really out of her element.

When Carla Gray/Bernudi - a black woman was revealed to be black and in love with a white man on OLTL in 1968 - boy that was very offensive to many viewers as that was a big taboo subject at the time.

When Erica Kane got her abortion in the 1970's - even though this time it was legal - fans were outraged. Same with when priest Mark Reddin fell in love with Laurie Hollister on The Secret Storm - viewers were once again just as offended.

Soaps have been controversial so many times through the years. And all of those time it really did not affect the genre. Being offensive is nothing new.

I agree that the Brian Frons mode of big stunts is also hurting soaps but I don't think they are the biggest thing that are hurting soaps. It is just another in a long line of mistakes that soaps are making.

I was having a discussion with my niece this weekend. She just go layed off from work and finds herself back home at 30 years old for the first time in years during the day. She asked me if I still watched soaps and was asking me some questions. She said it had been 5 years since she had watched any of her soaps at all and she has been trying but just didn't recognize her old soaps she grew up on anymore. She said she tried to watch Days of Our Lives and As The World Turns and didn't feel like she knew anyone. She said the people being featured weren't known to her and she couldn't get into them at all because they seemed so uninteresting to her.

In coming months as more and more people find themselves out of work there is an opportunity for soaps to pick up some viewers but if a soap is easily recognizable to those viewers they won't tune back in for long.

Just to add to the overall discussion, here are some reasons I think soaps are dying and continue to die:

1) The faster pace. Soaps used to be something that even a housewife or longtime viewer could miss a few days and easily fall back into because of the slower pace. I know that so many of the young viewers say they don't like when a story takes too long to end or they get bored with it. But soaps breaded their butter on the slow pace for many years. And it was so easy for viewers to get busy with life and still come back and fall right back into line. Today you miss a few episodes and you miss alot. Sometimes that is too overwhelming for a person who has a busy schedule and can feel overwhelmed enough to just give up and not take the time to catch up. Also the faster pace does not allow for character development as much as the slower pace did. The writing falls back into stunt mode because that can be written in a faster pace than character driven drama can.

2) Lack of Familiarity. It used to be that the characters stuck around long enough for you to get to know them and for them to become just like a member of your family. Chris & Nancy's home, Bert Bauer's home, the Horton home, etc. all became just extensions of your own home. Often you knew businesses like The Boutique in Pine Valley or Ryan's Bar in New York, etc. just as well as you did the neighborhood pharmacy. So much of that is gone from today's soaps.

3) Lack of generational story telling. I won't comment much here as I have said that over and over again. It used to be that the affect of a story was seen in how it affected all the generations of a town or a family. Some of the older generations like Pa Hughes, Papa Bauer, Chris & Nancy Hughes, Jim & Mary Matthews, Tom & Alice Horton, etc. never had storylines that featured them or they starred in - but they reacted to the stories of others. You got to see the affect on them or you couldn't wait to see their reactions to the information or whatever. Or for instance often as Bob & Lisa were having troubles in thier marriage or their divorce on As The World Turns you would see the fight and all that featured the two lead performers but often you would witness a little scene between Grandpa Hughes and little Tommy Hughes where you heard little Tommy tell Grandpa how he felt about all of it. A huge dimension of the story is gone these days. Those type of scenes for one thing don't fit in with the new pace, plus most of the powers that be don't feel that the new desired demographic is interested in anything like that. Rather than showing Nancy Hughes dealing with her grandchildren and great-grandchildren, they feel that if they have to show her why not show her helping Katie with another of her schemes or giving her advice.

Oh well I will stop with that for now. And go catch up on another thread. I am so far behind.

Soaps are dying. There is no such thing as a "base" viewer. I think when soaps lose their viewers, networks should cancel them and replace them with a new soap. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that says soaps have to last 30 years or more. The only soap I watch right now is Y&R. I guess if it had a "stunt" it was the trip to Paris. Overseas trips at one time were a soap staple.

Actually the best soap stunt in a very long time was GH's knock off of 24 -- the Metro Court hostage situation. In fact, that was really great drama IMO. Perhaps soaps should try more things like that.

