Jump to content

NY Times rips All My Children & One Life to Live reboots


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I was surprised Downton was even mentioned as the NYT has gone on a trendy sorta backlash of the show. I do think it is well written at least dialogue wise (pacing and plot points are more of a mixed bag) but again, it does seem wrong-headed to me to compare a 10 or whatever episode a year series with the aytime soap genre. (The NYT, though maybe not the same author, has taken to insulting Mad Men too, for whatever its worth.) But yes, I get your point, as well as the comment about how the poor writer never watched soaps cuz he know, like, actually holds down a job...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

To keep it short, if you'd worked as hard as this guy had wanted you to do to reel in new viewers, then we'dve spent the entirety of each pilot recapping the cliffhangers from the ABC episodes point by point. These are not new shows. These are continuations of show with 40+ year runs dating back to the late 60s. Anyone going into these shows anew can hardly expect to be 100% clear on all storylines from the first minute. If you have any differing expectation, you're a fool.

The failure here is getting a snobby white straight male to come in and start off with "I didn't watch these before because I had a job". Well, gee, thanks. You've started this article giving the finger to half the readers. Excellent work, meathead. Now a good chunk of the readers reading the article won't take you seriously. Enjoy the smell up their with your nose pointed to the ceiling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree to an extent that that's fair--and he does admit to not knowing the genre (which is better than some of the few mainstream soap reviews I've found from, say, the 70s.) I still think they could have had someone with *some* background as a soap viewer do a review, or a comparison piece (the way the Times often does when they have theatre reviews--Brantley, their main theatre critic will say one thing but then if, say, it's a Tennessee Williams revival they'll get someone who is into the genre to give a comparative review--even if the review might actually be worse because they know the background.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree to an extent that that's fair--and he does admit to not knowing the genre (which is better than some of the few mainstream soap reviews I've found from, say, the 70s.) I still think they could have had someone with *some* background as a soap viewer do a review, or a comparison piece (the way the Times often does when they have theatre reviews--Brantley, their main theatre critic will say one thing but then if, say, it's a Tennessee Williams revival they'll get someone who is into the genre to give a comparative review--even if the review might actually be worse because they know the background.)

Again, fair enough--I guess I was annoyed that he didn't really get why daily soaps (or more or less daily) in a way fit a different viewer desire than catching up with season 1 of a primetime show. He does mention watching it in small morsels or something, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But they'd only do that with an artform they respect. They don't with soaps, even if you got Harding Lemay to write OLTL or AMC, they'd still never give them the courtesy. I don't need someone who's a longterm fan, but there's got to be people who've done their research and at least understand the impact daytime's had on television, and that these shows are trying to get back to that. Even with the imperfections, I see the effort being made to get back to basics. It's refreshing. Find someone who gets the history, or is at least willing to do the background work before throwing soaps under the bus because they've traditionally aired before the kids got home from school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Exactly. Watching a daytime soap--yes even a brand new one (which these aren't really) you do expect things like that it'll take a while to learn how everyone is related (even such a simplistic setup soap like Passions took a while to explain this) etc. You don't get a theatre novice to review theatre--unless it's a special "how does a newbie see this play" type review. The tiny bits of basic research he did (ie he does point out that primetime tv has taken a lot of soap elements) are basic Wiki things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am sure his demographic resembles a majority of his readership. Frankly, I don't see why a white straight male is in any less of a position to review OLTL than a gay black lesbian. That's like saying the paper shouldn't review the next Transformers movie and instead track down a 16 yr old kid. As a white male myself I have to ask "what's wrong with white males?" I think we are just as qualified to assess AMC as anyone else. Call me tribal.

This whole thing about needing a background in soaps sounds like a bunch of malarkey. Before Superman came out with Christopher Reeve there was not a single critic who had experience reviewing mainstream superhero blockbusters. They reviewed it as a movie. OLTL and AMC should be reviewed as a TV show, just like any comedy or drama. No special status needs to be accorded these shows any more than if this guy was reviewing Lets Make A Deal or American Masters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The problem is that by and large white straight men are conditioned to see soaps not as simply another TV show, but as garbage shoveled onto the lessers (women, sometimes gay men). His review mostly sees them as an alien entity barely worth his gracing it with his presence. He's pretty much saying he's not treating it like another TV show, he's treating it like crap that can never compare to what makes him feel special and cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think that is you projecting here. He gives off not a hint of trying to seem cool or special. If he was who you are saying he is then he wouldn't be reviewing these shows at all. AMC and OLTL going to the internet is perhaps a major milestone in TV that people will remember ten years from now as being the first of an important wave. It deserved notice and a review and the Times being the Times didn't see it as being beneath their radar. He didn't like the shows and said why. He is not saying you are lesser for watching them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

He says he never watched them because he worked for a living, basically saying anyone who ever watched didn't have a job. He rattles off a list of much-hyped primetime shows to tell us how much better they are than a few revived soaps. He gave the impression that the review was a burden to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

ITA I think he had alot of good points. Al I kept hearing from various soap boards before the premiere is how AMC and OLTL had the power to draw non soap viewers in. Now a non soap viewers gives his opinion and there's alot of bitching. Most new viewers are not going to do extensive research on the shows and they could make it easier for new viewers to catch on. I've watched some British dramas and been able to figure out who's who fairly quickly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There's just no excuse for these 2 very long-running shows to be as bland as they are. The online format pretty much gives them free reign to tell (good) stories any way they want. You get the feeling that they're really holding back on diving in and telling great stories. I'm just very bored with them both, in a way that I never was when they were still on TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

-- I agree that coming into a show after 40 + years is a challenge especially in this day and age.. but with wikipedia, youtube, and fan websites, you can get the gist of the show in no time. I think of the two shows, AMC would be a little easier to get into because it basically rebooted itself by moving the show 5 years into the future, so you are basically getting to reknow everyone the first week while OLTL is picking up mid-stream.

-- I agree that there are cliche stories, every show has them (including Scandal, Revenge, etc).. it just depends on how well you are presenting them.. and some of the stories seem to be working better then other ones thus far.

-- These two shows will have a challenge trying to get new viewers, cause if you go too edgy the older viewers will whine and if you don't go edgy then the potential new viewers will just view it as old fashion.

-- I agree that the kidnapping story and the political story are interesting.. but you need all the stories to be interesting, and paced at different speeds to keep viewer attention.

-- In regards to racy and edgy, see my point above. The swearing alone has gotten some viewers in a frenzy though they loved Luke & Laura even though Luke raped Laura, which leads me to really agree with recent studies that society is still a rape culture.

-- You also should never compare OLTL & AMC to shows such as Revenge, Scandal, etc... since they have 22 episode seasons while OLTL & AMC are going to have over 150 episodes a year with very little down-time. Even so, I think both OLTL & AMC have good points and it is a miracle that they were bought back to life, flaws and all. I see no excuse for a show like Revenge to be stumbling since they have a longer lead time to brainstorm, plot, and write scripts, plus there are only 22 hour long episodes to write out.

However, I think a non soap watcher is a good person to review the shows, though I wish they had a soap watcher review the shows as well... Do a compare/contrast between a non watcher and a watcher. Get different perspectives, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It was a bitchy, ankle-deep little capsule review for a handful of people who needed an ancient POV validated and still bother to read these articles. I've been seeing that same article for 20 years or more.

It's not like anyone who cares or might care will bother to read it. It's not worth making a fuss about.

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.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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