Members SFK Posted March 6, 2011 Members Share Posted March 6, 2011 And it just reinforces that priorities are in the right places. A bunch of pretty people on American soaps seems less about titillating as much as distracting these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted March 6, 2011 Members Share Posted March 6, 2011 There's no "main" reason. There are tons of reasons, and those are two of two of them. The UK soaps also have the extreme benefit of have being primetime shows for their entire runs (except for Emmerdale, which was originally daytime), which, IMO, puts them in an entirely different situation from the US soaps. They're much more visible, and TPTB are held accountable for the shows much more than in the US. EastEnders is considered its network's flagship program, it's expected to carry BBC1 primetime four nights a week. The network head probably knows exactly what's going on with EastEnders, how it's measuring up in the ratings, and what the general audience reaction is. The pressure is on for the show to do well. In the US, All My Children is on in a time slot that is steadily losing viewers no matter what's airing there (unless it's news). The network is probably as ignorant as can be about what's going on with the show, what it's ratings are, and what it takes to improve the program. I'm positive the general consensus at ABC is less "How can we improve these shows and keep them around?" and more "How long can we keep them before we have to let them go?" It ties into the expectation theory. I think a lot of the fundamental differences in the two countries' soaps are historical, too. I mean...UK soaps have never expected us to believe a ten-year-old turning into a twenty-year-old over the summer, and when UK soap characters die, they usually stay dead, and outside is really outside, etc. Not that UK soaps are inherently better (except for the SORAS thing...that sh!t's inexcusable), but just like we all agree that US daytime soaps need to stop trying to copy US primetime shows, I don't think the answer is trying to copy UK primetime soaps either. It depends. Honestly, when it all boils down, my thing is this: everyone at show level (cast, crew, maybe the network's daytime chief) can do their best job and turn out a truly great show; we'll tune in and enjoy it and love it and make thousand-page daily discussion threads about it, but most people who aren't deeply invested in the soap industry probably will not care or even know about it because A, it's a soap (and ALL soaps [even Marland's ATWT, even Lemary's AW, Agnes's AMC, etc] are lame and cheesy!!), and B, it and 98% of its promos are only seen between the hours of 12pm and 3pm; the network higher-ups (Anne, Les, all them) have low expectations for soaps, regardless of their quality, and soaps are far from being a top priority, so as their ratings decrease more and more, the main objective is finding suitable replacements for the shows, not trying to work on the shows themselves. The ONLY positive that'll come out of a "perfect soap" today is that we'll all have something to finally enjoy once and for all. Tons of truly good shows are canceled, and that "perfect soap" would end being one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted March 6, 2011 Members Share Posted March 6, 2011 We can't do anything about how the British soaps and their timeslot responsibilities developed versus ours. It is what it is now. What could be changed is the way the networks treat their daypart, but that isn't going to happen under these regimes. The point is, it could change. Soaps need not be doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted March 6, 2011 Members Share Posted March 6, 2011 The chicks on Teen Mom are usually FAR from Hollywood pretty, and none of the baby-daddies are Mark Lawson-esque, and young people flock to it because it's engrossing family drama. Soaps used to be engrossing family drama, but they're not anymore, and there ya go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted March 6, 2011 Members Share Posted March 6, 2011 I don't think anyone suggested we copy UK primetime soaps. The point was that these shows have been continuing for decades, with some of the same characters still there after fifty years, and viewers haven't lost interest just because of various Simon Cowell shows, or Big Brother, or Katie Price, or Peaches Geldof, etc. When people are given a reason to care about a soap, they will care. The press for the show invites us to sneer at the lessers - which also seems to be the point of Jersey Shore and recent years of Real World. There's always an audience for that. What moron is going to punch out another moron tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted March 6, 2011 Members Share Posted March 6, 2011 I think the UK soaps could easily coast on their asses too and live off their past reputations. Yet, when things go bad and stay bad for a good period of time, a change at the top is almost always made. The change in regimes may not always work out, but those shows at least try to address their creative problems, even if they aren't