How much of a garbage daytime soaps really are?

[MarkH]

All of this, for me, centers in on the idea that maybe we should not be judging soaps--at least entirely--by the standards of art and literature (whatever those are).

Soaps are...at their core concept...a commercial form. We would never call People Magazine or Time Magazine (also designed to deliver eyeballs) "art". We call them "delivery vehicles" for advertisers. All commercial products are thus. Soaps, lest we forget (James Thurber would remind us) were designed to sell Rinso, Crisco, Brillo, and so forth.

Soaps are a serial dramatic form, designed to provoke habitual viewing...especially in females. The way that viewers are hooked in to deliver reliable daily eyeballs to the advertisers are through heightened drama (melodrama), coupled with cliffhangers of many types (to provoke the "tune in tomorrow" phenomenon). Another aspect of maintaining that viewership seems to be the "loyalty" or "familiarity" effect...BEST evinced (presently) by Y&R. If you keep the places and people familiar, many viewers will begin to develop an affectional bond (borne of familiarity), and tune in because the experience delivers consistently comfortable feels. The best analogy is a favorite blanket. If you cover yourself with it nightly, soon the act of covering becomes -- itself -- a familiar and anticipated comfort.

ON OCCASION, as a dramatic art form, soap opera can transcend this commercial and habitual basis. In those moments, I suppose, moments of sterling performances, outrageously good dialogue, or remarkably well devised plots, soaps can become something more like "art" (whatever that is).

The conclusion of this argument is that one should never expect art from the genre...that is not its' function. When the genre reaches greater creative heights, that becomes a nice surprise...but should always be viewed as anomaly, give the raison d'etre of the form.

[brimike]

There's something beautifully ironic about reading this sentiment, Mark... next to your avatar of Brad's corpse under the ice.

[SteveFrame]

I have not gotten a chance to read everyone's comments here yet. And I am not going to say much just say that at one time I would have said a big hell no daytime soaps are not garbage and even now I don't think they are garbage but they have lost so much credibility that even I who love them don't respect them as I once did.

Soaps used to lose respect within the industry because they were considered a lower form of entertainment. The pay was less, the sets were cheaper, and things like that. They were disrespected because of those things and to a lesser degree than today for the content that was on them.

As the pay scales rose and production values increased and some stars became household names the content on the shows went down. Soaps were still looked at as below the stage, primetime and films but they became even more disrespected because of the content on them.

In 1982 when The Doctors went out there and did the grave robbing story and the story of a woman who uses an experimental drug to look younger and stole her daughter's life - they were the laughing stock of daytime and the entertainment industry. It was strange that years later this would be considered tame in the world of daytime. Even GH was ridiculed by critics about the freezing the world plot in 1981.

It always shames me that people like Agnes Nixon and even to some extent actors like John Beradino and George Reinholt worked to pull daytime out of the gutter and earn it some respect both for content and for its performers, but people like Gloria Monty, Pat Falken Smith, Sherri Anderson and James E. Reilly destroyed it all.

I have never been ashamed to watch soap operas for myself. I love them, but I will say that I am not as proud of them as I once was. Yes there are still great moments and great acting, but some of the things that go on these days I am not proud of at all. Some of the things like the super Marvel comic villians, returns from the dead, etc. have gotten so old and have hurt soaps so much, I wish they would go away forever.

[rhinohide]

LMAO! Good Catch!

Well said Mark.

[applcin]

If that's the case (and I don't necessarily agree), then they had help. Viewers could have spoken by turning off their sets. They didn't. Actors could have given up their jobs and paychecks for their principles. Charles Keating could say that Port Charles was crap, but he still showed up. Luke Spencer, a character who was slated to die early on, survived in part because of positive viewer reaction to him. Passions lasted as long as it did because some people were watching it. Wasn't Nathaniel Marston rehired at OLTL (after his first firing) because of viewer backlash? That whole 80s era where GH thrived in the ratings, it did so because people watched. So...in terms of what soaps did then and are doing now, is it a case of them just feeding people drivel, or are they simply reacting to either 1) the feedback they're getting from viewers/ratings and/or 2) what they think will appeal to their target demo? Did GH's shift to action adventure in the 80s (and all of the imitators following suit) sound the death knell for the genre or breathe new life into it? Would some soaps still be on the air if that hadn't happened?

I guess my question is who's feeding whom and at what point, if any, are the viewers responsible for the state of the genre?

[SteveFrame]

You look at the history of the genre viewers have always asked for stuff but they didn't always get it from the people who tried to make the genre more respectable.

