Is the soap world asleep?

[CSF]

I agree with everything you've said! The networks did make attempts to bring in new and more contemporary dramas. When CBS dropped Search for Tomorrow, Capitol replaced it only to be replaced with B&B and I find nothing on that show to be innovative.

Passions replaced Another World and where is Passions today? Gone! Sunset Beach was canceled and the time was given to the affiliates for that reality soap called Starting Over. That ended as well.

Loving was replaced with The City which was replaced with Port Charles, which was replaced with nothing. Affiliates have that time period and air syndicated programming or an expansion of their local newscast.

I still stand by what I've stated many times in this thread. I don't believe any soap currently on the air should be canceled. If every soap underwent a full overhaul, all of their history is enriched and utilized and innovating and moving stories were produced and characters are more developed as they are intended to be, I think there would be a signifiant turnaround for the better.

[All My Shadows]

I don't get it. Only in daytime is a run of five to ten years considered a failure. Actually, that's only really in the world of soaps, because there have been dozens of game shows that only aired for 5-10 years and are still considered successes by the game show industry (ex: The Newlywed Game never aired for more than 8 years in any of its incarnations). I don't really understand why soaps are expected to run for 20, 30, 40 years each when other genres are perfectly content with 5-10 years. In daytime, "Where the Heart Is" and "Passions" might have been considered failures, but anywhere else, runs of 4 years and 9 years aren't something to look down upon.

What would have been the problem if GH hadn't been revitalized in the late 70s or if ATWT or DAYS had been canceled? I know, I know, there's always the sentimental value of watching something that has a gigantic legacy behind it already, but that obviously isn't needed for people to tune in to shows. Most of the shows in primetime weren't around 10 years ago. I know that daytime is a different environment from primetime, but I'm not one to always act as if primetime is a zillion times better than daytime in every possible way, but there are some things that daytime should have picked up from primetime years and years and years ago, things that I think would have given us a completely different daytime from the one we have today.

Let's say GH was canceled in 1977-1978. At that time, they probably could have afforded to put another soap in its place. And whenever people would get tired of watching that soap, its ratings would fall, it would get canceled, and it'd be replaced by another soap or another type of show, just like in primetime. I don't see how stretching a soap past its expiration date is any good, even if the show does rebound later on. In primetime, if a show has an extremely shitty season, and then another, and then another, and then another, and then another, do you think the network would continue to pick it up over and over again based on "well, it might get better next year?" They'd give it time to find its footing again, but after a season or two of low ratings, it'd be put to pasture in most cases.

Daytime shows are too inconsistent, IMO. If a daytime show had its own consistent personality, you'd either love it or hate it, I think, and there'd be little room in between. It's the inconsistency of our soaps that make them have shorter shelf lives than UK soaps do. It's all subjective, of course, but prime example for me would be OLTL. Prime example. You cannot put campy escapism and seriousness into the same soap at the same time and try to make it work for decades and decades. IMO, it's terribly inconsistent! Instead, ABC should have one soap that is the campy, escapist "fun" soap and another soap that is the realistic, deep "serious" soap. I should not be seeing deep, emotional Karen Wolek-on-the-witness-stand stuff and then stuff like "So You Want to Be Shane Morasco's Father" on the same show. It's the very essence of being inconsistent, IMO! It's not to say that a serious show can't have offbeat and wacky characters running around, because you can, and that would liven up a serious show, I think, but don't have characters going over waterfalls and going back in time and dying 43709285 times and stuff like that. That type of stuff has no place on a "serious" show, and you don't need fantasy/supernatural/etc to have escapism or camp. B&B is total escapism and sometimes campy for me, but it doesn't rely on mythical countries, stolen jewels, immortal villains, etc. And there's nothing wrong with mythical countries and all that, either...again, I just don't think that that type of stuff has a place on a "serious" show.

Going further, I've given it a lot of thought, and I just don't see how anyone could say that, at one point, each soap was truly individual and truly did its own thing. IMO, the term "soap opera" itself automatically puts them all into one big box together. "Daytime drama" doesn't necessarily have that power. When taken literally, "daytime drama" just means a dramatic program that airs in the daytime. Doesn't have to be overly romantic or sentimental or "women-based" or anything like that. "Daily serial" is even better, because then it doesn't even have to be a primarily dramatic show, it can be of any tone it wants to be of. "Soap opera," on the other hand, is defined as overly dramatic, sometimes melodramatic, sorta stylized, women-based, relationship-based shows. "Daytime drama" and "daily serial" say nothing at all about what the shows themselves are about, but "soap opera" does. Not that I'm suddenly the anti-soap and that I don't like the overly romantic, sentimental "women-based" shows...I mean...that is basically the bulk of what soaps as we know them are, and I love soaps, and I'm not trying to down the traditional style of soaps because that's what I love more than anything else on TV. It's just that...must every single serialized show on daytime be a "soap?" People talk a lot about each soap having an individual style, personality, etc...but really now, think about it. What more could you say about ATWT's premise during any of its 53 years other than that it is a soap about the people of Oakdale and their lives? For AMC, you can add in that it was at one time very socially-driven...but even still, it was a socially-driven soap about the people of Pine Valley and their lives.