When you talk about stunts and gimmicks, it is bringing back characters (Tina on OL, David on OL, Laura on GH) and thinking that viewers will stick around to watch the lame stories on the shows after those characters leave.

I think ABCD made huge mistakes when it invested in new characters that did generate new viewers and them dumped them and said screw you to viewers who enjoyed them. Dumping Dan G., killing off Nash and firing Forbes March, putting Evangeline into coma, dumping RJ, burying Layla and turning OLTL into ReRon's playground may not have been a big deal to many, but I will never watch that piece of [!@#$%^&*] again.

The stunts and gimmicks as you have said have been around for years - not so much until GH created them with the Cassidine's freezing the world. After that it was a common thing on every soap. The location shoots came about in 1978 when Tom & Erica took their honeymoon to St. Croix.

Other than EON soaps really didn't do a lot of filming outside the studio or gimmicks much before those 2 events. EON did a couple of shoots for deaths esp. the death of Elly Jo Jamison in the early 70's.

Soaps events before 1978 and then the Cassadine thing were weddings and murder trials.

The big advertised events of those days were in 1974 when AW did a special 1 hour episode that centered around the remarriage of Steve Frame & Alice Matthews. It was the first time a show had done a special episode and a 1 hour one at that featuring 2 actors and 2 characters. It was a testimony to the popularity of AW, the actors (Reinholt & Courtney) and the characters. A year later AW would become the first show to air for 1 hour each day.

Also a heavily promoted "event" was the debut of How To Survive a Marriage on NBC in 1974 which was the first time a soap had debuted with a special 90 minute episode.

Also The Edge of Night had 3 episodes they heavily promoted events.

One was in December 1968 when Donald May was the only actor to speak for the entire 30 minute episode. He delivered his closing argument defending Julie Jamison in a murder trial.

The 2nd one was on December 1, 1975 when EON debuted on ABC. In that episode it was revealed that Nicole Drake had not really died as well as many other things.

Then the 3rd episode was aired on November 16, 1976. In this special 30 minute episode only 2 performers appeared and spoke for the whole 30 minutes. They were Forrest Compton and Ann Flood who portrayed Mike & Nancy Karr. In this episode it dealt with their separation and showed Nancy packing to leave.

Those were the types of events that we used to get. After Mikkos Cassadine froze the world then the events came down to stuff like Travis & Liza chasing after some jade that had been stolen from him and running through the streets of Hong Kong to find it on SFT or on The Doctors Montincello being hit by a tornado that trapped many in the hospital and struggling to get out or a crazed cult leader taking the hospital staff hostage - and oh so many other ridiculous stunts that hit so many of the shows then and continue today.

******************************

As to the big returns thing, those have been part of daytime for years too. The thing that happens today is that TPTB buy into this new age philosophy of the fan bases for these fans and think that all they have to do is bring them back and their fans will be happy. Case in point is the returns of Patch and Kayla on Days. You look around at Patch/Kayla boards and other boards their fans have been very pleased with their returns except for when they are not seen for awhile. But overall their returns have been very unsuccessful and have done nothing for the show.

Same with Andrea Evans as Tina. It was a failure but you would not get that from reading the comments of Evans fans. And the same could be said for any of these big returns.

The powers that be have this big philosophy now of just pleasing the few (particularly the fanbases and the 18-49 demo) and if they can do that they do not feel they have to reach any further.

********************************

As to OLTL, I agree with many things you say but I can't agree with you on Evangeline. I liked her but she wasn't on the show that long and she was not that important of a character. I had no problem with them not caving into the demands of the actress. I wish they had recast and kept the character around but I don't feel overall she was that great of a loss. I can think of so many other characters that yes were big losses and in the overall scheme of things were more important than Evangeline.

b] a FX series.. it's very much identical to GH. the woman are your typical ride or die. the men are family oriented criminals. sonny/jason. SOA clay/jacks..except on SOA it's a father and son relationship. where GH sonny/jason it's friendship based. the mother who plays gemma has the distinct personality of carly who's married to clay. kinda reminds you of that sonny/carly era. a mobster and his mob moll. jacks love interest is a liz webber clone. she's a nurse that works by day trying to see her man at night whenever possible..most of all. it's successful. to say that ABC fails because the ratings decrease on behalf of the stunts they do during sweeps is pretty narrow minded. you have to look at the facts that everyone who watches soaps are not totally into violence so they tune out oppose to the primetime fanbase who love it.

