Jump to content

As The World Turns Discussion Thread


edgeofnik

Recommended Posts

  • Members

 

Oh, I'm sure there will always be interference but I liken it to... if a writer sits down to write a screenplay and is already thinking about box office, I think that screenplay likely won't turn out well.

I don't think you can focus on all of that while focusing on the technical aspects of writing a good story--it's too much to think about. 

 

I tend to think that Phillips, Nixon, Bell and Marland and the rest just put those things out of their minds and focused on writing good stories (at least while they sat down to write before the network execs could get their hands on the scripts).  

There were lots of soaps that were short-lived even back then but I don't think the great writers allowed themselves to think about all of that when they sat down to write their scripts, it just would've been too much weighing on their minds.

Perhaps today's writers allow themselves to think about this too much and it impairs their creativity and ability to sustain a storyline.  That's something I never considered before.

 

I think we may have discussed this on the boards previously, I know I've thought and mentioned it a couple times (especially before ATWT's cancellation) but I really think that the daytime soaps should've tried to scale back down to 30 minutes.  I mentioned this to someone years ago and I still believe this would be a good idea.  Perhaps this might also have the effect of stabilizing the storylines so the flow is less frenetic and stories sustain themselves a bit better.

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • DRW50

    2970

  • DramatistDreamer

    1958

  • Soapsuds

    1716

  • P.J.

    823

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

I completely agree with Dramatist Dreamer - soaps could've gone back to 30 min. The casts had already been trimmed (at least in ATWT's case) and the sets pared down. I'm sure everyone involved wouldn't have liked having their salaries cut in half but that's better than being cut 100%?

 

Also, yes, the reason I can't watch soap operas today is that the storylines move at such a frenetic pace. ATWT was the same for it's final 2 or so years. I tried to watch Y&R - the bed hopping made me crazy. Same thing with Neighbours - although I actually watched that for a year and a half until half the cast turned over. Still...the show would focus on a "MAJOR COUPLE" for 2 months and then those same characters, MADLY in love with one another, had changed their minds and both members of the couple were MADLY in love with someone else. 

 

RH has taken 5 years of back and forth with Frank/Jill. ATWT have had Tom and Margo together (yet having problems) for what? 8-9 years at the point I'm watching? Writers knew how to keep the audience invested in the same pairings over such long periods. When did that ability leave soap writers????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

This is an interesting question.  I can't speak for all soaps but thinking about ATWT, it seems to have begun, in earnest, when writers started writing stories as if the characters were players in some type of reality show.

 

By the mid-90s you had shows like The Real World that not only were they ratings juggernauts but they had snared an entire generation of viewer-- a younger generation and we know that soaps were usually on a quest to grab those younger viewers (sometimes to extremes that resulted in disaster). 

It just seemed as though by the late 90s, some soaps (e.g. ATWT) cast their younger characters who looked as if they were plucked from a reality show.

We know that many reality shows had continuing stories but their story arcs usually went from week to week (every week a new explosive conflict or fight, revelation or scandal in the house).  Some soaps may have picked up on this and started shortening their story arcs trying to appeal to the reality show crowd (who skewed younger).

I think the unfortunate thing that many of the soaps didn't pick up on (until it was too late) was that they needn't mess with the technical aspects of how they wrote the stories, what they needed to tinker with was the content of those stories. Some of the stories just didn't move with the times, in terms of contemporary issues and by the '00s, even those stories that did have contemporary themes seemed poorly executed, sort of sloppily written.

 

Today's soaps seem to be experiencing something of an identity crisis, of sorts, IMO.  They can't compete with the cable and the Netflixes and Amazons or Hulus of the world because they're on daytime network basic broadcast TV.  At this point, CW shows and many primetime shows like Scandal are too racy for the daytime shows, so the daytime soaps take a kind of 'middle ground' which can sometimes leave viewers feeling unsatisfied by what they see.

 

Not to mention that all the limitations of writing for daytime will not exactly attract a whole lot of writing talent.  

Let's put it this way, if you're a talented writer and you have a chance to put your energy toward landing a gig in daytime soaps or writing your own webseries that could get picked up by Netflix or get you noticed for your own HBO show, which path would you choose?

