I think promiscuity was handled differently on soaps in the 60's. Lisa destroyed her family and her own happiness. Bill Bauer's infidelities destroyed him and his family. Compare that to Sami on DAYS, who cheated on her husband, and got a fancy new apartment, a great company, and promptly forgot her husband. Now whoring around is just seen as something to get shock value and generate attention, or prove the hotness.

But the general ideas -- that pregnant women are oh so delicate, that men will bend over backwards for a baby mama, the love triangles, those tropes have not died and they really should have long ago.

I think love triangles are a basic part of drama, not just daytime. I agree with you about the rest, but I think that mostly depends on the writing. I think the constant pregnancies are a problem more than treating pregnancy as sacred - 60's soaps had women who were given far fewer pregnancy stories.

I think promiscuity was handled differently on soaps in the 60's. Lisa destroyed her family and her own happiness. Bill Bauer's infidelities destroyed him and his family. Compare that to Sami on DAYS, who cheated on her husband, and got a fancy new apartment, a great company, and promptly forgot her husband. Now whoring around is just seen as something to get shock value and generate attention, or prove the hotness.

But reality shows have used that to great success. When Snooki or The Situation whore around, society cannot look away (or couldn't, I think Jersey Shore is officially passé now... IMO the first season was classic TV garbage and the rest was garbage TV garbage.) Society's views on promiscuity in general have evolved, thankfully, and soaps have kept up with the times on that one thing.

I think my point is that people flock to good writing. saynotoursoap credits Y&R's 1990s success to its stodgy, conservative writing. I credit it to good writing (good story writing that is... IMO Y&R has always had awful dialogue.) People flock to good writing, whether it was stodgy conservative 1990s Y&R or wild, inventive, yet ironically/mockingly traditional 1990s DAYS.

I think that society is still often very hard on promiscuity unless it involves freak shows they don't care about in the first place.

I agree with you about good writing being the key, I just think that the 60's had a lot of good soap writing.

I think the biggest failing is that most who now write soaps don't care about the genre, they are ashamed of it, and it shows. Hogan Sheffer, MAB, Guza, Ron Carlivati, all seem to have open disdain for this genre. They are often praised for anything but good, basic soap writing.

I have to say I really disagree with the commonly asserted opinion that soaps went wrong when they started to attempt to be "hip and edgy" and recruit younger demographics. The fact is, soaps didn't used to have to try to recruit younger demographics. People watched because their parents and grandparents watched, which is probably why 90% of us are here -- myself included. 3 generations of my family were ATWT and GL fans which I think is pretty awesome, and I hate that there won't be a fourth generation. The problem isn't that soaps became too "hip and edgy," the problem is that they got stale and repetitive while the rest of society change. Why did teenage girls embrace Passions? Because it was the true 21st century soap. Why did Lynn Marie Latham's Y&R crash and burn, and why did she permanently ruin Y&R? Not cause she was being hip and edgy... she did the same cutesy [!@#$%^&*] she did on Knots Landing 20 years earlier. It was because it was bad writing -- which is what killed all soaps.

And you are correct that Y&R, the #1 soap of the 90s, was the most conservative and traditional soap of them all. But it too saw its ratings shrink, just not by as much as the others (and while it was the most conservative soap of them all, it had a large black cast, which IMO was instrumental in keeping it at the top in the 90s). Meanwhile, the soap that broke all the rules, the DEFINITIVE soap of the 90s, was DAYS, which saw its ratings go UP (the last time a soap has ever seen its ratings consistently go up.) DAYS both abandoned soap cliches and embraced them and took them to new heights simultaneously, to huge success.

So I say, screw the argument "soaps were fine til they decided to be 'hip and edgy.'" They never did. They are dying because the same storylines from the 60s are not relevant in the 21st century.

"Screw the argument"? Really? How rude. How would you like it if I wrote "screw the argument" and copied your comments?

Secondly, you totally and completely misunderstood what I was trying to say, and that is my fault. I did not articulate myself well. My post was intended to say exactly what yours did: bad writing killed soaps.