I would acknowledge the shows on ABC are faster paced. That has been the appeal for years. But to think viewers in primetime are clamoring towards "FX" style entertainment is just not 100 percent true. Look at the top 20 shows on primetime to see most are CBS crime dramas without the FX style, but well thought out dramas with good story and character development for the most part. Then look at NBC and ABC primetime. What's successful there. ER, 30 Rock, Law and Order, Greys Anatomy, Desperate Housewives. And on cable, Army Wives, House, Monk. I don't see any of these shows as crime ridden shoot em ups with ride and die chicks. Most are dramas and comedies with characters viewers have gravitated to. Actually many are reality shows. 24 is really the only show I think still may hold to that mantra and the characters on that show are much more interesting than anything on ABC Daytime barring the characters I still know from the past.

I guess at the end I just don't see daytime viewers and primetime viewers that much different. I think women like shows like shows like Y&R and maybe ER where women are shown to have lives involving family, career, friends, and romance. Much like their everyday lives with good story and drama surrounding it. I think men pretty much want good storytelling versus the shootem ups. I do think the action and faced paced aspects of shows like 24 and some of the others are appealiing also, but nothing holds interest like a good story. That's whats appealing about shows like Y&R and OLTL now versus Days and GH I would guess.

Edited December 2, 200817 yr by JaneAusten

And to answer your question about why go for viewers that will easily quit the soap when things slow down, that's the reality of business now. Soaps died because they chose to ignore reality. ITA

They aren't attracting "new viewers" and losing whatever age groups they have.

I think soaps died because of bad writing and not giving fans what they want

in ABC's GH case they write against what most younger viewers want and that is these "Squish mnemonic pairings"

One thing holds true in this woman dominated genre throughtout the decades,

"romance"

with better written drama that makes sense

They are sticking with the old formula of triangles and quads and makeup to breakup two weeks later.

They have new audience but with old writing...what difference is it making? There is a lot of competition in a hi-tech

global marketplace for viewership

and in this day and age the mediocre won't cut it. They are still writing the same way they

do 30 years ago..another thing is the viewership is "watching soaps differently"

not just recording and in live. I have watched clips for years. I rarely record and never watch live

except on holidays.

Edited December 2, 200817 yr by Cyberologist

Actually the best soap stunt in a very long time was GH's knock off of 24 -- the Metro Court hostage situation. In fact, that was really great drama IMO. Perhaps soaps should try more things like that.

See and I have a different perspective. I was still watching GH to some extent and I got reengaged inthe show back in the Nov timeframe with GF's return and watching until post Feb timeframe. I'll admit to the sweeps being action packed but I think they failed. They had several potential stories setup post sweeps and none of them followed through. Alan Q's will, the contents of the briefcase that the hostage takers wanted, Jason Morgan struggling with his chosen profession once his father died, the list goes on. Nothing came of these and viewership lapsed. I lost interest about 2 weeks after the event, tuned out, and I'll bet many others did also.

Edited December 2, 200817 yr by JaneAusten

They aren't attracting "new viewers" and losing whatever age groups they have.

I think soaps died because of bad writing and not giving fans what they want

in ABC's GH case they write against what most younger viewers want and that is these "Squish mnemonic pairings"

One thing holds true in this woman dominated genre throughtout the decades,

"romance"

with better written drama that makes sense

They are sticking with the old formula of triangles and quads and makeup to breakup two weeks later.

They have new audience but with old writing...what difference is it making? There is a lot of competition in a hi-tech

global marketplace for viewership

and in this day and age the mediocre won't cut it. They are still writing the same way they

do 30 years ago..another thing is the viewership is "watching soaps differently"

not just recording and in live. I have watched clips for years. I rarely record and never watch live

except on holidays.

You hit on 2 things that I have been saying for quite awhile even though you didn't mean them the way I do.

