Jump to content

The Book of Clichés


Recommended Posts

  • Members

There was a thread... Long time ago, I know I bumped onto it by accident on Usenet that was very, very detailed. And I can’t find it now. (MarkH, I’m looking at you — if this sounds familiar, let me know.)

Anyway, I found another one and I'm going to quote some things from it, formatting a bit changed (look here):

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 12
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I was thinking not too long ago about starting a list of cliche phrases from soaps.

"The press is going to have a FIELD day!"

"I don't know how to tell you this..."

"How long have you been standing there?" "Long enough!"

As for standard soap opera cliches, I have to add my personal pet peeve:

Someone is on the phone as they enter a room and the person on the other end of the phone is almost ALWAYS depicted as being a complete and utter moron, even if it's another character we know. "I don't care WHAT you have to do, damn it, just GET IT DONE!" and then the person hangs up on them in a huff.

Y&R does this A LOT. I always think "Damn, Jack's a total douche on the phone."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When two characters go out of town, they are forced to share the same bed/hotel room. PSNs did this one time with Whitney and Chad, and having them separated by a sheet. Oh look! The sheet falls onto the bed, and the two end up in each other's arms= LAME!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, I think I said soaps are about clichés, but clichés well done. And I kind of agree with that and at the same time think some of them need to be banned if not permanently then for about 10 years or so (those JamesF listed in another thread, for example).

I think ideal soap storytelling is about "easy" yet brilliant twists and tales. Think Lost. For four f*cking seasons those people tried to get off the island and then BAM! "Kate, we have to go back!" Man! Some would say that is such an easy, obvious choice yet amazing. As if a gigantic hammer squashed your head, especially if you were spoiler-free.

A soap has to be a concatenated, inevitable sequence of events, one leading to the next one seamlessly flowing, how action provokes reaction. Newton's third law if you will: ""To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." :P Your hero or heroine is in this whirlwind of events, nobody knows what the hell is happening, but everyone knows it's brilliant.

Soaps are about those 7 or 36 or [insert number] dramatic situations, each time done differently, diversely structured or something. But it has to flow. One event after the other after the other and so on. An avalanche. Not the jerky, spastic stop then go, stop then go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Honestly, I think cliches are the problem. Cliches remove unpredictability, and that is part of the reason people roll eyes and stay out of soaps.

On my Y&R right now, Sharon Newman has been sleepin' up a storm with at least three men. You just know -- no spoilers, I'm not aware of any -- that she's gonna turn up pregnant. Although I confirm that it will be interesting seeing that particular group of men do a "who's the daddy" story...on the other hand...didn't Billy Miller just go through that? Didn't Jack and Nick go through that with Summer? (Although, part of me wonders if this story is being engineered to get us to a blood test involving Jack and Nick...and that it will somehow lead to the reveal -- sob -- that Nick is not Summer's father. I'm just feelin' that, a little).

But, back to cliches in general. Outside of daytime, the shows I tend to like the most are those that surprise me...those that do an interesting spin on a genre. The Sopranos was great, because we'd never seen a family like that before. The first season of Brothers and Sisters was great, because we'd never quite seen a family like the Walkers--or a primetime show that (back then) so fully embraced political issues in the context of a prime titme soap. True Blood is great because -- really -- a soap opera romance between a vampire and a mind reader? I can't tell where it is going. I also tend to like independent films, because they often don't stick to the traditional premises of big studio films.

I actually think the secret to the evolution of the serial (when it happens--although I happen to think, from the list above, that it has happened) is to eschew the cliches or turn them on their ear.

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

    • I understand why people speculate, but I have to say it doesn’t sound very plausible that Jill Farren Phelps would be working at Y&R in any uncredited role. CBS daytime shows are tightly bound by union contracts and corporate oversight, and that kind of informal arrangement would be a major liability in 2025. Before the mergers of SAG-AFTRA and the two WGA branches, it may have been easier to hire someone quietly or off the books. But those days are behind us. With digital payroll, tighter pension tracking, and increased scrutiny from legal and compliance departments, it’s just not the kind of thing anyone can get away with anymore. Most union members, especially producers nearing retirement, would not risk their eligibility or benefits to take an uncredited role. The Producers Guild of America is also very clear about crediting. To even receive the PGA mark, a producer has to be verified through a formal review process. According to their credit certification guidelines (source), "only individuals who performed a majority of the producing functions on a motion picture or television production" are eligible for credit, and those credits must be official and recorded. If someone is functioning in that capacity, they are not supposed to be uncredited. Studios that are union signatories, like CBS and Sony, know better than to skirt those rules. If anyone has a legitimate, primary source confirming that CBS is hiring someone like Phelps in an uncredited production role, I’d honestly be curious to read it. But without that, this just feels like rumor—not reality.
    • I keep thinking about the persistent trend of eroticizing mental illness on Guiding Light. Sonni and Annie were never more compelling, or more attractive to the show, than when they were manic. It played into a recurring theme: strong women undone by their unhinged reaction to sex. The writers were likely inspired by Basic Instinct and the broader wave of neo-noir films in the late '80s and early '90s, where female sexuality was often equated with instability. The result was a crude portrayal, not just of mental illness, but of womanhood itself. Both Sonni and Annie were introduced as sharp, capable women, brought in specifically as formidable antagonists to Reva. They were logical and composed, standing in contrast to Reva’s emotional volatility. That difference made them threatening, but not especially “sexy”—until desire became their undoing. In a very male fantasy, their strength unraveled the moment they slept with Joshua. As soon as they got a taste of Lewis lovin’, they spiraled into scheming lunatics, willing to torch everything to hold on to him. It was part of a larger trend in the culture. Fatal Attraction, Single White Female, and The Hand That Rocks the Cradle all traded on the idea that female desire was dangerous, barely held in check, and always teetering on the edge of madness. Looking back, it's a pretty grim trope. And while it's not completely vanished, I'm grateful we don't see it quite as often today.
    • Elements of it were silly, but it was a small price to pay to get Zas back. I should say there's a difference between in town and out of town returns. It's understandable for Roger to skulk around town in a bad wig and clown suit when he's in Springfield and running the risk of bumping in to people he knows.  Taking us out of town to find someone always has a short shelf life. Then it usually becomes about another character knowing X is alive but determined to keep them out of Springfield. Like Alan discovering Amish Reva. I don't know how long it went on, but it was probably twice as long as necessary.
    • Elizabeth Dennehy complained on the Locher Room about how ridiculous so much of the writing was for Roger's return. She laughed at so much of Roger's antics and how it was hard for her to take them seriously. Probably another reason she was fired as she didn't play the game.  
    • Only thing I enjoyed was Abby / Olivia, etc., and the addiction storyline. Otherwise, I could do without the season.
    • Right? Vanessa had a ball gown for every occasion.
    • Roger's return storyline may have been silly but Roger's return was what lead to GL's last golden era.  It was the combination of Roger's return and Robert Calhoun becoming EP that got GL to finally hit it's stride after some really bad years. It will always disappoint me that the ratings during Robert Calhoun's run didn't reflect the quality of the show.
    • He also gave some of the best episodes, like the episodes surrounding Doug's death. The problem with Days was that Ron had a horrible vision from he top. I don't feel the same for MVJ and nothing that has happened in all these months suggests she doesn't have a handle on the show. Now if it becomes an issue I'll acknowledge it, but I'm not seeing it so far.
    • Jean Hackney was awful and that lead to Ben's exit story which sucked. I liked Ben/Val together. Val's love for Ben was that of a grown woman moving on with her life and Ben's love for Val made him willingly decide to raise another man's children as his own.
    • It wasn't just a GL thing, it was an 80s thing. Opulent party scenes on soaps were very big back then. Even in regular episodes where people are just going to dinner they're dressed up like they're going to see royalty.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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