How much of a garbage daytime soaps really are?

[rangethatrover]

I knew that within 3 responses someone would be saying that Y&R could stand up qualitywise in primetime. Yawn.

I could not disagree more.

Y&R's production values are the best in daytime and if this show was filmed, it could definitely stand up to primetime.

But the scripts would be laughed at.

No daytime soap matches the quality or style of primetime. Two different beasts.

I love OLTL and Y&R but hold no illusions that the quality of my favorite soaps stands up to the quality of my two favorite shows of all time- Six Feet Under and The Sopranos.

The constant overpraise of Y&R is boring me senseless.

In all honesty, I don't think any soaps on daytime are truly outstanding with a capital O.

But in the end- there are tons of garbage shows on primetime with scripts as bad as the worst soap opera moments.

[Dan]

On one hand, I completely disagree that daytime soaps are garbage simply because people who do not watch them make unfair generalizations about them. People have their own likes and dislikes and some things they don't understand. Some would argue that men who watch football are just psychologically regressing to some barbaric need to flaunt their manhood in competition by trying to kill other men for supremacy. Some would argue that WWE wrestling is no more a sport than a game of Scrabble. Some would argue that people who watch horror movies are satiating some sick psychological need to see people die. Just because people have these notions, doesn't necessarily make them true. Much like the rest of these things (football, wrestling, horror movies), I don't think anyone can understand what makes soaps so attractive to people without experiencing them first hand. That is part of what makes daytime fandom so exclusive.

Now, having said that, I would agree that soaps today are much less intelligent than they used to be. By intelligent I mean that TPTB had actually felt that viewers could follow along with a storyline without any help. That storylines took twists and turns that were based, maybe not logic per se, but on who these characters were as people. I've ALWAYS said that daytime soaps don't need to be documentaries. They can be stylized. They can have unrealistic plot points. But the motivations, emotions, reactions of the characters must be grounded enough that we can relate to them as people. When we do that, we care. And when we care, we are hooked. Line and sinker. That IMO is the main appeal of daytime. We care enough to follow these characters through whatever turmoil they go through no matter how ridiculous and we are able to watch them grow as characters on a long-term basis. Other people may just see "A woman disgnosed with DID breaks down and one of her alters steals a baby so that the woman cannot remember a thing." But we see something more. Once they get away from that, as soap writer Jean Rouverol once wrote, we might as well be watching shadow puppets on a cave wall.

That, perhaps, is one of the biggest flaws of current soaps. In the expediency and panic of the race for the ratings, writers forget to think of character motivation. They just tell their plots and the characters come second. New people are brought on with "one size fits all" personalities and neglect to develop them one iota before ushering them into their first big story. We aren't hooked on the plot because we no longer care about the characters. So many 'CSI' fans were sad to see Grisson go because he such was a well-defined and interesting character and, quite frankly, the show is NOT the same without him. I know we harp a bit much on Y&R but I think that is the perfect example. Sure the plots aren't groundbreaking nor are they necessarily realistic, but I can honestly relate to a great majority of the characters on that show right now. I understand how they are feeling in regards to a certain stimulus and their reactions make sense. That IMO is intelligent writing and is what the rest of daytime should be.

[miajere]

I find the comparison to primetime increasingly difficult. You can be good at what you do and still not be like "such and such".

Primetime has a few duds, but it is still good.

There's also that standard of knowing the crap will be cut, and sometimes the good stuff too. There's that urgency that goes beyond how many days a week you tell a story. A standard to maintain for each network- HBO, CBS, ABC.

If daytime was under that microscope, there would be some hard truths to face about things that go beyond storytelling; because at the end of the day I don't think that's the root of the problem- it's one of the symptoms.

This constant praise of Y&R and OLTL are part of the problem- but has little to do with shows being praised. Agendas. People seem to be saying, "look how much I love this show. I could love your show too if you followed suit." There's a difference between stating what you like and swallowing everything.

I don't bother piting primetime against each other, because I know the execs will do the work for me to some extent- Cancellation-, and if they don't, the critiques/media journalists will- the Soup, Entertainment Weekly.

