Are web series the future of soap opera?

[jimmyk311]

With web serials like Imaginary Bitches, Venice, Gotham and others are getting buzz and the soap bloggers marking out for them, I wonder are web serials really going to save the soap genre?

Sure, these web soaps have gotten buzz and praise, but for me, those serials doesn't appeal to me.

By reading and watching them, I see those serials running into the same problems as the networks are doing (hiring there friends, boring stroylines, lack of racial diversity, appeal to a small group of fans, and etc.)

So, what do ya think? Can these serial be big money makers and have the longevity like the soaps on TV? Will these serial run into the same problems with the union like the networks do? Will the actors and producers will have the time to create a good and efficient web serial with them being on a soap?

[JaneAusten]

See I think this is the future. I think the problem soaps have today along with network TV shows is mainstream appeal. With today's world of pick and choose, selective programming, specialized cable stations, watch what you want when you want to, serial drama on the internet fits that model. And it's not just soaps, network TV is also losing vieweres and continues to do so.

I like the idea of internet soaps. Perhaps there is not one that appeals to you now but the more popular they become, the more there will be and the more options available. As an example, African Americans now for the most part are not well represented on soaps but for those viewers interested, there may someday be an internet soap featuring Aftican Americans.

I think it's so new it hasn't been tapped yet. But I am also one who thinks in 10 to 15 years TV will be gone and we will all be internet junkies. At that point the internet infrastructure should be at a point to support it.

[DRW50]

I think web serials are currently more hype than anything else. We hear a lot about these because the soap blogs and columnists endlessly go on about them. I remember the hype about Web soaps 15 years ago, which I actually enjoyed quite a bit (The Spot, SF Blend, East Village or whatever it was called, and the one that was about gay men), but which also faded after about two years or less.

I know things have changed dramatically since then with how many are on the Web, and that these have soap names, they aren't just random serials with the occasional grainy video of unknown actors, but I can't really say this is the future as of yet.

[SFK]

I would like to believe that they are the wave of the future (in that soaps will have a future, period), but as of right now they seem more like labors of love with varying degrees of fanfare/success.

It appears that the creators/producers are footing all of the bills and the actors are getting paid little to nothing (doing it for fun/experience, or as a favor). I wonder if any of the series will reach a level of popularity where sponsors will show an interest in becoming involved, or for instance, a cable network takes them under the banner of their website/YouTube page, or a Hulu-like website gives them a home. As the pioneers soap operas have always been, it would be wonderful if they ushered in a wave of network-sponsored serials that debuted online. This is where some of the shooting methods and techniques we saw in GL's last production model would work best, imo. A quirky, well-written, inexpensive bi/tri-weekly 20 minute web soap doesn't seem like such a crazy idea.

I have questions though about the relationship the actors' unions will have with web series in the future. In other words, where does one draw the line between a production that under any other circumstances would be within union jurisdiction, and a coupla friends playing around with a digital camera. BTW, any word of that web project Linda Dano, Julia Barr, Jill Larson, and David Canary were working on?

[MarkH]

The thing is, "web" (with regard to content) means "niche" and "on-demand".

I have a hard time imagining most forms of entertainment getting sufficient eyeballs to generate sufficient revenue to produce entertainment of the scope that we have seen on free (or even cable TV).

Cable seems more robust for a number of reasons: Less original content (i.e., more 'event' content like Mad Men), an overall reliance on cheaper forms (talk, reality) with lots of rebroadcasts, the new home for repurposed (formerly syndicated) network fare. But another major reason is "subscriber fees". These can be substantial for premium non-pay networks (like $0.50/subscriber/month).

So, I do not think "web" shows of any type will flourish until they are tied with subscriber-based (not pay-per-view, either...predictable monthly fees is the only sustainable model) funding models.

The way I see it going, picking up other ideas here, is that "internet" and "cable TV" and "broadcast" and "DVR" and "converter box" and "computer" and "Netflix box" and "Apple TV" are all going to become the same thing (vis-a-vis content). Once that happens, then if a network like "WE" produces "Venice, by Crystal Chappell", it will be something that will appear on their "network". Their network, however, will be something you can watch by plugging your computer or smartphone or Itouch (or whatever device) into your LCD screen (of any size).

These "independent" projects will never be sustainable. They'll be vanity projects and demonstrations. It is only when subscriber-based providers decide that online distribution makes sense that we'll see this grow.

I do believe that serials will be an ideal format...they encourage that "repeat viewing". And with fewer episodes and on-demand viewing, it will be easier to "stay hooked". But I can't imagine most shows will ever produce more than 13 episodes a year again.

