Some two and a half years ago there was a thread on this board called Soap Clichés That Have Worn Out Their Welcome that reached three pages and in which there was this one post, plus an addendum, to which I keep coming back almost regularly.

It was written by JamesF, a poster who is still a member of SON, but does not post, only lurks.

The post is the following (re-formatted for better visual experience ):

Interesting thread. These are the things I think need to be banned from daytime to restore some credibility:

STORY

1. Back from the dead. It should never, ever be allowed again. It's cheap, lazy storytelling that completely removes any emotional investment in a character.
2. Botched social issues. If you can't be bothered to do the research then don't do them at all. AMC's abortion saga is an example.
3. Baby switches. A baby's a baby. Who cares really?
4. SORASing. It completely destroys history and continuity. Look at Brooke's kids on B&B or the notorious Ellen Stewart on ATWT — ridiculous.
5. Repetition. There's a way to avoid characters having the same conversations over and over again. Include some others and write a balanced show. The UK/Aus soaps rarely ever have a problem with this because they have larger casts and plenty of story.
6. Flashbacks. Unless they are literally flashes, they serve no purpose other than padding out a short script.
7. Recasts. It should never be routine to simply recast a character as an easy option. My pet hate too is recasting to "take the character in a different direction." It's an admittance of failure. It means you're not writing for characters, merely plot devices so why should the audience give a damn about anyone on the canvas if their personality can change on a dime?
8. Slow pace. 1 day should never=10 episodes. Again this is something that foreign soaps very rarely do. On occasion if there is a big story climax with confrontations galore a day might last for 2 episodes. Primetime shows are able to write in a realistic timeframe so soaps should be no different.

TECHNICAL

1. Tiny mansions for the rich e.g Brooke's house on B&B being little more than a studio apartment with a fancy front door.
2. Outside sets on soundstages. No other genre does it nor do any other countries that have much smaller budgets. And look at what MyNetworkTV achieved. Open the wallet and spring for location shooting or a permanent backlot set. You're not fooling anyone with a potted plant and a park bench. Main Street in GL, I'm looking at you.
3. The video look. It's outdated and obsolete. I don't care about the nostalgia value. Again no other genre or foreign soaps are so hesitant to make a technical progression.
4. Overdramatic stares and pregnant pauses. It's hammy.

That's all I can think of.

And the addendum:

I see both points about the flashbacks situation though I am still inclined to take a hardline stance. Okay they are not so jarring if it's a particularly memorable act/event (e.g fire) but there's just no need for them to get viewers back up to speed. People miss episodes in primetime all the time and the way they deal with it is through recaps at the beginning of episodes. I'm staunchly in favour of them. They do the job for those who have missed anything, refresh the memories of those who are watching and give a sense of progression because the episode is moving forwards from the point it left in the previous episode. Of course soaps are now so entrenched in exposition and flashbacks that using recaps would only serve to highlight just how dull it is to watch 5 episodes a week.

As far as gimmicks are concerned, they've all been done to death and not in imaginative ways. Amnesia and back from the dead are the two stories that are most likely to elicit groans of boredom - they are completely representative of the soap stereotype. While the stories themselves need not be total duds, soaps have to stay away from that to try and claw back credibility. They've been used so much that people are immune to them and bored of the consequences. DOOL in particular is obviously the worst offender as far as bftd is concerned. If viewership requires you to care about the characters and what happens to them, death is surely the ultimate heart wrenching story with the highest stakes. But if people just come back from the dead at the drop of a hat, you've been cheated and nothing means anything in a series. There are no consequences. Every event is hollow because there's no real threat to "happily ever after."

Bottom line is soaps need credibility. All of these cliches wreak of sensationalism and desperation which is exactly what daytime needs to be avoiding to get it back.

I expect complaints à la But then that's not soaps if you loose the video look, heavy, dark wood furniture and 25 episodes per one day of life! But also some constructive suggestions and criticism.

What sort of things would you ban? And what kind of a short list like the one above should be nailed on some board in front of every head writer, clearly visible and threatening?

The honourable mention goes also to the following suggestions from the mentioned thread: blindness, mythical kingdoms, amnesia, parenthood determination, long lost children, look-alike cousins, stuck on an island and to bellcurve, who says that everything can be seen as a cliché, what matters is how you reinvent the wheel.

Edited January 19, 201015 yr by Sylph

Wow. I think I'm in love with JamesF.

One thing I'd cut back on - not ban entirely - but REALLY cut back on is music montages. It's just another way to eat up screen time for people too lazy to write. Music can add so much to a scene. IMO, there's no reason to waste it on a tour around town.

Another thing: telling instead of showing. For ex: Erica (AMC) saying "I was just having dinner with my daughter Bianca..." Or Jessica (OLTL) saying "I know that Mitch is my biological father since he raped my mother but Clint is the only father I've ever known. He's the one who raised me and my brothers (see previous) Kevin and Joey." Who is all this exposition for? All the new viewers tuning in every day? On soaps, every character is an exposition fairy.

