How to create and write a soap, catering to soap opera fans?

[balozier]

Having lurked around here for a brief period of time, I have seen that the general consensus of those who truly enjoy soap operas, is that the storylines, the writers responsible for developing them, and the performers responsible for presenting them to us, are nowhere near as good as they were in the 1980s and before... My question is, if someone wanted to learn "What makes a great soap?", what are some examples you folks here could point out to illustrate the differences between what you SHOULD do, and what you SHOULD NOT do... such as actors or actresses who were particularly good at making us forget they were just performers acting out fictional characters once tape was rolling, writers who truly understood how to develop characters that people watching on television could truly relate to, producers who were great at making the shows they oversaw appear as if we, the television audience, were truly watching the lives of real people, blissfully unaware that their every move and every thought was known to us at home...

I would also like to see examples of how those involved in soap production appeared as if they were trying their hardest to do the exact opposite of what I have just outlined above, those people who should be inducted into the "Soap Opera Hall of SHAME", for lack of a better term...

Thank you all in advance.

Bryce L.

[quartermainefan]

The 1980s all the soaps were better. I think what makes a great soap is a willingness to be entertaining for the sake of being entertaining, and not trying to be a tragic opera. Modern soap storytelling is tedious and features lazy writing where ever character narrates their every thought in a monologue any chance they can get. Soaps should show, not tell. As for performers who made you forget they were actors, I would say Denise Alexander is a great example of that, but I don't know what is so wrong with actors who aren't trying to be realistic just for the sake of realism. Robin Mattson is never realistic and currently she is outacting everyone on GH in my opinion, and has out-acted everyone in every show I have seen her. She sells her lines to the audience, doesn't try to sound like you or I, and you need melodrama for a soap more than you need realism imo.

[balozier]

Thank you for that... I do agree with you about showing and not telling; if I only wanted to tell a story, I would write a novel or produce an audio-only drama. Isn't that a good part of the reason that the radio soaps died out in the 1950s and early 1960s, because of their inherent inability to physically illustrate what was going on in a story? I'm certain that even with the best writing out there, and best voice actors money could buy, a story presented as a movie or television series will always have at least one definite advantage over any story only presented in print or audio form: The person being presented the story doesn't have to strictly rely on their own imagination to fill in certain gaps, such as how a particular character physically presents themselves, or just how impressive (or imposing, as the case may be) a specific locale or setting can be within story canon.

Another thing I personally forgot when I wrote the initial post: Sometimes an actor who tries to inject their own quirks or oddities into their characters is just as good, if not better, than an actor who unflinchingly sticks to the script, even when nobody else on camera is...

[DRW50]

The people who run soaps now are ashamed of the soap format. They are ashamed of strong, complex female characters. They're ashamed of friendships and families. They are ashamed of actually telling stories, instead of stalling and stunts. They want to be in action movies. They want to be doing Mad Men and feature films.

The people who run soaps now also assume viewers are brain dead. If you respect your viewers, your show will improve.

[balozier]

There are three people whose names always crop up when I look up famous soap creators and writers: Irna Phillips, Agnes Nixon, and William J. Bell. There are some things I already know about those three, such as Phillips being the creator of "The Guiding Light", "As the World Turns", co-creator alongside Mr. Bell of "Another World"; Nixon getting her start as a writer working for Irna Phillips, and later went on to create "One Life to Live", "All My Children" and "Loving"; and Bell ALSO started as a writer under Irna Phillips, and later created "The Young and the Restless" and "The Bold and the Beautiful"... what I would like to hear is something that would never find a place in a Wikipedia article: Why those three people are so well-remembered and revered in the soap community, even in spite of the fact that of the three, only Nixon is among the living today; only Bell still has series created by him still showing first-run episodes today, and Phillips herself probably having zero name-recognition to anybody who is not a die-hard soap opera fan today (or a soap fan in training, as I personally am), or else working in the soap industry today...

[beebs]

Oh actually, Irna still does have one property running in Days of Our Lives. It's been buried under the Corday "legacy", but that's still a thing.

I think the truth of it is that Irna created worlds that outlived herself: Guiding Light is the world's longest-running series. Agnes Nixon introduced topicality and pushed the boundaries of what kind of stories you could tell on television (something else that's been lost thanks to the desperation to hold onto the 6 viewers that remain), and Bell was also part of that pushing of the boundaries, but his way of telling stories is so brilliant and pitch-perfect that most times he could make a turd of a story shine by the end of it. If you look up Bell's story arcs for Y&R (I usually go to SOC's character bios, horribly written but give you a better idea of Bell's writing style than I can find anywhere else), it gives you a marvelous idea of his style and how he told stories. And the climaxes were always thrilling and worth the wait.

[Khan]

If you care to know what makes good soap opera...

1) Know and respect the history of a character, a relationship, a family, a community. Douglas Marland wasn't a perfect writer, but one axiom of his that is correct is that knowing what happened yesterday helps knowing what will happen tomorrow.

2) Forget about catering to anyone and just write the damn show. We, as audience members, want only good stories. If you know what you're writing is b.s., so will we.

3) This is soap opera. Not films, not primetime television, not theater or even literature. Be proud about it, or be gone.