If Irna Phillips had listened to viewer outrage and gave them what they wanted we would have deaths undone as early as 1958. But they didn't.

Gabrielle Upton (Gillian Houghton) said that when she did the story of the priest falling in love with one of his church members on The Secret Storm in the 70's that she read every letter but in the end she tried to weigh it against what was best for the show overall.

That is what Agnes Nixon did too.

There was a point when the powers that be stopped following what was best for the shows and one gave into their own agendas and 2nd did whatever they wanted just to get people to watch.

In the end yes they gave viewers what they wanted but they destroyed so much of the credibility of the shows that the genre has forever been tarnished and in some instances beyond repair.

Sometimes you have to do your job and do what is best for a network or a show. Look at CBS in the 1960's, they let their primetime go to hillbilly shows that were yes very good in the ratings but had very little substance or quality. They were pulling in the viewers but they were getting a bad reputation at the time with the network getting a reputation for low quality drivel. It finally took a network executive at the urging of advertisers to decide that even though the shows were still popular a change was needed.

Yes we at viewers are to blame for a lot of it. We demand stuff through our agendas that are often more self-serving that are not often best for the overall show or the overall genre. But in the end the powers that be like Monty, Frons, Falken Smith, Reilly, and Anderson who get most of the blame because they didn't do what many others before them did - they gave in to viewers without any thought to what it was doing to the overall integrity of the genre or the shows they were writing or producing.

[applcin]

I can appreciate what you're saying, SteveFrame. But if viewers aren't catered to on some level and aren't watching, doesn't that create no revenue for advertisers, thus no advertisers, thus no show? I mean, yeah, soaps, heck, a lot of shows, sell out but don't they have to in order to survive? Do some prime time shows get cancelled because they are badly produced/written or because not enough viewers are interested?

I appreciate the need to try to preserve the art of something (and can lament at how often the attempts can fail or are not enough) but starving artists need to eat. If the money doesn't come in from the consumers, especially in a medium like television, then the art faces certain death anyway, doesn't it, at least on a mass level? Which is the lesser of two evils? And who determines what is art? Isn't that subjective, too? People on one side praise Ryan's Hope for its realistic feel in its early years; people on the other side claim it's too boring, too ordinary. Was Edge of Night the art of mystery or melodramatic, campy soap opera? Are soaps any less artistic now than they were when they were created simply because their identities and focus have changed, or are they simply different forms of art? Someone said earlier that one man's trash is another man's treasure; I think you could also say "one generation's trash/treasure is another generation's treasure/trash."

Is it better for a show to try to adhere to its original identity, despite changing times and tastes or to perhaps sacrifice some integrity just to stay on the air? I do think a lot has to do with TPTB and how they introduce and produce changes. Perhaps, for example, there were others, like me, that were okay with GH having a mobster or two around...until they became the predominant focus of the show. Sonny Corinthos didn't particularly bother me until the show centered around him and other characters' stories were reactions to him. That's when I lost interest. Was Ryan's Hope's initial identity one of Irish-Catholicism and did they make a mistake in introducing the Woodards and Kirklands at all...or was the mistake the fact that much of the show became more about these characters and less on the Ryans? Did GH's and OLTL's introductions of the Quartermaines and Buchanans, respectively, destroy the identities of those shows or give them new identities for a new generation of viewers?

BTW, I'm not trying to bust anybody's chops here or beat any dead horses. I just find this thread really interesting.

[Vee]

Soaps will always be both garbage and art, whether they are daytime or primetime. And if there was no market for them, we wouldn't see 90210 and Melrose Place being revamped. Even Brothers & Sisters is a soap, more or less, as is ER, Grey's, etc. Most of the best art is both garbage and art.

Soaps will always be around in one form or another; the need for a continuous serialized narrative focusing on romance and human relationships is a major thing for audiences. Even if daytime actually dies out - which I have begun to seriously doubt, frankly - it will be back too. People want that, they need that. They want to see life going on with or without them among long-running families in Anytown, USA. They want to know that world is there. It can be comfort food. It can be escapism. It can be the close family a kid doesn't have offscreen. It can be so many things. And it is important.

As for Sylph's latest bullshit meth and tina-induced straw man thesis, I have no interest in his "dance, puppets, dance" routine.

[All My Shadows]

I worship at the church of DaytimeFan.

I'm going to be frank here.

