Jump to content

April 6-10, 2009


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

All that work that was supposed to go into making soaps more essential, more viable, more able to explain the complexities of the people, went to advertisers and executive control... ultimately, when the Internet did hit, they had an inferior product that was not essential enough that they could compete with online. The guys who are running soaps over the last 10 years have to be singular in the manner in which they destroyed their own industry.... they had contempt for their own product. I don't think the internet , reality tv, or cable's superiority beat daytime. The ratings reflect that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

But how do you explain the fact that primetime fell at the same rate? And that the rest of the daypart (game shows, talk shows, etc.) fell at comparable or faster rates in the last year?

That does not support your contention that the "guys who are running soaps" had anything to do with it, or that the effect is related to the last ten years.

In fact, if you look carefully, you'll see that the CBS soaps have been on a linear decline trajectory since at least the 1960s.

I respectfully submit that the "guys who are running soaps" had very little to do with it. This is systemic, and has relatively little to do with daytime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, I do think prime time can argue options, but I don't think daytime can. There are more shows in primetime compared to daytime, and more shows in primetime now compared to 20+years ago. Of course they're going to share what's in their pot. In regards to primetime, I believe these trends are systematic of any industry/business.

But then I look at daytime, a genre that ceases to renew itself and continues to recycle anything available to them, and I have a hard time believing that the people in positions of power had any love for the genre beyond the obvious. Perhaps I could believe otherwise if we had seen new soaps in the past 10 years, but what have we seen absent Passions.

Perhaps this seems irrational, but I think most soaps are viewed by the execs as the stuff that goes around the ads. Beyond the interference by people like Frons, they've treated them as such, and because of the fear of losing advertisement dollar, they let the quality of work slip, and called it a necessary evil. But I believe these things were taking place prior to what we're seeing today, even when the so-called "good writing" was on.

The viewers started hating the shows for that, and the networks knew their work was inferior. They allowed the internet to sweep in and cite better material. They were okay with cable telling better stories. I mean "Facebook is the new soap"? That's embarrassing.

You're right, it wasn't that one executive or that one writer. But it's because of that I think we're more willing to look at charts and numbers because we don't know who started this downhill slide. I think the charts and numbers are comforting. We see them and say, "this was inevitable."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hey Mark,

I agree with you in large part. I do think that soaps are dying under their on weight. However, I do blame "guys who are running soaps" to some degree because the guys (and gals) running soaps have had so little vision. Daytime, in many if not all respects, is much the same format it was 20, 30, 40 years ago. I would argue it is not that much different than when soaps began on radio.

As one poster said, daytime now is little more than something wrapped around the ads. Truthfully, I think that has always been the case to some degree. Daytime at one time bankrolled primetime.

Anyway, I think the future of "soaps" as we know it has been known for some time. I think since the early 90s, we have seen it coming. Yet none of those in charge of soaps ever made an effort to change. Daytime continued to hold on to those who said don't blame the fan or there's nothing wrong with a show that has been on for 40 years or if daytime just went back to its roots everything would be fine.

I don't agree with that. It's probably time to cancel many of those soaps and bring something new back in its place. I admit --- and to many of the self-appointed soap expert's displeasure --- that I admired GL for at least trying something different. Unfortunately it just tinkered around the edges. Yes, GL has been cancelled, but really GL is no worse than much that is still on air.

My big disappointment with CBS and GL is that the network didn't take the show out of its misery years ago and second, that it is not bringing something on to replace GL. Primetime cancels and replaces. That is a pretty good model for daytime too.

By the way, if you get a chance, read the book "The Big Sort." It has nothing to do with soap operas or television, but it is really an interesting book. It talks about how we as a society or sorting into neighborhood and communities just like ourselves. It has some pretty interesting insights into what this means for a country that arguably is built on pluralism.

Take care folks and bye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If someone is talking about soap viewership in general, every network has been on a downward trend since the 1960s. CBS launched Y&R in 1974, so that's not entirely true. B&B is the only successful launch of a soap since the early 1980's. I don't agree with people that count Santa Barbara, because it never reached ratings status or longevity of other long-running shows. It may have hit the demo sweet spot but was never near the HH rating of other shows.

There is no replacement for an orginal, which is what Guiding Light is. And if it needs to be put out of its misery, there are about 4 or 5 other shows that will probably be right behind GL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually, my last analysis suggests they are:

ATWT

DOOL

AMC

OLTL

Surprisingly, on ratings trajectories, I'm not yet prepared to predict cancellations for

GH

B&B

Y&R

Now, trust me, that last three shocked me. I also know that GH dropped to the bottom of the ABC demo...but still, based on a ten-year trend, this bottom three feels like it will survive a few more years. The issue is that their ratings declines are expected to level off (that is already what has happened for Y&R, this past year).

We'll see....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • On the way to her own engagement party? I've read that the show had trouble getting the audience to sympathize with Rita, but...that seems bizarre. Maybe I can understand the issue with the censors, given that at the time, rape wasn't depicted the way it is now, and marital rape was even less acknowledged.  Wasn't Chris Brooks' rape one of the first honest stories on the subject? I just don't think I could get into a show I didn't have a working knowledge of. I know it's a different era, but I really tried to get into GH once Maura West joined, but it just never jelled.
    • Yes it was! My mom and I convinced my dad to get one. He was--how shall I put this?--on the thrifty side, but one day he came home with one as a surprise. To this day, I'm convinced it fell off a truck. (He knew people with "connections."

