Members SFK Posted March 5, 2011 Members Share Posted March 5, 2011 AMS, you don't think a wonderfully written soap regardless of production values could be successful in this day and age? I think it could be among soap fans at the very least, of course, the idea of outreach and gaining a larger audience seems to be the tricky part. I don't know how Degrassi is doing in the ratings right now or how well the novella arcs went over, but I'd be very curious to see how that show would do on FOX/CW/MyNetwork at 3 or 4pm. Degrassi has something Tribes and Swans Crossing never had and as much as I hate "teen storylines" on soaps, Degrassi has got the right idea as far as that's concerned. I'll go out on a pretty confident limb and say that the show is still extremely popular and it's as soap as you can get without flat out calling itself one (especially when they did the novella format as I mentioned). The adult storylines are usually pure cheese, but I seriously think there's a lot to be learned from a show like Degrassi, a soap that is still doing extremely well and bullseyed at a coveted demo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted March 5, 2011 Members Share Posted March 5, 2011 I totally agree. They aren't daytime, but in the UK, their soaps have run for all the way up to 50 years, and counting, and the UK is even more Zelebrity-obsessed than we are and helped import the Bonnie Fuller mindset to us. That's because, even if the British soaps aren't exactly perfect, the networks still care about making them work and trying to genuinely make a connection with viewers. American daytime soaps are ashamed of their fans and they are constantly trying to be what they aren't. In reality terms, it's similar to what happened when American Idol or So You Think You Can Dance tried to put on airs. Viewers checked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GroovyTracyQ Posted March 5, 2011 Members Share Posted March 5, 2011 Perfectly stated. Perfectly true. It's unlikely that a network soap will survive beyond this decade, but serial storytelling will die the day the human race is extinguished. Too bad someone didn't step in years earlier who understood and was in a position to act on everything you just stated, Vee. There was still time; now, it's only a matter of time. It gives new meaning to serial killers. Years from now, no doubt the claims will persist that it all started with OJ. Or cable. Or women working outside the home. (The horror!) They took a compelling product and homogenized it. They disregarded the value of long time viewers and their investment in stories and characters. They blamed the decline in viewership on the genre itself and broke something that never needed to be fixed. Someday, someone out there may resurrect soaps in all their glory. Beyond the financial investment, it really isn't that difficult because serial storytelling is so fundamental. But it is what it is, and today's network soaps really do need to be put out of their misery. But that's true for most of network television...not just soaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RomeAt50 Posted March 5, 2011 Members Share Posted March 5, 2011 I never bought the argument that celebrity obsession and the related phenomenon of reality tv are the main reasons for the decline of soaps. Soaps were declining before those things became as huge as they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted March 5, 2011 Members Share Posted March 5, 2011 And Carl is right about the British soaps. Those are a proud institution and have been sustained for many, many, many years with the same core principles and components as our soaps, only their soaps have far more diverse canvases, far better writing, and a willingness to risk and branch out. They're also willing to show real people and the underclass. The European soaps put the lie to the idea that soap opera is a dead art form. I don't agree that our network soaps need to go. All they need to do is be allowed to be what they're supposed to be, kept up by people who actually care. Even shows which are horribly damaged, like AMC, Days or Y&R, can be salvaged given time and care. It may be too late now to stop a network decision or the rot that's set in numbers-wise, but that's assuming the networks ever scrape together enough viable programming alternatives. And in the meantime these soaps can and should be looking for other revenue streams and vehicles for exhibition. They can survive. They may not, but they certainly could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SFK Posted March 5, 2011 Members Share Posted March 5, 2011 And very "real" looking people. And good actors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted March 5, 2011 Members Share Posted March 5, 2011 Exactly. Still, I'd much rather watch soap opera (good soap opera, anyway), b/c the other junk is so poorly edited and presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members quartermainefan Posted March 5, 2011 Members Share Posted March 5, 2011 I really think this is the biggest point networks can't or are unwilling to address. Eastenders never played in the afternoon and is still popular to this day. It just stands to reason that as the decades go by and more and more women entered the workforce, the audience for afternoon shows would take a hit. As for Jeff Probst, he has a point there. If you go back to the Aretha thread where Aretha is talking to Wendy Williams, they are discussing the latest goings on on The Apprentice, where perhaps 30 years ago they might have been discussing Erica Kane. And you take the Charlie Sheen drama, and imagine what would be if Charlie Sheen was conducting a live press conference on CNN opposite soaps, and we all know where the juicier and more compelling drama would be. I don't agree that soaps work M-F daytime anymore. That's like saying Borders works because books have been around for centuries, ignore their bankruptcy. Newspapers have worked since Benjamin Franklin, and yet they are dying. Things change. The networks refuse to change the model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted March 5, 2011 Members Share Posted March 5, 2011 I think if some of the most inane talk or game shows on the air can run five days a week, soaps can still work Monday through Friday. There is an innate intimacy and connection to that kind of daily output from a fictional world, a town and a family that can't be replicated by another product and that is why soaps have lasted so long. Nothing else on television creates that kind of rapport. Children especially, I think, are comforted by growing up with these people. Whether you put them on at 1 in the afternoon or in the early evening or evening like in the UK or on the Internet, I think that kind of constant input - mimicking the flow of real life - is essential to soap opera. It's why the British soaps are still on, what, at least 3 days a week. I'd go for at least that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted March 5, 2011 Members Share Posted March 5, 2011 I'll go for anything that's character-driven and smart. Regardless of how many days per week it airs, or what time it airs, or even crappy the production values are. Just give me good writing and good acting, and I'll be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted March 5, 2011 Members Share Posted March 5, 2011 The problem is burnout. Charlie Sheen already ran through his jokes after less than a week. The mediocre ratings for his big ABC interview suggest celebrity isn't as powerful as it's supposed to be. In some ways I think our culture is more suited for Monday - Friday drama than ever, but with proper pacing and something that will make people talk without just causing them to yawn because they've seen it all before and they know it's going nowhere. I think that the networks should try to introduce a few 15 minute shows, and see what reaction they might get. Yes - some of them, like Emmerdale, have 6 episodes a week. I really think that the public has more patience than they are ever given credit for. And the networks constantly putting on repeats shows they don't believe the attention span is that low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ~bl~ Posted March 5, 2011 Members Share Posted March 5, 2011 Shut Up, Probst! That's the first thing that came to mind as he can't even spell daytime correctly. Why on earth does he have a hyphen in it? Truth be told there are a lot of reasons, and someone blaming celebrity is the equivalent of someone blaming Mr. Simpson, in my book. Any typos are accidents as I didn't run a spell check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members quartermainefan Posted March 5, 2011 Members Share Posted March 5, 2011 But we see what happened to the game show industry as well. Back when there were 200 soaps on the air, there were also 400 game shows. And they are almost all gone. How many decades did Password run, or Name That Tune or whatever? Wheel Of Fortune and Jeopardy started life as daytime game shows and created night time syndicated spin-offs. The mother ships got canceled, and all that is left are the nighttime versions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted March 5, 2011 Members Share Posted March 5, 2011 I'm not terribly familiar with game show history. I do know that it seems like they've been gone from daytime much longer. I don't really gauge them the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted March 5, 2011 Members Share Posted March 5, 2011 Yes, this. One of the things I love about foreign films is the fact that the actors don't look like famine victims and blow up dolls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.