[miajere]

I do believe they are a format in which soap fans can continue watching their favorite actors. But unfortunately I don't think they are relevant enough to speak to that broad audience that the soaps were capable of doing.

The internet has the capability of going anywhere you want it to, and most people keep up with sites, blogs, or web serials that are relevant to their everyday lives and interests. Soaps have always been out to satisfy a broad audience but the internet has been designed to make the individual happy. I just don't think the process is there for these shows to become the future imitation of anything other than continual "shorts".

There are far too many internet options for "special interest groups" for these serials to compete with. Maybe not web-serials, but blogs are far more capable of being honest, and are written in styles people can relate to, written by people we can interact with. My question is, why bother looking for another soap opera, when another form of entertainment is tailored to my interest, selling products I want to buy? Why should web series be the future of soap operas when soap operas are proving to be not so interesting?

[MarkH]

Interesting!

I think you're right...serials and dramas may live...but soaps (specific large-cast melodramas that spin daily) are done. Soaps were just an evolutionary stop in the history of serials. That actually encourages me...because it is the serial form that I love more than the daytime soap genre. [Typed while watching FlashForward].

[DRW50]

I think ANY large cast shows are basically over, whether soap or not. There were shows that were never actually called soaps but were as soapy as you can get and which, compared to a lot of shows now, had a huge, complex cast, like Little House, or the Waltons. The shows which were most derided as soaps, which hooked millions of women all those decades ago, had a cast which at best reached a dozen. The early episodes of all the daytime soaps had incredibly sparse casts.

I think soaps will always be around in one form or another. They always have been. The word "soap opera" was not even invented until the 30s.

[RoseVioletDaisy]

They are definitely more hype than substance at the moment and I doubt that will change anytime soon. The high-profile examples are mostly vanity projects, being done for fun or just for the heck of it. There isn't much, if any, money in it yet. Pretty much all the participants are doing it for peanuts.

Imaginary Bitches isn't even a soap really, it's a comedy/satire. IB has only done 13 5-7 minutes episodes, something that's far easier to pull off well with comedy than with drama. No drama series could ever sustain interest or tension with so little material so the format and technology need to advance before real, long-form dramas are capable of succeeding.

I fear that, like Otalia, Venice has become already insanely over-hyped and there's no way it'll live up to the ridiculous amount of attention and hope being placed on it, almost all of it by frustrated Otalia fans in the media who are looking for it to right all the wrongs done them by GL. Supposedly the first season will be shot in one week. That means that there will be a handful of episodes and each eppy will probably be five minutes long with most of the "cast" in "blink and you'll miss them" cameos. If that's the case, I hope it's a comedy like IB because you simply can't do half-way decent drama with scenes that short no matter who you are. It wouldn't particularly shock me if we never even see this thing get off the ground.

[Ann_SS]

I think that profitable soaps on the Internet are a pipe dream. At things stand today, I don't see any way of making profit from showing an original soap online when production costs are involved.

[quartermainefan]

There used to be this NBC online soap opera, Coastal Dreams. Whatever happened to that?

I don't think large enough monitors are widespread enough to make watching original content all that viable. Millions of people are not going to gather around their 17" monitor and settle in to watch their favorite show. I think the day of the mainstream original online content will have to wait for affordable for everyone 40" monitors. Dull reasoning, but practical.

[Rakesh]

I for one believe that soaps can find new life on the internet. Look at Y&R - It's one of the most watched television shows online. Once a show starts to build an audience, it can generate a lot of revenues from advertisers. Having a strong young audience will be plus. Condoms and pregnancy test manufactures pay big bucks.

[JaneAusten]

I think folks here are looking more short term. I can honestly say in 10 to 15 years. television as we know it today is going to be a thing of the past. Jay Leno's talk show? The other networks are scared to death it might actually achieve success.

We are in and approaching an era of more pick and choose. It's why newspapers and magazines are dying and it's a lot of why television is where it's at. In 15 years there will be a robust infrstructure in place to support watching programming on the internet. Is there a place for soaps? As much as there is today yeah. But no doubt we'll continue to see more and more specialized targeted programming developed as folks continue to try and reach that targeted audience and demo.

[SFK]

Hulu, Veoh, even Netflix/Amazon through Roku, all awesome new technology that I enjoy, and I would totally give a brand new serial that debuted on one of those sites a chance. You don't have to be lavishly produced or have a cast filled with names to be successful, when will these execs get this through their thick heads?? If writers (or their apprentices even) behind some of the HBO shows for example lent their talents to a string of 15-20 minute long webisodes I think this idea could really be tested. You can't put out a crap product and say the concept won't work when nobody watches. Quality begets success.