      Please register in order to view this content

      ) BUT, we had our VCR and we could watch our soaps. That thing lasted forever! It was built like a tank. Even when we got new ones with more features, we kept that one.
    • Please register in order to view this content

        Blasphemy!  (Haha, I get it.  But, you should try watching AMC! 80s-90s was so good.)
    • I thought about saying how I resented the fact that those two newbies were tripping up the Puppetmaster of all Puppetmasters, when the best others could do was a stalemate (or less...). But, well...*sigh*
    • I read years ago that both Zaslow and Lenore both complained that it came off as a seduction because of CBS censors, so Lenore asked if she could say, "you raped me" to leave no doubt with the audience, and that Zaslow insisted that Holly's rape played realistically 
    • Wow it’s official, Gatwa is out… https://www.avclub.com/ncuti-gatwa-addresses-doctor-who-finale-statement DW fandom on Reddit is in a furor over how things went down and apparent last minute scrapping of the original ending. Also…Billie Piper again really?
    • He comes pretty close, talkin' about how Reva is full of love and joy, blah blah....which is bilge considering he was the one responsible for throwing her out of Josh's life over working with Alan. 
    • Just watched the episode concerning Olivia's drug use and Abby's persistence, etc. Donna Mills did stellar work in this episode, as did Tonya Crowe and Brian Austin Green (Brian).
    • But by Dinah and Hart...Hart especially looked as if he could not tie his own shoes!  Ed, Holly, Alan, Alex Henry and Vanessa among others were not able to put Roger down....Dinah???
    • The preaching seems to end before the Barnes settle in late December, 1981. The stuff that felt overly religious (the Davidsons believing a miracle will save Lori rather than a surgeon, Jeff's miraculous recovery from a beam of light) was quickly nixed because it wasn't working. The closest thing that you get to that under the Barnes is when Dennis Fraser, the drunk driver who killed Nora and Scott, turns his life over to god. The born-again redemptions out of nowhere seem to stop fairly early into the Barnes' run. I do think Miriam's transformation was much more delicately done with her turning on her bestie Nancy because Nancy was seducing Charles, Miriam's wealthy father, so Miriam offers to testify for the Davidsons in the trial against Nancy over possession of Nora's house. In turn, Nancy repays the favor by pumping an emotionally distraught Miriam with barbituates while Miriam carries on her affair with low level thug turned political aide Norm Elliott. Miriam is used by everyone into her life and finally lands herself in the hospital becasue she has become so addicted to the pills. At the hospital, it is the friendship and kindness of the Davidsons that brings Miriam to a more peaceful place. The Davidsons ability to forgive is both appealing and, at times, dramatically limiting. In this case, the Davidsons lead Miriam to her new Mama, Ione Redlon. Now, under Vinley, Miriam is determined to reconnect with her son, Frederick, and her ex-husband, Paul.   My bigger issue with the Barnes' writing is that they write the storylines with twist endings that sorta come out of nowhere. I know the resolution to the Kate Carrouthers mystery sorta plays out like that so I am curious to see how I feel about that.  The biggest change throughout the writing teams has been the view of morality. Winsor had many characters who could be viewed purely through the lens of black and white, but others explored the shades of gray (often younger people). The brief head writerless period was much better at embracing an action doesn't make a person and there characters were much more gray or at least evil at a more local level (Nancy, in this period, only flirts with her brother-in-law where as later she is actively providing pills to Miriam to keep her addicted and away from her own father). The Barnes, for the most part, seem to embrace this level of political corruption that seems to permeate throughout the show making it clear that power (as well as money) is the root of evil. Even criminal Vince Cardello is presented as less evil than Charles Carpenter, though Carpenter's murder of a resident of his complex was rewritten to relieve Carpenter of any responsibility in the matter. Vinley's work seems more into exploring the why or delving deeper in general. Babs Farley, the hooker who is looking to reclaim her life, is such an intriguing character. She is given such meaningful monologues regretting her decisions and desperately trying to keep away from the hands of her former pimp, Ron Washington, who hasn't appeared yet. Monk and Fernandez seem to be wrongly accused of Lori's attack and there seems to be hints of racism that the show is looking to address. Marianne confronts Gil about his feelings towards God in relation to their mother's death years earlier.  There does seem to be a layer of misogyny to Vinley's work, but it's early so I'll be curious to see how this plays out. There are a lot of attacks on women (Lori is nearly raped, Babs was beaten, Nancy is on the verge of being blackmailed for sex by Tab, and the Russ / Marianne / Gil scenario has hints of toxic masculinity. It's very early so it'll be neat to see if that is maintained.  Jerry TImm lasts about a year I think (March, 1982 - March, 1983). One of the episodes on TouTube has a comment suggesting that Timm was fired by CBN because he had done something in his past that came to light. It didn't seem to be clear what that was.  I like what I've seen of Timm as Gil. He has such a presence that it covers up some of his weaker acting choices. It's unfortunate that he didn't get to play as much of the Gil - Stacey - Amber triangle as his replacement does.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy