Star Trek recipe for soaps?

[Sylph]

[marceline]

Well as someone who grew up watching reruns of ST:TOS with my father the same way many soap fans grew up watching with their moms I loved the movie. It certainly had flaws but that's for another thread on another board.

I don't agree that Abrams believes that the franchise was crap before he "held his nose and waded into the stinky Federation waters." But I DO believe that he decided that he was going to have to do this reboot his way and the old guard was either going to have to like it or not.

Abrams offended a lot of people by openly admitting he wasn't a big Trek fan. The clarion call went out for his head. "He's not a FAN! Only a FAN can do it justice!!" Isn't that the same thing we see said on this board? "If you want to save soaps you need to bring on someone who's a real fan of the genre." But perhaps a so-called "real fan" is part of the problem. Or more accurately, being a fan of good dramatic storytelling doesn't mean being a fan of soaps. Look at Carlivati. When he took over the reins at OLTL, half of soapdom erupted in a mass orgasm at the thought that OLTL was finally being written by a FAN of the show and its HISTORY and VETS and yet he proved incapable of even stabilizing the show, let alone reviving it.

The Trek franchise had become so unwieldy that they had to do a serious reset to make it viable again and a "real fan" couldn't make the type of hard decisions necessary to do that. Abrams respects Star Trek but he doesn't worship it. IMO, a soap reboot would require the same combination of affection and discernment. That would be guaranteed to piss off fans.

[DRW50]

Since Davies is so bad, wouldn't him praising Moffat be bad for Moffat?

I notice that was written before the episodes about the library, which were lazy, patronizing, about as scary as a Care Bear, and dominated by a Mary Sue who rattled off expository dialogue viewers about a life viewers were never going to see, before she was given the worst idea of a happy ending I can remember. Before those episodes, I had a higher opinion of Moffat's work. They were just awful.

I'm not offended because he's not a Trek fan. I don't think you have to be a Trek fan. It's the idea that he is somehow singlehandedly bringing prestige to a wretched waste of space, and we should be humbled he even wanted to go near something the project, that any changes he makes must be great because they're updating something unworthy of him, that's what bothers me. So much of the hype for this film comes from his name and from his not caring about Star Trek, it makes me wonder why he even wanted to get involved or use the characters, if they were so awful.

I don't think you have to be a fan of a genre to revive it, but not having open contempt for the genre would be a good start. The people who have most destroyed soaps over the past 15 years have been people who all but openly hate soaps, or who want to turn soaps into some pale copy of primetime. I remember when JFP took over Another World and she said she wanted the show to be Cheers meets NYPD Blue meets ER. I thought, "What about wanting the show to be Another World?" She hated AW, and daytime, so much that she financially and creatively bankrupted the show within a year.

Admitting to being a fan will usually get more scorn than not being a fan, because you're seen as obsessed, as not hip enough. Soaps would rather go with people who hate daytime (JFP, Frons, Guza) or are incredibly indifferent or incompetent, than talented people who truly care about the genre.

Carlivati did stabilize the show for about a year. I don't think that means being a fan makes you a good writer, because he's not a good writer, but I don't think it proves you must not be a fan if you want to help a show.

[Sylph]

Yeah, who cares about a stable year? If you can't provide 5, don't bother. He "stabilized" it then started crashing. That can't be good.

[DRW50]

No one in today's soap genre is going to provide 5 years. Even 5 months is difficult now. Until change begins at the top, we're never going to see any real or long-term quality on soaps again.

[Sylph]

Which is what I'm saying.

[DRW50]

I'm not just talking about bringing in someone who isn't from soaps, I mean someone who will like or respect soaps, even if they don't have experience with them. Wendy Riche, for instance, had no daytime experience, but her GH was incredibly produced for 3 or 4 years, until she began to spread herself too thin and Guza came along.

[Sylph]

That is just your impression and I am really sorry you feel that way. It's just not true. (But if it were, Hello! Welcome to Hollywood! But it's not.) Anyway...

Carl, you know... I've been thinking... I have this idea about a show which is something like Survivor meets Gilligan's Island meets Cast Away meets Lord of the Flies... Can you do something about it? Make a show from it? No.

But here's the thing: Abrams did. Completely revamped the idea and made it a successful show. Sure, the ratings dropped. But do the ratings reflect the quality? No. (In this case, they kind of did.) But the show learned from its mistakes and corrected what was wrong. I am in no way forcing you to like Lost or anything like that, but it will most definitely be the show that made its stamp and revolutionised television in more than one way. Lost is not a show about "only the good-looking passengers of a jumbo jet [who] survive a spectacular crash onto a cinematic beach and show off their Pilates bodies while spearing fish". Lost is not about "polar bears, invisible monsters, secret hatch, magic numbers, mysterious French woman". Which is precisely why it is successful. It uses that kind of background to tell the simplest of stories about people, their fears, dreams, lives...

It has its flaws, and so does Abrams, but ultimately he does deliver: he satisfies the network or a studio (ratings, box office revenue) and his audience. It's really very simple.

It's perhaps best if we ended here the Moffat vs. Davies and Abrams vs. Roddenberry debate.

[miajere]

This recipe comes off like a recipe for a gumbo- "add a little salt, some chicken, a little shrimp...but not too much."

I'm pretty positive the Star Trek recipe would work for soaps- but these descriptions have to be tailored to fit the particular shows, otherwise it will just create panic. Just reading some of the posts it sounds like if Frons were to do a press release with this as his manifesto he would be crucified- as he should be.

