Jump to content

The OJ Simpson trial, and your soap viewing


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I see the pop culture part, but executives also blame OJ. This is used as a scapegoat, as if viewers were sheep.

I also know that more women began working at that time, but the tone of the coverage is that women were chained to their radiators and then suddenly ran wild. Many women were busy before the early 90's, and they just made time to watch soaps if soaps were worth watching. Then there are other women, women I knew, who often stayed home, and didn't even have cable, but stopped watching soaps because they just felt alienated from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I was raised with soaps. The women in my family all listened to radio soaps while they did their housework. My mother was an avid soap fan who watched DOOL from its very first day until she died last year. She also watched and loved most of the P&G soaps, GL, EON, ATWT. She didn't like either Y&R or B&B, although she occasionally watched one or the other. She watched some of the ABC soaps, especially OLTL. She liked GH because she had a major crush on Steve Hardy. She watched until it became what she called the Tony Geary show. She really despised Geary. She was not fond of the adventure yarns that took over GH, and she quit watching that show in the early 80s. I don't remember a time when our lives during the day did not include soap operas.

She turned off her TV rather than watch the OJ trial. When it was over, she went back to her pre-empted soap.

Most soap fans I knew did the same thing she did. I find it hard to believe the OJ trial was that devastating. Soap operas did themselves in with bad storytelling and bad acting. Mostly I think they forgot to focus on what made soaps what they were to begin with – family-centered dramas. Characters could do all kinds of things, but they came home to their families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This wasn't Watergate or Clarence Thomas/Anita HIll or Bill Clinton's impeachment or Ollie North. It had nothing to do with government, politics or national security. I think OJ killed soaps in that it was the first time that network execs pre-empted original programming to broadcast a pop culture murder trial. It was in essence the first big F-U to the daytime dramas. It was the first big F-U to daytime drama fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Umm, can we stop for a moment and think about the state of each soap and remember what was going on with each soap in 1995? Remember this was the Kenneth Fitts era for the P&G soaps that nearly got each of them dead in the water, Y&R was solid but entered into an awkward phase and of course Days' ratings were solid and going up still but at the risk of permanently damaging the show's reputation.

Sure the OJ media circus hype was huge and lots of pre-emptions occurred along with other major incidents like the OKC bombing and while it certainly caused disruptions by the end of 1995 some of the soaps were becoming a mess storyline-wise and that's probably what drove viewers out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The CBS P&G soaps were a big mess in 1994. I guess if you had to choose between Clarence Thomas or Mike/Rosanna, and Judge Ito or Shannon's horrendous return, you would go for the latter.

I guess AW and Loving were already low enough that their viewers stayed intact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the OJ trial also helped unleash a widely accepted public appetite for scandal and salaciousness. Between that, the Menendez brothers, Lorena Bobbitt, Nancy Kerrigan/Tonya Harding, and other scandals, these sorts of stories started to become our entertainment rather than simply items covered by the news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It showed that the networks thought that soaps were expendable for pop culture salaciousness. If the trial had taken place in primetime, would their primetime lineups have been pre-empted for gavel to gavel coverage and analysis?

It doesn't really matter what state the soaps were or weren't in because quite frankly that is subjective, what matters is that the three major networks thought nothing of pulling their soap lineups in favor of tabloid celebrity trash and then were shocked when it blew up in their faces.

OJ didn't kill the soap opera, network executives did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Very true.

As for the state of soaps in 1995, wasn't the producer/writer musical chairs at P&G a result of already falling ratings from all the preliminary OJ coverage in 1994? Soaps had some great ratings at the start of 1994, and they really suffered once the OJ factor came into play. But it seems like all the PANIC of the falling ratings resulted in poor quality product and drastic decisions that proved to be failures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Just to compare -- but a generation BEFORE the OJ Simpson trial, there was an even BIGGER soap opera going on -- the Watergate televised hearings. It wasn't so much the fan outrage over pre-emptions, it was the network big-wigs who were losing advertising revenue. They, then, had to televise the hearings on a rotational basis...1 day - CBS, 1 day - NBC, 1 day - ABC, etc...

By the time the Simpson trial was going on, the soaps were no longer the 'bread and butter' of the three major networks. It was easier for the networks to break into a soap and report that 'attorney F. Lee Bailey sneezed,' or some other trivial matter relating to the trial.

Also, by the time of the Simpson trial, TV was no longer just the three major networks...cable tv and a host of other stations were vying for viewers' attention.

I also agree with the earlier poster who said that the sudden death of Doug Marland did irreparable damage to ATWT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm in the minority here with my view that the decline in quality of soaps doesn't have much to do with the decline in ratings. At least directly. I do think that any perceived decline in quality in conjunction with the OJ trial could have sped up the decline that I think was going to happen anyway. Soap viewing in my opinion, as others also have mentioned, is as much a habit as anything else (witness all the comments on this board about how awful GH, Y&R and DAYS are, yet most people still tune in). The trial broke that habit and if people weren't enjoying what they were seeing before the trial, it was easier to move on to something else. I still think the decline in ratings is simply because more choices were out there by the mid '90s -- large numbers of younger viewers never sampled the soaps so didn't form an opinion on their quality. Housewives in the '50s and '60s either died or aged out of the desired demographic, the college students and high school students in the '70s and '80s got jobs and families and also started aging out of the desired demographic, and there wasn't anyone left in large numbers to replace them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If the shows had been a strong enough quality, they would have been able to keep the viewers who were aging out, or bring in new viewers. They'd done it before. Nothing about the world in 1994 was so different that a good show wouldn't have kept their attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There was a LOT different in '94. The technological landscape had changed. Even if you wanted to stick with just what was on television (and there were more choices out there than television by the mid '90s), Fox, MTV, ESPN, TNT, USA, A&E, Lifetime, etc. etc. were all siphoning viewers off the three major networks in larger numbers at all times of the day. The number one primetime show in '86-'87 was The Cosby Show which had 34% of the population watching. In '94-'95, Seinfeld was number one with only 20% watching. (Last year the number one primetime show was Sunday Night Football with 13% watching). Daytime drops are similar.

I'm not arguing that TV is just as good as it was, my argument is that more competition from other networks, the internet, Netflix, etc. are going to have a greater impact on what "new" viewers will watch. They aren't going to sample the 3 major networks first because those aren't the only game in town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • So, pretty sure Zaslow, Garrett, Kinkead, and Newman all chose to leave the first time. (If that's wrong, please correct me). Bernau - not sure why he left the first time. Was it voluntary? Or did they decide to write him out? They were writing so many out during that time period. It always seemed odd to me that they introduced Alex, FINALLY giving him someone he could talk to, and then he was written out. Or maybe that's why they made Alex his sister, so she could take his place as the head of the Spaulding family? Would love more intel on that if anyone knows. Simon - was he replaced by RVV? Or did he voluntarily leave the first time? It seems to me like one of those times TPTB decided to sex up or glamorize a character (and it clearly flopped). If he was fired, interesting he came back. Again, would love if someone could spill the tea. Clarke - I've always assumed he left because of his personal issues, but not sure if that was the case the first time.
    • So Doug just leaves Vanessa there with Joey? He's a f*cking loser. Vanessa needs to divorce his arse 
    • Tina Sloan tied Jerry VerDorn record when Guiding Light was cancelled - 26 years uninterrupted 
    • Very true...but TPTB all were desperate to get into prime time or films and couldn't, so they looked down on their own industry and tried to infuse themes that just didn't work in soaps. I would have thought after 9/11 the shows would have gone out of their way to provide that warmth and comfort that the audience wanted, and to bring old viewers back. Budget cuts? Just bring back kitchen sets, both ATWT and GL got rid of those besides one each..(the Snyders and the Bauers) You don't need super fancy sets if you have the writing. 
    • LMAO they didn't 

      Please register in order to view this content

         
    • LY has a job on another show. She's going to be on the Legally Blonde prequel "Elle" 
    • From what I can put together, the 1980s had several actors with interrupted runs. Michael Zaslow: 1971-1980, 1989-1997 Maureen Garrett: 1976-1980, 1988-?, ?-end Christopher Bernau: 1977-1984, 1986-1988 Peter Simon: 1981-1984, 1986-1996, ?-end Maeve Kinkead: 1981-1987, 1989-1996, 1997-end Robert Newman: 1981-1984, 1986-1991, 1993-end Jordan Clarke: 1983-1987, 1989-1993, 1996, 1997-end By 1989, I believe the longest-tenured cast member without a departure was Jerry verDorn.
    • I know they were popular, but once they tamed Van's shrew, I thought Billy just brought Van down. Since they had just Nola and Billy sitting around in 97, an interesting thing would be if they had developed a friendship that turned into something else while Van was "dead". Maybe Billy lives at the Boardinghouse (to work on repaing his relationship with Bill) and works at Company instead of the stupid diner. Nola and Bridget give him a job there and Nola and Billy (who had originally been a bit antagonistic) slowly build up a relationship and then Van returns. A returned new lease on life Van would return to her "high hat ways" and take on the Spaulding's for control of the company with Billy helping her behind the scenes.  I know that Jordan was on sporadically because of his issues and them not know if they could trust him not to fall of the wagon, but they could have done it slow..and give Van and Nola a new reason to get in each others hair (I love a good Van/Nola tussle.)
    • Congratulations to Coco Gauff on her second win in one of the GS tournaments, the French Open.

      Please register in order to view this content

          Perhaps it wasn't the most well-played match in history, but that's something no one will remember in a few years time.
    • The thing with Martin (for me) is that he should have been Anita and Vernon's kid. I honestly think he would have been fine being an older or younger brother to Dani and Nicole. It also would have made his relationship and kids feel more realistic. A handsome salt and pepper late 40s/early 50s congressman who settled down and adopted kids to fit an image for politics. Not that he didn't want this lifestyle but it is what he needed to do to get ahead. Also, we don't often get older characters playing LGBT roles not just on daytime but across most media. It would have been a refreshing take. As an alternative, Sam and Ty could have been Martin's kids from an earlier marriage a la the NJ governor that was outed. We could have also seen parallels between Vernon and Anita thinking back to how they handled Martin coming out compared to the way they accepted Chelsea.  As for Martin being Nicole and Ted's kid, I do wish in this case he was not tied to a marriage and kids, so that he could date and sleep around like any other character on a soap.  Yeah, I didn't get it...but what I did get is that girl is a bit crazy like her mama.  Vanessa and Joey talking about the poker table...get these people off my screen. 

      Please register in order to view this content

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy