I think ATWT's most angst-ridden couple had to be Steve and Betsy, from the Eighties. For two solid years, they were kept apart by fate,by Criag, by their own pride, by Craig, by miscommunication, by Craig, by Diana McColl, by Craig, by Illya Kuriaki (The Man From Uncle)/Ducky (NCIS), by pregnancy and oh, yes, by Craig.

Zach and Kendall on AMC all they got was non stop angst. Even as someone who shipped them it got to be too much after awhile. It's like the show was afraid to allow them 5 seconds of happiness. They had alot of angst in a short period of time to top it off

I thought most of this worked up to the time they started the sick babies and then the bomb shelter and "grief sex". Then it stopped being about Kendall at all. What I saw of the Madden stuff was fairly balanced angst, well-acted, and which at least kept Kendall's perspective in a way that made sense.

But the couple was always being torn apart by secrets, lies, misunderstandings, meddlers and even wars and revolutions. They were largely an unexplored couple but they burned HOT for the brief time they were on ATWT.

And you can't get much more angst-ridden than Craig returning from the dead, planning to reunite with Sierra, only for Sierra to be taken prisoner and "killed" a few days later! (Even Marland was reportedly unhappy with this decision, as it happened during the writers' strike).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZYH23SN87Q

Meg/Josh were also very angst-ridden. The actors played this superbly, where you could tell that it was just tearing the characters apart inside. My favorite scenes were when Meg was lying to Josh that she didn't want to be with him, because Tonio told her he'd have Josh arrested for beating him black and blue unless she rejected Josh. There's a wonderful scene where she says to herself, "Forgive me...I do love you..." and it just kills me.

And then Lily was nothing but angst in the 80s. I wasn't a fan but I can see where she was able to gain a following with younger viewers, viewers in general - now teens on soaps seem dead inside.

Thank you for opening a thread like this. I have often asked myself this question. In fact, I think it is THE question plaguing soaps today. I used to watch Daytime for some proper romantic escapism. I don't mean some cheap parody of what a smart-aleck, very meta writer thinks is "romantic escapism," but the real thing -- beautiful written, heartfelt, convincingly played, honest-to-god romantic feeling. Writers like Pam Long, Bridget and Jerome Dobson, and Sheri Anderson were master of this kind of writing. And at one time JER and Claire Labine were, too.

You mention Twilight or the Hunger Games. I think the fans of these book/movie franchises (and I admit I couldn't put the first Hunger Games novel down) are not really catered to in many other forms of media. These fans would and should be prime target audiences for Daytime soaps. Back in the 80s and some of the 90s, their desire for sweeping, continuous romance-filled drama would have been partially satiated by what Daytime had to offer. It is also no coincidence that when I first started watching Daytime in 1987, my consumption of romance and historical novels by authors like Celeste de Blasis soared. One genre seemed to feed into the other.

Your point about the horrid pacing is the most valid answer. I remember MAB not so long ago talking about "her" supercouples on Y&R. She mentioned Phick (barf but I understand why she picked em), Nikki & Victor (who only have to stand on an empty soundstage for the audience to project their long, tumultuous history onto them) and Victoria & Billy. The last pairing stunned me. They got drunk and went to Jamaica... got married, 3 weeks later they were married for real, in love (allegedly) and talking about founding a family. No build-up, no nothing. Back in the day, it would have taken YEARS to get to that particular result. I think it illustrates a profound lack of imagination and patience amongst HWs today.

I would also say that soaps were once written by women (in some, not all, cases) and expressly FOR women. They catered to their audience knowing they wanted drama, angst and romance. Writers like Long and Anderson seemed to enjoy writing that kind of dramatic, intensely romantic fare. Nowadays, HWs write to please their bosses (usually male, usually deeply uninterested in Daytime as a genre in its own right, and usually obsessed with the bottom line) rather than the audience. They also write to cater to a select handful of diva actors they feel pull in what little audience is left.

I, for one, would really love the romance back, but I think you already probably guessed that, lol.

