Jump to content

Zynga And Facebook Are Killing Soap Operas


Recommended Posts

  • Members

You're right. I think that's something soaps have forgotten - the little moments that can build up to the big moments and which can appeal to viewers who might be looking for that type of thing. No matter what you are, things like family and friendship can draw you in. It would be different from the cliche that all women must hate each other, all women only live for men, all women are just body parts to be studied and then tossed aside. It's something which the cynical media doesn't focus on very much but that soaps could use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I just wanna say...I love all yall, so I hope this disagreement or different way of seeing things isn't an argument :lol:

They need to find out who's watching daytime television and go after those people. If it's low income welfare queens running across the street to Tiffani-Mae's trailer or LaShaNeeque's trailer, then guess who they need to write for. A soap would do better writing a storyline based on something out of Teen Mom than it would with something based on Shakespeare. And I don't dare say that's a bad thing or a downgrade or anything like that. People are different, they have different lifestyles, they like different things. I think the old "people want an escape" idea is still valid, but as society has grown to accept more things (or, rather, grown to not ignore them as much as before), I think people don't want an escape as much as they want to be nosy and see how people deal with real life things. Of course I could be totally off base, but this is just my perception based on nothing but things I've noticed with people I know.

Take Judge Judy (which, now that it's on a station I actually watch, I am absolutely hooked). I don't know her ratings, but I'm sure one of her reruns probably rates higher than the soaps. Her show is all about small issues, small moments, things that most people can relate to at least once in their lives. Bad business deals, unpaid loans, debts, traffic accidents, bad roommates, etc. That's everyday stuff and if a soap came out that told those types of stories, I think it would be successful. I'm not saying that every episode has to be people in court over a stolen pair of Uggs, but then you have stuff like Muhhhrreh with he slept with this one and she slept with that one and they all slept with the dog. Trashy as it may seem, that [!@#$%^&*]'s real. It's more real than the 50s-era triangles you see on soaps, that's for sure. It doesn't have to be all shock value and sensationalism, there's a story behind everything, and if some writers can come in and write a good character-driven story about a dude who knocks up five women in the span of a month, then good! They can delve into the psyche of a serial killer, make him a hero, and call it "stylish," so a deadbeat dad can't be that hard to write. It's not Masterpiece Theatre, it's not Shakespeare, it's not what some would call "art." But it's what people are watching...more than the soaps, at least. Soaps should be able to take advantage of what makes other shows popular because soaps make a bazillion episodes and can take the time to tell a story about teen pregnancy or whatever as close to life as possible while still making it entertainment. Starr's pregnancy drama could never compete with the Teen Moms' drama. Call it trash, but trash is real, and trash has loads of interesting story in it. That's why when that thread came up a few months ago about there being no more stories to tell, my answer was a loud and resounding NO.

Of course, the easiest thing for them to do is go after the older crowd. CBS should be ashamed of themselves because they were daytime television for millions of people who had no interest in turning the channel. But I personally think there might be a problem with that that's just too morbid for me to even discuss.

They just need to write/produce for the people who are there. Educated, good-income young people are either working or in class, so unless they want to seriously count DVRs/online/VCRs/etc or move the shows to a timeslot more accessible to those people, any attempt to write for them will fail. I really don't know WTF OLTL is trying to do because the people really, really interested in watching Sir Ford of Grosslips and Sir Ford of PoutPout are learning how to piecewise functions and reading The Crucible (which would make for a great starting point for a soap, BTW). Every Thursday, I wonder where all these Girls 12-17 are coming from because "they need to be they ass in somebody school," to quote my aunt. This is not to say that there aren't any exceptions to that at all, but not enough to justify courting them and nobody else.

That's got less to do with the actual quality of the show than it does with marketing, though. ABC and CBS put their soaps away when "company" comes at 8pm ET/7pm CT and ignore them all throughout primetime. I'm really under the impression that the world would explode if ABC aired one freaking soap promo in primetime. It's frustrating. But still, Passions is different from an ATWT or an AMC. Passions roped them in with the comedy and the kookiness (which, it being Passions, was more than okay), but ATWT can't do that, AMC can't do that, Y&R can't do that, etc. Which is enough to make me go off on a tangent about why nobody ever went out on a limb and made more niche soaps. Nobody in the 60s thought it'd be a cool idea to do a soapy daytime western?

That's something that's all steeped in subjectivity, though. I've shown clips of good soap to friends who didn't see it, didn't understand what the appeal was or thought it was boring.

I think it can be changed, too, but I think it's gonna take more than just improving the shows. More drastic measures have to be taken, and I think a lot of traditionalist fans would be unhappy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think there is a way to make a show which is both entertaining and good, but the bottom line would be finding a show which is entertaining and could catch a casual viewer. I don't think soaps do that now. I think that something like Jim Reilly's first run on DAYS is an example of a show which was crazy and fun but also followed the tenets of soap.

Not everyone is going to like something but soaps today seem to please almost no one. I wish I could say "That's OK, it's just changing times," because then I could be more at ease about what's become of soaps. It's that the shows have so destroyed themselves for some type of a stupid idea of what was supposed to get the public that bothers me the most.

