Yeah, I'm not gonna extend this.

But to cite examples from the 70s and 80s...when the universe has changed??

What does it matter when is the proof from? When it's something so universal like no plot without character? And the other way around?

Lemay and Marland could not get away with that kind of transformation these days...nor could Bill Bell.

Oh, yes they could. They wouldn't satisfy you because you have a preset, unchangeable, fixed mindset, so set in its ways that there is no Y&R without people you like (but there is Y&R without Brittany). Marland, Lemay and Bell would have evolved with the times. That is actually precisely what Lemay did: he transformed AW from outdated Irnaesque soap into a modern world from the 70s soap where a once proud and stoical mother can turn into an alcoholic.

As Marceline reminds us often, the residual audience for US soaps is nostalgia-driven.

Yeah, perhaps. But they long for what? For what soaps used to be. And that means: how soaps were so good at depicting the "real" life and "real" problems people have. How you could identify with characters... How they managed to soothe your pain... Not nostalgia for Katherine Chancellor from the 80s. Now... They are in a totally weirdo universe of their own.

That said, Y&R is an exception . That show has managed to provide both.

Y&R is a deadly dull, recycled stories filled... Something.

Edited April 18, 200916 yr by Sylph

Y&R is a deadly dull, recycled stories filled... Something.

Sorry, I just had to.

Sorry, I just had to.

Yeah... Whatever. Of course you had to because the minute Y&R thread dies a bit, you come in and ask something and pandemonium erupts, all sorts of people want their opinion heard on what your speculation about the show is. Sorry, I had to.

Yeah... Whatever. Of course you had to because the minute Y&R thread dies a bit, you come in and ask something and pandemonium erupts, all sorts of people want their opinion heard on what your speculation about the show is. Sorry, I had to.

Really? I thought nobody cared.

I'm not attacking you, geez.

This thread has become a farce...

In regards to story, didn't Shakespeare say there were only 7 types of stories to tell anyway?

1. (Wo)man vs. nature

2. (Wo)man vs. man

3. (Wo)man vs. the environment

4. (Wo)man vs. machines/technology

5. (Wo)man vs. the supernatural

6. (Wo)man vs. self

7. (Wo)man vs. God/religion

Really? I thought nobody cared.

I'm not attacking you, geez.

I know you're not. No one said people didn't care.

This thread has become a farce...

Why?

This thread has become a farce...

In regards to story, didn't Shakespeare say there were only 7 types of stories to tell anyway?

1. (Wo)man vs. nature

2. (Wo)man vs. man

3. (Wo)man vs. the environment

4. (Wo)man vs. machines/technology

5. (Wo)man vs. the supernatural

6. (Wo)man vs. self

7. (Wo)man vs. God/religion

Yup. And it's so true. Which is why I can't complain if a soap tells a cliched story... as long as they find a way to tell it that isn't cliched.

Anyway...

I would love to know what these layouts consist of. Being that I'm self-taught, I love any extra tid-bit of information to help me advance in my own personal methods.

In general--the average rating of soaps today--I in-no-way associate with the writing. AT ALL. I have lots of evidence to support this contention, but in the main, the decline trajectories of daytime and primetime have been yoked since at least 1990, and the decline trajectory of soaps closely matches that of newpaper circulation, record sales and non-soap daytime programs. This is a "general process", and is IRRELEVANT to writing.

Now, within the soap genre (I have never written much about this before...but my thinking on this topic is evolving), I believe writing COULD BE relevant to 'relative position'.

Except, I think the evidence even here does not support the importance of writing. DOOL is now back up in third place. Huh? Most viewers feel it is horribly written...but there it is, #3.

Writing doesn't matter. Not globally and not within the genre. I wish it did. I am incredulous writing doesn't matter. But it doesn't. (And neither, by the way, does retaining vets. Otherwise, DOOL and GH would not be in positions #3 and #4).

To use statistical speak, i think you have a case of sampling error here not matching the underlying population you're trying to sample from. Its not even a case of the internet/non-internet viewer stratification. It seems most of the criticisms of DOOL (since its the example you use) are from people who are not even watching it. Its evident in the criticisms regarding facts rather than opinions. I also think people who are enjoying the show are keeping quiet about it on SON because the throwback replies aren't based on whats on screen, but rather the usual fashionable kneejerk responses. For example, people claim newbies like Melanie are eating the show up at teh expense of vets, yet Melanie is rarely on for more than 2 days a week and has screen time amounting to about 10 minutes or less spread over an episode. I could go on forever about this, but rather than bore you about a show you don't watch, I'll say you should consider the source/bias/motivation for people's statements to get a clearer picture. Writing may be important for rating success - trying to guage that from a variety of message boards won't guide you on that - emperically or qualitatively.

However that being said, I love your analyses and opinions in general

Sorry for all the spelling/grammar mistakes...