In primetime, there are shows that you like and shows that you don't like. In daytime, you can say the same thing, but the reasons why you don't like a show in daytime are different...you don't like them because they focus on too few characters, the stories suck, the characters keep changing personalities, too many newbies, not enough vets, the stories are too slow, the stories are too fast, etc. All of those things could be said about any soap, and they are all things that could change and improve. But, for instance, say a person doesn't like Friday Night Lights. They don't like teen dramas, they don't like football, they don't like Texas, etc. Those are things that are unique to the show, things that won't change because they are what the show is about. Most shows throughout the history of primetime really did (do) have individuality, something that sets them apart from other shows. You'd never have "One Tree Hill" stories cross paths with "Criminal Minds" stories or "Gunsmoke" stories cross paths with "Dynasty" stories. But no matter how different people might claim OLTL and B&B are supposed to be (even at their highest peaks), they'd still no doubt feature basically the same type of storylines. Correct? You could claim until the cows come home that...I don't know..."The Young Marrieds" was a completely different show from "Santa Barbara." But again, didn't they basically feature the same types of stories? Family issues, relationship issues, etc?

Notice how most of the genres that have "died out" already are almost all formulaic-type deals. Variety shows. What more could you say about any variety show other than that there's a host or hosts, there are comedy sketches, there are musical numbers. Some might have little quirks that are unique, but the main idea of the show is the comedy, singing, and dancing. Westerns. Westerns are tricky, I guess, but I think that they are very similar to serials in the stigma department. A western automatically conjures up images of cowboys, sheriffs, dusty trails, tumbleweeds, etc. Again, most westerns have a hook or catch that makes it different, but for the most part, they're about the same thing. Only a few westerns were able to abandon the traditional view of westerns almost completely, but even still, those shows are at most considered borderline westerns (Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman is one). Serials/daytime shows are the exact same way, IMO. If a daytime serial has to be a "soap," then why is it necessary for each network to have two, three, or four soaps? They're all telling the exact same type of stories, so why is there a need for eight shows that are the same? This is not to say that there needs to be only one and that's it. There should be several, but those several shouldn't compete with each other, and they should be amongst shows that are completely different from themselves.

Eh. People say that they want soaps to be more like primetime, but I don't think that having primetime production values or stuff like that would change anything. The change would have to be in the way everybody looks at daytime.

[All My Shadows]

Really, I've pretty much gotten over wanting soaps to enrich and utilize their histories. I mean, honestly, SORAS basically rapes, maims, and kills history all on its own. Nick Newman is written to be in his early 30s. So why are Victor and Nikki wearing 80s outfits/hair in flashbacks to Nicholas's birth? Soaps in the 1950s-1970s weren't written for audiences who were going to pay close attention to the histories of the characters and their storylines, hence why Irna and the others felt it okay to make 4-year-old Tom Hughes become 10-year-old Tom Hughes in the matter of a year, and then two years later, become 15-year-old Tom Hughes, and then seven years later, become 32-year-old Tom Hughes.

[Ann_SS]

All My Shadows, deep post.

I happen to think that the following soaps should be canceled based on lack of quality: B&B, Days, ATWT, GL, and GH. They have all run out of steam. Y&R is solidifying itself. AMC and OLTL have potential. All OLTL needs is most of its featured actors to be recast with better actors and it would be in decent shape.

I don't want these soaps to be canceled, but as genre I think that Daytime is dying and that the networks have to innovative to save it as a money making endeavor. I think that the weekly telenovela formula that Night Shift borrowed is probably the best way to save the soaps.

[CSF]

You bring up many good points in both of your posts. I do agree with you that SOARS hurts the history, and it does. However, I think that if you are going to SOARS a character's age, you should do it in small increments. For example, with the talk of aging Michael Corinthos, they are planning to make him 16. Well, really he should be like 12 by the end of this year. I think it would be a little more believable if they made him 14, maybe 15. He was born in December of 1997. Doing that I don't think messes up too much history considering AJ is dead and Laura Wright looks older than what Sarah Brown would look in the role.

I think it is rather absurd in the way that Nicholas Newman was aged, but that was Bill Bell who did that. Adam was born in 1995 and now he's like pushing 30. Lynn Marie Latham did that. It does create confusion, but I don't think it will clash with the age of Victor, Nikki, Ashley, etc. It's not like what they did with Kendall or Tara on All My Children.