[ellabelle]

I was a die-hard AMC fan for years, and I think Agnes created characters people liked and cared about, even if they couldn't personally relate to them (because of crazy antics or astonishing wealth or outright villainy). She created families we wanted to see happy, and characters we loved to hate, rather than just hate. It wasn't just that she pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable on TV, she did so by using characters we cared about and wove the social issue into the existing story, rather than having it be some stand alone piece.

Here's an example: Bianca coming out to Erica. Agnes wrote a story in which the star character's daughter is a lesbian and appears to be the antithesis of everything her mother is. The coming out was so emotional and so well done, and the audience liked and cared about both characters. There was a history there that was respected. Erica was someone who'd worked in fashion and obviously knew a lot of gay people but didn't want a gay daughter and struggled in a way that a lot of parents probably would and do. Bianca represented the scared young person who was caught between who she was and who her mother wanted her to be. She was publicly outed in what could have been a humiliating way, but she had people support her, and it gave the other characters a chance to talk about their own feelings about homosexuality. That was a gay story done well.

Then you had Zoe/Zarf, and that, IMHO was a BAD 'gay' story. You had a new character no one knew, who had zero connections to the existing canvas, along with the implausible idea that a famous rock star would quit his day job to work at a small town cosmetics company. He's a male to female transsexual, and falls for the only lesbian character on the canvas. Yes, there were some good teachable moments with Zoe going out dressed as a woman for the first time or attending therapy or talking to his/her mother, and there were some good moments with Babe defending Zoe, but 1) we didn't really care all that much about the character, 2) the transsexual aspect was wrapped up in a crappy serial killer storyline, 3) the relationship with Bianca wasn't all that believable, and 4) the whole thing felt like stunt storytelling, like "Hey, that gay thing worked really well for us, so what else can we do? Oh, I know! Let's do a transsexual storyline!

A far more compelling story would have been an existing character we liked and cared about slowly accepting that he was the 'wrong' gender and wanting to become a women. THAT would have been a story I wanted to watch.

Plus, as others have said, Agnes had a tremendous respect for the characters and for their history. In 1985, we the audience watched as Adam had Stuart pretend to be him for his divorce from Erica, so WE knew that the divorce may not be valid. Agnes remembered that and brought it back in 1990, having Adam tell Erica they were still married, which led to a wonderfully fun and volatile 'second' marriage for them. Short-term head writers who have no concept of the history of the show or how the characters are connected can't do stuff like that because they just don't know all of those little details.

[ellabelle]

I agree with all of this! Soaps used to be a wonderful mix of camp and larger than life antics combined with interesting people and stories and an emotional bond between audience and characters. That's been lost in the last decade or so.

Scenes also used to be a lot longer, and it allowed for more in-depth conversations between characters, which gave us a chance to get to know them better, to understand their motivations and their intertwined relationships. Now, scenes are absurdly short with constant cuts to long commercial breaks, and that affects the storytelling in a negative way.

[Khan]

Phillips is remembered to this day, because she essentially established the format as economically viable for those in charge of radio (and later, TV) programming. Without her, there'd probably be no soap opera, and certainly not one that emphasized character over plot.

Nixon is remembered, because she proved (to quote her own words) that "education, if packaged properly, can entertain."

And Bell is remembered, because he, perhaps more than anyone else, understood and exploited the fly-on-the-wall nature of serial storytelling. With Bell, we knew everything there was to know about a character, and we saw their lives unfold slowly at a pace not too far removed from our own.

[Khan]

Add in a returning Skye and that would have been the PERFECT story for JR and Adam. I'm just saying.

[ellabelle]

OMG... JR going female... that would have driven Adam INSANE. Jamie Martin might have been an interesting choice too.

[Khan]

That's why I think it would've been perfect.

I wouldn't agree with Jamie Martin being an interesting choice, just because I can't see the Martins NOT rallying around him and giving him their support. Even Tad, who might have been the most conflicted with the situation, would have been brought back to his senses by Opal and Ruth.

But if Bianca had decided to undergo gender reassignment surgery after coming out as a lesbian...? Oh, Erica! LOL!

[Susan Hunter]

Why I favor soap opera pre 1979 is because they were simple morality tales. Relatable characters in dramatically heightened yet relatable situations dealing with love, loss and scandal and the battle between right and wrong for 30 minutes each day. There were no spies trying to destroy the world, there were no corporate takeovers and battles. It was just a snapshot into the incestuous lives of a small town. People pulling the curtains back and letting you see how messed up their lives really are. The bad girl scheming to get the good guy. Two brothers fighting over the same woman. Adulterous spouses. The shocking murder that leads to an even more shocking trial. They're all classic soap stories that never get old. It is a shame that daytime doesn't like to tell them anymore.

Soaps just went too big, too over the top and lost what essentially made them so special.

[balozier]

Would you say it is "too late" to go back to the type of writing and acting that made the pre-1979 shows so memorable?

Also, I am aware that many episodes of soaps prior to about 1980 or so were not saved routinely (Dark Shadows, Days, and Y&R being notable exceptions)... in cases where no visual record exists to document what stories were being portrayed in this era, are there other sources, accessible by us fans, which could be used to see what was going on with the shows? Items like old episode scripts, the plot synopses which would appear in the periodicals of the era, or other things along those lines, I mean...