That is the key words you used:

Romance & Watching Soaps Differently

Romance has dominated soaps for years - but not romance in the sense that it is today. And that brings us to watching soaps differently.

Viewers today have been groomed in the idea that couples are destined to be together and that every big character out there has that one true love they are searching for and they are destined to be together forever no matter what. And in that yes soaps abandoned reality.

For years the romance was there and the search for it. But not just romance in regards to love but there was the romance of life and the romance of struggle.

With characters like Joanne Barron on Search For Tomorrow it was more about the romance of life where she struggled to provide for her child after he husband was suddenly taken away from her. She relied on her family, on her friends, and on her own ability to overcome the struggles in order to make it. At the heart she was a woman who sought romance but in the end Joanne knew that she could make it on her own if she had too as long as she had friends and family to help her.

The heart of the shows were the characters and how they could function individually as well as together in the case of a couple.

Then writers like Sherri Anderson rose to the top of the writing chain. And she had the idea that at the end of day what was important was not that Marlena was a strong woman but more important to her was that at the end of day she could go to bed knowing that Marlena was still in love with John.

And that is the biggest things that has hurt soaps these days is that philosophy that characters have to be linked. No longer are the characters able to stand on their own. Able to even learn from one relationship and move on to another.

The reality of the situation is that in real life most couples these days don't stay together - yet in our soaps Kendall is always supposed to love Zach, Bo is always supposd to love Hope, Jack is always supposed to love Carly and so on. When in real life many of those couples would not stay together.

And the sad thing is that these couples are supposed to be together, be happy and still be front burner. The only way that in the ratings heyday of soaps that couples stayed front and center on a soap for years was by being apart and often not even as a couple onscreen during part of that time. Often they would be married to another partner or some other force would be keeping them apart.

The romance for fans was in the longing for the two of them to be togehter. The longing looks across the room. The stolen moments when they could be alone. Often it was just a touch when one would reach for the door and at the same time the other part of the couple would reach and their hands would touch. Often things like that would have to sustain a fan for many months before something like that would happen again.

So yes in the end soaps did abandon reality - not in the sense that the original poster meant. And in many ways they have abandoned romance. And trained viewers to watch in a totally different way.

Ok I have to ask a question. I keep hearing how much better shape ABC is because they own their soaps where CBS has to in essense lease theirs. So now ABC has budgetary issues and CBS doesn't? I don't buy it has anything to do with money. CBS had an article in bloomberg last month talking about cuts they were going to have to make. Unless the Bells just have an huge amount of extra money.

B&B already DID a huge budget slashing around the last renewal with should run out in two years...

They tape two episodes a day and although Y&R has gone back to 5 day tapings, the future screams 5 episodes in 4 days, IMO. That said, Y&R is probably THE only soap to keep his current budget due to new revenues from Internet streaming.

As to OLTL, I agree with many things you say but I can't agree with you on Evangeline. I liked her but she wasn't on the show that long and she was not that important of a character. I had no problem with them not caving into the demands of the actress. I wish they had recast and kept the character around but I don't feel overall she was that great of a loss. I can think of so many other characters that yes were big losses and in the overall scheme of things were more important than Evangeline.

I think Jess' point is that all these things are cumulative. Everything you said about Evangeline, I could say about Nash. I liked him but he wasn't one of my must see characters. I never ff-ed him but he wasn't my reasons for tuning in. That doesn't mean I'm incapable of seeing how much the character and actor meant to others. Nash for all his "newbie" status really came into his own and Forbes was a team player who was good to his fans and loved by his coworkers. His exit was a spit in the face of the viewers who invested in him. The same happened for REG and TDS and Dan G. They were removed, badly, for political reasons. That's what causes the damage.

Edited December 2, 200817 yr by marceline

The reality of the situation is that in real life most couples these days don't stay together - yet in our soaps Kendall is always supposed to love Zach, Bo is always supposd to love Hope, Jack is always supposed to love Carly and so on. When in real life many of those couples would not stay together.

Wow! That's a really cynical view, and I am not sure it's statistically accurate. I realize something like 50% of first marraiges end in divorce, and that's a sad fact. But half of all first marraiges do NOT end in divorce. And even if that divorce rate were higher, say 75% end in divorce -- I find it ironic that it is presumed that the breaking up and getting together with other people is somehow MORE romantic than the 25% who do find the lasting love that ideally most people are seeking? Of course Kendal is always supposed to love Zach. That is the epitomy of love that we all hope to find, and if you can't write it in a fictional setting, how are we supposed to believe it exists. We do want to see people find their soulmates, and deal with internal and external conflict that may bend their relationship but not break it. I personally think there's nothing more romantic than an elderly couple holding hands. Do I want to watch that day after day on television? No. But it is definitely romance IMO. It's just not very dramatic.

The serial nature of soaps is what makes the genre vastly different than primetime IMO. Even primetime serial dramas usually have a beginning, a middle and an end, in a run that generally lasts approximately 10 years or less. Primetime serial dramas, generally have a different story every week (sometimes it may take a few weeks to play out) and the "serial" aspect to the show merely provides some back drop to the story. But soap operas mimic real life. There is usually no clear beginning or end to the stories, they merely blend into the next development. Yes you have story arcs and baby switches, and murder mysteries, and conflicts, but in soaps, much as in life, those stories fade and become "context" for new stories, and in that way they never really are concluded.

So I see the challenge for soap writers as unique. How do you create honest stories that reflect family dynamics, and romance, and intrigue and the list goes on, day after day, year after year, while respecting the history of the show, the integrity of the characters, and keep them compelling.

I think Jess' point is that all these things are cumulative. Everything you said about Evangeline, I could say about Nash. I liked him but he wasn't one of my must see characters. I never ff-ed him but he wasn't my reasons for tuning in. That doesn't mean I'm incapable of seeing how much the character and actor meant to others. Nash for all his "newbie" status really came into his own and Forbes was a team player who was good to his fans and loved by his coworkers. His exit was a spit in the face of the viewers who invested in him. The same happened for REG and TDS and Dan G. They were removed, badly, for political reasons. That's what causes the damage.

I wasn't an Evangeline OR a Nash fan, and their departures didn't impact my viewing pleasure in the least. But I did recognize the "spit in the face" and I agree 100% that element did impact my trust in the writing and the management of the show. Moreso Forbes than Renee, because he was obviously fired outright and given no options, which I thought was incredibly shortsighted. Nash was tied to a core character, he had children that will one day become the Starr's and/or Cole's of future stories, and he had built-in conflicts with other characters on the canvas that could provide years of potential story. Renee? I don't know what the details surrounding her contract were, but I am fairly certain ABC intended to keep her and they just couldn't reach a satisfactory resolution. I don't know what "political" reasons you think impacted those negotiations. However, Evangeline's exit may have impacted her fans significantly, it really didn't impact many other characters on the show or leave some gaping hole in the canvas for the remaining characters. JMO. Sadly, unlike Nash's death, Evangeline's coma was such a waste IMO, because it really didn't even create story for other characters with the exception of Cristian, and that was more a roadblock to moving the character on to a new romance. There should have been so much more done with that.

I think Jess' point is that all these things are cumulative. Everything you said about Evangeline, I could say about Nash. I liked him but he wasn't one of my must see characters. I never ff-ed him but he wasn't my reasons for tuning in. That doesn't mean I'm incapable of seeing how much the character and actor meant to others. Nash for all his "newbie" status really came into his own and Forbes was a team player who was good to his fans and loved by his coworkers. His exit was a spit in the face of the viewers who invested in him. The same happened for REG and TDS and Dan G. They were removed, badly, for political reasons. That's what causes the damage.

That is exactly my point. I was never that big a fan of Evangeline, but she had a very good and loyal group of fans that truly invested in the character. I did watch her, and I thought the character was a strong woman. The show did just spit in the face of her fans. I see Rhino's point, but from everything I heard, TPTB did not even try to negotiate with REG. It is cumulative, and it is a consistent pattern of TPTB telling viewers that they do not need them.

