Members MichaelGL Posted June 25, 2009 Members Share Posted June 25, 2009 You hit the nail on the head with that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cara mia Posted June 26, 2009 Author Members Share Posted June 26, 2009 Soaps though have to compete with primetime shows. Most of us DVR our soaps so I need a reason to watch AMC instead of Ugly Betty or Y&R instead of CSI: Toledo. If I know what I'm getting with a rerun of the Mentalist but I don't know what I'm getting with OLTL, why not pick the sure thing that's like comfort food instead of something that is likely to disappoint? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members R Sinclair Posted June 26, 2009 Members Share Posted June 26, 2009 I agree. I don't watch shows so that they can change and evolve into something other than what it was that made me an avid viewer of the show in the first place. I feel a part of the reason for the dwindling of daytime is that fans have big mouths without knowing what the hell it is they really want and are so quick to tune out because of their fickle tendencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cara mia Posted June 26, 2009 Author Members Share Posted June 26, 2009 Is it the fans or the writers? I don't think most fans are fickle but writers tend to get caught up in pleasing the loudest fanbases. As a Shick fan on Y&R, I HATE the reunion because I felt that it sacrificed four characters and the show overall. I would rather the characters be written well and Shick kept apart and for me to long for Shick (with teases and hints) then the disgusting route the Quad has taken. It's the writers' job to understand that what Shick fans really want is the relationship respected and for some quality angst. It's not about the end game -- it's about the dynamic of the relationship when the characters are in character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted June 26, 2009 Members Share Posted June 26, 2009 Wouldn't it be awesome if people didn't let Sara Bibel and Mimi Torchin and Michael Logan and *gasp* Nelson Branco form their opinions for them? [!@#$%^&*] that [!@#$%^&*]. I am the only "expert" on what I like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members R Sinclair Posted June 27, 2009 Members Share Posted June 27, 2009 Amen. I won't mention their name, but I remember a certain critic lambasting Charles Pratt and then several weeks later they did I total 180 and started swooning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CSF Posted June 27, 2009 Members Share Posted June 27, 2009 For a show's central question, IMO this is how I view it and some of this may have already been said and that's okay. AMC: Understanding the brotherhood of mankind and that we are all god's children and we should understand that what makes us different makes us very similar to one another. We should be informed on the social struggles and changes of the time and learn to accept, love and forgive. OLTL: I think OLTL's is very similar to AMC's but the only difference is the weight between the families in the sense that One Life was developed to showcase social struggles among social order of the classes. Y&R: The rich and the poor, the haves and the have nots. The difference between what one really needs and what one really wants. B&B: The high gleam world of fashion, mixed in with class struggle. (which I think just became another version of the 80s Y&R) GH: Medical drama that's traumatic outcomes affects the decisions in our every day lives. ATWT: We as individual go through different obstacles as each day passes us and those obstacles become a reminder as times change and as we grow and develop into stronger people, learning a wide range of acceptance. GL: finding love and hoping for a better tomorrow and holding onto those things. Those are the central questions, concepts and themes I've always picked up from those shows and I believe they could exist from decade after decade as long as the writer's stay true to their shows foundation. And today, it's pretty clear that writer's ep's and network executives felt the need to stray away from those central questions and as an end result, we are faced with the ratings we see today. Show's like AMC, GL and Y&R could live on forever, We will always be faced with inequality, we will always try to find love and we will always want to have what others have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members R Sinclair Posted June 27, 2009 Members Share Posted June 27, 2009 Awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cara mia Posted June 27, 2009 Author Members Share Posted June 27, 2009 Great post! And how sad to see how far GH has drifted from it's original premise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MTSRocks Posted June 27, 2009 Members Share Posted June 27, 2009 I agree that the underlying fundamentals of what made the soap be should always be there, however, soaps should be allowed to adapt throughout the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CSF Posted June 27, 2009 Members Share Posted June 27, 2009 Thanks. I agree, GH had and still has the opportunity to wipe the slate clean and become a critically acclaimed medical drama again, making people aware on important issues and could also play the part that we do not live forever and we are prone to injury but should live in the day. I think all soaps have the ability to correct their mistakes. Yes, a lot of damage has been done, and it will take time, but if you go back to the main idea behind these shows, good things could happen. Yes, soaps should be allowed to adapt, absolutely. Times do change and as things change we adapt to new ideas and atmospheres, but straying away completely from the original concept will be detrimental to any shows success. For example, I recall many times on Dynasty when Alexis tried to strip Blake of every cent he had and she did once, Blake for a short time had nothing, when Alexis took over the mansion, but the show didn't become about poor Blake and Krystle trying to start over and trying to reinvent the show, it went back to the shows original concept of a power struggle and trying to maintain control and stay at the top in a tank full of sharks. When you stray away from the social issues on AMC, something very important and special is lost. What else is important is that daytime television wasn't just a place to entertain. It was a place where great writers like Phillips, Nixon, Bell, Marland, etc tackled serious issues to bring that information to it's audience to make us more socially aware and more socially responsible. Times do change and in 1973, it was very taboo for Erica Kane to get an abortion. Today, that's not so taboo, granted there are many protesters out there and pro-lifers who attack abortion clinics. Yet in 2009, we should see more stories that show change, like a young college girl purchasing Plan B within a 72 hour period or we should have seen Bianca and Reese actually try to adopt children as a same sex couple and see how they are treated and see them get denied and then open up a whole storyline on same sex parents adopting children in America. Even though times change, shows can adapt and evolve by staying true to it's main concept plus adding some more spice to an already rich recipe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.