Jump to content

Your Soaps Supercouple?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Not that long ago, CBS Soaps In Depth published their list of the 100 Greatest Couples On CBS soaps. I don't remember the order, but the top four were Y&R's Victor and Nikki, ATWT's Lily and Holden, B&B's Brooke and Ridge, and GL's Josh and Reva. Do you agree with this list? I can think of some substitutions for at least two of these, but what are your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 18
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

This may be a bit off topic, but I HATE supercouples. I hate the whole philosophy on soaps that two people are meant to be together no matter what. It adds for very little character and relationship growth. I like characters to have numerous relationships without being attached to the stigma that they were specifically meant to be with a specific person for the rest of their lives. I think supercoupledom is what crippled DAYS, in particular, the most and gave them these rabid fanbases they don't accept the partners of their favourite couple with anyone else.

Bill Bell was very much against supercouples. Though Victor and Nikki always went back to one another, that never prevented them from having successful relationships with other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I like supercouples because true supercouples wound up having the kind of stories I used to like. They would be targeted by an enemy, there would be a lot of running around, a lot of running around while holding hands, maybe going undercover to try and get the goods on the badguy, and they would fall in love while danger lurks around ever corner. Also, they would have location shoots so they could run around outside. GH's Frisco and Felicia were the perfect supercouple for all these reasons. Budget concerns and a getting away from action and adventure killed the supercouple. But even the supposed last supercouple of GH, Sonny and Brenda, just watch the 1990s opening and what are they doing? They are running around, running around holding hands, and running around holding hands on a beach. If you don't do these simple things, you just are not super.

AMC would deviate from this formula with Nina and Cliff and Greg and Jenny. But other than those two, I don't think that show ever really had supercouples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Which is sort of effed up because neither Dallas nor Dynasty were particularly action-oriented. Definitely not in the "He's going to freeze the entire world!" or "We have to find the missing jewels!" sense, at least. Dynasty and Dallas were about business and family, family and business. Family relationships, business relationships, and how the two worlds collided.

They can attribute the glamor to the nighttime soaps, as well everyone getting rich suddenly and some other things (OLTL's Buchanans), but they need to stop blaming David Jacobs and Aaron Spelling for the daytime soaps all wanting to be like GH. They should be blaming themselves for wanting to piggyback off of its success, but if they want to credit the person who began the whole thing, her name is Gloria Monty.

Well then, ATWT is no longer ATWT, then.

And they wonder why the die-hards started tuning out. Why in the world should DAYS/AMC try to pander to youth audiences in non-summer months? They generally air early! Teens are in school! Collegians are most likely in class! It doesn't matter if they watch on SoapNet because those ratings DO NOT MATTER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Supercouples were so "faddish" as the article pointed out. They worked for that particular era of soaps in the 80's, but by the late 80's it was no longer in style, and GH and DAYS both started to lose success with that formula. Hell, Gloria Monty even recognized this herself when she returned to GH in the early 90's, she knew that what worked before wasn't necessarily going to work then, but her second run was a disaster for other reasons altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm with Alvin. The super-couple thing, in the long run, has hurt all of these shows. Every last one. It goes back to what Sylph said in another thread about evolving, and how soaps live in this reality that is completely unidentifiable to most people. The super-couple concept is a great example of that.

I also think that because of the super-couple fad, most of the shows have wasted WAY too much air time trying to force it to happen again, instantly. And it never, ever works. "Supercouples" happened because all the stars align in the right place (writers, actors, stories), and usually are never really planned.out. When the character of Luke was brought on, NOBODY said "This is what we're going to do with Luke and Laura, and people will remember them for all time". It's a happy accident. But since then, almost all the shows keep trying to force that magic to happen again. Not saying that it won't - there's a good chance the stars will align again for some show at some point. But this need to TELL the audience "They're a new supercouple so get used to it" is really a detriment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You beat me to it, Scotty!

