9 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Although there is at least some evidence of the networks meddling in the affairs of, then, soap writers! 

That's a good point. I suppose that while I do find it completely inappropriate to intervene based on some kind of morality, I'd still prefer it to what we got later on, which was just constant poking and prodding and wanting puppets in charge.

22 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

That's a good point. I suppose that while I do find it completely inappropriate to intervene based on some kind of morality, I'd still prefer it to what we got later on, which was just constant poking and prodding and wanting puppets in charge.

Well, meddling became micromanaging! The more power shifted away from the creators having first the level of an auteur to things being decided by committee, the more the business side looked at soaps the way they looked at products. What they needed was to be looked at as pieces of art by creative types. 

25 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Logically I know that nothing was probably going to keep the soaps on the air, and it was a miracle most of them lasted as long as they did, but I'll still always wonder if ATWT (as it's the topic, sorry to go off course) and others might still be here if they had been run with any level of care by greedy, soulless networks who never understood that the time the genre made them the most money was when they had the least involvement in the product.

Oh, yes, if intelligent, perceptive and knowledgeable PTB had been in charge a few decades ago, and had worked effectively to stop the hemorrhaging of daytime dramas, old warhorses like ATWT (which still had a viable, but misused, foundation upon its cancellation) might very well have survived and potentially even thrived.

Unfortunately, the money-hungry and oppresive, micro-managing suits just continued to drive the shows into the ground.

25 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I'm glad some soaps are still on and I hope there will always be soaps on but it's always a tough moment to remember that something made in 1950 through a radio so often feels more relevant to today than soap product made in 2024.

You can listen to vintage radio soaps and watch older television episodes from the 1950s, and quickly become immersed in the drama because it was predicated on identifiable human emotions; experiences the audience often shared and could identify with. It's telling to me that in 2024, so many viewers are caught up in the Hortons losing their house, the family's Christmas ornaments being at risk, and Doug's impending death. Nobody expresses this much emotional involvement in brain implants and uber villains threatening to kidnap the central heroine for the 17th time.

The viewers want the timeless basics of the genre. They're not getting them. The soaps are dwindling away. And after decades, TIIC still don't get it.

9 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

Oh, yes, if intelligent, perceptive and knowledgeable PTB had been in charge a few decades ago, and had worked effectively to stop the hemorrhaging of daytime dramas, old warhorses like ATWT (which still had a viable, but misused, foundation upon its cancellation) might very well have survived and potentially even thrived.

Unfortunately, the money-hungry and oppresive, micro-managing suits just continued to drive the shows into the ground.

You can listen to vintage radio soaps and watch older television episodes from the 1950s, and quickly become immersed in the drama because it was predicated on identifiable human emotions; experiences the audience often shared and could identify with. It's telling to me that in 2024, so many viewers are caught up in the Hortons losing their house, the family's Christmas ornaments being at risk, and Doug's impending death. Nobody expresses this much emotional involvement in brain implants and uber villains threatening to kidnap the central heroine for the 17th time.

The viewers want the timeless basics of the genre. They're not getting them. The soaps are dwindling away. And after decades, TIIC still don't get it.

It seems to me, based what's going on with the remaining television soap operas, that the shows have completely given up on attracting the youth demographic.  It seems they are seeking ratings in general without pursuing a particular age group. If they had made this decision 20 years ago, there might be several more soaps still on the networks.   Does does anyone else agree?  

1 hour ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

It seems to me, based what's going on with the remaining television soap operas, that the shows have completely given up on attracting the youth demographic.  It seems they are seeking ratings in general without pursuing a particular age group. If they had made this decision 20 years ago, there might be several more soaps still on the networks.   Does does anyone else agree?  

I do. I think that when the ad agencies sold their bill of goods that one demo was better than others, which I continue to believe was a crock, then the artificiality of the situation was not good for anyone. 

16 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

I've always heard they were gawd-awful at Falcon Crest, and crippled that show instantly when they took over the head writing reigns.

I don't hold what happened at FC under their watch against them, as I think FC had problems even in its' peak years.

15 hours ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

I also disliked a lot of what Sheffer wrote for Barbara.  He took her too far off the deep end, almost to the point of being unredeemable.

ICAM!

15 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Recently someone was talking about writing for Sheffer & winning the Emmy as part of the ATWT team & how joyful that experience was. And she said that since he came from outside soaps he didn't know what he couldn't do so he did a lot of things that no one else would have. 

I think of his solution for having 3 lead actresses all pregnant at the same time. Held them hostage in a spa & they were enveloped in enormous fluffy white terry robes! I sorta thought it was brilliant. 

Another friend was a writer on that team & whenever he speaks about "Hogie" it is with the same kind of joy, admiration, etc. One thing we do know is that he ran a Happy Writers' Room & took care of his people.

 

Am I just dense? What kinds of story points did Sheffer do that "no one else would have"? Deal with two actresses pregnant at the same time? Puhleeze? (I wish people would remember, Sheffer didn't send Byrne to the Spa story because she was pregnant. She ended up getting pregnant and gave birth in September of 2002. In fairness, even Byrne seems to have forgotten this. Unless Sheffer had ESP, he sure as hell didn't know when he planned The Spa out Byrne was gonna get knocked up.)