These ideals require process, and not everyone understands that this recipe is not a checklist for success. Even if someone did have all these elements the show could still fail! Which is great for the creator because they learn more that way, but sucks for the fans because yet another show will bite the dust. But this is why I do think shows should be allowed to bite the dust, because it allows all those involved to stop, look, and begin again.

And what the hell does it matter if someone's a fan?

[marceline]

Yeah. I think that's the difference. You can't "reboot" a show until it goes off the air. I wonder what would happen if in 3-5 years a reboot version of Guiding Light came back the way Star Trek: The Next Generation did with a brand new cast, a fresh look and new stories. Have it take place in Springfield, maybe have one or two people work at Spaulding Enterprises (but no member of the Spaulding family just use the company as an employer) and start fresh. I know that the real world makes that impossible but I'm just theorizing.

[miajere]

But you don't have to recreate the show, especially by admitting that you are not a diehard fan. You could basically create the story around a third party that has no ties to the canvas, and stumbles onto this world. It's essentially what you have with all the soaps that are still on today- where the core once stood to be third parties.

But yes, the shows have to be able to end their course. Creators have to be able to begin again, and start from scratch, and allow for others to elaborate.

But then you see shows like the new 90210 and you think that's awful, and it has nothing to do with this recipe for greatness. It has to do with the fact that someone thought they could take a recipe and create a show. Which you can't do for a show that was a creator's process. I can't write a show and think, "what would spelling do? that's right, those bitches should be clawing each other's eyes out like in that one episode I really liked." it's a piss poor perspective and something I imagine a piss poor executive to do.

[YRBB]

I remember, a few days ago, a friend of mine went to see the movie. My best friend instantly laughed and called her a geek. There is a very instinctive, hateful reaction towards the brand of STAR TREK, even between those who have never even seen a single episode, and I feel that this is very much the same bias that soaps in general have been dealing with for years. A lot of people--a lot--have this preconceived notion of something cheap and unworthy...

Naturally, all this has little to do with the topic at hand, but nevertheless I feel that it was important to mention because it's not just the material or the way of presenting that material that needs to be changed (i.e. rebooting the shows, tweaking the formula)--it's the preconceptions about the material that need to be altered first.

[DRW50]

I think one of the reasons daytime finished itself off is because they became so desperate to change preconceptions. They had huge ratings at a time they tried to stay within their own boundaries. There were some changes, but still within those boundaries. Even Luke and Laura, done by a producer who hated the old soap format, had a soap love story format.

Then the soaps decide to become all about trying to ape primetime and movies, trying to be what they were never going to be. Ignoring what made them special. Not only did they not get any of those who sneered at soaps, they also chased away many people who loved them.

It's like Passions. In their first few years they got glowing commentary and press from some of the hippest shows on TV, cultural zeitgeists like BtVS. Yet, they never managed to harness those viewers to move beyond being a niche show.

The most probable way that a soap will be adored by those who hate soaps is if it's a niche show which can be used by those who dislike soaps to talk about how much better it is than other soaps, like what often happened with the BSG remake and other TV shows, or other sci-fi shows. That wouldn't do very much to actually change the state of the genre itself.

[marceline]

People have always derided sci-fi. They make fun of it then they turn around and watch it. Star Trek, Buffy, BSG, Heroes, Lost have all done just fine in spite of the preconceptions because the quality is there. People will keep making fun of sci-fi even as its creators become multimillionaires. Star Trek made $72 million this weekend. Not bad for a bunch of "geeks."

People will always make fun of soaps. The question is will they also watch them. Right now the answer is no.

[Vee]

Soaps are inherently serialized and forward-moving. While I love what Abrams did for Trek (and think it is one of the few times his work has had any follow-through), a reboot is anathema to soaps.

Meanwhile, you lost all remaining sanity when you claimed RTD's Doctor Who sucked - it brought a beloved British institution for children and adults alike back with honor, pride and a "soft reboot" - unlike you, it did not seek to scorch the Earth where it was not needed (and neither did Abrams' Star Trek). Not all of it is perfect, but it's been damned good and Moffat will be a worthy successor, I'm sure.

As usual, you act like a caricatured version of the renowned scribes and producers you wish you were, when in fact Abrams, Moffat, etc. are nowhere near as dismissive and pretentious as you. They both treated and shepherded Trek and Who well; Moffat is close with RTD, and is a longtime, hardcore fan of the original series. Abrams became a fan, but also worked with longtime, hardcore Trek fans on the script and overall production (frankly, I think Abrams works best on established properties; his own invariably fall apart). He recognized what has always worked about Trek despite the dilution of the brand name through mediocre shows like Enterprise and Voyager, and the bland neutering of Berman and Braga starting in the 90 - optimism, exploration, and adventure. These are not new values for the Trek franchise, but beloved and long-held ones.

Why don't you just admit these threads are always about you and what you think should be done for soaps? In your rush to crown your latest object of adulation king, you always piss on what's already there, even when your idols never do that. That is your primary failing. You are not JJ Abrams, Sylph. You're not Steve Moffat, and it's exactly your kind of attitude towards a long-standing property and any collaborators (you think everyone else is a peon) that would keep them from hiring you - especially Moffat. Nor is anyone going to hand you the key to soaps with your attitude.