The things that I wrote about "hip and edgy" were meant to point out that what TPTB thought was hip and edgy and would get an audience was actually just bad writing. And, I did not intend to infer that a younger demographic is not important. It is. Years ago, I had a very long conversation with John Potter and Ed Trach on this very subject. One of the reasons that ATWT and GL made the changes they did was because CBS sat by and watched ABC, the third rated network in 1970, actively pursue a younger demographic which paid off in spades a decade later. CBS made the changes it did to its soaps in the early 80s because it knew that in order to survive it had to get a younger audience who would still be watching in the 90s. I don't fault them for that. It was a good business decision. The problem was that what they failed to realize was that ABC had gotten those viewers with good writing. It was different writing, unusual characters, and humor...but it was well-executed.

The point that I was attempting to make, and obviously failed to do, was that their execution of this was what went wrong. I did not intend to infer that only "stodgy conservative" writing would work. What I intended to get across was that their PERCEPTION of what was hip and edgy was (IN MY OPINION) incorrect. No, there is nothing wrong with telling a story in a modern way, just so long as it is good writing that has some foundation of logic and recognizable psychology within the characters. Whether it's a contemporary play or Shakespeare, there are common elements of drama that are good and always work. I feel that the problem with a number of soaps, regardless of their network or packager, is that TPTB have decided that "hip and edgy" translates solely to more violence, more sex, and stories that are based totally in plot rather than characterization. I have no problem with any of those things if it is relevant to story. What I have a problem with is doing these things merely for a quick spike in the ratings, when it is gratuitous, illogical, and just plain silly. Another problem is that those things might or might not work in the short-term, but in the longterm, they generally do more damage than good.

I agree that Y&R succeded on good, solid soap writing, but my point was that Bell's writing was considered by most to be conservative and traditional. He did not have to write endless one liners, totally ignore history, forget characterization and have someone killed and come back from the dead every six weeks to get an audience. I'm talking about a perception from the people in charge at the networks. I am not suggesting that writers go back and write scripts exactly the way a writer would have done it in the 50s, 60s, or even the 70s, but clearly the manner in which soaps are written today (Y&R included) is not working. It seems that the networks and sponsors have tried everything except writing a logical story with interesting characters who are involved in situations that we can relate to now. That was all I was trying to say.

As for DOOL being the "definitive" soap of the 90s, I disagree with that commonly asserted opinion. From 1992-94, Days went up from a 4.9 to a 5.6, and then it dropped to a 5.3. From 1995-98, it went from a 5.3 to a height of 5.9. Yes, that was a nice increase, but Y&R still had a good margin of viewers over it, and Days plummeted back down to a 4.2 in the 1999-2000 season. Y&R went up in 1993-94 and 1995-96, and while it dropped the other years, it still had a higher margin in ratings over the #2 show at the end of the decade than it did earlier. It was the most consistent soap in the ratings, remaining firmly in the #1 spot. To me, that makes it the DEFINITIVE soap of the 90s. Days' 1.7 rise did not last. This is why I object to "stunts" such as demonic possession and all the other nonsense they did. How a series holds up in the long run is what counts to me, and all the rule breaking and going to new heights means nothing when it does not hold the audience.

Y&R managed to stay the top rated soap because Bill Bell was a good writer who knew how to tell a story without insulting the audience. He treated all viewers the same: as if we were smart people who could enjoy solid drama. And, it worked.

Edited July 12, 201213 yr by saynotoursoap

They haven't really been telling any of those stories in a long time. 60's stories weren't about women deserving to be raped, endless promiscuity, depressing, violent murder mysteries that go nowhere, endless baby switches and back from the dead, et al.

Thank you, Carl. I believe you understand what I was attempting to say. I should have just allowed you to speak for me, because obviously my point was misunderstood.

But reality shows have used that to great success. When Snooki or The Situation whore around, society cannot look away (or couldn't, I think Jersey Shore is officially passé now... IMO the first season was classic TV garbage and the rest was garbage TV garbage.) Society's views on promiscuity in general have evolved, thankfully, and soaps have kept up with the times on that one thing.

But soaps ARE NOT reality shows, nor should they be. They are completely different genres. This is yet another problem prevalent today: attempting to make soaps into something they are not. It only further dilutes their identity. Most people I know loathe reality shows. They do not want to see more of them, and they certainly do not want their soap to look like one. Guiding Light sadly never learned that lesson.

I think my point is that people flock to good writing. saynotoursoap credits Y&R's 1990s success to its stodgy, conservative writing. I credit it to good writing (good story writing that is... IMO Y&R has always had awful dialogue.) People flock to good writing, whether it was stodgy conservative 1990s Y&R or wild, inventive, yet ironically/mockingly traditional 1990s DAYS.

