Agendas in Soaps: Name Them!!!!!

[RomeAt50]

I think women have suffered more from sexist writing in recent years but I agree that men have not been written well either. The writers should focus on making both men and women complex individuals not tired stereotypes.

[marceline]

On this we agree 100%. Writing characters with depth and complexity, regardless of gender, is where soaps have truly failed.

I agree that unplanned pregnancies happen but so do planned pregnancies, infertility, people using birth control in an adult and reasonable manner and abortion. But what do you see more of on soaps? You point out part of a huge spectrum of sexual behavior and for every example you give I can give you a story of someone I know who has had an abortion, morning after treatment or miscarriage. How many times has Blair been pregnant on OLTL? Am I really supposed to believe that a grown ass woman who likes sex as much as Blair obviously does doesn't carry condoms? And what is the likelihood that someone who has so much unprotected sex has never contracted an STD? But these other things don't happen because women on soaps aren't written as fully sexual beings but as incubators for the "core."

I suspect that you and I really aren't THAT far apart on this. We just have different perspectives.

[xtr]

I have definitely seen this one a lot. A lot of people are often chanting about how they want certain characters on soaps to get rid of because they feel like the character is a threat to either their favorite couple or their favorite characters. And/or because they feel like certain characters are "ruining" the show or "ruining" other characters and they like to blame a lot of what they feel is wrong with a show on certain characters.

I am a Ryan Lavery and Krystal Carey Fan, I love both characters and I see people all of the time on different message boards, constantly campaigning to get rid of these characters. I've seen a lot of people constantly say that they want Ryan to leave because they feel like he is a threat to their favorites.

And I've seen Ryan get blamed a lot for other characters actions, because a lot of viewers feel like other characters are being "ruined" or written poorly to build Ryan up. I've seen Ryan get blamed for Zach impregnanting Bianca, and some of Zach's other actions, because people feel like Pratt is trying to bring Zach down, in order to build Ryan up. I've seen him get blamed for some of Aidan's bad actions, I've seen him get blamed for some of Kendall's bad actions.

Heck I've seen him get blamed for mistakes that Jesse has been making in this storyline with Angie and Rebecca.

I've seen Ryan catch it for a lot of other characters shortcomings and mistakes, and people wanting the show to get rid of him for this, in addition because some feel that he is a threat to their favorites.

I've seen Krystal treated in a simliar manner, even though not nearly as bad as it has been for Ryan. But according to a lot of people on various message boards, Krystal is the reason why Liza, Brooke, and Dixie are not around, one reason being because she "stole" their storylines. And she pulls down and "neuters" all the men that she comes in contact with.

Nevermind IMO, that Bobbie Eakes is one of the best actresses on the show and can acts circles around a lot of the other actresses on the show. And I think that she has fantastic chemistry with David Canary and good chemistry with VI. And nevermind that a lot of people felt like Dixie's return went poorly which had nothing to do with Krystal. None of that matters a lot of folks just want her gone.

I've have definitely seen the get rid of Agenda, happen a whole lot in general and towards some of my favorite characters.

[miajere]

B&B have been running that same story line for years. I for one don't care for example of misogyny in stories, it's in life, but it makes me scratch my head when it occurs in contract negotiation and pay. There are too many actresses in daytime getting the shaft when they are just as important as the men. And too many men calling it in week after week with open doors. (I'm looking at you David Fumero.)I suspect the reason people are so suspect when it occurs with women and other groups is because ABC Daytime conducts business unethically more often than not.

Same goes for gays and diversity. Just last week rumor was put out some cast members were asked to keep their lives private. So when Nuke gets cut, I don't question the homophobia on the networks part. Maybe if ABCD didn't have such a history of unethical treatment of minorities in their cast people wouldn't question their business decisions. But this happens in every industry- it ain't right, but this is why I don't mind the lobbying for agendas in daytime television. Are we supposed to depend on focus groups to speak up?

I suppose that's Art imitating life. It can be quite disturbing.

[Paul Raven]

Very interesting discussion.

What might be held up as sexism in writing,can also just be lazy /dumb choices by writers.

For example,Phyllis spotting Nick & Sharon kissing in Paris.Sure,she might be momentarily shocked-but to have her leave and not say anything for weeks,while at the same time making all sorts of plans and schemes,made her seem like some scheming,out of control wench from the dark ages.

Things would have been just as interesting had she waited for nick and calmly confronted him on what she saw.

Too often,characters are made to look dumb by keeping secrets rather than acting rationally,just to 'prolong suspense'.

As for agendas,TPTB have the attitude that no one over 50 deserves any sort of story,save for the Bell shows- most over 50 characters are either fired or relegated to occasional talk to scenes.