Who do we have dictating standards for daytime? Ken Corday, Frons, PG&E, and the Bells...oh and the soap magazines.

[rangethatrover]

Miajere, You are totally right.

Sadly, from various things I have seen this year (Nelson, that HUGE Hinsey scandal from SOD) I am starting to realize that even the soap mags and their "professionals" have agendas.

Hell, I am gonna start watching GL just so OLTL doesn't become the lowest rated soap! lollll. That's my agenda.

Daytime soaps and primetime are from two different worlds.

In the late nineties until the mid 2000's, HBO shows were on a completley different level than any network shows (at least in my opinion)..

[DaytimeFan]

It's subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

To some, soaps are garbage and beneath contempt. To others, soaps are an extended novel for television allowing for audiences to really connect with characters.

Television as a whole has changed and not for the better. The writing isn't as 'smart' across the board. Writers, producers and executives, unfortunately, are writing to the dumbest audience members. I feel that when a show insults the intelligence of the viewer it's time for me to move on. Writing for 'Middle America' is what has doomed network television because 'Middle America' doesn't exist anymore.

I don't watch television to be challenged, nor do I watch to necessarily be 'moved' or even to learn anything. Rather, I watch to be entertained...if it's good drama or comedy...it doesn't matter so long as its good. Soaps, in my view, are the best of both worlds, you can get great drama coupled with moments of lightness that aren't pretentious. However, soaps can be the most frustrating kind of show because they're always on, they're always moving forward and you don't ever get a break in the narrative unless you deliberately walk away.

I enjoy soaps and I enjoy good television. I don't analyze it much anymore, it screws up the fun of it.

[miajere]

Even if the journalists didn't want to become the problem they eventually join ranks. They are out to assert taste, reasoning.

Somehow a bubble was created, and no one's willing to burst it.

Who's to say if you or I were to make friends in this industry we wouldn't want to paint them in flattering lights. Or if a show was hurting people, we wouldn't want to take control and crush them.

Journalism/covering the soap medium isn't easy. Sometimes I wonder if that's what nelson wants. Reader and industry respect or friends? To be able to say "I never compromised on a story, I kept to my commitments." Diane Sawyer and Barbara Walters are respected for a reason.- Personality helps, so it's not as if no one would listen.

I remember HBO dictating where the rest of primetime had to go. Now look at Showtime and Starz. They did it with edge and committed to what they believed. That's really all they can do.

That's all I want these soaps to do. Whatever their reasons. Committ to what they believe in. Stop pandering to friends, media, fans- and act like this is what they were born to do. It doesn't have to be garbage. They have a chance to talk to people and millions are watching. Say something you mean and maybe more people will want to listen. But they are committed to nothing. Not even soaps on frikkin' SoapNET.

[Ann_SS]

Just wanted to say how much I agree with your comment here. I don't understand why GH insists on trying to be Sopranos. No one is convinced other than Guza. Take this toxic balls story, it is so flawed and ridiculous that you simply roll your eyes. It doesn't help that audience is more educated than in the past so they know when they are being fed BS.

Good solid storytelling is what the soaps need. They also need to wake up to the fact that the audience isn't comprised of fools so stop writing ridiculous stories and asking us to swallow them whole. We already have agreed to suspend our credibility. Don't push us over the cliff also.

I thought that Night Shift season 2 was a good start to updating and evolving the concept of the soap genre. A weekly telenovela with elements of Grey's, but with the warm character driven soap stories that surrounded the Scorpio-Drakes. Night Shift 2 gave me hope that the soaps can find a way to survive. I hope that ABC has the courage to film a Night Shift 3 with Sri Rao writing it once more. It is a way forward for the ABC soaps in particular.

[bellcurve]

I may be recapping what others are saying, but I'm gonna say what I have to say anyway.

I think any medium is subjective to outsiders and those within the genre.

For me, I view soaps as a demanding, yet rewarding art. Not only for the people who work behind the scenes, but for the fans who watch this art come alive, for better or worse. As a genre, a great soap isn't garbage. Rather it IS a medium that can explore the human condition or fantasy or outrageous stories.

Why can't we have soaps that are diverse, that appeal to one's trash sensibility and those that do explore the human condition? Why do we have to lump everything into one category?