Otherwise, he ripped off movie plots (as soaps had done before; sigh, I didn't know until much later that GL ripped off major points of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof in the '80s with Reva/Lewises) and recycled himself. His writers seemed to like him. But reinvent soap opera he didn't.

9 minutes ago, P.J. said:

 

Am I just dense? What kinds of story points did Sheffer do that "no one else would have"? Deal with two actresses pregnant at the same time? Puhleeze? (I wish people would remember, Sheffer didn't send Byrne to the Spa story because she was pregnant. She ended up getting pregnant and gave birth in September of 2002. In fairness, even Byrne seems to have forgotten this. Unless Sheffer had ESP, he sure as hell didn't know when he planned The Spa out Byrne was gonna get knocked up.)

Otherwise, he ripped off movie plots (as soaps had done before; sigh, I didn't know until much later that GL ripped off major points of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof in the '80s with Reva/Lewises) and recycled himself. His writers seemed to like him. But reinvent soap opera he didn't.

Don't misunderstand. I didn't say he reinvented soaps, nor would I ever. Also the writer I mentioned clearly did not say that. Forever & a day it has been pointed out that there are a finite number of stories & only the details are different. In her bio Agnes Nixon said that Shakespeare said there are only 10 stories, etc. I have heard 6 stories, 7, 8, 9, now 10. (I don't believe Shakespeare said anything even like that.) The point is not that writers steal, the point is what is good enough to steal. There were things about Sheffer that I liked, also things I did not. I frankly think that was clear from my whole post. And I didn't *just* learn this about stealing. I've known it at least since the 60s. 

People one might list in terms of inventing & re-inventing soaps would be Irna Phillips, Pete Lemay, Agnes Nixon, maybe Bill Bell & also maybe Michael Malone. Definitely Dan Curtis & gotta say both Gloria Monty & Jim Reilly, the latter two yielding both positives & negatives. 

1 hour ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Don't misunderstand. 

I'm sorry---I didn't mean to single you out. It just happened that I quoted your post. It's an open question for the board. I'm not sure what gets Hogan credit as doing anything different in terms of story. He egregiously retooled beloved characters to fit his stories, and after the first year, he pretty much recycled his own scripts. I will say, that ATWT under Goutman did some nice stand alone episodes (which at the time I hated, but have grown to appreciate, especially after watching GH's trainwrecks). But that's Goutman, not Sheffer.

I guess I just credit Carolyn Culliton with Hogan's first year that felt fresh and revitalizing (although I now wonder how much of that was just spin from the soap press) and see the flaws in years 2-5 that signalled epic burnout.

Edited February 25, 20241 yr by P.J.

10 minutes ago, P.J. said:

I'm sorry---I didn't mean to single you out. It just happened that I quoted your post. It's an open question for the board. I'm not sure what gets Hogan credit as doing anything different in terms of story. He egregiously retooled beloved characters to fit his stories, and after the first year, he pretty much recycled his own scripts. I will say, that ATWT under Goutman did some nice stand alone episodes (which at the time I hated, but have grown to appreciate, especially after watching GH's trainwrecks). But that's Goutman, not Sheffer.

I guess I just credit Carolyn Culliton with Hogan's first year that felt fresh and revitalizing (although I now wonder how much of that was just spin from the soap press) and see the flaws in years 2-5 that signalled epic burnout.

No problem. And, I absolutely fracking adore Carolyn Culliton & on occasion she will post with me on UglyX, which is great fun. I was very concerned when in his first big interview he declared that none of the men had their dicks & he planned to give all of the men their dicks back. I mean, WHOA. 

7 hours ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

It seems to me, based what's going on with the remaining television soap operas, that the shows have completely given up on attracting the youth demographic.  It seems they are seeking ratings in general without pursuing a particular age group. If they had made this decision 20 years ago, there might be several more soaps still on the networks.   Does does anyone else agree?  

This is an honest question and NOT in any way meant to come across as snarky.

What are the remaining soaps doing these days that indicate they are working towards improving their general ratings?

From my (admittedly limited) interest in today's soaps, I only see them making the same old mistakes over and over again.

And also, do you think that the way TPTB are handling the surviving soaps will do any good and actually help the anemic ratings increase?

Again, no snark intended.

4 hours ago, Khan said:

I don't hold what happened at FC under their watch against them, as I think FC had problems even in its' peak years.

But things can always...get worse, LOL!

Seriously, from my personal experience viewing their ATWT material, I do not believe they were the worst-of-the-worst soap scribes. Not great by any means, but soap fans have endured weaker and more destructive head writers, IMHO.

 

50 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

Seriously, from my personal experience viewing their ATWT material, I do not believe they were the worst-of-the-worst soap scribes. Not great by any means, but soap fans have endured weaker and more destructive head writers, IMHO.