I was just going to post that the REAL soap super-couples are the non-romantic ones. Viki and Dorian. Jake and Vicky on Another World (BEFORE they stupidly decided make them a couple in the last few years) Cass and Felicia on Another World. Jill and Katherine on Y&R. Stephanie and Brooke on B&B. THOSE are the "supercouples" that truly stand out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Great minds think alike brimike. Great minds think alike. ;)

To me, Viki and Dorian are the best non-romantic couple in Llanview. I suppose you could also throw in Nora/Lindsay or John/Todd. But none are better the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Add Roger and Holly to the mix, perhaps the biggest and most anti-supercouple ever. I just loved them, because underneath all of the dark hatred and shame, you know they loved one another and couldn't function without interacting. They might have had a marriage and sexual realtionship at one point, but most of their time was spent apart, not together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That sums up my feelings towards them as well.... I have always had couples I've enjoyed, but every couple has a shelf life and there comes a time for them to be split up.

Tad and Dixie from AMC will always hold a special place in my heart in terms of "supercouples" I guess.

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

    • DePriest left in January 1988. According to the AWHP, Rose last appeared nearly a year before in February 1987 while both Sara and Peggy appeared as late as October 1987.
    • Annie was not brought in as an antagonist for Reva. Reva wasn’t even on the canvas when Annie first appeared in late 1994. 
    • The speculation……….very entertaining. 
    • I had forgotten that several Days stars came out strong against Melissa. Good for them!
    • That would have made sense. Did all these characters get dropped when DePriest left or had they already been dropped?
    • The other issue with Missy: in June 2020, she "liked" some social media posts by Candace Owens -- things Candace said that were against Black Lives Matter.  That is described here https://tvline.com/news/melissa-reeves-racism-days-of-our-lives-instagram-controversy-2894568/ I don't know if that was ever resolved.
    • She appeared onscreen not long after Rose Livingston and Sara Montaigne, and we found out that Sara was Rose's estranged daughter. I wonder whether Peggy might have been part of that family group -- or else they were just juggling a few different potential mysteries so that they could develop whatever seemed to be getting the best response from the audience. They didn't do anything much with Rose and Sara really either. Maybe Rose would have become more prominent if Rachel and Mac had split up over Mitch, or if Sara had really flourished. In some ways I can picture Cheryl being affected by MJ's prostitution similarly to how Josie was distressed by finding out about Sharlene. But I can also see that Josie as a Frame being involved with Matthew would have different stakes for Rachel and Sharlene than Cheryl being involved with Scott. I do think the solution for Cheryl would have had to be a badder boy than Scott -- either a real bad boy who would do her wrong, or the kind of bad boy (not Chad!!!) who is essentially misunderstood and other people just don't understand. Cheryl would also have been better off with some friends her own age. Matthew and Josie benefited a bit from having other teenagers to interact with.
    • Sally Spencer was a decent actress, but the writing destroyed the "M.J." that Kathleen Layman had built. Layman had a quiet strength about her, and she and Osburn really felt like sisters. Spencer's character should have been either an unmentioned sister, or maybe Jake's that grew up close to Kathleen, M.J. and the rest, but was away for a few years before joining the force. Kristen Marie was o.k., but I always got a mousier vibe from her. Being pigeon-holed with Scott for most of the run hurt things for her, as well.  The Loves were also underserved between Rhonda Lewin and Philece Sampler. Philece would have been better as Nicole. Thank goodness Anne Heche  showed up for the next round of auditions. Christopher Holder was mediocre as Peter, but given a shot, I think Marcus Smythe could have stuck around for a while.  I would have had Peggy Lazarus be a Frame -- possibly an ex-wife for Vince with an agenda. Smythe and Hollen had  a fun chemistry that could have kept the two around.. Bringing recasts for  Cheryl and Ben back mixing it up with other Frames. Corys, Lawrences at the time might have kept all the families stronger. 
    • shoot...he said in that Locher room with Krista. I think he met her before that---she was doing Broadway and they had mutual friends or an agent maybe?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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