And what I want to ask those who hate daytime soaps and think of them as garbage is what constitutes garbage in performing arts? People fell madly in love with The Lord of the Rings, which I think of as some big screen, high budget soap opera. There are lots of films I think aren't brilliant but that people love. Same with primetime TV shows. Can anyone honestly think anything on a soap is more convoluted than anything they've seen on Lost and Desperate Housewives? Anything more shallow than Private Practice and Grey's Anatomy? Let's not even get to books and best-sellers. I think there are so many overrated poets and writers who just wrote complete and utter GARBAGE, but somehow, it's looked at by many as high brow art. The Romantic Era taught us that any druggie can write a poen or prose that makes absolutely no sense and it will be highly regarded in 200 years.

But again, my opinion about those arts subjective. I think of daytime soaps as an art, a treasure, that not everyone will understand why it works. And that includes some fans. But when it's right, it works for the fans.

[Sylph]

This entire post is so shocking on so many levels, I have to reply to it first. Why? Well, because someone else made sure it's in that one category already. Things you see today on screen are sheer, awful garbage and nothing else. It's not that someone has an agenda and goes for it, it's that you cannot deny the reality of it.

What? Excuse me? WHAT?! Tolkien garbage?

Shocking. Lost is a very clever show. No one has problems with convolution, people have problems with meaningless, idiotic, (non-)convolution.

OK, seriously, you have to brush up on poetry (and theory of drama, by the way; I detest poetry, just in case you didn't know). And don't touch Verlaine/Rimbaud.

[nicknack]

IMO, Primetime soaps or primetime shows with soap elements (such as love triangles) prove to me that there is still a need within people to see those kind of stories. Nobody can tell me that all the crazy fans who love their Derek/Meredith or Bella/Edward or Chuck/Blair wouldn't flock to a show that promised to give them their kind of story except rolled out in every detail, 250 episodes a year instead of just 24 episodes a year. Same for the people who love the deliciously nutty dark mystery plots intermixed with human moments of Desperate Housewives. To me the need for those very basic human kinds of stories is still there. And if you come across the fans of those kind of stories, they are usually the ones bitching to the high heavens that the constraints of the primetime format are what keeps them from getting the kind of stories they want to see. But they are repelled by the daytime format as well because IMO the daytime format has gotten way too selfinvolved and ADD.

I do wish daytime would dare to do a poor people soap again, more along the lines of some of those British shows.

[bellcurve]

Who has put it into that one category? Critics, executives, people who don't like or understand soaps? Or both? And your view of soaps is yours.

Well if I did that, then how would you possibly be able to have this overwhelming desire to "one-up" me?

I don't claim to be some expert on literature, books, or even all things television. You asked a question, I gave my answer, and you chose to pick it apart like some cocky first-year comp student with an axe to grind. We're not in a classroom earning brownie points; I'm here to answer the question and give you my opinion of "How much of a garbage daytime soaps really are."

I usually enjoy reading what you have to say, but if you think soaps are complete and utter garbage and don't understand why people view it as an art, then why bloody bother posting on this board? Why not read more pretentious, snooty literature, have your glass of Cabernet, and just leave the rest of us be?

[UKBoi]

OK, so here's my view; nothing is wrong with the soap opera genre, per se, but more to do with the fact that TPTB are losing sight of what made their shows unique in the first place and are all starting to merge into one. From what I can gather, GH's signature style was all about big adventures and supercouples, as was DAYS; OLTL was the groundbreaking soap that tackled social issues in an interesting way whilst boasting an ethnically diverse cast of characters. AMC was the soap centering on a small, rural town that provided social commentary and class struggles, GL was a realistic, community drama with elements of epic, sweeping romances, ATWT was slightly older, more character led...B&B was the fashion-focused soap with a strong 80's/telenovela influence, whilst Y&R was the epitome of a Bell soap.

Now what?