I just do not trust the show anymore. I read the quote from Ron C. regarding the Todd and Marty storyline. It was something to the effect that he knew fans were disgusted, but the characters had good chemistry and it was an interesting story to tell. It was just such an obvious statement that he does not care what viewers think and does not care that it is disgusting to a lot of people.

Wow! That's a really cynical view, and I am not sure it's statistically accurate. I realize something like 50% of first marraiges end in divorce, and that's a sad fact. But half of all first marraiges do NOT end in divorce. And even if that divorce rate were higher, say 75% end in divorce -- I find it ironic that it is presumed that the breaking up and getting together with other people is somehow MORE romantic than the 25% who do find the lasting love that ideally most people are seeking? Of course Kendal is always supposed to love Zach. That is the epitomy of love that we all hope to find, and if you can't write it in a fictional setting, how are we supposed to believe it exists. We do want to see people find their soulmates, and deal with internal and external conflict that may bend their relationship but not break it. I personally think there's nothing more romantic than an elderly couple holding hands. Do I want to watch that day after day on television? No. But it is definitely romance IMO. It's just not very dramatic.

The serial nature of soaps is what makes the genre vastly different than primetime IMO. Even primetime serial dramas usually have a beginning, a middle and an end, in a run that generally lasts approximately 10 years or less. Primetime serial dramas, generally have a different story every week (sometimes it may take a few weeks to play out) and the "serial" aspect to the show merely provides some back drop to the story. But soap operas mimic real life. There is usually no clear beginning or end to the stories, they merely blend into the next development. Yes you have story arcs and baby switches, and murder mysteries, and conflicts, but in soaps, much as in life, those stories fade and become "context" for new stories, and in that way they never really are concluded.

So I see the challenge for soap writers as unique. How do you create honest stories that reflect family dynamics, and romance, and intrigue and the list goes on, day after day, year after year, while respecting the history of the show, the integrity of the characters, and keep them compelling.

I have no problem with old folks holding hands - I too find that romantic. And I so love when couples do stay together in real life but I also recognize the facts that many couples even more so now don't stay together. I mean years ago even on soaps it represented that fact. Many favorites lost the so called love of their life and moved on and soap fans allowed them to move on.

Now even with death soap fans still tie that person forever to the love of their life and don't even allow them to move on. They just keep longing for the moment that the writers will come up with some convoluted story to reverse the death just like so many are doing right now with Dixie on AMC. I miss Dixie too but I don't want another return from the dead. I just want to see Tad deal with things and move on with his life. But I doubt seriously it will ever happen as fans won't allow it and sadly the writers won't do it either. Tad's relationship with Krystal is generally accepted because Tad is written that he still loves Dixie and not Krystal. The same with Luke and Tracy on GH.

Stuff like that still goes on because the writers just don't have the balls to move on from this new way of writing and new way of viewership.

And the worst thing that this type of writing does is forever destroy the characters and limits them. When this type of new writing took over it wasn't as bad because fans even then didn't expect the couples to be together all the time. Now the fans yell if you break up my couple or threaten them then I am just going to quit. Or just like now with AMC it is the fan bases who are b*itching the most because all the couples are threatened in some way. Writers cannot write happy and keep the couples front burner all the time. Fans are going to have to learn to accept that their couples are going to be used to prop others or just be backburned totatally if they only want the writers to write them as happy. Because as you said Rhino - holding hands is boring - and it will only take the ratings down further. Fan bases of these forever united couples can't have it both ways.

I love true love on soaps as much as the next person, but I also realize that often in soap land it can be a bitter pill to swallow as I have seen many of my favorite couples be written off because fans could not accept them being apart or as anything but happy - so they went bye bye and forever in limbo land out there. Or forever backburnered and never seen again.

After awhile also for many of these couples who have been together forever the stories that they can do for them have gotten so convoluted that the magic is just destroyed by the stupidity of the story.

The writers and the fans have got to give up this idea of every super couple being forever joined. It makes it even less special when everyone of them are supposed to be this. It is just not realistic.

******************************

As to this being fired stuff or leaving stuff, I just am at a loss at how these firings or departures are a slap in the face. Again just like soap couples breaking up and moving on, actors have come and gone on soaps from the beginning of them and characters have left and been killed many times for the sake of story. Soaps would have never survived if fans of old had said well that is slap in the face and I am not going to watch anymore because so and so was fired or was killed.