This is destroying the fabric of soaps.I'm not saying Bob & Kim should be front burner 3-4 days a week,but in the past chracters like Tom & Alice and Chris & Nancy were on regularly and their opinions and concerns in the younger stories were integral and valid.

The shows would be far more interesting if the generational aspect was maintained.

Y&R is #1 with Katherine,Jill,Jack,Gloria ,Victor etc all given prominence

[SteveFrame]

I agree Paul. And they do not have to be the star of the story to be involved and to be seen.

Many have the misassumption that when people like me talk about the older generations that I want them to be front and center at the expense of the younger generation. That is not the case.

Just look at characters like Tom Horton (Days), Papa Bauer (GL) and Maeve Ryan (RH) and many others. They never really were the stars of that many stories or even any. I think Maeve had one story that was just about her but I know Tom didn't. He had that little brief story where he had the heart attack. These characters were never the lead of any real story - yet they were the heart of their shows. They were there. They were seen. They reacted to the problems of their children and those around them. They provided a big part of the story even though the story really wasn't about them. And what happened affected all the relationships in their lives. Often Tom & Alice in particular might have disagreements about what was happening with one of their children or even when Alice got involved in the problems of Roman Brady.

Bob & Kim and even Nancy don't have to be the front and center of any story, but they need to be there. They need to react and it needs to be seen. It provides a link between the past and the present - that is sorely missing on many of the shows today.

[DaytimeFan]

What about the AGEISM agenda?! That's what ABC has been running on for the last decade or so!

[JackPeyton]

thank you!

hello Suzanne Rogers! WHY has this woman not had a lead storyline since... before i was born? She is srsly a flawless actress and can carry anything they throw hey way! give her something! PLEASE! I mean, look at when maggie seen Marlena on the island after the killer sotryline! the way she was.. i tots thought she was gonna attack marlena! she can pull of bitch and nice. anything! ugh!

Suzanne Rogers > Every other vet! just sayin!

[R Sinclair]

She hates her vagina.

[DeeeDee]

GH is Logan's Run.

[marceline]

IMO, people hate Krystal, not because of the reasons you mention, but because quite simply the Kareys ate the show. People want to get rid of her because she's been forced down everyone's throat for years. This isn't so much a "Get rid of them" agenda as a "Please God make it end!!" agenda.

[All My Shadows]

I agree. The feelings for them were quite mixed as long as their story dealt with Babe's stuff with JR and Jamie and Krystal's stuff with Adam and Tad, but once the baby switch started, they became frontburner characters and pretty much have been since then, approx. March 2004. It gets to a point where the audience, and the actors too, just need a break. I have no doubt that part of Alexa's wanting to leave was due to working so gosh darn much.

[SteveFrame]

But see that is the way I feel about Kendall and even Greenlee and throw in Ryan and Zach to some degree.

But for years now the show esp. has been about Kendall to the point I am sick of her and need a break. Even with her in the coma there hasn't been much of a break from her. She appeared 10 times in December.

I get kicked in the butt though when I mention that.

The whole sextette from hell needs a big long break if you ask me.

But as I have said as much as I would like them to disappear I know that many fans don't want that - so I will tolerate them for the best of the show. But to me for many fans to call the Carey's, etc. on their [!@#$%^&*] is like the pot calling the kettle black when their faves have eaten the show just as much.

I am not saying that to you but to many on the boards who hate Ryan, the Careys, etc.

[marceline]

That doesn't make you WRONG, does it?. All you're doing is asking for what you want to see. And why shouldn't you? Or I? Or anyone else? Technically all of these "agendas" are just viewers telling TPTB what they want to see. Is that wrong? No. When viewers stop having "agendas" that means they no longer care. If you hate Kendall and think the show would be better off without her, then you should say that. Just like I should be able to say I think AMC has seen more than enough of Krystal Karey, regardless of the fact that she is portrayed by a great actress. And I wholeheartedly agree that Bobbie Eakes is a fantastic actress.

How do we know its for the best of the show? Does the fact that "many fans don't want that" make it right? I think overexposure of any character is bad for any show. For example, I (used to) love both Todd Manning and John McBain but if I were in charge of OLTL they'd both get their screen time cut by half at least. Hell, I'd call ME on his way to work and say "You know that book tour you've been putting off? Take it. Take it NOW!" And TSJ wouldn't see the inside of the studio for at least six weeks. Does that mean I have a "get rid of them" agenda? Perhaps. But when I went to ME's fan event last year, he recounted a conversation he had with a co-star who didn't like the changes in their character. He told them that "the more airtime your character gets, the faster they go downhill." So I think even the actors would rather have less screentime, if that screentime was truly meaningful. Of course, some would rather be on every day. But some would also rather schill Monavie. They can't set the standard.

So perhaps some of these "agendas" are also for the best of the show. Or at the very least that what the people fighting for them believe.

[rhinohide]

Whoa! LMAO!