Is the soap world asleep?

[DRW50]

At the moment, I think GL is telling better stories and has more entertainment value than a number of soaps with three wall sets (B&B, GH, AMC, DAYS, among others). If a show is still able to entertain, which I think GL is, and if a show is still turning a profit, which GL supposedly is, then I don't think they deserve cancellation. If it's simply about putting soaps out of their misery or trying to make a statement, then nearly every soap on the air now should be canceled. Canceling GL only would just make a statement that trying to improve is meaningless, and why not stagnate for years and let your name carry you through, like what's happened with GH.

If the ratings stabilize and if they don't bleed money, I don't see why not. I don't believe CBS is going to get anything else there and I think it's better to have a show which can prove soaps don't have to keep getting worse and worse. It's more of a positive spin for the network, since they already have Y&R as a soap on the upswing.

I guess I'm going by the rumors that GL will get another year. Perhaps they won't and they're on their way out. I shouldn't assume. I'm only saying why I don't think they should be canceled. At this time a few years ago I would have had a different opinion.

I don't think ABC cares, as long as they make money. They think Frons is somehow expanding the daytime boundaries to get them cash, or younger demos, like what he's trying to do to Soapnet. I think they tolerate his ideas because they're not really invested in the genre of daytime and they leave that part up to him. If they ever realize he's a failure and they bring someone else in, that person may have a completely different view of soaps than he does. Or I'm hoping he does.

I wouldn't mind seeing someone besides Disney take ABC over, but so many networks have this conservative, frightened mindset. Even a lot of cable shows. Movies. Seems like almost everything now. Anything which tries to be different from the lowest common denominator is sneered at as PC or trying to be too smart.

[Dan]

MarkH, I must say you have outdone yourself. What a fascinating and truthful post! I agree with almost every word.

Each show's history is a storytelling strength if a writer is able to harness it (and Maria Bell has proved that it is possible to reach back into the past without stagnating). But one thing we sometimes forget when discussing the genre is that "soap" is a far larger subject that we give it credit. I remember agreeing with people a few years back when they said that PSNS wasn't a soap and a disgrace to daytime, but somehow along the way, I changed my mind. Surely, PSNS wasn't MY kind of soap, but it was a soap nonetheless. Why can't a supernatural show coexist with a traditional community-oriented soap like GL or a ground-breaking social analysis like AMC?

These days, there appears to be only 5 shows: ABC, NBC, Y&R, CBS, and GL. I named GL and Y&R apart because they both are differentiated from the others, GL partly because of the new production style and Y&R because of the renewed Bill Bell influence. The rest is this mishmash of the same kind of vision of what daytime should be. But as you said Mark, the shows MUST embrace not only their history, but their identity as a show in order to survive. In this kind of daytime environment, we might have "old" soap, but it is seen through a variety of different lenses.

I agree and disagree. I think we've been very spoiled by the last 20 years. We forget that GL was around when the only production value was a person's imagination. In early years on television, soaps were set in claustrophobic and sparsely decorated sets that would, at times, fall during live broadcast. Hell, most soaps looked like [!@#$%^&*] until 1980 or so. So why should production have as much value as we seem to argue here at SON? I doubt the majority of people care that AMC camerawork looks weird or that GL sometimes looks rather washed out and tacky. It's cheap and it's keeping these shows on the air.

On the other hand, these shows had such dynamic characters and engaging stories that kept the viewers watching day in and day out regardless of the production value. I disagree that we shouldn't impose criteria for better storytelling. You would think it would be so simple: entertain us. But that becomes a much bigger challenge when we define what that 'us' is, which goes back to the point that soaps must return to what made them unique. There is room for the envelope-pushing social storytelling of an Agnes Nixon-style AMC or a Bill-Bellian Y&R or an urban soap like OLTL and so on. PSNS might not have been 'my' soap, but I appreciated it for what it was... a soap.

[CSF]

I agree with you, I don't think they should be canceled either, nor am I attempting to predict their cancellation. I was just stating a "What If" scenario.

I am happy their ratings are stable and although I am not a viewer anymore of GL (haven't gone back since the Conboy/Weston nightmare) I hope it continues to do well.

I'm just amazed at the fact that under Frons, ABC has been dropping for years, so they have to have lost money before the problems with the economy. It's just unbelievable that a higher up hasn't come out and checked to see why their daytime is so tragically falling apart.

[Vee]

The problem with this little circle-jerk think tank is that very likely half the people in the thread have a different idea of what the original identity of one of the shows is, and what the 'new identity' should then be. I vehemently disagree with virtually everything marceline has ever said about OLTL; we both feel "innovation" is needed on soaps for the future, but her approach differs drastically from mine. So who gets to be the arbiter who tells everyone else that the Kanes are important and the Chandlers/Martins aren't? How about the Abbots vs. the Winters? Buchanans vs. Cramers? Spencers vs. Quartermaines? What about the popular oddball offshoot characters, like Maxie or Robin, Nora or Rex? Who gets to cherry-pick the grand new order? Who gets to unilaterally declare that Hogan Sheffer and MAB (or Ron Carlivati) are not what Y&R or OLTL really need to be good because viewers don't really like it as much as they claim to? Let me guess...Sylph? What happens if the ratings then plummet when the message board cognoscenti take over? Do we just keep pushing until we find a "new," more rarefied and enlightened viewer base who appreciates our efforts to modernize? Hmm...now who does that sound like?