Also, comas. There are plenty of ways to write people out without killing them or putting them in comas.

Edited January 20, 201015 yr by marceline

We Love Soaps: Doug Marland had his infamous “Marland’s Rules.” I’d like to know what Lemay’s Rules are?

Harding Lemay: I don’t have any. I know Doug was rather rigid about a lot of things. I trained Doug actually. Very interesting writer. There was a very very dark underside to all his writing. Good characters though. I think everything you write creates it’s own rules. Whether it’s a play or a book or a script. Every situation you write creates it’s own rules and that rule is the truth of the situation. You can’t have rigid rules. Because you lock yourself into a dramatic box. And it doesn’t work. And that was one of Doug’s problems as a writer. The people who wrote with him would often be confronted with Doug’s rigid idea of what was right and what was not right. My attitude was, “Try it, see if it works.”

We Love Soaps: Doug Marland had his infamous "Marland's Rules." I'd like to know what Lemay's Rules are?

Harding Lemay: I don't have any. I know Doug was rather rigid about a lot of things. I trained Doug actually. Very interesting writer. There was a very very dark underside to all his writing. Good characters though. I think everything you write creates it's own rules. Whether it's a play or a book or a script. Every situation you write creates it's own rules and that rule is the truth of the situation. You can't have rigid rules. Because you lock yourself into a dramatic box. And it doesn't work. And that was one of Doug's problems as a writer. The people who wrote with him would often be confronted with Doug's rigid idea of what was right and what was not right. My attitude was, "Try it, see if it works."

I loved Marland and his rules on ATWT. I'm glad that he stuck to them. His ATWT never had any wacky stories or characters doing wacky things. I always remember that one of his rules was that have characters should not do things that are out of character. Too many soap writers will have the characters do anything to make a story work.

I agree with Lemay that there was a darkness to his characters that was often masked by politeness. Most of his characters has serious flaws and could go to dark places. Yet I was rarely surprised because there were always hints that they were not all sunshine and light.

Edited January 20, 201015 yr by Ann_SS

I mostly agree unless camp is what the showrunner is going for: I'd love to see a soap take on that 1960's over the top drama feel. Also, I'd like to see someone transform a soap and give it an indie film feel. GL did not accomplish this. A show could look and feel beautiful while not costing all that much to film. Today's TPTB have no imagination.

"Who's the Daddy?" storylines should be far rarer occurences. In "soap world," "innovations" like birth control, condoms, and emergency contraception never happened. And AIDS/HIV and other STDs don't exist. It's this refusal to acknowledge these social realities that have helped make soaps irrelevant.

I totally agree with JamesF. Creativity comes from having limits. And the silly plot devices he has listed give writers too many "outs." A character was violently killed off and everyone saw her die? No worries...you can resurrect her two years later. It's the ultimate Get Out of Jail Free card and encourages the sloppy writing we've seen for far too long on soaps.

I thought Marland did have a few misguided wackier stories at ATWT? A flop gothic mansion one? (Am I making this up?)

I thought Marland did have a few misguided wackier stories at ATWT? A flop gothic mansion one? (Am I making this up?)

No, Marland failed to follow a few of his own rules. I remember he said something about never staying at show for longer than four or five years yet stayed on at World Turns longer than that. Also, I do remember him rushing a few characters onto the canvas a little bit fast. I think he was speaking in hypothetical terms. Aren't rules made to e broken, anyway?

I assumed so too--I think Lemay may be taking the term a bit too literally (though it doesn't surprise me that they disagreed on some aspects).

One pet peave of mine is how they NEVER finish their food or drink. If you order a drink at the bar, you don't have to be an alcoholic to FINISH It before you leave to go home. And they're alwasy ordering food and have one bite and then take off. I mean it's one thing if a catastrophe happens, but come on But I know that's just a minor thing.

"Who's the Daddy?" storylines should be far rarer occurences. In "soap world," "innovations" like birth control, condoms, and emergency contraception never happened. And AIDS/HIV and other STDs don't exist. It's this refusal to acknowledge these social realities that have helped make soaps irrelevant.

For a while they were better at showing or mentioning condoms--I know sometimes it seems obvious but... (actually lately OLTL has been pretty good at this--both Kyle and Fish mentioned getting tested and protection, Blair mentioned it casually to Eli, etc). But even admitting the fact that a lot of people, particularly IMHO straight people "hook up" without condoms they almost ALWAYS, again in my experience, are on the pill. Someone like Amanda on AMC woulda been on the pill--and no one can convince me otherwise. So yeah, these stories are IMHO too old fashioned.

JamesF. Come back! We miss your insightful posts.

IA with everything he is saying -- that soaps need to be brought up to date. JamesF lays out a very detailed case for this.