To use statistical speak, i think you have a case of sampling error here not matching the underlying population you're trying to sample from. Its not even a case of the internet/non-internet viewer stratification. It seems most of the criticisms of DOOL (since its the example you use) are from people who are not even watching it. Its evident in the criticisms regarding facts rather than opinions. I also think people who are enjoying the show are keeping quiet about it on SON because the throwback replies aren't based on whats on screen, but rather the usual fashionable kneejerk responses. For example, people claim newbies like Melanie are eating the show up at teh expense of vets, yet Melanie is rarely on for more than 2 days a week and has screen time amounting to about 10 minutes or less spread over an episode. I could go on forever about this, but rather than bore you about a show you don't watch, I'll say you should consider the source/bias/motivation for people's statements to get a clearer picture. Writing may be important for rating success - trying to guage that from a variety of message boards won't guide you on that - emperically or qualitatively.

However that being said, I love your analyses and opinions in general

Sorry for all the spelling/grammar mistakes...

Just to say, this is the kind of criticism/dialogue I love! It is reasoned, and makes a point in a way I can understand and respond to.

It also highlights a concern of mine--about myself. How can I (and others) talk about these shows unless I watch them all?

I really do try...but it is sampling. I try to watch some of AMC/OLTL/GH/Days on Soapnet most nights...but realistically, it is seldom more than 15 minutes of 1-2 shows a night. I try to follow GL/ATWT via CBS.com, but again, that's probably only 1 day/week, and these days it is only GL.

Only Y&R (and, again, B& get my nightly attention. (Male, 44, who time shifts. Advertisers won't give much of a sh!t there).

It raises a great question: Can we with any credibility discuss the soaps we do not regularly watch?

Man, I'm always late to the party!

You are always late.

Who cares if he doesn't reply to you right away. What's the problem if he takes a couple days to reply? This is the second time I've seen you do this.

sometimes what you say p!sses me off royally.

Same here with you, man. That's why I'm replying to all this crap.

Now, I don't want you to think that I think history means nothing. It does. But a soap must also leave the past behind, just like humans do, and evolve. There are gazillion reasons why soaps failed: they didn't evolve (daytime now is like a swamp filled with eighties leftovers and recycled stories, and a foul smell doesn't let you breathe) and when they tried (Gloria Monty, as Alvin noted in Unpopular Opinions), it was a fatal blow.

How was it a fatal blow? The show "evolved" and it went on to air 30+ years later. If not for Monty, GH probably would've been cancelled.

Look at the Ron Carlivati situation: it took us this long for the majority of people to say — he is not a good writer.

And here you are, saying "I told you so" with your nose in the air right? If people start to hate Y&R in a couple of months, I bet you'll be like, "Hey, what took you guys so long to realize MAB was not a good writer?" How about maybe at the time, we enjoyed Ron's writing, or MAB's writing. Are we not allowed to change our opinions?

As for as Ron, his material from Sept 07 to Mid Feb 08 was some of the best soap writing I've ever seen. Yeah, the material now isn't as good as before.

I really make an effort to not be too negative, hence the reason I stay the -F- out of that Y&R thread as much as possible. My fingers are twitching and my eyes are bugging out of my head (not just here, Nelson Branco's embarrassing praise at one time of OLTL and Y&R, and now just Y&R, makes me want to slit my wrists as well. But in threads like "unpopular opinions" and even in this one, why not say what you really think?

Just say what you have to say in the Y&R thread. You don't need to act like "ohh....I'm in the minority...so I'm not going to post." Just post your thoughts on the show.

I am not going to reply to any of this. Sorry. It's kind of not interesting anymore for me.

That's because when someone has a good response, you simply dismiss it. You throw your punch and then run away. I'm still waiting for you to come up with a reason why you think I'm a "fake" because I like Casiello and want the best for him. You're still not going reply to that, right? Yeah, I thought so.

Also, how I come I never see you go into specifics on why you're not like Y&R (or OLTL before). You just make general statements. I'm guess you're not watching the show? And that's why you never join us in the actual discussion of what's happening?

Can someone give any damn insight as to why OLTL seems to have no writer turnover.

That's because most of the "movements" were already done in late 2007 and 2008. Ron pretty much has his team set now.

That's because most of the "movements" were already done in late 2007 and 2008. Ron pretty much has his team set now.

Too bad that set team is mediocre at best

It raises a great question: Can we with any credibility discuss the soaps we do not regularly watch?

No. To have any credibility to discuss current shows i feel you have to watch at least a 2 episodes a week.

B&B and GH are the shows that stay on for me just because they are after OLTL and Y&R, I don't really pay attention to them, all I know is that GH is the ugliest soap on the air and B&B is the dumbest show on the planet.

Too bad that set team is mediocre at best

Yeah, that's why I asked. It is a very uneven team. I have seen each of them do excellent episodes though, even Poteet Lisanti and Schock. That Sharon Lennon sp? started out with some terrible scripts but she has had some good ones since. For some reason I always love Aida Croal's scripts. Is she still writing for OLTL?