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don’t think it’s a matter of that ability leaving soap writers. Rather, soaps have been adjusting their format to appeal to modern viewers. And it’s just not soaps. In academic research, we’re reevaluating ways to promote our research in a variety of ways since our constituents don’t have long attention spans. For years, soaps have been tinkering with their formats in this regard. Port Charles went for 13-week arcs. Most soaps sped up their stories. One Life and All My Kids contemplated 13-week arcs as well. Watching the reruns of The Doctors on Retro, the shorter arcs are not new. The Doctors was doing them in the 1967-1970 era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

@robbwolff   To clarify, my main issue with today's soap storytelling isn't that the stories themselves are super fast but more the couples. (13 week stories - totally fine. That's acceptable. Last I watched, stories seemed to be 4-5 weeks though.) As said above, now you have Character A MADLY in love with Character B for 2 months. Then they break up and move on. Character A is now MADLY in love with Character C and Character B is MADLY in love with Character D - for 2 MONTHS!!! And then everyone switches partners again. They may put Characters A and B back together a year later when they've run out of beds for them to sleep in. Is it so hard to find story arcs for Character A and Character B where they stay together? 

 

Or, even if it's a Frank/Jill or Craig/Sierra type storyline where they keep the characters APART for several years, through several different story arcs but the main focus for the audience is these two characters wanting to be together but kept apart at every turn.  

 

I just can't become emotionally involved in a love story for 2 months. I can't become involved in any love story because I know it won't last the season. I watch soap operas to be swept up in grand romantic storylines that keep me watching day in and day out. Not little lust storylines that make me say "why am I watching this?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Didn't Downton Abbey stretch a storyline over several seasons?  The turkish guy who died in Mary's bed? That didn't get resolved until at least Season 2 but maybe Season 3? (It's been awhile.)  I think that shows that people today can handle a long and drawn out story, if it was presented to them. Of course, I think it helped that Downton was basically a soap. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I was going to mention Downton Abbey in an earlier post too!!!

Yes, they as well as a lot of BBC/PBS series are adept at sustaining long story arcs and they remain highly popular with a whole range of viewers, including young ones.

 

To me, it's all about intention on the part of the showrunners and writing staff. Do they have the will?  Because where there is a will, there's certainly a way.

I think the soap genre has convinced itself that they have to drop everything that came before (even those techniques that were tried and true and actually worked successfully) and take up the latest trend.  It's why I mentioned that today's remaining daytime soaps seem to be in something of an identity crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

@DramatistDreamer  I completely agree with you on everything you said. It's fascinating to me for several reasons. One, just because I love the soap genre so much (although I have abandoned all the new ones to watch the older ones I never saw thanks to the tireless efforts of the fans) and also because I am creating my own soap opera (for reading only, not to produce - I have no money - HA!) and am wondering/toying with how long of a slow burn story I can tell in this day and age.

 

The only current soap I've been watching is B&B - but I'm back in 2014, watching on the CBS app. It seems to move fairly slowly but I think that might be because I sometimes go months without watching the next episode. 

Please register in order to view this content

 

But I digress...for now, it's back to ATWT - Barbara is out of jail! Laura is snapping Paul's head off for saying bad things about Tom. (I'm assuming she's going to turn out to be just bat $h!t crazy.) And David is back from Zaire for a stint!  Always love it when David Stewart comes for a visit!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, its not like Downton spent a lot of time dwelling on the dead Turk. What they did (and what American soaps have almost completely given up on) was to play out the consequences for Mary. I think Edith exposed it at the end of "season" two. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I love Downton but its just as bad as the daytime soaps...characters and incidents rush by and disappear...they are a big deal and then they arent...take the goofy...totally ripped from soaps..."character comes back from the dead "  who not only had amnesia for awhile, but had a bandaged face and was heir to the fortune but might be a con artist..( I would think that I would know a friend or family member just by their voice but...) Or ..."We are about to loose Dowton...oh..someone dies offscreen so we don't!"

 

I love the show maybe because it took all the conventions and excess of soaps and pasted that over Masterpiece Theater...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah - I definitely enjoyed Downton because it was just a soap opera set in the past. Like Upstairs, Downstairs.  Although I enjoyed the original Upstairs, Downstairs far more than Downton. And I loved Downton!!  I've never cried so hard at a series ending as I did Upstairs, Downstairs though. My dog actually came over and pawed me out of concern.  