Characters and stories from AMC and OLTL (and to an extent ATWT) are interchangable, all about rich white people in love triangles or baby dramas, GH is one big cluster-F of mob wars, family drama and bio-toxins all timed around big sweeps stunts that have no lasting impact on viewers. ATWT is racing through storylines as if they're going out of fashion whilst recasting every character possible, GL is slowly improving and becoming more unique, more 'real', less about rich people and their problems, Y&R is proving that quality storytelling doesnt have to come from trying to reinvent the soap wheel, while B&B shows glimmers of hope but seems to be having a major identity crisis, and DAYS seems intent on reinventing itself as daytime's answer to Melrose Place.

While people may say that DAYS and GL are a mess, at least they're separating themselves from the rest of the soap opera genre without trying to be something else. Instead of resorting to CGI tornadoes, DAYS is focusing on a cast of characters in their 20s and 30s, while GL is going back to basics, telling everyday stories about family, love and community; it may not look far superior to a college film, but the acting is top notch and they're trying to raise ratings with the return of Philip Spaulding, but instead of throwing him in for the sake of it (Tina Lord) they planned a storyline around his family and delayed his return to be around the most dramatic point in the story.

I dont think daytime is garbage, I think that if you try too hard to explain soaps they come off as sounding ridiculous, but they're a long lasting form of entertainment and while they may be floundering in the US, British soaps are the most popular and respected medium on television. The attitudes to soaps are totally different due to how they're promoted, and they all have their own identity; EastEnders has that element of danger to it (what GH strives to have), Coronation Street has comedy and drama intertwined, Emmerdale is a rural soap that can be a little comical but quite gothic at the same time (especially during the era of Cain, Charity, Chris Tate...), Hollyoaks is the young, experimental soap that's starting to gain the respect of the industry... rather than the way the industry shuns the entire soap genre in the US.

[Sylph]

The writers made sure that we're seeing terrible stories all the time. The writers. See — you missed the whole point. You cannot, actually you can, deny that something is crap when it is crap. Or... The fact that you deny it doesn't mean it's not there. That big elephant in the room.

Hm... Here's the thing: you cannot say Verlaine/Rimbaud are trash and say soaps are the highest achievement of dramatic literature. That's just not the way things go. First, you're not an authority on literature. Even if you were, there are people who know better than you. And the fact that you don't understand something a drug addict Romantic poet wrote doesn't mean it's cr*p. I don't like a lot of stuff in literature, music etc., but I know how to appreciate them nonetheless.

Yet they taught you in school how to write. You have to know, at least that is what I expect from someone with a degree in writing, what is good writing and what's bad. That is all I expect from you.

If you read my initial post carefully you would know I didn't say they were garbage. I asked people to illuminate me and to present both sides of a coin. Which is something many did and did it splendidly.

You, on the other hand... Hmm... Didn't. You missed the topic. You presented a whole different issue and didn't answer my question.

[Kstaff]

Just out of curiosity, why does watching innane, mindless soaps (if that's what they are) have to go hand in hand with ignorance? (Just the general viewpoint I'm trying to point out, I guess) There are some of us who are pretty intelligent, have college degrees and are professionals, who WANT mindlessness when they get home. Granted, I do like intelligent shows. But, there are times, after a long day with dealing with Bloom's Taxonomy-learning styles-diversified learning-teaching strategies-yada yada-when I want to quit thinking. I don't want to put too much thought into my TV viewing. Yes, I watch Days. Yes, there is absolutely no real thought to plot OR character development anymore. Yes, it makes me mad at times. But, it's an opportunity to see some good actors, FF through the others, and just have some decent background noise that's sentimental to me (losing vets notwithstanding). Sort of like me watching the occasional Bugs Bunny cartoon or watching shows on TV Land. THEN, I can put my college degree to good use during my off hours debating fine folks on boards dissecting the show! (although, I scarcely pay enough attention to the details to contribute to a halfway decent debate).

By the way, I also watch OLTL. Again, I don't get too intense on the psyche of Todd Manning or Jessica Brenden. It's just good campy fun to watch Tea smear blood all over her face!

That being said, yeah, I'm still an apologist when I say I watch soaps. My kids tease me, although my 17 year old will come down occasionally and ask to be filled in. But, she watches anime, so who is she to criticize?

[bellcurve]

EDITED! Because I have too much respect for Toups and the gang at SON to play into this board war.