Frances Reid played Grace Baker, Jeff's mother. From what I've heard, she was kind of an uptight bitch.

I recall a 60's Edge episode that had some characters talking in a night club. All we saw was a corner banquette and background of voices,music etc. and some extras passing thru.Yet it gave the impression of a much larger space.

Production needs to be more creative. Surely they could come up with sets that could be multi purpose-say doors on each side.When its Fred's office the left hand door is used and the opposite door is covered by a bookcase and vice versa...or sliding wall panels that can cover each other, a staircase that can be wheeled away etc

I don't think you have to have to go back to 1950s level of production (though I did watch a scene of Chris Hughes talking to none other then Alice Horton herself, Francis Reid playing someone, in his office, and it was a plain and simple office but looked like a "real,"office, and much better then Alan Spauldings office post budget cuts which was smaller then MY real office..so I wouldnt knock all 50 production values.) I was saying that you simply can show people talking in kitchens and living rooms and have a few community sets (hospital, pub, restaraunt, office.) No Mary and June dont have to rehash and rehash over coffee in the kitchen, but how is that different then the repeated scenes of characters saying the same things, only in overheated and overdone ways, ("You are the love my life," They are the loves of each others lives, I cant live without you, you are the love of my life....") And in real life people actually have more conversations in their kitchens and living rooms then they do anywhere else, (certainly not nightclubs or casinos, or whatever.) Look at Desperate Housewives, which is a totally different animal then daytime soaps, but what are their sets, living room, kitchens, occasionally an office or restaraunt, but we have been seeing the same sets for the last, what 7 years, and despite the silliness that takes place, they seem real (well better then real but "TV real." They of course have a bigger budget to be able to create a neighborhood where the characters interact, but they sure all hell dont do it at casinos, or multinational corporate offices bent on world domination, etc.

But you are right, soaps can't do budget special effects without looking cheesy, (one of the reasons I couldnt get into a goofy storyline like the possesion, it looks so damn stupid.0

Totally agree. Days could definitely, definitely up their production values these days, but honestly? I don't mind THAT much. It's an annoyance, not a deterrent. I can totally handle a show set in six living rooms/kitchens, a few restaurants, and two crappy outdoor sets... if the writing's good. Desperate Housewives is a great example. We don't see that many distinctive sets outside of the typical Wisteria Lane haunts, nor do I feel we need to. Granted, they have a lot more freedom in terms of number of sets and flexibility and location shoots, but I still watch the show for the characters and the stories, not the ~*~beautiful + stunning~*~ backdrops.

I agree. I really think that the older soaps knew how to get emotion out of a bare bones budget. Just compare some of the conversations between "Berta" and Papa Bauer in the living room or kitchen to some of GL's last years, which amounted to Ashlee sitting on a toilet, saying, "OMG I have to text Daisy like yesterday!111!!11" I think that soaps work best when they aren't trying to be hip.

But that is almost a totally different topic. Whether or not the show is underbudget or not has nothing to do with whether the conversations are interesting or wring emotion out of a scene. There were compelling radio dramas in the 1940s that had no sets, just a foley artist, but does that mean that a show in 2010 cannot be underfinanced?

Back to the first soap I mentioned, GH is trying to tell a story with Brenda who is miserable because she is not in love while living in the Eternal City, one of the most romantic spots on earth. That would have been a great location shoot for sweeps with Sonny and/or Jason and Brenda on the run from the badguys stopping to throw three coins in a fountain while they have to hide out by the basilica and whatever. Even if the story wasn't great, the locations alone would have had the entire audience just enjoying the eye candy.

Edited September 27, 201015 yr by quartermainefan

But that is almost a totally different topic. Whether or not the show is underbudget or not has nothing to do with whether the conversations are interesting or wring emotion out of a scene. There were compelling radio dramas in the 1940s that had no sets, just a foley artist, but does that mean that a show in 2010 cannot be underfinanced?

Back to the first soap I mentioned, GH is trying to tell a story with Brenda who is miserable because she is not in love while living in the Eternal City, one of the most romantic spots on earth. That would have been a great location shoot for sweeps with Sonny and/or Jason and Brenda on the run from the badguys stopping to throw three coins in a fountain while they have to hide out by the basilica and whatever. Even if the story wasn't great, the locations alone would have had the entire audience just enjoying the eye candy.

Yes, but if a soap does not have the money to tell these stories, then why tell them? There are other ways to tell a story and draw audience interest.

I think back to the show's Puerto Rico remote in 1994, which was highly praised, and I believe ratings actually dropped during that time.

Yes, but if a soap does not have the money to tell these stories, then why tell them? There are other ways to tell a story and draw audience interest.

I think back to the show's Puerto Rico remote in 1994, which was highly praised, and I believe ratings actually dropped during that time.

You are correct. According to the 1/3/1995 Digest for the week of November 21st, 1994: "November sweeps and Thanksgiving pre-emptions shook up the Nielsen rankings. While most soaps increased ratings during this period, GENERAL HOSPITAL (which spotlighted an enchanting Puerto Rican remote) showed a decline. The ABC show dropped an entire ratings point."

(Keep in mind that they covered ratings every other week since it was still published every 2 weeks back then, so their full rating point decline was over the course of 2 weeks. Nonetheless, that's a terrible drop!)

Y&R 7.7

AMC 6.1

B&B 5.8

OLTL 5.4

ATWT 5.2

DAYS 5.2

GH 5.1

GL 4.8

AW 3.1

LOV 2.2

(Boy did 1995 bring about huge changes in the rankings/ratings for these shows!)

However, ATWT looked like Gone With The Wind compared to Guiding Light, which, at the end, seems to have had a budget of about a dollar and a half.

Not even!

Maybe the genre would be better served by using lets sets and letting the characters develop as well as move story.

This!

I don't think you have to have to go back to 1950s level of production [...] I was saying that you simply can show people talking in kitchens and living rooms and have a few community sets (hospital, pub, restaraunt, office.) No Mary and June dont have to rehash and rehash over coffee in the kitchen, but how is that different then the repeated scenes of characters saying the same things, only in overheated and overdone ways [...] And in real life people actually have more conversations in their kitchens and living rooms then they do anywhere else, (certainly not nightclubs or casinos, or whatever.)

As trashy as talk shows such as "Jerry Springer" and "Maury" were and still are, they still draw an audience w/ little-to-no production values (just the set and the audience). Why? Because, even sleazy producers know people (or in soaps' case, characters) bring and keep eyeballs to the show, not the sets or the lighting.