No, I do not. I credit success to good writing, good directing, and good producing. My point is that good writing usually involves using the basic tenets of classic drama. I am not saying that characters should sit at the kitchen table recapitulating plot for half an hour, or we should see John and Mary having an ice cream sundae at the malt shop. However, we should have a plot that makes sense and is not thrown together while the writers are high and believe that the audience is so stupid they will not notice inconsistencies in plot and character.

"Screw the argument"? Really? How rude. How would you like it if I wrote "screw the argument" and copied your comments?

It's a message board... chill dude. Wasn't going for ad hominem.

Great discussion,many interesting points made.

I totally agree that good writing and an overall vision is the key to long term success. Soaps started going for short arc stories that were interesting at the time but wore out the characters quickly.Also,the higher profile of the shows and a focus on younger actors meant that most of them left after their first contract and writers had to come up with new characters to fill the void so continuity was lost.It was easier perhaps for viewers to leave if their favourite couple was gone.

Looking at Bill Bell,it's interesting to see how he adapted Y&R in the 80's.It was a very different show to the 70's.Part of that was the hour length which necessitated more characters,but he took on the 80's trends (more crime,uber rich characters) and adapted them to the classic soap format.

As for DOOL being the "definitive" soap of the 90s, I disagree with that commonly asserted opinion. From 1992-94, Days went up from a 4.9 to a 5.6, and then it dropped to a 5.3. From 1995-98, it went from a 5.3 to a height of 5.9. Yes, that was a nice increase, but Y&R still had a good margin of viewers over it, and Days plummeted back down to a 4.2 in the 1999-2000 season. Y&R went up in 1993-94 and 1995-96, and while it dropped the other years, it still had a higher margin in ratings over the #2 show at the end of the decade than it did earlier. It was the most consistent soap in the ratings, remaining firmly in the #1 spot. To me, that makes it the DEFINITIVE soap of the 90s. Days' 1.7 rise did not last. This is why I object to "stunts" such as demonic possession and all the other nonsense they did. How a series holds up in the long run is what counts to me, and all the rule breaking and going to new heights means nothing when it does not hold the audience.

Y&R managed to stay the top rated soap because Bill Bell was a good writer who knew how to tell a story without insulting the audience. He treated all viewers the same: as if we were smart people who could enjoy solid drama. And, it worked.

I think people are looking at it from two different standpoints. Y&R was the most consistently written and highly rated soap throughout the 90's. DAYS was the most popular, most talked about pop culture soap that got lots of attention, press, and a 3 year spike in the ratings at a time when most other soaps were decreasing, year after year.

I forgot who said it but it was after AMC/OLTL were canceled and why there was so much outrage compared to GL/ATWT and they said ABC/NBC have fans and CBS has viewers. I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else but I can see why DAYS could be the "definitive" soap of that decade, it had more people talking and they had overzealous fans meanwhile people just watched Y&R.

I hope that made sense

I forgot who said it but it was after AMC/OLTL were canceled and why there was so much outrage compared to GL/ATWT and they said ABC/NBC have fans and CBS has viewers. I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else but I can see why DAYS could be the "definitive" soap of that decade, it had more people talking and they had overzealous fans meanwhile people just watched Y&R.

I hope that made sense

I think there was a lot of outrage with GL. By the time ATWT got cut it was sort of a foregone conclusion and there was a bit of fatigue with the campaigning and hoping for a pick up (at least for me personally). OLTL though was the first time a network's top-rated soap got canceled. Before fans correlated ratings with the "next one to go" but OLTL proved ABC just wanted to be rid of it more than anything and that may have been more upsetting than anything. Really interesting commentary here from everyone. It's always the story with soaps and if TPTB are going through the motions it shows in the output on our screens.

I forgot who said it but it was after AMC/OLTL were canceled and why there was so much outrage compared to GL/ATWT and they said ABC/NBC have fans and CBS has viewers. I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else but I can see why DAYS could be the "definitive" soap of that decade, it had more people talking and they had overzealous fans meanwhile people just watched Y&R.

I hope that made sense

I think that was me I believe I said ABC has fans. NBC (well, DAYS) has rabid fans. CBS has viewers.