What I think is worse is the fact the Cane is really Jill's son. Phillip is dead and it should have stayed that way. I think that causes more problems in Y&R's history than Nick's age.

As the World Turns was the story about a traditional family, the Hughes' and their children, who would have their own struggles. There would be the conflicts of the Lowell family and eventually the Stewart's. It was a show that would be enjoyed by the average housewife from it's premier through the 1970s. In the beginning there would be Edie Hughes having an affair with family friend Jim Lowell who was married to Claire English, the friend of Nancy Hughes. Susan Hughes who would die and her sister would over hear their mother Nancy saying "Why did it have to be Susan?" It was a melodrama on the lives of traditional families. The Douglas Marland era of the show brought a lot of critical acclaim.

In regard to AMC's socially driven storylines in the small town of Pine Valley, yes it does solely relate to the citizens of Pine Valley, those legacy characters who are born there and the ones who end up there by some leap of fate. There is significance in that. Having these types of shows set in small communities make it easier to target many issues. The broader you make the setting the harder it could be to follow the show. They focus on the lives and times of the people in those communities.

Just like the storylines on Desperate Housewives surround those living on Wisteria Lane. Just like on Knots Landing (when it was on), the storylines profiled the residents in the cul-de-sac.

If you take a look at B&B, it's the only soap set in a real city, LA. Yet nothing on that show from what I've seen from all the times that I've watched has any connection to things going on in LA. It just revolves around the Forrester family. So even if you think it could make a show more interesting to set the location in a real city, I disagree there.

[Vee]

And none would last ten years.

Soaps still exist because of history. You take away the familiarity and the willingness to build an extended family with the audience, and daytime as a medium has next to nothing.

As for SORAS hurting shows, well, yes and no. Some of the most extreme and insane cases of SORAS still come from the early Irna Phillips/Bill Bell years of ATWT and DOOL. The use of those characters in those storylines is now considered part of their "golden age."

[All My Shadows]

Right. But my question is this: why must those shows last ten years or more than years? Why is that necessary?

IMO, soaps still exist because the networks had a gigantic soap orgasm in the 80s and basically drained away all other types of network daytime programming (game shows [except 1], talk shows [except 1], children's shows [that aren't on PBS], etc), leaving them with soaps that they hate, but they don't want to give up time to the affiliates either, so it's a lesser of two evils thing, I think.

I think that soaps thrive on the familiarity and the willingness to build an extended family. But I don't think that daytime should be handcuffed to soaps. They've rarely tried to do other types of scripted programming during the daytime, and I think that having 7 hour-long soaps takes up a large amount of time that could be used for other things. They've tried other types of scripted programming that have failed, but times have changed, as soap ratings indicate. It wouldn't even have to be five-day-a-week shows either...they could twice-a-week or thrice-a-week or even just once-a-week.

IMO, that doesn't make the idea of SORASing legit. They could have done those same stories without resorting to SORAS. I hate to do the whole "UK soaps are better!" thing, because I don't think it's that simple, but SORAS is next to nonexistent in the UK. Shows like Coronation Street and Emmerdale haven't lost anything by avoiding SORAS. They in fact have something that SORAS-using soaps don't have: a timeline that, for the most part, makes complete sense.

If all of the current ATWT characters who have been SORASed were currently at their original ages, you'd have a strong younger set with Jennifer (19), Katie (20), Casey (18), Lucy (18), Will (16), Alison (15), Luke (14), et al. The family-based storytelling that ATWT is most known for would still continue, but with teens who have that all-important history with the core families. Jack and Brad would still be younger-older brothers instead of the other way around. Things like that just help to contribute to the negative view of soaps, and the purpose they might have served 40 or 50 years ago is really no longer there, IMO.

[DRW50]

My point wasn't that they were considered failures, but that they only lasted for a very limited timeframe, in spite of the many opportunities they could have had to tackle more modern stories. That doesn't have to mean failure, but since both soaps were not ended voluntarily, then I guess that could be considered failure. In the case of Passions, they abandoned most of their attempts at interesting storytelling and became all about unpleasant stories involving rape, psychosis, and transphobia. They had such a limited core of material this was all they could turn to by the last few years.

I thought you were saying that experimental or hip soaps would have had a better chance if old soaps had been wiped out. I was only saying that these soaps did have the opportunity to run, and in the case of Passions, had several years of positive publicity and attention. They were raved about by one of the hippest and most critically adored TV shows ever (BtVS). Yet the public support was never quite there. There was no better time for a soap to create a new generation of daytime dramas, and they still only had a few years of notoriety before they became another soap on life support.

