All: 25 biggest blunders in Daytime Soap History

[rlj]

And Jack!

[marceline]

They switched out #25. Now it's misogyny but in the original list it's "Killing Jo's son on SFT."

Didn't Sami fall her rapist on DAYS? I remember seeing talk about that.

[alexisfan07]

Jack who?

[rlj]

Jack Devereaux

[JaneAusten]

I think this list aside from the show specific items is a tad better . I like that rapists and misogyny and the HW issue got added to the list as write ins.

Sami and EJ were very popular, controversial and I think polarizing. In the end I think the show realized it was never going to work and have seemed to move them apart.

[JaneAusten]

Much better written, Jack as a rapist was not glorified nor was his victim used to redeem him. He and Kayla made peace to an extent but there was always a level of tension that was played between them. Jack and Jenn happened years later.

[OLTL_fan]

The recycling of the headwriters should be much higher like in the top 10.

[Max]

Moving AMC from NYC to LA should definately rank among the top three blunders (yet didn't even make the top 25). It was just an idiotic idea by Frons and his bosses that a cross-country move would be the magic bullet for a dying show. (Instead, it only made things worse, because it cost AMC David Canary and led to those endless outdoor park scenes.)

This won't be popular, but I don't believe that a lack of diversity was one of the biggest blunders in daytime history. While diversity is important, the primary goal of soap operas is not to serve as vehicles of the civil rights movement, gay rights movement, or any other movement intended to promote equality (as cold and heartless as this sounds). Rather, the primary goal of soaps is to provide quality storytelling; thus, I'd rather have a high-quality soap that has a lily-white, all heterosexual cast than a crappy soap that is extremely diverse. (I concede that perhaps I would feel differently on this matter if I was gay or a minority. Also, some soaps--such as the Nixon soaps--did have the promotion of the civil rights movement as one of its primary goals; however, this was not one of the primary goals for the vast majority of soaps.)

[alexisfan07]

Ooh I forgot Jack was a rapist, thanks for that haha

[marceline]

I feel like I've had this debate a million times so I'm just going to state my opinion once and step aside. I think it's unfair to assume that addressing diversity means that one is trying to cater to a movement. Drama comes from difference and diversity allows for lots of potential stories that a homogenous canvas just doesn't. If the goal of a soap is to tell entertaining and engaging stories about a broad community of people then some level of diversity is a natural aspect of that. It's not about a "movement," it's about realizing that different people have different experiences and showing some interest and willingness in folding those experiences into the narrative.

[All My Shadows]

Okay yeah, I gotta call bullsh!t on this.

Diverse casts and storylines = vehicles of the civil rights movement, gay rights movement, etc?

Really? Really??? Do all-white casts = vehicles of the white supremacy movement?

There's no other way to say it than yes, you would feel very different if you were not white and straight.

[quartermainefan]

You are falling back on a house of cards and a sham of logic. If they can write a quality soap that is lily-white, then they can write a quality soap that is multicolored. Therefore, if the soap is lily-white still the only possible explanation is that that is a choice. Ok, this show is lily-white and that show isn't..it all works out in the wash. But look at this show, that show, that show over there and that other show way way over there. They all are lily-white and all will use what you just said as a shield to deflect charges of racism. Meanwhile, their shows do not reflect society at all, and consequently lose audience. Also, there are many young actors who just won't get a job because they are black.

[Max]

Qfan, you made a good point regarding me "falling back on a house of card and a sham of logic" (because they can indeed write quality storylines for minority characters). This doesn't excuse my faulty logic, but I was just trying to make a point as to which soap would one rather choose: a good one with zero diversity, or a bad one with lots of diversity?

These are very valid opinions, and I am sure I would feel differently if I was not white and straight. However, it is a fact that some minority groups have more political power than others (as politically incorrect as this is to say), and this plays into the fact that there are far more black, hispanic, and gay characters on soaps than any other minority groups. Minority groups with much less political power--such as the mentally ill, Asians, Muslims, and Indians/Hindus--get virtually zero representation on daytime, and this is no coincidence. (However, rarely do folks who bemoan the lack of diversity in daytime complain about the absence of the minority groups I just listed.) It is just a factual statement that blacks, hispanics, and gays are the most represented minorities on daytime because they created far more powerful political movements than the others groups I mentioned. (However, the only thing that goes against my theory above is the appalling lack of Jews in daytime, despite the fact that Jews--as a group--are very politically active. I honestly have zero explanation why there are so few Jewish characters in daytime.)

Marceline makes a very compelling case as to why there should be diversity in daytime (because, as she stated, it "allows for lots of potential stories that a homogenous canvas just doesn't"). Nevertheless, I just don't believe that diversity should be a primary objective of daytime (although it should be an important secondary objective). IMO, far more important than diversity is getting high quality actors and high quality writers (regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation).

[Vee]

Oh, lord, what is going on in here.

[All My Shadows]

Those groups have "less political power" because they have a substantially smaller presence in our society. Muslims make up less than 1% of the American population, and Hindus are even less than that, but black people make up 12.6%. Asians make up 4.8%, and I've actually seen plenty of people say that there should be more characters of Asian descent in daytime (and television in general). And when we have the usual "Stories that have not been done on soaps" thread, people always bring up various mental illnesses that would be interesting to see on a soap.

Because there are more blacks, Hispanics, and gays in the US than there are Muslims and Hindus.