I don't believe daytime is going to die as quickly as we like to say around here. In 2001 or 2002, yes, I thought so. It's now 2009 and a lot more soaps are still on the air than I expected there to be eight years ago. Some (not all) will live on, because, IMHO, there will always be an audience base for serialized domestic/family drama in the afternoon, in some way, shape, or form. I agree with others that a major element of that will be preserving and honoring the traditions that got daytime the loyal longtime viewership they have, albeit eroded. Anything that replaces them with something streamlined, jet-fueled and whored-up will not be picked up by the masses looking for comfort food in the daytime.

And comfort food can be a well-done package; Claire Labine's Ryan's Hope was a candid "kitchen sink drama" with incredible, humanistic storytelling for years. There's a reason NY theater people act or playwrights write for these programs, even Harding Lemay selling Tide and Borax five days a week back in the '70s while Jacqueline Courtney cried into her fall hairdo. You can do things with the seemingly-"boring" medium that are new and interesting and compelling by manipulating the serialized daily format, yet you don't have to slap a sigil on it to proclaim that WE ARE NOW MAKING ART. When Linda Gottlieb took over OLTL she originally threw all the rules out; she purged much of the excess Paul Rauch cast, hired Michael Malone, and started doing a series of episodic vignette storylines populated largely by a few contract players and a bunch of "guest stars." These stories failed miserably. About a year into her run, Gottlieb and Malone finally began to perfect their approach, which was a mix of old and new ideas, camerawork, production design, narrative elements, cinematic concepts, storytelling, while using classic soap tropes and beloved core families. They didn't decide that Phil Carey, Erika Slezak or Clint Ritchie were old hat. They used them. The PTB involved realized the show did not have to be Art! with a capital A and a exclamation point to still be, you know, art and good soap. And it was. Both. The same way Claire Labine's show was art even when Maeve was sitting with her grown children or singing "Danny Boy."

The only way daytime will survive or thrive is by embracing what works and what is beloved while utilizing new methodology or ideas, without invalidating or disavowing what has come before. Daytime as a medium is about what has come before. Every day people want to see what happens to Erica or Bianca or Bo and Hope or Luke or Viki or Reva or Katherine because they know what happened yesterday or last week or last month. They care about the families, they care about the people, they care about the town. It's not about the people behind the camera or the profound artistry of your creative vision; it's not about YOU. It's about the audience and their sense of connection. That is daytime, and if it is to survive everyone had better remember that.

[JamesF]

I love reading your opinions Mark but I loathe that quote with a burning passion. I think it's arrogant, fatalistic and downright condescending. I've said before that primetime woke up to the fact that the audience has become a lot savvier and is prepared to take risks. Very expensive ones in some cases. Daytime's reaction has to become completely homogenised and ironically its new identity is one that most potential/former soap viewers find utterly repellent.

The strength of a modern and relevant daytime lineup would lie in variety. Social relevance right through to B&B style glam and Y&R's earnestness. It should also have evolved to realistically reflect the kind of time people now have to devote to their shows i.e reverting them all to half an hour.

Don't get me wrong, part of the variety I think is necessary includes shows that have successfully embraced their history but soaps have largely come to have the same flaws. And let me clarify by saying that I don't think the existing soaps should radically change their identities. Those that have the ability to do it successfully should be embracing their history. Those that don't...just cut out the dead wood and try out some fresh concepts in new shows. Obviously this will never happen but hey.

[marceline]

Yay! Say it again!

We keep hearing how this show is so great and that one is a train wreck but in truth they're all the same. Maybe Show A is featuring their vets a little more this week and Show B has upped the camp factor and Show C has an actor or character that is doing better than another but they're all the same.

People talk about the "genre" and it's audience in such monolithic terms: EVERYBODY wants more vets, EVERYBODY wants more "history", EVERYBODY hates newbies, etc... but that's not true. Sylph, Mark, Vee and I have different tastes. We don't want to watch the same show and we shouldn't have to. But instead those of us ready, willing and eager to embrace something new are told that we're what's wrong and that if we were "real" fans we'd order off the menu.

If the genre was healthy it would be capable of supporting a broader audience with different expectations but right now it's like comparing different brands of bottled water: the packaging might be different but at the end they're all the same stuff coming out of the tap.