always successful. As opposed to US daytime soaps, when things go wrong and stay wrong, no one is ever held accountable and things just usually stay as they are these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted March 6, 2011 Members Share Posted March 6, 2011 That's true. About ten years ago the networks and sponsors started giving up on fixing any soaps. They want the genre to die. And they know that the media will go right along, blaming anyone but the real culprit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GroovyTracyQ Posted March 6, 2011 Members Share Posted March 6, 2011 When I say that network soaps need to go, I'm talking about the network's version of soaps. I have no doub that the soaps themselves could easily be salvaged. They could be turned around in a matter of weeks. How soon viewers would return, or new viewers attracted, is another question. But who is going to step in at this late date? I wish someone would . . . Speaking of British soaps, Downton Abbey is magnificent. I was more invested in characters after a matter of weeks than I am about the majority of GH's and OLTL's characters whom I've "known" for decades. Doesn't have to be that way. The irony is that they massacred a genre that continues to be emulated elsewhere with great success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted March 6, 2011 Members Share Posted March 6, 2011 It could change, but who's going to change it? We know the PTB at the show level don't have that power. Frons doesn't have that kind of power, I'm sure. The people who do have that power have little to no interest in saving soaps. I don't think anyone in charge of anything has the best interests of the soaps in mind. The show-level and daytime-level people have their own personal well-beings to think about, which is not wrong, and the network-level people are primarily interested in primetime, news, and sports. Soaps are allowed to fall by the wayside until they've just plain fallen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted March 6, 2011 Members Share Posted March 6, 2011 Right, and now that I've read it over a bit, I think I misunderstood Vee just a little. Not really. MTV generally has two sets of reality shows, and Teen Mom (along with I Used to Be Fat, If You Really Knew Me, True Life, some others) falls into the more serious category of shows that really try to examine issues without making a total mockery out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted March 6, 2011 Members Share Posted March 6, 2011 Going on Jeff Probst's pearls of wisdom about celebrity, most of the press I see for Teen Mom is looking down on the participants, going on about the mother's abuse of her boyfriend, are the kids being taken away, etc. The show may be well meaning but I think the press spins it as gawking at the losers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted March 6, 2011 Members Share Posted March 6, 2011 IDK...I can honestly say that most conversation I see about the show on Facebook and actual conversation on campus isn't like that at all. It's not set up to be a trainwreck, and I can't imagine how the media would be able to twist it that way. Amber was a hotbed of negative publicity but the general consensus in everything I've read was that she needs some serious psychological counseling if she's ever going to be stable enough to have a relationship with her daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted March 6, 2011 Members Share Posted March 6, 2011 I also find it kind of amusing that Jeff talks about the audience is the programmer when he and Mark Burnett have spent the last few years trying to con the Survivor audience and editing the show into what fits their own personal ideal (showboating camera hog men and mute women). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kylie Posted March 6, 2011 Members Share Posted March 6, 2011 Jeff Probst...the dude who hosts Survivor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricMontreal22 Posted March 6, 2011 Members Share Posted March 6, 2011 No, check my magazine subscriptions This is why I feel so out of the loop though. I'd ALWAYS rather watch well written (hell even mediocre quality writing) fiction than "reality" stuff or follow the news and celeb gossip. It might keep me interested for a day or two but ultimately I feel bored, or feel exploitive, or just get annoyed with the format most of these celebrity gossip shows AND reality shows are presented in (you know, telling us every five minutes what's coming up, to only get a 30 second piece on that story, having the same information repeated before and after commercial as if we had forgotten it in the last 2 minutes, etc). I don't feel liek the audience is remotely the programmer. Did anyone even KNOW who the Kardashians were until they and some producer decided to go all out to try to become the first family of reality? Hell, I still have next to no idea who they are, but none of them are remotely as interesting as the better soap opera characters from back in the day that I can think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.