Please register in order to view this content

 

Edited to say:  As The World Turns comes in second. That was a lot of crying I did when I sat down and watched the final week of the show on that Friday night. (I was in grad school at the time and had to wait and watch on the weekends.) Even though I didn't love the show in its final 3-4 years, I thought it came around a bit at the end.  I bought the final 2 weeks from Soap Classics, and I believe that, when I watched it again, I cried just as hard the second time I viewed that ending. 

 

I'll never watch Upstairs, Downstairs' ending again - I won't put myself through that ever again.

Edited by adrnyc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I did - totally forgot that Claire Foy was in it! I am a fan of Alex Kingston,  and enjoyed the second series more than the first, I believe. But yes, I didn't enjoy it in any way as the original. I just go so involved in those original characters. It was unhealthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   1 member




  • Recent Posts

    • Sorry, just one more post on the Thorntons. How did Ruth and Edna feel about each other prior to Tad dating Dotty?
    • I can't remember exactly but I think it may be 1995 as Jake was trying to hide from a loan shark.
    • I also wonder if it was considered controversial at the time to show a morally corrupt doctor?(another character troupe for Agnes Nixon, the upstanding male citizen who is hiding secrets back at home) Up until the early 1970s, prime-time would very rarely tell stories about the private lives of doctors, because advertisers tended to shy away from such content. @robbwolff -- so is this wrong that Ruth dated David before marrying Joe?  Dr. David Thornton is a fictional character from the ABC daytime soap opera All My Children, portrayed by Paul Gleason from 1976 to 1978.  He was introduced as a respected physician in Pine Valley, presenting himself as a widower to his colleagues at the hospital. This facade, however, concealed a darker truth: his wife, Edna Thornton, was alive, and he was leading a double life. David’s character is defined by manipulation and secrecy, as he maintained a carefully curated public image while engaging in deceitful and criminal behavior in his personal life. His relationships were marked by control and betrayal, particularly in his marriage to Edna and his romantic entanglements with other women. David’s charm and professional status allowed him to navigate Pine Valley’s social circles, but his actions revealed a calculating and ruthless nature. Career David was a doctor at Pine Valley Hospital, where he was well-regarded by his peers for his medical expertise. His professional life provided him with a veneer of respectability, which he exploited to mask his personal misdeeds. However, his career was not a central focus of his storyline; instead, it served as a backdrop to his personal schemes. His position at the hospital gave him access to resources, such as the drug digitalis, which he later used in his attempt to murder his wife. David’s professional life unraveled as his criminal actions came to light, tarnishing his reputation in the medical community. Personal Relationships and Family David’s family and romantic relationships were fraught with tension and deception, shaping much of his narrative arc: Edna Thornton (Wife): David was married to Edna Thornton, with whom he had a daughter, Dottie. To his colleagues, he claimed Edna was deceased, allowing him to pursue other relationships without suspicion. In reality, David was plotting to kill Edna, motivated by his desire to be free of her and possibly to gain financial or personal freedom. He began poisoning her with digitalis, a heart medication, which caused her to experience heart pains. Edna was unaware of David’s true intentions until after his death, when the truth about his poisoning scheme was revealed. Dottie Thornton (Daughter): David and Edna’s daughter, Dottie Thornton, was a significant character in All My Children. Portrayed by Dawn Marie Boyle (1977–1980) and later Tasia Valenza (1982–1986), Dottie was raised primarily by Edna. David’s neglectful and manipulative behavior extended to his daughter, as he showed little genuine care for her well-being. Dottie’s life was impacted by her father’s actions, particularly after his death, when Edna became a wealthy widow. Dottie later married Thaddeus “Tad” Martin in 1985, though their marriage ended in divorce in 1986, and she suffered the loss of an unborn child with Tad. Ruth Parker (Fiancée, 1976): David was engaged to Ruth Parker in 1976, furthering his pattern of deceit since he was still married to Edna. His engagement to Ruth, who was also involved with Jeff Martin, highlighted David’s willingness to manipulate romantic partners for his own gain. The engagement did not lead to marriage, as David’s true intentions and double life began to surface. Christina “Chris” Karras (Lover, 1978): In 1978, David began a romantic relationship with Dr. Christina “Chris” Karras, a fellow physician. This affair added