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

    • 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?
    • Yes. And I assume he met Mary Ellen Stuart at GL.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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