When I started watching soaps, I didn't watch for angst - I sort of got annoyed by it most of the time, with some exceptions (Frank/Eleni was a very angsty relationship and I loved that). Now I do miss this in soaps, and I wonder where it went. I think it's part of those who now run soaps being ashamed of soap storytelling. If you watch, as you mentioned, Pam Long stories, especially in her first GL run, you see so much passion and anger and drama. Sometimes this becomes a parody, but it can also draw the viewer in and sweep them up in it.

I see dozens of fan videos or gifs for two characters who are not even romantically paired, and never will be, but who have such painful, emotional, dramatic relationships that people still become obsessed with them. I don't know where that is for anyone on soaps now. Now you just get a lot of, "This couple is awesome, we're telling you this, believe it," as you mention with Bacteria.

And there is also no real attempt to make fans feel like they "discover" a couple, help build that couple, etc. I think that's another part of the appeal.

When I started watching soaps, I didn't watch for angst - I sort of got annoyed by it most of the time, with some exceptions (Frank/Eleni was a very angsty relationship and I loved that). Now I do miss this in soaps, and I wonder where it went. I think it's part of those who now run soaps being ashamed of soap storytelling. If you watch, as you mentioned, Pam Long stories, especially in her first GL run, you see so much passion and anger and drama. Sometimes this becomes a parody, but it can also draw the viewer in and sweep them up in it.

I see dozens of fan videos or gifs for two characters who are not even romantically paired, and never will be, but who have such painful, emotional, dramatic relationships that people still become obsessed with them. I don't know where that is for anyone on soaps now. Now you just get a lot of, "This couple is awesome, we're telling you this, believe it," as you mention with Bacteria.

And there is also no real attempt to make fans feel like they "discover" a couple, help build that couple, etc. I think that's another part of the appeal.

I have to agree that pairings are rarely organically planned now. It's all this is your new supercouple, love them!!! They are amazing!!! That is why I loved my angsty S&B. Sonny isn't really a likeable character, but the way things played out with Brenda very slowly made him rootable. They came together in a way that was great for the audience over a long period of time and that is just not something that happens in soaps today. I am using one couple as an example, but there are a ton of couples from the 70's, 80's, and 90's that fit this mold. I need a couple that has a clear beginning, middle, and even end that seems genuine and well thought out. Couples are just slapped together now and romance is almost gone.

I also never watched soaps for angst, although being younger than Lily and Dusty back then, it seems like I was just a bit younger than that targeted 'angst audience' of teens. There were so many other things soaps had going for them at the time, including suspense and mystery and sweeping romances-- angst was just another tool in stock.

But at least soaps knew how to do it up properly back then. Now what passes for angst, is really not angst. For example:

I hear people mention that Adam Newman and Sharon (from Y&R) are an 'angsty couple'. No, the chaos from their couple, doesn't descend from mysterious forces conspiring to keep them apart, nor of them being star-crossed. Their chaotic coupling is directly related to the fact that Adam, without moral consciousness, lied and tricked Sharon, stole her newborn and handed her to Ashley, who he also lied to and tricked after terrorizing Ashley, of course. Then romancing a vulnerably weak-minded Sharon into marriage, all the while convincing her that only he has her best interest at heart.

That's not angst...that's SICK! I still can't understand that couple's popularity. Sure they have chemistry...but so do Victor and Jack!

I blame Luke and Laura for these twisted relationships. Sure, Luke and Laura were not the only twisted relationship in soaps (there are quite a few) but they were the most celebrated and inspired a lot of imitations. Unfortunately, decades later soaps are still trying to use this same old model of creating relationships with 'angst'. This model no longer works, not only because times have changed but because the dedication to crafting believeable characters and circumstances hasn't been there, JMO.

A lot of the Sharon/Adam story has been too contrived to invest in, especially the time that she had sex with a man on the farm because of his dead dog, and then Adam kept her in prison as punishment. I guess it's angsty, but without any real explanation. I'm still waiting to learn why Sharon keeps stealing pork rinds from 7-11.