I agree.  Even back then, as it was happening, I didn't like what Stephen Black and Henry Stern were writing for ATWT, but at the same time, I didn't think they were so destructive that the show was being damaged irreparably.  Especially when I compared it to what JER was doing with DAYS, or Megan McTavish with AMC and GL.

10 minutes ago, Khan said:

I agree.  Even back then, as it was happening, I didn't like what Stephen Black and Henry Stern were writing for ATWT, but at the same time, I didn't think they were so destructive that the show was being damaged irreparably.  Especially when I compared it to what JER was doing with DAYS, or Megan McTavish with AMC and GL.

I think what upset me at the time was, beyond how cheap and crass the show started to feel (like infamously having a lengthy sex scene between Mark and Connor in the show's 40th anniversary episode), I missed the history and tradition, the returns of former characters, etc. Choices like dumping Ellen upset me a great deal. With hindsight, I know that wasn't their fault and the show was going to be yanked in that direction no matter what, even if it still doesn't make me see their era as much better in quality (if I tried to do a full rewatch I might have a more positive opinion, as they did at least give story to the vets, and while it was somewhat criticized at the time, I think they wrapped up Mac's Alzheimer's story decently enough, especially compared to how many soaps handle this topic).

9 hours ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

It seems to me, based what's going on with the remaining television soap operas, that the shows have completely given up on attracting the youth demographic.  It seems they are seeking ratings in general without pursuing a particular age group. If they had made this decision 20 years ago, there might be several more soaps still on the networks.   Does does anyone else agree?  

 

8 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

I do. I think that when the ad agencies sold their bill of goods that one demo was better than others, which I continue to believe was a crock, then the artificiality of the situation was not good for anyone. 

 

1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

This is an honest question and NOT in any way meant to come across as snarky.

What are the remaining soaps doing these days that indicate they are working towards improving their general ratings?

From my (admittedly limited) interest in today's soaps, I only see them making the same old mistakes over and over again.

And also, do you think that the way TPTB are handling the surviving soaps will do any good and actually help the anemic ratings increase?

Again, no snark intended.

There was something I noticed when I tuned back into GH after many years for Jackie Zeman's send-off last month.  This is a slight exaggeration and certainly not scientific at all, but it seemed to me like there are more Gen X breakout soap stars of their day featured prominently on that one show than there were Baby Boomers on the frontburner across all the soaps in the late '90s/early '00s, who would have been around the same age then.  To say nothing of even older cast members.  It seems like those actors are there now because someone thinks they'll appeal to lapsed soap viewers, even if those viewers are older now.

Of course, many of those middle-aged+ performers who are now getting work on GH made their names on shows that are off the air (like Maura West, to bring it back to ATWT) and/or in stories that were mostly lackluster to begin with.  And whether they're being well utilized is even further off-topic, so I'll just leave it there on that note.  It's just sad this couldn't have happened when there were still ~ 10 soaps with 40+ and 50+ year-old veterans who had rich histories that could still be mined - ATWT chief among them, of course.

That said, I don't know if the all-powerful demographic has actually been debunked or if networks have given up on the idea of 18-34 year–olds watching a soap, or perhaps any other network TV in the daytime.  Still, knowing what I know now, a part of me wishes TPTB had decided in 1990-something that soaps were on borrowed time and let them keep doing their thing for as long as it continued to make sense to keep them on the air.

14 minutes ago, DeliaIrisFan said:

 

 

There was something I noticed when I tuned back into GH after many years for Jackie Zeman's send-off last month.  This is a slight exaggeration and certainly not scientific at all, but it seemed to me like there are more Gen X breakout soap stars of their day featured prominently on that one show than there were Baby Boomers on the frontburner across all the soaps in the late '90s/early '00s, who would have been around the same age then.  To say nothing of even older cast members.  It seems like those actors are there now because someone thinks they'll appeal to lapsed soap viewers, even if those viewers are older now.

Of course, many of those middle-aged+ performers who are now getting work on GH made their names on shows that are off the air (like Maura West, to bring it back to ATWT) and/or in stories that were mostly lackluster to begin with.  And whether they're being well utilized is even further off-topic, so I'll just leave it there on that note.  It's just sad this couldn't have happened when there were still ~ 10 soaps with 40+ and 50+ year-old veterans who had rich histories that could still be mined - ATWT chief among them, of course.

That said, I don't know if the all-powerful demographic has actually been debunked or if networks have given up on the idea of 18-34 year–olds watching a soap, or perhaps any other network TV in the daytime.  Still, knowing what I know now, a part of me wishes TPTB had decided in 1990-something that soaps were on borrowed time and let them keep doing their thing for as long as it continued to make sense to keep them on the air.

What you're talking about at GH is because of Frank, although I guess it started with Riche/Labine. 

There is a TV Guide mag article (April 2014) that Michael Logan did with Geary, Shriner & Jane Elliot that you would enjoy & get a lot out of. It's online & you should be able to find it. If you can't PM me & I'll get it for you. 

They talk about Frank & Ron saving the show & they talk about what people usually want to do with their vets contrasted with Frank & the vets.