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.

Though they did morph into something else. Survivor is a game show. Cable has a LOT of often especially tacky game shows--MTV used to seem to make them their priority until recently. Etc

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.

Although nearly all my British friends seem to think the 6 episode model has been too much. Watching British shows though IMHO is so different than American ones, it's ahrd to directly compare. People complain about American soaps have short scenes nowadays--that (except for a few key scenes every so often) is exactly what UK soaps are. They're brief little daily peaks into several parts of life for these characters.

But I do agree with your point above, though sometimes I feel I'm in the minority. After the first one or two days I don't feel like anything I hear in the Charlie drama is new or different than what I heard the day before. It's all the same, trying to be spun as something shocking and new.

I feel like shows like Jersey Shores, the Hills, Real Housewives, Kardahsinas doing whatever, all fit into this comfort food tv slot even more than soaps ever did. For all the big fights, shocks, etc, they and some of their fans claim they have, they thrive on the status quo and feeind audiences exactly what audiences expect, far more than ANY soap opera ever has.

Carl, you are again spinning things to suit your views.

I think it is true that CELEBRITY is completely different now than it ever was. Celebs would have never been willing to go to the extremes of a reality show back in the 50s--even the 70s when that PBS reality show about the family was seen as crossing the line by so many. Similarly the mainstream press would have never said the things about celebrities that they do now--sure some of the gossip sheets WOULD, but first of all cuz of law suits they always used code (the code for closeted gay celebs being particularly hilarious--although that's one taboo with celebs that still is largely the same) and were never mass circulated.

I don't really think it's some mystical, inexplicable thing. You have Coca-Cola and other junk which people will drink and eat until the world ends, but then you have products in which people just loose interest. Soaps have have always been a niche product, but now so much so that they look pathetic and ridiculous.

Even coke has had to change to remain relevent.

And it's undeniable that the needs filled by soaps have started to be filled in other ways. I don't get the Housewives type of reality programming, but I suspect the appeal is largely people get attached to the characters (when I ehar people talking about them it's always about who they like, who they hate, etc) and like to see them on tv evolve (or not) regularly. It's been mentioned how now most primetime programming--reality and non--has some element of serialization, and while to say that's taken away the appeal of soaps is exageration, I do think it's a factor.

Edited March 6, 201114 yr by EricMontreal22

Probst should worry about his own show. Survivor is a dying show on it's last legs.

Probst should worry about his own show. Survivor is a dying show on it's last legs.

It's been dead for a long time.

I know Survivor is still top 20 (right?) but it certainly now feels like a cult show to me. I know people who watch EVERY Survivor obsessively, but it's not remotely like when it started and everyone talked about it.

I know Survivor is still top 20 (right?) but it certainly now feels like a cult show to me. I know people who watch EVERY Survivor obsessively, but it's not remotely like when it started and everyone talked about it.

It's now drawing in an average of a 6.5 rating on Wednesday nights. I don't think it ranks in the top 20 anymore.

I've been a die hard fan. It's all for gimmicks now (Russell Hantz, Hidden Idols). It's like a complete different show. This new season is pretty good but I've maybe liked 3 seasons in the past 4-5 years.

Although nearly all my British friends seem to think the 6 episode model has been too much. Watching British shows though IMHO is so different than American ones, it's ahrd to directly compare. People complain about American soaps have short scenes nowadays--that (except for a few key scenes every so often) is exactly what UK soaps are. They're brief little daily peaks into several parts of life for these characters.

But I do agree with your point above, though sometimes I feel I'm in the minority. After the first one or two days I don't feel like anything I hear in the Charlie drama is new or different than what I heard the day before. It's all the same, trying to be spun as something shocking and new.

I feel like shows like Jersey Shores, the Hills, Real Housewives, Kardahsinas doing whatever, all fit into this comfort food tv slot even more than soaps ever did. For all the big fights, shocks, etc, they and some of their fans claim they have, they thrive on the status quo and feeind audiences exactly what audiences expect, far more than ANY soap opera ever has.

People always say there are too many soap episodes but the ratings for the show haven't declined based on episode number - ITV knows that anything else they put in that timeslot will do worse.

I agree with you about reality shows as comfort food. Or at least the most recent ones. They get a lot of coverage short-term but in some ways are also niche shows and the people in them still have to constantly pull stunts to try to move out of niche territory. They are short-lived (usually 2-3 years or less) and then it's time for something else.

In some ways "reality" and "celebrity" have actually trailed off from where they were a few years ago, when you had ABC or NBC junking all kinds of programs and hoping that a dozen reality shows or Jay Leno in primetime would be enough.

I think it is true that CELEBRITY is completely different now than it ever was. Celebs would have never been willing to go to the extremes of a reality show back in the 50s--even the 70s when that PBS reality show about the family was seen as crossing the line by so many. Similarly the mainstream press would have never said the things about celebrities that they do now--sure some of the gossip sheets WOULD, but first of all cuz of law suits they always used code (the code for closeted gay celebs being particularly hilarious--although that's one taboo with celebs that still is largely the same) and were never mass circulated.

Yes but most celebrities still don't do reality shows. It's more about people who are on their last legs or have little to lose. Many of the people on reality shows are nobodies who become somebody for a few minutes - it's not that different from Arthur Godfrey's acts getting publicity during his heyday.

I think the mainstream press and the gossip rags have merged, but that's mostly in puff pieces, not in negative coverage. I also think the gossip magazines have been toned down significantly compared to what they used to be. When I look back at some of those from the 70s I am surprised at times at just how nasty they can be - there's one which openly and almost gleefully trashes Kate Mulgrew for giving up her baby for adoption because she certainly wanted her career and having a husband and child just wasn't good enough for her. No gossip magazine would say that now, at least not in those terms. These days most of that type of thing is devoted to the "out of control" celebrities with pseudo-detached reporting on their latest breakdowns, or on writeups of which Bachelor bimbo said she wants to marry for money.

Edited March 6, 201114 yr by CarlD2

I think it is true that CELEBRITY is completely different now than it ever was. Celebs would have never been willing to go to the extremes of a reality show back in the 50s--even the 70s when that PBS reality show about the family was seen as crossing the line by so many. Similarly the mainstream press would have never said the things about celebrities that they do now--sure some of the gossip sheets WOULD, but first of all cuz of law suits they always used code (the code for closeted gay celebs being particularly hilarious--although that's one taboo with celebs that still is largely the same) and were never mass circulated.

What makes the celebrities of the 50s superior to the celebrities of today is they were controlled by the studios and had their image and personal life fabricated. Rock Hudson, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe...reality would have destroyed them. I think it is telling that when Frank Sinatra was washed up, he went to do From Here To Eternity to revive his career. Whitney Houston went on VH1 to do a show that portrayed her as some sort of wannabe crack whore.

Hollywood was better when people were in charge and the actors were taught how be stars.

Hollywood was better when people were in charge and the actors were taught how be stars.

The films were better then, too.

What makes the celebrities of the 50s superior to the celebrities of today is they were controlled by the studios and had their image and personal life fabricated. Rock Hudson, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe...reality would have destroyed them. I think it is telling that when Frank Sinatra was washed up, he went to do From Here To Eternity to revive his career. Whitney Houston went on VH1 to do a show that portrayed her as some sort of wannabe crack whore.

Hollywood was better when people were in charge and the actors were taught how be stars.

But it was all a lie, no? Which makes it worse.

What makes the celebrities of the 50s superior to the celebrities of today is they were controlled by the studios and had their image and personal life fabricated. Rock Hudson, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe...reality would have destroyed them. I think it is telling that when Frank Sinatra was washed up, he went to do From Here To Eternity to revive his career. Whitney Houston went on VH1 to do a show that portrayed her as some sort of wannabe crack whore.

Hollywood was better when people were in charge and the actors were taught how be stars.

I've always felt like Marilyn Monroe and James Dean were the types of stars who ended up breaking the system. Someone like Marilyn, similar to Judy Garland, was too damaged to be able to be controlled by the publicity machine. Her real personality - even if all the full details didn't come out until after she had died - was there for the public to see even when the studio might have preferred otherwise.

I remember one of the David Shipman movie star books saying she did a lot of it by herself - she was still just a bit player in films when she started to break out - and that the studio ended up having to act afterwards because of the demand for her. When things like the nude pictures came out early in her career, she handled it and the public still supported her.

Hollywood glamour helps but I think the main problem is that few actors today, perhaps because of the lack of the studio system or perhaps because everything is so coarse now, have any real type of star quality. I think that's why people like Brad Pitt or Halle Berry hang on, even though between them they've made about a dozen or less good films. They at least in some ways remind you of the old star days.

Edited March 6, 201114 yr by CarlD2