However, so often PTB use the excuse to modernise and just replace it with dumb or vapid. Ellen Wheeler hyperventilating about The Hills comes to mind. I mean, I've enjoyed The Hills in its day but it is mindless and quickly forgotten candy. Secondly, Wheeler clearly failed in her endeavor -- those glossy production values are expensive to produce, even if The Hills tries to pretend its "reality" and caught on-the-hoof.

Also, there is this ONE seemingly archaic thing I love about daytime soaps -- and that is its soaring, old-school background music scores. Lynn Marie Latham removed those from Y&R and replaced it with numbing, identikit college rock. It was like somebody removing Y&R's heart with a fish-fork and no anesthesia. I know this music must make the shows seem handcuffed to the past but some of those musical cues give me goosebumps -- in a good way. And not because of nostalgic associations but because they are beautiful on their own.

"Who's the Daddy?" storylines should be far rarer occurences. In "soap world," "innovations" like birth control, condoms, and emergency contraception never happened. And AIDS/HIV and other STDs don't exist. It's this refusal to acknowledge these social realities that have helped make soaps irrelevant.

For a while they were better at showing or mentioning condoms--I know sometimes it seems obvious but... (actually lately OLTL has been pretty good at this--both Kyle and Fish mentioned getting tested and protection, Blair mentioned it casually to Eli, etc). But even admitting the fact that a lot of people, particularly IMHO straight people "hook up" without condoms they almost ALWAYS, again in my experience, are on the pill. Someone like Amanda on AMC woulda been on the pill--and no one can convince me otherwise. So yeah, these stories are IMHO too old fashioned.

There needs to be more STD stories than WTD stories on the soaps. On AMC, Amanda had sex with three men in the space of 3 months, you would think she would have gotten a STD not a baby. Billy on Y&R doesn't like to use condoms and is busy sleeping his way through Genoa City. Hard to believe that he hasn't gotten an STD and passed it on to Heather. On GH, Robin has HIV, but Patrick has slept with Leyla and now Lisa for some unknown reason is pursuing him. A serious HIV scare is in order there.

I thought Marland did have a few misguided wackier stories at ATWT? A flop gothic mansion one? (Am I making this up?)

The Ghost of McKenkie Castle was stupid, boring and a break from his much vaunted rules....so was McKenkie Castle even exisiting in Oakdale..(who moves their whole castle to a semi-rural suburb???) Also, a pregnant chick got thrown from a roof, flew past a window in view of the audience, and was next seen as being okay...it was straight out of DOOL..but at least they knew it was stupid. Also, one of his rules was that you wait six months before you write someone out, which he did not do on ATWT, where he immediately wrote out Kurt, the fat chick who was harrassing Frannie, Cal and several others. I think Marland took himself and his job a little too seriously..(but I still think he is a good writer who saved ATWT...he just wasnt "perfect," as others think.)

Also, there is this ONE seemingly archaic thing I love about daytime soaps -- and that is its soaring, old-school background music scores. Lynn Marie Latham removed those from Y&R and replaced it with numbing, identikit college rock. It was like somebody removing Y&R's heart with a fish-fork and no anesthesia. I know this music must make the shows seem handcuffed to the past but some of those musical cues give me goosebumps -- in a good way. And not because of nostalgic associations but because they are beautiful on their own.

Yes. That is just terrible. Don't get me started on Latham's musical choices!

I always wondered why they chose not to use the vast musical libraries they have.

And compose new stuff. I know it's expensive to hire an orchestra (plus, rent a studio, pay the copyists, possible arrangers, sound engineer, mixing engineer, ProTools recordist...), even a small one, but a skilled musician who knows the craft can do magic with a really small orchestra and overdubs.

There are also instrument libraries, pricey also, but I bet many composers have them. Full complement of strings, full symphony orchestra — Vienna Symphonic Library, ethnic instruments (sometimes an ominous ethnic flute is nice )... Not the real deal, but oceans and mountains better than rock guitars & cr*p.

Edited January 20, 201015 yr by Sylph

On GH, Robin has HIV, but Patrick has slept with Leyla and now Lisa for some unknown reason is pursuing him. A serious HIV scare is in order there.

Patrick has already had a serious HIV scare involving a broken condom.

Patrick has already had a serious HIV scare involving a broken condom.

I don't consider Leo casually telling Patrick that he was negative while Patrick fretted over if he should continue to screw Leyla a serious HIV scare. He never even bothered telling Leyla that the condom broke before he had sex with her again. Robin didn't ask Patrick if he was still having sex with Lisa and if he had been tested for STDs before Robin had sex with him again. A STD would compromise Robin's immune system and increase the odds of Patrick contracting HIV.

I'd settle for Patrick and Lisa discussing the risk of having sex, while he is having sex with his HIV+ wife. In real life, it is highly unlikely that Robin and Patrick use condoms every time they have sex. I'd like to see Patrick ask Lisa if she has been tested for STDs. These are the uncomfortable conversations that these people should have before having sex. This would be a soap infidelity story that matches the decade.

Edited January 20, 201015 yr by Ann_SS