May 2-6, 2011

[quartermainefan]

I think what is tradition for a 30 year old is not tradition for a 20 year old, or a 50 year old. If you are 25 years old, tradition is now fast cut scenes with snark filled dialogue and very little silence.

[trish672]

People want good storytelling which none of the soaps have.

[DRW50]

I think that was true ten years ago, but not so much now. The smug, smirky Whedon-speak struggled to carry over to other shows.

[JaneAusten]

I think you have to look at programming today that is attracting viewers. You have the cynical comedy of a Modern Family which has a lot

of snappy fast dialogue and scenes or a Glee or the reality shows like Jersey Shore, The Real Housewives, Mob Wives or the faced paced crime

dramas like Criminal Minds or NCIS. Tastes of the viewing audiences change and had soaps stuck to a more traditional model there is no

guarantee they would be any better than they are today in terms of ratings. Sometimes things actually do just run their course.

[MichaelGL]

Well OLTL might be bad right now, but it's the type of bad you can't look away from, like a car accident. That kind of beats the ridiculousness of last year, where the show was utterly terrible (that +2 year to year average is there for a reason, and it's bc OLTL's ratings significantly declined last year.).

[DRW50]

I see what you mean, but most of these shows do try for emotion and sentiment, even if it's sometimes cheaply done. The reality shows may not, but they don't have to - Jersey Shore gets attention because people want to laugh at drunk idiots who punch each other. That's the modern day equivalent of some old B or C grade comedy short from the 30's or 40's. The "Wives" shows at least try to make you care about the people involved and try for some pretense of balance between a normal day and the catty, trashy stuff. Soaps have given that up.

Stuff like Criminal Minds, Glee, NCIS, Modern Family, I think they do try for more emotion and depth - or what they see as emotion and depth anyway - than soaps do now. NCIS this week had all kinds of long emotional monologues and moments of sadness and genuine grieving. Would most of the soaps do that now? Or would they sneer at that because they assume people only want to see a parody of a parody?

I think a lot of the worst of today is the same as the worst of last year, which is - Todd and his groupies, the Fords, and the idea that sexual abuse and rape is funny and sexy. The main difference is there's more of various female characters hissing and trying to kill each other, which is apparently "soapy."

[MontyB]

I agree. I think the "traditional" show died years ago. If people truly wanted it, I believe a show like Ryan's Hope would still be on the air.

[DRW50]

It was actually the attempt to move Ryan's Hope away from tradition with Kimberly and the mob that killed the show's ratings (IMO). When it was traditional, in its first three to four years, it was highly rated.

[Soapsuds]

GH is a goner!

A 3.1 for Y&R?

B&B- No one tuned in to Brooke and Thomas love potion number 5 festval??

Days....scary daily numbers.

AMC- 0.7??.....Ouch!

Dreadful numbers all around. Let's just cancel them all now! Someone stop the bleeding!

[JaneAusten]

The whole why soaps are dying I know has been done to death. And really we can debate the reasons why forever but its primarily the reasons stated time and time again, lifestyle changes, viewing habits change, more options. I am just not a big believer that quality = ratings. And I venture to guess what many like here and considering entertaining, there are just as many if not more who don't. And I would venture to guess if the clock was turned back 2o years and message boards were prevalent you would likely here a lot of similar frustrations.

I've come to the point where who cares if these shows are cancelled and I don't mean that flippantly. But this genre has had a very long and healthy run. Why can't it go? Maybe if it does, some fresh new blood will come in with something new that might just capture the magic of the viewing audience. But clearly trying to morph the current landscape into something it was never meant to be has not and is not working.

OLTL has had a small uptic. DAys got a boost a couple of years back but neither have been drastic enough to dictate renewed life. They did nothing different other than captivate a bit more of their audience for a period of time because something caught the viewers interest. It hasn't lasted. It never does. And I can't speak to the changes to OLTL. I never watched the show so I am not sure aside from pure camp and a lot of flesh shown what they have done thats helped.

[DRW50]

Oh, you definitely would have seen complaints 20 years ago. People always are unhappy and want more. I guess the difference is that people still cared and still had some hope or belief that something could improve. Now they know it won't.

I don't think that quality = ratings either, but I do think that there is a glaring difference between the world that soaps are in and the world that a lot of TV is in now. You can find a lot of crappy shows on TV and a lot of homogenized programs, but you still have some options. On soaps now, you have such a regressive, nasty, patronizing, apathetic, clunky view.

There is no attempt at any type of diversity or experimentation or any effort at quality. No matter how many viewing options or lifestyle changes we have - and generally in terms of TV I don't think there are that many more than 10 or 20 years ago when ratings were much higher - the audience would still be higher, IMO, if we had options. If soaps tried to be different than any other genre, and tried to have their own individual identities, and just tried to actually tell a good story.

There are no options in soaps anymore. You had to just give up. Most viewers have.

[Ann_SS]

You and I agree. I always remember that when Marland wrote ATWT that at its peak the overall ratings climbed .2 or .3 into third place or so and then came back down a year. He was never able to get the 18 to 49 women demo to budge. If he couldn't do anything with the ratings and I consider him to be the greatest soap storyteller, then I don't think that any of these lesser talents can. Quality simply does not equate to ratings.

I feel for the cast and crew, but I agree here also. Scripted shows aren't going to stay on the air forever. This version of the soap genre has had a good run. I think that the soaps in some format will return, maybe as a telenovela or maybe a reality based soap.

BTW, those 18 to women demos are dreadful, but it is coming into summer, they could rebound slightly in the fall.

[JaneAusten]

I guess my point was they have tried changing. Not in the way other television has changed maybe.But look at the rampant misogyny which is more prevalent on soaps than ever as an example, you can also watch a lot of mainstream programming and see a lot of the same thing. Especially in movies that are done to appeal to teens or young adults. Its rampant. I believe it was a consious decision to write women so differently and regressively because there is a lot of entertainment out there that appeals to the younger viewers soaps claim to want that run hogwild with misogyny. Smart movies and smart shows like The Good Wife with beautifully written female characters, classic soapiness does well but still draws an older audience while the younger viewers are busy watching The Voice or American Idol.

I do think some of what Ellen Wheeler tried had it had some success might have led to something differnt. And maybe had GL done it as an attempt to morph or change the show versus as a cost cutting measure it might have resulted in something completely different and fresh. Better who knows. BUt in the end nothing Days has done or even the ABC soaps in terms of cost cutting has changed or attempted to really change or improve anything. All their changes in recent years were done to save money not to improve or change the shows drastically. And I am still not convinced that just better storytelling would have maintained the viewers better than they have. And I honestly think the wrong people are in charge for anything to ever have drastically been changed anyway. Frons, Barbara Bloom, Bill Bell, Corday are all old school show runners. Add Sony and Disney into the mix who think they know better and it just creates a bigger group of egos who think they know better.No one can convince me that Sony is not behind the influx of ABC soap stars into Y&R thinking that people will follow familiar faces. Problem is people don't want to see Patch Johnson in Genoa City they want to see him in Salem.

[DRW50]

I think it's been a very unhealthy mix of trying to change based on what they feel the public wants and changing based on their genuine beliefs. I think that some of the people running soaps now seriously resent women and minorities. I don't think they are just going along with the public view or doing what primetime does. When you read some interviews with certain soap writers, or you read the accounts of how some producers have treated actresses, it's appalling. And there is no one to step in and say, "Enough already."

Soaps have adapted ever since they began. For thirty or thirty-five years they usually managed to do this successfully. But when soaps began having contempt for the public, contempt for their viewers, and contempt for everyone but one very narrow category of white straight men (most of whom will never watch soaps anyway), that's when the rot truly set in.

To me it's a combination of not understanding the soap genre, and not understanding public taste. We started seeing this more and more when they sped up firing veterans and bringing in the underwear models who had no charisma or talent. They assumed all kinds of young and hip, rich viewers would flock to the soap. But who would want to see them?

There's also a big lack of any female point of view on soaps now. I think that's what hurt the most. Even if you think someone is stupid, then you may understand them - now the shows just use propping and revolve around a bunch of dirty-looking creepy men who mumble their lines.

I think that also had to do with the tradition of the show (it had never been a young show) and timeslot, etc. When he wrote for GH he brought the ratings up quite a bit.

[DRW50]

I guess we'll never know. I don't think we have had any good storytelling in years and years - if we did it didn't last long.

I agree the wrong people were in charge. You had no one who understood or cared about soaps - some of them, like Frons, have loathed soaps for years and years. If you look at some of the earlier executives at P&G, for instance, you will see people who made decisions that kept the soaps (and the genre) alive.