At this point they have chased away so many longtime fans. The fans who are left would likely watch anything. The key is to make the effort. Take chances. Bring in new writers and producers. Just make sure they know what they're doing and that unlike most running soaps now, they do not hate the soap format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The thing is, many times, when soaps REALLY tried to do something cutting edge, it failed. Look at this short lived show from 1977. It was done by Norman Lear, and done in a complete role reversal of men and women, with women being the dominant ones. so much for the idea of strong women on soaps bringing ratings. I'm not sure this even AIRED where I live... I certainly don't remember ever seeing it. And Linda Evans played a TRANNY in it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think a decimal is off in the aggregate numbers 1.3M now? That makes no sense -- not even for 18-49. Regardless, the decline is real for all the reasons mentioned. A big part of the drop has to do with women abandoning a genre that focuses on fake victims rather than "reality" victim. I used to think it was the whole victim thing that turned women off soap, but after seeing the rise of reality shows like The Hills, Housewives, etc., the only difference is that these are "real" people. Obviously people still like compelling drama -- otherwise serialized or semi-serialized primetime shows, like DH, GA, Lost, GG, OTH wouldn't exist -- plus the pilot of the Dallas remake was ordered recently. Everything goes in cycles. I wouldn't be surprised if soaps came back in some form five or 10 years from now. (Not all of the audience is gone -- look at Y&R.) Tomorrow is a sad day for me because ATWT was a part of my life for a very long time. Someday I'll watch the last few episodes, but not ready to go there now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

AMS, I totally hear you and I very much agree. And please, you know we peoples, no fight here, just discussion.

"(T)hey need to be they ass in somebody school" -your auntie. You know when something's so funny and hits so close to home that you're too paralyzed to laugh?

Sometimes I wonder why my 80+ grandparents still watch AMC, they have clocked more hours watching that show than I ever will. They've had cable for years, there are other options, but it is simply a part of their day, their life. The only soap they watch, but they are extremely loyal. And yet, if the show is gone before they are, I see them simply watching whatever else is plugged into that spot or for the first time in 40+ years, channel surfing that hour.

I too tried to show someone an example of "good soap" on YouTube and though I don't think she picked upon the excellent writing and acting like I was, she was nonetheless intrigued by Mac and Rachel's argument ("Well who's Iris?") Just the way they were talking about this person made her interested. I miss that too about soaps, the years Jane Elliot was off the show and you'd ^_^ when one of the Quartermaines made a funny side remark about Tracy, you had that connect to past history, people places and things that were familiar. Those warm feelings of nostalia are pretty much a thing of the past.

The death of soaps is a sad prospect, but we'll find other avenues of entertainment. It sucks, but at least we know it wasn't our fault -_- If that's ANY consolation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You know I usually agree with you full heartedly, but I think this is only kinda true. Look at primetime tv show ratings. For a while there, critics went on about how we were in a new golden age--with shows like Lost, DH when it started, etc. But compared to 15, 20 years back PT ratings have fallen *almost* at the same percentage as daytime.

That said this article is utter BS. Besides usually when I'm on facebook I am also watching something on TV (as you point out) :P The younger genewrations if anything do this much much more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That depends on the show. At its peak something like American Idol was getting huge ratings - 30 million or so. There have been no breakout hits in recent years that can appeal to many different people. When those shows come around the ratings show it, even if they can never reach the heights of primetime's peak years. Even then the impact of outside channels tends to be overstated, IMO. I would guess more people have heard of Mad Men than have ever bothered to watch, and that tends to be true for a lot of cable shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Cable is a different beast all together. Mad Men's ratings have climbed year after year but they're TINY. They're soap opera small. Mad Men is a prestige show, pure and simple (and I love it, don't get me wrong). It put AMC on the map as a viable tv network, wins tons of awards, and as you say actually has a buzz and gets people talking and fashions influenced etc, despite tiny numbers and so they wanna hold on to it.On the other hand True Blood is averaging close to 7mill I believe which is quite large for cable. But it's completely different--and also with those cable shows in particular I think they make a lot of money nowadays from DVD sales (True Blood was in the top 5 DVD sales *period* last year)--which is one way a lot of people prefer to watch the shows.

American Idol at its peak and other shows liek that are exceptions I admit. But a top 10 show for the most part now has had its ratings eroded to almost the same percent as a daytime show--compared to 20 years back. It's just that daytime gets the blunt of the bad outcome from that--it's a much easier sacrifice (ironic since in the 70s it was daytime largely that allowed primetime to have big budgets)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And that, my friend, is why I think General Hospital is even remotely successful in the demos. It comes on at 3pm in most places. By that time, most junior high and high school students are out of school. I know that in my days of high school, we were out at 2 and home by 2:18. Of course, while I was watching my AMC tape, I knew others in my class were watching GH live. So, it's not like the mob is General Hospital's magic formula to grabbing the 18-49 demo. It's just they have the luxury of being in a timeslot when most 14-17 teenagers are home, looking for something other than kid shows after school... and then take their viewing habit with them into college and so forth.

No lie, I'm playing Cafe World as I type this! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy