Members bellcurve Posted June 23, 2009 Members Share Posted June 23, 2009 Wasn't Baby Grace's death "shock and awe"? And it's funny that you mention cliches. Because, really, if you think about it, ANYTHING could be a cliche or something "that has been done before." Even something in primetime or film. But I feel like DAYS(and other soaps) should make some sort of effort to place a new spin on these cliches. No one show has to be about social issues or even realism. But shouldn't the soap at least attempt to rise above some of its more shameful stereotypes? I'm glad someone is enjoying DAYS. I used to race home from school in the afternoon to watch it in junior high. Sadly, I just don't care to enjoy it(or just about any soap) anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JackPeyton Posted June 24, 2009 Members Share Posted June 24, 2009 Not at all. She got sick, and died, in a matter of like 3 episodes. If they ran her over or some crazy [!@#$%^&*] like that i would say yes it was shock and awe. Furthermore the fallout has been played so well. They have played every beat of the story through every character they could. If soaps want to kill babies, i would prefer they do it like this rather than running them over, blowing them up, or poising them. When Marlena's baby died of cribs death was that shock and awe? I dont think so. I dont need a new spin put on naything. These soaps did the stories well for 3 decades, then it all went to hell as they tried to change it up. Go back, tell good character storylines. Thats all i want. I dont know about needing to rise against its stereo types, i dont have an issues with soap opera stereotype to be honest, its what i want from a soap opera. I dont know where this soaps need to be Shakespeare attitude came from, but they never have been nor will they be. its an escape. its everydrama heightened. just dont play it out like a parody of a soap. soaps trying to be arrested devolpment or even SOAP & mary heartman, mary heartman is the issue. i do enjoy days. i cant wait to watch it each day. sadly, this is the first time in about ten years, and i doubt it will last. but i hope it does. and i hope they hold onto and grow in ratings like they have been for this year so far. i am just happy i have a soap that i love and care about again. when i dont like a soap anymore, i quit. and me not watching soaps? well thats just wrong! i was raised by a grandma!! lol. even tho Grams doesnt watch them anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members R Sinclair Posted June 24, 2009 Members Share Posted June 24, 2009 I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. I highly doubt GH's Left Handed Boy and Ice Princess storylines would qualify as being classic drama. Nor would I think Erica Kane jumping onto a helicopter in a wedding gown would qualify, either. Soaps were just as campy and over-the-top in the heralded 1980's as they are today. The problem is people continue to toss around "plot driven" and "character driven" and yet, I doubt they actually know the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted June 24, 2009 Members Share Posted June 24, 2009 But R! R1 R! R! Remember when soaps were an ART FORM? A FORM OF ART to be STUDIED and APPRECIATED like a fine wiiine or a piece by Mozart! To be soaked up by intellectual minds!! GMAFB. These shows were created to sell dishwashing liquid, people. Dishwashing liquid, soap, washing powder, and whatever else gets the house clean. The average viewer during "the glory days" was a housewife who raised kids, cooked meals, and cleaned house. NOT Harvard professors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rhythmchyc Posted June 24, 2009 Author Members Share Posted June 24, 2009 Apparently those writers thought those housewives were as smart as Harvard professors. Victor of 1989 would not let Adam in his house without maximum security. And all those housewives know it. Are we all to blame for watching reality TV, thus, the writers thinking we like shallow characters, and inconsequential explosions and casual sex without repercussions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted June 24, 2009 Members Share Posted June 24, 2009 Victor of 1989 also had a newborn son named Nicholas who would have his 19th birthday five years later. Those housewives could have been extremely intelligent, but come on. Let's all be honest now. Forreal, please. Nobody watches soaps to be intellectually stimulated. Not then, not now. People watch soaps for the same reason they press Mute when they hear the people next door arguing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Faulkner Posted June 25, 2009 Members Share Posted June 25, 2009 Is anything on daytime as compelling as this Gov. Sanford drama? Not that I have a lot of respect for mainstream news, but if I weren't at work today, I'd be watching CNN and not the soaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bellcurve Posted June 25, 2009 Members Share Posted June 25, 2009 But who wants to be insulted with ret-cons, sh!tty dialogue, and atrocious production values? On any level, whether that is by reading a book or watching a TV show? No one watches a soap for intellectual stimulation, you're absolutely right. But people DO watch to be entertained. The question is, what qualifies as entertainment to the viewer? Pretty clothes, great dialogue, interesting stories, melodrama, camp? All the above? And shouldn't anything that is fictitious entertainment strive for a modicum of substance? Even if it fails at it on every level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted June 25, 2009 Members Share Posted June 25, 2009 Ret-cons, sh!tty dialogue, and atrocious production values have been around on soaps since the 50s, so it's not as if the current crop of PTB are the architects of it all. Entertainment is 100% subjective. Some people think watching murders is entertaining. Some people think animal sex is entertaining. Some people think car accidents are entertaining. Some of the sickest people in the world think that even The 700 Club is entertaining. Who is to say that what is considered entertainment to one person is more entertaining than what is considered entertainment to another? And plus. People are still entertained by soaps. People on this board are still entertained by soaps. If we weren't entertained by them, we wouldn't watch them everyday or most days of the week, and even further, we wouldn't be posting about them online everyday either. They're still entertaining, just not the same way they were entertaining back in the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JackPeyton Posted June 25, 2009 Members Share Posted June 25, 2009 THANK YOU! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bellcurve Posted June 25, 2009 Members Share Posted June 25, 2009 I never said they were and... Exactly my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted June 25, 2009 Members Share Posted June 25, 2009 I know. I said that for the people who have somehow convinced themselves that, at one point, soaps were immaculate things that did everything right and made perfect, logical sense. Neverrrr! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sylph Posted June 25, 2009 Members Share Posted June 25, 2009 That's the thing: NO EVOLUTION. Crap stays in its place. No one bother to remove the sh!t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted June 25, 2009 Members Share Posted June 25, 2009 Thank you. This was cheap fare designed to sell Oxydol. [THAT is why they suck monkeyba---, and why they pretty much always have. Greatness was rare and brief...little spots of Camelot in an otherwise unending landscape of eyerolls. There is a REASON folks have made fun of soaps--RIGHT DOWN to their "soap opera" perjorative label--almost from the beginning]. If folks want something better, we have to leave daytime and commercial television (at least BROADcast). The economic basis for THESE dinosaurs that we love and discuss to evolve does not exist, IMO. In the US, he next great soap will be (and already is) available once weekly for 13 weeks a year, preferably on pay cable. The cheap daytime progenitors...they will continue (as they always have) to suck monkeyba---. If you love soaps, you have to love them BECAUSE they suck monkeyba---, and because they sometimes eke out something better despite their general monkeyba--- nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bellcurve Posted June 25, 2009 Members Share Posted June 25, 2009 /\ -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.