another layer of complexity to his web of lies, as Chris was unaware of his marriage to Edna and his poisoning scheme. After David’s death, Chris was initially accused of his murder due to their relationship and her access to medical resources. However, Jeff Martin’s investigation cleared her name by proving David’s death was caused by his own actions. Parents: David’s parents are unnamed in the source material, and both are noted as deceased. No further details are provided about their influence on his life or their role in his backstory. Death David Thornton’s death in 1978 was a dramatic and fitting conclusion to his villainous arc, brought about by his own treachery. Intent on killing Edna to escape their marriage, David had been secretly administering digitalis to her, causing her heart issues. In a twist of fate, their daughter, Dottie, innocently switched Edna’s drink with David’s during one of his poisoning attempts. Unaware that the drink was laced with a lethal dose of digitalis, David consumed it and suffered a fatal heart attack. His death was initially investigated as a possible murder, with Chris Karras as the prime suspect due to her relationship with David and her medical knowledge. However, Dr. Jeff Martin conducted a toxicology screen on David’s body, which revealed that the digitalis poisoning was the cause of both Edna’s heart pains and David’s death. This evidence exonerated Chris and exposed David’s plan to kill his wife, cementing his legacy as a tragic and self-destructive figure. Impact and Legacy David Thornton’s storyline, though relatively short-lived (1976–1978), was impactful due to its intensity and the ripple effects on other characters. His death left Edna a wealthy widow, altering her and Dottie’s circumstances and setting the stage for further drama, including Edna’s manipulation by conman Ray Gardner. David’s actions also strained relationships among other Pine Valley residents, particularly through his engagement to Ruth Parker and affair with Chris Karras, which intersected with Jeff Martin’s storyline. His character exemplified the classic soap opera archetype of a charming yet duplicitous villain whose downfall is precipitated by his own hubris. Additional Notes Portrayal: Paul Gleason’s performance as David Thornton brought a compelling intensity to the role, making the character memorable despite his brief tenure. Gleason’s ability to portray both charm and menace suited David’s dual nature as a respected doctor and a scheming husband. Storyline Context: David’s arc occurred during the early years of All My Children, a period when the show focused on intricate personal dramas and moral dilemmas. His poisoning plot and double life were emblematic of the show’s penchant for high-stakes interpersonal conflict. Lack of Additional Family Details: Beyond Edna and Dottie, no other family members (such as siblings or extended relatives) are mentioned in the source material, limiting the scope of his familial connections. Conclusion Dr. David Thornton was a multifaceted antagonist in All My Children, whose life was marked by professional success, personal deception, and a fatal miscalculation. As a doctor, he wielded authority and respect, but his secret plan to murder his wife, Edna, revealed a cold and calculating core. His relationships with Edna, Dottie, Ruth Parker, and Chris Karras were defined by manipulation, and his death by accidental self-poisoning was a poetic end to his schemes. David’s legacy in Pine Valley lived on through Edna’s newfound wealth and Dottie’s subsequent storylines, making him a pivotal figure in the show’s early narrative. His story remains a classic example of soap opera drama, blending betrayal, tragedy, and retribution.
    • The only blonde I see is one of the actual women staring at first & then screaming & running later.  DAYS: Vivian's manservant Ivan is in a long curly red wig. 

      Please register in order to view this content

      Y&R: long straight black wig is the actor Peter Barton whose character name I am blanking on.   
    • I very much liked office Cleary and the actress who portrayed her (as you say, Mary Peterson).  A shame her turn didn't evolve into a contract role.   BTW, does anyone know the timeframe/years that Betty Rae served as casting director?  If i understand correctly, she not only led the effort for contract roles, but also for shorter 13- and 26-week roles.  IMO, GL had LOTS of very well-casted, limited roles, too. I'm surprised the actors throughout the soap industry, and especially P&G actors, have not assembled a book or something similar, praising Rae.  Each actor could write a few paragraphs or a page of text describing his or her experience.
    • No. Ruth had an extramarital affair with David while married to Joe.
    • I'm not sure I agree with Bernstein's children on that. Bernstein's life and activism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Bernstein#Social_activism_and_humanitarian_efforts
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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