[DRW50]

I think the homogenized feel is all across TV, especially network TV. I don't believe primetime TV takes risks, and when they do take risks, most of them are rewarded with failure. Now we have CBS which is almost all procedural, NBC which is giving up 5 hours a week for Jay Leno, FOX which just relies on Idol, aging and formulaic dramas, and the same familiar demo hits by the same names like Whedon or Abrams, ABC which struggles to find success besides their aging dramas and their reality shows...

Daytime used to be the place where more risks were taken, and I'd love to see that happen again someday. I actually think we're getting closer to that than we were 5 or 10 years ago, at least with the CBS soaps, but they still have a long way to go.

[Sylph]

Dumb question. Are you saying that Kay Alden's quote implies homogenisation, that the "new" identity soaps are trying out is a homogenised version of its previous one or...?

But yes, that quote is... The woman is absolutely clueless as to how a soap opera should be written, which she proved during her Y&R tenure.

[JamesF]

I think soaps (possibly Y&R excluded) have become pretty much homogenised OTT crap. They all reached a level of desperation and stuck to this heightened, formulaic, repetitive storytelling with ridiculous acting and fanbase pandering. Clueless burned out 60 year-olds second guessing what it is a younger audience wants and getting it completely wrong but stubbornly refusing to admit it. I'd include OLTL based on past years but at least it's trying to pull itself round. ABC is the worst example of this IMO - churning out shows which become increasingly indistinguishable. Frons does not like individuality.

It links to Kay Alden because that's a very easy quote for her to pull out when she's had a pampered career on the number one soap. Unfortunately in broader terms it is exactly her attitude that stifles risk taking which is what daytime always used to be about (as Carl says). Some people have a view of what traditional soap is that bears no resemblance to what they actually used to be.

[All My Shadows]

:lol: I flove it!

I've realized that it's much, much easier to just watch or not watch. If something entertains me, I watch. If something doesn't entertain me, I don't watch. I'm tired of worrying about whether or not it's gonna be there next year or the year after.

I will say that I don't see the sense in complaining about the "homogenization" and then saying that all of the soaps need to do this or that. Daytime isn't an "avant garde" medium. But it is an "avant garde medium." It shouldn't have to be just one or the other.

[DRW50]

I'm not sure if that's as true now as it was earlier this decade. They're still homogenized in areas like race and often the writing for women, but they're not as in lockstep as I think they used to be. Many of the big fanbases are on the wane, because most of the big couples are gone now, or have been dismantled. The soaps have as much good acting as bad acting. Some of them have been forced to shake themselves up. When I look at GL and B&B, or AMC and DAYS, I don't think they're the same type of show. The quality still needs improvement, but I don't see as much of the one-dimensional mindset like in the days when everyone was trying to imitate Reilly.

[Vee]

"Homogenization" is to a large degree in the eye of the beholder. Just because two people agree that GH, Y&R, AMC, OLTL and DOOL are "all the same" does not mean you will not find another two people violently disagreeing with that statement. I think Y&R and OLTL are quite different from AMC, GH and ATWT in a number of ways, and I think B&B is vastly removed from GH, GL or OLTL. Sometimes it's because one show is horrid and one show is good, sometimes it's just because the tone is totally different.

James can say that all the ABC soaps are the same, but what happens to the studied opinions of the people who watch all three plus other soaps and say AMC is better than GH or OLTL, or OLTL is better than the other two? Does their viewpoint not count? It seems to me that claiming "people say they like (Show X, Y or Z) but really they're all the same and I shouldn't have to watch that" is simply a convenient escape hatch from a debate that would require acknowledging the validity of other people's opinions, or the merits of a Y&R, a GL or an OLTL that any individual poster does not care for.

[tina m]

I think all of us in the soap community are prepared for a cancellation. None of us really don't want to see, no matter how bad a show has been, because it doesn't mean anything good for the soap opera world. I think in response to your original question, that yes, the soap world IS asleep. It's sort of mulling around. Yes, some shows are GREAT story line wise or with the ensemble cast.. but yes, it is asleep. It's been declining for years. And it's a sad, sad thing.

[UKBoi]

The thing is, though, a few months (hell, even a few weeks) ago I would have said GL would definately be gone by the summer, despite the cost cutting production model. Now they've amped up the quality of the writing and it's turning a corner, and the ratings are reflecting this. ATWT is another show that seems to have found its feet again after budget cuts, although the tighter cast is meaning they're playing through stories at an alarmingly fast pace. DAYS seems to be reinventing itself as a Melrose Place on daytime (and thus the absence of Shawn and Belle continues to mystify me), and shows like OLTL and Y&R are on a creative upswing right now. GH is going nowhere, although it really should be overhauled, and B&B is content with mediocrity as long as they're riding on the coattails of Y&R's ratings. The only soap I would place in immediate danger is All My Children, and right now I could honestly see ABC pulling it in the next few years and bringing Days over. Not that I think it's what SHOULD happen, but it's likely.

I dont think the soap world needs any big stunts to 'wake it up'. Look at how well things like Joan Collins going to GL or Hogan Sheffer to DAYS worked out in the long term.

[MarkH]

Yes.