I don't like Shakespeare. I can't stand Shakespeare. Except for Macbeth (which I loved), I'll never read any of his plays all the way through (but I can do the sonnets). I'd rather SparkNote his plays. Do I accept that he has many admirers, fans, and devotees? Yes. Do I appreciate his work? No. It doesn't entertain me, so why should I appreciate it? There are millions who are entertained by his work, and they do appreciate his work. I'm not entertained by his works, and so I do not appreciate his work. On the flip side, I like Lois Duncan. I love Lois Duncan. I've read many of her books all the way through. I love reading her books. Do I accept that most people have never heard of her or her books? Yes. Do I accept that many people who have heard of her books and don't like her books? Yes. Do I appreciate her work? Yes. Her work entertains me. And so I appreciate her work.

I like the Beatles. They're okay. Do I think that their songs are amazing? Not really. There are singers and bands who have made more songs that I've enjoyed than the Beatles have. Do I accept that the Beatles are seen as musical gods by many, many people? Yes. I do. Do I think that they are the greatest band ever? No. I think they're okay, but I don't like them that much. So no, I don't think that they are the greatest band ever. There are millions who think that they are the greatest band ever. But I'm not one of them. On the flip side, I like disco. I love disco. I listen to disco all day long sometimes. I'm listening to disco now. I enjoy disco. I really, really, really enjoy listening to disco. I love to dance to disco music. Do I accept that many, many people think that disco is nothing but trash, and that most people believe that the Beatles are better than disco? Yes. But will I say that the Beatles are better than disco? No. Because I don't believe that. I enjoy disco more than I enjoy the Beatles.

I hated "Million Dollar Baby." It bored me to tears. I stopped watching after the first hour. Do I accept that there are many, many people, including the Oscar voters, who thought that it was worthy of the Best Picture award? Yes. I do. Do I think that it was worthy of the Best Picture award? No. I don't. I think it sucked. On the flip side, I liked "Mean Girls." I loved "Mean Girls." I think that "Mean Girls" is an incredible movie. I know it line-for-line. Do I accept that many, many people didn't care for it at all? Yes. I do. Do I think that it was a much better movie than "Million Dollar Baby?" Yes. I do. I think that "Mean Girls" was at least one billion times better than "Million Dollar Baby."

I can not stand to watch "Lost." I watched the first ten episodes and stopped. I just couldn't bring myself to watch it anymore. I did not enjoy it, and it did not entertain me. Do I accept that "Lost" is a favorite of many and that it won the Emmy? Yes. I do. But does that make me appreciate "Losthttp://boards.soapoperanetwork.com/style_images/webber/folder_editor_images/rte-resize-down.gif" or enjoy it? No. It does not. It still bores me, and I still think it's full of ish. On the flip side, I love "Supernatural." I watch it every single week, and have been a huge fan since the first episode. Do I accept that many people don't care about it and that it will never win an Emmy? Yes. I do. But does that mean that I think "Lost" is a better show? Of course not. "Lost" is crap, and "Supernatural" is effing amazing. But, you know, that is just. an. opinion.

I get what you're saying, but I only half agree with you here. I think that the mistakes made by those people were only mistakes because they were done on shows that were supposed to be soooo far removed from what they were doing. An earnest show about a hospital shouldn't be running around with frozen cities and Ice Princesses and all that. But do I think that that stuff could and should have a place in daytime? Why not? It's had a place in primetime over the years, and in first-run syndication, so why not in daytime? The problem is that soaps are so rarely canceled that when a writer or whoever wants to try something a little different (like sci-fi and supernatural stuff and all that), they have no choice but to insert it into whatever show they're working on at the moment. When daytime wanted all kinds of "Dallas" and "Dynasty" clones in the early 80s, they couldn't just premiere new shows with those types of plots (well, they did do "Texas"...). How were they going to do that? They instead inserted that type of stuff into the shows that were already on the air.

I am, by no means, defending the people who completely transformed plots and such. Personally speaking, if GH was near death in 1977, then maybe it should have died! And then got replaced by a new soap that focused on younger characters and action/adventure plots and all that. And once that went out of style, that would have gotten canceled to. That's what they do in primetime, isn't it? I love the fact that daytime has extremely long-running shows. I love that. But really, is it necessary for a show to run for 40-50 years? Is it, really?

That's part of the reason why daytime is so homogenized anyway. There seems to be one common view of what a soap is and should be. PSNS was different from the rest, and I can't blame JER for doing it. He may have taken DAYS further and further away from what it was about, but he created PSNS and wrote it the way it was supposed to be written, even when the stories sucked and plots didn't make sense. It was still PSNS. Can we say the same for the other soaps? If they just stopped giving a damn about competing with each other and just told the stories that their shows were created to tell, things would be much, much better. Think of it. You'd have one soap that is alllllll about doctors and nurses and the medical industry. That'd would be awesome. But what if I didn't want to watch a medical drama? I could change the channel and watch the soap that's about middle-class families in a small-town community, which would come on after the soap about professionals and their family lives. And that one would come on after the soap that's alllll about the fashion industry. There'd be a soap that's sort of a satirical farce on the class structures of society, and the soap that's all about earnest depictions of individuals and how they change. But no. Noooo. Everyone wants all soaps to be based around the same vision, and so you get soaps that are all the same. The only soap that people seem to want a different vision for is GH, which everybody agrees should at least be about the hospital.

My point is this: it's not exactly wise to compare what they (can) do in primetime to what they (can) do in daytime. For one, the people in daytime are in completely uncharted territory. Nowhere else in the history of the world have there been scripted narratives that have been on television for over 50 years. What works for a show that is 25 years old or 10 years old is not going to work for a show that is 50 years old. And second, the differences between daytime and primetime are so blatantly obvious that I still don't get why people can just compare them like they're so similar. Again, when acclaimed people like Joss Whedon and JJ Abrams and David E. Kelly work on shows in primetime, they are working on shows that they created, that they have worked on, that they have dedicated themselves too. They're not inheriting 40-year-old shows with decades worth of intricate storylines and characterizations that are up against other shows with 30 or 40 years of history behind them. They're not being pressured to "remember history" and "use vets." They're not in charge of 250 episodes a year, either, they're in charge of 25-30, at the most. The differences are glaring. Glaring! That's why I laugh when people get excited over the idea of a primetime writer doing daytime. Being a great primetime writer doesn't automatically translate to being a great daytime writer!

If Megan McTavish or Dena Higley created their very own primetime shows with 5-10 main characters, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they were good shows.

[DavidEvanSmith]

First of all, I don't believe someone can ask for opinions in one breath and then police and belittle them in the next.

Terms like "Crap", "Garbage", "Art" and "Entertainment" are ALL subjective and interchangeable. One person's trash being another person's treasure, and all that. Believing one person's opinion is more valid than another's is completely disrespectful. And on a basically blind message board, who is to say who knows better than anyone else?

[miajere]

I completely agree.

Art is subjective but there's a market for it. An artist has to know who they are and move towards that. With new writers taking over every show every year, it would be nice if they found an artist to fit their artwork. But they stopped doing that and began recycling writers and therefore signs of every style of soap expression polluted the very spirit of a show- poor response to change.

It's not that these people aren't good artist, but at some point self-loathing has seaped in and they told themselves what they created wasn't good enough or worst, that they were better than their current forms of art. They stopped seeing the beauty in crafting a scene in which they get to see weeks after they put it together. Craftmanship.

They wanted to be primetime, another network, they wanted another demographic, they wanted quieter fans- "trainable fans". Instead of realizing the fans are just as much apart of the story telling as the actors and the script. We are going to ask for things. It shouldn't be because you're too blind to see, it should be apart of what you're trying to say.

These people act as though they are ashamed to be putting out five day a week work, and in return have begun to judge the very people who have put food on their table. "They'll take whatever we give them. Let's call it in today Tony." And the daytime Emmys and soap magazines encourage this behavior.

There are those invaluable things, things left in a time capsule worth remembering for those who find it special. That's what Youtube is for, not recycled story lines.

At the end of the day, you need those people who are going to take their time. You want these people, because they care, they are invested, they won't miss a day, and they care about what they are watching.

HBO doesn't get billions of viewers per original series. But they recognize the investment of their loyal consumers and value word of mouth. Now look at Sex and the City, who's first season recieved mixed reviews and not stellar ratings. Movies, magazines, books, DVDs, soundtracks, i Tunes, and played on 3 other networks now. Quality matters and can be rewarding.

[All My Shadows]

delusions of grandeur

noun

a delusion (common in paranoia) that you are much greater and more powerful and influential than you really are

[DavidEvanSmith]

LMAO! Thanks.

I should have known that instead of hearing the reasons why people don't believe soaps are garbage, they just wanted the opportunity to explain to them that while they might not THINK soaps are garbage, they still really are, and they just don't know any better.

Should have known. I guess I, like the rest of those who lack culture and education, should go outside and play in the dirt for a little while. Maybe I'll find a really cool rock or something.

[brimike]

Wow... this thread sure took a sharp turn.

The initial question was well-intentioned, but yeah, the discussion spiraled a bit.

[Toups]

Verlaine/Rimbaud are trash and soaps are the highest achievement of dramatic literature.

Who are you? God?.

Nooooo.....he would neeeever do that.