I know taht we all have our faves and we hate to lose them. But soaps are supposed to be a slice of life and birth and death are all staples of life. People come and go in and out of our lives all the time. Soaps have to represent that.

I think the modern day viewer wants their favorite soap to be more supernatural than in just the stories they tell. As long as it is bringing back someone like Jesse Hubbard or Dixie Cooney then returns from the death (no matter how convoluted are okay). And let's just totally forget death when it comes to our faves and don't ever fire a favorite either.

I mean we as soap fans are putting such unrealistic demands on soaps writers and producers that they just don't know what to do anymore. And we give them permission to do whatsoever they want just as long as they are meeting our demands such as stupidly bringing Jesse Hubbard back from the dead even though we sat and watched him die.

We as soap fans today are just as guilty as the powers that be because we allow the stupidity to continue - we suspend reality in order to have our faves back on the screen and then turn around and scream how bad the writing is and how unrealistic it is in the next breath we take.

Sorry if that offends in any way but it is just the truth of the matter. I have heard so many times where the writing has been excused when it exonerates a fave or is in favor of a favorite couple or favorite character. We can't have it both ways. If we demand better writing then we have got to quit making exceptions for bad writing when it favors something that we want.

I think the modern day viewer wants their favorite soap to be more supernatural than in just the stories they tell. As long as it is bringing back someone like Jesse Hubbard or Dixie Cooney then returns from the death (no matter how convoluted are okay). And let's just totally forget death when it comes to our faves and don't ever fire a favorite either.

I mean we as soap fans are putting such unrealistic demands on soaps writers and producers that they just don't know what to do anymore. And we give them permission to do whatsoever they want just as long as they are meeting our demands such as stupidly bringing Jesse Hubbard back from the dead even though we sat and watched him die.

As a huge Jesse fan I just want to speak to this real quick. I love the guy but I completely acknowledge what a mindfuck it was to bring him back. I mourned him and moved on and never once in all these years have I thought for one second that "I wish Jesse was back." On the contrary, I think one of the reasons soaps have such a stigma of being silly is because of moves like that but isn't that what some people call "soapiness?" When death stops meaning anything it waters down dramatic impact. Death becomes a cheap, manipulative tactic a.k.a. a stunt.

And if a show keeps removing my favorite actors and characters, why should I keep watching? That all important "loyalty" again?

Edited December 2, 200817 yr by marceline

Well when Jesse was brought back from the dead I felt like I was slapped in the face and the emotional investment I made in the show all those years ago meant nothing. But that is all I will say about that. I love having Jesse and Angie back together but I will never fully invest in them as a couple again due to the fact of what the show did to me with that.

But as to the loyalty thing I guess it comes from years of watching soaps as I have watched tons of faves come and go and never once did the departure make me want to give up my show.

Also I ask this are we supposed to give up on life when all of our favorite people go away from it.

I lost my BFF 14 years ago to AIDS. He and I had been best friends since the 4th grade. I miss him dearly.

I have lost both my parents, all my grandparents, 6 of my classmates I graduated with and so many others. They will never be a part of my life again. I went through a divorce after 19 years of marriage.

It just goes back to what I was saying - departures and changes are all part of life.

In the world of soaps for all the ones I have seen fired, die, leave, or move on I have always stuck with the show and found another fave to replace them. When Robin Strasser left the role of Rachel on AW, I honestly felt that no one would ever be as good, but I gave it a chance and guess what Vicky Wyndham soon won my heart and I loved her. Same with Gillian Spencer when she left the role of Vicky on OLTL - Erika Slezak came along and I fell in love. I have watched soaps since 1970 and not once did I quit a show just because my faves left. If I had I wouldn't be watching any soaps today because my faves have been gone a lonnnnnnng time ago. And even the next set of faves were gone. Some left on their own and some didn't. I have watched my all time faves George Reinholt, Jackie Courtney, Bill & Susan Hayes all be fired and was told in each case that it was for the best of the show.

Change is there and will always be there.