But we as a society cared about things. Today everything is disposable including our show allegiance.

I can remember my good Scotch Presbyterian grandmother actually stamper her foot in anger about something on a show, but when challenged by my father to stop watching if it bothered her, she was completely bewildered by the concept - you stayed loyal to Your Stories.

We don't do that today, so to blame that on writers/characters/stories fails to miss the point that as a North American society we're pretty emotionally bankrupt.

I see what you mean, but then even in the early 80s GH had a lot of fans who came and went, and TV at the time was seen as being at a low point. I think that if a show isn't treated as disposable by the people who run it, then they will be able to hang on. The problem is there is so much disposable stuff on because TV assumes the worst of the public. When the quality is there fans can still be loyal. Soaps had fans who held on a long time, but there's only so many times you can hear, "You're not wanted," before you stop trying.

Edited September 1, 201015 yr by CarlD2

But we as a society cared about things. Today everything is disposable including our show allegiance.

I can remember my good Scotch Presbyterian grandmother actually stamper her foot in anger about something on a show, but when challenged by my father to stop watching if it bothered her, she was completely bewildered by the concept - you stayed loyal to Your Stories.

We don't do that today, so to blame that on writers/characters/stories fails to miss the point that as a North American society we're pretty emotionally bankrupt.

<span style="font-size:105%;">Perhaps people were burnt a million times and saw others being burnt too so they evolved and dropped the concept. All that magnified by statemnts such as You're loyal to a TV show?! That is just insane. Then you have instant satisfaction syndrome and so on and so on...</span>

I see what you mean, but then even in the early 80s GH had a lot of fans who came and went, and TV at the time was seen as being at a low point. I think that if a show isn't treated as disposable by the people who run it, then they will be able to hang on. The problem is there is so much disposable stuff on because TV assumes the worst of the public. When the quality is there fans can still be loyal. Soaps had fans who held on a long time, but there's only so many times you can hear, "You're not wanted," before you stop trying.

True enough - there does seem to be a general attitude of playing for the lowest common denominator. But that's true in the market, social services, education, politics, you name it - integrity and building something that's worth working for seems lost in our post-Jerry Springer world.

So many variables made the 80's different including the limited amount of TV available. I once read that the children/teens of the 80's (of which I'm one) are now seen by social scientists as the first generation of people who's imaginations have been severely limited and are coincidently the first generation raised on TV (that connection was strongly made in their thesis). Back in the day we had writers who themselves had been raised to know Shakespeare, quote Lawrence and Kipling, compare the works of Shaw and Ibsen, and generally relish the English language and the complications of human interests. Today the writers might be good too but they are writing for an audience who THEMSELVES is rarely educated enough to catch the humour and subtlety of the text, and hardly ever has the sustained interest for a large and powerful build up with pay-off.

I'm always gratified when the characters use their dry wit and when other languages are used without subtitles - at least that's some mild attempts to make the audience work for it. Otherwise it's open the Ben & Jerry's and carve your niche on the sofa 'cause the intellectual drivel is about to commence. (Not restricted to soap operas or TV in general either, Political rhetoric is even worse.)