Gloria Monty revolutionized daytime with her style of filming, so if you're watching soaps to see more modern methods, then her changes to GH were a big part of moving towards a more modern style. GH also gave a big career boost to Doug Marland, who wrote much more modern, daring storylines on his soaps than many of the more short-lived attempts at relevant daytime drama (or many of the attempts at relevant drama in primetime). Marland also co-created a soap for Showtime, which is probably something which would never happen now.

I guess if we're talking about why is there any specific reason for a soap to stay on the air, any soap can be replaced, than you're right, there was no specific reason. They could have been canceled. If we're talking about whether a soap deserves to be taken off the air just because it's run a long time and hit a rough patch, then I disagree. I think a good show is enhanced, not hurt, by a long history. Viewers have more of a reason to care, and they can be reminded of previous problems their favorite characters once went through. One of the best stories I've seen on any soap, new or old, in the past 15 years was the malpractice suit Lisa filed against John on ATWT, and that story effortlessly weaved in 25, 30 years of history.

I think that would just end up going to reruns and mindless court shows. I've watched and tried to support some of daytime's attempts at alternative programming, and some of them, like "Starting Over", were ruined after only about a year. I wish I had more faith in the networks to give some good programming in place of soaps, but I don't think they would. NBC has had every opportunity to fill their daytime schedule with daring new programs and they haven't tried.

I think any show, especially a scripted show, is inconsistent. Few manage to be consistently good. Even many of the critical darlings like Sopranos and Buffy only had a few years before the huge ups and low downs began.

AMC shouldn't just have potential. They were one of the most famous soaps, they had years of rich history, they had a brilliant creator who has stayed in contact with them over their entire almost 40 year history. They've cannibalized themselves to the point of near-unwatchability so many times in the past decade. They're currently managing to turn a silk purse into a sow's ear once again. I think if we're going based on potential or quality, GL would deserve to stay over AMC.

[CSF]

I couldn't agree more! Bill Bell and Irna Phillips were great storytellers, but Agnes Nixon, I truly believe had a real gift (and will for the rest of her life) for telling stories that are so wonderfully thought out and produced. IMO her work is unmatched. No one can ever hold a candle to Agnes. Has anyone watched her interview on YouTube from the Archive of American Television? The woman has always been as sharp as a tack!

She was always in touch with AMC, even today I'm sure ABC turns to her for advice (if they are smart). In 1992 she returned, in the mid-90s, until 2000, she was there to carry the show and pick up the pieces that other writers left the show in.

It's a true crime that she never had a real successor in the way Irna had her and Bill.

I think that today's soap writers should have to compete against storylines once written by Agness, Irna and Bill to prove they are worthy to write for daytime television. Guza, Pratt, Carlivati, Sheffer, Passanante, Higley need to be schooled. Bradley Bell should walk with his head down in disgrace for the fact that his writing is nothing but pure and utter crap.

[Vee]

The British soaps do SORAS/recast today. They fell into it a little while ago. It's much less extreme than what we see over here, but it now happens with some regularity at shows like EE and Emmerdale.

Gee, I don't know; why are we sitting here talking about these shows that have run for 20-30 years or more, and why are we praising British soaps, some of which have run twice that length? Let's not pretend we are the vanguard of some new medium when we are hanging out on a soap message board all about long-running soaps.

[All My Shadows]

It's waaaaaaaaaaay much less extreme. A year or two here, one year there, isn't much. Emmerdale aged a pair of twins several years, so I admit that, and Hollyoaks does some SORASing, but it's no match at all for what we do over here. Leah Bauer, anyone? And even if the UK soaps did go SORAS crazy like US soaps do, it'd still be a shitty, shitty concept, IMO.

Trust me, I don't think I'm any more qualified to say anything about the state of soaps than anyone else...so yeah, I'm not one of those types. I just like to think sometimes.

For the record, though, only one UK soap is really older than most of ours.

[Ann_SS]

No soap with GL's production model should be on the air. Either do it right or don't do it at all. GL is at the end anyway. It has run out of steam. Time to start over.

[marceline]

It's not.

[DRW50]

Yes, but I thought you were basing on potential, not on the production model. If we're going on potential, then I think GL has proven itself more than AMC has in quite some time.

I'd rather not see a show go based on their production style, but you're definitely not alone in your opinion.

[Ann_SS]

I am basing my opinion on current quality and potential. IMO, all the shows that I listed should be put out of their misery. GL's current production model is only part of the reason that it lacks quality. I also don't see potential there. However, like I said, these shows could be reconstituted as telenovelas. The Spauldings and Coopers anchoring a 2 month series that airs three or four times a week. Soaps do so badly on Friday, there is no point to having an episode on that day. This telenovela formula will take the pressure off the writers. They will be forced to write a beginning, middle and end to stories. There will be no time to rewrite stories or bring back villians from the dead or introduce their new pets.